تجزیه و تحلیل اقتصادی از خانه های کنش پذیر و خانه هایی با مصرف انرژی پایین در مقایسه با خانه های استاندارد
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|28384||2008||9 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Energy Policy, Volume 36, Issue 1, January 2008, Pages 47–55
As the energy demand used for space heating accounts for 78% of EU15 household delivered energy consumption, significant reductions in energy demand can be achieved by promoting low-energy buildings. Our study investigates three building types: the standard house, the low-energy house and the passive house. As more far-reaching measures concerning energy savings usually lead to higher investments, the aim of our study is to perform an economic analysis in order to determine the economic viability of the three building types.
The actual debate on global warming cranks up the search for environment-friendly alternatives to maintain our current living standards and level of activity. The issue is increasingly being addressed on a global level, a condition sine qua non to achieve results. The main step is the Kyoto Protocol, as amendment on the International Treaty on Climate Change, which aims at reducing the emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) by 5% under the 1990 level by 2012. The European debate has been concentrated on the contribution by different stakeholders in the environmental issue. As Fig. 1 illustrates, public electricity and heat production accounts for 30% of GHG emissions (EEA, 2007). Logically, most reductions can be realised in this sector. Different technologies have been and still are under investigation and development, such as solar, wind, biomass or tidal energy. These green energy sources should permit to reduce GHG emission while safeguarding energy production and thus our current living standard and level of activity.As can be seen in Fig. 1 and according to Schnieders and Hermelink (2006), houses provide an important possibility to build on our way towards sustainable living standards, especially concerning energy. This fourth significant source of GHG emissions concerns the residential and commercial (including institutional) sector, which accounts for 17% of all emissions (EEA, 2007). The large and merely untapped savings potential currently gains more attention, both in the research world and amongst the general public. Governments elaborate support mechanisms to stimulate energy efficiency in existing and new buildings. The potential GHG emission reduction in the housing sector will be addressed in this paper from an economic point of view. As the energy demand used for space heating accounts for 78% of EU15 household delivered energy consumption (Eurostat, 1999), significant reductions in energy demand can be achieved by promoting low-energy buildings (Feist et al., 2005). This currently largely untapped potential offers significant opportunities to reach the Kyoto objectives (Jakob, 2006). In their article, Schnieders and Hermelink (2006) suggest that passive houses offer a viable option to meet the remaining energy demand only with renewable sources, within the boundaries of availability of renewable energy and affordability. However, our analysis questions the economic viability of passive houses. Therefore, an economic analysis will be carried out, in order to compare the potential of standard houses, low-energy houses and passive houses from an economic investment point of view.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
The analysis is based on 11 different houses, divided into three categories: the standard house (3), the low-energy house (3) and the passive house (5). In the first step the specific additional costs of every type are studied and compared with the others. From this study, it can be concluded that the extra cost of the low-energy house is 4% and of the passive house is 16% in comparison with the standard house. Isolation and ventilation are the main causes for this surplus cost. By means of the E-level of the buildings, the corresponding need of energy is determined. Based on the current gas price, the energy costs are calculated for the different types of houses. Based on all these costs, a break-even time is calculated comparing the three types of houses. This analysis shows this break-even time is always shorter for the low-energy house than for the passive house. Nevertheless, it is very dependent on the growth of the energy prices, but when we impose a maximum time of regain for the passive house, the annual growth of the energy prices would be minimally 25%. For an annual growth of 9%, the return time is 20 years. The cash flow analysis calculates the impact of the choice of housing type on the annual family budget. The results show that the low-energy house is the safest choice with a minimal impact on the family budget considering constant energy prices. The passive house has for the first 20 years a negative influence on the budget of 1794€ in this scenario. After 20 years both energy-saving houses (passive and low-energy) have a positive impact on the annual family budget, because of the omitted mortgage and the remaining measures for energy saving. In the scenarios with increasing energy prices the low-energy house has a positive impact on the budget after 2 years for every case. The positive impact of the passive house reaches up to 26450€ after 20 years in the case the energy costs increase annually with 15%. The impact of the passive house is strongly dependent on the evolution of the energy prices. In the case the energy prices increase with 5%, the impact on the family budget is significantly negative (15229€) over a 20-year timeframe. In the case the energy prices increase with 10%, the passive house becomes just rentable after 20 years with a total gain of 1106€. In the case of an annual growth of 15%, the passive house becomes very profitable. After 20 years the family has a total gain of 30599€. As the energy price growth rate is unpredictable, a low-energy house is the safest choice at this moment, because its profit is less dependent on future energy prices. In most of the realistic cases considered, this house is more profitable than the passive house and even when energy prices increase significantly, the difference between the gains of the passive house and those of the low-energy house remain rather small. As stated earlier, these results should be considered in view of stable energy sources. An analysis performed with energy sources different from natural gas, which is the classical energy source in Belgium for house heating, could shed new light on the results, probably in favour of low-energy and passive houses. Future research could elaborate on this aspect. The best investment for the individual builder therefore currently is the low-energy building. Therefore, when energy-saving buildings are to be promoted at a large scale, governments should aid with larger subsidies to make passive houses more attractive to individuals planning projects in the residential sector.