ارزیابی اقتصادی گزینه های کاهش انرژی عملیاتی در یک خانه با استفاده از سود نهایی و هزینه های نهایی: یک مورد بنگی، مالزی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|49406||2010||8 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Energy Conversion and Management, Volume 51, Issue 3, March 2010, Pages 538–545
Energy Efficient (EE) appliances such as Compact Fluorescent Light (CFL) bulbs and Renewable Energy (RE), namely solar Photovoltaic (PV) can help to reduce Operational Energy (OE) in a house. In addition, a house should also incorporate Passive Architecture (PA) design strategies which in the hot and humid tropical climate, mean avoiding direct heat gain, encouraging natural cross ventilation and optimising the abundant daylight. Nevertheless, reducing OE must also mean economic gain to households to encourage their participation. Common economic gauges such as Return on Investment, Payback Period, Cost Benefit Analysis, Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Cost are not suitable to validate OE options in households. These economic gauges approach economic assessment as an end-result on the cost side of the product and may result for good intention to be shelved, primarily because EE equipment and RE have high capital cost compared with the alternatives. On the other hand, reducing OE in houses is actually a continual progression from the status quo and there is always a marginal gain in doing so. The challenge is to know how much is the marginal benefit against the marginal cost of investing in EE and RE. In Economics, the ratio of Marginal Cost (MC) and Marginal Benefits (MB) measure additional benefits of every additional costs of investment at a specific level of production and consumption; and Economists suggests that effective gain and loss should be compared to the status quo, i.e., Relative Position (RP). The Economics theories of MC, MB and RP are being adapted to measure the progression of reducing OE. The living/dining area in two types of houses: with and without PA design strategies are simulated to use conventional incandescent light bulbs and CFL as well as solar PV in lieu of the mains electricity supply. The power requirement for artificial lighting in every case is translated into monetary value and the ratio of MB against MC for each case shows the gain or loss in investment to reduce OE in a 30-year period. The result suggests that the value of MB/MC is high when both houses use CFL, i.e., approximately (Ringgit Malaysia) RM2.5 gain for every RM1 cost. It is also found that investment in solar PV benefits the most in the PA case that uses superior CFL bulbs, i.e., approximately RM2 gain for every RM1 cost. Despite the high capital cost of EE equipment and RE, MB/MC approach seems to make economic sense for household to invest in reducing OE at certain stages.