REHVA Annual Conference Tallinn, May 19-20, 2011 Conference summary Jarek Kurnitski, EKVÜ, Estonia Sitra, the Finnish Innovation Fund

REHVA Annual Conference Tallinn, May 19-20, 2011 Conference summary Jarek Kurnitski, EKVÜ, Estonia Sitra, the Finnish Innovation Fund

Main topics EU policy directives labels implementation EPBD, RES, ErP (Eco-Design), Energy-Label, Eco-Label REHVA proposal for nzeb national implementation nzeb and green building case studies Technical solutions for nzeb buildings Cost efficient energy saving in existing buildings Green Building Building Labelling Schemes EU EcoLabel criteria for buildings Common metrics for key issues in sustainability

Michaela Holl, the Commission: 20% Energy Efficiency target not on track must be delivered EPBD recast: Commission s regulation/guidance document on cost optimal methodology framework given on or close June 30th 2011 instructs MS for the first time on how to set minimum requirements cost optimal policy shift away from only upfront investment cost a global cost approach established, guidance will be provided, and some room left for national adjustment EPBD recast established the political target of nearly zero energy buildings for all new buildings by 1 Jan 2021. Both requirements will have to be reconciled so that a smooth transaction from cost optimal requirements to nearly zero energy buildings could be guaranteed. Many new targets and measures introduced recently: Roadmap for moving to a competitive low-carbon economy in 2050 Energy Efficiency Plan 2011 20% EE reduction will correspond to 25% reduction in CO 2 by 2020

HVAC products in the EU s complex regulatory context ErP, EPBD, RES: Andrea Voigt/Heat pumps

Ismo Grönroos-Saikkala, Ecodesign: a lot of Lots all major HVAC-products soon covered

René Kemna: Preparing EU Ecodesign, Larger Ventilation Systems

National implementation of EPBD and nzeb: Donald Leeper/UK, Jean-Christophe Visier/France and Michael Schmidt/Germany Towards nzeb: Many countries have prepared long term roadmaps with detailed targets EPBD has established a common methodology Still a huge legal, regulatory, engineering and economic effort needed: Binding laws Codes Calculation methods Guidelines Training Funding

REHVA proposal for national implementation of nzeb so that national conditions can be taken into account with uniformed methodology net zero energy building (nzeb) energy use of 0 kwh/(m 2 a) primary energy nzeb has exact performance level of 0 kwh/(m 2 a) primary energy use NOTE 1 A nzeb is typically a grid connected building with very high energy performance. nzeb balances its primary energy use so that the primary energy feed-in to the grid or other energy network equals to the primary energy delivered to nzeb from energy networks. Annual balance of 0 kwh/(m 2 a) primary energy use typically leads to the situation where significant amount of the on-site energy generation will be exchanged with the grid. Therefore a nzeb produces energy when conditions are suitable, and uses delivered energy during rest of the time. nearly net zero energy building (nnzeb) national cost optimal energy use of > 0 kwh/(m 2 a) primary energy NOTE 1 The Commission shall establish by 30 June 2011 a comparative methodology framework for calculation of cost-optimal levels (EPBD recast). NOTE 2 Not all renewable energy technologies needed for nearly zero energy building have to be cost-effective, if appropriate financial incentives are not available. nnzeb depends on national conditions

Special concern: please learn and use common energy performance terminology of EPBD and European standards! Energy need Net energy need Energy use Delivered energy = energy purchased to the building Primary energy DELIVERED ENERGY EXPORTED ENERGY E i E del, i E exp, i f i EPBD & EN 15603:2008

Global additional energy performance cost (NPV), Example of cost optimal calculation (Source: Estonian ongoing study funded by Climate and Energy Agency KENA) 150 100 /m 2 50 nzeb Cost optimal Current reg. 0 50 100 150 200 Gas Pellet AWHP GSHP Electric Oil DH -50 Primary energy, ET-value, kwh/(m 2 a) The ref. detached house 179 m 2, 3% interest rate, 3% escalation, 30 years, PV not included (AWHP air to water heat pump, GSHP ground source heat pump, DH district heating) Cost optimal of 140 or 90 depending on the availability of cheap energy source vs. BAU of 180 Distance to nzeb 31 000 investment cost (175 /m 2 ) primary energy of 40, from which improved insulation and heat recovery 6 400 and solar PV 25 000

