Energy 256 (2022) 124442

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Net-zero buildings, what are they and what they should be?
Birol Kilkis a, b, c, *
a
Polar Technology, Inc, Turkey
b
OSTIM Technical University, Turkey
c
Enover Inc, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper quantifies that current net-zero building definitions will remain as necessary but not suffi-
Received 10 December 2021 cient conditions in sustainable decarbonization efforts until they recognize exergy destructions as one of
Received in revised form the root causes of emission responsibilities. A direct relationship between exergy destructions and
7 May 2022
nearly-avoidable carbon dioxide emissions has been set as a sufficient condition to upgrade the decar-
Accepted 31 May 2022
Available online 25 June 2022
bonization mindset. This relationship is demonstrated in a case study where a solar prosumer building
with photovoltaic panels and a ground-source heat pump, known as a net-zero energy building, is
responsible for emissions. Based on the second law, emission responsibilities, primarily at the PV panels
Keywords:
Rational exergy management model
and the heat pump, were identified. By replacing them with advanced photo-voltaic-heat panels with
Nearly zero-carbon building temperature peaking and heat pump with adsorption cooling machines, carbon dioxide emission re-
Nearly-avoidable carbon dioxide emissions sponsibility due to avoidable exergy destructions was reduced by 96%. The main attribute is using solar
Prosumer building power only for electric power instead of downgrading it downstream to heat or cold by the heat pump,
Renewable energy minimizing exergy mismatches between electrical and thermal power. The paper also shows that a net-
Heat pump zero energy building may neither be a net-zero exergy building nor a zero-carbon building due to these
exergy destructions.
© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction one paper presented a classical exergy analysis of an organic-

Solar prosumer buildings are gaining popularity and are pre-
sented as net-zero or positive energy buildings. This claim may be
true according to the first law of thermodynamics, which considers
only the quantity of energy. Energy planners expect net-zero en-
ergy buildings to substantially reduce the energy consumption of
renewable energy sources and energy efficiency. Both of these ar-
guments are subject to the first law only. Wu and Skye did a
comprehensive literature survey about residential net-zero energy
buildings. As the title and the scope of this review paper indicate,
they covered only the first law's energy efficiency aspects without
referring to the second law. For example, they considered a net-
zero energy building at the center of a district energy system
comprising energy infrastructure connections with biomass dis-
tribution grid, gas piping, electrical grid, and energy storage [1].
They included renewable energy systems and energy efficiency
measures on the building side, including purchases from outside
renewable energy providers. They have reported 143 papers. Only
* Polar Technology, Inc, Turkey.
E-mail address: birolkilkis@hotmail.com.
Rankine-cycle (ORC)-based net-zero energy building without any
correlation to carbon dioxide emissions.
Different energy sources are not equal in terms of their useful
work potential (exergy). For example, if a so-called net-zero energy
building provides Y amount of thermal energy at an average tem-
perature of 315 K to a district energy system and receives the same
quantity of energy in the same period at 340 K is not in tempera-
ture, thus exergy balance. This imbalance is not recognizable by the
first law, which may simply be shown by the ideal Carnot cycle:


315 K
Exergy Deficit ¼ Y  1  ¼ 0:0735  Y
340 K
The temperature deficit must be offset (peaked in heating) at the
district energy plant or other prosumers in the district, possibly by
using some fossil fuels causing carbon dioxide emissions. This
reasoning establishes a direct link between exergy deficits and
emissions. This condition is true even if renewables maintain the
exergy offset because they also carry exergy deficits. Therefore, all
urbanization strategies and plans must consider the second law. In
this respect, Kilkis, S. and Kilkis, B. made an original attempt to
realize net-zero exergy districts. They found that a net-zero exergy

