Kabuk yalıtımının bina ısıtma enerjisi ihtiyacına, maliyetine ve karbon ayak izine etkisinin yaşam döngüsü bakış açısıyla değerlendirmesi

Abstract

Highlights:Graphical/Tabular Abstract  Effect of thermal insulation on annual building heating energy requirement, additional cost and carbon footprint  Effect of thermal insulation on life-cycle cost and carbon footprint  Cost and carbon footprint payback periods for the additional thermal insulation  Thermal insulation analysis for 81 cities Figure A. Evaluation of building envelope insulation performance for 81 cities in TurkeyPurpose: Aim of this study is to investigate the effectiveness of additional envelope insulation investments planned at the early design stage of buildings in terms of heating requirement, cost and carbon footprint from the annual and life-cycle perspectives for 81 cities in Turkey. Theory and Methods:In this study, the annual heating space requirement of the building is calculated according to the TS 825-Turkish Thermal Insulation Standard methodology. For thermal insulation analysis, three different insulation design alternatives are created for a case study building for 81 cities in Turkey: (i) the uninsulated building, (ii) the building insulated according to minimum requirements of TS 825-2008 version and (iii) the building insulated according to minimum requirements of TS 825-2013 version. The effectiveness of the thermal insulation improvements in the building are investigated in three scenarios: (i) from the uninsulated to the insulated according to TS 825/2008, (ii) from the uninsulated to the insulated according to TS 825/2013 and (iii) from the insulated according to TS 825/2008 to the insulated according to TS 825/2013. For each city, the effectiveness of the improvements are assessed in terms of annual energy savings, life-cycle cost savings and life-cycle carbon footprint savings. Moreover, for each scenario, cost and carbon footprint payback periods are also analyzed. Results:Analyzes have shown that insulations based on the standard provide improvements of up to 75% for annual heating energy, 70% for life-cycle cost, and 73% for life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions for the uninsulated building. Moreover, payback periods are under 7 years for the cost and under 2 years for the greenhouse gas emissions. On the other hand, increasing the insulation thickness of already insulated buildings results in limited improvement of the energy efficiency, life-cycle cost and life-cycle carbon footprint. Conclusion:Thermal insulation is an efficient solution for improving building energy efficiency, life-cycle cost and lifecycle carbon footprint. Considering its marginal efficiency, thermal insulation of the buildings should be incentivized to increase passive energy efficiency for the buildings. Short-term analysis •Annual energy s avings •Additional investment •Additional ca rbon footprint Long-term analysis •Li fe-cycle cost savings •Li fe-cycle ca rbon footprint savings Integrated analysis •Cos t payback period •Carbon footprint payback period Uninsulated building Insulated building according to TS 825/2008 Insulated building according to TS 825/2013 Ö N E Ç I K A N L A R  Isı y...

Tek katlı Kırsal Bölge Yapısının Gömülü Enerji ve Karbon Salınımının Analizi

“…Altun vd. binaların ısı yalıtımı yatırımlarını enerji, yaşam döngüsü maliyeti ve sera gazı açısından incelemişlerdir [31]. Ekundayo vd.…”

Impact of insulation materials and wall types of reference buildings on building energy efficiency with three methods in Çorum city

“…Turkey has more tolerance in energy‐related building standards when it is compared to many European Union countries according to the Turkish standard 825 used to calculate heating energy needs of buildings [1]. Therefore, it is essential to provide much higher energy efficiency requirements and emission reductions in buildings.…”

Optimisation on the thermal insulation layer thickness in buildings with environmental analysis: an updated comprehensive study for Turkey’s all provinces

“…For example, in Malatya [10], Denizli [15,18,22], Erzurum [17], İstanbul [20], Bilecik [23], Bursa [24], İzmir and Ankara [25], Diyarbakır [26]. Moreover, some studies are carried out by selecting only one [27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36] or more [11][12][13][37][38][39] cities from each climatic zone; furthermore, by merely opting for cold towns [9,14] in Turkey. In most of them, different parameters (types of bricks, insulation materials, and fuels) are investigated by economic and environmental analysis to find the ideal configuration.…”

“…Altun et al [39] examined the effectiveness of insulation of an uninsulated building in two different processes according to TS 825: short-term (savings in annual heating energy need, additional insulation costs and additional greenhouse gas emission) and life cycle (life cycle cost and greenhouse gas emission). In addition, the payback periods of the additional investment in terms of costs and greenhouse gases were also analysed.…”