SPECIFICS OF NZEB AT THE DESIGN, REALIZATION, COMMISSIONING, OPERATION, FINANCING

Transcription

1 SPECIFICS OF NZEB AT THE DESIGN, REALIZATION, COMMISSIONING, OPERATION, FINANCING Olena K. Larsen Per Heisleberg Department of Civil Engineering Aalborg University NEAR ZERO, NET ZERO, PLUS - ENERGY BUILDINGS F IRST IDEAS T O RESEARCH ACTIVITIES W ITHIN T HE AREA OF NEAR Z ERO, NET Z ERO, PLUS ENERGY BULDINGS MAT ERIALIZED IN RESULTED AMONG OTHERS IN T HE FOLLOW ING MAJOR RESEARCH ACTIVITIES : IEA SHC Task 40 / EBC Annex 52 ( ) Zero Emission Centre, NTNU Norway ( ) ZEB Centre, Denmark ( ) 1

2 WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO? REDUCE ENERGY NEEDS TO A MINIMUM (LIKE PASSIVE HOUSES ETC.). USE CLEAN, RENEWABLE ENERGY TO COVER THE REMAINING NEED FOR THERMAL ENERGY (FOR HEATING AND COOLING). USE RENEWABLE ENERGY TO COVER THE NEED FOR ELECTRICITY. CONSIDER EMBODIED ENERGY AS WELL. Source: Tor Helge Dokka, NTNU WHAT DO WE GET? 1. BUILDINGS W ITH (VERY) LOW ENERGY USE 2. BUILDINGS, W HICH CONSUMES ENERGY AND GENERATES (MAYBE) ENERGY FROM RENEW ABLE SOURCES ( PROSUMING BUILDINGS) 3. BUILDINGS, IN W HICH THE ANNUAL BALANCE BETW EEN CONSUMPTION AND GENERATION IS CLOSE TO ZERO (NEAR ZERO, NET ZERO OR PLUS) 4. BUILDINGS, W HICH IS CONNECTED TO ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE AND INTERACT W ITH IT 2

3 NEW CHALLENGES DETERMINE THE RIGHT BALANCE BETW EEN ENERGY SAVINGS AND RENEW ABLE ENERGY PRODUCTION DESIGN BUILDINGS THAT INTERACT W ITH THE ENERGY SYSTEM DESIGN BUILDINGS W ITH A FLEXIBLE ENERGY DEMAND PERFORMANCE GAB: DEIGNED ENERGY USE VERSUS REALIZED, DESIGNED INDOOR ENVIRONMENT VERSUS REALIZED, DESIGNED F UNCTIONALITY VERSUS REALIZED NEW CHALLENGES ENERGY EFFICIENCY CONTRA RENEWABLE ENERGY PRODUCTION 3

4 NEAR- OR NETZEBS A HOLISTIC APPROACH feed-in energy [export: kwh, CO 2, etc.] Building Regulation Cost optimum level net zero balance line energy supply starting point energy efficiency delivered energy [import: kwh, CO 2, etc.] Source: Karsten Voss, Wuppertal University, Germany CALCULATED TOTAL SAVING OBTAINABLE BY TECHNICAL MEASURES (TECHNOLOGY TODAY) Building Type Present Energy Use Total Saving (kwh) Total Saving (%) Single Family 30 ties Single Family 60 ties Multifamily 30 ties Multifamily 60 ties Reference: SBi 2013:03 4

5 OPTIMUM ENERGY SAVINGS IN THE BUIDLING SECTOR Present average energy use Ref.: Professor Henrik Lund, AAU TEAM+ appointed winner Architects ARKITEMA, Leif Hansen Consulting Engineers A/S, Esbensen Consulting Engineers A/S, FAKTOR 3 Aps, DONG Energy, Thornton Thomassetti, Housing Organisation Ringgården, BAU-HOW Denmark. 5

6 Million /year RENEWABLE ENERGY SUPPLY OPTIONS On-site RES 1. PV-HP: Photovoltaic installations and a ground source heat pump. 2. PV-MiCHP(biogas): Photovoltaic installations and a micro fuel cell biogas CHP. 3. PV-MiCHP(biomass): Photovoltaic installations and a micro Stirling biomass CHP. 4. PV-MiCHP(H 2 ): Photovoltaic installations and a micro fuel cell CHP fuelled with hydrogen. 5. PV-DH: Photovoltaic installations and connection to the district heating grid. Off-site RES 1. WM-HP: Off-site windmill and a ground source heat pump. 2. SofW-HP: Owning share of a windmill farm and a ground source heat pump. 3. El100%-HP: Building connected to power grid, which in 100% is supplied with renewable energy sources and a ground source heat pump. 4. W-DH: Off-site windmill and connection to the district heating grid. 5. SofW-DH: Owning share of a windmill farm and with connection to the district heating grid. TOTAL ANNUAL COST OF NETZEB 1,10 1,00 0,90 0,80 on-site RES off-site RES 0,70 0,60 0,50 Primary energy demand BR201 0 BR20 15 BR20 20 Source: Marszal, A., Heiselberg, P., Jensen, R.L., Nørgaard, J. Renewable Energy 44: p , BR2010: 52,7 kwh/m 2 BR2015: 30,1 kwh/m 2 BR2020: 20,0 kwh/m 2 6

