1 / 46

Energy Efficiency in Housing and Small Buildings

Energy Efficiency in Housing and Small Buildings. Progress Report - CCBFC April 10 th 2011. Outline . The Project Policy Advice Current Construction Practice – Baseline Proposed Requirements Scope and Application of Requirements Small Buildings Building Envelope HVAC

terrel
Télécharger la présentation

Energy Efficiency in Housing and Small Buildings

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Energy Efficiency in Housing and Small Buildings Progress Report - CCBFC April 10th 2011

  2. Outline • The Project • Policy Advice • Current Construction Practice – Baseline • Proposed Requirements • Scope and Application of Requirements • Small Buildings • Building Envelope • HVAC • Service Water Heating • Performance Path • Working Target Validation

  3. Code Committees • CCBFC • Standing Committee on Housing and Small Buildings • Standing Committee on Energy Efficiency in Buildings • Joint Task Group in Housing and Small Buildings • Performance Compliance • Small Buildings • Building Envelope (Housing) • HVAC & Service Water Heating (Housing) • Code Coordination

  4. Partnership between CCBFC and NRCan • NRCan and CCBFC collaborate at all levels • NRCan staff is presented on all sTG and JTG and CCBFC • CCC staff is represented on ERS, R2000 and EnergyStar committees • CCC and NRCan Staff have regular meetings on Energy Efficiency projects • Relationship between Code and ERS • The ERS (and HOT2000) are important tools for code compliance • sTGs develop language to permit HOT2000 for code compliance • Reference specific tools or ratings might be administrative requirements

  5. Project Schedule • October-December 2010 Develop Requirements • January (3rd week) 2011 JTG Meeting (final prescriptive req’s) • January-March 2011 sTGs finalize PCFs andvalidate prescriptive requirements • April 2011 Meeting of the JTG-EEHSB • May 2011 Meeting of SCs (HSB & EEB) • May 31 2001 first approved PCFs to editing & translation • July 31 2011 last approved PCFs to editing & translation • Oct – Dec 2011 Public Review • January 2012 sTGs review all comments on PCFs • January 2012 JTG-EEHSB reviews comments sTG revisions. • February 2012 SC review of final PCFs • April 2012 CCBFC approves changes • Summer 2012 Complete Editing & Translation. • Dec 2012Publication

  6. Project Size • Between 15 and 70 proposed changed • 5 Division A & Division C (similar or identical to NECB) • 2 large PCFs transferring revised MNECH97 Appendices B and C to the NBC (75% existing wording) • Between 10 and 30 PCFs for new Part 9 wording • Between 80 and 100 pages of appendix and code • 45 to 60 pages of Appendix Notes • 25 to 40 pages in the body of Part 9

  7. Outline • The Project • Policy Advice • Current Construction Practice – Baseline • Proposed Requirements • Scope and Application of Requirements • Small Buildings • Building Envelope • HVAC • Service Water Heating • Performance Path • Working Target Validation

  8. CCBFC/PTPACC Scope • Joint CCBFC/PTPACC Scoping Task Group • Locate requirements in Part 9 (not in MNECH) • Provide prescriptive and performance path • Address at a minimum: Building Envelope and HVAC • Avoid barriers to use of alternative energy sources (“renewables”) • Ensure energy efficiency for housing is forward looking • Provide prescriptive options for small buildings • Develop flexible framework for provinces • Use Current Construction as baseline (study) • Publish interim changes by 2012

  9. CCBFC Policy Advice • CCBFC • Policy Advice approved by ballot – August 2010 • energy performance levels (working target of ERS 80) • objective-based analysis (objective-based provisions) • compliance path (prescriptive/performance) • energy sources (address energy used by the bldg) (no diff. req’s based on fuel source) • assembly constructions (no exceptions for assemblies) • costs and benefits (cost of constr. & energy saved) • fenestration to wall ratio (set max F/W ratio) • heat recovery (consider heat recovery ventilation) • occupancies (residential & non-residential)

  10. Assembly Construction • CCBFC policy • All assemblies / types of construction are treated equal • MNECH • Had exemption for log homes and manufactured housing • Required to use simple trade-off path • Log homes • Use simple trade off or performance path • Energy Performance of log homes needs to be verified • Factory-constructed buildings? • Height restrictions for transport may limit the amount of attic and floor insulation

  11. Renewable Energy • CCBFC policy • “use NECB approach” • NECB approach &JTG Recommendation for EEHSB • Provide acceptable solutions where applicable • No barriers – no explicit permission or exemption • Renewable energy can be modeled in performance path (AHJ) • Address in flexible framework • Long Term Plan for EEHSB • Develop quantitative energy target • Possibly address primary energy • Plan: Provide credits for renewable on-site energy

  12. Outline • The Project • Policy Advice • Current Construction Practice – Baseline • Proposed Requirements • Scope and Application of Requirements • Small Buildings • Building Envelope • HVAC • Service Water Heating • Performance Path • Working Target Validation