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2022.124442
0360-5442/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
B. Kilkis
district is impossible for their case study due to inevitable exergy
destructions beyond avoidable ones. Their case study showed that a
nearly net-zero exergy district where on-site exergy generation is
75% of the annual exergy consumption would reduce annual carbon
dioxide emissions by the same magnitude (78%) [2]. Kilkis, B. has
developed an exergy-based design and rating model for sustainable
cities' minimum carbon dioxide emissions responsibility with op-
timum land-use efficiency. New definitions, namely, Life-Cycle
Exergy Analysis, Life-Cycle Energy Analysis, Life-Cycle CO2 Anal-
ysis, and Life-Cycle Global Warming Potential Analysis, were
defined, prioritizing the second law [3].
Two closer research on the subject matter of exergy were
recently found in the literature: Sejkora et al. defined exergy as a
criterion for energy-efficient systems and linked it to the decar-
bonization efforts of the European Union [4]. Their results for
Austria showed that although the overall exergy efficiency may be
increased from 34% to 56% until 2030 with renewable targets,
almost half of the energy will depend on fossil fuels, responsible for
the corresponding rate of carbon dioxide emissions. Following their
results, it may be deduced that their prediction indirectly overlaps
with the relation between exergy destruction and nearly-avoidable
carbon dioxide emissions. In their study, the exergy efficiency in-
creases from 34% to 56%, meaning a decrease in exergy destructions
from (1e0.34) to (1e0.56), with a ratio of 1.5, which correlates with
the 50% of the fossil fuel dependence remaining in 2030. Kazanci
and Shukuya investigated the exergy performance of heating and
cooling equipment in buildings at different thermal loads [5]. Their
most remarkable conclusion was that the power use of auxiliary
components was negligible in terms of the first law (energy) but
critical in terms of the second law, recognizing the exergy gap be-
tween electrical power and heat.
Contrary to these few novel approaches with the exergy
concept, Scarpa et al. insisted on a simple correlation between the
financial conditions and energy performance of residential build-
ings to be retrofitted in terms of energy efficiency [6]. Their case
study concluded that thermal insulation of the building envelope is
unprofitable in Rome, Italy. Based on a simple economy, this
conclusion neglected that a retrofitting heat pump would enjoy an
increase in its coefficient of performance (COP) with insulation,
leading to further savings in terms of electric power consumption.
On the other hand, Agostino et al. modeled the correlation be-
tween nearly zero-energy buildings and climate change [7].
Although their model is one-directional, i.e., the effect of climate
change on the design of nearly-zero energy buildings, their nu-
merical data seems to be reversible. Several studies about instru-
mentation and rating of zero or nearly-zero energy buildings,
without any notice to the exergy concept, leave a large gap in
theory and practice. For example, Lee et al. empirically investigated
the performance characteristics of building-integrated photovoltaic
(BIPV) systems in zero-energy buildings [8]. However, they did not
consider the exergy destructions in all renewable energy systems.
Savolainen and Lahdelma have considered energy storage systems
from a narrow perspective, namely investment and operating costs
only. They analyzed an office building in Helsinki with photovol-
taics and heat pumps [9]. This application is a general approach
toward total electrification. However, their optimization model
with simple economic rules falls short of identifying large exergy
destructions in heat pumps and photovoltaics, except for reducing
installation costs by shaving off the peak loads. Other zero-energy
building papers ignore the exergy destructions [10,11].
There are few exergy-related papers about district energy sys-
tems. Falk [12] has attempted an integrated approach for evaluating
district heating systems by combining energy, exergy, ecological
and economic analyses. He used MATLAB/Simulink-based toolbox
CARNOT. His results favored a combined heat and power system
2
Energy 256 (2022) 124442
running on fossil fuels in financial terms. They selected a ground-
source and geothermal-source heat pump system for minimum
environmental footprint. These results show how simple economic
models may fail decarbonization efforts by favoring fossil fuels. For
example, Prando et al. [13] have analyzed the cost-optimality of
refurbishment on district heating systems regarding the impact of
energy and the economy only according to the first law. Although
Falk added exergy analyses, he failed to address the exergy mis-
matches and the consequent nearly-avoidable CO2 emissions,
namely DCO2. This additional emissions component is called nearly
zero-exergy because exergy cannot be stored but destroyed if not
utilized, and entropy increases [14]. The remaining studies in the
literature do not recognize the second law for carbon footprint
calculation.
2. Aim of the present study
The main motivation of this study is to clarify the difficulties met
in decarbonization efforts due to the ignorance of the exergy de-
structions leading to another one of the primary root causes of CO2
emissions. This study shows that the so-called nearly-avoidable
emissions responsibilities worldwide are up to 80% of the directly
measured emissions, meaning that decarbonization efforts are
missing almost half of the potential measures globally.
Despite the importance of the nearly-avoidable CO2 emissions
responsibility, DCO2, on the environment, there remain seven ma-
jor gaps in the literature, as identified in this study. Therefore, the
main aim is to quantify these gaps and develop a new exergy-based
model to close these gaps, including the exergy destruction-
emission relationship. As a simplistic example, Fig. 1 was pre-
pared, showing the unrecognized DCO2 proportions for solar sys-
tems, even though these systems do not involve any fossil fuel. For
example, a solar flat-plate collector (FPC) generating only hot water,
missing the power generation opportunity, has a DCO2 emission
responsibility of at least 65% compared to a conventional boiler. On
the other hand, a pumpless (heat piped) advanced solar PVT panel
(PVT3) with phase-change material thermal storage may have a
positive contribution to the environment with a slightly negative
DCO2 emission responsibility (15%). Based on the question about
which method is better for utilizing solar energy in buildings. The
black sections of the corresponding pie charts reveal the gaps in the
literature. This paper also includes a case study to quantify the
importance of the nearly-avoidable emissions control by mini-
mizing exergy destructions.
3. Need for the present study
The literature survey presented in Section 1 has already indi-
cated several gaps that the second law may successfully respond to.
These gaps, however, are not directed to the theory, practice, and
analysis of renewable energy sources and systems, like solar panels
and heat pumps. Their fundamental theory and engineering
knowledge base are already well established in the literature and
industry. Therefore, the gaps mentioned below are directed to how
their environmental footprints are analyzed regarding exergy
destructions.
Such an accomplishment will be part of supporting the key ac-
tivities of the European Technology Platform on renewable heating
and cooling [15]. The 2050 vision of the Renewable Heating and
Cooling Platform (RHC) in Europe has six primary visions, one of
which is the 100% Renewable Energy (100% RE) building (The
fourth vision) [16]. This vision combines decarbonization and
decentralization objectives and 5 DE systems. As discussed earlier
by the Author [17], the lower the temperature in a renewable-
energy district heating system, the smaller the district.
B. Kilkis
Fig. 1. Sample DCO2 recognition gaps in solar energy utilization literature.
3.1. Gap 1: exergy destructions in renewable energy systems
The relatively low unit solar exergy (quality) (Equation (1)) and
the wide availability (quantity) of solar energy contradicts. Never-
theless, several combinations of exergy-compatible applications
may relax the conflict with minimum exergy mismatches. For
example, the maximum unit exergy of solar energy (εsolar) for total
irradiation on a panel surface, In, is derived as a function of the total
solar irradiance, TSI (1.3608 ± 0.0005 kW/m2) [18,], lower than the
canonical value of the 1990s [19]:
0:95  In   
εsolar ¼ ¼ 0:6981  In kW  hexergy kW  henergy
TSI
(1)
0.95 kW-hexergy/kW-henergy is the maximum unit exergy based
on electric power [20]. According to Equation (1), if In is 0.85 kW/
m2, solar energy's maximum useful work potential will be
0.593 kW-hexergy/kW-henergy. At this irradiation level, at a
maximum, 59.3% of the solar energy input of one kW-h may be
utilized in useful works [20,21]. The rest is irreversibly destroyed:
εdes ¼ 0:593  hPV  0:95 ¼ 0:593  0:20  0:95
¼ 0:403 kW  h=kW  h
Only 0.19 kW-hexergy out of one kW-henergy from the solar energy
input is converted to electrical exergy (0.95xhPV) work (exergy). A
PV panel destroys 0.407 kW-h/kW-h of thermal exergy down-
stream power generation out of the solar supply exergy of
0.593 kW-h/kW. The situation is even worse for a solar flat-plate
solar collector (FPC) heating the city water from 290 K to 340 K
for DHW, at a collector efficiency, hFPC of 0.75:


290 K
εdes ¼ 0:59 hFPC  1  ¼0:59 0:70 0:147 ¼ 0:49 kW
340 K
 h=kW  h
3
Energy 256 (2022) 124442
3.2. Gap 2: nearly-avoidable CO2 emissions of renewable energy
systems
Any exergy destruction needs to be offset in the exergy stock of
the energy resources [3].
DCO2 ¼ cεdes fð1  jR Þ (2)
3.3. Gap 3: energy efficiency and exergy destructions, which comes
first?
Table 1 has been prepared to assist city planners, decision-
makers, and engineers in prioritizing renewable energy systems
in the energy supply sector. The new Potential Renewable Penetra-
tion Index, rEX, rates the decarbonization potential of any renewable
energy system compared to natural-gas (εj ¼ 0.87 kW-h/kW-h)
power plant with a stack temperature of 600 K and reference
temperature of 283 K as a reference. Therefore, jRref equals 1-
(1e283 K/600 K)/0.87), 0.40. The term jR also represents the re-
sponsibility of DCO2 emissions, as depicted in Equation (2).
! !
εoutput jR
rEX ¼ , (3)
εj jRref
In Table 1, the white areas, showing the unrecognized exergy
destructions, εdes, reveal at the same time the current gaps in the
literature regarding renewable energy systems. The term (rEX)
already covers hI in calculating εoutput. If only hI were used in eval-
uations according to the first law to prioritize renewable energy
sources, it would be misleading in many cases. εj is indexed to
natural gas (0.87). For example, the first law efficiency, hI, is the
second-highest for hot water flat-plate solar collectors (FPC). It is
second to the PVT efficiency of 0.80. However, the FPC has the
lowest penetration potential (0.06) compared to other renewable
system alternatives.
The highest potential penetration index belongs to wind turbine
technology. The second in the row is PVT technology, and FPC is the
least. Fig. 2 shows the land-use effectiveness, LUEEX, which is
B. Kilkis Energy 256 (2022) 124442

Table 1
Exergy rationality and energy efficiency comparison of renewable energy systems.

