EIE – 329 E-TOOL FINAL REPORTec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/sites/iee... ·...

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/S07.38676). 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.

2

LIST OF CONTENT 1 Summary ............................................................................................................................................3 2 Objectives...........................................................................................................................................6 3 The scope of the project report...........................................................................................................6 4 The project partners............................................................................................................................7 5 Project flow chart ...............................................................................................................................9 6 Tool configuration............................................................................................................................11 7 Description of the E-TOOL software...............................................................................................11 8 Bench marking of the energy consumption......................................................................................15 9 Accessibility of the input data ..........................................................................................................16 10 Energy saving measures ...............................................................................................................20 11 “Top 10” energy saving measures in 6 EU countries...................................................................27 12 Investment costs of energy saving measures................................................................................28 13 Energy performance (bench mark) after energy retrofitting ........................................................34 14 Quality of the E-TOOL rating......................................................................................................41 15 Accuracy of results - questionnaire ..............................................................................................44 16 Description of the contribution to advancement on the state of the art........................................46 17 Feasibility and impact of E-TOOL...............................................................................................46

17.1 Feed-back from workshops, training seminars ........................................................................47 17.2 Feed-back from the market actors ............................................................................................48 17.3 Training/instruction for using E-TOOL ...................................................................................48 17.4 Time required for completing the carry out E-TOOL certification .........................................49 17.5 Reproducibility.........................................................................................................................50 17.6 Comparison of rating methodologies E-TOOL operational rating to assessment rating .........50

18 Support of the implementation of energy savings in building by E-TOOL energy rating...........51 18.1 Criteria for the evaluation of the implementation ....................................................................51 18.2 Acceptance of results by clients ...............................................................................................52 18.3 Accuracy of the results .............................................................................................................54

19 Overall evaluation of E-TOOL for energy rating.........................................................................55 20 E-TOOL energy rating - discussion and recommendations .........................................................58 21 Reduction of barriers and support to policy implementation .......................................................59 22 Resume of achieved results ..........................................................................................................59 23 Lessons learned ............................................................................................................................61 24 Recommendations ........................................................................................................................61

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, 16th 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:

4

E-TOOL can be down loaded from: www.e.tool.org, 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, 1.000 residential buildings.

Evaluation criteria Results "Mark" Bench marking of energy consumption

Specific benchmark data are in general not available, therefore benchmarking is not implemented in the E-TOOL rating.

To be improved

Accessibility of input data Positive feed-back Acceptable Guidelines for energy saving measures

Top 10 energy measures identified, U-values etc. are fixed, output for investment costs and energy savings acceptable for standard buildings

Good for typical

buildings Energy performance after implementing energy savings

Acceptable results when comparing with energy audits Acceptable

Accuracy - compare with energy audit

Acceptable for energy saving measures and energy performance after implementing energy saving measures

Acceptable

Need of education Small need of education Good Time required Around 2/3 < 3 hours Good Acceptance by clients Around 90% good/acceptable Good

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: www.e.tool.org

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, 16th 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 (Energy-toolset 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.

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 Country1 Naturgas Midt- Nord NGMN Energy supply company Denmark2 Fundación Cener-Ciemat CENER Scientific institutions Spain3 Ober-Österreich Energiesparverband ESV Regional/local authority Austria4 Thessaloniki Metropolitan Development Agency TMDA Regional/local authority Greece5 Sigma Consultants Ltd SIGMA Consultants - Energy experts Greece6 Sofia Energy Centre SEC Scientific institutions Bulgaria7 Building and Civil Engineering Institute ZRMK Scientific institutions Slowenia8 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.

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)

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.

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 www.e-tool.org.

Data collection

Tool development

Regional testing and evaluation

Handbook

Dissemination

Preparation of testing

Figure 1: Project structure

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 CO2 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: www.e-tol.org. 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.

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

LocationCategoryShape and physical data

Fuel typeAnnual consumConsumption included

-Heating-Cooling-Domestic Hot Water-Lighting-Envelope

E-TOOL PROCESS

DATA BASE

-Energy saving coefficients for saving measures.-Correlations to calculate energy savings depending on measure´s characteristics.

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.

Total potential savingsTotal investment cost of energy saving measures

Payback time of the energy saving measuresTotal CO2 savings

Initial E-Tool BenchmarkFinal E-Tool Benchmark

Best five energy saving measures selection

Figure 2: Flow Diagram of the E-TOOL software Input data

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

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 • CO2 savings (kg)

Cost-effective analysis summary: • Total potential, kwh/year • Total investment costs

E-TOOLSET

Goes to:

Page 1

Page 2

Page 3

1- CLIMATIZATION SYSTEMS

1.1- HEATING 1.1-SAVING MEASURES Page 3

1.2- COOLING 1.2- SAVING MEASURES Page 4

2- DOMESTIC HOT WATER

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 8

5.2- OPENINGS 5.2- SAVING MEASURES Page 8

Page 9

CONSUMPTION DATA

SUMMARY- Benchmarking

2.1- EQUIPMENT/ RENEWABLE ENERGY

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BUILDING

GENERAL DATA OF THE BUILDING

14

• Payback time • CO2 savings • Initial E-TOOL bench mark (measured), kWh/m2 • Final E-TOOL bench mark (with energy savings), kWh/m2

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.

