Do domestic heating controls save energy? A review of the evidence
Do domestic heating controls save energy? A review of the evidence
复制标题
家庭供暖控制是否节能？
DOI：
10.1016/j.rser.2018.05.002
复制
发表时间：
2018
影响因子：
15.9
通讯作者：
Lomas K
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Lomas K
关于供暖控制的好处的说法往往是有偏见的、未经证实的、误导性的或不正确的。本文对供暖控制的节能、成本效益和可用性方面的证据进行了系统和重要的国际回顾。重点是温带气候下的家用低压热水供暖系统。评估了11种不同类型的标准、高级和智能控制，以及添加智能功能的5个组件和功能。审查从在线数据库和其他来源检索了2400多份文档。筛选标准和质量保证评分只确定了67个项目，主要来自英国和美国，似乎包含相关证据。这一证据来自计算机建模、实地试验和全面试验，对于可用性，来自专家评估和受控评估。对证据进行了综合，并使用循证医学中更常用的分级系统将其质量分为极低、低、中或高。大多数供暖控制的节能很大程度上取决于供暖系统是以连续供暖模式还是周期性供暖模式运行，以及住宅的能效和气候的严酷程度。对于大多数控制类型，节能证据的质量低、非常低或根本不存在。然而，有中等质量的证据表明，如果适当投入使用，分区控制器--在不同时间将各个空间加热到不同的温度--与全屋控制器相比可以节省能源，而且这种类型的低成本系统可能具有成本效益。有中等质量的证据表明，与标准的温控器和程序员相比，智能温控器并不节能，实际上可能会增加能源需求。可用性研究集中在一般的加热控制和可编程的温控器上，并提供了高质量的证据，证明加热控制很难使用，尤其是老年人。然而，没有发现量化由此产生的能源惩罚的研究。没有高质量的证据表明所研究的任何供暖控制对能源需求的影响，主要是因为没有有充分依据的、大规模的、多学科的、多年的现场试验。
Claims about the benefits of heating controls are often biased, unsubstantiated, misleading, or incorrect. This paper presents a systematic and critical international review of the evidence for the energy saving, cost effectiveness and usability of heating controls. The focus is domestic, low-pressure hot water heating systems in temperate climates. Eleven different types of standard, advanced and smart controls are assessed plus five components and features that add smart functionality.The review retrieved over 2400 documents from on-line databases and other sources. Screening criteria and quality assurance scoring identified just 67 items, mainly from the UK and USA, which appeared to contain relevant evidence. This evidence was derived from computer modelling, field trials and full-scale experiments, and for usability, from expert evaluations and controlled assessments. The evidence was synthesised and its quality classified as very low, low, moderate or high using the GRADE system which is more commonly applied in evidence-based medicine.The energy savings of most heating controls depends strongly on whether the heating system is operated with a continuous or periodic heating pattern, as well as on the energy efficiency of the dwelling and the severity of the climate.For most control types, the quality of the evidence for energy savings was low, very low or non-existent. However, there was moderate quality evidence that, when appropriately commissioned, zonal controllers, which heat individual spaces to different temperatures at different times, could save energy compared to whole-house controllers, and that low-cost systems of this type could be cost-effective. There was moderate quality evidence that smart thermostats do not save energy compared to standard thermostats and programmers and may, in fact, increase energy demand.The usability studies focussed on general heating controls and programmable thermostats and provided high quality evidence that heating controls are difficult to use, especially by older people. However, no studies were uncovered that quantified the consequent energy penalty.There was no high quality evidence about the impact on energy demand of any of the heating controls studied, mainly because there have been no well-founded, large-scale, multi-disciplinary, multi-year field trials.
登录
查看更多内容
舒适设计——低碳住房的可用性障碍
DOI：
--
发表时间：
2012
期刊：
--
影响因子：
--
作者：
F. Stevenson;Isabel Carmona;M. Hancock
通讯作者：
M. Hancock
与家用供暖控制相关的可用性指南的审查和应用
影响因子：
2.3
作者：
N. Combe;D. Harrison
通讯作者：
D. Harrison
恒温器用户模型案例
DOI：
10.26868/25222708.2013.2337
发表时间：
2013
期刊：
Building Simulation Conference Proceedings
影响因子：
--
作者：
B. Urban;C. Gómez
通讯作者：
C. Gómez
关于如何使用加热控制的建议：纽卡斯尔试验的评估
DOI：
--
发表时间：
2014
期刊：
--
影响因子：
--
作者：
F. Macleod;A. Bonus;Zubaida Haque
通讯作者：
Zubaida Haque
影响因子：
3.9
作者：
Crosbie, Tracey;Baker, Keith
通讯作者：
Baker, Keith