Energy Performance Review: Building Performance Assessment Systems of Europe - Term Paper Example

REVIEW OF ENERGY PERFORMANCE OF BUILDINGS By Location Introduction Buildings consume about 40% of energy and emit 36% of carbon dioxide (Epbd-ca.eu, 2014). It is necessary reduce the energy dependency on fossil fuels since this is associated with greenhouse gas emissions. The building sector has been improved, leading to an increased use of renewable energy. In January 2006, the European parliament together with the council on energy performance of buildings, formulated a directive, which has proved to be the mechanism in Europe that provides the framework needed to achieve efficient energy use within the building sector (Gov.uk, 2012). This article analyses the different energy calculations and certifications across European countries. An attempt is also made in this to provide an in-depth comparison of the calculation and certification procedure employed in three countries, namely: The Netherlands, Germany and Denmark. It also tries to evaluate the discussions and critique on issues related to energy, policy and cost aspects. First, via an overview of the development and history of energy assessment systems, we give context for this analysis. History of Energy Systems Monitoring of energy systems started in the 1920s. Back then, engineers made use of the air flow modeling algorithm in their study of HVAC systems (Rmi.org, 2014). The practice later changed to tracking heat flows in the 1950s and eventually to the prediction of cooling loads in the 1970s. Energy conservation became a priority in the 1970s as a result of the oil shocks. Measuring energy performance in buildings gained momentum through the aid of advanced computer technologies. The development of energy evaluation methods continued according to the cost- containment and energy security imperatives that the oil crisis had exposed. An institute that carries out research on building establishments in the UK conducted scores of energy audits throughout the 1980s and 1990s. This served to produce a predecessor of current energy rating tools (Energy.gov, 2014)..The concept of requiring energy assessments was born in Denmark and later spread around the world as it is now evident. Denmark put into place the energy rating systems for both commercial and residential building structures in 1992. The European Union’s Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) caused energy ratings to emerge in about 31 European countries in the year 2002 (Alliance to Save Energy, 2013). Later, other countries, such as Brazil, china, Australia and some states in the US passed legislation requiring building energy rating (Ries, Joseph and Wise 2009). Review of Energy Performance across Europe The main policy driver at the European level is the Energy Performance of Building Directive (EPBD). Even before the policy was implemented, most member states had already spelt out some limits for the energy performance of buildings (Eia.gov, 2014). But only a few had requirements for inspection, certification, renovation and training. The absence of these requirements meant split and disagreements across the different government departments. As a result of this, EPBD was implemented gradually in stages over a period of time. EPBD came along with several benefits. Among the many benefits, the following were identified as major: Existing standards of the Member states were tightened. In Most member states, standards for building renovation were for the first time introduced. Requirements for the inspection of boilers, air conditioning systems and certification of buildings were for the first time introduced. In most member states of the EU, Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs) schemes have been implemented gradually. At first, certification relating to new buildings was set up. The schemes for existing and renovated public buildings were left for later implementation. Countries such as Netherlands and Denmark had setup energy certification schemes long before the EPBD was created. Germany started in 2002 after which most countries started the enforcement and implementation of the EPCs (Cooper, Malcolm2008) from 2007 onwards. Comparing Certification procedures The Netherlands The EPBD has been implemented differently in different countries. In the Netherlands, the Ministry of the Kingdom Relations is responsible for the implementation of the EPBD. In the year 2006, the Regulation of Energy Performance of Buildings (REG) as well as