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

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:

18

Figure 5: Accessibility of data Slovenia The evaluation of the accessibility of data in Slovenia can be taken from following column diagram:

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:

Accessibility of the dataneeded for the tests

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

VERY EASY EASY MEDIUM DIFFICULT VERYDIFFICULT

resp

onse

19

Accessibility of data for the tests- Spain

020406080

Verygood

Good Medium Difficult Verydifficult

Per

cent

age

[%]

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

424

97

60

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

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.

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 m2 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.

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

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Insula

te ex

terna

l wall

s (ex

terna

lly)

Insula

te wall

s to u

ncon

dition

ed sp

ace

Chang

e wind

ow

Chang

e to b

iomas

s boil

er

Instal

l sola

r coll

ctor s

ystem

Chang

e ligh

ts to

low co

nsum

ption

Insula

te the

pipe

s

Instal

l therm

ostat

(hea

ting)

Instal

l mod

ern bo

iler

Instal

l pres

cenc

e dete

ctors

Chang

e to g

as bo

iler

Clean t

he bu

rner

Sealin

g wind

ow ai

r leak

s

Reduc

e hea

ting s

et po

int

Instal

l wate

r sav

ing

%

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

0,00%

5,00%

10,00%

15,00%

20,00%

25,00%

Instal

l mod

ern bo

iler

Chang

e to b

iomas

s boil

er

Chang

e to g

as bo

iler

Clean t

he bu

rner

Insula

te the

pipe

s

Instal

l therm

ostat

(hea

ting)

Reduc

e hea

ting s

et po

int

Instal

l wate

r sav

ing

Instal

l sola

r coll

ctor s

ystem

Chang

e ligh

ts to

low co

nsum

ption

Instal

l pres

cenc

e dete

ctors

Insula

te ex

terna

l wall

s (ex

terna

lly)

Insula

te wall

s to u

ncon

dition

ed sp

ace

Sealin

g wind

ow ai

r leak

s

Chang

e wind

ow

Figure 10: Distribution of energy saving measures Energy saving measures in shops 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.

23

Percentage of different energy saving measures in shops

0,00%

5,00%

10,00%

15,00%

20,00%

25,00%

Instal

l mod

ern bo

iler

Chang

e to b

iomas

s boil

er

Chang

e to g

as bo

iler

Clean t

he bu

rner

Insula

te the

pipe

s

Instal

l therm

ostat

(hea

ting)

Reduc

e hea

ting s

et po

int

Instal

l wate

r sav

ing

Instal

l sola

r coll

ctor s

ystem

Chang

e ligh

ts to

low co

nsum

ption

Instal

l pres

cenc

e dete

ctors

Insula

te ex

terna

l wall

s (ex

terna

lly)

Insula

te wall

s to u

ncon

dition

ed sp

ace

Sealin

g wind

ow ai

r leak

s

Chang

e wind

ow

Figure 11: Distribution of energy saving measures 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

0,00%

5,00%

10,00%

15,00%

20,00%

25,00%

Instal

l mod

ern bo

iler

Chang

e to b

iomas

s boil

er

Chang

e to g

as bo

iler

Clean t

he bu

rner

Insula

te the

pipe

s

Instal

l therm

ostat

(hea

ting)

Reduc

e hea

ting s

et po

int

Instal

l wate

r sav

ing

Instal

l sola

r coll

ctor s

ystem

Chang

e ligh

ts to

low co

nsum

ption

Instal

l pres

cenc

e dete

ctors

Insula

te ex

terna

l wall

s (ex

terna

lly)

Insula

te wall

s to u

ncon

dition

ed sp

ace

Sealin

g wind

ow ai

r leak

s

Chang

e wind

ow

Figure 12: Distribution of energy saving measures

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

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Insulation Windows Air filtrat. Temp.Ctr. Boiler Pump

Freq

uenc

y

%

Figure 14: Distribution of energy saving measures

25

Greece

Distribution of Energy Saving Interventions

02468

101214161820

Cleaning

Burner

Installing

modern boiler

Change Fuel Oil

to Gas. Install

Gas Boiler

Insulating Pipes Changing

Glazing -

Windows

Insulating

external Walls

Insulating Walls

in contact to

unconditioned

premises

Reducing

Heating Set

Point

Increasing

Cooling Set

Point

Changing lights

to low

consumption

Installing

presence

detectors

Installing HVAC

VRV

Installing Water

Saving

Systems

Installing Solar

Collectors

Installing

Reflective

Curtains

(Heating)

