Search

A Net Zero Energy Building (NZEB) is a term, subject to ambiguity, that could be used to describe a building with characteristics such as equal energy generation to usage, significantly reduced energy demands, energy costs equalling zero or net zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Despite lacking an authoritative definition of NZEBs, this relatively new emerging concept in Australia provides significant opportunities to reduce GHG emissions, energy usage and operational energy costs for buildings owners. This paper aims to explore the existing NZEB models, assess the progression of NZEB literature, identify key policies encouraging NZEB development and recognise potential areas of NZEB research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite considerable mitigation efforts, global emissions from the electricity sector continued to grow in recent years. In Australia, the electricity sector is the largest CO 2 -emitting industry, contributing 35% of the country's total greenhouse gas emissions. The Australian government targets an 80% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 relative to 2010. With a large variety and quantity of renewable energy resources, it is technically feasible and seems indispensable that Australia's electricity sector be largely decarbonised by 2050 in order to achieve this target. In this paper, scenario-based hybrid Life-Cycle Assessment is applied to calculate the economy-wide carbon footprints of seven electricity generation technologies in scenarios with differing renewable electricity penetration. This work is the first to apply a full life-cycle approach to scenario analysis of electricity generation in Australia. The findings are at the higher end of previously reported carbon footprint intensity ranges and above median values. However, even when taking into account indirect emissions along the technologies' life-cycles, the results indicate that the employment of different renewable energy technologies can potentially save a considerable fraction of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions. This makes renewables an essential option for climate change mitigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To be sustainable in energy usage in the future, there are two aspects that need to be considered: the energy supply or generation and the consumption side, including the closely linked construction and building industries which consume a large amount of energy. Essential requirements for energy efficiency are to produce less greenhouse gas emissions and to rely more on renewable energy sources for future sustainability. Policies for mitigation of the environment impact are having effects on both the supply and demand. While the former requires more alternate sources in smart grids and improved technologies for carbon capture and storage, the latter involves the reduction of energy wastes and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as prerequisites to green certification within the construction and building sector. Thus, access to sustainable, affordable, and secure energy is one of the major global strategic priorities to maintain and improve public health, sustain economic growth, and mitigate the effects of climate change. Toward this goal, many countries, including Australia, are investing in clean, efficient, reliable energy systems for a prosperous and environmentally sustainable future. Hence, exploring various options to ensure energy security by diversification of energy sources is an important step in meeting the future requirements and delivering clean energy to different industry sectors. This paper discusses options to manage the use of energy sources in the power generation and construction industries. Options for mitigation of environmental impact and for achievement of sustainable energy usage, such as building design with BIM, are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the cost-effectiveness of subsidies (feed-in tariffs and renewable energy credits) paid for by electricity consumers to support the uptake of roof top photovoltaic (PV) systems by households in Australia. We estimate annual payback periods, and then regress these against the actual uptake of household PV and associated emission reductions, creating a relationship not apparent in other research. Sensitivity analysis reveals that the declining cost of PV panels had most impact on PV uptake followed by feed-in tariffs, renewable energy credits and the increasing cost of household electricity tariffs. Our modelling shows that feed-in tariffs were higher than necessary to achieve the resultant levels of PV uptake and that the low cost of PV panels and comparatively high electricity tariffs are likely to result in a continuing strong uptake of household PV in Australia. Our modelling shows that subsidies peaked in 2011 and 2012, with payback periods of three to four years, having since increased to five to six years. Emission reduction costs are expected to reduce from over AU$200 per t CO 2 e in 2013 to between AU$65 and AU$100 per t CO 2 e in 2020. Household PV reduced Australia’s emissions by 3.7 million t CO 2 e in 2013 (1.7% of Australia’s total emissions) and is expected to reach eight million tonnes (3.7% of Australia’s total emissions) by 2020. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]