System jR hI hII Exergy Flow Bar DCO2 rEX

SOLAR, In¼ 750 W/m2, εso¼ 0.58 W/W, Tf¼ 591 K PV 0.62 0.20 0.327 0.06 0.335

PVT 0.74 0.80 (0.2 þ 0.6) 0.414 0.04 0.505

FPC (Flat-Plate Collector) 0.217 0.75 0.164 0.286 0.059

Geothermal ORC þ Waste H. (120  C) εg¼ (1e283/393) ¼ 0.2798 0.713 0.70 (0.1 þ 0.6) 0.489 0.045 0.28

Wind Turbine 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.0405 1.0

Fig. 2. Lueex of different renewable energy systems [3].

important for sustainable cities with minimum emissions re-

sponsibility. LUEEX is the new exergy-based index given by Equation P
n
(4). Here (n) is the number of different exergy outputs. For example, hIi  εouti
for geothermal ORC and waste heat, or PVT, n is two (power and LUEEX ¼ i¼1 (4)
AL
heat). AL is the total land area occupied for each kW of installed
capacity [3]. For example, regarding the geothermal ORC and waste heat use
system from Table 1, with AL equal to 0.27 m2/kW, power efficiency
of 0.12, and thermal efficiency of 0.65:

4
B. Kilkis
 
0:12  0:95 kW  hex =kW  hen þ 0:65  1  293 K
315 K kW  hex =kW  hen
LUEEX ¼
0:27 m2 =kW
The flat-plate collector case has the lowest LUEEX, although it has
one of the highest first-law efficiency. Explanation:
εE  hIE þ εH  hIH
hII ¼
εsource
εsource : 0:58 for solar energy at In ¼ 0:75 kW=m2 ; 0:2798 for geothermal; and 0:95 for wind
DCO2 ¼ 0:27  εdes fThermal exergy destroyedg
DCO2 ¼ 2:1  εdes fElectrical exergy destroyedg
DRA (Drag-reducing agent) represents friction reduction addi-
tives for thermal fluids in the district system [22]. Fig. 3 shows that
the total unit exergy output for the geothermal system is maximum
with the ORC þ District þ DRA case for all supply temperatures. The
second law also reveals a break-even point at 363 K between the
ORC only and district heating only alternatives. This point moves to
370 K, with DRA favoring the district heating-only case.
3.4. Gap 4: market penetrability and priority as a compound
emissions function
From a different perspective, today, the market penetrability of
renewable energy systems and equipment is mainly dictated by
energy costs, green economy, and green finance. According to
Fig. 3. Unit Exergy output of Different Geothermal Energy Alternatives [22].
5
Energy 256 (2022) 124442
¼ 0:59 kW=m2

r [23]:
Zhironkin and Cehla
‘The green economy-the newest way to obtain and use re-
sources is a product of the Fourth Industrial Revolution and
concentrates many of the achievements of Industry 4.0. The
related structural shifts in the economy are caused by new waste
recycling industries, zero-emission energy production, absorp-
tion of greenhouse gas emissions, green urbanism, and post-
mining.
This survey reveals the major gap. Even this latest definition of
the green economy refers only to the first law, and their paper does
not include the term exergy. In the most recent book by MDPI of
361 pages [24], there is only one place where the word exergy is
mentioned, and it belongs to a reference citation regarding a diesel
engine.
On the contrary, in the face of the climate emergency, the pri-
oritization based on environmental penetrability needs to be based
on another metric, WBR, in addition to rEX:
Wr  εw  hIw
WBR ¼ c  fMaximum; cK > 0g (5)
K
0:2
Table 2 shows that waste heat sources have different waste heat
ratios, Wr, recoverable down to a limiting temperature of 35  C
(308 K), and the unit exergy of waste heat at its source temperature,
εW. The first-law efficiency hIW is the efficiency practically possible
for heat recovery. WBR is further referred to as the CO2 content, cK,
B. Kilkis Energy 256 (2022) 124442

Table 2
Waste heat potential of different resources, WBR and PM. Tref ¼ 283 K

Source Wr εW hIW cK WBR DCO2 PMb

Power Plants Natural Gas, Combined cycle 0.40 0.096a 0.40 0.20 0.0154 0.056 0.0116
Solid Fuel 0.60 0.402 0.70 0.65 0.0519 0.235 0.4518
Low-enthalpy geothermal 0.70 0.198 0.80 0.45 0.2494 0.115 0.1661
Buildings with: Condensing B. 0.10 0.150 0.15 0.20 0.0022 0.087 0.0324
Non-Condensing B. 0.25 0.331 0.75 0.20 0.0620 0.194 0.1008
Roof type solar PV 0.60 0.220 0.70 0.27 0.028 0.129 0.0604
Solar PVT 0.15 0.095 0.25 0.27 0.0684 0.040 0.0486
a
At the cooling tower inlet.
b
CO2base is 0.72 kg CO2/kW-hexergy for both power and heat in equal proportions. w1 ¼ w2 ¼ 0.5.

of the fuel indexed to natural gas (0.2 kg CO2/kW-hexergy). For re-
newables, cK is either 0.27 or 2.1 kg CO2/kW-hexergy, depending on
the type of exergy destroyed, thermal or electrical, respectively. The
new definition, WBR is unique because it combines the waste heat
ratio, waste exergy, first-law efficiency of recovery and use of the
waste heat, and the carbon factor (cK) of the origin of the waste
heat.
Depending on the decarbonization strategies and goals for
maximum benefits of waste heat, WBR may be weighted by factors
w1 and w2 with the emissions responsibility to form another pri-
oritization metric, PM, given in Equation (6).


DCO2
PM ¼ w1  WBR þ w2 fMaximumg
CO2base
CO2base is the reference emissions responsibility of the energy
sector for both power and heat. Both WBR and PM must be
maximum for the highest priority to penetrate the energy market
due to their urgency of converting from waste to useful work.
According to Table 2 and WBR, the priority must be given to low-
enthalpy geothermal energy sources for claiming the waste heat.
This is an important conclusion because about 80% of the
geothermal energy sources have low-enthalpy (less than 100  C but
useful for district energy systems). However, when the emission
responsibilities are considered in terms of PM, the priority must be
given to solid-fuel power plants to retrofit for waste heat utilization
if emission control is acceptable. This conclusion may seem to
contradict the environmental concerns against global warming.
Therefore, a careful analysis is needed if it is better to decommis-
sion such power plants after comparing whether CO2 mitigation by
reclaiming waste heat exceeds power plant emission re-
sponsibilities or not. Condensing boilers are also subject to this
analysis. Solar PVT systems have the least priority in terms of PR
because they already have very little waste and are almost carbon
neutral or negative (see Fig. 1).
3.5. Gap 5: conflict between the building stock and moderate-
temperature heating and cooling equipment
them have temperatures below 50  C. In many EU countries, half of
the residential stock comprises buildings built before 1970, when
thermal efficiency regulations were not present yet [25]. They run
on old heating equipment designed for high supply temperatures.
Therefore, there is a significant conflict between old buildings that
demand high supply temperatures and the new EU roadmap of
utilizing low-temperature thermal sources. EU is heading to very-
low temperature district energy systems, namely the Fifth-
Generation DE (5 DE) systems with supply temperatures as low
as 35  C (Tsup) [26,27]. In IEA Annex 37, a comprehensive compi-
lation of research was carried out on low-temperature heating and
its potential implications and the so-called side effects [28]. They
argued that adding passive building systems for better retaining
(6)
solar gains and other internal sources with continuous but lower
thermostat settings shaves off the peak loads and somehow en-
hances the utilization of low-temperature heat supplies. They
further considered floor heating, wall heating, oversized radiators
and convectors, and air heating. Their studies were not conclusive
about energy performance, which was limited to the first law only,
and they did not investigate the impact of district piping and
pumping. Figs. 4 and 5 show the exergy deficits of a heat pump in
heating and cooling modes, respectively.
The potential impacts of low-temperature heating from the
perspective of buildings regarding indoor air quality (IAQ), comfort,
and energy have been further investigated by Eijdems, Boerstra,
and Veld, without considering the conflict between energy supply
temperature and the equipment demand temperature [26]. For
public understanding and acceptance, they termed the low-exergy
(Temperature) energy as ‘low valued' energy. They overviewed the
impact of low-temperature supply on heating equipment for
several types, including radiant floor and wall panels and low-
temperature air heating. They qualitatively claimed that IAQ and
sensation of comfort improve mainly by using radiant panels,
which already permit low temperatures for operation. However,
they did not study achieving low-temperature heating by designing
new equipment or oversizing the existing equipment, which helps
to increase the COP of heat pumps and reduces the exergy
mismatch.

