In the quest for sustainable construction, the battle for energy efficiency in buildings is heating up. A recent study led by Velma Nindita from the Department of Architecture at Universitas PGRI Semarang, Indonesia, has shed light on the stark differences between two popular green building software tools, EDGE and SEFAIRA. The findings, published in ‘Green Technologies and Sustainability’ (translated to ‘Teknologi Hijau dan Keterlampauan’), could significantly impact how the energy sector approaches campus building design and retrofit projects.
The study, which focused on three different buildings, revealed substantial discrepancies in energy simulation results between the two software tools. For instance, in a 7,800 m2 building, SEFAIRA calculated an energy consumption of 130 kWh/m2/year, while EDGE reported a mere 62.42 kWh/m2/year. Similar trends were observed in the other two buildings, with SEFAIRA consistently estimating higher energy consumption. “These differences are primarily due to the varying methodologies employed by the two tools,” Nindita explains. “EDGE relies on a database-driven approach, while SEFAIRA uses real-time modeling and EnergyPlus, providing a more detailed geometric analysis.”
The implications of these findings are profound for the energy sector. Accurate energy simulation is crucial for designing energy-efficient buildings and retrofitting existing ones. The discrepancies highlighted in the study could lead to significant underestimation or overestimation of energy consumption, impacting both the design process and the potential savings from energy-efficient upgrades.
The study also identified potential retrofit solutions to enhance energy efficiency, such as reducing the Overall Thermal Transfer Value (OTTV) and optimizing cooling systems. However, the implementation of green building standards in Indonesia still faces challenges, including high initial and management costs. These barriers hinder broader adoption and the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the building sector.
The research by Nindita and her team underscores the need for a more nuanced approach to energy simulation in green building design. As the demand for sustainable construction grows, so does the need for accurate and reliable tools. The findings could shape future developments in the field, encouraging the integration of primary data collection with simulation and pushing for more advanced simulation techniques.
As the energy sector continues to evolve, the insights from this study could influence how stakeholders and contractors approach green building projects. The commercial impacts are clear: more accurate energy simulations could lead to better-informed decisions, reduced costs, and more effective energy-saving strategies. The future of green building design may well hinge on the ability to bridge the gap between simulation and reality, ensuring that our buildings are as energy-efficient as they are sustainable.
