|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|149876||2018||12 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||9216 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Applied Energy, Volume 212, 15 February 2018, Pages 1510-1521
This paper presents and evaluates a comparison of two different proposals for a real-world building renovation. The first proposal was a conventional project for energy renovation, while the second was a low-energy building proposal (following the Passivhaus standard). This study analysed the proposals using an integrated life cycle and thermal dynamic simulation assessment to identify the adequacy of each renovation alternative regarding the post-renovation energy performance of the building, including an evaluation of the introduction of a renewable insulation material into the low-energy building proposal, specifically a specific cork solution. The most significant conclusion was the convenience of the renovation, achieving energy savings of 60% and 80% for the conventional and Passivhaus renovations (ENERPHIT), respectively. The former supposed less embodied energy and environmental impacts but also generated less energy savings. The latter increased the embodied impacts in the building, mainly for the large amount of insulation material. The environmental implications of both proposals can be compensated for within a reasonable period of time, over 2â¯years in the majority of alternatives and impact categories. However, the ENERPHIT project was 30% better than the conventional proposal when the total lifespan of the building was considered. The introduction of cork did not fit the requirements for competing with the common non-renewable insulation materials because it did not imply better environmental performance in buildings, but cork insulation solutions currently present ample room for improvement.