Comparative cost-benefit analysis of the energy efficiency measures and photovoltaic generation in houses of social interest in brazil

In order to calculate the financial return of energy efficiency measures, a cost–benefit analysis (CBA) is a proven tool for investors. Generally, however, most CBAs for investors have a narrow focus, which is—simply speaking—on investment costs compared with energy cost savings over the life span of the investment. This only provides part of the full picture. Ideally, a comprehensive or extended CBA would take additional benefits as well as additional costs into account. The objective of this paper is to reflect upon integrating into a CBA two important cost components: transaction costs and energy efficiency services—and how they interact. Even though this concept has not been carried out to the knowledge of the authors, we even go a step further to try to apply this idea. In so doing, we carried out a meta-analysis on relevant literature and existing data and interviewed a limited number of energy experts with comprehensive experience in carrying out energy services. Even though data is hardly available, we succeeded in constructing three real-world cases and applied an extended CBA making use of information gathered on transaction costs and energy services costs. We were able to show that, despite these additional cost components, the energy efficiency measures are economically viable. Quantitative data was not available on how energy services reduce transaction costs; more information on this aspect could render our results even more positive. Even though empirical and conceptual research must intensify efforts to design an even more comprehensive CBA, these first-of-its-kind findings can counterargue those that believe energy efficiency is not worth it (in monetary terms) due to transaction costs or energy services costs. In fact, this is good news for energy efficiency and for those that seek to make use of our findings to argue in favor of taking up energy efficiency investments in businesses.

Download Full-text

Cost-benefit analysis of nZEB energy efficiency strategies with on-site photovoltaic generation

Energy ◽

10.1016/j.energy.2017.03.158 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 128 ◽

pp. 291-301 ◽

Cited By ~ 12

Author(s):

Ergo Pikas ◽

Jarek Kurnitski ◽

Martin Thalfeldt ◽

Lauri Koskela

Keyword(s):

Energy Efficiency ◽

Cost Benefit Analysis ◽

Cost Benefit ◽

Benefit Analysis ◽

Photovoltaic Generation

Download Full-text

Developing a Methodology for Measuring the Comparative Energy Efficiency of Elevators

Volume 6A: Energy ◽

10.1115/imece2013-66663 ◽

2013 ◽

Author(s):

Jim Bos ◽

Robert Dell ◽

C. S. Wei ◽

William Foley

Keyword(s):

Energy Efficiency ◽

First Generation ◽

Cost Benefit Analysis ◽

Cost Benefit ◽

Energy Reduction ◽

Benefit Analysis ◽

Traffic Patterns ◽

Measurement Methodology

Existing elevator systems are upgraded approximately every 20 years, providing an opportunity for energy reduction upgrades. This demands complicated analysis because elevators consume energy while at idle and in lifting modes. Traffic patterns, loads and building usage must also be considered in addition to energy recovering potentials. An objective and inclusive measurement methodology for measuring elevator energy efficiency is essential for a valid cost benefit analysis. The necessary requirements for a workable system and a usable first generation solution are presented.

Download Full-text

Application and importance of cost-benefit analysis in energy efficiency projects implemented in public buildings: The case of Serbia

Thermal Science ◽

10.2298/tsci110911090m ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 16 (3) ◽

pp. 915-929 ◽

Cited By ~ 7

Author(s):

Marko Mihic ◽

Dejan Petrovic ◽

Aleksandar Vuckovic ◽

Vladimir Obradovic ◽

Dejan Djurovic

Keyword(s):

Energy Efficiency ◽

Cost Benefit Analysis ◽

Cost Benefit ◽

Economic Benefits ◽

Financial Resources ◽

Benefit Analysis ◽

Public Buildings ◽

Practical Test ◽

Effectiveness And Efficiency

The main objective of this paper is to present the advantages of using Cost-Benefit analysis in energy efficiency projects implemented in public buildings, and to prove the hypothesis that Cost-Benefit analysis boosts the effectiveness and efficiency of the said type of projects. The paper offers theoretical and practical explanation of the implementation of Cost-Benefit analysis in the relevant area. Since energy efficiency projects in public buildings usually represent a part of a broader portfolio of similar projects and their implementation demands allocation of substantial financial resources, communities are often be interested in achieving maximal economic and non-economic benefits. This paper aims to demonstrate that Cost-Benefit analysis can represent an excellent contribution when attempting to select the projects for implementation within a broader portfolio of energy efficiency projects in public buildings. This hypothesis was demonstrated by putting a greater emphasis on non-economic benefits and the costs arising from implementation of the aforementioned types of projects. In addition, a practical test of this hypothesis was performed through the implementation of an energy efficiency portfolio in public buildings, worth several tens of millions of dollars - the Serbian Energy Efficiency Project. The paper concludes that the use of Cost-Benefit analysis can help us to effectively evaluate and manage projects of this type aimed at achieving maximum benefits for the community in question.

