User Tools

Site Tools


basics:affordability:investing_in_energy_efficiency:superior_thermal_protection_is_affordable

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Last revisionBoth sides next revision
basics:affordability:investing_in_energy_efficiency:superior_thermal_protection_is_affordable [2014/09/18 18:19] – external edit 127.0.0.1basics:affordability:investing_in_energy_efficiency:superior_thermal_protection_is_affordable [2019/01/30 13:09] cblagojevic
Line 8: Line 8:
 [[Basics:Affordability:Investing in energy efficiency:Superior thermal protection is affordable#Literature|[Kah, Feist 2005] ]].  [[Basics:Affordability:Investing in energy efficiency:Superior thermal protection is affordable#Literature|[Kah, Feist 2005] ]]. 
   * In contrast with an earlier study [[Basics:Affordability:Investing in energy efficiency:Superior thermal protection is affordable#Literature|[Feist 1998] ]], the boundary conditions have changed fundamentally; for example, a significantly higher average energy price must be assumed today for the duration of use of the measures; the study expects an average of 5.5 cents/kWh.   * In contrast with an earlier study [[Basics:Affordability:Investing in energy efficiency:Superior thermal protection is affordable#Literature|[Feist 1998] ]], the boundary conditions have changed fundamentally; for example, a significantly higher average energy price must be assumed today for the duration of use of the measures; the study expects an average of 5.5 cents/kWh.
 +
   * Besides, today the value-preserving and long-lasting effectiveness of insulation measures are regarded as proven, which why it is correct to apply a life cycle assessment here.   * Besides, today the value-preserving and long-lasting effectiveness of insulation measures are regarded as proven, which why it is correct to apply a life cycle assessment here.
 +
   * In order to avoid speculations about the energy price and interest rate forecasts, the period under observation was limited to 20 years, however the quantifiable recovery value of the substance created was included.\\   * In order to avoid speculations about the energy price and interest rate forecasts, the period under observation was limited to 20 years, however the quantifiable recovery value of the substance created was included.\\
 \\ \\
 Within this context, the inferences for Germany are clear: Within this context, the inferences for Germany are clear:
   * ** Improving the thermal protection of the building envelope components in existing buildings in Germany is micoreconomically profitable in each case that was studied**, if the component is not already insulated; e.g. whenever scaffolding is put up for painting the facade or when the roof has to be renewed or restored.   * ** Improving the thermal protection of the building envelope components in existing buildings in Germany is micoreconomically profitable in each case that was studied**, if the component is not already insulated; e.g. whenever scaffolding is put up for painting the facade or when the roof has to be renewed or restored.
 +
   * **Improvement of thermal protection is profitable on the basis of the energy saved alone**. Other advantages, like increased comfort, better protection of the building substance, increase in value, security against risks of the international energy market and the contribution to climate protection are additional benefits.   * **Improvement of thermal protection is profitable on the basis of the energy saved alone**. Other advantages, like increased comfort, better protection of the building substance, increase in value, security against risks of the international energy market and the contribution to climate protection are additional benefits.
 +
   * **Cost-efficiency is so much increased in contrast with the requirements of the currently valid standard [[Basics:Affordability:Investing in energy efficiency:Superior thermal protection is affordable#Literature|[EnEV] ]]**, that under today's conditions, the** best thermal protection measures available in terms of building practice are also the most optimum measures in terms of cost-effectiveness** (see __**Table**__). In this respect, the recommendation is: "If it has to be done, it should be properly done" – one should never save on the quality of insulation.   * **Cost-efficiency is so much increased in contrast with the requirements of the currently valid standard [[Basics:Affordability:Investing in energy efficiency:Superior thermal protection is affordable#Literature|[EnEV] ]]**, that under today's conditions, the** best thermal protection measures available in terms of building practice are also the most optimum measures in terms of cost-effectiveness** (see __**Table**__). In this respect, the recommendation is: "If it has to be done, it should be properly done" – one should never save on the quality of insulation.
 +
   * **The annual cost of capital (repayment with interest) of the thermal protection measures, which serves as a measure of the economic efficiency, is based on the amount of energy saved**. The price for each kilowatt hour (kWh) of energy saved can be determined in this way. For all individual measures that were studied, the price was between 1 and 3.5 cents/kWh per kWh saved - much less than the final energy price of 4.5 cents/kWh for the year 2005 (see __**Table**__). By the end of 2005 and beginning of 2006, the energy price was already at 5.5 cents/kWh, which is the value assumed as the average future energy price in the study (see [[Basics:Affordability:Investing in energy efficiency:Superior thermal protection is affordable#Literature]]).\\   * **The annual cost of capital (repayment with interest) of the thermal protection measures, which serves as a measure of the economic efficiency, is based on the amount of energy saved**. The price for each kilowatt hour (kWh) of energy saved can be determined in this way. For all individual measures that were studied, the price was between 1 and 3.5 cents/kWh per kWh saved - much less than the final energy price of 4.5 cents/kWh for the year 2005 (see __**Table**__). By the end of 2005 and beginning of 2006, the energy price was already at 5.5 cents/kWh, which is the value assumed as the average future energy price in the study (see [[Basics:Affordability:Investing in energy efficiency:Superior thermal protection is affordable#Literature]]).\\
 \\ \\
basics/affordability/investing_in_energy_efficiency/superior_thermal_protection_is_affordable.txt · Last modified: 2019/05/08 11:48 by cblagojevic