the Decree of Energy Performance of Buildings (BEG), Were implemented in the Netherlands. Due to this, the energy performance certificate came into play in January 2008 (Ideal-epbd.eu, 2014). This only applied to existing buildings since the certification of new buildings was integrated into Dutch law in 1995. After an energy index is calculated in accordance with affixed methodology, an energy certificate class is the assigned on the basis of the energy index and type of building (Iea.org, 2014). When a building is being rented out or sold, the owner is obligated to present a valid Energy Performance Certificate during the transaction. Usually, a qualified assessor visits the property for assessment. The building is assessed in terms of quality of construction and installation. The Energy performance certificate applies to existing buildings only. When it comes to new buildings, requirements are set by the Energy Performance standard. This is usually expressed in an Energy Performance Coefficient. The methodology of calculation for the old buildings depends on Energy Performance Advice (EPA) methodology. The methodology performs a calculation of the total annual energy use of a building. Each calculation is performed under average conditions in terms of climate and occupants’’ behavior. Denmark In Denmark, the DEA is fully responsible for the implementation of EPBD. In may 2010, the Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) scheme started functioning. This scheme replaced the mandatory schemes that existed since 1997 (Energistyrelsen, 2014). Improving the energy performance of buildings requires an energy performance label to be assigned to all types of buildings. Buildings are classified on an efficiency scale that ranges from A to G. Class A identifies low energy classes. The EP certificates usually give recommendation to building owners (Beerepoot 2007). The calculation methodology is defined in the calculation engine, which requires two calculation tools. Both tools require internet access since they are web-based. Before a certificate is issued, data is entered into the central registration system in order to give a report of the building’s description. When it comes to public buildings, the certificate is pinned onto a physical display in the building itself. Germany Since 2002, an energy performance certificate has been compulsory for new buildings. The requirement for an EP certificate was gradually introduced for existing buildings in subsequent years. The certificates can be awarded according to the calculation methodology (Howtogermany.com, 2014) which can be done in two ways that is; certificates based on metered consumption and certificates based on calculated demand. Before 2008, it was possible to choose between consumption and demand methods for the existing buildings. However, this now applies to large residential buildings and small residential buildings. The German method of calculation is used to prove that the energy saving requirements is met. Energy consumption is determined on the basis of heating costs records. Challenges The major challenges facing the implementation of EPBD is the lacking political will to implement the directive. Increasing the funding to implement the directive reduces funding in other areas since the current budgetary situation in many European countries cannot allow for new supporting programs (Challenges in the Implementation 2010). Some member states can currently foresee fines in case of non-compliance. For instance in the Belgium region, in case the minimum requirement is not fulfilled for a building element, the law imposes a triple of the investment cost. In Germany, fines of up to 15000 euros are imposed if the Energy Performance Certificates are issued by persons lacking the minimum qualification requirement. CONCLUSION It is really an uphill task to compare international building performance assessment systems. Different countries have got unique building performance assessment systems. The analysis has proved that the studied assessments are not the same. However, some similarity is evident. For example, all the systems in the three regions carry out an assessment on heating and cooling. However, it is not clear how these rating methods affect the success of building energy performance. The study has also pointed out that there is a need for reform and improvement of the certification procedures since the challenges facing these are numerous. Bibliography Alliance to Save Energy, (2013). Buildings. [online] Available at: http://www.ase.org/initiatives/buildings [Accessed 11 Dec. 2014]. Beerepoot, Wilhelmina Maria Catharina. Energy Policy Instruments and Technical Change in the Residential Building Sector. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 2007. Cooper, Malcolm. Energy Performance of Buildings 2008: Special Report. Cambridge: Workplace Law Group, 2008. Eia.gov, (2014). Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS) - Energy Information Administration. [online] Available at: http://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/ [Accessed 11 Dec. 2014]. Epbd-ca.eu, (2014). Concerted Action | Energy Performance of Buildings Directive. [online] Available at: http://www.epbd-ca.eu/ [Accessed 11 Dec. 2014]. Energistyrelsen, (2014). Technical Certification Scheme. [online] Available at: http://www.ens.dk/en/supply/renewable-energy/wind-power/facts-about-wind-power/technical-certification-scheme [Accessed 12 Dec. 2014]. Gov.uk, (2012). Energy performance of buildings - Improving the energy efficiency of buildings and using planning to protect the environment - Policies - GOV.UK. [online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/improving-the-energy-efficiency-of-buildings-and-using-planning-to-protect-the-environment/supporting-pages/energy-performance-of-buildings [Accessed 11 Dec. 2014]. Holl, Michaela, interview by Olli Seppänen. Challenges in the Implementation (september 5, 2010). Howtogermany.com, (2014). How To Germany - The Energy Certificate in Germany. [online] Available at: http://www.howtogermany.com/pages/energycertificate.html [Accessed 12 Dec. 2014]. Ideal-epbd.eu, (2014). Implementation status Ideal EPBD in the Netherlands. [online] Available at: http://www.ideal-epbd.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=18&Itemid=4&lang=en [Accessed 12 Dec. 2014]. Iea.org, (2014). IEA - Netherlands. [online] Available at: http://www.iea.org/policiesandmeasures/pams/netherlands/name-23859-en.php [Accessed 12 Dec. 2014]. Ries, Charles, Joseph Jenkins, and Oliver Wise. Improving the Energy Performance of Buildings: Learning from the European Union and Australia. California: Rand Corporation, 2009. Rmi.org, (2014). Home. [online] Available at: http://www.rmi.org [Accessed 11 Dec. 2014]. PART B 1) Total energy use I. Cost of electricity per unit is 12.4 p II. Cost of gas per unit is 4.15 p III. Cost of petrol per gallon is 3.09 pounds Fuel First reading Last reading Difference Units Conversion factor to MJ Consumption in MJ Gas 05823 05855 32 = 355 kwh M3 38.61 1235.52 Electricity 12449 12885 436 Kwh 3.6 1596.6 Petrol 100 87 13 gallon 131.76 1712.88 TOTAL 4545 Number of days 28 Average daily consumption (MJ) 162.32 Consumption in MJ = difference * conversion factor to MJ Total cost: Gas bill = 4.15 * 355 = 14.73 pounds ( 32 * 11.1 = 355 ) Electricity bill = 12.4 * 436 = 54.06 pounds Petrol = 3.09 * 13 = 40.17 pounds Total cost = 130.59 pounds Average per capita electricity consumption = 5467.34 kWh (Indexmundi.com, 2014) My per capita electricity consumption = 436 kWh * 12 = 5232 kWh Percentage difference = (5467.34 – 5232) / 5467.34 = 0.043 * 100 = 4.3% Average per capita gas consumption = 1495.39 cubic meters (Indexmundi.com, 2014) my per capita gas consumption = 32/23 * 366 = 509.22 cubic meters percentage difference = (1495.39 – 509.22) / 1405.39 = 0.70 * 100 = 70% 2) ‘Bottom-up’ energy audit Appliance Voltage rating Current rating Power rating (direct from the rating plate or power = voltage x current) Estimated use per day Electricity used per day Total electricity used over the survey period volts V amps A watts W hours h watt-hours Wh kilowatt-hours kWh electric kettle 250 13 2000 0.5 1000 28 Iron box 250 13 2000 0.25 250 7 television 250 6 500 3 1500 42 radio 250 13 500 5 2500 70 Dvd player 250 13 500 2 1000 28 Instant shower 250 13 1500 0.5 750 21 Electric cooker 250 13 1000 2 2000 56 lights 250 6 600 5 3000 84 Washing machine 250 13 3000 1 3000 84 blow drier 250 13 1875 0.5 937 26 Micro wave 250 13 1000 2 2000 56 laptop 250 6 20 8 160 5 phone 250 20 12 240 7 Total electricity use = 486 kWh The table above shows that the total energy consumption is 486 kWh but the figure differs from that in the meter readings by 50 kWh. The discrepancy comes as a result of possible errors in timing. NB: the survey period = 28days References Indexmundi.com, (2014). Oil consumption per capita - Country Comparison. [online] Available at: http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?t=0&v=91000&l=en [Accessed 18 Dec. 2014]. Read More