Out of the 63% of low-temperature heat sources, about 50% of

Fig. 4. Exergy deficit offset by a heat pump in heating.

6
B. Kilkis
Fig. 5. Exergy deficit offset by a heat pump in cooling.
3.6. Gap 6: heat pumps [3]
In a continuation of Gap 5, despite the need for exergy-based
COP definitions and their impact on the environment, heat pump
contribution remains overestimated. For example, Lohani carried
out energy and exergy analysis of heat pump operation with power
supply from a fossil fuel plant [29]. Carbon dioxide emissions were
only referenced to fossil fuel use, and a moderate COP level was
determined as sufficient and beneficial. Their conclusion has
overestimated the benefits because their study ignored DCO2
emissions responsibility, which requires a much higher COP value
for an exergy break-even point of view. Regarding renewables,
Biglarian and Abdollahi studied the advantages of grid-connected
solar PV panels in reducing grid electricity demand [30]. Howev-
er, they did not realize that solar PV panels are also responsible for
exergy destructions, as mentioned in this paper. Leidenfrost has
also ignored this important dimension of global warming, this time
in terms of exergy destructions taking place in the onsite or off-site
heating systems like boilers using fossil fuel [31].
3.7. Gap 7: nearly or net-zero building definitions and metrics
All definitions in the literature about the net or nearly zero
definitions, including net-zero carbon buildings, all depend on the
first law and ignore the nearly-avoidable emissions responsibility
according to the second law. Therefore, zero-energy building (ZEB)
is not a sufficient response to the fifth-generation district energy
systems (5 DE), especially at low supply temperatures when exergy
destructions become more critical. In this respect, a zero-energy
building is not necessarily a low-temperature, low-exergy build-
ing. For example, consider a ZEB plant, which generates power with
solar PV panels and uses this power directly in high-temperature
processes. Therefore, although this plant is a zero-energy build-
ing, it does not fit into the 5 DE description because it demands
high-temperature heat and generates this heat with high-exergy
electricity. In this respect, ZEB or net-zero energy Building (NZEB)
definitions are necessary but not sufficient conditions.
The incompatibility of existing heating equipment in the exist-
ing building stock, 50 years old or older, is a fundamental barrier for
5 DE systems. On the other hand, these buildings must be
compatible with low-supply temperatures (in heating) or high
supply temperatures (in cooling) by retrofitting them with new
heating or cooling equipment [32]. The key to the solution is a
composition of suitable retrofits with minimum additional
embodiment and operating CO2 emissions responsibility. Sarbu and
Sebarchievici [33] proposed floor heating systems compared to
conventional radiator systems with ground-source heat pumps
(GSHP) rather than offering innovative products. Their study did
7
Energy 256 (2022) 124442
not acknowledge that installing radiant floor systems in existing
buildings is difficult.
Furthermore, without the second law, they did not recognize
that heat pumps operating with electric power are also responsible
for nearly-avoidable emissions and ozone depletion due to refrig-
erant leakages. Hesaraki et al. [34] proposed ventilated radiators. In
this system, attached fans enhance the convection heat transfer and
increase the heating capacity at lower supply temperatures. How-
ever, their study excluded the electric power consumption of fans.
The high exergy demand of the fans (0.95 kW/kW) is not matched
by the exergy gain from the increased thermal capacity (in the
order of 0.15 kW/kW) despite a decrease in the electrical power
demand of the heat pumps due to their increased COP values at
lower supply temperatures. None of the low-temperature heating
considerations in the current literature address such exergy-based
issues, and their low-temperature heating system proposals are
limited to radiant panels with or without heat pumps. Therefore,
such applications bring specific challenges and further constraints
rather than solving the main problem of utilizing low-temperature
resources without an increased environmental footprint.
After reaching a standard definition of Zero-Energy Buildings by
the US Department of Energy (DOE) in 2015, in collaboration with
the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS), a widespread lack
of scientific clarity and comprehension still exists in the green
building business. Within the 100% Renewable Heating and Cooling
roadmap for decarbonization, the first law (Concerning quantity of
energy) is insufficient to define, design, and rate ‘zero' buildings.
Therefore, new definitions are necessary using the second law
(energy quality) [35].
4. Development of the model
The new model comprises a solar house with PV panels on the
roof and an electrically operated ground-source heat pump. This
house is a solar prosumer house because it is connected to a ther-
mal district energy system and the power grid. This prosumer
house shares heat and power and may be claimed as a net-zero
energy building if its annual share of heat and power with the
district is balanced. However, this new model recognizes that the
exergy share may not be in balance, causing CO2 emissions,
although the building does not involve fossil fuels.
4.1. Exergy flow between a solar prosumer and the district
Fig. 6 shows a solar prosumer house with PV panels and a
ground-source heat pump. It is claimed to be a net-zero energy
building.
PV panels provide DC power at an average efficiency of hPV
B. Kilkis Energy 256 (2022) 124442

X
CO2HP ¼ DCO2HP þ CO2HP (10)

If only the first law was concerned then the DCO2 term would be
dropped, which is as important as the CO2 term. For example, if:

Tref ¼ 283 K; TE ¼ 335 K; hPV ¼ 0.18; PEF ¼ 2.5; hINV ¼ 0.95; cK ¼ 0.2;
REX ¼ 0.30; XHP ¼ 0.9


283K
DCO2PV ¼ þ 0:27  1  ð1  0:2Þ ¼ 0:0335 kg CO2 =kW
335K
h

CO2PV ¼  0:95  ð1  0:9Þ0:20  0:95  ð2:5  0:2Þ  ð1  0:30Þ ¼

 0:0063 kg CO2 =kW  h

X
CO2HP ¼ þ 0:0335  0:0063 ¼ þ0:0272 kg CO2 =kW  h

Fig. 6. A Solar Prosumer Building with PV panels and a Ground-Source Heat Pump
(GSHP).
directly to the heat pump internally at the building site, at an
annual average rate of XHP. The remaining annual electrical energy
is the net supply to the grid after deducting the annual electrical
energy supplied from the grid for households. The quality of elec-
trical energy exchange is assumed to be the same. There is a small
DC-AC-DC inverter for the grid exchange. Because PV panels
destroy thermal exergy, they are responsible for þDCO2. For one
kW-h of solar energy input:
This application is responsible for net emissions. If only the first
law was used, the DCO2 term would drop; then, the application
would appear as an environmental application. This example un-
derlines the major awareness gap about renewable energy systems.
For reduced emissions responsibility, less power demand of the
heat pump with higher COP values maybe be achieved with low-
temperature heating equipment and high-temperature cooling
equipment.
Heat Pump:
The heat pump is responsible for emissions from three different
perspectives (see Fig. 6). These are explained below.


