Deep energy efficiency renovation of Germany’s residential buildings: is this as economically viable as Germany’s policymakers and popular promoters often claim?
Published version
Peer-reviewed
Repository URI
Repository DOI
Change log
Authors
Abstract
AbstractGermany needs to steeply increase the rate of deep energy-efficiency renovation of its old buildings, to meet climate goals. The government has long maintained that deep renovation to a specified “minimum” energy efficiency standard is economically viable: that the costs are paid back, through energy savings, over the technical lifetime of the energy-efficiency measures. Many private and public organisations support and promulgate this view. It accords with a stream of academic literature which suggests that the under-adoption of energy efficiency measures is a paradox indicating market failures and economically irrational behaviour by property owners. This paper offers cost–benefit analyses of 44 case study scenarios to test whether deep renovation in Germany pays back in monetary terms. These include both specific buildings and Germany-wide averages of classes of buildings. It uses current construction, finance and energy costs, and takes account of inflation, discount rates and opportunity costs. None of the scenarios are economically viable in monetary terms, and the average payback after 25 years is around 22.5%. Sensitivity analyses suggest payback would only be achieved using improbable parameter values. Energy-efficiency renovation is necessary but promoting it needs to take account of these realities.
Description
Acknowledgements: The author wishes to thank the German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action (Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Klimaschutz, BMWK) for a grant received by the Institute for Future Energy Consumer Needs and Behavior (FCN) at RWTH Aachen University (Grant No. 03EI5230A), which part-funded the research and writing of this paper. Thanks also to colleagues at Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership, University of Cambridge, UK, for support in developing the conceptual framework for the paper; to colleagues at FCN for practical assistance and concept development and to Paul Galvin for advice on construction and renovation practices and costs.
Journal Title
Conference Name
Journal ISSN
1570-6478