7 Environmental impact from building constructional elements in new buildings (BR 2015) Single-family houses Offices Reference: SBi 2015:03 Environmental impact from building constructional elements in new buildings (BR 2015) Single-family houses Offices Reference: SBi 2015:03 7

8 Comparison of primary energy use in refurbished and new built dwellings (Lifetime 80 years) NEW CHALLENGES BUILDINGS AND THEIR INTERACTION WITH THE ENERGY SYSTEMS 8

9 LOAD MATCHING IN AN ALL ELECTRIC HOME 100 % heating dominated climate 100 % residential building 75 solar potential energy load annual cycle 0 daily cycle Source: Karsten Voss, Wuppertal University, Germany THE PROSUMING BUILDING Domestic hot water: 18,3 kwh/m2 year Space heating: 15 kwh/m2 year Electricity for operating the house: 6,7 kwh/m2year Electricity for household 13,2 kwh/m2 year PV electricity production: 29,1 kwh/m2 year Solar thermal: 11 kwh/m2 year Heat pump thermal output: 22,4 kwh/m2 year Source: Ellen Katrine Hansen, VKR Holding 9

10 ENERGY IMPORT/EXPORT Reference: Lund, H., Marszal, A., and Heiselberg, P.. Energy and Buildings 43 (2011) WIND SOLAR THERMAL HEAT PUMP ZEB Reference: Lund, H., Marszal, A., and Heiselberg, P.. Energy and Buildings 43 (2011)

11 NEW CHALLENGES FLEXIBLE HEATING DEMAND THROUGH BUILDING THERMAL MASS UTILIZATION HEATING FLEXIBILITY USING BUILDING THERMAL MASS FOR STORAGE Type of buildings PARAMETER VARIATI ON Type of activation (duration, starting time, increase vs. decrease) Type of emitters Temperature set-point BR 79 (140 kwh/m².yr) +2K Temperature set-point Time 2 24 hrs Passive house (14 kwh/m².yr) Sizing factor + 25% Source:: Dréau, J. Le, Heiselberg, P. Vol. 111, pp , K Time 11

12 RADIATOR/UNDERFLOOR HEATING [ALL DAYS OF HEATING SEASON] Source:: Dréau, J. Le, Heiselberg, P. Vol. 111, pp , 2016 RADIATOR/UNDERFLOOR HEATING [ALL DAYS OF HEATING SEASON] Source:: Dréau, J. Le, Heiselberg, P. Vol. 111, pp ,

13 CONTROL SCENARIOS FOR FLEXIBLE DEMAND SCENARIO # 1 ( 4 HRS CONSERVAT ION) : T HE SET - POINT IS DECREASED BY 2 K IN PERIODS W ITH HIGH PRICES, BUT F OR A MAXIMUM PERIOD OF 4 HOURS. T HIS MODULATION CAN BE REPEATED OVER THE DAY AFTER A W AITING PERIOD O F 4 HOURS. SCENARIO # 2 ( 4 HRS ST ORAGE AND CONSERVAT ION) : T HE SET - POINT IS DECREA SED BY 2 K IN PERIODS W ITH HIGH PRICES OR INCREASED BY 2 K IN PERIOD S W ITH LOW PRICES, BUT F OR A MAXIMUM PERIOD OF 4 HOURS. T HESE MODULAT IONS C AN BE REPEATED OVER THE DAY AFTER A W AITING PERIOD OF 4 HOURS. SCENARIO # 3 W ITH 6 HRS. ( 6 HRS ST ORAGE AND CONSERVAT ION) : SIMILAR T O SCENARIO # 2, BUT F lexibility factor = σ q h e a t i ng ne ed l ow σ q h e a t in g n eed { hi gh } σ q h e a t i ng ne ed l ow + σ q h e a t in g n eed { hi gh } EXAMPLE OF FLEXIBILITY ACHIEVED (SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE 80 S). Radiator Underfloor heating Ref. # 1 # 2 # 3 Ref. # 1 # 2 # 3 mean(t op) ( C) min(t op) ( C) max(t op) ( C) Heating need (kwh/m².year) Ref Ref 80 # 1 80 # 1 # 2 # 2 Share of tariff (kwh/m².year) # # 3 Flexibility factor (-) 20 0 Low Medium High Low Medium High Source:: Dréau, J. Le, Heiselberg, P. Vol. 111, pp ,

