Torcellini, P; Pless, S and Leach, M (2014) A pathway for net-zero energy buildings: Creating a case for zero cost increase. Building Research & Information, 43(1), pp. 25-33. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
LLC (Alliance) is the manager and operator of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). Employees of the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC, under Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 with the U.S. Dept. of Energy have authored this work. The United States Government retains and the publisher, by accepting the article for publication, acknowledges that the United States Government retains a non-exclusive, paid up, irrevocable, worldwide license to publish or reproduce the published form of this work, or allow others to do so, for United States Government purposes.; To have market relevance and gain widespread market adoption, zero energy buildings (ZEBs) will need to be designed and constructed cost-effectively, and preferably without additional costs. An approach was developed to create low-energy buildings without additional construction costs such that it yielded innovation in building technology and integration by the market. A case study of the implementation of this method is presented to provide a data point that ZEBs can be built with zero cost increase. Documenting cost-control best practices and packaging those strategies for adoption by the commercial building sector will help make the business case for ZEBs for mainstream construction and promote market uptake of the innovative technologies and design approaches needed. The holistic implementation of cost-control strategies will enable ZEBs to be designed and constructed on a typical budget. The current state of ZEB economics is evaluated and a path forward is proposed for greater market penetration of ZEBs. By demonstrating how to combine ZEB technologies and design approaches into an overall efficiency package that can be implemented at minimal (zero, in certain cases) incremental capital cost, the domain of ZEB design and construction can be expanded from a niche market to the commercial construction mainstream.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | cost; energy efficiency; net-zero; passive design; project management; sustainable design; systems approach |
| Index terms: | zero-energy building, United States, capital cost, sustainable energy, cost increase, laboratory, construction cost, commercial construction, package, niche market, commercial building, net-zero energy building, best practice, strategy, passive design, business case, integration, building technology, case study, sustainable design, renewable energy, manager, implementation, publication, penetration, efficiency, energy efficiency, project management, design and construction, low-energy building |
| Subjects: | accounting and finance, contractual arrangements, research management, management, performance management, organizational analysis, financial and cost management, strategic project management, energy systems, design process, project management theory and practice, business, market analysis, sustainability and energy, engineering systems, energy efficiency, construction type, sustainable design, research dissemination and communication, Geography, practitioner, data collection methods, renewable energy, economics |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Information Management, Sustainability, Engineering Principles, Design Practice, Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Quality Management, Geographical Context, Procurement, Cost Management, Project Management, Construction Technology |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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