EIE 329 E-TOOL FINAL REPORT

Transcription

1 EIE 329 E-TOOL FINAL REPORT Distributed to EIE-agency and E-TOOL partners Legal disclaimer: The project Energy-toolset for improving the energy performance of existing buildings (E-TOOL) is supported by the European Commission through the Intelligent Energy Europe Programme (Grant agreement number EIE/04/239/S ). The sole responsibility for the content of this publication lies with the authors. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Communities. The European Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein. 1

2 LIST OF CONTENT 1 Summary Objectives The scope of the project report The project partners Project flow chart Tool configuration Description of the E-TOOL software Bench marking of the energy consumption Accessibility of the input data Energy saving measures Top 10 energy saving measures in 6 EU countries Investment costs of energy saving measures Energy performance (bench mark) after energy retrofitting Quality of the E-TOOL rating Accuracy of results - questionnaire Description of the contribution to advancement on the state of the art Feasibility and impact of E-TOOL Feed-back from workshops, training seminars Feed-back from the market actors Training/instruction for using E-TOOL Time required for completing the carry out E-TOOL certification Reproducibility Comparison of rating methodologies E-TOOL operational rating to assessment rating Support of the implementation of energy savings in building by E-TOOL energy rating Criteria for the evaluation of the implementation Acceptance of results by clients Accuracy of the results Overall evaluation of E-TOOL for energy rating E-TOOL energy rating - discussion and recommendations Reduction of barriers and support to policy implementation Resume of achieved results Lessons learned Recommendations

3 1 Summary Operational rating of the energy performance of existing buildings The overall objectives of the proposed action is to promote the implementation of the EU building performance directive (2002/91/EF, 16 th December 2002) by developing a simple and practical energy-toolset, which on a European level can support the implementation of the directive in relation to existing domestic, commercial and public buildings. The E-TOOL project developed a simple and practical "E-TOOL", which can increase the efficiency of energy performance rating of existing buildings. The criteria for developing E-TOOL are: Energy certification shall be carried out within 2-3 man hours; The results of the energy certification shall be communicated at the survey to the house owners in an easy understandable way. The E-TOOL shall efficiently support the energy consultants in making the energy performance certificates. The E-TOOL The input data for E-TOOL are: General data of the building, owner, type etc. - energy consumption data - general characteristics of the building, including: Heating, cooling, domestic hot water system, lightning and thermal envelope. For out put data, see below: 3

4 E-TOOL can be down loaded from: including the E-TOOL handbook. Testing the E-TOOL The evaluation criteria for the regional testing of E-TOOL were: User friendliness (functional aspects) of the tool - time required completing the rating and clients report - acceptance of the results by client - accessibility of the data needed for the tests - improvements to the tool (with respect to local building practice and climate). The tests were carried out for: Slovenia, 500 residential buildings and 50 public buildings - Bulgaria, 600 residential buildings - Greece,100 public buildings - Austria, 50 commercial buildings - Spain,100 public buildings - Denmark, residential buildings. Evaluation criteria Results "Mark" Bench marking of energy Specific benchmark data are in general not available, To be consumption therefore benchmarking is not implemented in the E-TOOL improved rating. Accessibility of input data Positive feed-back Acceptable Guidelines for energy saving Top 10 energy measures identified, U-values etc. are fixed, Good for measures output for investment costs and energy savings acceptable typical for standard buildings buildings Energy performance after Acceptable results when comparing with energy audits Acceptable implementing energy savings Accuracy - compare with energy Acceptable for energy saving measures and energy Acceptable audit performance after implementing energy saving measures Need of education Small need of education Good Time required Around 2/3 < 3 hours Good Acceptance by clients Around 90% good/acceptable Good 4

5 Accuracy of results 80% good/acceptable. Acceptable The operational energy rating, e.g. E-TOOL rating, could be the optimum rating, providing the objective is cost efficiently to identify potential energy saving measures. The best results with E-TOOL rating are achieved on buildings with regular structure and where the data are transparent and representative. Impact of operational rating of the energy performance of existing buildings With a limited input of resources it has been possible to develop the E-TOOL to a level, where it has got positive evaluation results, e.g. on users acceptance of the results. The experience has shown that 90% of the on-site ratings can be performed within 1-2 hours with acceptance of the results from 60% of the clients. With the combination of measured energy consumption and a simple rating tool, the rating can be performed by experienced persons after short training in the use of E-TOOL. The results from the workshops carried show that the among market actors, there is a interest for the E- TOOL being seen as an efficient tool to support the implementation of energy saving measures in the existing building stock. The E-TOOL project has experienced a large difference in access to transparent and reliable building data in the European countries, from regions with almost zero data to regions with high valuable data. Recommendation for European energy performance rating Is it recommended to introduce both an operational tool and and calculated rating tool in the national certification scheme and then leave it to the experts to decide or set up some rules for which rating tool to use under particular conditions. The partners Naturgas Midt-Nord DK), energy supply company, (Coordinator). CENER, Centro Nacional de Energías Renovables (ES), scientific institution. Upper Austria Energiesparverband (AU), regional energy agency. Thessaloniki Metropolitan Development Agency, Natural Gas of Macedonia S.A.(GR), regional public authority. SIGMA Consultants Ltd (GR), private consultant company. Building and Civil Engineering Institute ZRMK (SI), research institute. Sofia Energy Centre (BU), private consultant company. Deuca Energia S.L. (ES), private consultant company. For more information: 5

6 2 Objectives Overall objectives on European level The overall objectives are to promote the implementation of the EU building energy performance directive (2002/91/EF, 16 th December 2002) - with focus on developing an operational and simple tool well suited for practicable application - with the energy consultants as the main target group. These objectives have within the project been translated into: Energy certification shall be carried out within 2-3 man hours The results of the energy certification shall be communicated at the survey to the house owners in an easy understandable way. The E-TOOL shall efficiently support the energy consultants in making the energy performance certificates. Specific objective of the E-TOOL project The energy-toolset was developed with a special focus on buildings in the southern/south-eastern part of the Europe Union. The E-TOOL project developed a simple and practical toolset, with the purpose of increase the efficiency of energy performance rating of existing buildings. The saving measures were calculated on the basis of the actual energy consumption operational rating and on basis of benchmarks for energy consumption for different categories of buildings. 3 The scope of the project report This report is supported by the Intelligent Energy Europe (IEE-2004/239)-project, E-TOOL (Energytoolset for improving the energy performance of existing buildings) is to be considered as a stand-alone and result-oriented report. The main project results are described as well as the lessons learnt and the main results that have been achieved. The scope of the final report therefore is therefore to describe, how the E-TOOL supports the improvement of the energy performance of existing buildings, referring to the results of the project. The general guideline of the methodology that has been applied, for the E-TOOL-rating of energy performance is based on the methodology of measured (operational) energy rating. In contrast, other related projects are based on the methodology of calculated (asset) energy rating. 6

