Search

Adoption of green design and technology in buildings, which can mitigate negative impacts on the environment, has been recognized as a key step towards global sustainable development. In addition to technology development, economic viability plays a pivotal role in stimulating the design, construction and use of green buildings. This paper provides a comprehensive review of recent studies on the economic viability of “going green”, including cost-benefit analyses from the perspective of building life cycle and from the perspective of major market participants. While “going green” is more likely to be seen as profitable from the building life cycle perspective, economic viability, from the perspective of developers and occupants, remains unclear due to information, behavior and policy factors. Such discrepancy in the results regarding economic viability is one major reason for the “paradox” of the very gradual diffusion of apparently cost-effective green buildings in most economies. We also propose several key topics that merit future research, including more comprehensive evidence about life-cycle costs and benefits of green buildings, the incorporation of ancillary long-term or intangible benefits in the analysis of economic viability for developers and occupants, an investigation on the dynamics of the adoption of green buildings, and institutional arrangements for stimulating green practices in the building sector. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Denmark is ambitious in the green transition of its transport sector. The biogas has potentials to substitute diesel as the vehicle fuel. In this paper, we examine the whole chain of biogas utilisation (biomass supply, biogas production and distribution, and fuel substitution) from both environmental and economic perspectives. We find that with low/high biomass supply potentials, the saved greenhouse gas emissions range from 0.89 to 1.66 million tons/2.19 to 4.27 million tons CO 2 e (carbon dioxide equivalent). The soil carbon stock could increase 52310/124770 tons with low/high biomass supply potentials (measured as remaining carbon in soil in 100 years after application of digestate into soil). The biogas plant owners can obtain a return of investment ranging from 10.78% to 13.62% depending on biomass supply potentials and biogas production technologies. The farmers can save up to 717.93 and 1382.1 million DKK (Danish krone) by substituting mineral P (phosphorus) and N (nitrogen) fertilisers with low biomass supply potential and 1.74 and 3.44 billion DKK with high biomass supply potential. Finally, the vehicle users have incentives to use biogas because of its cost advantage. However, there are also some potential barriers and uncertainties in achieving the green transition, e.g. initial investment for CO 2 conversion equipment and diesel-vehicle users' sunk costs, which could require suitable policy supports. We suggest that using biogas in heavy-duty vehicles could be an effective way to reduce carbon emissions in the transport sector. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recently, many coal-to-olefin (CTO) plants have started up in China. It is important for China to answer the following question: between coal-based ethylene and oil-based ethylene, which is the better choice? To provide a reference for policy makers and investors, this paper analyses the economic performance and the impact of future environment policy of both the CTO project and the oil-based ethylene project by a cost-benefit analysis. Quantitative analysis shows that the CTO project has a slight advantage over the oil-based ethylene project in a basic scenario when the crude oil price is above $70/bbl. However, international oil prices have a greater impact on the CTO project than the oil-based ethylene project. Thus, the CTO project has less anti-risk ability to the international oil market fluctuation than the oil-based ethylene project. What's more important is the environmental policy impact. After taking carbon trading costs and wastewater surcharge into account, the CTO project no longer has any advantage over the oil-based ethylene project. It can be seen in the foreseeable future that the CTO project will soon lose competitiveness. This indicates that the CTO project may not be consistent with sustainable development. These results suggest that from an environment perspective, policy makers and investors should be prudent about developing the CTO project. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]