Search

Global climate change is a key concern in today's world, especially with the growth of population and industrial activities. One of the biggest sources of climate change is anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. In Canada, buildings are the third largest emitter of greenhouse gases, contributing to 12% of the country's equivalent Carbon dioxide emissions. These emissions have various negative impacts on the planet, which impede the transition towards a cleaner environment and more sustainable communities. Attention has now shifted towards Carbon dioxide reduction in addition to the currently practiced energy efficiency improvements and source switching, which is also important in achieving Canada's 2030 climate action goals. The current study attempts to address the above gap by investigating the feasibility of installing carbon capturing unit at building level, based on the perceptions of building managers in both multi-unit residential buildings and non-residential buildings. A Modified Digital Logic approach was used to identify the key factors that determine the acceptability of the unit, based on experts' input. Six primary criteria were identified to design a questionnaire and structured interviews to evaluate the acceptability of building level carbon capturing unit to stakeholders. The findings indicated that around 50% of non-residential building managers were interested in installing the carbon capturing unit, whereas none of the multi-unit building managers were in favor of the unit installation. The lack of interest is attributed to different factors such as unit scalability, inability to accurately estimate the short and long-term economic benefits, and other alternate plans to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Specifically, when establishing relationship between cost and unit scalability, 82% of residential unit managers and 50% of non-residential managers opined that the unit should be capable of being upgraded to accommodate a larger area and capture more emissions in order to justify the proposed cost of the unit. The findings provide important insights for policy makers in understanding the acceptability of carbon capturing unit at building level and to further develop and promote this emerging technology in the market. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• A retrofit selection strategy employing economic and environmental decision criteria was proposed. • Building energy retrofits were evaluated through a life cycle thinking approach. • Retrofits with operational emissions savings may not be beneficial when considering life cycle impacts. • Energy mix and the heating system of the house greatly impact the effectiveness. • Retrofit selection changes with stakeholder priorities on environment and economics. Improving the energy performance of buildings has been a much-discussed topic over the past few decades. With the current focus on climate change mitigation, emissions reduction has also come to the forefront of this discussion. Retrofitting is an option to improve the energy and emissions performance of buildings. However, in the residential building stock, retrofit planning for existing buildings faces many complexities due to variations in climatic conditions and macro-environment as well as the presence of multiple stakeholder groups. Thus, in identifying solutions, it is necessary to take a holistic perspective that covers these different dimensions. In this paper, commonly used building energy retrofits were evaluated through a life cycle thinking approach. The performance of various retrofit options applicable for single family detached housing were evaluated using the HOT2000 energy simulation software package under the varying climatic conditions and energy supply scenarios across Canada. The retrofits were evaluated in terms of the additional investment, energy use and cost reduction achieved over the life cycle, and life cycle emissions reduction. The findings indicate that the provincial energy mix and the heating system of the house (i.e. electric or natural gas) play a major role in determining the effectiveness of a retrofit, and this "effectiveness" changes at different stakeholder levels. However, not all retrofits that reduce emissions make economic sense and vice versa when life cycle thinking comes into play. The findings will be useful for building owners and occupants as well as for policy developers and other decision makers interested in demand side management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]