Smart Reno-Up 2020 Smart Cities
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Smart Cities
Stakeholder Platform
Smart Reno-Up 2020
Key to Innovation
Integrated Solution
Smart Reno-Up 2020
Document information
Smart Reno-Up 2020: Smart Renovation of Utility
Project Title:
Patrimonium to the EU 2020 targets.
Contract Number:
ENER/C2/2011-462-1/SER/SI2.603568
Prepared by:
Marc Van Praet – ag Stedelijk Onderwijs Antwerpen
Date:
17.12.2013
Version:
2.0
PREFACE Antwerp, 16 December 2013 Dear reader, Dear colleague, This template for the suggested Key Innovation “Smart Reno-Up 2020” (Smart Renovation of Utility building Portfolios towards the EU 2020 Targets) can not be fully completed. Many data on energy use and GHG exhaust of public buildings, necessary for further and more refined calculations, are not readily available in the EU Member States. However, our first rough estimate shows that, even if we would only consider the smart retrofit of 20 % of the existing school building stock in the EU, which according to us is very well feasible, this would result in yearly energy savings of 28.64 billion kWh (19.85 % of total energy consumption of schools in the EU) and more than 5 million tons of CO2 reduction per year. These results would be even larger if smart modular retrofit would also be used for other public buildings with a much higher energy use and thus profit margin such as hospitals, homes for the elderly, public office buildings, swimming pools and others. Most authors of the Solution Proposals, which have been included into this combined Key Innovation, have shown their engagement and send a Letter of Interest in further development of the Key Innovation proposal. Many suggestions for improvement of the text came from Piet Boonekamp, Eppe Luken and Bronia Jablonska of ECN in the Netherlands, from Armin Knotzer of AEE-Intec in Austria and from Irena Kondratenko from PassiefHuis Platform in Belgium. Also the Finance Group of the Stakeholder Platform contributed with a list of funding possibilities. We hope that also other stakeholders will help us with further improvements of this Key Innovation and that the EC will consider it worthy of future support. Thank you for your interest in our Key Innovation proposal and hoping for your cooperation, Kind regards, Marc Van Praet International project officer City of Antwerp Education Company
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface 2
Introduction 5
Description of a Key Innovation 6
1. Presentation of the Key Innovation 7
1.1.1 Solutions for smart Master Planning for renovation and new builds: 7
1.1.2 Solutions for Typology system and modular retrofit: 7
1.1.3 Solutions for Technology for optimized heating, cooling and ventilation: 8
1.1.4 Enhancement of stakeholder participation and adequate use of EE technologies. 8
1.1.5 Solutions for Linking to the grid: 8
1.1.6 The mass retrofit of existing utility building portfolios towards the EU 2020 targets. 8
1.1.7 Industrialized mass retrofit market for utility buildings - barriers, challenges and solutions 10
1.2 Description of the innovation and rationale for selection 11
1.2.1 Smart Reno-UP 2020 will create a market for industrialized smart retrofit of utility building
portfolios 11
1.2.2 Applicability 13
1.2.3 Simplicity 13
1.2.4 Affordability 14
1.2.5 Technology integration 14
1.2.6 Potential impact 15
1.3 Deployment status 15
1.4 Technical feasibility and viability 15
1.5 Financial Cost/Benefit analysis and return on investment 15
1.5.1 Estimated timescale for proposed technology to be commercially available 16
1.5.2 An example of some key timetable aspects 16
1.5.3 Analysis of the key risks 16
1.5.4 Some information on the scale of financing required 17
1.6 Suitable city context 17
1.7 Cities where the innovation (or parts thereof) have been tested or piloted 17
2. Expected Impacts 19
2.1 Energy supplied or savings expected 19
2.1.1 First estimates for possible energy savings and CO2 exhaust prevention using industrial
modular retrofit 19
2.2 Financial cost/benefit analysis and return on investment (period) 22
2.3 Expected impact on GHG emissions 23
2.3.1 First rough calculation of possible CO2 reduction 23
2.3.2 A grand total in savings of > 17 billion kWh / > 3.3 mio ton CO2/year 24
2.4 Waste generation 25
2.5 Wider potential benefits for cities 25
2.5.1 Opportunities for local owners of all kinds of public building stock. 25
2.5.2 Benefits regarding job creation and local finances. 25
2.6 Other expected impacts 26
3. Additional requirements on deployment 27
3.1 Governance and regulation 27
3.2 Suitable local conditions 27
3.3 Stakeholders to involve 27
3.4 Supporting infrastructure required 27
3.5 Interfaces with other technologies 27
4. potential funding sources 284.1 Financing models suitable for the innovation 28 4.2 Financing sources suitable for the innovation 29
INTRODUCTION
The Key Innovations (KIs) are a key output of the Smart Cities Stakeholder Platform. The Platform
promotes innovation and is part of the Smart Cities and Communities European Innovation Partnership
of the European Union. It aims to accelerate the development and market deployment of energy
efficiency and low-carbon technology applications in the urban environment. The main focus:
technology integration for European cities. Emphasis will be on their integration, which is a key
challenge particularly for Smart Cities’ technologies. The Platform aims to bring together technology
providers, financiers and specialists in implementing smart city strategies at local level.
