Energy consumption in conventional, energy-retrofitted and green LEED Toronto schools
AbstractGreen buildings have been marketed as the economical, energy-efficient alternative to conventional buildings. This is despite little existing empirical evidence to prove their energy efficiency, especially in Canada. To overcome this limitation, the electricity and gas consumption quantities and costs of a sample of 10 conventional, 20 energy-retrofitted and three green Toronto schools following the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Rating (LEED) System for New Construction were analysed in this study. The analysis conducted over eight years for conventional and energy-retrofitted schools, and since their inception for green schools, showed surprisingly that energy-retrofitted and green schools spent 37% more on electricity than conventional schools. Nevertheless, green schools spent 56% and 41% less on gas than conventional and energy-retrofitted schools respectively. Their total energy costs were also 28% lower than conventional and energy-retrofitted schools. Nevertheless, these savings do not always justify their construction cost premiums. The study showed that more research was needed to overcome the scarcity of data on green buildings in Canada. There was a need to focus on analysing more green buildings, of various types, and over longer study periods in order to better understand why some green buildings do not live up to expectations.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Taylor & Francis Journals in its journal Construction Management and Economics.
Volume (Year): 29 (2011)
Issue (Month): 4 ()
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.tandfonline.com/RCME20
You can help add them by filling out this form.
reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.Access and download statisticsgeneral information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Michael McNulty).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.