  13. Current Construction Practice • Baseline = Current Construction • Development of Baseline • Study by Marshall Leslie • Also considered CHBA Pulse Survey and Industry Sales figures • Results from Survey • ~300 responses based on 2009 calendar year • Some data issues: • Not representative of population / housing starts • 48% of builders are EE program enrolled (12 -15% more realistic) • Data was not organized by climate zones

  14. Current Construction Practice • Analyzed Survey Data • now sortable by climate zones • weighted for population and housing starts • normalized for more realistic split of EE/non-EE program builder • Data will be used as Baseline for • incremental construction cost • energy savings benefit • Single baseline across Canada • unless special situation requires multiple baselines • choose average/mode or realistic value

  15. Current Construction Practice • Distribution of Responses by Location • Unweighted • Weighted

  16. Current Construction Practice • Distribution Of Label/Non-Label Builders By Location • Unweighted • Weighted & Normalized

  17. Current Construction Practice • Above-Grade Wall Insulation • all builders • weighted by population • by climate zone

  18. Current Construction Practice • Exterior Wall Insulation R20 Nominal • Wall framing 2x6 framing, 16” on center • Attic Insulation R40 Nominal • Airtightness 3.18 ac/h (average, nationally weighted) • Basement Walls Inside at full height with R12 • Floor Slabs Not insulated • Window glazing option EnergyStar (2005 criteria) • Window Frame Vinyl • Gas furnace efficiency 90% efficiency furnaces • HRVs no HRV, no A/C, no heat pump • Thermostats programmable

  19. Outline • The Project • Policy Advice • Current Construction Practice – Baseline • Proposed Requirements • Scope and Application of Requirements • Small Buildings • Building Envelope • HVAC • Service Water Heating • Performance Path • Working Target Validation

  20. Compliance Paths • Types of Compliance Paths • Prescriptive • separate energy efficiency requirements for each building part and for each part of the equipment • Individual components must achieve compliance with their specific targets • Performance • Based on a building’s overall consumption of energy • Simple Trade Off • Values are set for each part of the building • Higher values on one part can be traded-off against lower values on specified other parts

  21. Scope and Application

  22. Building Envelope • Prescriptive Requirements • Opaque Assemblies • Code: minimum effective RSI • Appendix: nominal R/RSI-values • Windows Doors & Skylights • max. U-values (2010 Energy Star) • min. ER values (not for skylights) • Minimum Airtightness • 10 prescriptive construction details or Testing (ULC S742, assembly) • Modeling assumption = 2.5 AC/H @ 50Pa • No blower door testing • 2 Compliance Options • Insulation levels based on mechanical ventilation (no HRV) • Insulation levels based on HRV

  23. Building Envelope • Above-grade Opaque Assemblies (no HRV) • Values on this slide are • nominal/imperial • for illustration purposes only

  24. Building Envelope • Above-grade Opaque Assemblies (no HRV) • Code will show effective RSI Values • Values are currently being modelled

  25. Building Envelope • Windows, Doors and Skylights • Energy Star criteria 2010 • No defined term for “fenestration” • Exemptions • Storm doors exempt • 1 front door and attic/crawl space hatches U = 2.6 W/m²K • Garage door RSI = 1.1 m²K/W

  26. Building Envelope • Fenestration-to-Wall Ratio • NECB FWDR Approach depends on climate • from 40% (mild climate) to 20% (cold climate) • U-values are less stringent than what is proposed for Part 9 • Energy Impact of Fenestration • Heat loss per area is greatest • Solar Gains can be substantial

  27. Building Envelope • Fenestration-to-Wall Ratio • Analysis and Suggested Approach • 1 ratio (18%) for houses and duplex/semis + secondary suites • measured on the exterior • 2 Corresponding U-values • 1 ratio (22%) for bldgs with 2 or more dwelling units • measured on the interior of each dwelling unit • to a maximum of 40% exterior in all climates, and • 50% permitted with more stringent U value • JTG Approach: • No ratio (less administrative burden) • Current market forces already create values below 25% • make U-values more stringent (2010 Energy Star)

  28. Building Envelope • Fenestration-to-Wall Ratio • Typical Construction: • Average =18% • 90% of housing below 25% • Validation Archetypes: • From 8% to 21% (AVG= 15.3%) • Adjusted Validation Archetypes to reach an average of 17% • From 12% to 25%

  29. Building Envelope • Fenestration-to-Wall Ratio • No need to regulate prescriptive path • typical construction already follows a narrow range • Need to regulate performance path • ensure realistic assumptions for reference house • treat fenestration-to-wall ratio like • orientation of windows, doors and skylights, • number of storeys (i.e percentage to wall/roof) and • operational building features • Non-residential Part 9 Buildings may need a maximum ratio • ensure applicability of prescriptive requirements • set to “housing like” values

