[BLDG-SIM] Weather Normalization Question

[Dave Robison <drobison@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 01:21 PM 3/11/2003 -0800, you wrote:
> Regarding the first comment from
> Dave Robison, I've
> received the weather data in WYEC2 format from
> Environment Canada, including solar, wind, etc.
> However, the last time I had to do this was for a 1999
> weather year, and I understand that recent automation
> of the weather stations may make this data harder
> (impossible?) to come by. But without this data, how
> are you making the calibration?

EZSim generates irradiation, humidity from ave temp. All on a
monthly basis, of course, where the correlation is good. It wouldn't be
possible on an hourly basis.

> And although I've only
> calibrated a few of these, not
> hundreds, I'm not sure I'd agree that the model
> doesn't need to be detailed and it's a low cost
> simulation. If you don't put a fair bit of work into
> making sure the simulation of systems is reasonably
> similar to the operation of them, then you're not
> calibrating, you're just matching the bills. And while
> your model might line up nicely with the bills, if
> your end-uses or hourly profiles are off its not going
> to be so useful for running further simulations on.

A moot point. If you have only 12 monthly points to match against, and
you do match well, then higher time resolution simulation is unnecessary
overkill. Why model to a level not supported by the metering data? 
If it lines up nicely, as you say, then it is good for simulations at the
monthly level. 
Calibration is matching the bills, but I think you are saying that you
want to be sure that you have correctly nailed the end uses as well.
Quite so. That comes from matching across a range of seasons. If you
match throughout the year, you have captured end uses pretty well. And
that's based on observations of many pre/post models where we have
billing data in both cases.

====================
David Robison
Stellar Processes
1033 SW Yamhill Suite 405
Portland, OR 97205
(503) 827-8336
www.ezsim.com