4.7 Article

Optimising the installation costs of renewable energy technologies in buildings: A Linear Programming approach

期刊

ENERGY AND BUILDINGS
卷 43, 期 4, 页码 838-843

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.12.003

关键词

Linear Programming; Renewable energy technologies; Cost optimisation; CO2 targets

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper demonstrates how Linear Programming (LP) can be applied to assist in the choice of renewable energy technologies for use in buildings to meet CO2 emissions reduction targets. Since there are many possibilities for combining different renewable technologies, the capital costs associated with the installation of one or more renewables can vary widely. In terms of capital investment the preferred solution will be the one at least cost, and LP provides an effective way to find this minimum through the so-called objective function. This project has used lp_solve, a free-source Mixed Integer Linear Programming solver that has been embedded in a Microsoft Excel application called Carbon emissions And Renewables for Building OPtimisation Toolkit (CARB-OPT) developed by RES Ltd in collaboration with London South Bank University (Renewable Environmental Services Ltd. (RES) is the environmental consultancy of Long and Partners Engineering Group. RES is currently involved in a Knowledge Transfer Partnerships (KTP) project in conjunction with the Faculty of Engineering. Science and the Building Environment (ESBE) at London South Bank University). This paper reports the application of this LP optimisation process for an office building case study with four alternative combinations of renewables. The process showed the technology mix that would lead to the smallest investment needed to comply with UK Building Regulations requirements and regional planning targets. In addition, the process offers a robust methodology to test the impact that the key assumptions may have upon the optimum solution. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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