| Summary: | 碩士 === 明新科技大學 === 土木工程與環境資源管理研究所 === 100 === This research will primarily inquire about the Energy Saving and Carbon Reduction of 10 schools in HsinChu County, including 3 senior high schools, 3 junior high schools and 4 elementary schools. This research will utilise HsinChu County Environmental Protection Bureau design HsinChu County school carbon reduction investigation table to investigate the situation in 10 institutions and will be based on publications of both Construction And Planning Agency Ministry Of The Interior and Cheng Kung University Professor Lin Xiande of "green architecture definition and evaluation manual", "green building 84 technologies", "hot wet climate green building", amongst other authors. Once the institutions have been selected, they will initially be sent the HsinChu County school carbon reduction investigation table and, upon completion, start the surveys. The HsinChu County school carbon reduction investigation table has 5 primary dimensions: Ecological Greening、low carbon Build/ Energy Saving、Resource Recycling、low carbon life/ transportation、Renewable Energy. Through this research investigation, we hope to discover the current state of these dimensions, suggest changes and analyse the data collected from the surveys to assess the differences in scores between different academic year levels. For the Energy Saving side, other than survey options, an efficiency assessment of the classroom and office lighting equipments will be done and will be the basis for the establishment of low carbon school in Hsin Chu county. The research results showed there is a widespread lack of Species of trees, shrubs and vines plants (trees fails to reach 20, less than the 15 species of shrub and vine plant, the inadequate use of eco-enclosure on school walls and walls no vines planted-planted Green in all senior high school, junior high school and elementary school. In terms of low carbon Build/ Energy Saving, many uses the traditional T8 lights, without a roof insulation measures, old air conditioning, under-performing Power/energy monitoring and management systems and others. Results also showed that for Resource Recycling, the playground was of PU material, no kitchen and leaves compost, no water recycling system, older One-stage toilet variety amongst others. Regarding the low carbon life/ transportation, there was a lack of organic gardens and Bus Ride-Sharing System. For the Renewable Energy, very few schools had Teaching model renewable energy facilities and even though many schools were eager to install these, the main obstruction was due to cost. Analysis of the results from the survey showed that the average score of elementary schools was 16.9, junior high schools was 14.3 and senior high schools was 12.3, which means that the elementary schools performed the best as a junior high schools and senior high schools the worst.
|
|---|