Installing

Reflective

Curtains

(Cooling)

Installing

Awnings

Improve

Windows

Inflitrations

Intervention

%

Figure 15: Distribution of energy saving measures Slovenia

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

INSTALL MODERNBOILER

INSULATE THE PIPES REDUCE HEATING SETPOINT

INSTALLING A SOLARCOLLECTOR SYSTEM

CHANGING ALL LIGHTSTO LOW

CONSUMPTION

INSULATINGEXTERNAL

WALLS(outer side of thewall)

CHANGE WINDOWS INSULATING WALLSCLOSE TO

UNCONDITIONEDSPACES

INSULATING ROOF

Freq

uenc

y [%

]

Figure 16: Distribution of energy saving measures single dwellings

26

0

5

10

15

20

25





CONSUMPTION

INSULATINGEXTERNAL



UNCONDITIONEDSPACES

INSULATING ROOF

Freq

uenc

y [%

]

Figure 17: Distribution of energy saving measures block of dwellings

0

5

10

15

20

25





CONSUMPTION

INSULATINGEXTERNAL



UNCONDITIONEDSPACES

INSULATING ROOF

Freq

uenc

y [%

]

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

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)

Distribution of Energy Saving Interventions

0,00

5,00

10,00

15,00

20,00

25,00

Installation newboiler

Changing lightslow consumption

Installationpresence detector

Insulation externalwall

Insulation internalwall

Changing window Reduction heating/increase cooling

set point

Solar panel DHW

%

Figure 19: Distribution of energy saving measures Spain

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.

28

Ranking of measure Measure

AU BG DK GR SI ES Priority

Insulation outer walls 1 1 3 4 2 2 High Insulation of roofs 6 - 3 High Insulation, uncond.spaces 1 5 5 High Insulation of pipes 7 10 6 Low Change windows 3 2 2 6 1 1 High Reducing/stop air filtration

7 4 9 Medium

Temperature control 8 8 6 2 7 4 Medium

Energy efficient pump 4 Medium

Install presence detector 10 3 7 Medium

Energy efficient light 6 3 1 8 8 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 9 1 8 4 3 Mediu

m Clean burner 10 Low Install solar collector 5 9 6 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

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 ) €/m2

New biomass boiler

(50 kW) €/kW

Insulation of pumps and pipes

€/m

Slovenia 43 - 76 130 - 208 70 - 300 1 -6 Austria 60 - 80 250-450 300 - 400 2 - 5 Bulgaria 28 - 40 19 - 120 48-200 3 Denmark 170 250 400 7 Spain 15-20 130-150 190-215 5-10 Greece 35-40 176-220 - 12

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

Den

mar

k

Den

mar

k

Den

mar

k

Den

mar

k

Den

mar

k

Aus

tria

Aus

tria

Aust

ria

Aust

ria

Aus

tria

Slo

veni

a

Slov

enia

Slov

enia

Slov

enia

Slov

enia

Bulg

aria

Bul

garia

Bulg

aria

Bulg

aria

Bul

garia

Spai

n

Spa

in

Spai

n

Spai

n

Spa

in

Gre

ece

Gre

ece G

reec

e

Gre

ece

Gre

ece

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Wall (8 cm) Wall (16 cm) Floor (10 cm) Roof (10 cm) Roof (20 cm)

[€/m

2]

Denmark Austria Slovenia Bulgaria Spain Greece Figure 20: Average investment costs

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

Den

mar

k Den

mar

k

Aus

tria

Aust

ria

Slo

veni

a

Slo

veni

a

Bul

garia

Bulg

aria

Spa

in Spa

in

Gre

ece

Gre

ece

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Double glazing (1.2 W/m2K) Triple glazing (0.8 W/m2K)

[€/m

2]

Denmark Austria Slovenia Bulgaria Spain Greece

Figure 21: Average investment costs In Austria the average investment costs for windows with double- and triple glazing are the highest among the different countries.

31

Average investment costs for new biomass boilers

Den

mar

k

Den

mar

k

Den

mar

k

Aus

tria

Aus

tria

Aus

tria

Slo

veni

a Slo

veni

a

Slov

enia

Bul

garia

Bul

garia

Bul

garia

Spa

in

Spa

in

Spa

in

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

< 50 kW 50-100 kW 100-500 kW

[€/k

W]

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 50 -100 kW and 100 – 500 kW we have the highest investment costs in Austria and Slovenia.

