Any BEOpt practitioners out there?
I’m having a difficult time understanding the output of an optimization run I ran recently for a design I’ve been working on. The optimization run mostly evaluated insulation package options (ceiling, wall cavity, continuous exterior, sub slab, exposed floor, etc.) and air change rates. The HVAC and water heating were fixed to one selection for each. The design is for all electric utilities. My run has two output points of interest that I’ll use for discussion purposes.
Point A: The First Selected option, which is a minimal insulation option. In the Cost/Energy graph this point has Energy Related Costs Annualized equal to $1628. In the End Use graph this point has Site Electricity Use of 10,800 kWh/yr.
Point B: Is an increased insulation, tighter envelope option. In the Cost/Energy graph this point has Energy Related Costs Annualized equal to $1375 and Site Energy Savings per year equal to 8.09%. In the End Use graph this point has Site Electricity Use of 9927 kWh/yr.
I’ve read the BEOpt help file for the Outputs and some other blog postings I could find online. My general understanding is the annualized energy related costs are the utility costs plus the differential cash flows from the reference point or first selected option.
I think I understand the output of Point A. Since there are no differential cash flows—the point compared to itself is the same, so the net is zero—the energy related costs would be the cost of the electricity used. This seems to check out. In the inputs I defined my electricity costs as $11.70 fixed cost per month, and a marginal rate of $0.1381 per kWh. That gives me:
Cost =( 12)*(11.70) + (0.1381)*(10800) = $1632, which I assume is within rounding error of the Cost/Energy output value of $1628.
I’m not sure what to make of Point B, though. The cost of the annual electricity use (9927 kWh/yr) is $1511 per the same equation above. To get to annualized costs indicated by the Cost/Energy graph, there would need to be some kind of differential cash flow great enough to close the gap between 1511 and 1375 and also offset the differential cash flows associated with costs for the added insulation and air sealing.
What would that be? The only thing I can think is the possibility of replacement costs for the HVAC system that are higher with the minimal insulation package than they would be with the higher performance insulation and air sealing package. Does that make sense? Does anybody have a better idea?
Perhaps I fundamentally misunderstand the output values. Any clarifications would be much appreciated.
GBA Detail Library
A collection of one thousand construction details organized by climate and house part