Atkinson, J G B (2008) Market influences on low carbon energy designs in buildings. EngD thesis, University of Surrey, UK.
Abstract
This research explores the relationship between the energy market; the political and regulatory context; and energy design decisions for buildings, and asks what form the energy market landscape would need to take if tailored to encourage low carbon solutions. The links between market dynamics, Government strategies and building designs are mapped to understand the necessary steps that achieve carbon reduction from building operation. The Building Energy and Cost Model (BECM) uses financial and energy components with market and design variables to provide net present cost and annual carbon outputs. The financial component applies discounted cash flow analysis over the building lifespan, with discount rates reflecting contractual characteristics. The carbon component uses Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP 2005). A scenario approach has been adopted to test alternative strategies selected to encourage low carbon solutions in two residential and two office designs. The results show that, of the technological options, micro-CHP is most likely to offer economic carbon reduction. There are, however, important considerations before proceeding along a CHP route, and some circumstances that favour renewable microgeneration. The rate of energy price escalation is most influential on energy investment, together with the expected differentiation between the escalation of gas and electricity. Low interest rates encourage low carbon designs further and, if combined with increasing energy prices, renewables can offer the best long-term solution. Other beneficial measures include a 20% mandatory microgeneration requirement; a long-term ESCO contract; and imposing a carbon price of £200 to £300 per tonne CO2. Increasing capital grants encourages renewables, while raising fossil fuel taxation benefits efficient and micro-CHP solutions. However, alone these measures are insufficient to catalyse low carbon solutions (except micro-CHP) and should form part of a raft of market changes. The divergent priorities of landlord and tenant should be addressed for well constructed and efficiently operated buildings. This research reveals trends and strategies that will achieve mainstream application of energy efficiency and microgeneration technologies, and reduce carbon emissions in the built environment.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building design; design decision; discounted cash flow; government; office design; residential; market; cash flow analysis |
| Index terms: | dynamics, fossil fuel, built environment, office design, taxation, option, building design, energy efficiency, landlord, carbon reduction, carbon emission, low carbon, interest rate, cost model, differentiation, building lifespan, building operation, design decision, strategy, cash flow analysis, discount rates, tenant, discounted cash flow |
| Subjects: | sustainability assessment, management, design practice, policy economics, decision analysis, sociology, asset management, specialized design, financial analysis, systems engineering, infrastructure and transport systems, organization, practitioner, climate science, sustainability and energy, economic analysis, architectural design, financial and cost management, energy systems |
| Topics: | Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Cost Management, Business Strategy, Organizational Design, Urban Studies, Design Practice, Sustainability, Risk Management, Regulations & Compliance, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here