7 The energy performance certification is being implemented all over the EU. In this context, the results and findings of this report are important and to be considered in the perspective that this project and results are based on measured energy rating. The results are recommended to be taken into account in implementing at the EU-level, the energy performance building directive. The background for carrying through the project under the coordination of the Danish Naturgas Midt- Nord is in particular the experience from the Danish energy performance certification system, based on the methodology of calculated energy rating, and the energy supply companies experience with energy rating of existing buildings using the measured energy methodology. Based on these experiences, it was determined that the calculated energy rating is costly and has not proved to have the expected effect in terms of documented implementation of rational use of energy in existing buildings. In contrast, the measured energy rating methodology has shown to be cost efficient and to support rational use of energy in existing residential buildings. 4 The project partners The proposed action is covering main parts of Europe: The north (Denmark), the south-west with a relatively wealthy region (Spain), the middle-central (Austria) and the south-east (Greece, Slovenia and Bulgaria) and by that has a European dimension. The proposed action can give a substantial support to the implementation of the EU Building Directive on a European scale. The partners cover these different regions of Europe and different types of relevant experience and know how: Partner Name Acronym Activity Country 1 Naturgas Midt- Nord NGMN Energy supply company Denmark 2 Fundación Cener-Ciemat CENER Scientific institutions Spain 3 Ober-Österreich Energiesparverband ESV Regional/local authority Austria 4 Thessaloniki Metropolitan Development Agency TMDA Regional/local authority Greece 5 Sigma Consultants Ltd SIGMA Consultants - Energy experts Greece 6 Sofia Energy Centre SEC Scientific institutions Bulgaria 7 Building and Civil Engineering Institute ZRMK Scientific institutions Slowenia 8 Deuca Energia DEUCA Consultants - Energy experts Spain Figure 1: Project partners The partners can be described briefly as follows: Partner 1: Naturgas Midt/Nord (Denmark) Naturgas Midt-Nord (NGMN) is a public owned gas utility, owned by 74 municipalities in the Northern part of Denmark. 7

8 Partner 2: Cener (Spain) CENER is the Renewable Energy National Centre of Spain. It is a technological centre oriented and specialized in renewable energies. CENER is integrated in the CENER-CIEMAT Foundation. Partner 3: Upper Austria Energiesparverband (Austria) O.Ö. Energiesparverband (ESV) is the regional energy agency of Oberösterreich/Upper Austria, an industrial region in the Northern part of Austria. Partner 4: Thessaloniki Metropolitan Development Agency (Greece) Thessaloniki Metropolitan Development Agency Natural Gas of Macedonia S.A. (TMDA NGM) is an Intermunicipal Public Commercial Organisation whose shareholders are the Municipality of Thessaloniki and the Municipalities of the widest region of Thessaloniki Partner 5: SIGMA (Greece) SIGMA Consultants Ltd (SIGMA) is an engineering and consultancy firm with a long standing activity in the Greek and European market. Partner 6: Building and Civil Engineering Institute ZRMK (Slovenia) 8

9 Building and Civil Engineering Institute ZRMK, l.t.d., Ljubljana, Slovenia, (short name BCEI ZRMK) is a daughter company of ZRMK Holding, j.s.c., founded in 2003 for R&D and consultancy in building and civil engineering. Partner 7: Sofia Energy Centre (Bulgaria) Sofia Energy Centre (SEC) has been established as a successor of EC (DG XVII) Energy Centre Sofia and it has gained a lot of experience in the field of promotion, dissemination and market penetration of novel EU energy technologies in Bulgaria. Partner 8: Deuca Energia S.L. (Spain) The Spanish Company is constituted in Girona in 1996 as Engineering and Consultancy Company. Main activities are in the planning, promotion and realization of energy projects. 5 Project flow chart The following flow-chart represents the different tasks that have been completed within the E-TOOL project. Data collection: Necessary to obtain all input data for energy consumptions, prices and building characteristics Tool Development: Based on the requirements of the data collection, the tool was developed with the result of the energy consumptions before and after the implementation of the energy saving measures, pay-back times, investments, CO2 savings and a certificate. Test preparation: Important step for the application of the tool, including training of energy auditors. 9

10 Regional testing and evaluation: Testing of different kind of buildings (public, private, hotels,..) in the different partner countries and evaluation of the tests Handbook: Guide for users and energy experts with indication of the practical aspects of the tool. Dissemination: Inform about the project results on workshops, training seminars, conferences, Homepage Data collection Tool development Preparation of testing Regional testing and evaluation Handbook Dissemination Figure 1: Project structure 10

11 6 Tool configuration Through the description of the E-TOOL configuration is it the intention to give an introduction and overview of how the E-TOOL works, the main components of the tool - and to evaluate, based on the findings of the project, if E-TOOL elements work accordingly to, what is the intention. The E-TOOL consists of 3 main components, which will be described and evaluated: Bench marking of the energy (heating/cooling) consumption of different main building categories. Guidelines for typical energy saving measures, including cost estimations and pay-back-time. Output in terms of energy consumption after carrying out the proposed energy saving measures E-TOOL provides data about the impact produced by the implementation of some energy saving measures in existing buildings, quantifying, not only the energy and CO 2 emission savings, but also the expected payback time. Three fundamental premises have been taken into account when choosing the most representative saving measures: The effective energy savings produced by these measures should be measurable and calculable independently of the orientation and shadowing of the studied building. The cost of the saving measures should be easy to calculate by experts in each country. The measure should be applicable in most buildings. 7 Description of the E-TOOL software The E-TOOL is described in: "e-tool - handbook, manual for energy rating of existing buildings, December 2006, and it can be down loaded from: Here will be made a short introduction, also to give background information for the section of the Final Report concerning the feasibility of the E-TOOL. 11

12 The E-TOOL was developed by Cener, Navarra, Spain, in close cooperation with especially Naturgas Midt-Nord of Denmark. Cener prescribes its right to the E-TOOL, in the sense that parties, who want to use the tool, shall contact Cener to ask about permission. The E-TOOL confirm with CEN standards TC89/prEN wi 1+3+4, when possible. The E-TOOLSET methodology has three main parts: E-TOOL User Data Sheets E-TOOL Process E-TOOL Report E-TOOL User - Data Sheets Data Collection Saving Measures Selection 1.-General Data Building 2.-Data Consumption Location Category Shape and physical data Fuel type Annual consum Consumption included -Heating -Cooling -Domestic Hot Water -Lighting -Envelope DATA BASE -Energy saving coefficients for saving measures. -Correlations to calculate energy savings depending on measure s characteristics. E-TOOL PROCESS INPUTS FOR EACH COUNTRY -Prices of saving measures. -Average consumption value depending on the type of building and the climatic zone. -Energy prices and annual rate of increase. -CO2 emissions. E-TOOL Report Potential savings, initial investments, pay-back times, CO2 savings for all saving measure initially selected. Best five energy saving measures selection Total potential savings Total investment cost of energy saving measures Payback time of the energy saving measures Total CO2 savings Initial E-Tool Benchmark Final E-Tool Benchmark Figure 2: Flow Diagram of the E-TOOL software Input data 12