The expert Working Groups of the Platform on Energy Efficiency and Buildings, Energy Supply and
Networks and Mobility and Transport select from the spectrum of Solution Proposals (SPs) submitted
by stakeholders[1] the most promising and fundamental solutions to accelerate the development of
smart cities. The focus in on specific key innovations, considered pillars or technical leapfrogs for
integrated solutions in smart cities, thus promising, but standalone solutions, will not be development
into key innovation files and toolkits. Unselected solution proposals are published in the Platform. The
Platform is not an evaluation body and is open to all relevant smart solutions, large or small scale for
cities and their inhabitants.
The aim is to promote through the preparation of a detailed document, a guide for cities on the
performance of the innovation, its technical requirement, as well as prerequisite required in terms of
existing infrastructures, technical expertise, regulatory requirements and financial costs involved. The
document aims to help promote the adoption of the key technology and to help identify and remove
barriers to deployment. It presents the technology provider and a number of financial sources by the
EU and other bodies who have supplied information to the platform.
Key Innovations will be an integral part of the recommendations of the Smart City Roadmap the
Platform will draft for the European Commission. Recommendations on necessary action at European
level required to promote the adoption of key innovations, such as the removal of regulatory barriers or
the recommendations on the focus of the Horizon 2020 support will be drafted based on information in
the Key Innovation files.
It is important to stress that this document is not a technical proposal or full evaluation of the
innovation, but developed to help cities identify potential solutions. It does not exempt or substitute a
detailed cost/benefit analysis and implementation plan cities that wish to introduce the innovation. The
Stakeholder Platform cannot take any responsibility for inaccuracies or missing information or specific
problems in the implementation in a city of the proposed Key Innovations or other Solution Proposals.
1
Solution proposals are published on the web site: www.eu-smartcities.eu/ solution-proposals
5Description of a Key Innovation
A key objective of the Smart Cities Stakeholder Platform is to identify Key Innovations for the
development of Smart Cities. The selection of an SP as KI is based on the following criteria:
applicability, simplicity, affordability, the extent to which it addresses technology integration and if
the potential impact is significant. Selected SPs will then be enhanced by the Platform’s technical
Working Groups (WGs) to develop KIs, adding the following aspects:
Premises for the technology development and up-take (e.g. problems, what the technology is
intended to achieve, other unforeseen benefits for the smart cities);
Potential integration with other technologies and sectors, including use of ICT;
If necessary, enhancing the information from the SP on the urban environment in which the
technology can be applied;
Key pre-requisites for the applicability of the key innovation, such as the required enabling
environment;
Instruments and market conditions needed to reach commercial viability.[2]
Completed KIs by the technical WGs have been sent to the Finance WG. This group has analysed the
financial needs of the KI as well as their financial viability and bankability. The members of the WG
have provided information on funding sources. The result has been published as a Key Innovation
Toolkit.
The Toolkits thus provide practical solutions that can create an enabling environment for the
application and replication of key innovations in a smart city.