How to integrate nzeb into energy certificate scale? nzeb as technically reasonable achievable cost optimal for new buildings, category B or C req. for new buildings (typically not cost optimal yet) Revision of certificates scales needed: Cost optimal requirements for new buildings cannot be any more in D category, as calculated for 30 years period with 3% interest rate Existing A may be split (A+, A++) or changed

Bjarne Olesen: Achieving Excellence in Indoor Environmental Quality applies in nzeb IEQ not to be compromised in nzeb according to EPBD: 1% productivity decrement as much as total energy budget in offices Win-win situation in many cases: Energy performance improvements improve IEQ Better windows reduce draft, radiant asymmetry etc. Performance specification issue: nzeb energy performance target target values for good indoor climate EN 15251 provides guidance for IEQ performance specification and input data for energy calculation

Jonas Gräslund: simple and reliable solutions do exist low speed high eff constant pressure AHU Developers perspective: Vanilla Green Deep green approach Flexible and non complex solutions High efficiency heat recovery and low speed AHU provided major energy savings Skanska s experience and optimization has led to simple and reliable constant pressure ventilation systems (large AHU&ducts, no silencers, almost no dampers)

nzeb case studies: high performance office buildings by Wim Zeiler, Ansgar Thiemann, Mickael Freindorf and residential buildings by Jyri Nieminen

nzeb case studies: common solutions Energy sources used: heat pumps, DH, bio-chp, solar PV and thermal Heat recovery ventilation, often demand controlled, by centralized or decentralized systems sometimes combined with natural stack effect ventilation for ventilative cooling purposes Free cooling solutions combined with mechanical cooling via boreholes, water to water HP, evaporative or ventilative cooling etc. Optimized building envelope and effective external solar protection Utilization of natural light + effective demand controlled lighting High efficiency heat recovery and low specific fan power, CO 2, presence and temperature control typical in nzeb Water based distribution systems and VRV heat pumps Utilization of thermal mass and other passive measures Office appliances have become major component in energy balance

Another problem: indication that official monthly based calculated methods are not capable for energy calculation in nzeb offices, as too optimistic results provided not achieved in reality dynamic simulation tools needed

nzeb extra cost? Was discussed in many presentations (Wim Zeiler, Ansgar Thiemann, Mickael Freindorf, Michael Schmidt, Jyri Nieminen and others) Not very relevant question for existing buildings In new buildings extra cost of 0%, between 5 10% and >10% reported, however some general agreement established that in most cases not more than 10% In existing buildings cost effective energy performance improvements are possible, but not to nzeb performance level

nzeb solutions: Natural lighting and solar shading, Jean-Louis Scartezzini and Hervé Lamy 3.5 W/m 2 installed lighting power achieved!

Mari-Liis Maripuu: large profitable energy savings in existing non-residential buildings achieved in Swedish BELOK many projects completed with reported results The complete cost of Total Energy Projects Identification of measures Cost estimations 3-4 /m 2 Simulations of energy saving Planning and design 2 3 /m 2 Construction work, installatons 40 80 /m 2 Commissioning, function control 2-3 /m 2 In total 47-90 /m 2 Savings 7-11 /(m 2 a)

Arnaud Deneyer: EcoLabel criteria for buildings There is a need to measure the sustainability, but different schemes/weights tend to provide somewhat different answers, could an EU EcoLabel provide something new?

Hendrik Voll: the purpose of the labeling systems has rather been the leadership in design, including metrics, design process and technical measures, instead the establishing a common metrics for key issues

Building labelling vs. common metrics for key issues owner s and investor s perspective More than 100 labelling systems available globally indicating a strong demand for voluntary labelling: Local importance leading the design and commissioning process in the construction projects Evidently following the principles of any system will have a positive effect Benchmarking limited even within the same systems, for more details category specific comparison needed As ratings combine many categories which cannot be summed, common metrics for key issues behind each category may have sense: Open house and Super buildings latest EU activities in the field Key indicators could provide more information for the investor for valuation don t underestimate investors understanding!