1 The heat pump uses electric power exergy and generates ther-
Tref mal exergy. Whether the power comes from the grid or on-site
DCO2PV ¼ þ 0:27  1  ð1  hPV Þ ½kg CO2 =kW  h
TE renewables, it is responsible for CO2 emissions because, in this
(7) example, almost the entire PV power output could be supplied
to the grid (XHP/0). This missed opportunity represents an
The building receives heat from the grid at temperature TD emissions responsibility:
during cold weather when the heat pump is insufficient and PV
electric power output is limited. During milder weather, the heat CO2PV ¼ þ 0:95  ð1  0Þ0:20  0:95  ð2:5  0:2Þ  ð1  0:30Þ ¼
pump provides heat both to the building and the grid at a supply
 0:063 kg CO2 =kW  h
temperature of Tsup. At the same time, PV panels provide (1-XHP)
amount of electrical energy to the grid following the converter with
an efficiency of hINV, replacing eCO2 from the grid.
2 At such an emissions expense, the heat pump generates only
CO2PV ¼  0:95  ð1  XHP ÞhPV hINV  ðPEF  cK Þ  ð1  REX Þ low-exergy thermal energy. Therefore, it has the following DCO2
emissions responsibilities:
(8)




0:95 Tref Tref
P
r DCO21 þ DCO22 ¼ 0:63   1 þ 1
COP Tsup Tret
Qrk εrk

k¼1 Tref
REX ¼ (9) þ 0:27  1 
P
q P
r Tret
Qfl εfl þ Qrk εrk
l¼1 k¼1 (11)
If COP in heating is 5, T1 ¼ 340 K, T2 ¼ 320 K:




0:95 283 K 283 K 283 K
DCO21 þ DCO22 ¼ 0:63   1 þ 1 þ 0:27  1 
5 340 K 320 K 320 K
¼ þ0:118 kg CO2 =kW  h

8
B. Kilkis Energy 256 (2022) 124442

Equation (11) can be used for district cooling by replacing the

operating parameters for cooling operations. These two DCO2
emissions may be translated into a virtual GWP, regarding climate
warming, even with a natural or synthetic refrigerant, ideally with
zero ODP and zero GWP. According to the definition of GWP refer-
enced to one ton of CO2 in the atmosphere, the virtual GWPv of a
heat pump will be:

GWPv ¼ 1000  DCO2 (12)

Then for the above example, even if the heat pump uses CO2 as a
natural refrigerant (zero ODP and GWP equal to one), the actual
climate effect of that heat pump in terms of GWPv is:

GWPv ¼ 1000  ð0:118Þ ¼ 118 > > 1

3 Therefore, although the newest commercial refrigerants are

claimed to have zero ODP, GWPv values for refrigerants can be
related to refrigerant leakages [36].


0:1  GWPv0:03 ALT 0:01
ODI ¼ fODP < 1g (13)
ð1  ODPÞ 1


LR  CH
DCO23 ¼  ODI (14)
OH
LR is the annual leakage ratio, CH is the annual charge of the
refrigerant in kg, and OH is the annual operating hours, assuming
Fig. 8. Retrofit of the Solar Prosumer House Without Heat Pump and PV, Replaced by
that no leakage occurs during non-operational hours. A solar PVT ADS and PVT, Respectively, for Minimum Exergy Destructions: nZCB.
system could eliminate the high emissions responsibility of a heat
pump and its power demand, with minimum responsibility of DCO2
due to much less exergy destruction [19], by providing both power simplified objective, based on the exergy destructions only, is to
and heat. An adsorption cooling machine may accomplish comfort minimize the incremental dCO2, after ignoring the direct CO2
cooling at a small compromise about the PV efficiency by permit- emissions increase due to the increase in the grid power demand.
ting higher supply temperatures from PVT panels in the summer COPEB of the electric boiler is taken to be one. COPHP of the heat
months. pump is linearized by Equation (15) (see Fig. 8).
Last but not least, to maintain a high COP, the supply tempera-
 
ture from the heat pump needs to be relatively low in heating, COPHP y a  b THP  Tg (15)
which may not be sufficient for domestic hot water (DHW) tem-
perature. Suppose the district supply temperature, TD, is not high
enough. In that case, the DHW supply temperature must be peaked dCOPHP y  DTHP (16)
at about 340 K by a separate on-demand electric boiler (EB) to
comply with legionella risk abatement standards and guides [37].


T þ DTHP
An electric boiler has direct and indirect emissions responsibility dðDCO2 Þ ¼ 0:63  0:95  1  HPo
340 K
because it drains power from the PV panels and destroys power


exergy by downgrading electric power exergy to thermal exergy. 0:95 THPo
þ  1 fminimizeg
The same holds for the heat pump, which operates with electricity bð  DTHP Þ THPo þ DTHP
and destroys power exergy. Therefore, there might be an optimum (17)
share of temperature peaking to minimize exergy destructions. This
After taking the derivative of Equation (17) concerning DTHP and
action requires a future emissions responsibility analysis model.
then equating it to zero, the optimum partial temperature peaking
When DHW demand is on, the heat pump is subjected to a
allocated to the heat pump may be determined:
higher supply temperature of THP2 than the design temperature,
THPo. See Fig. 7. Let (THP2-THPo) be represented by DTHP. After THP2, the pffiffiffiffiffiffi
peaking is taken over by the electrical boiler up to 340 K. The W
DTHP jopt ¼  pffiffiffiffiffiffi THPo f  340 Kg (18)
1 W

0:95
W¼ (19)
bTHPo
Direct emissions due to the electric power demand from the grid
may be included by a numerical solution using the following
equations for a given flow rate and the specific heat of the fluid,
Fig. 7. Temperature-peaking schema with a share of heat pump and an electric boiler. which are assumed to be constant during the DHW demand,
9
B. Kilkis Energy 256 (2022) 124442

8  Exergy-Levelized Cost, ELC

>
>

X < PEF  c 0:95

d CO2HP ¼  K
 þ 0:63  DTHP The following two metrics expand the standard levelized cost
>
> a a  bDTHP concept by including embodiments, supply exergy, first-law effi-
: DTHP  b
ciencies, and the panel area. First of all, costs must be levelized
9 (20)
according to the exergy output. ELC includes exergy rationality,

>
>
=
THPo thus, environmental cost. ELC is defined at design (test) conditions,
 1 _ p
mC
THPo þ DTHP > > excluding energy and CO2 embodiments. Wp is panel weight, PC is
; the panel market price (cost).
!
PEF ¼ 2.5, cK ¼ 0.2 kg CO2/kW-h. PC þ EM  Wp n o
ELC ¼   V=kWEXpeak =m2
X Itest Ap jR εsupE hE þ εsupH hH
d CO2EB ¼ f340 K  THPo  DTHP g