2
This includes a description of the main EU support instruments, such as the Risk Sharing Financing
Facility
61. PRESENTATION OF THE KEY INNOVATION
The Key Innovation on Smart Renovation and Retrofit of Utility building Portfolios or “Smart Reno-UP
2020” presents the integration of different Solution Proposals into one strategic tool for cities and
communities as well as for the building and construction industry. The Smart Reno-UP 2020 is as well
based on experience with modular renovation acquired in several projects.
Below mentioned Solution Proposals are involved:
(1) 60,000 school buildings in the EU can be retrofitted to EU 2020 standards without closing down
the schools in the process
(2) Predicity
(3) Geo-Spatial temporal maps
(4) Peak electricity demand reduction
(5) Support of end-user engagement in participatory design of public space and buildings
(6) Co-opera: cooperative open platform for energy management
(7) Usability, user experience and user acceptance
(8) Nearly zero or zero energy costs for small business tenants and small business parks
(9) Emporium: energy producing buildings
The Solution Proposals mentioned above will be engaged in the strategic tool as described in
following subchapters. Also, relevant projects and stakeholders are mentioned here.
1.1.1 Solutions for smart Master Planning for renovation and new builds:
SP (1) involved master planning for retrofit of large utility building portfolio (City of Antwerp Education
company; University of Zürich) piloted in Belgium (city of Antwerp) as part of the Eracobuild
SchoolVentCool project (2010-2013) More information can be found at: www.schoolventcool.eu.
SP (2) centralized forecast services support smart building master planning (University of Zürich).
SP (3) enables smart building portfolio planning by visual analysis and pattern detection (University of
Castellon de la Plana), piloted in Castellon de la Plana.
1.1.2 Solutions for Typology system and modular retrofit:
Part of SP (1) (Schoolventcool project) to be extended to all public utility buildings.
Typology: the typologies for the support of industrialized modular retrofit of existing types of social
housing and of existing types of school buildings can serve as a model for the development of a
typology handbook for industrialized modular retrofit of (public) utility buildings. Part of the SP (1).
Partners that could get involved: Hochschule Luzern Technik & Architektur (HSLU), Competence
Centre of Typology and Foresight in Architecture (CCTP), Switzerland; Fachhochschule
Nordwestschweiz (FHNW), Hochschule für Architektur, Bau und Geomatik, Institute of energy in
building www.fhnw.ch.
7Modular industrialized retrofit: In this topic, the following partners could get involved: University of
Zürich, AEI Intec Austria and reference to projects piloted e.g. in Austria (Schwanenstadt [3] and
Grebenzen [4]), Finland (Riihimäki Innova project [5]), Denmark [6] and Germany (Sanierung Realshule
Buchloe [7]). An Antwerp pilot is being procured. Ref: www.schoolventcool.eu.
More pilots and industrial partners can be invited to take part in the development of the Smart Reno
UP 2020 Key Innovation initiative.
1.1.3 Solutions for Technology for optimized heating, cooling and
ventilation:
Part of SP (1) (DTU Danish Technical University in Copenhagen) piloted in Germany, Denmark and
Belgium (Antwerp: city school modular retrofit).
SP (4). Interactive intelligent energy management system (University of Edinburgh).
1.1.4 Enhancement of stakeholder participation and adequate use of EE
technologies.
SP (5) (University of Aberdeen, piloted in Aberdeen, Eindhoven and Zürich) and
SP (6) (University of Zaragoza, piloted in Zaragoza) together with SP (7). (University of Siegen, Living
Lab concept as piloted in Köln) will serve as a base in this part of the Smart Reno UP 2020 Key
Innovation.
1.1.5 Solutions for Linking to the grid:
Based on SP (8) if put into use for public utility buildings on campuses or within same neighbourhood
(piloted in Greater Manchester).
There will be links to SP (10):
Zero energy costs (or earnings)) will be reached by the combination of retrofit of the existing building
stock towards NZEB standards with the energy generation by low cost renewables within the (local)
grid.
1.1.6 The mass retrofit of existing utility building portfolios towards the EU
2020 targets.
