Energy Renovation versus Demolition and Construction of a New Building—A Comparative Analysis of a Swedish Multi-Family Building

Abstract

This study addresses the life cycle costs (LCC) of energy renovation, and the demolition and construction of a new building. A comparison is made between LCC optimal energy renovations of four different building types with thermal performance, representing Swedish constructions from the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, as well as the demolition of the building and construction of a new building that complies with the Swedish building code. A Swedish multi-family building from the 1960s is used as a reference building. LCC optimal energy renovations are identified with energy saving targets ranging between 10% and 70%, in addition to the lowest possible life cycle cost. The analyses show that an ambitious energy renovation is not cost-optimal in any of the studied buildings, if achieving the lowest LCC is the objective function. The cost of the demolition and construction of a new building is higher compared to energy renovation to the same energy performance. The higher rent in new buildings does not compensate for the higher cost of new construction. A more ambitious renovation is required in buildings that have a shape factor with a high internal volume to heated floor area ratio.

Investigating cost-optimal energy renovation of a multifamily building in Sweden

“…OPERA-MILP was developed at Linköping University, Sweden, in the 1990s to serve as a tool for identifying suitable energy renovation strategies for multifamily buildings [25]. Since then, the tool has been used in several studies of multifamily buildings [26][27][28][29] as well as historic buildings [6,30,31].…”

Development and Performance Assessment of Prefabricated Insulation Elements for Deep Energy Renovation of Apartment Buildings

“…La Fleur et al [19] showed that the cost of the demolition and construction of a new building is higher compared to energy renovation to the same energy performance. This makes renovation the first choice, when there exists need for residences in that region.…”

Comprehensive energy, economic and thermal comfort assessments for the passive energy retrofit of historical buildings - A case study of a late nineteenth-century Victorian house renovation in the UK

“…The Committee for Climate Change in 2019 determined that a 15% reduction in domestic energy is required by 2030 to reach a net zero target in 2050 [8]. The life cycle costs in [9] show that costs are higher for demolition and rebuilding of older dwellings compared to retrofitting to the same energy standards, without even considering the obvious increase in emissions associated with demolition and rebuild, which is undesirable given the 2050 target of net zero emissions within the UK. As such, retrofitting of dwellings to upgrade them to be more energy efficient is a desirable option.…”