4.6 Article

Energy savings evaluation in public building sector during the 10th-12th FYP periods of China: an extended LMDI model approach

期刊

NATURAL HAZARDS
卷 92, 期 1, 页码 429-441

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11069-018-3210-6

关键词

Energy savings; Public buildings; Energy data; Extended LMDI model; FYP period

资金

  1. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of PR China [106112017CDJXSYY0001-KJYF201706, 2017CDJSK03YJ05, 2017CDJSK03XK01]
  2. Graduate Research and Innovation Foundation of Chongqing, China [CYB17027]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Energy savings can be treated as an indicator to reveal the effectiveness of energy efficiency task (EET) in the building sector, especially in the public buildings. However, evaluating the values of energy savings in public buildings (ESPB) was challenged by the missing data sources and inadequate tools in China. To overcome these problems, this study applied an extended Logarithmic Mean Divisia Index model to examine the contributions of different impact factors affecting the public building energy consumption (PBEC) and further evaluated the ESPB values during the 10th-12th Five-Year Plan (FYP) periods in China. Results included three aspects: (1) Absolute values of the contribution of the adjusted PBEC intensity to PBEC denoted the ESPB values in China. (2) Total values of ESPB were 99.9 Mtce during the 10th-12th FYP periods of China. Concretely, the ESPB values during the three FYP periods were as follows: 71.091 Mtce (the 12th FYP period), 19.075 Mtce (the 11th FYP period), and 9.734 Mtce (the 10th FYP period). (3) Effective EET of public buildings was a strong support for the rapidly growing ESPB during the three FYP periods. Furthermore, this study suggested that China should issue the official data on energy consumption in the building sector as quickly as possible, and this action would deeply help the government design targeted plans and policies for the future EET in the building sector.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据