 (27)
T þ DTHP
 PEF  0:2 þ 0:63  0:95  1  HPo _ p
mC
340 K
(21)
 Exergy-Levelized Emissions, ELCCO2
XX X X
d CO2HPþEB ¼ d CO2HP þ d CO2EB fminimizeg
A similar equation may be derived for CO2 embodiments lev-
(22) elized to exergy destructions during operation at a given renewable
energy ratio, REX:
Even such a seemingly simple allocation problem may become
complicated by the second law, but the result is rewardingly precise !
EMCO2  Wp þ 0:27ð1  REX ÞItest Ap ð1  jR Þ
and correct. ELCCO2 ¼  
Grid and District Energy System: Itest Ap jR εsupE hE þ εsupH hH
n o
Depending upon the energy and exergy deficits between the
 kg CO2 =kWEXpeak =m2 (28)
prosumer house, the district, and the grid, CO2 and DCO2 emissions
responsibility at the power plant(s) and the thermal plant of the
grid occur. These may be calculated by adopting the associated
equations given above.
 Exergy-Based Compactness Ratio, CREX

CREX evaluates the total exergy output of a solar panel for given
4.2. Exergy-based rating metrics
solar supply exergy at design conditions per unit panel weight,
defining the rational exergy management performance intensity of
The following metrics are a partial follow-up of the Author's
a solar panel. The panel weight, Wp, is also an indicator of energy,
previous publications [38,39].
exergy, and CO2 embodiments. The ideal panel is rational and light
(High CREX).
 The Sustainable Environment Index, SEI, is a combination of ODI
(greenhouse effect), the first law (hI), and the exergy rationality,



Ap εsupE hE þ εsupH hH Ap jR
jR (second law). CREX ¼ ¼ (29)
Wp ð0:95  In =1367:6Þ Wp
SEI ¼ hI jR ð1  ODIÞ (23) Equations (28) and (30) are instrumental in rating and opti-
mizing future decarbonization efforts. One of these equations
   represents financial cost, and the other represents the environ-
εdes εsolar  COP 1  TTsup
ret
  
jR ¼ 1  ¼1 ¼ a  b Tsup  Tg mental (Carbon cost). For exergy-based decarbonization strategies,
εsolar εsolar the second equation gives clues for sustainable solutions in har-


Tret nessing solar energy for low-temperature applications.
 1
Tsup
(24) 5. Case study

 CFI is the Carbon Footprint Index referred to as exergy de- Referring to Fig. 6, Table 3 gives the sample input data for the
structions. Here, the multiplier c (0.27) is used because the PVT ‘net-zero energy'solar prosumer house, including heat pump, with
panel generates electric power first. annual energy exchange with the grid, namely, heat, cold, and

0:27εdes
CFI ¼ ¼ 0:27ð1  jR Þ (25) Table 3
εsup Annual energy exchange of the solar prosumer house with the district energy sys-
tem, Tref ¼ 283 K (Fig. 6).

Annual Exchange Items With the District kW-henergy/

 Environmental Development Ratio, EDR (Based on Exergy annum
Consumption)
Heat Cold Power
P 
CO2 ðQH þ EÞX Prosumer 20,000 @320 K 10,000@285 K 10,000
EDR ¼ 1  f > 0g (26) District 25,000@340 K 2000@280 K 13,000
CO2base Balance 5000 þ8000 3000

10
B. Kilkis
Table 4
Exergy exchange with the district energy system and emission responsibilities
(Fig. 6).
Annual Exergy Exchanges ƩCO2 ƩDCO2
Between the Prosumer,
kg CO2/kW-henergy kg CO2/kW-hexergy
District, and the Grid kW-
hexergy/annum
Heat Cold Power
Balance 294.1 52.6 2850 0.71 0.96
Table 5
CO2 emissions responsibility of prosumer retrofit (Fig. 7).
Prosumer Balance Annual Exchange Items with the District
Heat Cold
0 0
power. According to the first law, there is a balance in terms of the
total energy exchange. However, when the CO2 and DCO2 compo-
nents are considered, Table 4 shows that this building is a net-zero
energy building but not a net-zero or near a zero-carbon building.
Both CO2 and DCO2 terms are positive.
6. Results
Table 4 shows that the solar prosumer house before retrofitting,
as shown in Fig. 6, is substantially responsible for direct and nearly-
avoidable carbon dioxide emissions from a holistic view and
considering the exergy deficits both in the district and the solar PV
and heat pump systems of the building, according to the second
law. Nearly-avoidable emissions responsibility of 0.96 kg CO2/kW-
hexergy is more than the direct emissions responsibility of 0.71 kg
CO2/kW-hexergy, which remains unrecognized in the literature gaps.
PV panels generate only power and miss the opportunity of co-
generating heat. Otherwise, the heat load from the district would
decrease by using a solar photo-voltaic-heat (PVT) panel system, as
well as minimizing exergy destructions. By adding a solar tem-
perature peaking panel to the PVT [19,32], the supply temperature
may satisfy DHW demand also. This panel also eliminates the
electric boiler. The heat pump downgrades electric power quality to
either heat or cold.
Due to heat generated by the PVT system and adding a desiccant
dehumidifier, the heat pump may be eliminated, and the cooling
loads may be satisfied by an adsorption unit (ADS). The reject heat
from the ADS may be seasonally stored in the on-site ground TES
for the next heating season to be used in a heat-piped low-tem-
perature radiator [32]. Fig. 7 shows such a retrofit case with im-
provements involving replacing PV panels with advanced PVT
panels with onboard solar temperature peaking and eliminating
the heat pump with a solar adsorption cooling unit. A desiccant
system (DC) satisfies the latent cooling loads. According to Table 5,
CO2 emission responsibilities are reduced by 89%, and DCO2 emis-
sion responsibilities are reduced by 96%. CO2 emissions are reduced
at the district plant (including their DCO2) by eliminating thermal
energy demand, thus the exergy deficit. Electricity demand is
minimal due to eliminated power demand of the heat pump.
Heating and cooling loads are satisfied by PVT and ADS. Reject heat
of ADS is stored, reducing the heat demand. This retrofit presents a
simple environment-friendly prosumer model, depicting a nearly
zero-carbon building.
7. Discussions of results
Table 4 shows that a regular solar prosumer house has at least
11
Energy 256 (2022) 124442
50% of unrecognized emissions responsibility. This house is
responsible for 2.6 tons CO2 and 1.2 tons of DCO2 annually. This
comparison presents an important gap in the literature, theory, and
practice in understanding the overall mechanism of the climate
emergency problem in the built environment and potential solu-
tions. Results for this specific case of a solar prosumer house ob-
tained in this research have shown the importance of recognizing
and quantifying the non-zero total emissions responsibility of the
presently described as ‘net-zero energy'. The key is the quantitative
kg CO2/kW-henergy kg CO2/kW-hexergy
Power
300 0.075 0.037
definition of the nearly-avoidable DCO2 emissions responsibility,
neglected in theory and practice. In Fig. 1, these emission re-
sponsibilities are shown to be quite high even for many types of
solar systems with considerable exergy destructions. Sometimes,
even the direct CO2 emissions induced by the exergy balances be-
tween the building, grid, and the power plant are ignored. The
results show that the net-zero definition needs a redefinition in
terms of exergy. A zero exergy building may not be defined because
exergy destructions are inevitable and irreversible. However, as
Table 5 shows for the case study in Fig. 7, there may be minimal but
non-zero emissions responsibility. Then the most rational defini-
tion may be a nearly-zero carbon building (nZCB), with an arbitrary
definition given below:
7.1. nZCB
nZCB is a building that exchanges heat, power, and cold with the
district and the grid with a maximum total emissions responsibility
of less than 0.1 kg CO2/kW-hexergy.
8. Conclusions
Adopting and retrofitting buildings with exergy destructions in
mind against climate emergency, as well as utilizing more renew-
able energy sources, is expected to facilitate the satisfaction of the
Paris agreement goals on time. Otherwise, buildings, which are
responsible for about 40% of the emissions worldwide, will miss the
goals because the DCO2 emission responsibilities will continue to
be recorded in the atmosphere but kept unrecognized on the
ground (built environment).
The method given in this paper based on solar prosumers is
adaptable to all other renewable and non-renewable energy sys-
tems and demand points in the built environment. It will also
facilitate the transition to low and ultra-low-temperature heating
and high-temperature cooling systems with renewables and waste
energy. The important key is the second law of thermodynamics.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Nomenclature
a, b Linearized COP factors of a heat pump (Equation (15)), b
has a unit of K1
B. Kilkis Energy 256 (2022) 124442