Average investment costs for a new oil boiler

Den

mar

k

Den

mar

k

Den

mar

k

Den

mar

k

Aus

tria

Aus

tria

Aus

tria

Aus

tria

Slo

veni

a

Slo

veni

a

Slo

veni

a

Slo

veni

a

Bul

garia

Bul

garia

Bul

garia

Bul

garia

Spa

in

Spa

in

Spa

in

Spa

in

0

50

100

150

200

250

< 50 kW 50-100 kW 100-500 kW >500 kW

[€/k

W]

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.

32

Average investment costs for a new gas boilerD

enm

ark

Den

mar

k

Den

mar

k

Aus

tria

Aus

tria

Aust

ria

Aus

tria

Slo

veni

a

Slo

veni

a

Slo

veni

a

Slo

veni

a

Bul

garia

Bul

garia

Bul

garia

Bul

gariaSp

ain

Spa

in

Spa

in

Spa

in

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

< 50 kW 50-100 kW 100-500 kW >500 kW

[€/k

W]

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

Den

mar

k

Den

mar

k

Den

mar

k

Aus

tria Aus

tria

Aus

tria

Slo

veni

a Slo

veni

a

Slo

veni

a

Bul

garia

Bul

garia

Bul

garia

Spa

in

Spa

in

Spa

inGre

ece G

reec

e

Gre

ece

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

< 50 kW 50 - 100 kW > 100 kW

[€]

Figure 25: Average investment costs

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

Den

mar

k

Den

mar

k

Aus

tria

Aust

ria

Aus

triaSl

oven

ia

Slov

enia

Slov

enia

Bul

garia

Bul

garia

Bul

garia

Spa

in

Spa

in

Spa

in

Gre

ece

Gre

ece

Gre

ece

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

8 m2 30-100 m2 >100m2

[€/m

2]

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 m2 are the fewest in Greece (around 100 €/m2) and Denmark (around 200 €/m2), for systems above 100 m2 there have been no data for Denmark. For solar collector systems of 8 m2 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.

34

Average savings and costs of energy saving measures

0

20.000

40.000

60.000

80.000

100.000

120.000

Shops Office Hotel

[€] [

kWh]

Costs (€)Savings (kWh)

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.

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

0,00

20,00

40,00

60,00

80,00

100,00

120,00

140,00

160,00

180,00

200,00

Shops Office Hotel

kWh/

m2a

Indicator beforeIndicator after

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.

36

Results from Bulgaria

Results from Denmark

Comparison of DK-certificates and E-TOOLSingle Dwellings - energy consumption before and after saving

Left collum DK certificates - Right collum E-TOOL

0

50

100

150

200

250

00-20 20-40 40-60 60-70 70-80 80-00

Year of construction

kWh/

m2

BeforeAfter%pay-back

BeforeAfter%pay-back

Figure 29: Comparison E-TOOL to energy audit

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

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99100

No of Building

kWh/

m2

Initial E-Tool Benchmark Final E-Tool Benchmark

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.

38

225,4

255,8

209,4

231,5

155,5164,2

141,8151,6

0,0

50,0

100,0

150,0

200,0

250,0

300,0

BLOCK OF DWELLINGS SCHOOLS MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS SINGLE DWELLING

[kW

h/m

2]INITIAL E-TOOL BENCHMARKFINAL E-TOOL BENCHMARK

Figure 31: Benchmark Slovenia

Block of dwellings

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2 10 19 28 37 46 55 64 73 82 91 100 109 118 127 136 145 154 163 172 181 190

Ene

rgy

cons

umpt

ion

[kW

h/m

2] `

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Payb

ack

time

[yea

r]

ENERGY CONSUMPTION BEFORESAVING MEASURESENERGY CONSUMPTION AFTER SAVINGMEASURESPAYBACK TIME OF THE ENERGY SAVINGMEASURES


39

0,0255

0,01900,0202

0,0289

0,0165

0,0103

0,0129

0,0175

0,0000

0,0050

0,0100

0,0150

0,0200

0,0250

0,0300

0,0350

BLOCK OF DWELLINGS SCHOOLS MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS SINGLE DWELLING

[kW

h/m

3 *DD

]

INITIAL E-TOOL BENCHMARKFINAL E-TOOL BENCHMARK


Single dwelling

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1 10 19 28 37 46 55 64 73 82 91 100

109

118

127

136

145

154

163

172

181

190

199

208

217

226

235

244

253

262

271

280

289

298

307

Ene

rgy

cons

umpt

ion

[kW

h/m

2] `

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Payb

ack

time

[yea

r]

ENERGY CONSUMPTION BEFORESAVING MEASURESENERGY CONSUMPTION AFTER SAVINGMEASURESPAYBACK TIME OF THE ENERGY SAVINGMEASURES


40

Results from Spain

Overview tested buildings Spain

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Schools Officebuilding

Library -Music school

Socialservices

Museums Sport Bus station-Market hall

Ener

gy c

onsu

mpt

ion

[kW

h/m

2]

[kWh/m2 before][kWh/m2] afer

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, % Shops 38% Offices 20%

Austria

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.

