Environmental and Economic Analysis of Heating Solutions for Rural Residences in China

Zhenying Zhang, Jiaqi Wang, Meiyuan Yang, Kai Gong and Mei Yang
Additional contact information
Zhenying Zhang: School of Civil and Architectural Engineering, North China University of Science and Technology, Tangshan 063210, China
Jiaqi Wang: School of Civil and Architectural Engineering, North China University of Science and Technology, Tangshan 063210, China
Meiyuan Yang: School of Civil and Architectural Engineering, North China University of Science and Technology, Tangshan 063210, China
Kai Gong: Science and Technology Division, North China University of Science and Technology, Tangshan 063210, China
Mei Yang: School of Civil and Architectural Engineering, North China University of Science and Technology, Tangshan 063210, China

Sustainability, 2022, vol. 14, issue 9, 1-15

Abstract: A spatial assessment is important to explore appropriate heating schemes for rural residences in China. Taking rural residences in six typical cities of China as the focus, four heating solutions, namely, coal-fired boiler heating systems (CBHS), wall-hung gas-fired boiler heating systems (GBHS), direct electric heating systems (DEHS), and air source heat pump systems (ASHPS), are compared and analyzed from the perspectives of primary energy consumption, environmental impact and heating costs. The results show that the primary energy consumption and the environmental impact can be significantly reduced by using solutions of GBHS and ASHPS in comparison with CBHS. DEHS has the most significant primary energy consumption and environmental impact and is less economical. The weighted environmental impact of GBHS is reduced by over 94% compared with that of CBHS, the weighted environmental impact of ASHPS is reduced by 8–23%, 35–39%, and 43–44% compared with that of CBHS for severe cold regions, cold regions, and hot-summer and cold-winter regions, respectively. The life cycle cost of GBHS is about 33% higher than that of CBHS for the six typical cities. The life cycle cost of ASHPS is about 33–57% higher than CBHS for severe cold regions, but not much difference or even less than CBHS for cold regions and hot-summer and cold-winter regions.

Keywords: heating; rural residences; environmental impact; economy; ecological cost (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O13 Q Q0 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q56 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2022
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/9/5117/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/9/5117/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:9:p:5117-:d:800882

Access Statistics for this article

Sustainability is currently edited by Ms. Alexandra Wu

More articles in Sustainability from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().