AL Land area occupied with the renewable energy system, D Design, rated
m2/kW dem Demand
ALT Residence time in the atmosphere, year des Destroyed
CH Annual refrigerant charge, kg E Useful output, exit, electric
c Nearly-avoidable exergy (power of thermal) destruction eq Equipment (For indoor comfort)
offset coefficient, kg/[kW/kW] f Fuel, energy source
cK Unit emission coefficient of the fuel mix in the energy FPC Flat-plate collector
sector, kg CO2/kW-h g Geothermal
CFI Carbon footprint index H Heat
COP Coefficient of performance HP Heat pump
COPc Coefficient of performance of a chiller inv Inverter
CREX Exergy-based compactness ratio, m2kg1 j Fuel-related variable (εj), Equation 3
E Electric energy, kW-h K Energy sector average
EDR Environment development ratio o Outdoor, original, design
ELC Exergy-levelized panel cost, V=kWEXpeak =m2 out, output Output
ELCCO2 Exergy-levelized emissions, kg CO2 =kWEXpeak =m2 PV Photo-Voltaic (panel)
EM Embodied material cost per material weight, V=kg ref Environment reference (temperature)
EMCO Embodied CO2 per material weight, ret Return
kg CO2 =kg  material s Standard (test) conditions
GWP Global warming index solar Solar
In Total solar irradiation on the panel surface area, kW/m2 source Source
LUEEX Exergy-based land use effectiveness sup Supply
LR Annual leakage ratio (of the refrigerant) test at test conditions
ODI Ozone-depletion index w waste
ODP Ozone-depletion potential v Virtual
OH Operating hours in a year (of a heat pump), h X, EX Exergy
PC Market price of solar panels, V
PM Prioritization metric, including emission responsibility Acronyms
PEF Primary energy factor (2.5 in Europe) ADS Adsorption Cooling Unit
QH Thermal Energy, kW-h DC Desiccant System for Latent Cooling Loads
REX Exergy-based renewables mix in the energy supply DE District Energy
stock 5 DE Fifth-Generation District Energy System
rEX Potential renewable penetration index DHW Domestic Hot Water
TSI Total solar irradiance, 1.3676 kW/m2 DOE US Department of Energy
SEI Sustainable environment index DRA Drag-reducing agent
T Temperature, K EB Electric Boiler
CO2 Direct emission, kg CO2/kW-h EU European Union
DCO2 Nearly-avoidable emission, kg CO2/kW-h FPC Flat-Plate Solar Collector
SCO2 Total emission, kg CO2/kW-h GSHP Ground-Source Heat Pump
W Weight, kg IAQ Indoor Air Quality
w1, w2 Weighing factors for WBR IEA International Energy Agency
WBR Market penetration potential (priority) LT Low Temperature
Wr Recoverable waste heat ratio, down to 35  C MDPI Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
XHP Electrical energy supplied to the heat pump, kW-h NIBS National Institute of Building Sciences
Y Amount of thermal energy that a net-zero energy NZEB Net-Zero Energy Building (Connected to DE)
building supplies to the district energy system in a nZEXB Nearly-Zero Exergy Building
certain period, kW-h nZCB Nearly-Zero Carbon Building
ORC Organic Rankine Cycle
Greek Symbols PV Photo-Voltaic Solar Panel
ε Unit exergy, kW/kW or kW-h/kW-h PVT Photo-Voltaic-Thermal Solar Panel
εj Average unit supply exergy of the urban area, kW/kW or RE Renewable Energy
kW-h/kW-h Competing exergy of renewables against REMM Rational Exergy Management Model
natural gas (0.87 kW/kW) RHC Renewable heating and cooling
hI or h First-Law efficiency 100% RHC 100% Renewable Heating and Cooling
hII Second-Law efficiency TES Thermal Energy Storage
jR Rational Exergy Management Model (REMM) Efficiency UNIDO United Nations Industrial Development Organization
ZEB Zero Energy Building
Superscripts
‘ Modified, retrofitted, oversized
References
n Heating equipment capacity exponent (Equation (21)).
[1] Wu W, Harrison M, Skye M. Residential net-zero energy buildings: Review
Subscripts and perspective. ISSN 1364-0321 Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2021;142:
Air (Indoor) 110859. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.110859> https://www.science-
a
direct.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364032121001532, 2021.
B Boiler [2] Kılkış S, Kılkış B. An urbanization algorithm for districts with minimized
ch Chiller emissions based on urban planning and embodied energy towards net-zero

