4.7 Article

Techno-economic analysis of residential building heating strategies for cost-effective upgrades in European cities

Journal

ISCIENCE
Volume 26, Issue 9, Pages -

Publisher

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.isci.2023.107541

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This research examines the cost-effectiveness of different heating strategies in China and Europe to reduce costs and greenhouse gas emissions. The study demonstrates that electrifying heating systems with heat pumps and retrofitting building envelopes can lower costs and mitigate energy dependence on natural gas. However, the upfront investment for high-performance heat pump systems may hinder their cost-effective deployment. The research also provides policy recommendations for future building retrofits and heating electrification in Europe.
The energy crisis in Europe requires cost-effective evaluations of residential heating strategies to reduce costs and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. This research studied different heating systems in China and Europe. Based on heating energy surveys, simulation models were developed and further expanded for European cities. Monte Carlo analyses were conducted to understand the heating demand and utility costs in Rome, Madrid, and Athens. The sensitivity analysis found that electrifying heating systems with heat pumps can reduce household heating costs and mitigate European cities' dependence on natural gas. However, the high upfront investment may hinder the cost-effective deployment of high-performance heat pump systems. Building envelope retrofits can also provide plausible energy savings despite relatively long payback periods. Financial incentive analyses were conducted to quantify how fiscal measures can improve technologies' techno-economic performance. Finally, the paper provided policy recommendations on future building cost-effective retrofits and heating electrification in Europe.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available