No abstract

No abstract

C 12 H 22 CdN4O14, triclinic, P¯ (no. 2), a = 7.188(2) Å, b = 8.895(3) Å, c = 9.771(3) Å, α = 63.148(3)°, β = 76.750(3)°, γ = 66.225(3)°, V = 509.2(3) Å 3 , Z = 1, Rgt(F) = 0.0253, wR ref (F 2 ) = 0.0676, T = 296(2) K. CCDC no.: 1484775The crystal structure is shown in the gure. Tables 1 and 2 contain details of the measurement method and a list of the atoms including atomic coordinates and displacement parameters. Source of materialThe title compound was synthesized by a hydrothermal method under autogenous pressure. A mixture of CdCl 2 ·H 2 O

The paper aims to assess the energy performance of a thermal rehabilitated ground floor building by using new thermal insulation panels with double-side anti-condensation foil on the exterior and polyurethane foam or polyisocyanurate on the interior (PUR or PIR) in various ways. The study also wants to emphasize the benefits of using these insulating materials encouraging their further use. Therefore, five scenarios are carried out, four thermal rehabilitation scenarios and the reference building scenario, without thermal insulation. The obtained results are evaluated by comparison. The results point out the energy performance of PUR and PIR used as thermal insulation panels for the building envelope but also the economic impact and the economic efficiency that involves using such panels. This work is based on the energy efficiency requirements targeting the building envelope and takes into account mainly the behavior of the envelope elements while the heating system is treated in a simplified manner, considering its usual efficiency. The conclusions highlight the main advantages of using these panels for buildings thermal rehabilitation compared to other common materials, such as polystyrene or mineral wool.

This data article relates to the paper “Review of the cost-optimal methodology implementation in Member States in compliance with the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive”. Datasets linked with this article refer to the analysis of the latest national cost-optimal reports, providing an assessment of the implementation of the cost-optimal methodology, as established by the Energy Performance of Building Directive (EPBD). Based on latest national reports, the data provided a comprehensive update to the cost-optimal methodology implementation throughout Europe, which is currently lacking harmonization. Datasets allow an overall overview of the status of the cost-optimal methodology implementation in Europe with details on the calculations carried out (e.g., multi-stage, dynamic, macroeconomic, and financial perspectives, included energy uses, and full-cost approach). Data relate to the implemented methodology, reference buildings, assessed cost-optimal levels, energy performance, costs, and sensitivity analysis. Data also provide insight into energy consumption, efficiency measures for residential and non-residential buildings, nearly zero energy buildings (NZEBs) levels, and global costs. The reported data can be useful to quantify the cost-optimal levels for different building types, both residential (average cost-optimal level 80 kWh/m2y for new, 130 kWh/m2y for existing buildings) and non-residential buildings (140 kWh/m2y for new, 180 kWh/m2y for existing buildings). Data outline weak and strong points of the methodology, as well as future developments in the light of the methodology revision foreseen in 2026. The data support energy efficiency and energy policies related to buildings toward the EU building stock decarbonization goal within 2050.