首页> 外文期刊>ASHRAE Transactions >The Economic Challenges of Deep Energy Renovation-Differences, Similarities, and Possible Solutions in Central Europe: Austria and Germany
【24h】

The Economic Challenges of Deep Energy Renovation-Differences, Similarities, and Possible Solutions in Central Europe: Austria and Germany

机译:深度能源改造的经济挑战-中欧的差异,相似之处和可能的解决方案:奥地利和德国

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Within EBC Annex 61: Business and Technical Concepts for Deep Energy Retrofit of Public Buildings (IEA 2015) strategies are developed to increase pace and quality of deep energy retrofit (DER) projects in the public sector. Annex 61, Subtask A's target is to assess accomplished DERprojects to define and find optimized measure bundles from both energy-efficiency and economical perspectives in each of the participating countries. Based on general assumptions defined by the Annex 61 team, modeling studies for different types of buildings and different climate zones have been done. The following scenarios and assumptions for all national case studies have been defined. Scenario 1 (baseline) represents the pre-1980 standard to describe the building envelope and systems before any renovation addressing the consumption of site energy, heating, and electricity. Scenario 2 (base case) is the country-specific "business as usual "retrofit; in this case, the retrofit is initiated by a general repurposing and only considers minimum requirements by the national building code. Scenario 3 has to achieve approximately 50% energy reduction relative to the baseline (Scenario 1), and Scenario 4 aims to achieve the current national "dream energy standard " (which can be the national definitionfor net zero energy buildings [WDBG 2014], Plusen-ergy Standard, Passive House [PHI 2015a], etc.). Targets to be reached in all scenarios are based on the site energy demand, including all kinds of energy use, such as domestic hot water (DHW), heating, cooling, lighting, household electricity, plug loads, and others. The results of the modeling will be different U-factors for the thermal envelope and specific HVAC and supply systems. For each component, the investment costs are calculated and a 40-year life-cycle cost analysis is prepared, considering the global costs and benefits for energy- and non-energy-related measures. To decide between different scenarios, the incremental energy-related costs and benefits of each scenario are compared to each other. In this paper, the modeling results of Austrian and German case studies are presented. The Austrian modeling project is a multistory housing block with four floors and 24 flats in the city of Kapfenberg, constructed in 1960-1961. The total site energy demand (DHW, heating, and supply and household electricity) of Scenario 1 is 155 kWh/m~2yr (49 kBtu/ft~2yr) and has been reduced in Scenario 4 to 71 kWh/m~2yr (23 kBtu/ft~2yr), achieving the Passive House standard (heating energy demand of 15 kWh/m~2yr [5 kBtu/ft~2yr]). Measures from Scenario 2 and 3 focused only on the reduction of transmission losses (e.g., improvement of insulation, change ofwindows) and the reduction of infiltration losses, as these measures enable the achievement of the required energy use intensities (EUIs) in a cost-efficient way. To achieve the Austrian dream target (Passive House standard [IPHA n. d.J) in Scenario 4, the implementation of mechanical ventilation with heat recovery is necessary, which means higher investment costs (higher costs for energy saved) from the cost point of view. The German modeling project is a compact (Building envelope area in m~2/building volume in m~3 [A/V]: 0.38) multistory office blockwith three floors and 1680 m~2 (18.083 ft~2) net floor area in the city of Darmstadt, Hesse, constructed in 1962 and situated in ASHRAE Climate Zone 5. The building was refurbished in 2012 and allowed the calibration of the modeling using the performance data (Scenario 4). The total site energy demand (DHW, heating, supply and household electricity) taken as the baseline was the consumption collected from the