13 The types of input data are: General data of the building, owner, type etc. Energy consumption data - screen picture, if relevant General characteristics of the building, including: o Heating o Cooling o Domestic hot water system o Lightning o Thermal envelope E-TOOLSET GENERAL DATA OF THE BUILDING CONSUMPTION DATA GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BUILDING Goes to: Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 1- CLIMATIZATION SYSTEMS 1.1- HEATING 1.1-SAVING MEASURES Page COOLING 1.2- SAVING MEASURES Page 4 2- DOMESTIC HOT WATER 2.1- EQUIPMENT/ RENEWABLE ENERGY 2.1- SAVING MEASURES Page 5 3- LIGHTING 3.1- LIGHTS / REGULATION 3.1- SAVING MEASURES Page 6 4- USAGE 4.1- OCCUPANCY, HEATING-COOLING SCHEDULES 4.1 SAVING MEASURES Page 7 5- THERMAL ENVELOPE 5.1- INSULATION 5.1- SAVING MEASURES Page OPENINGS 5.2- SAVING MEASURES Page 8 SUMMARY- Benchmarking Page 9 Figure 3: Front pages of E-TOOL version 1 and E-TOOL version 5 Output data Summary for each potential energy saving measure: Potential savings, (kwh/year) Initial investment (EURO) Payback in years CO 2 savings (kg) Cost-effective analysis summary: Total potential, kwh/year Total investment costs 13

14 Payback time CO 2 savings Initial E-TOOL bench mark (measured), kwh/m 2 Final E-TOOL bench mark (with energy savings), kwh/m 2 14

15 Figure 4: Certificate format 8 Bench marking of the energy consumption Why bench marking? One of the ideas behind the E-TOOL methodology is to identify groups of similar buildings with a similar energy (in climates with over-heating problems heating also includes cooling) consumption. If it is possible to identify these groups, it can be derived what energy consumption could be expected in a given building and then compare this with the actual energy consumption - and thereby get a good indication of the energy standard of the building. This information can be used for looking for typical potential energy savings measures, which could lead you to an energy performance of the building to be expected, when having a rational use of heat. To identify such groups of building you need statistic data on energy consumption of the existing building stock. Sources for data for bench marking of the energy consumption of existing buildings The benchmark data have been obtained during the data collection process in the partner countries that had these data available, such as Denmark, as well as during the realization and evaluation of the tests for the same type of buildings that have been tested with E-TOOL. 15

16 In Denmark there exist statistic data from the heating and electricity consumption of 46,000 single dwellings, which have been rated for energy certificates using the calculated methodology. Of other sources for statistic data on energy consumption can be mentioned the IEE-projects: EP-Label, enper-exist and e-impact. EUROSTAT is another source of information. The data of these projects have been taken into consideration to get an orientation and a general impression of energy consumptions of buildings as reference data in the general evaluation of the E-TOOL project within the frame of the EPBD Building Platform. Bench marking of energy consumption Bench marking of the energy consumption of the existing building stock in typical building categories is intended to be a support for energy experts making building energy performance rating. But in most countries there is a lack of reliable data. This means that the use of bench marking of the energy consumption has not had the extend as expected in the project proposal. Not using bench mark data as an integrated part of the E-TOOL methodology did not mean that the energy expert carrying out the energy performance rating did not compare an actual measured heating consumption with what could be expected of heating consumption for a typical building of the type certified. Experience from the tests has shown that many experts have their own experience to draw on. An alternative is also to use the numbers of the actual building code for when the building was erected, if the building code included maximum heating/energy consumption. Recommendations It would be recommended to support the establishment a European data-base for energy consumption for existing EU-building stock, also to be able to follow the development of the energy standard of the existing building stock. 9 Accessibility of the input data Introduction As the overall E-TOOL methodology is based on measured energy rating, is the accessibility of the data of the actual energy consumption of the building of importance. Besides these consumption data, further input data are needed for carrying out an E-TOOL certification, such as: General data of the building, age, type etc. Energy consumption data General characteristics of the building, including: o Heating system 16

17 o Cooling o Domestic hot water system o Lightning o Thermal envelope The energy experts carrying out the regional testing of the E-TOOL have been questioned about the accessibility of the data needed. Accessibility of input data for E-TOOL certification Denmark For the operational rating is the access to transparent and reliable data for the energy consumption important. In less than 10% of the tests have improvements of the access to data been proposed. These are mainly the tests where it has been difficult to calculate how much of the energy consumption for heating have been covered with firewood or biomass, Austria Although it is in some cases challenging to obtain the building data for completing the e-tool, it is a useful instrument to assess building qualities and to show the building owner the potential of energy efficiency measures. For the success of the e-tool it is crucial that only qualified advisers use it. Greece The evaluation of the accessibility of data in Greece can be taken from following column diagram: 17

18 Figure 5: Accessibility of data Slovenia The evaluation of the accessibility of data in Slovenia can be taken from following column diagram: 35 Accessibility of the data needed for the tests response VERY EASY EASY MEDIUM DIFFICULT VERY DIFFICULT Figure 6: Accessibility of data Spain The main draw-back is the dependency of the E-TOOL on the energy consumption data and information on building characteristics (constructive plans, boiler data, etc.). The evaluation of the accessibility of data in Spain can be taken from following column diagram: 18

19 Accessibility of data for the tests- Spain Percentage [%] Very good Good Medium Difficult Very difficult Figure 7: Accessibility of data Bulgaria Good accessibility of data was registered in 80% of the tests; fair availability of data was registered in 18% of the tests and in 2% of the tests significant data was missing. Missing data is in most cases connected to the energy consumption: missing bills for electricity or heat energy. Accessibility of the data needed for the tests Good Fair Improve Figure 8: Accessibility of data Building can be assessed as a whole with regard to the heat energy consumption, as there is available data from the district heating companies. But it is not possible to have such data for consumption of electricity as each flat has its own electrical meter. 19

20 Conclusion and recommendations on accessibility of input data No general conclusions at a European level can be made on the accessibility of data for the E-TOOL rating using the measured data. In some countries, e.g. Denmark, the accessibility of accounted consumption is good. In other countries are such data not present for different reasons. To use the E-TOOL measured rating methodology it will in many cases be necessary to compromise on the quality of the input data on measured energy consumption using estimates, e.g. based on what the building owner remembers about the size/level of energy bills or simply estimates based on the energy experts' experience. Even if the energy expert does not know the exact energy consumption of an existing building, it is still possible on the site to identify the potential energy saving measures and make a calculation of the potential energy savings that can be obtained by implementing these measures. This is the most important part of the E-TOOL rating, which can be carried through, even with estimates on actual energy consumption of the building being energy rated. If energy savings shall be implemented into the existing building stock of EU, then the problem of lack of information about the actual energy consumption of the buildings shall be solved, e.g. by demanding the energy supply companies to register the energy consumption. This will in the future provide the energy authorities with information about the development of the energy consumption. 10 Energy saving measures Introduction For the E-TOOL based on the methodology of measured rating, are the guidelines for energy saving measures, including costs estimated and information about potential energy savings, key elements. This element of the tool is where the tool actually carries out calculations - on investment costs, energy savings and thereby cost savings. The overall idea is to be able to identify a relatively limited number of cost efficient energy saving measures, which can be described sufficiently precise to be able to estimate the potential energy saving measures for a specific building. The investment costs, energy and money savings are transformed into standard figures per m 2 for each specific energy saving measure for each country/region. The data on energy saving measures are specific for each country and are put into a price matrix of the E-TOOL, from which the tool draws information for calculations. The E-TOOL differs from energy rating tools based on calculated rating basically by using default for U-values of walls and other basis structure. Taking into account the inaccuracy related to real effect in terms of obtained energy savings due to in-complete data of the existing building, e.g. the thickness of the insulation, then this element of the E-TOOL is not considered to have major influence on the overall rating accuracy. 20

