Optimum Yalıtımı Kalınlığının Enerji Tasarrufu ve Küresel Isınma Potansiyeli Üzerine Etkisi

Dış yüzeylerde meydana gelen ısı kayıplarını azaltmanın en etkili yöntemi ısı yalıtımıdır. Bu çalışmada, Diyarbakır ili için farklı yakıtlara göre optimum yalıtım kalınlığı, enerji tasarrufu, maliyet tasarrufu, geri ödeme süreleri ve sera gazı emisyonları hesaplanmıştır. Hesaplamalar üç farklı yakıt (doğalgaz, kömür ve fuel-oil) dikkate alınarak yapılmıştır. Optimum yalıtım kalınlığı, yaşam döngüsü maliyet yöntemi kullanılarak hesaplanmıştır. Küresel ısınma potansiyeli, kg CO2 eşdeğer (CO2eq.) olarak ifade edilmiş ve yaşam döngüsü değerlendirme yöntemi ile belirlenmiştir. Doğalgaz, kömür ve fuel-oil için optimum yalıtım kalınlığı sırasıyla 0.057 m, 0.066 m ve 0.089 m olarak bulunmuştur. Geri ödeme süreleri doğalgaz, kömür ve ful petrol için sırasıyla 2.85, 3.57 ve 2.05 yıl olarak hesaplanmıştır.. Hesaplanan optimum yalıtım kalınlıkları için yıllık önlenen çevresel etkiler doğalgaz, kömür ve fuel-oil için sırasıyla 17.45, 51.28 ve 26.7 kg CO2eq /m2 olarak bulunmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

enerji tasarrufu, optimum yalıtım kalınlığı, çevresel etki, yaşam döngü değerlendirmesi

The Effect of Optimum Insulation Thickness on Energy Saving and Global Warming Potential

The most effective method of reducing heat losses occurring on the outer surfaces is thermal insulation. In this study, optimum insulation thickness, energy saving, cost saving, payback period and greenhouse gas emissions were calculated with respect to different fuels for Diyarbakır province. The calculations were performed considering three different fuels (natural gas, coal and fuel-oil). The optimum insulation thickness was calculated using the life cycle cost method. Global warming potential is expressed as kg CO2 equivalent (CO2eq.) and calculated by life cycle assessment method. The optimum insulation thickness was found as 0.057 m, 0.066 m and 0.089 m for natural gas, coal, and fuel oil respectively. Payback periods were calculated as 2.85, 3.57 and 2.05 years for natural gas, coal and fuel oil, respectively. Annual avoided environmental impacts for calculated optimum insulation thicknesses were found as 17.45, 51.28 and 26.7 kg CO2eq/m2 for natural gas, coal, and fuel oil respectively.

Keywords:

energy saving, optimum insulation thickness, environmental impact, life cycle assessment,

PDF

___

[1] National Energy Conservation Center. The Principles of Energy Management in Industry, Ankara 2006.
[2] Açıkkalp E, Kandemir SY. A method for determining optimum insulation thickness: Combined economic and environmental method. Thermal Science and Engineering Progress. 2019;11: 249-253.
[3] TS 825, Thermal insulation requirements for buildings. Turkish Standards Institute. 2008. Ankara.
[4] Bolattürk A. Determination of optimum insulation thickness for building walls with respect to various fuels and climate zones in Turkey. Applied thermal engineering. 2006; 26(11-12):1301-1309.
[5] Kaynakli O. A study on residential heating energy requirement and optimum insulation thickness. Renewable Energy. 2008;33(6):1164-1172.
[6] Bolattürk A. Optimum insulation thicknesses for building walls with respect to cooling and heating degree-hours in the warmest zone of Turkey. Building and environment. 2008; 43(6):1055-1064.
[7] Ucar A. Balo F. Determination of the energy savings and the optimum insulation thickness in the four different insulated exterior walls. Renewable Energy. 2010;35(1):88-94.
[8] Ozel M. Thermal performance and optimum insulation thickness of building walls with different structure materials. Applied Thermal Engineering. 2011;31(17-18):3854-3863.
[9] Daouas N. A study on optimum insulation thickness in walls and energy savings in Tunisian buildings based on analytical calculation of cooling and heating transmission loads. Applied Energy. 2011;88(1):156-164.
[10] Ekici BB, Gulten AA, Aksoy UT. A study on the optimum insulation thicknesses of various types of external walls with respect to different materials, fuels and climate zones in Turkey. Applied Energy. 2012;92:211-217.
[11] Rosti B, Omidvar A, Monghasemi N. Optimal insulation thickness of common classic and modern exterior walls in different climate zones of Iran. Journal of Building Engineering. 2020; 27:100954.
[12] Dombaycı ÖA. The environmental impact of optimum insulation thickness for external walls of buildings. Building and Environment. 2007;42(11):3855-3859.
[13] Çomaklı K, Yüksel B. Environmental impact of thermal insulation thickness in buildings. Applied Thermal Engineering. 2004;24(5-6):933-940.
[14] Mahlia TMI, Iqbal A. Cost benefits analysis and emission reductions of optimum thickness and air gaps for selected insulation materials for building walls in Maldives. Energy. 2010; 35(5);242-2250.
[15] Küçüktopcu E, Cemek B. A study on environmental impact of insulation thickness of poultry building walls. Energy. 2018;150:583-590.
[16] Evin D, Ucar A. Energy impact and eco-efficiency of the envelope insulation in residential buildings in Turkey. Applied Thermal Engineering. 2019;154:573-584.
[17] Kurekci NA. Determination of optimum insulation thickness for building walls by using heating and cooling degree-day values of all Turkey’s provincial centers. Energy and Buildings. 2016;118:197-213.
[18] Aydin N, Biyikoğlu A. Determination of Optimum Insulation Thickness by Life-Cycle Cost Analysis for Residential Buildings in Turkey. Science and Technology for the Built Environment. (just-accepted), 2020;1-19.
[19] International Organization for Standardization. Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Principles and Framework; International Standard ISO 14040; ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
[20] İZODER, 2018, Available from: https://www.izoder.org.tr/
[21] Bulut H, Büyükalaca O. Yılmaz T. Türkiye için isitma ve soğutma derece-gün bölgeleri. 16. National heat science and technique congress. Kayseri; 2007.
[22] Kaynaklı Ö, Kaynaklı F. Determination of optimum thermal insulation thicknesses for external walls considering the heating, cooling and annual energy requirement. Uludağ University Journal of The Faculty of Engineering. 2016;21(1):227-242.