12
B. Kilkis
exergy targets. Energy 2019;179:392e406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.en-
ergy.2019.04.065. ISSN 0360-5442, 2019.
[3] Kilkis B. Optimum urban land-use model for minimum CO2 emissions re-
sponsibility under energy and exergy-based constraints. In: 5th SEE SDEWES
Conference paper, paper ID: SEE2022.0002 Vlore Albania, may 22-26, 2022;
2022.
[4] Sejkora C, Kühberger L, Radner F, Trattner A, Kienberger T. Exergy as criteria
for efficient energy systems maximizing energy efficiency from resource to
energy service, An Austrian Case Study. Energy 2022;239(2022):122173.
[5] Kazanci O, Shukuya M. A theoretical study of the effects of different heating
loads on the exergy performance of water-based and air-based space heating
systems in buildings. Energy 2022;238(2022):122009.
[6] Scarpa F, Luca A, Tagliafico LA, Bianco V. Financial and energy performance
analysis of efficiency measures in residential buildings. A probabilistic
approach. Energy 2021;236(2021):121491.
[7] ’Agostino D, Parker D, Epifani I, Crawley D, Lawrie L. How will future climate
impact the design and performance of nearly zero energy buildings (NZEBs)?
Energy 2022;240(2022):122479.
[8] Lee JB, Wan Park JW, Yoon JH, Baek NC, Kim DK, Cheul UC. An empirical study
of performance characteristics of BIPV (building integrated photovoltaic)
system for the realization of zero energy building. Energy 2014;66(2014):
25e34.
[9] Rebecka Savolainen R, Lahdelma R. Optimization of renewable energy for
buildings with energy storages and 15-minute power balance. Energy
2022;243(2022):123046.
[10] Nielsen S, Mo € ller B. ‘Corrigendum to “Excess Heat Production of Future Net
Zero Energy Buildings Within District Heating Areas in Denmark” [Energy 48
(2012) 23e31]’. Energy 2014;69(2014):893.
[11] Laurence Gibbons L, Javed S. A review of HVAC solution-sets and energy
performance of nearly zero energy multi-story apartment buildings in nordic
climates by statistical analysis of environmental performance certificates and
literature review. Energy 2022;238(2022):121709.
[12] Falk PM. Evaluation of district heating systems based on exergy analysis,
Doctoral Thesis. University of Darmstadt; 2018. URN: urn:nbn:de:tuda-
tuprints-73723, URL: https://tuprints.ulb.tu-darmstadt.de/7372.
[13] Prando D, Prada A, Ochs F, Gasparella A, Baratieri M. 2015. Analysis of the
energy and economic impact of cost-optimal buildings refurbishment on
district energy systems, vol. 21. Science and Technology for the Built Envi-
ronment; 2015. p. 876e91. https://doi.org/10.1080/23744731.2015.1040343.
ASHRAE.
[14] Kilkis B. An exergy-based model for low-temperature district heating systems
for minimum carbon footprint with optimum equipment oversizing and
temperature peaking mix. Energy 2021;236(2021):121339.
[15] Ec. Support to key activities of the European technology Platform on renew-
able heating and cooling. 2041/2014, ISBN 978-92-79-99635-1. https://
doi.org/10.2777/135325.KI-02-19-085-EN-N. https://www.rhc-platform.org/
content/uploads/2019/12/Support-to-key-activities-of-European-technology-
platform-on-RHC.pdf > Last visited on: 03/06/2021.
[16] Hc. 2050 vision for 100% renewable heating and cooling in Europe. https://
www.rhc-platform.org/content/uploads/2019/10/RHC-VISION-2050-WEB.pdf
%3e Last visited on: 03/06/2021; 2019.
[17] Kilkis B. An exergy rational district energy model for 100% renewable cities
with distance limitations. Therm Sci: Yearbook 2020;24(6A):3685e705. 2020.
[18] Kopp G, Lean J. A new, lower value of total solar irradiance: evidence and
climate significance. Geophys Res Lett 2011;38:L01706. https://doi.org/
10.1029/2010GL045777 [https://airbornescience.nasa.gov/content/A_new_
lower_value_of_total_solar_irradiance_Evidence_and_climate_significance].
[19] Kilkis B. Development of a composite PV panel with PCM embodiment, TEG
modules, flat-plate solar collector, and thermally pulsing heat pipes. Solar
Energy, 200 2020 2020:89e107 [31] SDH. 2021. Solar District Heating Ini-
tiatives in Europe, https://www.solar-district-heating.eu/.
[20] Kilkis B. Lessons Learned from Labyrinth type of air Preconditioning in exergy-
13
Energy 256 (2022) 124442
Aware solar greenhouses. JSDEWES; 2022. Paper no. 1002.
[21] Kılkış Birol, Kilkis Siir. New exergy metrics for energy, environment, and
economy nexus, and optimum design model for nearly-zero exergy airport
(nZEXAP) systems. Energy 2017;140. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.energy.2017.04.129.
[22] DRAGLOW. 2022. Draglow Newsletter. February 2022. https://www.draglow.
nl/.
[23] Zhironkin S, Cehl
ar M. Green economy and sustainable development: the
outlook. Energies 2022;15:1167. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15031167.
[24] MDPI. Green economy and sustainable development. In: Zhironkin S,
Cehla
r M, editors. Printed Edition of the special issue Published in Energies;
2022. https://doi.org/10.3390/books978-3-0365-3222-6 (registering.
[25] Ec. Most residential buildings were built before thermal standards were
Introduced. How do you Know? Energy. Chart: Breakdown of Residential
Building by Construction Year. 2014. <https://ec.europa.eu/energy/content/
most-residential-buildings-were-built-thermal-standards-were-introduced_
en.
[26] Dijk HAL van, Bruchem L van, Wolveren J van. Voorstudie naar de effecten en
het gedrag. 1998. Delft: van Laag Temperatuur Systemen; 1998.
[27] Eijdems HHEW, Boerstra AC, Opt ’t Veld’ PJM. Low-temperature heating sys-
tems impact on IAQ, thermal comfort, and energy consumption, Healthy
buildings Conference. August 2000. 2000. <https://www.healthyheating.com/
IEQ_Radiant.htm>.
[28] IEA. EBC Annex 37, LowEx, literature review: side effects of low exergy
emission systems. 2000. p. 100. Novem BV. the Netherlands, https://annex53.
iea-ebc.org/Data/publications/EBC_Annex_37_literature_review.pdf.
[29] Lohani SP. Energy and exergy analysis of fossil plant and heat pump building
heating system at two different dead-state temperatures. Energy 2010;35(8):
3323e31. 2010.
[30] Biglarian H, Abdollahi S. Utilization of on-grid photovoltaic panels to offset
electricity consumption of a residential ground source heat pump, Energy.
Available online 27 November 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.
12277; 2021. 122770.
[31] Leidenfrost W. The use of heat pumps in reducing fuel consumption for non-
solar climate control of buildings. Energy 1978;3(1):83e93.
[32] Kılkış B, Çaglar M, Şengül M. Potential benefits of heat Pipe technology for
achieving 100% renewable heating and cooling for fifth-generation, low-
temperature district heating systems. 2021. Paper No: 1225311, Energies
2021, 14, MDPI, www.mdpi.com/journal/energies.
[33] Sarbu I, Sebarchievici C. A study of the performances of low-temperature
heating systems. Energy Efficiency 2015;8:609e27. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12053-014-9312-4.
[34] Hesaraki A, Ploskic A, Holmberg S. Integrating low-temperature heating sys-
tems into energy efficient buildings. Energy Proc 2015;78(2015):3043e8.
ScienceDirect, 6th International Building Physics Conference, IBPC 2015.
[35] Erten D, Kilkis B. How can green building certification systems cope with the
era of climate emergency and pandemics? Energy Build 2021;256(2022):
111750.
[36] Kilkis B. How rational is the Use of heat pumps in electrification for decar-
bonization, Invited Lecture material presented at Workshop on considering
Unlocking energy efficient Opportunities and Exploring low GWP non-HFC
alternative Technologies in the cooling sector and Safety standards while
Phasing-down HFCs under the Kigali Amendment. Antalya Turkey: UNIDO
Conference; 2019.
[37] ASHRAE. ASHRAE standard 188-2018- Legionellosis: risk management for
building water systems (ANSI Approved). 2018. <https://www.tech-
street.com/ashrae/standards/ashrae-188-2018?gateway_code¼ashrae&-
product_id¼2020895>.
[38] Kılkış B. Is exergy destruction minimization the same thing as energy effi-
ciency maximization? Journal of Energy Systems 2021;5(2021):165e84. 2.
[39] Kılkış B. The real meaning of zero-energy buildings, vol. 10. Turkey Efficiency
Magazine; 2020. p. 40e3. Year 2020.