21 Energy saving measures have been identified For the 6 involved countries: Austria, Bulgaria, Denmark, Greece, Slovenia and Spain have been identified the "top 10 energy saving measures" and as result, it has shown up to be to a very high degree the same energy saving measures. The criteria for selecting the measures have been to select the most common measures within the country. Results from each country. Austria: Most of the buildings tested were built after 1970, the average heated area is around 1430 m². The average indicator is about 175 kwh/m²a and could be reduced to 117 kwh/m²a after renovation. On average 76,877 kwh savings could be achieved annually by implementing the suggested measures, which would require investment costs of about 20,400 in the average. The figure below shows the percentage of different energy saving measures for all types of buildings (offices, hotels and shops). The most attractive measures were the insulation of external walls, walls to unconditioned space, followed by the exchange of windows. The installation of a new boiler together with a change of the fuel to biomass, the installation of a solar collector system, the insulation of pipes and the substitution of conventional lights by low consumption lights are other measures named quite often. Other measures named for the prospected buildings were the installation of a modern boiler, the installation of presence detectors, a change to a gas boiler, the cleaning of the boiler, sealing of window air leaks, the reduction of the heating set point and the installation of a water saving system. Percentage of different energy saving measures % Insulate external walls (externally) Insulate walls to unconditioned space Change window Change to biomass boiler Install solar collctor system Change lights to low consumption Insulate the pipes Install thermostat (heating) Install modern boiler Install prescence detectors Change to gas boiler Clean the burner Sealing window air leaks Reduce heating set point Install water saving 21

22 Figure 9: Distribution of energy saving measures When the energy saving measures at the different types of examined buildings are evaluated, it can be found that there are some measures that are important for all types of buildings, such as insulation of external walls and walls to unconditioned space, as well as the change of windows but there are also some differences. Energy saving measures in hotels In hotels, the most frequently suggested measures were the insulation of external walls, walls to unheated space and the roof, followed by the exchange of windows. Another very important measure is the installation of a solar collector system, because of the high hot water consumption in hotels. Further suggestions were the change of lights to low efficient ones, the insulation of pipes, the change to a biomass boiler and the installation of thermostats. Percentage of different energy saving measures in hotels 25,00% 20,00% 15,00% 10,00% 5,00% 0,00% Install modern boiler Change to biomass boiler Change to gas boiler Clean the burner Insulate the pipes Install thermostat (heating) Reduce heating set point Figure 10: Distribution of energy saving measures Energy saving measures in shops Install water saving Install solar collctor system Change lights to low consumption Install prescence detectors Insulate external walls (externally) Insulate walls to unconditioned space Sealing window air leaks Change window Similarly, in shops the most frequently suggested measures are the insulation of external walls, walls to unheated space and the roof, followed by the change of windows. Other measures are the installation of a biomass boiler, a solar collector system, the change of lights to low consumption and the installation of presence detectors. 22

23 Percentage of different energy saving measures in shops 25,00% 20,00% 15,00% 10,00% 5,00% 0,00% Install modern boiler Change to biomass boiler Change to gas boiler Clean the burner Insulate the pipes Install thermostat (heating) Reduce heating set point Install water saving Figure 11: Distribution of energy saving measures Install solar collctor system Change lights to low consumption Install prescence detectors Insulate external walls (externally) Insulate walls to unconditioned space Sealing window air leaks Change window Energy saving measures in offices In offices, the insulation of external walls and walls to unconditioned space, as well as the exchange of windows are measures that are named very often. Especially in offices the change of lights to low consumption is an attractive measure for energy savings with a share of around 12 % compared to 4,5 % in shops and 7,5 % in hotels. The installation of a biomass boiler and the insulation of the pipes are also very important. Percentage of different energy saving measures in offices 25,00% 20,00% 15,00% 10,00% 5,00% 0,00% Install modern boiler Change to biomass boiler Change to gas boiler Clean the burner Insulate the pipes Install thermostat (heating) Reduce heating set point Install water saving Install solar collctor system Change lights to low consumption Install prescence detectors Insulate external walls (externally) Insulate walls to unconditioned space Sealing window air leaks Change window Figure 12: Distribution of energy saving measures 23

24 Bulgaria Top 10 energy saving measures in Bulgaria (for multi dwelling buildings erected before 1999): Figure 13: Distribution of energy saving measures Denmark Most frekvent measures for single dwellings 35% 30% 25% Frequency 20% 15% % 10% 5% 0% Insulation Windows Air filtrat. Temp.Ctr. Boiler Pump Figure 14: Distribution of energy saving measures 24

25 Greece Distribution of Energy Saving Interventions % Cleaning Installing Change Fuel Oil Insulating P ipes Changing Insulating Insulating Walls Reducing Incr easing Changing lights Installing Installing HVAC Installing Water Installing Solar Installing Installing Installing Im pr ove Burner modern boiler to Gas. Install Glazing - exter nal Walls in contact to Heating Set Cooling Set to low pr esence VRV Saving Collector s Reflective Reflective Awnings Windows Gas Boiler Windows unconditioned Point Point consum ption detector s Systems Curtains Curtains Inflitrations pr em ises (Heating) (Cooling) Intervention Figure 15: Distribution of energy saving measures Slovenia Frequency [%] INSTALL MODERN INSULATE THE PIPES REDUCE HEATING SET INSTALLING A SOLAR CHANGING ALL LIGHTS INSULATING CHANGE WINDOWS INSULATING WALLS INSULATING ROOF BOILER POINT COLLECTOR SYSTEM TO LOW EXTERNAL CLOSE TO CONSUMPTION WALLS(outer side of the UNCONDITIONED wall) SPACES Figure 16: Distribution of energy saving measures single dwellings 25

26 25 20 Frequency [%] INSTALL MODERN INSULATE THE PIPES REDUCE HEATING SET INSTALLING A SOLAR CHANGING ALL LIGHTS INSULATING CHANGE WINDOWS INSULATING WALLS INSULATING ROOF BOILER POINT COLLECTOR SYSTEM TO LOW EXTERNAL CLOSE TO CONSUMPTION WALLS(outer side of the UNCONDITIONED wall) SPACES Figure 17: Distribution of energy saving measures block of dwellings Frequency [%] INSTALL MODERN INSULATE THE PIPES REDUCE HEATING SET INSTALLING A SOLAR CHANGING ALL LIGHTS INSULATING CHANGE WINDOWS INSULATING WALLS INSULATING ROOF BOILER POINT COLLECTOR SYSTEM TO LOW EXTERNAL CLOSE TO CONSUMPTION WALLS(outer side of the UNCONDITIONED wall) SPACES Figure 18: Distribution of energy saving measures schools Spain With respect to the public schools and libraries that have been visited, following energy saving measures are considered to be the most common ones: Windows: changing of frames without thermal bridges 26

27 Windows: changing from single to double glazing Walls: External insulation Heating system: changing of boilers (> 20 years old) Heating system: installation of regulation system Heating system: installation of thermostats Water: installation of water saving systems (WC) Hot water: installation thermal panels for hot water production (kitchens of the public schools) Electricity: installation of presence detectors (corridors) Electricity: install low consumptions lamps (all) 25,00 Distribution of Energy Saving Interventions 20,00 15,00 % 10,00 5,00 0,00 Installation new boiler Changing lights low consumption Installation Insulation external presence detector wall Figure 19: Distribution of energy saving measures Spain Insulation internal wall Changing window Reduction heating/ increase cooling set point Solar panel DHW 11 Top 10 energy saving measures in 6 EU countries The top 10 energy saving measures have been made a trans-national comparison, because this has importance for which measures to include into the tool. As a general approach for the project has comparisons between the different involved countries, e.g. of energy consumption, not been carried out., The differences in climate, building traditions, utilization of buildings, different numbers of housing area per resident etc. makes it too complex to evaluate within this project scope. 27

