The Experts below are selected from a list of 17919 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Edgar G Hertwich - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • life cycle assessment of a single family residence built to either Conventional or passive House standard
    Energy and Buildings, 2012
    Co-Authors: Oddbjorn Dahlstrom, Kari Sornes, Silje Tveit Eriksen, Edgar G Hertwich
    Abstract:

    Abstract The environmental and resource impacts of wooden single-family residences designed to meet the Conventional Norwegian Building Code from 2010 (TEK10) and the Norwegian passive House standard NS 3700 are compared using life cycle assessment. Four different heating systems are evaluated for the two building designs: (1) electric (resistance heating), (2) electric and wood, (3) electric and a solar heat collector and (4) electric and an air-water heat pump system. The goal of the research is to evaluate the different ways of lowering the total environmental burden of a building's life cycle, considering the two building standards, and evaluating the impacts due to implementation of renewable heating systems in comparison to standard Norwegian systems largely based on electricity. The life cycle results show that the wood-framed single-family residence built according to the passive House standard provides a consistent and clear reduction of cumulative energy demand of 24–38% in comparison to the Conventional building standard TEK10 with electric panel heating. In combination with efficient heating systems, a passive House building envelope with a heat pump system provides the largest savings, an improvement of almost 40% compared to a Conventional House with electric heating. The reduction in greenHouse gas emissions of the cleanest design compared to the standard alternative is almost 30%. Solar heated water also provides substantial environmental gains for the passive House. On the other hand, a standard building envelope with a heat-pump system reduces impacts to a level comparable to that of a passive House building with only electric heating.

Kari Sornes - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • life cycle assessment of a single family residence built to either Conventional or passive House standard
    Energy and Buildings, 2012
    Co-Authors: Oddbjorn Dahlstrom, Kari Sornes, Silje Tveit Eriksen, Edgar G Hertwich
    Abstract:

    Abstract The environmental and resource impacts of wooden single-family residences designed to meet the Conventional Norwegian Building Code from 2010 (TEK10) and the Norwegian passive House standard NS 3700 are compared using life cycle assessment. Four different heating systems are evaluated for the two building designs: (1) electric (resistance heating), (2) electric and wood, (3) electric and a solar heat collector and (4) electric and an air-water heat pump system. The goal of the research is to evaluate the different ways of lowering the total environmental burden of a building's life cycle, considering the two building standards, and evaluating the impacts due to implementation of renewable heating systems in comparison to standard Norwegian systems largely based on electricity. The life cycle results show that the wood-framed single-family residence built according to the passive House standard provides a consistent and clear reduction of cumulative energy demand of 24–38% in comparison to the Conventional building standard TEK10 with electric panel heating. In combination with efficient heating systems, a passive House building envelope with a heat pump system provides the largest savings, an improvement of almost 40% compared to a Conventional House with electric heating. The reduction in greenHouse gas emissions of the cleanest design compared to the standard alternative is almost 30%. Solar heated water also provides substantial environmental gains for the passive House. On the other hand, a standard building envelope with a heat-pump system reduces impacts to a level comparable to that of a passive House building with only electric heating.

Tony Roskilly - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Comparison of building performance between Conventional House and Passive House in the UK
    Energy Procedia, 2017
    Co-Authors: Xinxin Liang, Yaodong Wang, Mohammad Royapoor, Tony Roskilly
    Abstract:

    Abstract The building performance monitored over one year of a Conventional House and a Passive House in North East England is presented in this paper. These two Houses which differ in building fabric, the type of ventilation and thermal storage, the use of different energy and residents’ occupancy result in distinct building energy performance and indoor air quality. According to the measurement data, the primary energy demand of the Conventional House and Passive House were 169.85 kWh/(m2a) and 64.11 kWh/(m2a) while the annual average indoor temperature of the two properties maintained at 17.7°C and 22.0°C, respectively. A simulation study was conducted by DesignBuilder software to improve the Conventional House’s energy and indoor environmental performance using passive retrofitting methods, aiming to reduce the primary energy demand, the space heating demand of the property and enhance its general indoor air environmental performance. The DesignBuilder models were validated by monitored data and used to predict the performance of the Conventional House after retrofitting, and then compared it with the Passive House. The results indicate the reduction of space heating demand is by about 80% compared to its current status. The findings showed that there was a huge potential for Conventional House retrofitting using passive energy saving methods in northern England.

Radu Zmeureanu - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • life cycle cost and energy analysis of a net zero energy House with solar combisystem
    Applied Energy, 2011
    Co-Authors: Mitchell Leckner, Radu Zmeureanu
    Abstract:

    The Net Zero Energy House (NZEH) presented in this paper is an energy efficient House that uses available solar technologies to generate at least as much primary energy as the House uses over the course of the year. The computer simulation results show that it is technically feasible to reach the goal of NZEH in the cold climate of Montreal. In terms of the life cycle energy use, which considers the operating and embodied energy of the House, the energy payback time is 8.4-8.7Â years, when the NZEH is compared with an average House that complies with the provincial code. The energy payback ratio of the combisystem is 3.5-3.8 compared with the heating system of Conventional House. By converting solar energy, the combisystem supplies at least 3.5 times more energy than the energy invested for manufacturing and shipping the system. The life cycle cost analysis of the NZEH shows, however, that due to the high cost of the solar technologies and the low cost of electricity in Montreal, financial payback is never achieved.

Oddbjorn Dahlstrom - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • life cycle assessment of a single family residence built to either Conventional or passive House standard
    Energy and Buildings, 2012
    Co-Authors: Oddbjorn Dahlstrom, Kari Sornes, Silje Tveit Eriksen, Edgar G Hertwich
    Abstract:

    Abstract The environmental and resource impacts of wooden single-family residences designed to meet the Conventional Norwegian Building Code from 2010 (TEK10) and the Norwegian passive House standard NS 3700 are compared using life cycle assessment. Four different heating systems are evaluated for the two building designs: (1) electric (resistance heating), (2) electric and wood, (3) electric and a solar heat collector and (4) electric and an air-water heat pump system. The goal of the research is to evaluate the different ways of lowering the total environmental burden of a building's life cycle, considering the two building standards, and evaluating the impacts due to implementation of renewable heating systems in comparison to standard Norwegian systems largely based on electricity. The life cycle results show that the wood-framed single-family residence built according to the passive House standard provides a consistent and clear reduction of cumulative energy demand of 24–38% in comparison to the Conventional building standard TEK10 with electric panel heating. In combination with efficient heating systems, a passive House building envelope with a heat pump system provides the largest savings, an improvement of almost 40% compared to a Conventional House with electric heating. The reduction in greenHouse gas emissions of the cleanest design compared to the standard alternative is almost 30%. Solar heated water also provides substantial environmental gains for the passive House. On the other hand, a standard building envelope with a heat-pump system reduces impacts to a level comparable to that of a passive House building with only electric heating.