PROBLEM ADRESSED (Abstract)
EU Cities and Regions will not be able to reach the EU 2020 targets if they would only engage in
building energy efficient new public buildings (such as schools, hospitals, police stations,
3
School Swanenstadt, Austria, Built approx. 1960, Architect renovation: Dipl. Ing. ein Pl derl P U T -
2 2
2008 Performance: before renovation 135 kWh/m a, after renovation 14.1 kWh/m a Pl derl ein et
al., Erste Passivhaus Schulsanierung, Berichte aus Energie- und Umweltsforschung 33/2008
4
Passive house Renovation Nature Park School Zirbitzkogel Grebenzen, Neumarkt, Styria (Austria) build
1978, renovated 2009-11, Gerhard Kopeinig, ARCH+MORE ZT
5
Riihim i Innova project, Finland, Built 1975, Architect renovation: K. Lylykangas 2011 – 12,
2
Performance: planned to meet max 25 kWh/m a – passivhaus retrofit standard, Vestergaard, Inge,
Transforming the Existing Building Stock to High Performed Energy Efficient and Experienced
Architecture, PHN 11 Helsinki (2011)
6
Heimdalsvej, Frederikssund, Built 1972, Architect renovation: Mangor og Nagel 2011-12
2 2
Performance: before renovation 112kWh/m a, after renovation simulation: 35.3 kWh/m a, achieved year
one: 28.2 kWh/m2.
7
Modular retrofit of a secondary school in 6 weeks (3,500 m2 façade elements) on site. Watch also (in
German): http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=fioulRXziZU
8administration buildings,…)
The main road to a sustainable building stock in the EU will be the one using high performance
renovation and retrofit to the new EU standards of the majority of existing buildings. The Smart Reno
UP 2020 Key Innovation is in line with the expectations put on the public authorities by EPBD, Energy-
Efficiency directive (EU policy), Covenant of Mayors ambitions for public-owned and for public-used
non-residential buildings. A set of solution for city and regional governments to promote and organize
mass retrofitting of public buildings is what is very much needed.
In all Member States measures are being taken to support the owners of individual dwellings to
insulate their homes, to change old heating and cooling installations, to renovate dwellings towards low
energy standards. For mass modular retrofit of residential dwellings a consortium has been formed.
See: www.e2rebuild.eu.
The vision of E2ReBuild[8] is to transform the retrofitting construction sector from the current craft and
resource-based construction towards an innovative, high-tech, energy-efficient industrialized sector. In
this project, new retrofit solutions in planning, design, technology, construction, operation and use of
residential buildings are implemented, investigated and evaluated. Solutions have been demonstrated
in seven projects in Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands, France, Germany and the UK.
Many buildings, however, are non-residential buildings, of which many are publicly owned or
leased, such as schools, hospitals, police and fire brigade stations, homes for the elderly,
administration buildings, army barracks, sport facilities, university campuses and others.
Renovating public buildings in the traditional (and thus lengthy) way as used for home dwellings, would
mean moving entire user populations for the time of the retrofitting process, which is hardly feasible
and certainly very expensive (costs of twice moving and re-housing).
Traditional renovation of such large constructions is in most cases also very time and cost ineffective
because the industry and certainly most SME’s involved in renovation projects tend to consider every
renovation project as if it was the first one ever to be conducted, using traditional techniques on site
like the ones used for family dwellings. Hardly ever the owner or the construction company take into
account the extra possibilities for faster and cheaper standardized modular retrofit many of these large
buildings offer: most of these utility building are very regular in construction and quite similar
throughout Europe.
In the past, the building industry only produced smaller standardized elements (windows, doors) in
standard measurements. All other components had to be produced and handled separately, which led
to extra expenses. Since the 1960-ies, many utility buildings have been constructed using mass
produced individual facade components.
In the modular retrofit system, industrialized craftsmen, within a temperate indoor working climate,
produce the new facade and roof components in factories, safely and under much better working
conditions than at the construction site.
The components (modules) are pre-fitted with heating, cooling and ventilation ducts and service ducts
for energy and data transport and are then transported to the site and mounted on site with cranes.