28 Measure Ranking of measure AU BG DK GR SI ES Priorit y Insulation outer walls High Insulation of roofs 6-3 High Insulation, uncond.spaces High Insulation of pipes Low Change windows High Reducing/stop air filtration Mediu m Temperature control Mediu m Energy efficient pump 4 Mediu m Install presence detector Mediu m Energy efficient light Low Increase cooling set point 5 Low Change to biomass boiler 4 - Mediu m Change to gas boiler 7 Mediu m Change to efficient boiler Mediu m Clean burner 10 Low Install solar collector Low Water savings 4 5 Low 12 Investment costs of energy saving measures Introduction For each of the energy saving measures included in the E-TOOL is the identified national (regional) investment costs based on inputs from the partners of the project. For some of the common energy saving measures have been carried out trans-regional comparison of costs to give some ideas about the level of investment costs in the different parts of EU. The results are shown below. The specific costs for a building will depend on the specific conditions and also on the terms of defining costs, but the figures can give some indication of level of costs in different countries. The following energy saving measures are included: Insulation of wall/floor/roof Changing windows / glass Installing biomass boiler Installation of more energy efficient oil boiler Installation of more energy efficient gas boiler 28

29 New control for the energy system Solar collector The following table gives an overview of selected investment cost of energy saving measures and shows the wide variety of the costs: Region Wall insulation (16 cm) /m2 Double glazing windows (1.2 W/m²K ) /m 2 New biomass boiler (50 kw) /kw Insulation of pumps and pipes /m Slovenia Austria Bulgaria Denmark Spain Greece The collected data of the investment cost are entered in the development of the E-TOOL to calculate the cost of selected energy saving measures with the E-TOOL. The following figures show the average investment costs for different energy saving measures in the respective countries. The underlying data for the investment costs can be found in the Annex. Average investment costs for insulation of wall, floor and roof [ /m2] Denmark Denmark Austria Slovenia Bulgaria Spain Greece Austria Slovenia Bulgaria Spain Greece Denmark Austria Slovenia Bulgaria Spain Greece Denmark Austria Slovenia Bulgaria Spain Greece Denmark Austria Slovenia Bulgaria Spain Wall (8 cm) Wall (16 cm) Floor (10 cm) Roof (10 cm) Roof (20 cm) Greece Denmark Austria Slovenia Bulgaria Spain Greece Figure 20: Average investment costs 29

30 The average investment costs for the insulation of the wall (8 and 16 cm), the insulation of the floor (10 cm), and the costs for roof insulation (10 and 20 cm) are shown. The costs to insulate the walls are very high in Denmark, followed by Austria and Slovenia. Greece has the highest prices concerning insulation of floors. Average investment costs for windows [ /m2] Denmark Austria Slovenia Bulgaria Spain Greece Denmark Austria Slovenia Bulgaria Spain Greece 0 Double glazing (1.2 W/m2K) Triple glazing (0.8 W/m2K) Figure 21: Average investment costs Denmark Austria Slovenia Bulgaria Spain Greece In Austria the average investment costs for windows with double- and triple glazing are the highest among the different countries. 30

31 Average investment costs for new biomass boilers [ /kw] Denmark Austria Slovenia Bulgaria Spain Denmark Austria Slovenia Bulgaria Spain Denmark Austria Slovenia Bulgaria < 50 kw kw kw Spain Figure 22: Average investment costs The average investment costs for smaller biomass boilers < 50 kw are higher then those for > 50 kw in every country. Biomass boilers up to 50 kw are most expensive in Denmark and Austria, between kw and kw we have the highest investment costs in Austria and Slovenia. Average investment costs for a new oil boiler [ /kw] Denmark Austria Denmark Slovenia Bulgaria Spain Austria Slovenia Bulgaria Spain Denmark Austria Slovenia Bulgaria Spain Denmark Austria Slovenia Bulgaria < 50 kw kw kw >500 kw Spain Figure 23: Average investment costs Oil boilers up to 100 kw have the highest average investment costs in Denmark, followed by Austria. The costs for a new oil boiler are almost the same for every capacity in Bulgaria and Spain. 31

32 Average investment costs for a new gas boiler [ /kw] Denmark Austria Slovenia Bulgaria Spain Denmark Austria Slovenia Bulgaria Spain Denmark Austria Slovenia Bulgaria Spain Austria Slovenia Bulgaria < 50 kw kw kw >500 kw Spain Figure 24: Average investment costs The figure shows the average investment costs for a new gas boiler. The costs decrease with increasing capacity of the boiler in all countries. For boilers > 500 kw Denmark did not give data. Average investment costs for the improvement of an existing heating system - new control system [ ] Denmark Austria Slovenia Bulgaria Spain Greece Denmark Austria Slovenia Bulgaria Spain Greece Denmark Austria Slovenia Bulgaria < 50 kw kw > 100 kw Spain Greece Figure 25: Average investment costs 32

33 The average investment costs for a new control system are much cheaper in Bulgaria and Spain, especially for heating systems > 100 kw. Overall the costs for the installation of a new control system are the highest in Austria and Greece. Average investment costs for a solar collector system [ /m2] Denmark Austria Slovenia Bulgaria Spain Greece Denmark Austria Slovenia Bulgaria Spain Greece Austria Slovenia Bulgaria 8 m m2 >100m2 Spain Greece Denmark Austria Slovenia Bulgaria Spain Greece Figure 26: Average investment costs The average investment costs for the installation of a solar collection system up to 100 m 2 are the fewest in Greece (around 100 /m 2 ) and Denmark (around 200 /m 2 ), for systems above 100 m 2 there have been no data for Denmark. For solar collector systems of 8 m 2 there is not much difference in the average costs, only in Spain the installation is more expensive. Results from Austria In Austria the costs of energy savings in shops, offices and hotels have been compared. 33

34 Average savings and costs of energy saving measures [ ] [kwh] Costs ( ) Savings (kwh) Shops Office Hotel Figure 27: Average savings Payback time for energy saving measures in Bulgaria: Thermal insulation of external walls 8 years; Thermal insulation of roof (water-proofing of roof excluded) 4,5 years Thermal insulation and water-proofing of roof 15,5 years Thermal insulation of basement s ceiling 9 years Repair and draught-proofing of windows and external doors 4 years Replacement of windows 20 years Installation of local heating (change of fuel) 11 years. 13 Energy performance (bench mark) after energy retrofitting It is very simple to derive to the energy performance (bench mark) after retrofitting of the building implementing the energy saving measures - by taking the actual measured heating consumption and deduct the estimated energy savings through implementing the energy saving measures. The energy performance can then be compared to what should be the energy consumption of the building, e.g. compared to the standard of the actual building code, or rating the building according to the national certification energy performance categories. Because bench mark of the energy consumption after retrofitting is very dependent on the regional conditions there has not been made a trans-regional comparison. 34

