User Tools

Site Tools


basics:energy_and_ecology:primary_energy_quantifying_sustainability

Differences

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

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
basics:energy_and_ecology:primary_energy_quantifying_sustainability [2019/01/24 10:14]
cblagojevic
basics:energy_and_ecology:primary_energy_quantifying_sustainability [2019/02/28 10:00] (current)
cblagojevic
Line 3: Line 3:
 The primary energy demand determines the impact on the environment. To be more exact: The primary energy demand determines the impact on the environment. To be more exact:
   * The total primary energy demand from non-renewable energy sources that is supplied to the building ((**There are many environmental effects of the use of energy**: consumption of resources, pollution of the atmosphere with harmful substances (e.g. CO<​sub>​2</​sub>,​ greenhouse gases), contamination of the water and soil (e.g. with radioactive waste materials), damage to the environment etc. At the moment, it is not possible to weigh up the various effects against one another and to adjust the risks quantitatively in relation to each other. **It is undoubtedly indisputable that there are very serious risks involved in each case** (climate change, proliferation of nuclear weapons, safety of future generations with regard to storage of nuclear waste).\\ **With renewable energy sources and energy efficiency, there are no risks of this magnitude** - at least, as long as attention is focussed on sustainable use (no deforestation for the purpose of obtaining fuel). **Within this context, the non-renewable demand for primary energy is currently the best quantifying factor for the overall damage to the environment through energy use. Using solely CO<​sub>​2</​sub>​ as a parameter for this purpose plays down the other risks and the significance of the resource situation.** Incidentally,​ this quantification approach is also becoming increasingly popular with other authors. The fact that non-renewable energy sources are, to a great extent, usually quickly substitutable by each other also speaks for this assessment– if certain risks become apparent, a widespread substitution effect should be expected. Today we do not know exactly which primary energy carriers (oil, gas, coal or uranium) actually will be used predominantly in thirty years' time – evaluation of the total primary energy applied will provide security against this additional uncertainty.))   * The total primary energy demand from non-renewable energy sources that is supplied to the building ((**There are many environmental effects of the use of energy**: consumption of resources, pollution of the atmosphere with harmful substances (e.g. CO<​sub>​2</​sub>,​ greenhouse gases), contamination of the water and soil (e.g. with radioactive waste materials), damage to the environment etc. At the moment, it is not possible to weigh up the various effects against one another and to adjust the risks quantitatively in relation to each other. **It is undoubtedly indisputable that there are very serious risks involved in each case** (climate change, proliferation of nuclear weapons, safety of future generations with regard to storage of nuclear waste).\\ **With renewable energy sources and energy efficiency, there are no risks of this magnitude** - at least, as long as attention is focussed on sustainable use (no deforestation for the purpose of obtaining fuel). **Within this context, the non-renewable demand for primary energy is currently the best quantifying factor for the overall damage to the environment through energy use. Using solely CO<​sub>​2</​sub>​ as a parameter for this purpose plays down the other risks and the significance of the resource situation.** Incidentally,​ this quantification approach is also becoming increasingly popular with other authors. The fact that non-renewable energy sources are, to a great extent, usually quickly substitutable by each other also speaks for this assessment– if certain risks become apparent, a widespread substitution effect should be expected. Today we do not know exactly which primary energy carriers (oil, gas, coal or uranium) actually will be used predominantly in thirty years' time – evaluation of the total primary energy applied will provide security against this additional uncertainty.))
 +
   * for all energy uses arising in the building,   * for all energy uses arising in the building,
 +
   * thus also for the household electricity in a residential house (shown in “yellow” in the following illustration). ​   * thus also for the household electricity in a residential house (shown in “yellow” in the following illustration). ​
 //Note: the current calculation method of the Energy Saving Regulations (EnEV) does not take the domestic electricity into account//​.\\ //Note: the current calculation method of the Energy Saving Regulations (EnEV) does not take the domestic electricity into account//​.\\
Line 21: Line 23:
 Two important stages can be identified: Two important stages can be identified:
   * The first stage of heating energy savings from a typical old building to the "​EnEV",​ which was divided into three separate steps (1984, 1995 and 2002).   * The first stage of heating energy savings from a typical old building to the "​EnEV",​ which was divided into three separate steps (1984, 1995 and 2002).
 +
   * And the second stage of heating energy savings from the EnEV house to the Passive House, which is particularly interesting because not only is energy being saved, but also the whole system becomes more simpler, more comfortable and crisis-proof. Of course, also domestic electricity should be efficiently used in a Passive House.\\   * And the second stage of heating energy savings from the EnEV house to the Passive House, which is particularly interesting because not only is energy being saved, but also the whole system becomes more simpler, more comfortable and crisis-proof. Of course, also domestic electricity should be efficiently used in a Passive House.\\
 \\ \\
Line 48: Line 51:
 Grey energy has not been dealt with here. Of course, energy expenditure also plays a role for the creation of a building: the** primary energy input for production (PEI)**. This has been systematically examined in two publications and set in relation to the operating energy input [[Basics:​Energy and ecology:​Primary energy – quantifying sustainability#​Literature|[Feist 1997] ]], [[Basics:​Energy and ecology:​Primary energy – quantifying sustainability#​Literature|[Mossmann,​ Kohler 2005] ]]. This has been put together on the following internet page: [[Basics:​Energy and ecology:​Embodied energy and the Passive House Standard]]. This much in advance: Grey energy has not been dealt with here. Of course, energy expenditure also plays a role for the creation of a building: the** primary energy input for production (PEI)**. This has been systematically examined in two publications and set in relation to the operating energy input [[Basics:​Energy and ecology:​Primary energy – quantifying sustainability#​Literature|[Feist 1997] ]], [[Basics:​Energy and ecology:​Primary energy – quantifying sustainability#​Literature|[Mossmann,​ Kohler 2005] ]]. This has been put together on the following internet page: [[Basics:​Energy and ecology:​Embodied energy and the Passive House Standard]]. This much in advance:
     * Most of the grey energy is used for the production of the building materials. ​ Lasting and continuing usability are the main factors for the energy efficiency of building performance.     * Most of the grey energy is used for the production of the building materials. ​ Lasting and continuing usability are the main factors for the energy efficiency of building performance.
 +
     * The energy expenditure for the production of a (otherwise identical) Passive House is not necessarily greater than that of an ordinary new construction;​ it can even be less. The "​primary energy investment"​ amortises very quickly, in less than a year as a rule. The additional financial investments don't pay back so quickly unfortunately,​ but they are still worth it. See [[Basics:​Affordability]].\\     * The energy expenditure for the production of a (otherwise identical) Passive House is not necessarily greater than that of an ordinary new construction;​ it can even be less. The "​primary energy investment"​ amortises very quickly, in less than a year as a rule. The additional financial investments don't pay back so quickly unfortunately,​ but they are still worth it. See [[Basics:​Affordability]].\\
 \\ \\
basics/energy_and_ecology/primary_energy_quantifying_sustainability.txt · Last modified: 2019/02/28 10:00 by cblagojevic