And this mounting on site is done within a very short period (days instead of weeks / months).
The control of the process is supported with computer technology. This means that although every
component is unique, different dimensions and materials can be handled in an almost cost neutral
production system.
This CAD/CAM [9]method of manufacturing the components gives the architects and engineers the
freedom to act much more flexible. This in turn is of great importance to retrofit projects: although
8
eeB-PPP-Project review, July 2011, Start date: January 2011 Duration: 42 months Total budget: €8m
9
CAD/CAM: computer aided design / computer aided manufacturing
9conditions will change between building sites, with CAD/CAM produced modules different component
dimensions can easily be provided at minimum cost.
The technology of modular retrofit of existing housing (mainly apartment buildings) is in full
development. This, however, is not yet the case for utility buildings.
The technologies and knowledge created for housing however cannot be transposed automatically to
utility buildings because of several factors.
1.1.7 Industrialized mass retrofit market for utility buildings - barriers,
challenges and solutions
The following should be considered for industrialized retrofit market of utility buildings:
One cannot move entire populations (students patients fire brigade police …) for a long period
necessary for traditional renovations; so a short on site construction period is of the essence
One cannot suspend public services so there is a need for adequate master planning of the retrofit
of the local public building stoc using if necessary “domino effects” to re-house services
temporarily within the existing stock
Retrofitting of utility buildings with adequate cooling and ventilation is technically a big (but also a
feasible) challenge. They have a very different user/m2 ratio than residential buildings and a
different use during day and night as well as during the year. Which make them less easy to
retrofit to passive house, NZEB or E+ standards.
Before any retrofit of public buildings, acceptance by the users – being ‘the public’ has to be
created and once retrofitted adequate use of the new infrastructure by the public users has to be
ensured to maximize return on investment.
To improve the energy efficiency of the retrofitted building stock, connection to the grid should best
wherever possible be standardized.
The Smart Reno UP Key Innovation can find solutions for this situation. The KI will focus on further
development, improvement and integration of existing technologies in a large segment of the building
and renovation market.
The innovation maturity of the Smart Reno UP 2020 Key Innovation can be described as on the level
of a best practice and pilot projects.
Best practice: there are examples of best practice of the different aspects of smart renovation of utility
buildings in several EU member states but they have not yet been integrated into one smart mass
retrofit technology and Smart Set of Solutions.
Pilot Project: for each of the described aspects, pilot projects have been carried out or are being
carried out now.
101.2 Description of the innovation and rationale for
selection
1.2.1 Smart Reno-UP 2020 will create a market for industrialized smart
retrofit of utility building portfolios
With this Key Innovation, Smart Renovation and Retrofit of Utility building Portfolios
“Smart Reno-UP 2020”
we present the integration of different Solution Proposals (SP) into one strategic tool for cities and
communities as well as for the building and construction industry, combining one managerial
and four technical solutions for the smart renovation of existing Utility building Portfolios towards the
EU 2020 targets.
All aspects and related instruments can be made available in one place on one Smart Renovation
Platform specialized in retrofit of utility buildings to the EU energy efficiency standards and can
be kept up to date and maintained by all stakeholders involved (research centers, industry and public
bodies).
The aspects and related instruments proposed are:
1.2.1.1 Strategic master planning with stakeholder involvement with ICT support
Further development and integration of several ICT tools for strategic master planning with stakeholder
involvement as a management tool for the (public and private) owners of large existing utility building
stock.
With this tool, owners of large building stock can assess the most adequate retrofit possibilities of each
individual building and create the most logical and profitable retrofit trajectory for the complete building
stock towards the EU 2020 targets (and beyond).
The tool will be based on the informatics created by the city of Antwerp education company for the
permanently updated master planning of its more than 250 buildings leading to strategic choices giving
the best possible financial outcome (shortest possible return on investment - ROI) combined with
optimal green house reductions.
