Gross is gross and net is net: simple, right? Online publication date: Thu, 24-Apr-2014
by Richard Ridge; Michael Baker; Nick Hall; Ralph Prahl; William Saxonis
Progress in Industrial Ecology, An International Journal (PIE), Vol. 8, No. 3, 2013
Abstract: The identification of the correct baseline is essential for accurately estimating the gross impacts of any measure. For example, for replacement on burnout (ROB) or an addition, there are various baselines that could be used including applicable local, state and federal energy codes and standards and current practice, which is used to represent the energy use of equipment purchased on average by consumers in the market. However, some evaluators are now arguing that using current practice as the baseline for estimating gross impacts and then adjusting these savings using a net-to-gross ratio (NTGR) is a mistake since the gross savings are in many ways closer to net than gross. While the authors agree that to refer to the difference between annual energy use associated with current practice and that of the rebated measure is not purely net savings, they disagree about which solutions to recommend.
Online publication date: Thu, 24-Apr-2014
If you are not a subscriber and you just want to read the full contents of this article, buy online access here.Complimentary Subscribers, Editors or Members of the Editorial Board of the Progress in Industrial Ecology, An International Journal (PIE):
Login with your Inderscience username and password:
Want to subscribe?
A subscription gives you complete access to all articles in the current issue, as well as to all articles in the previous three years (where applicable). See our Orders page to subscribe.
If you still need assistance, please email email@example.com