14 EXAMPLE OF FLEXIBILITY ACHIEVED (PASSIVE HOUSE). Radiator Underfloor heating Ref. # 4 # 5 # 6 Ref. # 4 # 5 # 6 mean(t op) ( C) min(t op) ( C) max(t op) ( C) Heating need (kwh/m².year) Ref Ref # 1 # 1 10 # 2 10 # 2 # 3 # 3 Share of tariff (kwh/m².year) 5 5 Flexibility factor (-) 0 0 Low Medium High Low Medium High Source:: Dréau, J. Le, Heiselberg, P. Vol. 111, pp , 2016 NEW CHALLENGES EXPECTED VERSUS REAL PERFORMANCE 14

15 Teoretiske og faktiske energiforbrug til opvarmning Baseret på parcelhuse med energimærke. Tallene er endnu ikke publiceret, og dermed ikke endeligt valideret. Reference: Kirsten Gram-Hanssen, SBi 2015 HOM E FOR LIFE, LYSTRUP, DENM ARK 15

16 Home for life Energy Concept EXPERIENCES RELATED TO ENERGY USE AND PRODUCTION T HE MOST IMPORTANT DEVIAT IONS: Energy use for heating higher than expected Electricity use for heat pump higher than expected Electricity use for control system higher than expected Energy use DHW lower than expected Electricity use for appliances and plug loads lower than expected. Production from solar thermal system as expected Production from PV as expected Reference: Esbensen,

17 1. Measured 2. As 1, corrected for weather 3. As 2, corrected for indoor temperature 4. As 3, corrected for lower person load 5. As 4, corrected for domestic electricity use 6. As 5, corrected for air tightness 7. As 6, corrected for less efficient heat recovery 8. As 7, corrected for use of solar shading 9. As 8, corrected for measuring equipment and screens 10. As 9, corrected for DHW use 11. As 10, corrected for efficiency of heat pump 12. Predicted energy use Reference: Esbensen, 2012 RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF DIFFERENT ASPECTS Reference: Esbensen,

18 Overheating living room Reference: Esbensen IMPACT OF IMPROVED CONTROL AND OPERATION Sleeping, year 1 1% 6% Sleeping, year 2 1% 2% 14% 20% 59% 18% 13% 66% Living year 1 2% Living year 2 1% 2% 10% 32% 13% 32% 26% 58% 24% Reference: VELUX og Esbensen 18

19 WHY DO WE FACE THESE CHALLENGES IN HIGH PERFORMANCE BUILDINGS? IT IS NOT POSSIBLE T O REACH GOALS T HROUGH MORE Envelope insulation, Building airtightness, Ventilation heat recovery, W HICH ARE ROBUST TECHNOLOGIES W ITHOUT USER INTERACTION NEW MEASURES NEEDS T O BE INCLUDED Demand controlled ventilation Shading for solar energy control Shading for daylighting control Lighting control Window opening ALL T ECHNOLOGIES: Where performance is very sensitive to control Which involve different degree of user interaction Whose function and performance are difficult for users to understand REFLECTIONS 19

20 REFLECTIONS TRANSFORMATION OF THE ENERGY SYSTEM PROVIDE NEW CHALLENGES TO OVERCOME TO ENSURE: A future intelligent and integrated energy system (integration of energy carriers, integration of prosumers) Optimum use of renewable energy sources and minimum use of fossil fuels Optimum use of existing energy networks (electricity and district heating) to minimize future investments REFLECTIONS ENERGY FLEXIBLE NZEBS CAN POTENTIALLY PLAY AN IMPORTANT ROLE: They both consume and produce energy Their energy use can partly be shifted in time They can provide storage and link between different carriers Their energy use can be managed individually or in larger groups. BUT HOW, WHEN, WHY, 20

21 REFLECTIONS ENERGY FLEXIBLE NZEBS? What is actually their role in an integrated energy system, what is required? How to activate flexibility through price signals, aggregators,? What is the business case? Is the cost acceptable? How do we engage building owners and users? Are actions needed from users? What solutions will they accept? Will changing heating set-points be acceptable? What will be the implications on building design? Can clever design solutions enhance energy flexibility? Is it relevant for both existing and new buildings... SUMMARY / CONCLUSION ARE Z ERO ENERGY BUILDINGS A USEF UL CONCEPT F OR THE F UTURE? Integrating renewable energy on building site is not the least cost solution and has limitations in an urban environment Owners can see other benefits and it increases energy use awareness W HAT COULD BE T HE ROLE OF ZERO ENERGY BUILDINGS IN A F UTURE RENE W ABLE ENERGY SYST EM? Low energy use is a prerequisite for a change from a energy system based on fossil fuels to a system based on renewable energy Energy production and use should not be optimized from a building perspective but from an energy system perspective 21

22 Per Heiselberg Olena K. Larsen Aalborg University Thanks for your attention 22