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 1980. The building characteristics are:

• 50 apartments with totally 100 residents • Heated floor area 3.100 m2 • External wall area 1.940 m2 • Uwall values of approx. 0,8 W/(m2K)

42

• Windows 640 m2 • Uwindow value 3,0 W/(m2K) 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 (Uw=1,1W/m2K) • Additional insulating roof (TI=25cm) • Additional insulating walls close to unheated spaces (TI=12cm) • Improvement of boiler house and install modern boiler

POTENTIAL SAVINGSPOTENTIAL

SAVINGSINITIAL

INVESMENTINITIAL

INVESMENT PAY-BACK PAY-BACK CO2 SAVINGS CO2 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 130.357 85.500 86.000 92.000 11,6 19,0 26.071 17.100 additional insulating walls close to unheated spaces (TI=12cm) 17.827 5.230 15.070 7.840 13,7 27,7 3.565 1.046 change windows from 3,0 to 1,1 [W/m2K] (640 m2) 124.319 163.800 146.286 157.084 20,6 17,6 24.863 32.760 additional insulating external walls (TI=15cm, façade) 117.107 76.000 68.953 94.125 9,6 22,0 23.421 15.200 additional insulating of roof (TI=25cm) 23.263 18.300 17.056 8.175 11,8 10,5 4.653 3.660 Comparison E-TOOL with Energy Audit Slovenia

Comparison between E-TOOL and Energy AuditImprovement of boiler house and install modern boiler

-

20.000

40.000

60.000

80.000

100.000

120.000

140.000

E-TOOL Energy Audit

POTENTIAL SAVINGS [kWh/a]

INITIAL INVESTMENT [€]

CO2 SAVINGS [kg/year]

Figure 36: Comparison E-TOOL with Energy Audit Slovenia

43

Comparison between E-TOOL and Energy AuditAdditional insulating roof (TI=25cm)

-

5.000

10.000

15.000

20.000

25.000

E-TOOL Energy Audit

POTENTIAL SAVINGS [kWh/a]INITIAL INVESTMENT [€]CO2 SAVINGS [kg/year]


Comparison between E-TOOL and Energy Audit

INSULATING EXTERNAL WALLS (TI 15cm, facade)

-

20.000

40.000

60.000

80.000

100.000

120.000

140.000

E-TOOL Energy Audit




CHANGE WINDOWS

-

20.000

40.000

60.000

80.000

100.000

120.000

140.000

160.000

180.000

200.000

E-TOOL Energy Audit



44


Additional insulating walls close to unheated spaces (TI=12cm)

-

5.000

10.000

15.000

20.000

25.000

E-TOOL Energy Audit



15 Accuracy of results - questionnaire Results from Denmark

E-TOOL evaluation (DK)Result of questionnaires

0

20

40

60

80

100

Survey Function Access Client

Answ

er in

% FairGoodImprove

Figure 41: Result of questionnaires Results from Slovenia

45

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%

Time required to complete the survey and the report

0

5

10

15

20

25

less than30

minutes

30 - 60minutes

1 - 2hours

2 - 3hours

more than4 hours

Other

resp

onse

Accurancy of results – based on your experiences

0

5

10

15

20

25

EXCELENT

VERY GOOD

GOOD

SUFFICIE

NT

INSUFFIC

IENT

resp

onse

Accessibility of the dataneeded for the tests

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

VERY EASY EASY MEDIUM DIFFICULT VERYDIFFICULT

resp

onse

Acceptance of results by client

05

101520253035

EXCELENT

VERY GOOD

GOOD

SUFFICIE

NT

INSUFFIC

IENT

resp

onse

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.

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.

17.1 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

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.

17.2 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.

17.3 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 Education activity Austria 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

49

presented. Bulgaria Training seminar for 15 energy experts presenting the E-TOOL methodology and

software. Denmark 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. Greece Mini seminars were carried out instructing the energy experts in the software and

methodology of E-TOOL Slovenia Short training instruction of energy experts - no problems for using E-TOOL is

registered Spain 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.

17.4 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

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 0,5 - 1 2 28 0 19 1- 2 95 43 15 22 2 -3 2 17 40 30 3 - 4 1 10 40 22 < 4 0 2 5 7

Building typesingle

dwellingsResidential 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.