utility bills: 236 kWh/m~2yr (75 kBtu/ft~2yr) heating and 20 kWh/m~2yr (6 kBtu/ft~2yr) electricity. Compared to average EUIs for German office buildings <10,000 m~2 (<107.639 ft~2), the heating consumption is 12% over average, and the electricity consumption is 18% below average. Typical for office buildings of that size and age is that air conditioning was only in use for the IT server and the restrooms, but not for the office spaces. Following the requirements of the German national building code for refurbishment of the building stock in Scenario 1 leads to a reduction of 39% of primary energy including plug loads, or 41% final energy for heating. In Scenario 2, the standards for new buildings were adopted with significant reduction of thermal bridges and air leakage and a 67% decrease in primary energy and 72% decrease in final energy for heating. Scenario 4 considered the Passive House standard for building stock and depicts exactly the situation after the refurbishment was accomplished, with 76%primary energy savings and 81% final energy for heating savings. Scenario 4 actually achieved 48 kWh/m~2yr (14kBtu/ft~2 yr) heating site energy after refurbishment. Because of the improved airtightness of the thermal envelope, the minimum requirements for indoor air quality required the implementation of a mechanical ventilation system with high-efficiency heat recovery but without cooling. The assessment of the life-cycle cost analysis showed the best net present value (NPV) is for Scenario 2 (adoption of building code for new buildings) while the second best is Scenario 4 (cost-optimized Passive House scenario). The main difference between the two scenarios is that Scenario 2 has only a cheap exhaust air system and Scenario 4 has a costly ventilation system with heat recovery. The added insulation for Scenario 4 has almost no impact on the NPV because the delta costs are refinanced by the energy savings. This paper describes the baselining and modeling process; describes the economic assumptions made for energy prices, maintenance, and other operating costs; and considers the investment costs and the cost optimization process.
机译:在EBC附件61:公共建筑深层能源改造的业务和技术概念(IEA 2015)中,制定了战略以提高公共部门深层能源改造(DER)项目的步伐和质量。附件61,子任务A的目标是评估已完成的DER项目,以便从每个参与国的能源效率和经济角度来定义和找到优化的措施组合。根据附件61小组定义的一般假设,已针对不同类型的建筑物和不同的气候区域进行了建模研究。已为所有国家案例研究定义了以下方案和假设。方案1(基准线)代表1980年前的标准,该标准描述了在进行任何改造之前解决建筑物现场能源,供暖和电力消耗的建筑围护结构和系统。方案2(基本情况)是针对特定国家/地区的“照常营业”改造;在这种情况下,翻新由一般用途启动,并且仅考虑国家建筑法规的最低要求。方案3必须相对于基准线(方案1)实现约50%的能耗降低,方案4旨在实现当前的国家“梦想能源标准”(可以是净零能耗建筑物的国家定义[WDBG 2014],Plusen能源标准,被动房[PHI 2015a]等)。在所有方案中要实现的目标均基于站点的能源需求,包括各种能源使用,例如生活热水(DHW),供暖,制冷,照明,家用电,插头负载等。建模的结果对于热包络和特定的HVAC和供应系统将是不同的U因子。考虑到能源和非能源相关措施的全球成本和收益,将为每个组成部分计算投资成本,并准备40年的生命周期成本分析。为了在不同的方案之间做出决定,将每个方案与能源相关的增量成本和收益进行了比较。本文介绍了奥地利和德国案例研究的建模结果。奥地利的建模项目是1960年至1961年在卡普芬贝格(Kapfenberg)市建造的多层住宅楼,共有4层楼和24个单位。方案1的总现场能源需求(DHW,供暖,供应和家庭用电)为155 kWh / m〜2yr(49 kBtu / ft〜2yr),在方案4中已降至71 kWh / m〜2yr(23 kBtu / ft〜2yr),达到被动房标准(加热能量需求为15 kWh / m〜2yr [5 kBtu / ft〜2yr])。方案2和方案3的措施仅着重于减少传输损耗(例如,改善隔热,更换窗户)和减少渗透损耗,因为这些措施能够以所需的成本实现所需的能源使用强度(EUI)。有效的方法。为了实现方案4中的奥地利梦目标(被动房标准[IPHA n。d.J]),必须实施具有热回收功能的机械通风,从成本的角度来看,这意味着更高的投资成本(更高的节能成本)。德国的建模项目是一个紧凑的多层办公楼(三层楼,建筑围护面积为m〜2 / m〜3 [A / V]:0.38),净建筑面积为1680 m〜2(18.083 ft〜2)。位于黑森州达姆施塔特市(Darmstadt),建于1962年,位于ASHRAE气候区5中。该建筑于2012年进行了翻新,并允许使用性能数据对模型进行校准(方案4)。以现场总能源需求(DHW,供热,供应和家庭用电)为基准,是从水电费中收取的能耗:236 kWh / m〜2yr(75 kBtu / ft〜2yr)暖气和20 kWh / m〜2yr (6 kBtu / ft〜2yr)电。与<10,000 m〜2(<107.639 ft〜2)的德国办公建筑的平均EUI相比,供暖消耗比平均水平高12%,而用电量比平均水平低18%。对于这种大小和年龄的办公大楼,典型的情况是仅将空调用于IT服务器和洗手间,而不用于办公室。遵循德国国家建筑法规对方案1中的建筑房屋进行翻新的要求,可减少39%的一次能源(包括塞子负载)或41%的最终供暖能源。在方案2中,采用了新建筑的标准,显着减少了热桥和空气泄漏,一次取暖的一次能源减少了67%,最终能源减少了72%。方案4考虑了建筑用被动房标准,并准确地描述了翻新完成后的情况,其中主要能源节省了76%,最终能源节省了81%。方案4在翻新后实际上达到了48 kWh / m〜2yr(14kBtu / ft〜2 yr)的加热场所能量。由于改善了隔热层的气密性,对室内空气质量的最低要求要求实施机械通风系统,该系统具有高效的热回收功能,但无需冷却。生命周期成本分析的评估表明,最佳方案2(采用新建筑物的建筑规范)的净现值(NPV)为最佳,而方案4(成本优化的被动式房屋方案)为次之。两种方案之间的主要区别在于,方案2仅具有便宜的排气系统,方案4具有昂贵的具有热回收的通风系统。方案4中增加的隔热层几乎不会对NPV产生任何影响,因为增量成本是通过节能节省的。本文描述了基线和建模过程;描述能源价格,维护和其他运营成本的经济假设;并考虑投资成本和成本优化过程。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号