This could be combined with the SP (2) Predicity: use of centralized forecast services to enhance
permanent update of data (both external and internal) for strategic planning of building stock and
monitoring its use (University of Zürich) piloted in Zürich and might be extra empowered with the SP
(3) Geo-Spatial temporal maps to enable visual analysis and pattern detection towards the same goals
(University of Castellon de la Plana) piloted in Castellon de la Plana .
1.2.1.2 Typology of public buildings and extraction of guidelines for industrial retrofit
Development of an ICT tool offering a typology covering the majority of existing utility buildings and
extraction of the guidelines, necessary for the production of industrialized modular façade and roof
elements to retrofit the building envelope for most of the categories of these utility buildings.
Using infra-red measurement and state of the art CAD/CAM techniques a typology of utility buildings
will be created which will allow architects and construction companies to use / produce “off the shelve”
(add-on) standardized basic modules for retrofit of the building envelopes.
The creation of this typology will be based on the results of the SchoolVentCool project that created a
typology for school buildings and on the typology project of the Competence Centre of Typology and
11Foresight in Architecture (CCTP), Switzerland. CCTP has done the same for typology of social
housing buildings in Switzerland ([10] [,11]).
The latter project has already proven to be useable in the modular retrofit of multi storey apparent
buildings. More extensive information is available at AEE – Intec, Institute for sustainable technologies
in Austria. [12]
Figure 1 below shows modular renovation of a non-residential building
Figure 1 View of the Krummbach non-residential building before and after PHS modular retrofit
(2011)
The suggested and tested modular energy renovation approach is flexible. It does not restrain
architects and building owners in their creativity to create outstanding architecture. On the contrary, by
providing state of the art standardized modular solutions for EE and HVAC it gives architects and
building owners the freedom to spend more time and effort in the creation of exciting architecture. The
technical aspects are already incorporated in the design of the standardized modules.
1.2.1.3 Integration of optimized HVAC into retrofit and pre-fabricated modules
Technological solutions to improve energy systems, including optimal cooling and ventilation,
in retrofitted utility buildings with focus on integration of HVAC into pre-fabricated modules.
An example of integrated HVAC is shown in figure 2.
Figure 2 On site mounting of modules with integrated ventilation ducts
This aspect can be covered by DTU – Danish Technical University, specialized in research on indoor
air quality and cooling and ventilation of specifically difficult environments (airplane cabins,
10
Hochschule Luzern Technik & Architektur (HSLU), Competence Centre of Typology and Foresight in
Architecture (CCTP), Switzerland
11
Fachhochschule Nordwestschweiz (FHNW), Hochschule für Architektur, Bau und Geomatik, Institute of
energy in building www.fhnw.ch
12
AEE - Institute for Sustainable Technologies (AEE INTEC) www.aee-intec.at
12classrooms hospitals … [13] and might be combined with the SP (4) Peak electricity demand
reduction: Interactive intelligent energy management system. (University of Edinburgh) to integrate
Energy Efficiency measurement within the modularized retrofit. DTU developed several innovative
technologies to ventilate and heat / cool difficult volumes such as classrooms and office spaces, and
especially did research on how HVAC through ducts and perforated ceilings can be integrated into the
modules for retrofitting the buildings shell. But even with the use of more “standard V C” technology
the combination with this new renovation process will be quite innovative for both the calling side of the
market as well as the offering side of building and construction companies.
1.2.1.4 Tools for enhancement of stakeholder engagement and efficient use
Technology and ICT tools to enhance the engagement of stakeholders in the planning, to
support the acceptance of retrofit of utility buildings by the future users and to improve the
adequate use by the stakeholders of the invested technologies.
This aspect can be covered by the combination of the elements / results of the Master planning
procedures as created in Antwerp with the SP (5). Support of end-user engagement in participatory
design of public space and buildings (University of Aberdeen, tested in Aberdeen, Eindhoven and
Zürich), the SP (6) Co-opera: cooperative open platform for energy management (University of
Zaragoza, piloted in Zaragoza) and the SP (7) Usability, user experience and user acceptance
(University of Siegen, piloted in Köln).
1.2.1.5 Connection to the Grid of the retrofitted public building stock
Methods and technologies for connection of the retrofitted buildings and building
stock to the local grid.
