Preliminary Performance Evaluation of a Near Zero Energy Home in ...
Preliminary Performance Evaluation of a Near Zero Energy Home in ...
Preliminary Performance Evaluation of a Near Zero Energy Home in ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Prescriptive Based Code Approval<br />
The site related construction techniques used <strong>in</strong> the Ga<strong>in</strong>esville NZEH prototype were all<br />
relatively conventional and did not alter code-related approvals. The solar electric (PV) and solar<br />
water heat<strong>in</strong>g modules and collectors were storm rated and the electrical <strong>in</strong>spection <strong>of</strong> the PV<br />
system was completed without difficulty.<br />
Neutral Cost Target<br />
As seen <strong>in</strong> Table A1, <strong>in</strong>cremental costs <strong>of</strong> improvements over regional standard practice are<br />
presented, along with the amortized annual cost. Incremental and amortized cost <strong>of</strong> rebates and<br />
<strong>in</strong>centives are also presented. As seen <strong>in</strong> the table, the total amortized <strong>in</strong>cremental cost to the<br />
buyer, not <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g PV, after rebates and <strong>in</strong>centives, is $591.32 per year. Total cost <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g<br />
PV is $1176.05 per year. Part <strong>of</strong> these costs were s<strong>of</strong>tened by hav<strong>in</strong>g supplier provide special<br />
price accommodation on the metal ro<strong>of</strong>, the AC system, tile, radiant barrier, HVAC and<br />
appliances.<br />
Table A2 presents the simulated source energy sav<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>of</strong> the Schackow NZEH compared to<br />
both the BA Benchmark and regional standard practice. The annual utility bill reduction <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Prototype with respect to the BA Benchmark is not shown <strong>in</strong> this table, for apply<strong>in</strong>g local utility<br />
rates charged to the homeowner to source energy numbers would appear to artificially <strong>in</strong>flate the<br />
sav<strong>in</strong>gs. Instead, Table A3 presents the simulated site energy sav<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>of</strong> the Schackow NZEH<br />
compared to both the BA Benchmark and regional standard practice. In this table, us<strong>in</strong>g the<br />
local utility rates <strong>of</strong> $0.12 per kWh and $1.72 per therm, the annual utility bill reduction <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Prototype with respect to the two references is shown by end use and <strong>in</strong> total. When total<br />
amortized <strong>in</strong>cremental cost <strong>of</strong> the Prototype over the regional standard practice, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g rebates<br />
and <strong>in</strong>centives, is subtracted from the utility bill reduction over this reference the result shows a<br />
net positive cash flow <strong>of</strong> $182.48 per year when the PV system is excluded from the analysis.<br />
When the PV system is <strong>in</strong>cluded, the result shows a negative cash flow <strong>of</strong> $30.05 per year.<br />
The 1772 sq. foot NZEH home sale price was $306,000. However, it must be said that the<br />
premium cost <strong>of</strong> the various components and equipment, likely add about $15-$20 /square foot<br />
to the f<strong>in</strong>al sales price– depend<strong>in</strong>g on whether special price accommodation is available as with<strong>in</strong><br />
our prototype project.