A Comparison Between Passive-Controlled Natural Ventilation vs. Mechanical Ventilation with Heat Recovery

A large proportion of the existing building stock in northern Europe is facing energy renovation in the coming years. In this process, existing architecture in cold and temperate climates, originally designed for natural ventilation, is renovated, implementing mechanical ventilation with heat recovery, in the belief that mechanical ventilation performs better than natural ventilation. Yet, can natural ventilation outperform mechanical ventilation when comparing life cycle carbon emissions, cost, and indoor environmental parameters? This study compares two different ventilation strategies in a full-scale renovation of two identical Danish residential buildings: (1) natural ventilation with passive controlled NOTECH ventilation and two-layered high-transmittance windows vs. (2) mechanical ventilation with heat recovery and three-layered low energy windows. The study compares energy performance, life cycle carbon footprint, capital cost investments, payback period, and indoor environmental quality (IEQ). Under the observed conditions, the results show that natural ventilation outperforms mechanical ventilation when it comes to energy consumption for heating (MWh), global warming potential (t. CO2-equivalent), and total costs, while mechanical ventilation has a slightly higher indoor environmental quality. The study shows that two-layered windows and natural ventilation, based on passive solar heating, can reduce the global warming potential and act as a viable alternative to three-layered windows and mechanical ventilation when renovating existing building stock.