Abstract
A common way of calculating the life cycle cost (LCC) of building renovation measures is to approach it from the building side, where the energy system is considered by calculating the savings in the form of less bought energy. In this study a wider perspective is introduced. The LCC for three different energy renovation measures, mechanical ventilation with heat recovery and two different heat pump systems, are compared to a reference case, a building connected to the district heating system. The energy system supplying the building is assumed to be 100% renewable, where eight different future scenarios are considered. The LCC is calculated as the total cost for the renovation measures and the energy systems. All renovation measures result in a lower district heating demand, at the expense of an increased electricity demand. All renovation measures also result in an increased LCC, compared to the reference building. When aiming for a transformation towards a 100% renewable system in the future, this study shows the importance of having a system perspective, and also taking possible future production scenarios into consideration when evaluating building renovation measures that are carried out today, but will last for several years, in which the energy production system, hopefully, will change.
Highlights
The European Union (EU) directive regarding the energy performance of buildings states that each member state should ensure that all new buildings built from the end of 2020 should be nearly zero energy buildings [1]
The outcome of life cycle calculations of building renovation measures may differ depending on the energy system boundaries considered
Rather than calculating only from a building perspective, a wider perspective regarding the energy system is taken into account, with the system boundary extended to include the complete energy system, as different future scenarios
Summary
The European Union (EU) directive regarding the energy performance of buildings states that each member state should ensure that all new buildings built from the end of 2020 should be nearly zero energy buildings [1]. DH is the main energy carrier to multi-family buildings in Sweden, accounting for 90% of the final energy used for heating and hot water in 2016 [3]. Counting all dwellings and non-residential premises, DH supplied almost 60% of the final energy used for heating and hot water in 2016. As HPs utilize heat sources such as the outdoor air or geothermal energy, the delivered useful heat will be higher than the amount of purchased energy (often electricity). This means that it is easier to fulfill any energy demand requirements for HPs than for DH, when the focus is on final energy
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
