Life Cycle Optimization of Residential Air Conditioner Replacement

Ann Arbor GHG$676 $1,188 $1,188Ann Arbor Energy$2,361 $2,188 $1,341 $1,103San Antonio GHG$215 $823 $618$2,955San Antonio Energy$1,733 $2,052$3,091 $3,029 $1,9401985 1995 2005 2015 2025Figure 6.1: Incentive Level Required to Align Cost Schedule with Energy and GHGReplacement Schedules Assuming Base Case Efficiency ScenarioAnn Arbor GHG$289 $78 $1,189Ann Arbor Energy$2,361 $2,188 $2,346 $11San Antonio GHG$298$2,955$2,157 $588San Antonio Energy$2,455 $2,062 $2,052$3,060 $2,941 $2,4461985 1995 2005 2015 2025Figure 6.2: Incentive Level Required to Align Schedule Cost with Energy and GHGReplacement Schedules Assuming 16 SEER Efficiency ScenarioThe time between desired replacements has a significant effect on the magnitude of theincentives that are required to trigger replacement. The closer the replacement years are toone another, the larger the incentives must be to trigger a replacement. For instance, forcing asystem replacement after one year of use will require that the incentive be nearly as large as theentire cost of the new system. Consider the base case scenario, the total cost of the incentivesfor 4 replacements to optimize for energy in Ann Arbor is $6900 while the cost of 7replacements for San Antonio is $18,000. The more frequent replacement in the case of SanAntonio means more incentives are required and because they are closer together means theindividual incentives themselves must be larger.