17.6 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

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

savingLeft collumn DK (calculated) - Right collumn E-TOOL (metered)

0

50

100

150

200

250

00-20 20-40 40-60 60-70 70-80 80-00Year of Contruction

kWh/

m²

0

10

20

30

40

50Before

After

% saving

pay-back

Before

After

% saving

pay-back

E-TOOL

DK-certif.

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

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.

18.2 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

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 time-intensive 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.

54

18.3 Accuracy of the results In this context, the evaluation is not made by actually carrying out precise energy audits to compare the E-TOOL energy rating. In stead is used a "subjective" evaluation method based on the energy expert's experience. The "audit-evaluation" has been made by comparing energy audits and E-TOOL ratings, mentioned previously in the report. In the case of Slovenia, the external experts from ENSVET energy advisory network that tested E-TOOL in their ever day work expressed their opinion about the tool and as well on the accuracy of the obtained results. For this purpose, the web-site http://www.gi-zrmk.si/EU_projekti/E-tool was used to collect the experts results of testing and their opinions. Topics:

• Scope and work programme • General invitation to experts to participate in testing • Pole (to submitted via internet)

A general overview that came out of the questionnaire and the opinion of the experts are summarized in following table.

Accuracy Denmark Greece Slovenia Spain Good 42% 65% 39% 60% Fair 22% 24% 39% 30%

In-sufficient 36% 11% 22% 10% Overview on the accuracy of results The evaluation of the accuracy of the results obtained by E-TOOL is not scope of the work of the present project. In order to precise an absolute comparison of the obtained results by E-TOOL based on the operational rating method with other methods or national certification standards based on assessment rating, it is recommended in further studies within the frame of the EU network to define the criteria on the accuracy of the results. The experts that used in the different countries the E-TOOL expressed their singular and subjective option on the tool based on their own experiences while working with other methods and came to the conclusion that the results that have been obtained are within a representative margin and therefore were considered to be accurate.

55

19 Overall evaluation of E-TOOL for energy rating Introduction Above has been described the results of the evaluation of E-TOOL for energy rating with respect to different specific evaluation criteria. In this section it is the intention to summarize the results of evaluation, to discuss the results and to make recommendations on the utilization of E-TOOL, and in general the measures (operational) rating methodology for energy rating of existing buildings. Summarization of evaluation of single elements.

Evaluation criteria Results "Mark" Bench marking of energy consumption

In general specific bench mark data are not available, therefore bench marking is not included in E-TOOL

To be improved

Accessibility of input data Positive feed-back AcceptableGuidelines for energy saving measures

Top 10 energy measures identified, U-values etc. are fixed, output for investment costs and energy savings acceptable for standard buildings

Good for typical

buildings Energy performance after implementing energy savings

Acceptable results when comparing with energy audits Acceptable

Accuracy - compare with energy audit

Acceptable for energy saving measures and energy performance after implementing energy saving measures

Acceptable

Need of education Small need of education Good Time required Around 2/3 < 3 hours Good Acceptance by clients Around 90% good/acceptable Good Accuracy of results 80% good/acceptable. Acceptable Based on the results of the evaluation of the single elements evaluation criteria the E-TOOL seems acceptable for energy rating of existing standard buildings as most single dwellings and especially block-dwellings, but also shops, offices and hotels have shown acceptable results. Overall evaluation for each country Austria Although it is in some cases challenging to obtain the building data for completing the e-tool, it is a useful instrument to asses to the building owner the potential of energy efficiency measures.

56

Often the results have to be interpreted. The energy experts shall have the know-how and experience to clarify about or assess data, eventual not correct calculations, inter etc. For doing that a high level of know-how and experience is required. For the success of the e-tool it is crucial that qualified energy experts use it. Therefore a focus was put on the qualification of the advisers. The training seminars organised were successful and ensured that a number of experts are able to use the e-tool. Bulgaria

• The real energy consumption in multi-dwelling buildings in Bulgaria is not relevant for testing the building, as many households do not heat the whole dwelling or maintain very low temperature in the rooms. When using the data from the energy bills it appears that the building does not need any improvement. This is because we assess not the building, but the user behaviour

• For energy certification in Bulgaria we have to assess the whole building, its qualities and energy characteristics. It is not possible to make this assessment flat by flat.

• It is very difficult to collect the data regarding the energy consumption. There is always something missing (either invoices for heating or for electricity)

• 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.

• The E-TOOL is very useful at the beginning of the refurbishment process, as different energy saving measures can be easily assessed.

• The E-TOOL is also useful for public buildings as schools and hospitals were the indoor temperature should reach a minimal required comfort and the building is managed by one organisation.