35 Results from Austria on commercial buildings This figure shows the benchmarks for the different building types before and after energy saving measures. The greatest difference between the benchmark before and after renovation was discovered at hotels. The results are from Austria. Benchmarks before and after energy saving measures 200,00 180,00 160,00 140,00 120,00 kwh/m2a 100,00 80,00 Indicator before Indicator after 60,00 40,00 20,00 0,00 Shops Office Hotel Figure 28: Benchmarks Most of the buildings tested were built after 1970, the average heated area is around 1,430 m². The average indicator is about 175 kwh/m²a and could be reduced to 117 kwh/m²a after renovation. On average 76,877 kwh savings could be achieved annually by implementing the suggested measures, which would require investment costs of about 20,400 in average. 35

36 Results from Bulgaria Results from Denmark 250 Comparison of DK-certificates and E-TOOL Single Dwellings - energy consumption before and after saving Left collum DK certificates - Right collum E-TOOL kwh/m Before After % pay-back Before After % pay-back Year of construction Figure 29: Comparison E-TOOL to energy audit 36

37 The results from Denmark include also a comparison with energy audit (calculated) rating, which in general comes to higher energy consumption than the measured (operational) rating. Results from Greece E-Tool Benchmarking Initial E-Tool Benchmark Final E-Tool Benchmark 300 kwh/m No of Building Figure 30: Benchmark Greece Results from Slovenia Results on initial and final (before/after proposing energy saving measures) bench marks of the energy consumption before and after t from regional testing of 550 buildings in Slovenia. 37

38 300,0 250,0 225,4 255,8 INITIAL E-TOOL BENCHMARK FINAL E-TOOL BENCHMARK 209,4 231,5 200,0 [kwh/m2] 150,0 155,5 164,2 141,8 151,6 100,0 50,0 0,0 BLOCK OF DWELLINGS SCHOOLS MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS SINGLE DWELLING Figure 31: Benchmark Slovenia Block of dwellings ENERGY CONSUMPTION BEFORE SAVING MEASURES ENERGY CONSUMPTION AFTER SAVING MEASURES PAYBACK TIME OF THE ENERGY SAVING MEASURES Energy consumption [kwh/m2] ` Payback time [year] Figure 32: Benchmark Slovenia 38

39 0,0350 0,0300 INITIAL E-TOOL BENCHMARK FINAL E-TOOL BENCHMARK 0,0289 0,0250 0,0255 [kwh/m 3 *DD] 0,0200 0,0150 0,0165 0,0190 0,0202 0,0129 0,0175 0,0100 0,0103 0,0050 0,0000 BLOCK OF DWELLINGS SCHOOLS MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS SINGLE DWELLING Figure 33: Benchmark Slovenia Single dwelling ENERGY CONSUMPTION BEFORE SAVING MEASURES ENERGY CONSUMPTION AFTER SAVING MEASURES PAYBACK TIME OF THE ENERGY SAVING MEASURES Energy consumption [kwh/m2] ` Figure 34: Benchmark Slovenia Payback time [year] 39

40 Results from Spain Overview tested buildings Spain [kwh/m2 before] [kwh/m2] afer Energy consumption [kwh/m2] Schools Office building Library - Music school Social services Museums Sport Bus station- Market hall Figure 35: Benchmark Spain Conclusions on bench mark after implementing energy saving measures The following energy savings are obtained from the national values on energy consumption before and after implementing the energy saving measures. It has to be taken into account that it is different types of buildings etc., but the numbers give some indications about the potential for energy savings. Country Type of buildings Energy savings, % Austria Shops 38% Offices 20% Hotels 38% Bulgaria Dwellings, blocks 46% Denmark Dwelling, blocks and single 25% Greece Public 20% Slovenia Dwellings and public 33% Spain Public 40% The E-TOOL calculates the energy performance of the building (after implementing the energy saving measures proposed) and show the result as a part of the E-TOOL energy performance rating. 40

41 14 Quality of the E-TOOL rating Introduction A key issue in evaluating the E-TOOL rating is to be able to answer the simple question. What is the quality of the E-TOOL rating? With the approach used in this project the focus of the certificate is to make estimations of potential energy savings - in existing buildings. So this has been the criteria for evaluating the performance of the E-TOOL. This is also the central point with regard to implementation of energy savings in the existing building sector - and therefore should also be the central point for promoting the implementation of the energy performance building directive. Two methods have been used for evaluating the quality of the E-TOOL energy rating: Compare E-TOOL/energy audit's proposals for energy saving measures - in Denmark and Slovenia Questionnaire to energy experts about the accuracy of results based on the energy expert's experiences - carried out in Denmark, Slovenia and Spain Compare E-TOOL/energy audit certificate's proposals for energy saving measures A pragmatic approach of looking into the results of using the E-TOOL methodology and compare it with the use of other certification methodologies with respect of identification of potential energy saving measures. Does the E-TOOL identify the same potential energy saving measures. Results from Denmark The results from Denmark include also a comparison with energy audit (calculated) rating, which in general comes to higher energy consumption than the measured (operational) rating. For energy saving measures the calculated rating has identified energy savings measures of around the same size as the E-TOOL Results from Slovenia Comparison of the E-tool results with an energy audit of a block of dwellings, built in The building characteristics are: 50 apartments with totally 100 residents Heated floor area m 2 External wall area m 2 U wall values of approx. 0,8 W/(m 2 K) 41

42 Windows 640 m 2 U window value 3,0 W/(m 2 K) with high air leakage Recommended measures: Additional thermal insulation of outer wall with 15 cm thick polystyrene layer. Installation of energy efficient windows with low-e double glazing (U w =1,1W/m 2 K) Additional insulating roof (TI=25cm) Additional insulating walls close to unheated spaces (TI=12cm) Improvement of boiler house and install modern boiler POTENTIAL SAVINGS POTENTIAL SAVINGS INITIAL INVESMENT INITIAL INVESMENT PAY-BACK PAY-BACK CO 2 SAVINGS CO 2 SAVINGS E-tool Energy Audit E-tool Energy Audit E-tool Energy Audit E-tool Energy Audit Investment measure [kwh/a] [kwh/a] [ ] [ ] [year] [year] [kg/m2] [kg/year] improvement of boiler house and install modern boiler ,6 19, additional insulating walls close to unheated spaces (TI=12cm) ,7 27, change windows from 3,0 to 1,1 [W/m2K] (640 m2) ,6 17, additional insulating external walls (TI=15cm, façade) ,6 22, additional insulating of roof (TI=25cm) ,8 10, Comparison E-TOOL with Energy Audit Slovenia Comparison between E-TOOL and Energy Audit Improvement of boiler house and install modern boiler POTENTIAL SAVINGS [kwh/a] INITIAL INVESTMENT [ ] CO2 SAVINGS [kg/year] E-TOOL Energy Audit Figure 36: Comparison E-TOOL with Energy Audit Slovenia 42

43 Comparison between E-TOOL and Energy Audit Additional insulating roof (TI=25cm) POTENTIAL SAVINGS [kwh/a] INITIAL INVESTMENT [ ] CO2 SAVINGS [kg/year] E-TOOL Energy Audit Figure 37: Comparison E-TOOL with Energy Audit Slovenia Comparison between E-TOOL and Energy Audit INSULATING EXTERNAL WALLS (TI 15cm, facade) POTENTIAL SAVINGS [kwh/a] INITIAL INVESTMENT [ ] CO2 SAVINGS [kg/year] E-TOOL Figure 38: Comparison E-TOOL with Energy Audit Slovenia Energy Audit Comparison between E-TOOL and Energy Audit CHANGE WINDOWS POTENTIAL SAVINGS [kwh/a] INITIAL INVESTMENT [ ] CO2 SAVINGS [kg/year] E-TOOL Energy Audit Figure 39: Comparison E-TOOL with Energy Audit Slovenia 43

