A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
Environmental and Economic Analysis of Heating Solutions for Rural Residences in China
A spatial assessment is important to explore appropriate heating schemes for rural residences in China. Taking rural residences in six typical cities of China as the focus, four heating solutions, namely, coal-fired boiler heating systems (CBHS), wall-hung gas-fired boiler heating systems (GBHS), direct electric heating systems (DEHS), and air source heat pump systems (ASHPS), are compared and analyzed from the perspectives of primary energy consumption, environmental impact and heating costs. The results show that the primary energy consumption and the environmental impact can be significantly reduced by using solutions of GBHS and ASHPS in comparison with CBHS. DEHS has the most significant primary energy consumption and environmental impact and is less economical. The weighted environmental impact of GBHS is reduced by over 94% compared with that of CBHS, the weighted environmental impact of ASHPS is reduced by 8–23%, 35–39%, and 43–44% compared with that of CBHS for severe cold regions, cold regions, and hot-summer and cold-winter regions, respectively. The life cycle cost of GBHS is about 33% higher than that of CBHS for the six typical cities. The life cycle cost of ASHPS is about 33–57% higher than CBHS for severe cold regions, but not much difference or even less than CBHS for cold regions and hot-summer and cold-winter regions.
Environmental and Economic Analysis of Heating Solutions for Rural Residences in China
A spatial assessment is important to explore appropriate heating schemes for rural residences in China. Taking rural residences in six typical cities of China as the focus, four heating solutions, namely, coal-fired boiler heating systems (CBHS), wall-hung gas-fired boiler heating systems (GBHS), direct electric heating systems (DEHS), and air source heat pump systems (ASHPS), are compared and analyzed from the perspectives of primary energy consumption, environmental impact and heating costs. The results show that the primary energy consumption and the environmental impact can be significantly reduced by using solutions of GBHS and ASHPS in comparison with CBHS. DEHS has the most significant primary energy consumption and environmental impact and is less economical. The weighted environmental impact of GBHS is reduced by over 94% compared with that of CBHS, the weighted environmental impact of ASHPS is reduced by 8–23%, 35–39%, and 43–44% compared with that of CBHS for severe cold regions, cold regions, and hot-summer and cold-winter regions, respectively. The life cycle cost of GBHS is about 33% higher than that of CBHS for the six typical cities. The life cycle cost of ASHPS is about 33–57% higher than CBHS for severe cold regions, but not much difference or even less than CBHS for cold regions and hot-summer and cold-winter regions.
Environmental and Economic Analysis of Heating Solutions for Rural Residences in China
Zhenying Zhang (author) / Jiaqi Wang (author) / Meiyuan Yang (author) / Kai Gong (author) / Mei Yang (author)
2022
Article (Journal)
Electronic Resource
Unknown
Metadata by DOAJ is licensed under CC BY-SA 1.0
Heating and ventilating residences
| Engineering Index Backfile | 1896
Electrical heating of residences -- Summary
| Engineering Index Backfile | 1940
Electric heating of residences in Tacoma
Engineering Index Backfile | 1922
Fuel restriction and heating of residences
| Engineering Index Backfile | 1943