Impact of financial assumptions on the cost optimality towards nearly zero energy buildings - a case study
Abstract
4 result(s) found
The ultimate test of the business case for high performance low carbon building is to consider how the human benefits of these buildings could be reliably quantified to prove beyond all doubt the positive Return on Investment (ROI). After all, staff costs, including salaries and benefits, typically account for about 90% of business operating costs.
Today, buildings still account for almost half of the global energy consumption and carbon emission. This highlights the necessity to increase energy efficiency requirements worldwide in a common effort to reduce the construction sector's impacts on the environment. The current energy policies are driving toward a design that relies on airtight and highly insulated envelopes. As a consequence, energy efficient houses are found to have insufficient indoor air change rates, impacting on the indoor air quality and resulting in higher latent loads.
Energy efficiency (i.e., the ratio of output of performance to input of energy) in office buildings can reduce energy costs and CO2 emissions, but there are barriers to widespread adoption of energy efficient solutions in offices because they are often perceived as a potential threat to perceived comfort, well-being, and performance of office users. However, the links between offices' energy efficiency and users' performance and well-being through their moderators are neither necessary nor empirically confirmed.