44 Comparison between E-TOOL and Energy Audit Additional insulating walls close to unheated spaces (TI=12cm) POTENTIAL SAVINGS [kwh/a] INITIAL INVESTMENT [ ] CO2 SAVINGS [kg/year] E-TOOL Energy Audit Figure 40: Comparison E-TOOL with Energy Audit Slovenia 15 Accuracy of results - questionnaire Results from Denmark E-TOOL evaluation (DK) Result of questionnaires 100 Answer in % Fair Good Improve 0 Survey Function Access Client Figure 41: Result of questionnaires Results from Slovenia 44

45 Acceptance of results by client 35 Accessibility of the data needed for the tests response response EXCELENT VERY GOOD GOOD SUFFICIENT INSUFFICIENT 5 0 VERY EASY EASY MEDIUM DIFFICULT VERY DIFFICULT 25 Accurancy of results based on your experiences 25 Time required to complete the survey and the report response response EXCELENT VERY GOOD GOOD SUFFICIENT INSUFFICIENT 0 less than 30 minutes minutes 1-2 hours 2-3 hours more than 4 hours Other Figure 42: Result of questionnaires Results from Spain Accuracy of the results: Satisfied 60% Accepted 30% Not sufficient (improvements necessary) 10% Conclusion concerning the accuracy Evaluation Denmark Slovenia Spain Average Good 27% 40% 60% 42% Sufficient 34% 40% 30% 38% In-sufficient 39% 20% 10% 20% 45

46 The average figure of 80% of energy experts expressing that the E-TOOL rating is good or sufficient must be said to be satisfactory. Conclusion on the quality of the E-TOOL rating In general and overall terms based on evaluation of comparison with energy audits and evaluation by energy experts the E-TOOL rating seems to be of a satisfactory quality. 16 Description of the contribution to advancement on the state of the art Focus of E-TOOL development on Southern Europe and East/Southern part of Europe The energy audits and the implementation of energy saving measures are more advanced in the Northern part of Europe, such as in the partner countries Denmark and Austria. One of the motivations of starting-up E-TOOL was to use these long-term experiences and to transfer them to other countries. In this sense, it has to be underlined that that e-tool was developed with Special focus on buildings in Southern Europe and East/Southern part of Europe. It means that E- tool needs modification or improvements to be used in Northern climate, as here the energy saving measures are more precise and not only of general character. 17 Feasibility and impact of E-TOOL Introduction In this context is focused on the feasibility and the impact of the E-TOOL in relation to the objectives defined for the tool. By "feasibility" is meant E-TOOL's ability of fulfilling the functional objectives defined. By "impact" is meant E-TOOL's ability of making an impact in terms implementing energy savings in the building sector of existing buildings. The objectives for the functionality of the E-TOOL are: Operational/simple/practicable. Promote the implementation of the energy performance building directive. Promote the implementation of energy savings in the building sector. The feasibility and impact have first of all been evaluated by the energy experts testing the tool. In connection to the testing activities the energy experts have filled out questionnaires concerning: Applicability of the tool, giving characters of: Good/fair/improve. User (energy expert) friendliness, giving characters of: Good/fair/improve. 46

47 Accessibility of the data needed for the tests, giving characters of: Good/fair/improve. Acceptance of the results by the client, giving characters of: Good/fair/improve. Time required for completing the survey and the reporting. Improvements of the tool Feed-back from workshops, training seminars The feasibility and impact of E-TOOL have also been evaluated through the regional workshops carried out with attendance of regional energy experts, who haven given their feed back on the performance of the tool etc. Supplementary to the workshops have been carried out interviews with energy experts, e.g. from energy companies, with evaluation of the tool. The aim of the training seminars was to explain the usage of the E-TOOL to the energy auditors, technicians of public administration and energy companies. The main tasks therefore have been fulfilled, as a large number of implied and qualified people were reached and the philosophy and the practical aspects of the present project could be demonstrated. The two regional workshops aimed at the dissemination of the project results and the discussion mainly of the practicable aspects when applying E-TOOL. In the case of Demark and Slovenia, a special point of discussion was the comparison of E-TOOL to the national certificates. The general feed-back of the auditors that used E-TOOL was positive, despite of the fact that this tool could not cove all different aspects of the particular buildings in each partner country. For example, in the case of large building complex as public buildings, the user influence is important on the total energy consumption. This is especially important to sport complex building with high energy consumptions where it is worth to reduce the energy consumption from very high to lower levels. The interaction between the data collection, default values and software is in general a major factor for the accuracy of the rating. The operational and calculated rating methods have identified the same cost efficient saving measures, but the calculated savings and pay-back time are different. It was concluded that the differences could be caused by calculation models and default values. The difference between the metered and the calculated consumption is often seen by the danish experts and it could be explained with the software for calculated rating did not take the surplus energy from indirect sources into account. It was the general opinion that the simple structure of E-TOOL has maintained its reproducibility compared to the more detailed structure of the DK-software and reporting. In comparison with more complex and advanced rating tools using calculated rating has E-TOOL shown a shorter rating time and has identified the same potential for cost efficient energy savings in the buildings. The efficiency of the rating in time is depended on how detailed the examination and registration of the building is required. The calculated rating will in most cases require more data than the operational rating. The E-TOOL rating took about 1-2 hours for survey and reporting, whereas with calculated rating takes the process 3-4 hours and it is not feasible at all, because of the low fee, if not the energy 47

48 rating is combined with a condition rating of the building. The impact of E-TOOL compared with the DK-certificates is difficult to evaluate. E-TOOL has been developed with focus on Southern European buildings and modified to adapt the regional differences in climate and buildings. The experts draw the attention to the uncontrolled air filtration through building joints walls and roofs and other examples characteristic for the Northern climate. It was the expert s opinion that the surveyor must have a good and broad knowledge about buildings and installations, combined with experience from the building industry. The more advanced and complex rating tool the better qualifications and training. Technical data about the building in form of drawings and other as-built documentation are rare available. The energy performance of a building depends on in general on climate envelope, efficiency of heating installations and use of buildings. The results of E-TOOL rating depend on representative and transparent data about building and accounted energy consumption. With regards to the experts acceptance of E-TOOL as a comprehensive tool for energy rating of existing buildings in comparison with the obligatory DK-certification it was the opinion, that for smaller, regular buildings as flats, apartments ect. The use of E-TOOL will be limited where a detailed data acquisition is required and none representative data for energy consumption are available. With additional modifications could E-TOOL meet the requirements to a additional rating tool for buildings in Northern Europe Feed-back from the market actors The E-TOOL software was developed to be a simple and practicable tool that could be used by the energy auditors prior to training and instruction. The efficient tool is in general accepted from the market actors, such as energy auditors, public administration and private households as end user, as the results are clear and the proposed implementation of the energy saving measures are given also with an economical point of view. Therefore, the inclusion of the investment and pay-back time in the results and not only a certificate is important for the real implementation of the measures Training/instruction for using E-TOOL An important indication if the E-TOOL is simple is that it is easy for energy experts to use the tool with little education or training activities. Nevertheless, it has to be underlined that the results depends on the qualification of the auditor. Prior to the Testing with the E-TOOL in the 6 involved partner countries, training activities of the energy experts were carrying out. Each partner decided on his own how to train the experts and to choose the necessary academic background of the auditors. Country Austria Education activity Training seminars were carried out for 50 energy experts in energy management and cooling of commercial buildings. As part of the seminars E-TOOL was 48

