## 5 Conclusions and Discussions  
### Summary and Conclusions  
This study classified the high-performance technologies as passive, active, and renewable energy systems, and evaluated their primary energy consumption in different climatic regions. In addition, this study performed detailed analyses of energy saving rates, in order to suggest a guideline for selecting appropriate technologies for different climatic regions when designing high-performance buildings. Some conclusions that can be drawn from this research are as follows:  
The actual energy usage of existing typical office buildings was evaluated to prepare the simulations. According to the Korea Energy Agency and Korea Appraisal Board DB, the actual primary energy consumption of typical office buildings in the Incheon area is 457-489 kWh/m\({}^{2}\). Simulation using the Incheon weather file showed that the primary energy consumption was 464.1 kWh/m\({}^{2}\), which was within the Korea Energy Agency and Korea Appraisal Board DB range of 457-489 kWh/m\({}^{2}\). When the high-performance technologies of the 15 cases were applied in the Incheon area, the primary energy consumption in Incheon was reduced by as much as 178.4 kWh/m\({}^{2}\) compared to the base case value of 464.1 kWh/m\({}^{2}\). When passive systems were applied, energy saving rates of 5.2-20.9% were determined. When active systems (air-conditioning and plant systems) were applied, 29.9-45.6% of the energy was saved. In renewable energy system alternatives, the energy saving rate was 31.2-61.6%. When the primary energy consumption in New Delhi was compared with that of Incheon, the cooling energy was greater than the heating energy in New Delhi. The primary energy consumption of the base model was 513.2 kWh/m\({}^{2}\), which was larger than that in Incheon. When passive systems were applied, 3.7-26.0% of the energy was saved, compared to the New Delhi base case. The active systems (air-conditioning and plant systems) saved 32.9-56.2% of the energy, whereas renewable energy systems saved 31.2-60.6%. The passive systems that were efficient in a hot climate, such as New Delhi, as shown in the result of Section 4.2, were the high-efficiency SHGC window and the external blind related to solar heat gain control. The active systems (air-conditioning and plant system) that were effective in the hot climate were the VAV system, the combined VAV-ERV system, the combined VAV-UFAD system, and the high efficiency centrifugal chiller, which was able to alter the hot and humid outdoor air to create a comfortable indoor environment. A comparison of the primary energy consumption of Minneapolis and Incheon showed that the heating energy is greater than the cooling energy. The primary energy consumption of the base model was higher than that in Incheon, of 505.1 kWh/m\({}^{2}\). When high-performance technologies were applied in Minneapolis, the primary energy consumption was reduced to 178.7 kWh/m\({}^{2}\) of the base case. When passive systems were applied, 6.2-23.9% of the energy was saved. Application of active systems (air-conditioning and plant systems) allowed energy saving rates of 29.7-55.7%. In renewable energy system alternatives, 39.3-64.6% of the energy could be saved. When compared to the energy saving rates of Incheon, the heating energy was also greater than the cooling energy in Berlin. The primary energy consumption of the base case in Berlin was 416.6 kWh/m\({}^{2}\), which was comparatively lower than that in Incheon. When high-performance technologies were applied in Berlin, the primary energy was reduced to as much as 155.9 kWh/m\({}^{2}\). When passive systems were applied in Berlin, the energy saving rates were 6.9-21.1%. The application of active systems (air-conditioning and plant systems) saved 28.0-52.7% of the energy, whereas renewable energy system alternatives saved 35.9-62.6%.