IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v18y2026i11p5589-d1957884.html

Comparative Assessment of Residential Heating and Ventilation Packages: Operational Energy Performance and Screening Life-Cycle Carbon Context

Author

Listed:
  • Jan Stefański

    (Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, Nowoursynowska 159 St., 02-776 Warsaw, Poland)

  • Anna Stefańska

    (Department of Sustainable Construction and Geodesy, Institute of Civil Engineering, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, Nowoursynowska 159 St., 02-776 Warsaw, Poland)

Abstract

The environmental performance of residential buildings depends not only on envelope quality but also on the choice of heating, domestic hot water, and ventilation systems. This study presents a comparative assessment of eight technology packages for a reference single-family house located in Warsaw, Poland, using a harmonised framework under Polish EPC calculation assumptions, with identical building parameters, system boundaries, and functional assumptions for all variants. Operational performance was evaluated using Energy Performance Certificate indicators, including useful energy, final energy, non-renewable primary energy, operational CO 2 emissions, and the share of renewable energy sources. In addition, a comparative 50-year scenario of operational CO 2 emissions was developed, and a screening life-cycle carbon assessment of the reference building fabric and major building components was performed to provide a material and construction-related carbon context for the operational comparison. The embodied impacts of package-specific technical systems were excluded from the LCA scope. The results showed that fossil-dominated packages generated the highest primary energy demand and operational emissions, whereas renewable-supported and hybrid configurations substantially improved environmental performance. Under the adopted EPC-based accounting assumptions, the fully renewable packages achieved the lowest operational indicators; however, these variants should be interpreted as upper-bound theoretical scenarios rather than as demonstrated real-life zero-emission solutions. Therefore, they were not used as the main basis for the practical ranking. Among the practically comparable mixed configurations, the most favourable operational results were obtained for renewable-supported heat-pump-based packages. The screening life-cycle assessment indicated that a substantial part of the total environmental burden was associated with the product and construction stages of the reference building. The results confirm that the interpretation of residential technical packages depends strongly on the adopted assessment perspective and that operational indicators should be considered together with at least a screening-level carbon context for the building fabric. According to the calculation results, the EP value ranges from 0 to 90.8 kWh/(m 2 ·year), depending on the technology package.

Suggested Citation

  • Jan Stefański & Anna Stefańska, 2026. "Comparative Assessment of Residential Heating and Ventilation Packages: Operational Energy Performance and Screening Life-Cycle Carbon Context," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 18(11), pages 1-31, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:18:y:2026:i:11:p:5589-:d:1957884
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/18/11/5589/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/18/11/5589/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:18:y:2026:i:11:p:5589-:d:1957884. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask MDPI Indexing Manager to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.