PRESERVING CONTINUITY IN WHOLE-LIFE COST MODELS FOR NET-ZERO CARBON BUILDINGS

Investment in net-zero carbon buildings requires comprehensive evaluation especially with regards to economic viability. Mathematical modelling of whole-life costing provides a relevant framework to assess the investment potential of net-zero carbon buildings. Previous studies in investment analysis have suggested insufficiency in the discounting mechanism of cash flows leading to unrealistic estimation, and in some instances, incorrect decisions. There is a growing body of evidence that conceptual adjustments to cost models could facilitate improvements in the costing of zero carbon buildings. This study, - which is part of a PhD investigation on cost studies in zero carbon buildings, presents an approach to preserving continuity in whole-life cost models using the binomial theorem. The work builds on the New Generation whole-life costing developed in Ellingham and Fawcett (2006) by extending the period under consideration and concurrently providing for other elements of time, uncertainty and irrevocability. The study also highlights the conceptual importance of continuity in decision-models. An illustrative costing exercise is carried out, over a 25-year period, on a conventional and net- zero carbon building using three different whole-life cost procedures. Results from the study suggest that continuous whole-life cost models provide a realistic template for representing cost variables especially in comparative studies. Future research will examine the implications of continuous whole-life costing for a generic net-zero carbon building. This will provide construction professionals with clear aspirational objectives on the economic performance of net-zero carbon buildings.

[1]  Mohammed Kishk,et al.  COBRA 1999 An integrated framework for life cycle costings in buildings , 1999 .

[2]  Timo Ala-Risku,et al.  Life cycle costing: a review of published case studies , 2008 .

[3]  Claude Brezinski,et al.  Numerical Methods for Engineers and Scientists , 1992 .

[4]  Chan S. Park,et al.  Advanced engineering economics , 1990 .

[5]  Joanna Williams,et al.  Zero-carbon Homes: A Road Map , 2012 .

[6]  A Huvstig,et al.  WHOLE LIFE COSTING , 1999 .

[7]  Wayne L. Winston.  Simulation Modeling Using Risk , 1995 .

[8]  Douglas J. Ferry.  Cost Planning of Buildings , 1980 .

[9]  Pernilla Gluch,et al.  The life cycle costing (LCC) approach: a conceptual discussion of its usefulness for environmental decision-making , 2004 .

[10]  Joseph T. L. Ooi.  New Generation Whole-life Costing: Property and Construction Decision Making under Uncertainty , 2007 .

[11]  John V. Farr,et al.  Systems Life Cycle Costing: Economic Analysis, Estimation, and Management , 2011 .

[12]  Paul Chan,et al.  Constructing a sense of time in projects: implications of a Bergsonian view of time , 2012 .

[13]  R. Clarkson,et al.  Estimating the Social Cost of Carbon Emissions , 2001 .

[14]  Marcel C. Smit,et al.  A North Atlantic Treaty Organisation framework for life cycle costing , 2012, Int. J. Comput. Integr. Manuf..

[15]  Richard Kirkham,et al.  Whole Life-Cycle Costing: Risk and Risk Responses , 2003 .

[16]  Robert J. Howlett,et al.  Sustainability in Energy and Buildings , 2020, Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies.

[17]  Katherine Holden,et al.  Achieving zero carbon code level 6 for the Kingspan Lighthouse building , 2011 .

[18]  Bilal M. Ayyub,et al.  Uncertainty Modeling and Analysis in Civil Engineering , 1997 .

[19]  Ivor Catto.  Carbon zero homes UK style , 2008 .

[20]  Bart Janssens,et al.  The anatomy of investing in energy efficient buildings , 2011 .

[21]  Kate Barker,et al.  Review of Housing Supply , 2004 .

[22]  M. C. Georgiadou,et al.  Future-Proofed Design for Sustainable Communities , 2011 .

[23]  Border Ireland,et al.  Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) , 2006 .

[24]  T. Ross.  Fuzzy Logic with Engineering Applications , 1994 .