Denmark The energy performance of a building is in general related to:

• Condition of the climate envelope • Efficiency of heating/cooling system • The use of buildings

The E-TOOL tests has shown, that the large potential for improved energy performance is not only related to the climate envelope, but also related to the efficiency of the heating/cooling systems. Modern technology such as coated window glazes, condensation boilers and automatic temperature control can with relative low costs be implemented in the existing buildings and improve the energy performance, whereas additional isolation often is costly and difficult to built into existing building structure. Uncontrolled air filtration through building elements, membranes, building elements is a frequent reason for increased energy consumption and discomfort. An increase in air change from 0.5 to 1.5 will increase the energy consumption with 50-70 kWh/M2/year.

57

The use of handheld infrared cameras have increased the efficiency and the quality of the rating and has increased the quality of the certificates by detecting hidden air leakages and poor insulation. The accuracy of the operational rating depends on the quality of the metered data. In such cases where non-metered energy i.e. firewood or sun panels are used to a large extent can an estimation of the non-metered energy be used. Unusual use of the buildings can also lead to inaccuracy in the rating. The limitations in use of E-TOOL are mostly related to irregular use of buildings and poor data of energy consumption. Greece E – Tool is an effective rating tool for public buildings that either have simple forms, or for more massive and complex building that can be easily divided into more simple ones. Like all operational tools, the acquisition of energy data and /or the data’s allocation into different building’s sectors and use, is the most crucial factor for the program’s reliable use. Though E – Tool was not tested in private buildings in Greece, it is believed that the tool will be more applicable at this sector and especially at private housing i.e. apartments. Such buildings have simpler forms, the acquisition of the energy data is much simpler and of course the time required to complete the survey is less. Further more the owners of the buildings are more motivated into taking into consideration the proposed energy saving measures and implementing them, since this has a direct financial impact upon them. It is the experts aim to try to implement E – Tool to domestic buildings and other small scale private buildings. The project’s partner comments on the tool’s use at similar private buildings will provide the essential background to use it efficiently with reliability. Slovenia Functional aspects of the tool are very acceptable because of easily entered the data into the program. Time required to complete the survey and the report, is dependent upon accessibility of the data needed for the test and type of the building but normally it is between half an hour to two hours. Acceptance of the results by client was mostly declared to be “very acceptable”, as well as a clearness of results. Accessibility of the data needed for the tests was in many cases difficult, especially in blocks of dwellings (electricity consumption is subject to individual bills). Accuracy and reliability of the results are dependent on the precision Spain The E-TOOL itself is considered to be a fast tool for the energy audit. The E-TOOL could be improved for the local aspects while taking into account the different usage of the buildings and the user’s habits. The E-TOOL might be split in different parts for different heated and cooled zones of the same

58

building. The dependency on the input data for the operational rating based on invoices showed additionally the influence of the user’s habits on the energy consumption. It was possible to establish benchmark data for buildings with the same kind of usage and building characteristics.

20 E-TOOL energy rating - discussion and recommendations Is E-TOOL operational rating a relevant methodology and tool? The evaluation of the testing of the E-TOOL, show that the tool is relevant for rating of energy savings in buildings with regular use The CEN proposed standard concerned with energy rating in connection to the implementation of the energy performance building directive is stating that both measured (operational) and calculated (asset) energy rating of buildings can be applied, there is a possibility of choosing one of the 2 methodologies. The CEN-proposal describes that the main aim of the simplified method of energy rating is to combine high transparency, reproducibility and robustness with adequate (balanced) accuracy. The answer to the question, if the E-TOOL operational rating is a relevant methodology and tool for energy rating of existing buildings, depends on what is the aim of the energy rating. If the aim of the rating is bench marking of the (inherent) energy standard of the building, independent of the users, then calculated (asset) rating may be used.. If the objective of the energy rating of the existing building is to make rating of the potential for energy saving measures the results of the evaluation tests of the E-TOOL indicate that the measured (operational) methodology is relevant - for "standardised" buildings as typical (most) single dwellings and housing block dwellings, offices, shops, hotels and other types of "standardised" buildings. Especially when the cost of rating-parameter is included, it seems evident that the operational rating methodology is to preferred for energy rating of existing "standardised" buildings The effect of using cost efficient rating methodologies is also that it potentially leaves room for including direct communication with the house owners of the results of the rating. This is seen as a vital element, if the objective is to implement the potential energy measures identified (this seems not to be the objective of some of the operating energy rating arrangements). Sensitivity studies carried out by EBM-Consult (NL) indicate that “ a very advanced asses (energy rating) model with a high degree of accuracy that requires detailed and complex data input using little default values, may lead to very inaccurate data acquisition. The accumulating inaccuracy through the steps of rating can sum up to a total of 45% in extreme, with a common inaccuracy of 20 to 30%".