49 Bulgaria Denmark Greece Slovenia Spain presented. Training seminar for 15 energy experts presenting the E-TOOL methodology and software. The experts involved in testing the E-TOOL had brief instructions, and they were able to use it directly. They were instructed, if they had any questions. Mini seminars were carried out instructing the energy experts in the software and methodology of E-TOOL Short training instruction of energy experts - no problems for using E-TOOL is registered The testing of E-TOOL was carried out by energy experts from the local region. The public administration technicians of the local government as end users and a local company that is responsible for the implementation of the energy saving measures that are proposed for the public buildings were trained additionally. From the experience of the regional training activities in connection to preparing regional testing activities it can be concluded that education of energy experts in using the E-TOOL can be made with a short instruction for one day or less. This is a clear indicator that the E-TOOL is a simple tool - for energy experts with experience in energy rating Time required for completing the carry out E-TOOL certification The time used for completing an E-TOOL certification including survey and reporting to the end-user (house owner) gives a good indication, if the tool is simple and practicable. The time required is also an important success criteria defined for the E-TOOL, with a maximum of 2-3 hours for a standard dwelling. As part of the regional testing activities the energy experts carrying out the testing of the E-TOOL were asked to answer a question of: "Time required for completing the survey and the reporting". Denmark For Denmark, a typical value is to perform the test and survey on single dwellings was done within 1-2 hours in 95% of the cases. Greece In Greece, the time effort is reasonably higher due to the additional time effort for the data base establishment as well as due to the fact that more complex buildings were tested. Spain 49

50 In Spain the energy rating only included public buildings, most of them larger buildings with a poor data base that had to be established expressively for the project. Therefore, the target of E-TOOL rating within 2-3 hours can't be satisfied. The time spent was up to 7 hours with possibility of reducing to 5 hours by improving efficiency. General overview From the testing activities it can be concluded, taking the limited number of tests into account, which the E-TOOL is able to carry out energy rating within the objective of 2-3 man hours. This only counts for "standardised buildings". Nevertheless, the comparison between the countries does not give a representative picture. The most important factor is the availability of the input data and the complexity of the building on the time that has to be spent for the complete test procedure. The following table gives an overview on the time spent in some representative partner countries. Time DK Slovenia ES Greece 0, < Building type single dwellings Residential buildings public buildings public buildings 17.5 Reproducibility Another relevant evaluation criterion is "reproducibility" meaning that the E-TOOL rating leads to the same result independent of the user, requiring that all options of the tool are specified in a concrete and un-ambiguous way with no open ends. This element has not been evaluated specifically, but the simplicity of the tools indicates that the tool has a good reproducibility - when used on more standardised buildings with standard utilization, where the assumptions of effects of energy savings can be expected to be obtained, by definition with a deviation Comparison of rating methodologies E-TOOL operational rating to assessment rating One additional aspect that has been evaluated with respect to the results obtained with E-TOOL, in two partners countries (Denmark and Slovenia) is was possible to compare the outcome of E-TOOL with 50

51 other national certifications. This comparison gives an indication on the quality of the developed tool within the frame of the present contract as a simple and user-friendly tool. The results of E-TOOL rating of single dwellings in Denmark and Slovenia indicate a good consistency in the overall picture and trends of the two different rating methodologies calculated rating and operational rating. Most notable is the difference between the metered and the calculated consumption, the same results can be seen from other comparisons in DK of the calculated and metered consumption, they also shows a lower metered consumption than calculated. For both ratings is it clear that the eldest buildings have the largest saving potential and shortest pay-back time. Comparison of E-TOOL rating and DK-certificates Single Dwellings - energy consumption before and after saving Left collumn DK (calculated) - Right collumn E-TOOL (metered) kwh/m² DK-certif. Before After % saving E-TOOL pay-back Before After % saving pay-back Year of Contruction Figure 44: Comparison of E-Tool results with assessment audit Single Dwellings (Denmark) In the case of Slovenia, the E-TOOL results were compared with respect to the calculated energy savings. 18 Support of the implementation of energy savings in building by E-TOOL energy rating 18.1 Criteria for the evaluation of the implementation 51

52 The overall objective of the project has been to develop a tool, which can promote the implementation of the EU building performance building directive. This objective has been "translated" into developing a tool, which can be applied for efficient energy rating of existing buildings. Above has been described how the E-TOOL performs in relation to: Accessibility of input data Generation of proposals for energy saving measures Generating bench marks of energy consumptions after implementing energy saving measures Need for education of energy experts Time required for the E-TOOL rating Additionally to these evaluations of the single elements of the E-TOOL has also been carried out an evaluation of the overall performance of the tool in relation to: Acceptance of results by the clients Accuracy of results - based on the energy experts' experiences. The evaluation has been carried through the energy experts carrying out the tests of the tool filling out a questionnaire Acceptance of results by clients On important aspect in the evaluation process of the E-TOOL project is the acceptance of the outcome of the results and the functioning of the tool by the experts. In general terms, it can be concluded that the client s acceptance of the results is good. Acceptance Denmark Greece Slovenia Spain Good 75% 52% 38% 90% Fair 22% 32% 55% 5% In-sufficient 3% 16% 7% 5% Results of client s acceptance of the results In the following, some examples are given that were supplied by the project partners. Greece The main reason of the E-Tool s relative high acceptance from its users, is the simplicity of the tool and the fact that the completion of an audit does not require as many working hours like other more complex software do, demanding the input of data relative to energy use, geometrical features and buildings use. Such methodologies aim in simulating the buildings operation and usually do not 52

53 incorporate any data related to the financial evaluation of the buildings operation and the measures proposed for the improvement of its energy behaviour. Thus E-Tool proved to be in advance, providing very useful information regarding the pay-back period of the measures proposed by the auditors, helping the financial directors of the services to have draft estimation on the economics of the interventions. The presentation of the financial appraisal for a number of occasions proved to be a strong motivation to the clients to take into strong consideration E-Tool s results. The relative high level of the tool s acceptance is presented at the following graph. Figure 45: Results from questionnaires with expert s evaluation (Greece) Slovenia External experts from ENSVET energy advisory network that tested E-TOOL in their ever day work expressed their opinion about the tool. As and additional feature, the partners from Slovenia developed an own new webpage that was used to collect the experts opinion. This is an important aspect to be considered. Spain Satisfied 90% Accepted 5% Not sufficient (improvements necessary) 5% The E-TOOL and the corresponding activities are highly accepted by the client. Acceptance of the results by client was mostly very acceptable like a clearness of results too. The end user, in this case the local municipality, was generally spoken satisfied with the results of the E-TOOL. Nevertheless, the main draw-backs came from the availability of the input data. In some buildings it was very timeintensive to get all the needed data. In some cases (special buildings) E-TOOL was considered not to be sufficient enough and it was considered to be a too simple tool. 53