Download Full-text

Comparative cost-benefit analysis of tele-homecare for community-dwelling elderly in Japan: Non-Government versus Government Supported Funding Models

International Journal of Medical Informatics ◽

10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2017.04.017 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 104 ◽

pp. 1-9 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Miki Akiyama ◽

Chon Abraham

Keyword(s):

Cost Benefit Analysis ◽

Cost Benefit ◽

Community Dwelling ◽

Benefit Analysis ◽

Comparative Cost

Download Full-text

Cost–benefit analysis of implementing minimum energy efficiency standards for household refrigerator-freezers in Malaysia

Energy Policy ◽

10.1016/s0301-4215(03)00169-1 ◽

2004 ◽

Vol 32 (16) ◽

pp. 1819-1824 ◽

Cited By ~ 38

Author(s):

T.M.I Mahlia ◽

H.H Masjuki ◽

R Saidur ◽

M.A Amalina

Keyword(s):

Energy Efficiency ◽

Cost Benefit Analysis ◽

Minimum Energy ◽

Cost Benefit ◽

Benefit Analysis ◽

Energy Efficiency Standards

Download Full-text

Cost-benefit analysis of energy efficiency in urban low-cost housing

Development Southern Africa ◽

10.1080/03768835022000019383 ◽

2002 ◽

Vol 19 (5) ◽

pp. 593-614 ◽

Cited By ~ 22

Author(s):

Harald Winkler ◽

Randall Spalding-Fecher ◽

Lwazikazi Tyani ◽

Khorommbi Matibe

Keyword(s):

Energy Efficiency ◽

Cost Benefit Analysis ◽

Low Cost ◽

Cost Benefit ◽

Benefit Analysis ◽

Low Cost Housing

Download Full-text

A comparative cost-benefit analysis of mobile and sedentary pastoral production systems in selected villages in Northern Tanzania.

Climate change impacts and sustainability: ecosystems of Tanzania ◽

10.1079/9781789242966.0059 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 59-98

Author(s):

Lucas E. Yamat ◽

Claude G. Mung'ong'o

Keyword(s):

Production System ◽

Null Hypothesis ◽

Production Systems ◽

Cost Benefit Analysis ◽

Cost Benefit ◽

Benefit Analysis ◽

Comparative Cost ◽

Pastoral Production ◽

To Come ◽

The One

Abstract Despite a growing body of evidence that highlights the economic, social and environmental benefits of mobile pastoralism, few governments are ready to tolerate mobility and many policy makers promote knowingly or inadvertently the policies of sedentarization. This production system seems not to be clearly understood by many and has been characterized as backward, environmentally destructive and economically unsustainable; and the view is that it should be replaced with more sedentary forms of livestock production or other beneficial land uses. The overriding question is whether sedentary livestock keeping is more productive and utilizes fewer resources and less space than the mobile pastoral system. This study carried out a comparative cost-benefit analysis of the two production systems in selected villages of Kiteto and Karatu districts. The aim was to come up with credible data to test this hypothesis. Two alternatives were compared in terms of their net present value (NPV) to test a null hypothesis. The alternative with an NPV greater than zero or higher than its alternative was accepted to be more viable compared with the one with an NPV less than zero or less than its alternative. Whenever the NPV of the sedentary production system in the analysis was shown to be greater than zero and/or greater than the NPV of the mobile pastoral production system the null hypothesis was accepted and vice versa. The study was conducted in Makame village of Kiteto District and Dofa village of Karatu District. Makame village represents a mobile pastoral production system while Dofa village represents a sedentary production system. The study employed a quantitative approach using a household survey in the two villages. The comparative cost-benefit analysis was carried out using monetary values derived from the livestock unit statistical approach. The findings have revealed that the average cost of maintaining a mobile pastoral and sedentary production systems are TSh90,096,333 and TSh112,295,200, respectively. The cost-benefit ratios are 1:0.5 for a mobile pastoral production system and 1:0.25 for the sedentary one.

Download Full-text