59

21 Reduction of barriers and support to policy implementation

Increase of subventions for public buildings

This depends on one hand side on the cost efficiency of investment itself. In case of public buildings, this is an important aspect as the budget has to be foreseen in the previsions on the expenses for the following year of the local government. The limit of the application of the energy saving measures is the available and always limited budget of public authorities. Here, it is important to underline that the European Commission, together with the national authorities, will dedicate more financial aids for the general improvement on the energy consumption of public buildings. The European Commission should further promote the concrete implementation of the proposed measures that with E-TOOL are only proposals, but no realization.

Reduction of barriers - Increase of subventions for private buildings

For private buildings, the local and regional government will have to establish more financial aids, subvention or low-interest credits so that the initial investment could be reduced. As a positive example, in some partner countries, such as local governments, motivate private house owner with tax reductions when building new low-energy houses on the initial investment as well as on the annual building taxes. The general vision is more ambitious and therefore the tax reduction was implemented. On the other side, the pay-back time is an important decision taking criteria for private households and hotels that were tested, as the depreciation of the investment is to be considered also in the tax declaration.

22 Resume of achieved results Data collection The necessary data were collected from each of the partner countries. The main data that are needed for the energy audit with E-TOOL are as follows:

- Historical energy consumption data - Buildings characteristics (age, construction plans, windows, isolations, walls) - State of heating and cooling system - Description of the electrical installations - Description of different zones within one building complex. - Prices of most relevant energy saving measures

The E-TOOL - Development of a new software tool based on the operational rating method

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

60

the basis of the actual energy consumption “operational” rating and on basis of benchmarks for energy consumption for different categories of buildings.

Regional tests The tests have been prepared and performed by the individual partners. The energy-toolset that was carried out in 6 nations and in 3 European climate regions, South, South/East and North and was focussed on different main categories of buildings: Domestic, commercial (shops, restaurants etc.) and public buildings, giving an overall coverage of different types of buildings. The toolset was developed for and tested against public buildings in Spain, Greece and Slovenia. The toolset for commercial buildings was applied in Austria, using experiences from the 35,000 certifications. For residential buildings in Denmark, using experiences from 200,000 certifications, in Slovenia for residential buildings using experiences from energy audits, and in Bulgaria the toolset was applied on residential concrete building blocks. Test certificates One of the mayor outcomes from the projects is the large number of rated buildings with E-TOOL. The test and certificates of E-TOOL are totally completed as planned to comprise performance certificates 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 – 1000 residential buildings.

With the tests, it was possible to determine the energy performance before and after energy retrofitting for different categories of buildings.

Evaluation of the E-TOOL tests

The evaluation of the E-TOOL tests comprises the reaction of the end users on the achieved results, such as:

• User friendliness (functional aspects) of the tool • Time required completing the survey and clients report • Acceptance of the results by client • Accessibility of the data needed for the tests • Accuracy and reliability of the results • Improvements to the tool (also with respect to local building practice and climate).

Check-list • A simple and operational toolset for “operational” rating of existing buildings

61

• Guidelines for typical energy savings based on benchmarks and calculation of pay-back time on investment

• Increase efficiency for energy rating • It is a user-friendly tool that can be downloaded together with the handbook at the project web-site

www.e.tool.org. • The handbook of the project enables the end user of the ETOOL to apply the tool in the most

efficient way.

23 Lessons learned The E-TOOL has been tested in six European countries, Austria, Bulgaria, Denmark, Greece, Spain and Slovenia on more than 1,000 buildings, such as single family dwellings, apartment blocks, schools and offices. 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. The experts testing E-TOOL had a wide range of qualifications from academic degrees to trained senior craftsmen. With the combination of measure energy consumption and a simple rating tool, can the rating be performed by experienced persons after short training in the use of E-TOOL. It is essential that the experts have experience from working with energy savings or building construction. The results from the workshops carried show that the among market actors, there is a big interest for the E-TOOL being seen as an efficient tool in removing market barriers for implementation of energy saving measures in the existing building stock. The best results with E-TOOL rating are achieved on buildings with regular structure and where the data are transparent and representative. To sum up on lessons learned. The E-TOOL and the operational rating of energy performance in the existing building stock can make a difference in implementation of energy savings. 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.

24 Recommendations Instead of trying to develop a rating tool which combine the best thing from the measured (operational) and the calculated rating is it better to introduce separately an operational tool and a calculation tool in

62

the national certification scheme and then leave it to the expert to decide or set up some rules for which rating tool to use the advanced or simple. The simple measured energy rating, e.g. as the E-TOOL rating, seems to be the best the rating, if the objective is cost efficient to identify potential energy saving measures. 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. So there is established a good basis for improvement of the - E-TOOL.

EIE – 329 E-TOOL FINAL REPORTec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/sites/iee... ·...

Documents

Transcript of EIE – 329 E-TOOL FINAL REPORTec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/sites/iee... ·...