Crawford, R H; Treloar, G J; Ilozor, B D and Love, P E D (2003) Comparative greenhouse emissions analysis of domestic solar hot water systems. Building Research & Information, 31(1), pp. 34-47. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
It is commonly assumed that solar hot water systems save energy and reduce greenhouse emissions relative to conventional fossil fuel-powered systems. Very rarely has the life-cycle greenhouse emissions (including the embodied greenhouse emissions of manufacture) of solar hot water systems been analysed. The extent to which solar hot water systems can reduce emissions compared with conventional systems can be shown through a comparative life-cycle greenhouse emissions analysis. This method determined the time it takes for these net greenhouse emissions savings to occur, or the 'emissions payback period'. This paper presents the results of a life-cycle greenhouse emissions analysis of solar hot water systems in comparison with conventional hot water systems for a southern (Melbourne) and a northern (Brisbane) Australian city. The life-cycle costs of these hot water systems were also analysed to determine the financial payback period. The fuel source and solar fraction determined the emissions resulting from the energy used for operating hot water systems. The solar systems provide net emissions savings compared with the conventional systems after 2.5-5 years in Melbourne and after 2.5 years in Brisbane, depending on the auxiliary fuel. The life-cycle cost analysis also revealed that the financial payback period for solar hot water systems is more than 10 years in Melbourne and around 10 years for an electric-boosted system in Brisbane. This suggests the need for greater subsidies to increase market take-up for solar systems, especially where electricity is the only available fuel.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Australia; hot water systems; life-cycle analysis; life-cycle greenhouse emissions analysis; payback period; temperate climates |
| Index terms: | fossil fuel, cost analysis, savings, subsidy, Australia, payback, Brisbane |
| Subjects: | financial and cost management, energy systems, Geography, economic analysis |
| Topics: | Geographical Context, Cost Management, Business Strategy, Sustainability |
| 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