search.noResults

search.searching

dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
ENERGY MANAGEMENT


Conclusions The two following differences impact the relative economic and carbon emissions between using a gas or electrical heating system solution: difference in cost per kWh, and difference in kgCO2


per kWh.


Presently, all countries reviewed have a higher cost/kWh for electricity which varies from 300 per cent to over 1000 per cent. Through many countries’


commitments to zero carbon, decarbonisation of grid electricity is progressing dramatically and there are countries where the carbon content/kWh is less for electricity than gas. In some countries this difference is significant, such as France and Sweden. In these examples, the annual carbon emissions through fuel consumption of a gas-fired system is more than three times that of an electric heating solution. Trends indicate this will shortly be true for increasing numbers of countries. The high coefficient of performance of


ASHP technology offers the opportunity to significantly decrease carbon consumption, and dependent on the ratio of electricity carbon to gas carbon content, this can occur even when the carbon factor of electricity is higher than that of gas. With regards to capital costs of the


various options, an all-electric hospital is significantly higher than that of a gas- fired boiler. This is due to increased electrical infrastructure requirements and equipment cost for an ASHP solution. Looking at other heating system fuel options, the potential future replacement/ combining of fossil fuels with alternatives, such as hydrogen are still in their infancy. As a result, medium- to long-term predictions on the direction of achieving zero carbon targets are difficult. However, in the short term, routes to zero carbon buildings tends to favour replacing traditional heating systems with electrically fuelled sources. Through the use of electricity


generating renewable technology such as wind or photovoltaic solutions, the overall carbon content of electricity utilised by a hospital is further reduced. Trends in fuel prices and


decarbonisation of the electricity grid indicate that in the short term for many countries, the lower carbon solution is an electrical heating system one. And in the long term, the operational fuel cost will close its margin on a gas fired system. Due to a key factors such as air quality,


potential ability for zero operational carbon and long term diminishing kWh cost between electricity and gas, there is


a strong case that all heating solutions will gravitate towards this over the coming years. The challenge to the construction and healthcare industry is to consider all aspects while thinking of affordability against a more positive direction in achieving a zero-carbon hospital.


References 1 Karliner J, Slotterback S, Boyd R, Ashby B, Steele K. Health Care’s Climate Footprint – How the health sector contributes to the global climate crisis and opportunities for action, Arup, 2019.


2 UK Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy. UK becomes first major economy to pass net zero emissions law, 2019. https://www.gov.uk/government/ news/uk-becomes-first-major-economy-to- pass-net-zero-emissions-law.


3 NHS England. National Commitments, 2019. https://www.england.nhs.uk/greenernhs/ national-ambition/national-commitments.


4 UK Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy. Building Energy Efficiency Survey, 2014-15: Overarching Report, 2016. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/ government/uploads/system/uploads/ attachment_data/file/565748/ BEES_overarching_report_FINAL.pdf.


5 NHS England. National Commitments, 2019. https://www.england.nhs.uk/greenernhs/ national-ambition/national-commitments.


IFHE


IFHEDigest Providing insights into the vast field of healthcare engineering and facility management 72 IFHE DIGEST 2021


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116