Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorSharp, Terry
dc.contributor.authorHaase, Matthias
dc.contributor.authorZhiviv, Alex
dc.contributor.authorZhivov, Alexander
dc.contributor.authorRismanchi, Bezard
dc.contributor.authorLohse, Ruediger
dc.contributor.authorRose, Jørgen
dc.contributor.authorNord, Natasa
dc.date.accessioned2020-09-04T10:38:47Z
dc.date.available2020-09-04T10:38:47Z
dc.date.created2020-08-24T09:09:34Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.identifier.citationASHRAE Transactions. 2020, 126 789-806.en_US
dc.identifier.issn0001-2505
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11250/2676393
dc.description.abstractThis paper addresses the framing constraints for building and community energy projects that must be considered when energy master planning (EMP) is conducted. The constraints cover emissions, sustainability, resilience, regulations and directives, and regional and local limitations such as available energy types, local conditions, and project requirements. The paper reflects development results from participants in an International Energy Agency project on energy master planning and in a U.S. Department of Defense project on technology integration to achieve resilient, low-energy use military installations. It identifies a comprehensive list of framing constraints categorized into locational threats, locational resources, energy and water distribution and storage systems, building and facility, indoor environmental, and equipment in buildings and district systems constraints. In addition, it identifies limits for these constraints that exist in seven participating countries. Some framing constraints can profoundly impact technology selection while others impact the installation of technologies (as in hardening) and have little to no impact on technology selection. Framing constraints can be assessed in different ways and there are resources available to help EMP stakeholders evaluate them. Finally, a case is made that identifying and applyingframing constraints early in EMP can bring efficiencies and better focus to the EMP process. Conclusions include 1) for holistic energy planning, it is essential to identify and assess the framing constraints that bound an optimized EMP solution, 2) framing constraints limits should be evaluated as either hard or soft or promising technologies may fall out of an EMP analysis, 3) to maintain consistent quality in the EMP process, the identification of framing constraints and their limits, and perhaps their evaluation, should be standardized, 4) a standardized approach could establish a baseline that can be used, built upon, and improved, 5) as automated EMP tools are improved or developed, the resources in this paper could possibly contribute to their interworkings relative to technology screening, and 6) continued climate change and resulting aggressive goal setting will likely drive a continued and strong emphasis on EMP.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherAmerican Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)en_US
dc.titleEnergy Master Planning: Identifying Framing Constraints That Scope Your Technology Optionsen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.description.versionpublishedVersionen_US
dc.source.pagenumber789-806en_US
dc.source.volume126en_US
dc.source.journalASHRAE Transactionsen_US
dc.identifier.cristin1824704
dc.relation.projectENOVA SF: 18/3541AMKen_US
dc.description.localcode(c) 2020 by American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)en_US
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextpostprint
cristin.qualitycode1


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel