Toward Comprehensive Zero Energy Building Definitions: A Literature Review and Recommendations

International Journal of Sustainable Energy
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gsol20
Toward comprehensive zero energy

building definitions: a literature review and
recommendations
Javad Taherahmadi , Younes Noorollahi & Mostafa Panahi
To cite this article: Javad Taherahmadi , Younes Noorollahi & Mostafa Panahi (2020): Toward
comprehensive zero energy building definitions: a literature review and recommendations,
International Journal of Sustainable Energy, DOI: 10.1080/14786451.2020.1796664
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14786451.2020.1796664
Published online: 30 Jul 2020.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=gsol20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE ENERGY
https://doi.org/10.1080/14786451.2020.1796664
Toward comprehensive zero energy building definitions:

a literature review and recommendations
Javad Taherahmadia, Younes Noorollahi b,c
and Mostafa Panahia
a
Faculty of Natural Resources and Environment, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran;
b
Energy Modelling and Sustainable Energy Systems Research Lab. (METSAP), Faculty of New Sciences and
Technologies, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran; cDepartment of Renewable Energy and Environmental Engineering,
Faculty of New Sciences and Technologies, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Buildings are one of the most important emitters of CO2, causing climate Received 27 March 2020
change. This fact, together with the finiteness of conventional energy, Accepted 30 June 2020
results in the Zero Energy Building (ZEB) being future buildings.
KEYWORD
Although ZEB is a simple concept, but there is no valid universal Zero energy building
definition. This is one of the significant building’s energy systems definition; climate change;
challenges, which need to be appropriately addressed. Thisreview paper energy security; energy
is going to review and summarize existing definitions to address a policy making; passive
comprehensive definition of ZEB. The published articles were reviewed, design; embodied energy;
and the definitions of zero energy buildings were drawn out. Then the life cycle assessment
differences in the existing definitions were analysed. Finally, suggestions
are presented on suitable definitions from four perspectives, including
energy, carbon, exergy, and economics. This definition is used as a
standard communication by energy planners and policymakers to
facilitate their decision making on energy transition.
Highlights
. This review paper is going to review existing definitions to address a comprehensive definition of
ZEB.
. The scientific articles are reviewed, and zero energy building definitions are drawn out.
. The differences in the existing zero energy building definitions were analysed.
. Zero energy building is presented from four perspectives including energy, carbon, exergy, and
economics.
. Results are useful for planners and policymakers to facilitate their decision making on building’s
energy transition to the cleaner energy systems.
1. Introduction
Nowadays, the most critical issue which the world encounters is global warming due to high carbon
emissions (Yang et al. 2020). The progress of the world is associated with increasing to use energy-
related technologies and releasing more CO2 to the atmosphere. At the same time, the pressure
against the earth should decrease, so innovations should move toward low-carbon technologies
(Lyu, Shi, and Wang 2020; Saeidi, Noorollahi, and Esfahanian 2018). The energy transition toward
CONTACT Younes Noorollahi Noorollahi@ut.ac.ir

© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 J. TAHERAHMADI ET AL.
more sustainable energy systems based on individual measures is required to achieve this goal
(Eslami et al. 2019; Ram, Aghahosseini, and Breyer 2020).
Approximately 30% of the world’s final energy consumption in 2017 belonged to the building sec-
tor. Energy consumption in this sector has increased by 21% between 2000 and 2017 (IEA webstore
2018), that is a massive load on energy sources, economic circumstance and electricity systems
(Yousefi, Ghodusinejad, and Noorollahi 2017). Besides, the building sector was responsible for
39% of global CO2 emissions (IEA 2017).
Another concern in this sector is increasing energy demand due to rising the number of buildings
and also growing per capita energy demand because of people’s lifestyle changes, and even buildings
services are promoting (Abbasizade et al. 2020). According to the International Energy Outlook
(IEO) forecast, building energy consumption will increase by 42% by 2040, which will cause a severe
threat to energy security and greenhouse gas emissions (EIA 2016).
Researchers believe that the building sector is the best sector for reducing emissions dramatically,
and achieving a reduction in this sector needs an integrated design system which can lead to energy
performance improvement through suitable design solutions or devices (Mohammadi et al. 2017).
Assessments confirm that 30%–50% decrease in the amount of greenhouse gas emissions in this sec-
tor is possible by using available technologies (UNEP SBCI 2009). This shows that there is vast
potential to make energy-efficient buildings (Noorollahi et al. 2017), and Zero Energy Building
(ZEB) is one of the best possible ways to diminish energy consumption and the mitigation of
CO2 emissions in the buildings sector.
There are many terms which have been used by scientists to define the buildings with low energy
consumption and also with minimal impact on the environment, including passive house, fossil fuel-
free, 100% renewable, hybrid buildings, energy independent house, autonomous house, near-zero
energy, zero energy, zero net energy, net-zero energy house, energy plus, net-zero-carbon house, car-
bon-neutral, carbon-positive, net-zero energy emissions, climate neutral, climate positive, net-zero
source energy and net-zero energy costs (Berry, Davidson, and Saman 2014; Riedy, Lederwasch,
and Ison 2011).
While the concept of NZEB is accepted, the lack of an international and comprehensive definition
is felt. Reviewing articles that considered this issue in the past years shows that the ZEB is either not
well-defined or defined differently. Today, there is an international agreement on this subject that
presenting a common understanding for this building concept is vital (D’Agostino and Mazzarella
2019; Pernetti et al. 2019). Many papers have presented several definitions for Zero Energy Building
from different points of view with diverse calculation methods, and this issue makes introducing a
unique description more complex. The big question is, why, while the concept of these buildings is
clear, there is still no particular consensus on their definition?
Based on the boundary and method, ZEB can be defined in several different ways, which can
depict various aspects of it. Definitions were promoted depend on profits, interests, attitudes, and
other targets of individuals. For instance, governments are worried about energy consumption
and primary energy source scarcity since they are responsible for meeting energy demand in the
society. Besides, the owners of the building are interested in paying lower costs for energy. Building
designers are also concerned with building energy codes and may be interested in site energy.
Additionally, from environmentalist’s point of view, decreasing fossil fuel consumption can lead
to reducing greenhouse gases emission (Wells, Rismanchi, and Aye 2018).
The concept of ZEB can also be different, even based on regional policies. For example, European
countries are concerned about climate change and environmental issues, therefore carbon neutral
and zero-carbon building definitions are used mostly. However, the US is more willing to focus
on energy instead of climate change concerns, and its policies are more about energy than the
environment. Furthermore, some differences may be due to more coordination of some definitions
with supervisory approaches in an area or the ease of computation for a particular group (Riedy,
Lederwasch, and Ison 2011). Commercial definitions mostly are not completed, and they are for
business purposes. For example, energy-inefficient buildings are given a ZEB title just because of
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE ENERGY 3
the use of oversized photovoltaic systems. Also, in the balance of these definitions, only the thermal
or electrical requirements are calculated. Therefore, such definitions cannot be accepted, and they are
a basis for some particular policies (Liu et al. 2019c).
The number of researches in designing ZEBs is increasing, and thus a methodology for calculation
and design is required. By increasing the number of projects and presenting different ideas via pub-
lished papers, a standard view is emerging that before being fully implemented in the national build-
ing codes and international standards, a clear and complete definition for ZEB is required to support
calculation methodology for different elements including metrics, criteria, and boundaries. All
involved profession in this process should try to facilitate achieving the goal of designing ZEB in
a way which is economically feasible, environmentally friendly, and architecturally beautiful and
has a relaxing and healthy environment for residents. For instance one of the main activities toward
this goal which has been repeatedly mentioned in various articles is, the International Energy Agency
(IEA) joint Solar Heating and Cooling (SHC) Task 40 and Energy Conservation in Buildings and
Community Systems (ECBCS) Annex 52 titled ‘Towards Net-zero Energy Solar Buildings’ that is
making an international effort on the standardisation of the Net-zero Energy Building definition
(Ayoub 2011). The primary purpose of the Task is developing a comprehensive and unique
definition, an international framework, specialised tools, new measures, and industrial codes.
This paper is organised as follows: The activities of different countries in zero energy buildings
issues are considered in section 2. Section 3 is dedicated to the literature review of ZEB definition,
which is consists of two parts: The essential points in ZEB definition and the main criteria in defining
ZEB. Four main definitions of ZEBs are discussed in section 4, and finally, section 5 presents the
results and concluding remarks.
2. The global direction toward zero energy buildings

The number of ZEB projects is increasing in national, regional, and global levels because this issue
has been highlighted recently. Therefore, the need for a universal, acceptable, and compatible frame-
work that considers all aspects of net ZEB is felt. Furthermore, this framework should be able to
apply for different political goals in each country. Making a decision at the national level is different
for each country. Numerous policies and ideas in this field had been presented by a lot of researchers,
organisations, and associations in different countries.
In general, the global movement towards energy-efficient and zero energy buildings can be
divided into three phases, which are presented in Table 1.
After the international oil crisis in the late 1970s and starting discussion about fossil fuel
resources, in the early eighties, concepts of ‘zero energy house’, ‘natural energy-autonomous
house’ or ‘energy independent house’ appeared in some research works (Yousefi et al. 2019). How-
ever, their focus was on improving energy efficiency by using new technologies and passive
approaches in the buildings (Marszal and Heiselberg 2009). When those concepts were introduced,
the amount of heating energy demand in buildings (space heating and hot water) was enormous. In
the earliest publications, ‘zero energy building’ referred to heating energy demand, and scientists
tried just to decrease this part of energy demand (Noorollahi et al. 2019). Therefore, the first
researches in the concept of the Zero Energy Building were related to efforts to make zero heating
energy demand by using solar energy. For instance, MIT Solar House was created in 1939 (Kapstein,
Butti, and Perlin 1980), or Bliss House in 1955 (1955). Also, in the 1970s, Vagn Korsgaard Zero
Energy Home in Denmark was built (Esbensen and Korsgaard 1977), and another example is related
to the Saskatchewan Conservation House (Besant, Dumont, and Schoenau 1979). The primary pur-
pose of all the mentioned houses was constructing zero or near zero heating houses by using solar
energy and sound insulation.
In the early 2000s, while energy efficiency in buildings improved, electricity consumption in the
building sector has increased. At the same time, fossil fuels have been recognised as a significant
contributor to global warming and lost popularity in society (Pöldmäe, Hasan, and Alanne 2011).
Table 1. Three phases of the global movement towards ZEB.

Condition Location References
First Increasing the heating energy efficiency Past conditions of developed (Besant, Dumont, and Schoenau 1979;
Phase of the building and introducing countries and recent Bliss 1955; Kapstein, Butti, and Perlin
optional codes in building conditions of developing 1980; Esbensen and Korsgaard 1977;
construction countries Marszal and Heiselberg 2009)
Second Generating the required energy from Recent condition of (Attia et al.2017; Edmondson, Rogge, and
Phase onsite renewable energy resources developed countries and Kern 2020; Hu and Qiu 2019; Iwaro and
and setting a precise date to reach the future of developing Mwasha 2010; NetZero Energy House
the ZEB target countries Coalition)
Third Applying mandatory codes and also Recent condition of leading (Bruni and Sarto 2013; Pastore and
Phase specific standard and certificate for countries Andersen 2019; Rastogi et al. 2017;
Green buildings Sewell, Jack, and Fraser 2019)
Due to this issue, Net-zero Energy Building (NZEB) was defined as ‘no fossil fuel are consumed,
and annual electricity usage equals annual electricity production’ by Iqbal (Iqbal 2004). Over time,
different definitions were introduced for NZEB based on the world’s issues and the importance of
them. In the late 2000s, concepts like renewable energy, exergy, optimisation, embodied energy,
indoor climate, and two-directional grid connection were added to definitions (Torcellini et al.
2006).
Although developed countries have taken significant steps to achieve the ZEB target, some devel-
oping countries tried not to be left behind in this way by producing mandatory or voluntary building
energy codes, which can be useful to build high energy-efficient buildings with a little carbon emis-
sion. For example, Iran, by establishing mandatory law titled (chapter 19 of National Building Regu-
lations of Iran: saving energy in the building), has attempted to minimise energy consumption in the
building by using proper insulations and passive design (Khalaji et al. 2010).
In the second phase, lots of developed and some developing countries legislated the rules for
energy or greenhouse gas emission performance in the building sector (Iwaro and Mwasha 2010).
Janda designed a survey for building energy codes in 2008 and conduct it for 80 countries (Janda
1994). The result showed that applying national codes for 39 states is mandatory, and this condition
is voluntary for 20 more countries, and other countries do not have any energy code for buildings.
Also, Buildings Performance Institute Europe provided the list of optional and mandatory building
energy codes in Europe in 2011 and that looking for the potential of near-zero energy building or low
carbon emission building based on different building codes in countries (Buildings Performance
Institute Europe 2011).
The building energy policy in EU is moving toward sustainable buildings; thus in the recast of the
EU Directive on Energy Performance of Buildings (EPBD), which is mentioned in many articles, it is
specified that after 2018 all public buildings and also by the end of 2020 all of the new buildings
should be nearly zero energy (Directive 2010). Definition and targets of the 2010 revision of the
EU Energy in Buildings Performance Directives is according to the following: ‘From policymaker’s
point of view, the energy performance of a nearly zero energy building is excellent, and the remaining
amount of energy should be provided by onsite or nearby renewable sources.’ Therefore, all of the
nations in the EU should take action to increase the number of these buildings according to their
targets and plans in the building sector.
While governments were obliged to develop and report a road map for NZEBs in detail, just Den-
mark reported its comprehensive plan to the EU Commission until 2013. So Buildings Performance
Institute of Europe started to clarify different approaches according to the national building codes to
make moving toward NZEBs easier (Buildings Performance Institute Europe 2013). In Finland,
building codes have been promoted by adding energy factors, which are known as D3-2012 and
D5- 2012 codes, and these codes are mandatory for any new buildings. Another positive measure
of Finland is using biomass as an accessible and cost-effective fuel source for small-scale biomass-
based combined heat and power (CHP) systems, which can be used in NZEBs. One of the most
important reasons for this choice in Finland is that the amount of wood is high, and another reason
can be attributed to the fact that this decision can decrease dependency on onsite solar energy
(Mohamed, Hasan, and Sirén 2014).
Attia et al., Examined the performance of seven European countries, including Cyprus, France,
Greece, Italy, Portugal, Romania and Spain, on the path to achieving the goal of nearly Zero Energy
Buildings (nZEB) until 2017 (Attia et al.2017). It was found that the Northern member of the Euro-
pean Union managed to develop or adapt concepts, definitions and construction technologies of
NZEB. While, Southern member was still trying to find adequate solutions taking into account
the local climate and local cultural, social, technical and economic context.
The zero-carbon policy was applied by the UK in 2006 to move toward sustainable energy build-
ings until 2016. Although this policy was just for new buildings and the number of new buildings is
roughly 1% of total buildings in the UK, but the British government failed to achieve this goal fully,
and this has been the subject of numerous articles (Edmondson, Rogge, and Kern 2020).
In the USA, The California Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresiden-
tial Buildings, also called California Title 24, has set targets for the development of zero net energy
buildings. All new residential buildings will be zero net energy by 2020, all new commercial buildings
will be zero net energy by 2030, 50% of commercial constructions will be retrofit to ZNE by 2030, and
50% of new significant renovations of state buildings will be ZNE by 2025 (Hu and Qiu 2019). These
goals in the USA could be established by other countries, which could be a sufficient stimulus to
achieve the purpose of zero-energy buildings in the coming years.
In the early 1990s, in Canada, the government started to develop low energy homes to decrease
building energy consumption by 75%. This goal was achieved by improving the envelope of buildings
to reduce thermal losses and using solar thermal and PV systems. This programme is known as the
Advanced House Program (AHP). It can be said the purpose of AHP like other programmes in that
decade, has been based on the idea ‘decrease heat supply at any cost’ (Mayo and Sinha 1996).
Another right action in Canada was creating Net-zero Energy Home Coalition in 2004, which is a
non-governmental institute to make all of the new buildings as NZEBs by 2030 (NetZero Energy
House Coalition).
Australian policymakers try to reduce the amount of emitted greenhouse gases from the domestic
sector by introducing a pathway to net-zero-carbon buildings until 2020 (Department of Climate
Change and Energy Efficiency 2010).
Among Asian countries, Japan and China are perhaps the most advanced countries in terms of
access to zero energy buildings. In 2014, Japan’s central cabinet adopted an energy policy to boost
zero energy targets for all new public buildings by 2020 and all new residential buildings by 2030
(IEA 2017). In China, although efforts to build zero-energy buildings are currently individual and
voluntary, and there are no mandatory building codes, the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural
Development (MOHURD) has developed a long-term plan to improve energy efficiency in buildings
to achieve a total energy efficiency of 82% in residential buildings and 79% in commercial buildings
by 2030, compared to the primary performance of the 1980s, and the Net-zero energy building
becomes a vital component (Zhang et al. 2016).
As the third phase, some leading countries even defined special certificates for ZEB. For instance,
a pilot certification of ZEBs is determined by the technical support of the Builders Association of
Milan (Italy) and with the scientific cooperation of Politecnico di Milano University. The quality
of the certification is high since it is based on the Italian standard EN 45011 (Bruni and Sarto 2013).
The MINERGIE Standard is a national energy building code in Switzerland. A building that is
made based on the MINERGIE standard should be well insulated and would use energy-efficient
ventilation systems and the highest possible renewable energy consumption. After the ‘basic’ label
of MINERGIE, the MINERGIE -P standard was introduced, which indicated lower energy consump-
tion and higher thermal comfort fit. After that, the MINERGIE -A standard was introduced, which
focused on the greater use of photovoltaic systems and load management to increase quality and
comfort requirements (Pastore and Andersen 2019).
The United States Green Building Council developed the most famous and practical green build-
ing certification in the U.S., which is called the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
(LEED). Since the launch of LEED in 2000, various LEED versions have been introduced with
more precise stability parameters. The latest version of LEED is version 4.1 (v4.1), which surrogate
all older versions (2009). LEED compliance is also on the rise outside the United States, and LEED
has become somewhat customised and used in many countries around the world (Rastogi et al.
2017).
Other examples of green building certifications include: The BREEAM (Building Research Estab-
lishment Environmental Assessment Method) for the United Kingdom (BREEAM; Sewell, Jack, and
Fraser 2019), Green Star Certification of Green Building Council of Australia, The BEAM (Building
Environmental Assessment Method) for the Hong Kong and G-SEED (Green Standard for Energy
and Environmental Design) which is South Korea Green Building Certification System (Lee and
Shepley 2019)
With all the efforts made in this direction, lack of international and unique definition is still
sensed since there is no clear understanding for users in different countries, which can be useful
to make policies based on national goals.
3. Literature review of ZEB definition

There are lots of articles that try to define ZEBs in the best way. Also, by literature review, it can be
understood that many papers considered existing definitions from different aspects. In this part, the
main sections of these articles have been reviewed.
3.1. The essential points in ZEB definition and the problems they are facing
The general fundamental point in defining and designing ZEB, which is mentioned in most articles,
is two steps (Hoseinzadeh et al. 2019; Moran, O’Connell, and Goggins 2020). The priority for ZEB is
improving energy efficiency to reduce energy demand in buildings, and the second step is using
renewable energy sources based on its availability in the location of the building. Energy conserva-
tion measures include thermal insulation of envelope and using high-performance windows. When
energy demand for a building reduced as much as possible, remained energy demand should be sup-
plied by renewable energy resources.
Studies in the US confirmed that if building energy consumption reduces to 60%, the remained
amount of energy demand will be supplied by photovoltaic systems installed on the roof of the building
(Griffith et al. 2007). In general, it can be said, saving energy is always more accessible and more afford-
able than producing electricity from renewable resources. To achieving energy efficiency improve-
ments as the first step in constructing ZEB, in addition to thermal insulation and windows
replacement, passive strategies in designing and also high-efficiency building components and devices
should be carefully considered. Some passive strategies are added in the design step without any
additional cost, such as analysing building orientation, layout, and massing, to reduce the amount
of building thermal loads. Building orientation and distinctive shape designing to using maximum
solar thermal energy and natural ventilation are between the main passive methods. The problem
of these practical and useful methods is, in urban areas, the prices of land are too high, and the designer
should use all spaces carefully. As a result, most of the studies which studied ZEBs, consider Villa build-
ings in rural areas and countryside, which there are fewer spatial constraints for design (Futcher et al.
2017; Hui 2001). On the other side, usually, the cost of high-efficiency building components is higher
than standard-efficiency equivalents. Therefore, designers must assess energy-efficiency strategies pre-
cisely by preventing additional capital costs (Pallis et al. 2019a, 2019b).
As mentioned earlier, the second step is generating electricity as well as thermal energy by renew-
able energy resources to get enough credits to achieve the balance (Farabi-Asl et al. 2018). There are
also barriers to achieving the second stage. First of all, building energy demand is highly dependent
on climate (D’Amico et al. 2019), and the potential of renewable energy is not the same in all climate
zones and latitudes (Liu et al. 2019b). Also, the efficiency of renewable energy technologies has a
direct impact on output energy (Liu et al. 2019a). Additionally, the roof or facade area is a critical
criterion for installing solar technologies, and this option is not accessible for all of the buildings
based on building type and urban design (Li et al. 2020). Thus, applying some renewable energy
equipment for onsite energy production is not possible or cost-effective in some areas, especially
in crowded cities, because of the limitation in space (Jurasz, Dąbek, and Campana 2020). This
can be seen as a second reason for the interest of designers and researchers in designing zero energy
buildings in the form of the summer house and rural areas because they can use inexpensive spaces
around buildings to install solar panels or wind turbines.
One of the reasons for investors’ unwillingness to invest in ZEBs in some countries (especially
developing countries) is the low cost of energy carriers. Because constructing ZEBs by expensive
renewable resources in such circumstances is not cost-effective (Foster et al. 2017). So, the suggested
solution for solving this problem is subsidising by the government to this goal (Espa and Marín
Durán 2020). The government of Japan, for example, has paid 50% of the installed photovoltaic
panels cost as a subsidy since 1994. This has led people to install solar panels, and Japan is considered
one of the pioneers in the development of ZEB (Charron 2005).
Another problem of producing energy in ZEB is the effect of that on quality in today’s power grid
structures. It has been proven that distributed generation in broad scales may cause some problems
such as power stability at the local grid level (Deshpande and Raviprakasha 2019; Razavi et al. 2019).
As a result, ZEB’s designers should pay more attention to this issue to don’t put additional stress on
the grids. To maximise the use of distributed generation, smart cities are expanding (Sepehr et al.
2018). Developing smart cities is highly beneficial for distributed generation to reduce carbon emis-
sion, operational costs, and the grid’s primary energy (Kylili and Fokaides 2015).
One of the other notable points that can have a significant impact on the design of ZEB is the
existence of different energy grids infrastructures in different countries and regions. For example,
in many countries, there is no district heating infrastructure (Hawkey, Webb, and Winskel 2013).
In this situation, it’s not possible to sell the surplus produced hot water in buildings (Advanced Dis-
trict Heating and Cooling (DHC) Systems 2016). As a result, most of the definitions focus on elec-
trical power generation in ZEBs (Marszal and Heiselberg 2009). Thus, a national definition for ZEB
based on specific circumstances is required for each country. The strategies for achieving the goals of
ZEB, as well as the barriers to achieving them, are summarised in Table 2.
It is expected that, shortly, not only the efficiency of the renewable technologies will rise but also
the prices will be decreased (Østergaard et al. 2020), and as a result, many challenges will be elimi-
nated on the path to zero energy buildings.
3.2. Main criteria in defining ZEB

Various boundaries must be specified before defining a ZEB. In this section, these indexes, which
have been studied in several papers, have been considered. An evaluation of the gap between building
energy calculation approaches for NZEB design and national energy building codes in Austria,
Canada, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Norway, Switzerland, and the USA is assessed by Marszal
et al. (2016). This study shows the energy balance in the most NZEB definition means the balance
between building energy usage and renewable energy generation. Although energy balance in most
countries is calculated annually, in the second Germany approach, the monthly balance is used.
Besides, energy balance approaches are not the same, and it differs by the kind of energy use or
the unit of energy balance. In some countries such as the US, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Germany,
Norway, and Switzerland, the energy balance is based on building energy demand (HVAC, lighting,
etc.) as well as energy consumption related to residents (appliances). The approach evaluation
confirmed that the primary energy balance is the most favourable method. However, other
Table 2. Strategies and barriers in the way of ZEBs.

Steps Strategy Obstacle Reference
First Step: Passive methods like building Prices of land are too (Futcher et al. 2017; Hui 2001)
Decreasing orientation and special shape expensive, and the designer
energy designing should use all spaces carefully
demand Using high-efficiency building The high price (Pallis et al. 2019a, 2019b)
components
Second step: ————— Climate and location (D’Amico et al. 2019; Liu et al.
Renewable dependency 2019b)
energy Using renewable energy equipment Lack of space on the roof or (Jurasz, Dąbek, and Campana 2020;
generation facade to install equipment Li et al. 2020)
————— Low cost of fossil fuels (Espa and Marín Durán 2020; Foster
et al. 2017)
Distributed generation and power Adding stress to the power (Deshpande and Raviprakasha 2019;
grid connection grid Razavi et al. 2019)
Sell the surplus produced hot water Absence of district heating (Hawkey, Webb, and Winskel 2013;
from solar water heaters in infrastructure Advanced District Heating and
buildings to heating infrastructure Cooling (DHC) Systems 2016)
approaches, such as delivered energy, energy cost, or CO2 emission, are used. Moreover, energy bal-
ance in some countries, such as the US and Germany, includes more than one unit.
In 2008, actual data measured from a real house in southeast Queensland had been evaluating by
Miller and Buys (2012). The key goals in the design of this house were improving the thermal
efficiency of building envelope, reducing energy demand, and using low carbon energy resources
for energy supply. It is mentioned, ‘A common definition of ZEB must reflect accounting variations
in what is being measured, such as energy, cost, carbon emission, and electricity.’ The definition also
must cover the forms of energy services such as electric and gas services in the demand side and some
information about boundaries of energy supply (primary resources or end-use energy). Therefore, it
is essential to identify the principal and significant indicators in defining ZEBs.
Deng et al. introduced an overview of the definition and evaluation of NZEB (Deng, Wang, and
Dai 2014). In this paper, a widely-accepted NZEB definition presented as a framework with diverse
levels of criteria, boundary, metric, etc. Based on factors such as climate, lifestyle, and economic,
definitions can be expressed at different levels of indicators. Thus, the definition of NZEB should
be expressed in a way that is accepted by more participators. Although the elements of the definition
are limited in appearance, the difference of the NZEB definitions will undoubtedly have a direct
impact on the evaluation results. Therefore, clarification of the NZEB definition can effectively
increase the efficiency of evaluation.
Federation of European Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning Associations (REHVA) Task
Force introduce a definition for NZEB, which is technical and necessary to implement the energy
performance of buildings directive (EPBD). The main goal of the Task Force is to help the scientists
and experts in the Member States to represent a uniform definition for nearly ZEB. This technical
definition was introduced by Kurnitski et al. (2011), which mentions for proposing a unified
definition, some requirements must be considered:
– Which energy flows shall be included

– The use of primary energy factors for a primary energy indicator
– System boundary definition with the inclusion of active solar and wind
– The technical meaning of ‘nearby’ in EPBD recast so that it may mean existing district heating or
cooling network or any other technical system serving a group of buildings.
Riedy et al. introduced nine key points between different ZEB definitions (Riedy, Lederwasch, and
Ison 2011):
– The boundary of the life cycle: What criteria does the definition include or exclude? For instance,
does it include embodied energy usage or operational energy use?
– Evaluating approaches and dimensions: what is the focus of the definition? energy or CO2 emis-
sions? Which approach is applied for calculating its impact?
– Time: What time is used for evaluating the building energy supply and demand?
– Connection to the grid: Is the building definition based on off-grid or on-grid?
– Sectoral differences: Is there any difference between the definitions of a commercial or residential
building?
– The kind of building: Is there any difference between the definition for a single house or apartment?
What about new buildings or existing ones?
– Spatial boundary: are the neighbourhoods included in the definition, or it only focuses on the
building?
– Allowable emission reduction options: Does the definition place limits on permissible ways of
reducing energy use or greenhouse gas emissions? For example, can credit be claimed for green
power, carbon offsets, or other off-site emission reductions?
– Conditional requirements: Does the definition consider other options such as energy performance
or comfort codes?
Evaluation of different criteria and paying attention to the available options is one of the most
common, formal, and comprehensive methodology for NZEB definition. Sartori et al. defined five
criteria (Sartori et al. 2010):
1. Boundary criteria, which should answer four crucial questions, including: Is the definition of a
single building or multifamily building? What type of building is it? The building is located in
what climate zone? What comfort standard is used in the location?
2. Crediting criteria, which should determine credit standards and credit accounting.
3. Net-zero Balance, which specifies, selecting the balancing loads, selecting period, energy perform-
ance, and energy supply system.
4. Designing NZEBs to work well with the grids and do not increase stress on the power grid.
5. Monitoring Method (Is this definition based solely on design data and simulations, or is it an
effective monitoring method for checking balance?)
Marszal and Heiselberg introduced six main topics for evaluating ZEB definitions (Marszal and
Heiselberg 2009), which are included:
1. The energy that has been investigated: energy demand in buildings includes thermal demand for
heating and cooling as well as electricity demand for appliances and lighting. However, the
majority of studies focus on one part.
2. Different options to supply energy: many papers divide ZEBs to off-grid and on-grid. The off-grid
ZEB cannot purchase electricity from the utility grid, while this option is possible for on-grid
ZEBs when it is required.
3. Single or collection: If one building can be ZEB, creating a zero energy city or community will be
possible by combining and multiplying ZEBs. Therefore, it should be determined whether the
definition of a ZEB should be individually or as a group of buildings? also, the definition of
the zero-energy community must be specified.
4. The kind of building: Although there is no difference between residential and non-residential
ZEB definitions literature, the ZEB definition can be distinguished based on building type.
5. How to use renewable energy sources: A comprehensive ZEB definition should indicate that
renewable energy sources are onsite supply or off-site supply.
6. Use different renewable sources: The independence of fossil fuels is the main issue of ZEB, so all
of the energy demand should be met by renewable energy such as PV, solar thermal, wind, wave,
or biomass.
Marszal et al. completed their research with emphasise on reviewing the existing ZEB definitions
and different methodologies for ZEB calculation (Marszal et al. 2011) and finally, conclude that:
The most important issues that should be given special attention before developing a new ZEB definition are:
(1) the metric of the balance, (2) the balancing period, (3) the type of energy use included in the balance, (4) the
type of energy balance, (5) the accepted renewable energy supply options, (6) the connection to the energy
infrastructure and (7) the requirements for the energy efficiency, the indoor climate and in case of gird con-
nected ZEB for the building–grid interaction.
As considered in the references above, various boundaries can play a role in the definition of ZEB
that the selection of each of these indicators can have a significant impact on the results. According
to the stated contents, the route of defining ZEB was divided into six stages, which are presented in
order of importance in Table 3. In this classification, due to its repetition and significance, the indices
are divided into two main and sub-categories.
One of the most severe issues neglected in ZEB definitions is indoor environment quality. There is
a strong relationship between human health and thermal comfort. Bad thermal condition in a build-
ing has adverse effects on individual’s efficiency, and also it is likely to increase the rate of mortality
and morbidity (Bi et al. 2011; Bi and Saniotis 2009; Hansen et al. 2008; Vaneckova et al. 2008).
The values of the comfort zone will be different by location, climate, building type, and local
building codes. Introducing guidance or standard to choose values according to the different con-
ditions can be a good measure. The main criteria for improving the quality of the indoor environ-
ment are as follows: temperature, humidity, fresh air, daylight, and enough artificial light and using
healthy materials for acoustic goals (Marszal et al. 2011).
Although, the comfort zone is defined in different ways (Nguyen and Reiter 2014), using the same
value for indoor environment quality is highly beneficial since, in this way, it is easier to compare
ZEBs in different locations around the world. Besides, presenting detailed criteria in the definition
could impress its understanding and limit its advantages. The ASHRAE standard states that
under stable conditions, humans cannot physiologically adapt to warmer or colder environments
so that we can have the same range of comfort zone worldwide (Handbook 2009).
Regardless, due to the differing standards of welfare and thermal comfort of buildings in different
parts of the world, at present, the best way to reduce the complexity of the definition is to state in the
definition of ZEBs that buildings must have at least minimum welfare standards following the laws of
the country in question.
4. Discussion (Four main definitions of ZEBs)

There is no doubt in the complexity of zero energy building concept because of numerous existing
methods that focus on varied aspects of ZEB. As explained in the previous section, a ZEB definition
can be affected by project aims, investor’s intention, energy cost, and the importance of greenhouse
gas emissions and climate change impacts. Therefore, the first step to introduce a comprehensive and
Table 3. Essential Indicators in defining zero energy buildings.

Step Indicator
Main 1st Dimensions (Energy, Environment)
2nd Period (month, year or life cycle)
3rd Connection to the grid (off grid/on grid)
Subsidiary 4th comfort codes
5th The spatial boundary in using renewable energy resources (onsite supply or off-site supply)
6th Type of building use (commercial /residential, single building/ multifamily building)
practical definition is creating a collection of different approaches to define and calculate energy
associated with ZEB since the methods are very different around the world. In this section, it has
been attempted to introduce the most significant existing definitions of ZEB in various papers
(Østergaard et al. 2020).
Berry et al., published one of the most comprehensive review papers on the Net ZEB and Net-
zero-carbon Building (NZCB) definition based on different boundaries mentioned by different
research groups (Berry, Davidson, and Saman 2014). It’s suggested that: Each useful definition of
NZEBs or NZCB to establish building codes should notice critical criteria and limitations. An impor-
tant issue that has not been addressed is the relationship between boundary issues and building per-
formance laws. The paper’s results confirmed that a ZEB definition must have three main features.
First of all, the definition must be expressed in such a way which allows the performance outgrowth
to be quantified. Secondly, verification approaches should be clear, simple, and cost-effective as much
as possible. Finally, the performance of the building should be certifiable by a responsible person.
Sartori et al. offered a consonant framework for setting NZEB definitions (Sartori, Napolitano,
and Voss 2012). In this reference, the author believes that a typical character for NZEB definitions
in the given context is creating a balance between energy demand and supply according to different
weights. Also, the author presents three types of balance for defining NZEB. It is mentioned, regard-
ing available quantities and interests, diverse methods can be used for balance. The central feature of
a definition is balanced, and there are two influential kinds of balance, including the import/export
balance and the load/generation balance.
The import/export balance method applies in design or monitoring to estimate the self-consump-
tion, emphasises on the energy transfer between the building and the grid. While the focus of a sim-
pler load/generation balance is on the gross load and generation values without paying attention to
their interplay, the approach is usable in the design step when the figures of self-consumption are not
accessible. Another kind of balance is the monthly net balance, which can be considered as a mixture
of two other balances. For instance, monthly generation and load balance must be considered for
each energy carrier, and there is an assumption in the method that the gross load and generation
quantities balance each other, and only the monthly remaining values are added to find annual
figures. Choosing a properly balanced approach regarding metrics and weighting systems depends
on political targets as well as the investment cost and feasibility of Net ZEB projects. In other
words, choosing a balance system should be based on integration and a set of goals.
Torcellini et al., in one of the primary references of ZEB definition, considered four commonly
used definitions as a function of the balance metrics and pointed out the advantages and disadvan-
tages of each definition (Torcellini et al. 2006). These definitions, which are stated below, are incor-
rectly assumed to be interchangeable, but in fact, they are different.
Net-zero site energy: A site ZEB produces as much energy as its annual consumption when
accounted for at the site. The negative point of this definition is that the values of different fuels
are not considered at the source, and the positive aspect is that external fluctuations are few in
the definition, and this point makes the definition more consistent.
Net-zero energy source: Energy supply of a source ZEB is at least as much energy as its energy
demand in a year when accounted for at the source. Imported and exported energy is considered by
the appropriate site-to-source conversion multipliers to calculate a building’s total source energy. For
this calculation, power transmission and generation factors are required. Although the use of this
definition due to the application of conversion coefficients is more complicated than the first
definition, the result will be much more accurate without a doubt.
Net-zero energy costs: In this definition, the income of building owner from export energy from a
ZEB to the grid is at least equal to the amount of money paid for energy bills by the owner in a yearly.
In summary, the cost of ZEB includes a financial credit for energy export and utility bills that these
two values must be equal.
Net-zero emissions: A net-zero emissions building produces at least as much emissions-free
renewable energy as it uses from emissions-producing energy sources. Maybe it can be said, the
Figure 1. Classification of ZEBs Definitions.
two most common definitions in articles are ‘net-zero site energy’ and ‘net-zero source energy’. The
meaning of Net-zero site energy is that annual energy production in the site and annual energy
demand are similar, and these values are independent of energy production or utilisation. In the
definition of ‘net-zero energy source,’ calculation for energy export and import is done by a primary
energy conversion factor, which can be useful to create flexibility in the heating fuel usage. For
instance, if the primary electricity factor is higher than other heating fuels factor and a building
sells electricity to the utility companies, the allowed amount of heating fuel will be more significant
because of its smaller primary energy factor.
Regarding literature on this subject, there is no definite understanding of what ‘zero’ is equal to in
the definition. This issue has been widely discussed in numerous publications, as considered in the
literature review of this paper and is presented in Table 3 as the first index in the definition of ZEB.
However, this is recognised that the ‘zero’ should be referred to the energy, the CO2 emissions, the
exergy, and the energy costs, as shown in Figure 1.
Developing a framework to define net-zero energy and net-zero-carbon buildings has made a lot
of progress over the past decade since zero energy, and zero-carbon definitions are more used in
articles. With increasing energy prices in recent years, scientists paid more attention to the exergy
and cost of energy in the buildings and tried to define zero exergy and zero cost buildings. In this
part, different aspects of subjects that have the leading role in defining zero energy building will
be considered. In the following, these definitions are discussed separately.
4.1. Zero energy

The ZEB is a general term and can include independent buildings too. It can be said that, at the
beginning of the research way toward low-energy houses, most studies were limited to off-grid
buildings known as autonomous or independent zero energy buildings. In the best situation, an
autonomous ZEB produces onsite renewable energy equal to or more than its annual energy demand
(Torcellini et al. 2006). In the ASHRAE’s standard, a ZEB is a building which it’s energy usage is not
more than its onsite renewable energy generation (Kilkis 2007). Furthermore, ZEBs are known as
buildings that are not dependent on fossil fuels, and different renewable energy sources supply all
of their energy demand. While the definition seems clear, more agreements for a standard and inter-
national definition are required (Laustsen 2008).
Since independent ZEBs are not connected to the power grid, they require using of energy storage
equipment such as batteries. This issue increased investment and maintenance costs dramatically.
On the other hand, it is not possible to sell the generated surplus energy in the building to the
grid. As a result, these types of buildings are more affordable in distant areas that are far away
from energy grids. Generally, the off-grid and independent ZEBs could not attract international
attention and were applied as a step to move toward on-grid ZEBs (Vale and Vale 2000; Voss 2008).
The ZEB term can also be used to define buildings that are connected to energy infrastructure for
energy trade, and the balance between energy demand and sales is zero (Hernandez and Kenny
2010). This is an accepted fact that annual balance in energy generation and usage is not sufficient
for a NZEB definition, and the interaction between buildings and energy grids should be considered
(Hernandez and Kenny 2010; Sartori et al. 2010; Sartori, Napolitano, and Voss 2012). One of the
goals for using NZEBs is exploiting local and onsite renewable energy sources to supply buildings
energy demand and export excess energy to the grid, which can increase the share of renewable
energy usage in the grid as well as reducing consumption of high carbon emitted energy resources
(Kylili and Fokaides 2015).
The results of IEA studies (Task40/Annex 52), including investigating the differences between the
approaches of calculation, which applied or suggested by different institutes in their countries, confirmed
that the concept of NZEB idea is understood. Conceptually, it is understood that a Net ZEB is a building,
which its energy demand has fallen sharply, and its interaction with the power grid can be balanced by an
equivalent onsite energy generation from renewable sources (Sartori et al. 2010).
Voss et al. studied the framework of the national ZEB code in Germany (Voss, Musall, and
Lichtmeß 2011) to propose a harmonised procedure for balancing. Not only the method takes the
energy balance, but it also covers information about energy efficiency and load calculation. In the
paper, a definition was presented for ZEB:
A zero-energy building is an energy-efficient building which in combination with the public electricity grid
meets its total annual primary energy demand, as determined by monthly balancing, by the primary energy
credit for electricity surpluses fed into the grid. The electricity generated onsite is used primarily to meet the
building’s energy demand.
Similar to other researches, A NZEB is introduced as a building that can generate energy from
renewable energy resources to supply all of its energy demand during a year by Mertz, Raffio, and
Kissock (2007). There is another definition for a NZEB, which focuses on the fact that its exported
energy to the grid is equal to its annual energy usage disregarding carbon emissions. This kind of
buildings does not provide any problem with applying low emission energy supply technologies
(Newton and Tucker 2009).
Kurnitski et al. (2011) believed that a NZEB is a high energy performance home which is con-
nected to a grid. NZEB balance defined as the balance between primary energy usage; thus, the pri-
mary energy usage as feed in the grid and energy network is the same as the amount of primary
energy delivered to a NZEB from the grid. In this condition, annual balance is based on the exchange
between the building and the grid that must be 0 kWh/ (m² a). Thus, the building generates energy in
suitable conditions; otherwise, it uses delivered energy from the grid.
Laustsen (2008) after pointing out that the first phase in the designing of ZEBs is increasing
energy efficiency and reducing its loss, divided the definition of the zero-energy building into
three categories, including Stand Alone, net-zero energy and positive energy buildings. By neglecting
the environmental, exergy, and cost aspects, these three definitions can be expressed as the complete
state of the ZEB definition. The only problem of these definitions is the lack of attention to the stan-
dards of comfort and health of the inhabitants. To complete this classification, it is recommended
that nearly zero energy buildings fall into the category of buildings connected to the grid. So, zero
energy building is an energy-efficient building which must have at least minimum welfare standards
under the building codes of the area where it is constructed and could be defined in four main ways:
– Autonomous zero energy buildings are off-grid buildings that they can independently supply their
energy demand from onsite renewable energy resources and also have energy storage capacity for
night and wintertime. These buildings can also be called as Standalone and independent ZEB.
– Nearly zero energy buildings are grid connected buildings that, despite the use of onsite renewable
energy to supply the energy, import more energy than exported energy to the grid during a year.
– Net-zero energy buildings are grid connected buildings that, as much as they export surplus gen-
erated energy from onsite renewable energy resources to the network, they draw power from the
network in times of need (such as nights). These buildings are neutral over a year in terms of
energy consumption.
– Plus energy or positive energy buildings are grid-connected buildings that deliver more power to
the grid than imported energy. Over a year, these buildings produce more energy, from onsite
renewable energy resources, than their demand.
As reviewed, papers that defined zero energy buildings have focused on calculating the energy
balance between generation and demand in off-grid buildings and balance between import and
export in on-grid buildings. In these papers, to avoid the complications of definition, Important
points such as the primary energy efficiency or carbon intensity of fuels have been neglected,
which is indicative of the incompleteness of these definitions.
4.2. Zero carbon

The studies confirmed that a ZEB may or may not be a zero-carbon building. One of the most impor-
tant discrepancies between zero-carbon building and zero energy buildings can be attributed to the
fact that a zero-carbon building must supply its energy demand by CO2 emission free resources
including PV solar systems, nuclear power and giant windmills which are not combined in the build-
ings or at the installation site (Marszal and Heiselberg 2009). While in the definition of a NZEB
annual balance of imported and exported energy is zero, and there is no guarantee to minimise car-
bon emission or using energy resources with low impact on the environment. Thus, policymakers,
architects, and engineers must be aware of the fact that global warming and harmful pollutant issues
in the building sector cannot be eradicated by defining the ZEB concept. Scientists believe that ZEB is
not only a way to reduce energy consumption in the building sector, but also should be a strategy
toward sustainable and carbon neutral buildings. So a NZEB can be defined as an energy efficient
building coupled with almost carbon neutral grid supply (Voss and Musall 2012).
A CO2 neutral building does not add any CO2 to the atmosphere due to the operation of the
building. The building can supply all of its required energy onsite, like a NZEB, and It can provide
an opportunity for the buildings to purchase tradable certificates for renewable energy generated by
wind, solar, or biogas. Also, to reach a neutral building purpose, it is possible to buy and sell carbon
credits in the carbon trading market. Therefore, a NZEB is a CO2 neutral building, while a CO2 neu-
tral building is not necessarily a NZEB (Mertz, Raffio, and Kissock 2007).
As discussed in the previous sectors, in the UK, there is a political goal to build all of the new
residential houses as zero-carbon ones until 2016. The process of presenting a definition for a
zero-carbon building is long which is started in 2006, and a revision of it is done in 2011, which
it can be considered as one of the foremost efforts to define zero-carbon buildings (UK, Green Build-
ing Council 2011a, 2011b). The local government of the UK introduced an initial definition
regarding the reality of energy usage in residential buildings. The definition emphasised all of the
energy usages in a new building such as washing, cooking, electric appliances, space heating, cooling,
ventilation, hot water, and lighting. Based on the definition, over the year, all of the energy demand
of a building must be supplied with renewable and low carbon energy resources as well as insulation
and other measures to build an efficient home (Department of Communities and Local Government
2006). Critics have argued this approach adopted by the UK government. They believed that the
boundaries of the definition provide insufficient environmental benefits by limiting the scale of
life-cycle as well as low economic benefits by using onsite renewables that will affect the affordability
of the buildings and presenting a wrong timetable for the building industry (McLeod, Hopfe, and
Rezgui 2012; Williams 2009). This shows that government action is needed to support such a signifi-
cant transformation, and we cannot rely on market forces alone to make that change happen. This
led to the fact that the UK government could not achieve the goal of constructing new homes in the
form of zero-carbon since 2016 (O’Neill and Gibbs 2020).
The Code technical guidance defined a zero-carbon home as one with ‘zero net emissions of car-
bon dioxide (CO2) from all energy use in the home’. In this definition, consumed energy is not lim-
ited to space heating, ventilation, hot water, and lighting, but also includes energy consumption for
cooking, computers, TV, and other appliances (Chow 2008).
Laustsen (2008) defined Zero-carbon Building as a building which does not use energy resources
that cause carbon emission during a year. These buildings are carbon neutral or positive since they
generate CO2 free energy to meet their annual energy demand sufficiently. This kind of zero-carbon
building definition does not pay attention to the energy efficiency of the building and can waste rare
energy resources.
Berry et al., in one of the main review papers in this field (Berry, Davidson, and Saman 2014)
mentioned:
A net-zero-carbon building is an energy efficient building that generates sufficient CO2 free energy onsite over a
year to supply all expected onsite energy services for the building users.
The possibilities for decreasing greenhouse gas emissions from the building sector in Australia has
been studied by Newton and Tucker (Newton and Tucker 2009). According to that research, the car-
bon-neutral building produces adequate excess CO2 free energy over a year that balances any pur-
chase from primarily fossil-fuel-based power of the grid. This issue confirmed that some buildings
are not able to be classed in the category of zero-carbon buildings since they cannot produce
sufficient CO2 free energy. It is also added, a zero-carbon building is a building that uses carbon-
free energy sources over a year, and the quantity of its energy supply is enough for all of its required
energy, including both household operations and appliances based on different lifestyles. Connection
to the grid is necessary to fulfil energy that is surplus to house requirements and for the duration of
crisis supply when the regional energy system may be inoperable. The results confirmed that the best
pathway toward achieving ZEB and Zero-carbon homes is Hybrid building. The authors have
defined Hybrid buildings as residential buildings which can supply all of the annual operating energy
need of buildings and their inhabitants by using onsite low or zero-emission energy resources. In this
definition, operating energy includes the required energy for domestic appliances, lighting, heating,
and cooling. When the energy generation of a building is higher than occupant’s energy demand, it’s
residual is supplied to the grid, and if the energy demand for inhabitants was higher than the build-
ing’s energy generation, energy demand is provided back by the grid.
A report has been prepared to present a unique and standard definition for Zero-carbon homes by
Riedy, Lederwasch, and Ison (2011). The report provides a baseline to help progress in encouraging
Australian stakeholders to move toward zero emissions homes. The definition presented in the
report applies to reduce emissions from the building sector and introduces some information
about public initiatives for zero-carbon buildings. Some developers and homeowners likely want
to gain more actions for the market over time. According to this report, zero-carbon building has
the following features:
– A zero-carbon building is one that has no net annual Scope 1 and 2 emissions from the operation of
building incorporated services. It should be noticed that according to the reporting standard for
greenhouse gases in 2004 which established by The World Business Council on Sustainable Devel-
opment and World Resources Institute, Scope 1 emissions defined as direct greenhouse gas emis-
sions from sources owned or controlled by the occupant, such as emissions from burning natural
gas in the home and Scope 2 emissions are those from the generation of electricity used in the
building.
– Building-incorporated services cover all energy requirements or sources that are part of the build-
ing fabric at the time of delivery, such as the thermal envelope (and associated heating and cooling
demand), water heater, built-in cooking appliances, fixed lighting, shared infrastructure and
installed renewable energy generation.
– Zero-carbon buildings must suffice particularised standards for energy performance and onsite
generation.
– Compliance is based on modelling or monitoring of greenhouse gas emissions in kg CO2e/m2/yr.
Regarding the fact that there is no unique definition for zero-carbon building, Riedy et al., also
proposed consistent terminology for variations on this definition (Riedy, Lederwasch, and Ison
2011), as outlined below:
– Zero-carbon building: Standard definition

– Zero-carbon occupied building: Include occupant emissions
– Zero-carbon embodied building: Include embodied emissions
– Zero-carbon life-cycle building: Include all emission sources in the building life cycle
– Autonomous zero-carbon building: No grid connection
– Carbon positive building (or carbon positive occupied building etc.): Achieves less than zero
emissions
In general, it was discovered that zero-carbon building first is an energy-efficient building that
must have at least minimum welfare standards in accordance with the building codes of the area
where it is constructed and could be defined in four main ways:
– Autonomous zero-carbon buildings are off-grid buildings that they can independently supply their
energy demand from CO2 free energy of onsite renewable energy resources and also have energy
storage capacity for night and wintertime. this is possible for them to buy and sell carbon credits in
the carbon trading market.
– Nearly zero-carbon buildings are grid connected buildings that, despite the use of onsite renewable
energy equipment to supply the CO2 free energy, import more energy than exported CO2 free
energy to the grid during a year.
– Net-zero-carbon buildings are grid connected buildings that, as much as they export CO2 free
energy from onsite renewable energy resources to the grid, they draw energy from the network
in times of need (such as nights). These buildings are neutral over a year in terms of CO2 emission,
and they do not add any CO2 to the environment because the same amount of energy imported
from gird, which is usually from fossil fuels, will be exported to the grid.
– Carbon Negative buildings are grid-connected buildings that deliver more CO2 free energy to the
grid than imported energy. Over a year, these buildings produce more CO2 free energy, from
onsite renewable energy resources, than their demand. These buildings can sell carbon credits
in the carbon trading market, and as a result payback period will be shorter.
4.3. Zero exergy

One of the main problems in defining ZEB is the difference in the quality of energy carriers. Though
little attention was paid to this issue in the twentieth century and focus was on the first law of ther-
modynamics, the researches in the twenty-first-century focus on the second law of thermodynamics
regarding the energy quality (Butera 2008).
In the middle of the twentieth century, the concept of exergy was introduced and developed as an
optimisation tool for assessing the thermodynamic performance of the machines. Primarily the idea
applied for thermal plant analysis to minimise the flows of heat that cannot produce work or any
valuable output. The ‘exergy’ term is a combination of the first law of thermodynamics (energy bal-
ance), and the second law of thermodynamics (entropy balance), provides an opportunity to analyse
this aspect of performance (Rant 1956). Exergy is the section of an energy flow that can be converted
into any other form of valuable energy, represents the potential of a given energy amount to do work
(Torío and Schmidt 2011). It can be said that the quantity of exergy determines the net potential of a
system, which is affected by some parameters such as energy available quantity, temperature, and the
quality of the system’s surroundings.
Exergy as an indicator of the practical work potential of energy changes by a Carnot factor, which
is based on the differential of temperature made with a reference environment. The factor that results
in the ‘asymmetry’ between the quantity of exergy and energy shows the quality of energy carriers on
the supply side and the desired quality of energy loads on the demand side (Hammond 2004).
Recently, the concept of exergy has been utilised in the field of building design with the IEA
ECBCS Annex 37 (IEA ECBCS Annex 49 2011) and Annex 49 (LowEx.Net 2003). A review of exergy
analysis in buildings has been done by Torio, Angelotti, and Schmidt (2009). The importance of
using the reference environment for exergy analysis of building systems has been studied by Lohani
(2010) and Sakulpipatsin et al. (2008), and the importance of assessing the overall environmental
impact has been analysed by Simpson and Edwards (2011). The utilisation of exergy and energy
for analysing the development of energy systems in buildings has been extended by a group at the
ETH Zurich researchers (Meggers and Leibundgut 2009).
The concept of a NZEB was introduced by engineers for a specific goal, and the concept is a
famous description. The result of studies confirmed that the simple energy balance is not sufficiently
lonely. The idea has relied on energy load reduction, waste energy reduction, and energy savings
measuring disregarding their exergy (Kilkis 2007). Therefore, although a ZEB definition seems logi-
cal, it falls short and incomplete to recognise the balancing of energy and also the complete impact of
buildings on the environment.
Exploring the relation between exergy, sustainable cities, and the net-zero target has been done by
Kılkış (2012) to find a new direction for the future of buildings development. In this paper, the con-
cept of a net-zero is presented based on exergy to solve some shortages in the net-zero energy build-
ing concept. One of the deficits is the summation of energy flows without regarding different exergy
levels; for instance, electricity is not comparable with thermal energy from the aspect of the ability to
do the job. Kilkis indicates that in balancing the ‘zero’, both quantity and quality (exergy) of energy
should be taken into consideration.
The definition of ZEB, regardless of the vital issue of exergy, not only in terms of energy but also
in the section of environmental impacts, cannot be accurate and completed. A new common stan-
dard was introduced to account for all of the building’s components and dimensions to assess their
ecological effects by Kilkis (2007). The research proves that the global warming and harmful emis-
sions issues cannot be met in NZEB definition and mentioned: When the power of the grid is supplied
from fossil fuels, and the building power relies on renewable energies, the exergy exchange between the
building and the network becomes more important than an energy balance. To describe more, a build-
ing that produces electricity from renewable energy resources is more environment-friendly and has
a better situation than when it uses electricity from the grid, which uses fossil fuels. This difference
cannot be considered in an ordinary energy balance. Therefore, the concept of zero exergy needs to
be developed to quantify the environmental impact of buildings better. So Kilkis defined net-zero
exergy building as:
A net-zero exergy building is a building, which has a total annual sum of zero exergy transfer across the build-
ing-district boundary in a district energy system, during all electric and any other energy transfer that is taking
place in a certain period of time.
It can be said, zero exergy building definition creates more flexibility and generates new possibilities
for the design of high-performance buildings. Zero exergy building is an energy-efficient building
which must have at least minimum welfare standards in accordance with the building codes of
the area where it is constructed, and four definitions are proposed for defining that comprehensively:
– Autonomous zero exergy buildings are off-grid buildings that they can independently supply their
exergy demand from onsite renewable energy resources and also have energy storage capacity for
night and wintertime.
– Nearly zero exergy buildings are grid connected buildings that, despite the use of onsite renewable
energy to supply the energy, import more exergy than exported exergy to the grid during a year.
– Net-zero exergy buildings are grid-connected buildings that, as much as they export surplus gen-
erated exergy from onsite renewable energy resources to the grid, they draw exergy from the grid in
times of need (such as nights). In fact, these buildings are neutral over a year in terms of exergy.
– Positive exergy buildings are grid connected buildings that deliver more exergy to the grid than
imported exergy. Over a year, these buildings produce more exergy, from onsite renewable energy
resources, than their demand.
4.4. Zero cost

Cost is always an outstanding matter in all issues related to energy consumption. One of the main
problems in front of achieving zero energy buildings target is the cost issue. Zero cost hypotheses
recently added to the ZEBs issue based on many experiences in low-energy buildings design and con-
struction. Despite the importance of this issue, few articles have addressed to the defining and mod-
elling net-zero energy cost house. To prove this hypothesis, it is necessary to study this issue more
seriously, and the results should be announced. So, some cost-control strategies are needed to
broaden market adoption, and it is necessary to document the successes of innovators in the indus-
trial sector (Torcellini, Pless, and Leach 2015).
Stefanović et al. have studied the likelihood of accessing to a net-zero energy cost home from an
old house located in Serbia by using PV panels (Stefanović, Bojić, and Gordić 2014). According to
this article, three main reasons for the importance of addressing the issue of zero energy cost building
(ZECB) are as follows: The first reason is the concept of net-zero energy cost house has not been
much studied in the scientific papers. Another reason is the electricity price of the grid in Serbia
and some countries without the renewable electricity market is significantly cheaper than the solar
electricity price. This issue will affect the quantity of investment in this kind of buildings, and
most investors prefer to sell solar energy to the grid at a feed-in-tariff price and use the cheaper elec-
tricity delivered by the grid. The final reason is that the homeowners will interest in investing in ZEBs
if the unit for calculation of the consumed energy by energy cost, i.e. net-zero energy cost house.
In general, costs in zero energy buildings can be investigated from two main dimensions:
4.4.1. Investment cost and payback time

Reviewing of papers show that the majority of research studied financial analysis such as cost and
payback time of renewable energy equipment installation to construct a net-zero energy building;
in these cases, the parameter for zero balance was primary energy (Leckner and Zmeureanu
2011) or delivered energy (Eshraghi et al. 2014).
Many ZEBs have been built in recent years, which most of them were constructed on a small scale,
and all of the projects have budget limitations. So, many of the projects did not meet cost goals and
payback time of investment. For the severe entry of ZEBs into the market and obtain a broad market,
these buildings should be designed in such a way that additional costs are eliminated, and the prices
are competitive with ordinary buildings. Building designer teams and homeowners stated that the
high cost of energy-efficiency measures is a significant barrier to apply them and construct high-per-
formance buildings (Pless and Torcellini 2012). Therefore, it is necessary to design and construct
ZEBs using passive methods at a minimum cost and energy-efficiency strategies without additional
capital investment to minimise the payback period and encourage investors to invest in this field.
4.4.2. Cost balance of energy import/export to the network

A limited number of articles have discussed the subject of achieving the net-zero energy cost house.
Miller and Buys on the way of sustainable buildings defined net-zero energy costs building from an
economic point of view: ($ earned from exports energy vs. $ spent on imports energy) (Miller and
Buys 2012). It is noticeable that in case study building in this reference, the money earned from
export was more than paid money for import from the grid; thus, the building met more than
requires for a net-zero cost houses. It should be noticed, in most countries, the government pur-
chases electricity from renewable sources at a higher rate of the grid, which makes it easier to get
net-zero energy cost target. This indicates the importance of the role of governments in facilitating
the path to NZEB.
Torcellini et al., in a critical look at the definition of ZEB (Torcellini et al. 2006), defined Net-zero
Energy Costs Building (NZECB) as a building that
the amount of money the utility pays the building owner for the energy the building exports to the grid is at least
equal to the amount the owner pays the utility for the energy services and energy used over the year.
A NZECB receives as much financial credit for exported energy as it is charged on the utility bills.
This definition is known as the best definition of NZECB. By using this definition, the right balance
between different kinds of fuels is created, and as a result, implementation and calculation will be
easier. Also, this definition allows for demand responsive control and verifying the situation by utility
bills. The point that is not mentioned in the economic definitions is the possibility of selling carbon
credits in the carbon trading market, which can be added to financial credit for exported energy.
Adding carbon credits to building revenue makes it easier to reach ZECB purposes.
Overall, Zero Energy Cost Building, first of all, is an energy-efficient building that must have at
least minimum welfare standards in accordance with the building codes of the area where it is con-
structed and could be defined in four main ways:
– Autonomous zero energy cost buildings are off-grid buildings that they can independently supply
their energy demand from onsite renewable energy resources and also have energy storage capacity
for night and wintertime. As a result, the cost of using fossil fuels in these buildings is zero, and also
these buildings can compensate for the charge of expensive renewable energy equipment by the
sale of carbon credits.
– Nearly zero energy cost buildings are grid connected buildings that over a year the total revenue
from the sale of on-site-generated energy to the grid and the sale of carbon credits is less than the
cost of purchasing energy from the grid.
– Net-zero energy cost buildings are grid connected buildings that over a year are neutral economi-
cally, meaning that the total revenue from the sale of on-site-generated energy to the grid and the
sale of carbon credits shall be equal to the cost of purchasing energy from the grid.
– Positive energy cost buildings are grid connected buildings that over a year, total revenue earns
from the sale of on-site-generated energy to the grid, and the sale of carbon credits is more
than the cost of purchasing energy from the grid.
4.5. Life cycle zero (energy, carbon, exergy, and cost) building
Presented definitions for zero energy buildings are based on annual energy demand for building’s
operation, including heating, cooling, ventilation, lighting, etc. and the term net-zero energy build-
ings applied for the annual energy balance of buildings connected to the grid. Therefore, in many
cases, the definitions focused on energy used in the building’s operation, disregarding energy
usage during the construction of a building and delivering its components (Hernandez and
Kenny 2010).
Currently, embodied energy is a new challenge in the subject of energy in buildings, and both
aspects, including zero energy balance and embodied energy, are considered by researchers. For
instance, the environmental impacts of both embodied energy and operating energy have been inves-
tigated by Itard and Netherlands (2007). A literature survey of the life cycle energy consumption for
60 residential and non-residential buildings in 9 countries has been done by Sartori and Hestnes
(2007). The results confirmed that low energy homes design improves and increases the benefits
of life cycle energy demand and embodied energy. Also, in some articles, it is mentioned that embo-
died energy and life cycle energy analysis must be considered in the definition of ZEB, but because of
the complexity in setting boundaries related to any life cycle analysis approaches, there is still lots of
disagreements between scientists.
The embodied energy is calculated based on a cradle to grave analysis (SIA instruction 2032
2010). The embodied energy relates to all the energy needed to manufacture, production, and
install/construct a special good (Chow 2008). In buildings, the embodied energy includes the super-
structure, building envelope, basement, space heating, domestic hot water and ventilation systems,
internal walls, PV systems, and electric installations (Hall, Geissler, and Burger 2014).
Net energy over the years can be analysed by various approaches with different degrees of accu-
racy, and the results are expressed as different terms including energy return of investment, energy
payback, net energy ratio, energy yield ratio, and life cycle energy analysis (LCEA) (Hernandez and
Kenny 2010). The life cycle assessment methodology is the most common approach to determine the
embodied energy/carbon of a product or building (Chow 2008).
The life cycle energy consumption includes the life cycle operating energy and the embodied
energy of materials, equipment installation as well as sub-systems and the embodied energy of repla-
cements. The energy payback ratio (EPR) and the energy payback time (EPT) are two indicators for
analysing the embodied energy. The EPR calculation is based on dividing ‘the reduction of total life
cycle primary operating energy consumption that results from a particular change’ by ‘life cycle
embodied energy increase due to the change’. The larger the EPR, the more operating energy savings
per unit initial embodied energy investment in the system. The EPT calculation is based on dividing
the ‘embodied energy increase due to a modification to the house’ by ‘reduced annual primary energy
consumption because of that modification’ (Leckner and Zmeureanu 2011).
LCEA has an excellent effect on the definition and designing of ZEBs. For instance, in a general
look, ZEBs are better buildings in comparison with NZEB, because they are independent and can
supply their need for energy. But from a life cycle energy point of view, net ZEBs are a better option
than independent ZEBs since net ZEBs are connected to the grid and do not need any energy storage
system such as batteries for electricity storage; thus, in this kind of buildings life cycle costs reduces
(Feist 1997; Vale and Vale 2000).
Hernandez and Kenny extended the definition of zero energy building to include the embodied
energy of the structure and its elements together with the annual energy usage (Hernandez and
Kenny 2010). This will assist in introducing a life cycle perspective and therefore bringing the theory
of ‘net energy’, as used in ecological economics, into the built environment within a regular meth-
odology. In this paper, two steps are specified for LCEA. To add life cycle aspects of the energy con-
sumption of building or system components within annual energy use calculation, the first step is
estimating buildings’ service life, and the second stage is considering the boundaries of the building’s
life cycle, which is an important aspect of analysis. Finally, life cycle ZEB defined as:
((A LC-ZEB is one where the primary energy used in the building in operation plus the energy
embodied within its constituent materials and systems, including energy generating ones, over the
life of the building is equal to or less than the energy produced by its renewable energy systems
within the building over their lifetime.))
Also, the policy of zero-carbon is related to the co2 emissions from the operation of the building
and does not cover the embodied carbon from production, transport, and installation of the structure
and its components. The zero-carbon status neglects the embodied carbon resulting from insulation,
microgeneration technologies, and other parts. As a result, the carbon emissions from the entire life
cycle of buildings should be considered to assess the zero-carbon policy.
The embodied carbon of the technologies calculation is very complicated, and more investigation
would be done to develop a precise approach to account the total lifecycle carbon emissions of build-
ings. Analysing the embodied concept of meeting the zero-carbon aims over the building life cycle has
been applied as a measure to evaluate the zero-carbon policy by Chow (2008). It is mentioned, there
are some factors and assumptions to analyse the life cycle methodologies within the system boundary:
– Different approaches of production affect the quantity of required energy.

– Various transportation methods.
– Using different raw materials to produce technologies by multiple manufacturers.
– The transportation requirements are affected by the place of the processing plants and suppliers.
– The definition of system boundary; for instance, it includes energy demand from the technology
installers moving to the buildings.
– the carbon intensity of the energy mix is different between countries that this matter affects the
embodied carbon of the technologies.
Additionally, the results confirmed that the performance of some technologies is better than
others; for instance, the carbon intensity of wind turbines is less than photovoltaic, so this should
be taken into consideration when choosing equipment.
The life cycle cost is analysed by considering the economics over the life of the product. The life
cycle cost and energy analysis of a NZEB has been presented by Leckner and Zmeureanu (2011). The
house was located in the cold climate of Montreal, Canada, and the life cycle energy consumption,
the operating and embodied energy of the building was considered. It is mentioned, determining the
financial payback time for using some components or systems which affect the electricity usage can
be done with several methodologies: ‘simple payback’ method is the simplest approach calculated by
dividing the initial cost of the changes by the annual cost savings due to the change. Despite the flaws
in this method, such as not considering the time value of money, the interest rate or increasing
energy prices, or the cost of replacement, it is widely used. The cumulative cash flow (CCF) approach
has some similarities to the life cycle costs method or Cash Flow Analysis method. One of the chal-
lenges is determining the cost of materials and systems used in a building since prices are different
from year to year and depend on location, market fluctuations, manufacturers, vendors, etc.
Generally, Life Cycle Zero Energy Building is an energy efficient building, which must have at
least minimum welfare standards in accordance with the building codes of the area where it is con-
structed and could be defined in three main ways, which are presented in Figure 2.
Life Cycle Nearly Zero Energy Building is a building that the total energy generated from on-site
renewable energy resources is less than the total of the primary energy consumed for building oper-
ation and the embodied energy of all materials and building systems over its lifetime.
Life Cycle Net-zero Energy Building is a building that the total energy generated from on-site
renewable energy resources is equal to the total of the primary energy consumed for building oper-
ation and the embodied energy of all materials and building systems over its lifetime.
Life Cycle Positive Energy Building is a building that the total energy generated from on-site
renewable energy resources is more than the total of the primary energy consumed for building
operation and the embodied energy of all materials and building systems over its lifetime.
Figure 2. Classification of life cycle ZEBs definitions.
5. Results and conclusions

Zero energy building is a current hot topic for researchers, designers, policymakers, and marketers.
The recent literature on zero energy building definitions is reviewed in this paper, and the main
characteristics of definitions are explored as well as determining practical definitions for adopting
the definitions with building codes based on performance approach.
In the first part of this study, it became clear that the limitations related to the environment and
resources motivate me to move toward designing ZEBs.
Although at first glance, the energy-balancing procedure for a ZEB looks simple, its details are
intricate and bring many questions. By examining the history of these buildings, it was stated that
there are different definitions of ZEBs, and most of the projects did not consider all of the energy
and environmental aspects of the NZEB impacts. The reason for the various definitions was
found as:
– Differences in the policy

– The views of the researchers,
– The interest of the owners
– The profits of investors
It should be noted that the definition has a significant effect on the building design and the
method of achieving the goals. In the second part of this research, the global effort to reach the
ZEB goal was examined and identified that for reducing the energy demand and greenhouse gas
emission from the building sector, governments have to legislate energy efficiency homes. Some
authorities are moving toward the regulations for adjusting the building’s energy performance at
levels equivalent to, or near to, net-zero energy or net-zero carbon. Although advanced countries
have done many research and practical activities in this field, for many reasons, the term is still
used as an obscure concept, and countries define it according to their policies and targets.
In the third part of this research, the roadmap of a good ZEB is presented by the balance of two
actions. The first step is energy demand reduction by applying different energy efficiency measures,
which high prices of land in urban areas and high-efficiency equipment were identified as the main
problems for achieving this goal. The second step is, renewable energy generation to get sufficient
credits for the balance; Limited area of roof and/or facade to install solar or wind equipment and
Table 4. classification of presented definitions.

Gird
Period Dimensions Connection Proportion Full Name Code
One Energy Off-Grid Generated Energy = Consumed Energy Autonomous Zero Energy AZEB
Year Building
On-Grid Imported Energy > Exported Energy Nearly Zero Energy NZEB
Building
Imported Energy = Exported Energy Net-zero Energy Building NET-ZEB
Imported Energy < Exported Energy Positive Energy Building PEB
Carbon Off-Grid Generated CO2 Free Energy = Consumed Autonomous Zero-carbon AZCB
Energy Building
On-Grid Imported Energy > Exported CO2 Free Energy Nearly Zero-carbon NZCB
Building
Imported Energy = Exported CO2 Free Energy Net-zero Energy Building NET-ZCB
Imported Energy < Exported CO2 Free Energy Carbon Negative Building CNB
Exergy Off-Grid Generated Exergy = Consumed Exergy Autonomous Zero Exergy AZEXB
Building
On-Grid Imported Exergy > Exported Exergy Nearly Zero Exergy NZEXB
Building
Imported Exergy = Exported Exergy Net-zero Exergy Building NET-
ZEXB
Imported Exergy < Exported Exergy Positive Exergy Building PEXB
Cost Off-Grid Fossil fuel Cost = 0 Autonomous Zero Energy AZECB
Cost Building
On-Grid Energy purchase > (Energy + Carbon Credit) Nearly Zero Energy Cost NZECB
Sale Building
Energy purchase = (Energy + Carbon Credit) Net-zero Energy Cost NET-
Sale Building ZECB
Energy purchase < (Energy + Carbon Credit) Positive Energy Cost PECB
Sale Building
Life Energy On-Grid Primary Energy Embodied Energy > Produced Life Cycle Nearly Zero LC-NZEB
Cycle Renewable Energy Energy Building
Primary Energy + Embodied Energy = Life Cycle Net-zero Energy LC-NET-
Produced Renewable Energy Building ZEB
Primary Energy + Embodied Energy < Life Cycle Positive Energy LC-PEB
Produced Renewable Energy Building
Carbon On-Grid Primary Carbon + Embodied Carbon > Not Life Cycle Nearly Zero- LC-NZCB
Released Carbon by Produced Renewable carbon Building
Energy
Primary Carbon + Embodied Carbon > Not Life Cycle Net-zero-carbon LC-NET-
Released Carbon by Produced Renewable Building ZCB
Energy
Primary Carbon + Embodied Carbon > Not Life Cycle Carbon Negative LC-CNB
Released Carbon by Produced Renewable Building
Energy
Exergy On-Grid Primary Exergy + Embodied Exergy > Life Cycle Nearly Zero LC-
Produced Renewable Exergy Exergy Building NZEXB
Primary Exergy + Embodied Exergy = Life Cycle Net-zero Exergy LC-NET-
Produced Renewable Exergy Building ZEXB
Primary Exergy + Embodied Exergy < Life Cycle Positive Exergy LC-PEXB
Produced Renewable Exergy Building
Cost On-Grid Primary Cost + Embodied Cost > Produced Life Cycle Nearly Zero LC-
Renewable Energy Energy Cost Building NZECB
Primary Cost + Embodied Cost = Produced Life Cycle Net-zero Energy LC-NET-
Renewable Energy Sale Cost Building ZECB
Primary Cost + Embodied Cost < Produced Life Cycle Positive Energy LC-PECB
Renewable Energy Sale Cost Building
problems that distributed generation produce for grid stability were introduced as the main barriers
to do this action.
Then the main indicators in the ZEB definition were examined, and the route of defining ZEB was
introduced into six stages, which should be specified in each definition. These indicators are Dimen-
sions, time period, connection to the grid, comfort codes, spatial boundary in using renewable energy
resources, and type of the buildings.
Finally, in the way of providing a comprehensive definition, the ‘zero’ in definition referred to the
energy, the CO2 emissions, the exergy, and the energy costs. Then, according to the mentioned indi-
cators, relevant definitions were presented. Since the study and the provided definitions were com-
prehensive, it is suggested in designing a new zero energy building, specify it fall in which category. It
is recommended to use the codes given in Table 4 for ease of classification.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank the Iran National Science Foundation (INSF) for funding this work, through a grant
number 97010771.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Funding
The authors would like to thank the Iran National Science Foundation (INSF) for funding this work, through a grant
number 97010771.
ORCID
Younes Noorollahi http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8761-3114
References
Abbasizade, F., M. Abbaspour, M. Soltanieh, and A. Kani. 2020. “An Innovative Executive and Financial Mechanism
for Energy Conservation in new and Existing Buildings in Iran.” International Journal of Environmental Science and
Technology. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s13762-020-.
Advanced District Heating and Cooling (DHC) Systems. 2016.
Attia, Shady, Polyvios Eleftheriou, Flouris Xeni, Rodolphe Morlot, Christophe Ménézo, Vasilis Kostopoulos, Maria
Betsi, et al. 2017. “Overview and Future Challenges of Nearly Zero Energy Buildings (nZEB) Design in Southern
Europe.” Energy and Buildings 155: 439–458. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.09.043.
Ayoub, J. 2011. "IEA SHC Task 40 / ECBCS Annex 52: Net Zero Energy Solar Buildings.” IEA. http://task40.iea-
shc.org/
Berry, S., K. Davidson, and W. Saman. 2014. “Defining Zero Carbon and Zero Energy Homes From a Performance-
Based Regulatory Perspective.” Energy Efficiency 7 (2): 303–322.
Besant, R. W., R. S. Dumont, and G. Schoenau. 1979. “The Saskatchewan Conservation House: Some Preliminary
Performance Results.” Energy and Buildings 2 (2): 163–174.
Bi, P., and A. Saniotis. 2009. “Global Warming and Australian Public Health: Reasons to be Concerned.” Australian
Health Review 33 (4): 611–617.
Bi, Peng, Susan Williams, Margaret Loughnan, Glenis Lloyd, Alana Hansen, Tord Kjellstrom, Keith Dear, Arthur
Saniotis, et al. 2011. “The Effects of Extreme Heat on Human Mortality and Morbidity in Australia:
Implications for Public Health.” Asia Pacific Journal of Public Health 23 (2_suppl): 27S–36S.
Bliss, R. W. 1955. “Design and Performance of the Nation’s Only Fully Solar-Heated House.” Air Conditioning,
Heating and Ventilating 52 (10): 92.
“BREEAM: The World’s Leading Sustainability Assessment Method for Masterplanning Projects, Infrastructure and
Buildings - BREEAM”.
Bruni, E., and L. Sarto. 2013. “An Italian Pilot Project for Zero Energy Buildings: Towards a Quality-Driven
Approach.” Renewable Energy 50: 840–846.
Buildings Performance Institute Europe. 2011. Principles for Nearly Zero-Energy Buildings. Brussels: Buildings
Performance Institute Europe.
Buildings Performance Institute Europe. 2013. “Building policies and programs in the EU-27.” Report within the
Intelligent Energy Europe project ENTRANZE-Policies to Enforce the Transition to Nearly Zero Energy
Buildings in the EU-27 (March 2013 update).
Butera, F. 2008. “Towards the Renewable Built Environment.” In Urban Energy Transition from Fossil Fuels to
Renewable Power, edited by B. T. Peter-Urban Energy Transition Droege, 327–364. Milano: Elsevier.https://doi.
org/10.1016/B978-0-08-045341-5.00014-1.
Charron, R. 2005. “A Review of Low and Net-Zero Energy Solar Home Initiatives.” CANMET Energy Technol. Centre-
Varennes, NRCan. http//canmetenergy-canmetenergie.nrcan-rncan.gc.ca/fichier.php/codectec/En/2005-133/2005-
133_e.pdf.
Chow, Y. 2008. “How ‘Zero’is a ‘Zero Carbon Home’? A Comprehensive Assessment of a Zero Carbon Home.” In
Proceedings of the 2008 World Sustainable Building Conference: World SB08 Convention Centre, 21–25
September. edited by G. Foliente, 1431–1441.
D’Agostino, D., and L. Mazzarella. 2019. “What is a Nearly Zero Energy Building? Overview, Implementation and
Comparison of Definitions.” Journal of Building Engineering 21: 200–212. doi:10.1016/j.jobe.2018.10.019.
D’Amico, A., G. Ciulla, D. Panno, and S. Ferrari. 2019. “Building Energy Demand Assessment Through Heating
Degree Days: The Importance of a Climatic Dataset.” Applied Energy 242 (March): 1285–1306.
Deng, S., R. Z. Wang, and Y. J. Dai. 2014. “How to Evaluate Performance of Net Zero Energy Building – A Literature
Research.” Energy 71: 1–16.
Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. 2010. Report of the Prime Minister’s Task Group on Energy
Efficiency. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
Department of Communities and Local Government. 2006. Building a Greener Future: Towards Zero Carbon
Development. London: Department of Communities and Local Government.
Deshpande, R., and M. S. Raviprakasha. 2019. “Analysis of Power Quality Variations in Distributed Generation
Systems.” International Journal of Renewable Energy Research 9 (1): 281–289.
Directive, C. 2010. “Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council.” Official Journal of the
European Union L 334: 17–119.
Edmondson, D. L., K. S. Rogge, and F. Kern. 2020. “Zero Carbon Homes in the UK? Analysing the Co-Evolution of
Policy Mix and Socio-Technical System.” Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 35 (December 2019):
135–161.
EIA. 2016. International Energy Outlook 2016, vol. 0484.
Esbensen, T. V., and V. Korsgaard. 1977. “Dimensioning of the Solar Heating System in the Zero Energy House in
Denmark.” Solar Energy 19 (2): 195–199.
Eshraghi, J., N. Narjabadifam, N. Mirkhani, S. S. Khosroshahi, and M. Ashjaee. 2014. “A Comprehensive Feasibility
Study of Applying Solar Energy to Design a Zero Energy Building for a Typical Home in Tehran.” Energy and
Buildings 72: 329–339.
Eslami, S., A. Gholami, A. Bakhtiari, M. Zandi, and Y. Noorollahi. 2019. “Experimental Investigation of a Multi-
Generation Energy System for a Nearly Zero-Energy Park: A Solution Toward Sustainable Future.” Energy
Conversion and Management 200 (November). Pergamon: 1–11. doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2019.112107.
Espa, I., and G. Marín Durán. 2020. EU and WTO Regulatory Approaches to Renewable Energy Subsidies: Negative and
Positive Integration, 61–86. Cham: Springer.
Farabi-Asl, H., A. Chapman, K. Itaoka, and Y. Noorollahi. 2018. “Zero Emission Buildings and Challenges in Japan.”
In International Exchange and Innovation Conference on Engineering &Sciences (IEICES), edited by O. Eljamal, 96–
101. Interdisciplinary Graduate School of Engineering Sciences, Kyushu University, Kyushu, Japan. doi:10.15017/
1961295.
Feist, W. 1997. “Life Cycle Energy Analysis: Comparison of Low-Energy House, Passiv House, Self-Sufficient House.”
Arbeitskries kostengünstige Passiv.
Foster, E., M. Contestabile, J. Blazquez, B. Manzano, M. Workman, and N. Shah. 2017. “The Unstudied Barriers to
Widespread Renewable Energy Deployment: Fossil Fuel Price Responses.” Energy Policy 103: 258–264. doi:10.
1016/j.enpol.2016.12.050.
Futcher, J., G. Mills, R. Emmanuel, and I. Korolija. 2017. “Creating Sustainable Cities one Building at a Time: Towards
an Integrated Urban Design Framework.” Cities 66: 63–71. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2017.03.009.
Griffith, B., N. Long, P. Torcellini, R. Judkoff, D. Crawley, and J. Ryan. 2007. Assessment of the Technical Potential for
Achieving Net Zero-Energy Buildings in the Commercial Sector. Golden, CO, USA: National Renewable Energy Lab
(NREL).
Hall, M., A. Geissler, and B. Burger. 2014. “Two Years of Experience with a Net Zero Energy Balance–Analysis of the
Swiss MINERGIE-A® Standard.” Energy Procedia 48: 1282–1291.
Hammond, G. P. 2004. “Engineering Sustainability: Thermodynamics, Energy Systems, and the Environment.”
International Journal of Energy Research 28 (7): 613–639.
Hansen, A., P. Bi, M. Nitschke, P. Ryan, D. Pisaniello, and G. Tucker. 2008. “The Effect of Heat Waves on Mental
Health in a Temperate Australian City.” Environmental Health Perspectives 116 (10): 1369–1375.
Hawkey, D., J. Webb, and M. Winskel. 2013. “Organisation and Governance of Urban Energy Systems: District
Heating and Cooling in the UK.” Journal of Cleaner Production 50: 22–31. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.018.
Hernandez, P., and P. Kenny. 2010. “From Net Energy to Zero Energy Buildings: Defining Life Cycle Zero Energy
Buildings (LC-ZEB).” Energy and Buildings 42 (6): 815–821.
Hoseinzadeh, S., M. Hadi Zakeri, A. Shirkhani, and A. J. Chamkha. 2019. “Analysis of Energy Consumption
Improvements of a Zero-Energy Building in a Humid Mountainous Area.” Journal of Renewable and
Sustainable Energy 11 (1). doi:10.1063/1.5046512.
Hu, M., and Y. Qiu. 2019. “A Comparison of Building Energy Codes and Policies in the USA, Germany, and China:
Progress Toward the Net-Zero Building Goal in Three Countries.” Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy 21
(2): 291–305.
Hui, S. C. M. 2001. “Low Energy Building Design in High Density Urban Cities.” Renewable Energy 24: 627–640.
IEA. 2017. Global Status Report 2017. In: Global status report 2017. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
2018.
IEA ECBCS Annex 49. 2011. “Annex 49.” February 15, 2010. http://www.annex49.com.
IEA (International Energy Agency). 2017. “Promotion of Zero Energy Building and Zero Energy Houses”.
IEA webstore. “Market Report Series: Energy Efficiency” 2018.
Iqbal, M. T. 2004. “A Feasibility Study of a Zero Energy Home in Newfoundland.” Renewable Energy 29 (2): 277–289.
Itard, L., and L. C. M. Netherlands. 2007. “Comparing Environmental Impacts from Energy and Materials Embodied
in Buildings and Used during their Service Life.” Delft Univ. Technol. Delft.
Iwaro, J., and A. Mwasha. 2010. “Implications of Building Energy Standard for Sustainable Energy Efficient Design in
Buildings.” Int. J. Energy Env 1 (5): 745–756.
Janda, K. B., and J. F. Busch. 1994. "Worldwide Status of Energy Standards for Buildings.” Energy 19 (1): 27–44.
doi:10.1016/0360-5442(94)90102-3
Jurasz, J. K., P. B. Dąbek, and P. E. Campana. 2020. “Can a City Reach Energy Self-Sufficiency by Means of Rooftop
Photovoltaics? Case Study From Poland.” Journal of Cleaner Production 245: 1–18. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.
Kapstein, E. B., K. Butti, and J. Perlin. 1980. “A Golden Thread: 2500 Years of Solar Architecture and Technology.”
Technology and Culture 21 (4). Van Nostrand Reinhold Company: 650. doi:10.2307/3104094.
Khalaji, R., R. Sarvar, A. Rajabi, and A. Fazli. 2010. “Evaluation of Issue 19 of National Building Regulation with SWOT
Model.” Sci J Geogr 4: 13–32.
Kilkis, S. 2007. “A new Metric for Net-Zero Carbon Buildings.” In Proceedings of the Energy Sustainability Conference, 27–
30 July, 219–224. Long Beach, CA: American Society of Mechanical Engineers. doi:10.1115/ES2007-36263.
Kılkış, Ş. 2012. “A Net-Zero Building Application and Its Role in Exergy-Aware Local Energy Strategies for
Sustainability.” Energy Conversion and Management 63: 208–217.
Kurnitski, J., F. Allard, D. Braham, G. Goeders, P. Heiselberg, L. Jagemar, R. Kosonen, et al. 2011. “How to Define
Nearly Net Zero Energy Buildings NZEB.” Rehva Journal 48 (May 2011): 6–12.
Kylili, A., and P. A. Fokaides. 2015. “European Smart Cities: The Role of Zero Energy Buildings.” Sustainable Cities and
Society 15: 86–95.
Laustsen, J. 2008. “Energy Efficiency Requirements in Building Codes, Energy Efficiency Policies for new Buildings.”
Int. Energy Agency 2 (8): 477–488.
Leckner, M., and R. Zmeureanu. 2011. “Life Cycle Cost and Energy Analysis of a Net Zero Energy House with Solar
Combisystem.” Applied Energy 88 (1): 232–241.
Lee, J., and M. Shepley. 2019. “The Green Standard for Energy and Environmental Design (G-Seed) for Multi-Family
Housing Rating System in Korea: A Review of Evaluating Practices and Suggestions for Improvement.” Journal of
Green Building 14 (2): 155–175.
Li, G., Q. Xuan, M. W. Akram, Y. Golizadeh Akhlaghi, H. Liu, and S. Shittu. 2020. “Building Integrated Solar
Concentrating Systems: A Review.” Applied Energy 260: 1–27. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.
Liu, Z., Y. Liu, B. J. He, W. Xu, G. Jin, and X. Zhang. 2019a. “Application and Suitability Analysis of the key
Technologies in Nearly Zero Energy Buildings in China.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 101
(August 2018): 329–345.
Liu, C., W. Xu, A. Li, D. Sun, and H. Huo. 2019b. “Energy Balance Evaluation and Optimization of Photovoltaic
Systems for Zero Energy Residential Buildings in Different Climate Zones of China.” Journal of Cleaner
Production 235: 1202–1215.
Liu, Z., Q. Zhou, Z. Tian, B. Jie He, and G. Jin. 2019c. “A Comprehensive Analysis on Definitions, Development, and
Policies of Nearly Zero Energy Buildings in China.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 114 (July 2019): 1–
13.
Lohani, S. P. 2010. “Energy and Exergy Analysis of Fossil Plant and Heat Pump Building Heating System at Two
Different Dead-State Temperatures.” Energy 35 (8): 3323–3331.
LowEx.Net. 2003. “Network of International Society of Low Exergy Systems in Buildings.” Accessed February 15, 2011.
http://www.lowex.net.
Lyu, X., A. Shi, and X. Wang. 2020. “Research on the Impact of Carbon Emission Trading System on Low-Carbon
Technology Innovation.” Carbon Management 11 (2): 183–193.
Marszal, A. J., J. Bourrelle, E. Musall, P. Heiselberg, A. Gustavsen, and K. Voss. 2016. “Net Zero Energy Buildings -
Calculation Methodologies Versus National Building Codes.” x. In The Proceedings of EuroSun, 1–8. doi:10.
18086/eurosun.2010.06.14.
Marszal, A. J., and P. Heiselberg. 2009. “Zero Energy Building ( ZEB ) Definitions – A Literature Review. Aalborg
University.” http://gin.confex.com/gin/2009/webprogram/Manuscript/Paper2784/Zero.
Marszal, A. J., P. Heiselberg, J. S. Bourrelle, E. Musall, K. Voss, I. Sartori, A. Napolitano, et al. 2011. “Zero Energy
Building – A Review of Definitions and Calculation Methodologies.” Energy and Buildings 43 (4): 971–979.
Mayo, T., and R. Sinha. 1996. “Advanced Houses: The Canadian Experience.” Home Energy 13 (5): 1–13.
McLeod, R. S., C. J. Hopfe, and Y. Rezgui. 2012. “An Investigation into Recent Proposals for a Revised Definition of
Zero Carbon Homes in the UK.” Energy Policy 46: 25–35.
Meggers, F., and H. Leibundgut. 2009. “The Reference Environment: Utilising Exergy and Anergy for Buildings.”
International Journal of Exergy 11 (4): 423–438. doi:10.1504/IJEX.2012.050254.
Mertz, G. A., G. S. Raffio, and K. Kissock. 2007. “Cost Optimization of Net-Zero Energy House.” In Proceedings of the
Energy Sustainability Conference 2007, California, USA, edited by C. D. Lingel, 477–487. American Society of
Mechanical Engineers. doi:10.1115/ES2007-36077.
Miller, W., and L. Buys. 2012. “Anatomy of a Sub-Tropical Positive Energy Home (PEH).” Solar Energy 86 (1): 231–
241.
Mohamed, A., A. Hasan, and K. Sirén. 2014. “Fulfillment of Net-Zero Energy Building (NZEB) with Four Metrics in a
Single Family House with Different Heating Alternatives.” Applied Energy 114: 385–399.
Mohammadi, M., Y. Noorollahi, B. Mohammadi-ivatloo, and H. Yousefi. 2017. “Energy Hub: From a Model to a
Concept – A Review.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 80: 1512–1527.
Moran, P., J. O’Connell, and J. Goggins. 2020. “Sustainable Energy Efficiency Retrofits as Residenial Buildings Move
Towards Nearly Zero Energy Building (NZEB) Standards.” Energy and Buildings 211: 1–15. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.
2020.109816.
“NetZero Energy House Coalition.” Accessed July 2010. http://www.netzeroenergyhome.ca/.
Newton, P., and S. Tucker. 2009. Hybrid Buildings: Pathways for Greenhouse Gas Mitigation in the Housing Sector.
Melbourne: Institute for Social Research, Swinburne University of Technology, 120.
Nguyen, A. T., and S. Reiter. 2014. “A Climate Analysis Tool for Passive Heating and Cooling Strategies in Hot Humid
Climate Based on Typical Meteorological Year Data Sets.” Energy and Buildings 68 (PART C): 756–763. doi:10.
1016/j.enbuild.2012.08.050.
Noorollahi, Y., R. Itoi, H. Yousefi, M. Mohammadi, and A. Farhadi. 2017. “Modeling for Diversifying Electricity
Supply by Maximizing Renewable Energy Use in Ebino City Southern Japan.” Sustainable Cities and Society 34:
371–384.
Noorollahi, Y., M. S. Shabbir, A. F. Siddiqi, L. K. Ilyashenko, and E. Ahmadi. 2019. “Review of two Decade Geothermal
Energy Development in Iran, Benefits, Challenges, and Future Policy.” Geothermics 77: 257–266.
O’Neill, K., and D. Gibbs. 2020. “Sustainability Transitions and Policy Dismantling: Zero Carbon Housing in the UK.”
Geoforum 108: 119–129. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.11.011.
Østergaard, P. A., N. Duic, Y. Noorollahi, H. Mikulcic, and S. Kalogirou. 2020. “Sustainable Development Using
Renewable Energy Technology.” Renewable Energy 146: 2430–2437.
Owen, M. S. 2009. ASHRAE Handbook–Fundamentals. Atlanta, GA: Ashrae Co.https://www.ashrae.org/
technicalresources/.
Pallis, Platon, Nikolaos Gkonis, Efstratios Varvagiannis, Konstantinos Braimakis, Sotirios Karellas, Miltiadis Katsaros,
and Panagiotis Vourliotis. 2019a. “Cost Effectiveness Assessment and Beyond: A Study on Energy Efficiency
Interventions in Greek Residential Building Stock.” Energy and Buildings 182: 1–18.
Pallis, Platon, Nikolaos Gkonis, Efstratios Varvagiannis, Konstantinos Braimakis, Sotirios Karellas, Miltiadis Katsaros,
Panagiotis Vourliotis, and Dimitrios Sarafianos. 2019b. “Towards NZEB in Greece: A Comparative Study Between
Cost Optimality and Energy Efficiency for Newly Constructed Residential Buildings.” Energy and Buildings 198:
115–137.
Pastore, L., and M. Andersen. 2019. “Building Energy Certification Versus User Satisfaction with the Indoor
Environment: Findings From a Multi-Site Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE) in Switzerland.” Building and
Environment 150: 60–74. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.01.001.
Pernetti, R., F. Garzia, G. Paoletti, and T. Weiss. 2019. “Towards the Definition of a NZEB Cost Spreadsheet as a
Support Tool for the Design.” In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, vol. 323, 1–9. doi:10.
1088/1755-1315/323/1/012004.
Pless, S., and P. Torcellini. 2012. Controlling Capital Costs in High Performance Office Buildings: A Review of Best
Practices for Overcoming Cost Barriers. Golden, CO, USA: National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL).
Pöldmäe, M., A. Hasan, and K. Alanne. 2011. “Micro-Cogeneration in Net Zero Energy Buildings.” 2nd International
Conference in Microgeneration and Related Technologies in Buildingds: Microgen II, Glasgow, Scotland, April 4--6
Ram, M., A. Aghahosseini, and C. Breyer. 2020. “Job Creation During the Global Energy Transition Towards 100%
Renewable Power System by 2050.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 151: 1–19. doi:10.1016/j.
techfore.2019.06.008.
Rant, Z. 1956. “Exergie, ein neues Wort fur ‘Technische Arbeitsfaehigkeit [Exergy, A New Word for Technical
Availability].” Forsch. auf dem Gebiet des Ingenieurwesens A 22 (1): 36–37.
Rastogi, A., J. K. Choi, T. Hong, and M. Lee. 2017. “Impact of Different LEED Versions for Green Building
Certification and Energy Efficiency Rating System: A Multifamily Midrise Case Study.” Applied Energy 205
(July): 732–740.
Razavi, Seyed-Ehsan, Ehsan Rahimi, Mohammad Sadegh Javadi, Ali Esmaeel Nezhad, Mohamed Lotfi, Miadreza
Shafie-khah, João P.S. Catalão, et al. 2019. “Impact of Distributed Generation on Protection and Voltage
Regulation of Distribution Systems: A Review.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 105: 157–167.
Riedy, C., A. J. Lederwasch, and N. Ison. 2011. “Defining Zero Emission Buildings-Review and Recommendations”.
Saeidi, R., Y. Noorollahi, and V. Esfahanian. 2018. “Numerical Simulation of a Novel Spiral Type Ground Heat
Exchanger for Enhancing Heat Transfer Performance of Geothermal Heat Pump.” Energy Conversion and
Management 168: 296–307.
Sakulpipatsin, P., H. J. Van Der Kooi, L. C. M. Itard, and E. C. Boelman. 2008. “The Influence of Possible Definitions of
a Reference Environment to Determine the Exergy of Air in Buildings.” International Journal of Exergy 5 (3): 275–295.
Sartori, I., and A. G. Hestnes. 2007. “Energy Use in the Life Cycle of Conventional and Low-Energy Buildings: A
Review Article.” Energy and Buildings 39 (3): 249–257.
Sartori, I., A. Napolitano, A. J. Marszal, S. Pless, P. Torcellini, and K. Voss. 2010. “Criteria for Definition of Net Zero
Energy Buildings.” In The Proceedings of EuroSun, 1–8. doi:10.18086/eurosun.2010.06.21.
Sartori, I., A. Napolitano, and K. Voss. 2012. “Net Zero Energy Buildings: A Consistent Definition Framework.” Energy
and Buildings 48: 220–232.
Sepehr, M., R. Eghtedaei, A. Toolabimoghadam, Y. Noorollahi, and M. Mohammadi. 2018. “Modeling the Electrical
Energy Consumption Profile for Residential Buildings in Iran.” Sustainable Cities and Society 41: 481–489.
Sewell, J., D. Jack, and D. Fraser. 2019. “A Study of the Effectiveness of BREEAM as an Assessment Tool for
Sustainability by Interview of Practitioners”.
SIA instruction 2032. 2010. Embodied Energy. Zurich: Swiss Association for Engineers and Architects.
Simpson, A. P., and C. F. Edwards. 2011. “An Exergy-Based Framework for Evaluating Environmental Impact.” Energy
36 (3): 1442–1459.
Stefanović, A., M. Bojić, and D. Gordić. 2014. “Achieving net Zero Energy Cost House From old Thermally non-
Insulated House Using Photovoltaic Panels.” Energy and Buildings 76: 57–63.
Torcellini, P., S. Pless, M. Deru, and D. Crawley. 2006. Zero Energy Buildings: A Critical Look at the Definition. Golden,
CO, USA: National Renewable Energy Lab.(NREL).
Torcellini, P., S. Pless, and M. Leach. 2015. “A Pathway for Net-Zero Energy Buildings: Creating a Case for Zero Cost
Increase.” Building Research & Information 43 (1): 25–33.
Torio, H., A. Angelotti, and D. Schmidt. 2009. “Exergy Analysis of Renewable Energy-Based Climatisation Systems for
Buildings: A Critical View.” Energy and Buildings 41 (3): 248–271.
Torío, H., and D. Schmidt. 2011. “IEA ECBCS Annex 49 Final Report-Low Exergy Systems for High-Performance
Buildings and Communities-Detailed Exergy Assessment Guidebook for the Built Environment.” Fraunhofer IBP.
UK, Green Building Council. 2011a. Accessed October 27, 2011. http://www.ukgbc.org/site/info-centre/
displaycategory?id=22.
UK, Green Building Council. 2011b. Accessed October 27, 2011. http://www.ukgbc.org/site/news/show-newsdetails?
id=398.
UNEP SBCI. 2009. “Common Carbon Metric for Measuring Energy Use & Reporting Greenhouse Gas Emissions from
Building Operations.” United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 5, 1000.
USGBC. 2009. "LEED Green Building Rating System Committees, US Green Building Council.” https://www.usgbc.
org/Members/member_committees.asp
Vale, B., and R. Vale. 2000. The New Autonomous House: Design and Planning for Sustainability. London: Thames &
Hudson.
Vaneckova, P., P. J. Beggs, R. J. De Dear, and K. W. J. McCracken. 2008. “Effect of Temperature on Mortality During
the six Warmer Months in Sydney, Australia, Between 1993 and 2004.” Environmental Research 108 (3): 361–369.
Voss, K. 2008. “What is Really New About Zero-Energy Homes.” In The Proceedings of the International Passive House
Conference, Nuremberg, Germany, 187–192.
Voss, K., and E. Musall. 2012. Net Zero Energy Buildings: International Projects of Carbon Neutrality in Buildings. 1st
ed. Munich: Walter de Gruyter. http://www.degruyter.com/search?f_0=isbnissn&q_0=9783955530433&searchTitle
s=true.
Voss, K., E. Musall, and M. Lichtmeß. 2011. “From Low-Energy to Net Zero-Energy Buildings: Status and
Perspectives.” Journal of Green Building 6 (1): 46–57.
Wells, L., B. Rismanchi, and L. Aye. 2018. “A Review of Net Zero Energy Buildings with Reflections on the Australian
Context.” Energy and Buildings 158: 616–628.
Williams, J. 2009. “Zero Carbon Homes–Myth or Reality?” In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science.
Vol. 6, 1–14. IOP Publishing.
Yang, J., W. Cai, M. Ma, L. Li, C. Liu, X. Ma, L. Li, and X. Chen. 2020. “Driving Forces of China’s CO2 Emissions From
Energy Consumption Based on Kaya-LMDI Methods.” Science of The Total Environment 711 (April): 1–15. doi:10.
1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134569.
Yousefi, H., M. H. Ghodusinejad, and Y. Noorollahi. 2017. “GA/AHP-Based Optimal Design of a Hybrid CCHP
System Considering Economy, Energy and Emission.” Energy and Buildings 138: 309–317.
Yousefi, H., S. Roumi, H. Ármannsson, and Y. Noorollahi. 2019. “Cascading Uses of Geothermal Energy for a
Sustainable Energy Supply for Meshkinshahr City, Northwest, Iran.” Geothermics 79: 152–163.
Zhang, J., N. Zhou, A. Hinge, W. Feng, and S. Zhang. 2016. “Governance Strategies to Achieve Zero-Energy Buildings
in China.” Building Research & Information 44: 604.

Toward Comprehensive Zero Energy Building Definitions: A Literature Review and Recommendations

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Toward Comprehensive Zero Energy Building Definitions: A Literature Review and Recommendations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Sustainable Energy

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gsol20

Toward comprehensive zero energy

Javad Taherahmadi , Younes Noorollahi & Mostafa Panahi

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14786451.2020.1796664

Published online: 30 Jul 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Toward comprehensive zero energy building deﬁnitions:

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

CONTACT Younes Noorollahi Noorollahi@ut.ac.ir

2. The global direction toward zero energy buildings

Table 1. Three phases of the global movement towards ZEB.

3. Literature review of ZEB deﬁnition

3.2. Main criteria in deﬁning ZEB

Table 2. Strategies and barriers in the way of ZEBs.

– Which energy ﬂows shall be included

4. Discussion (Four main deﬁnitions of ZEBs)

Table 3. Essential Indicators in deﬁning zero energy buildings.

Figure 1. Classiﬁcation of ZEBs Deﬁnitions.

4.1. Zero energy

4.2. Zero carbon

– Zero-carbon building: Standard deﬁnition

4.3. Zero exergy

4.4. Zero cost

4.4.1. Investment cost and payback time

4.4.2. Cost balance of energy import/export to the network

– Diﬀerent approaches of production aﬀect the quantity of required energy.

Figure 2. Classiﬁcation of life cycle ZEBs deﬁnitions.

5. Results and conclusions

– Diﬀerences in the policy

Table 4. classiﬁcation of presented deﬁnitions.

You might also like