  30. Building Envelope • Airtightness • Prescriptive construction details • Different approaches (poly, ADA, exterior sheathing) • Typical penetration and junctions • Testing • ULC S742 Air Barrier Assemblies • No blower door test • Modeling Assumption • Validation 2.5 ACH • Performance Reference house 2.5 ACH • Performance Proposed house 3.2 ACH

  31. Building Envelope • Simple Trade Off • Intended for some limited flexibility • Formula • Limitations • Not below 75% of the R-value for walls and attic roofs • Not below 60% of the R-values of every other opaque assembly • Possibly fenestration to wall ratio

  32. HVAC • HVAC • HRVs • Not required for dwelling units • Where installed, min. thermal effectiveness required • Required for ventilation of interior pools • Require dampers, thermostats, insulated ducts (outside), • minimum equipment efficiencies • Gas Furnaces: 92% (AFUE) • Oil Furnaces: 85% (AFUE) • Standards and performance for other technology will be referenced: • heat pumps, • integrated systems • Combo systems (water and heating)

  33. Service Water Heating • Service Water Heating • minimum equipment efficiencies • electric, gas, oil • tankless/storage tank type • solar water heaters included • pool heaters included • combo systems (water and heating) • storage tanks and re-circulating pipes need to be insulated • heat traps are required on top of water tanks • pipe insulation (outside/unconditioned space)

  34. Performance Path • Prescriptive • Building envelope • HVAC & SWH • No trade-off across BE and HVAC

  35. Performance Path • Performance Path • reference house built to prescriptive path (+ assumptions) =X

  36. Performance Path • Performance Path • reference house built to prescriptive path (+ assumptions) • proposed houses will be modeled against reference result =X

  37. Performance Path • Performance Path • reference house built as proposed house using prescriptive path values (+ assumptions) • proposed houses will be modeled against reference result • If proposed house uses equal or less energy = OK =X ≤X

  38. Performance Path • Performance Path • HOT2000 thoroughly considered and probably default method, but need to allow for other calculation methods • Performance path has be enforceable • Input assumptions for calculation tools • State what needs to be reported • Possibly check list for enforcement =X ≤X

  39. Working Target ERS 80 • Validation Protocol • use NRCan EnergyStar BOP approach • model 11 house archetypes for each climate, • average houses per climate zone • average climate zones across Canada • Modeling assumptions will reflect • minimum code requirements or • range of values in typical construction • equivalent to ERS 80 on average • Committees consider: • constructability • provincial requirements • cost

  40. Working Target ERS 80 • Validation Assumptions • Ventilation • with/ without HRV • code minimum ventilation rates, • 8 hours daily (whole year) • Fuel • used in each modeling location, and • total representative of Canadian fuel mix • Operating conditions • 2 adults, 2 children, 50% at the time • 21°C in the main space, 19°C in the basement • 225 l/day hot water use at 55°C • 24 kW plug loads

  41. Working Target ERS 80 • 11 House Archetypes • 1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5/6 • 7 • 8 • 9 • 10/11

  42. Relationship between Code and Energuide Rating System (ERS) • The ERS and its software (HOT2000) is one tool that • allows demonstrating compliance with the performance path • addresses building envelope, HVAC and SWH • also addresses other issues (fuel source incl. renewables, plug loads) • NRCan and NRC collaborate to make sure HOT2000 can be used for code compliance • NBC cannot reference a specific software/calculation tool • Referencing a rating of ERS 80 would be an administrative requirement, which P/T’s have asked to avoid

  43. Working Target ERS 80 • 11 House Archetypes

  44. Working Target ERS 80 • 11 House Archetypes – Calculation of Average For illustration purposes only

  45. Working Target ERS 80 • Modelling assumptions will be set to result inperformance averaging ERS 80

  46. Proposed Project Schedule • JTG-EEHSB Apr.14 – Apr.15, 2011 • SCEEB meeting May.5 – 6, 2011 SCH meeting May.25 – 26, 2011 • 1. batch of PCFs to E&T May.31, 2011 (Appendices) • Optional JTG-EEHSB Jun.16 – Jun.30, 2011 • 2. batch of PCFs to E&T Jun.30, 2011 (Prescriptive) • 3. batch of PCFs to E&T Jul.30, 2011 (Performance) • SC-HSB and SC-EEB Aug.15 – Sep.9, 2011 • Pre-Public Review Sep.12 – Oct.7, 2011 • Resolution of Comments (EC) Oct.10 – Oct.12, 2011 • 2011 Public Review Oct.24 – Dec.16, 2011 • Sub task group meetings Jan.4 – Jan.24, 2012 • Joint Task group meeting Feb.3 – Feb.7, 2012 • SCEEB meeting Feb.15, 2012 SCH meeting Feb.24, 2012 • Post-Public Review Mar.2 – Mar.22, 2012 • CCBFC meeting to approve Apr 20 – Apr.23, 2012 (no ballot) • CCC staff review of draft Jun.27 – Jul.12, 2012 • Publish Interim Changes Dec.20, 2012

More Related