This aspect might, if so decided, be based on the SP (8) Nearly zero or zero energy costs for small
business tenants and small business parks, but transferred to utility building stock. Piloted in Greater
Manchester.
1.2.1.6 Smart Reno-UP 2020 is not a static project but a growing network model
The use of the combination of these six issues into one Key Innovation “Smart Reno-UP 2020” will
lead to a “Set of Solutions” offering a maximum of energy efficiency (P S NZEB E+) in existing utility
building stock, a maximum of financial return on investment and decrease of greenhouse gasses, a
minimum of disturbance of the public service and after retrofit an overall superior comfort for the users
and enhanced adaptability to future changes in use for the owners.
This concept allows the possibility to "grow": over time, different solutions for the aspects or
topics can continue to be developed, tested, verified, collected and disseminated. New relevant
users can also get involved making the number of users growing into an EU-wide network of
stakeholders in the energy efficient retrofit of non-residential buildings.
1.2.2 Applicability
Since these non-residential buildings exist in all communities (e.g. there are more than 370.000 school
buildings alone in the EU) the proposed Smart Reno UP 2020 Key Innovation would be applicable in
all cities and regions throughout the EU for all those non-residential buildings that have a structure
which allows modular retrofit. First assessment focused on school buildings in the SchoolVentCool
Eracobuild project shows that about 20 % of these buildings (more than 60,000) are suitable for
modular retrofit. The technology would be applicable for tens of thousands of utility buildings in the EU.
1.2.3 Simplicity
13
DTU Technical University of Denmark, Civil Engineering - International Center for Indoor Environment
and Energy (DTU – ICIEE) http://www.iciee.byg.dtu.dk/ Implementation of ventilation in existing schools,
a design criteria list towards passive schools, Christian A. Hviid and Steffen Petersen, Technical
University of Denmark, Dept. of Civil Engineering, www.byg.dtu.dk and Aarhus University, School of
Engineering, www.ase.iha.dk
13Each of the proposed technologies is in full development and they are each and all not over-
complicated.
Until now however, they have not been presented in a single innovative set of solutions to the
owners / managers of (public and private) utility building stock nor to the building and construction
industry.
With Smart Reno-UP 2020, a network of potential clients (owners of large utility building stock) and
solution providers for the different aspects can be created in the Set of Solutions (academic
institutions, industrial partners, architects and engineering companies, building and construction
companies, HVAC engineers and producers…).
The stakeholders in this network will on the market pull side create a demand for solutions for their
building stocks, on the market push side create these solutions or alter existing ones for specific use
with utility building stock.
1.2.4 Affordability
Utility buildings, according to existing building and construction standards, have to be partly renovated
(building shell, HVAC) approximately every 20 years and are to be completely retrofitted approximately
every 35 years. A large portion of the existing utility building stock in the EU was build after the WW-II
and mainly during the 60-ies and 70-ies.
These buildings are now in need of deep renovation and many of them are “G G emission disasters”.
With the use of the proposed techniques and technologies the existing funding for classical renovation
can be applied for smart renovation into retrofit towards the EU GHG emission and energy use
standards. By promoting and thus increasing the use of these smart technologies in the utility building
renovation market, demand will rise creating more offer of automated, industrialized production,
leading to prices dropping towards or even below the existing price level for traditional renovation.
Examples in pilot projects in Austria show that the average cost for a passive house standard retrofit of
facades using timber construction methods would be +/- 850 Euro / m2 gross floor surface. Depending
on the level of integration of HVAC in the modules, costs have a wide spread between 240 – 1,450
euro per m2 gross floor surface [14]
Just like the price drop of double and triple glazing and the adapted window frames over the last 15
years, we are confident that if produced in mass production, we could reduce the cost / m2 of PHS
modular facade retrofit with an average of 30 %, making it cheaper than a classical renovation
of facade and windows.
Industry claims that the investment in PHS retrofit of facades might be amortized within its life cycle
only by the gains in reduction of heating and cooling costs.
1.2.5 Technology integration
The main goal of the Smart Reno UP 2020 Key Innovation is the technology integration of ICT
supported strategic master planning including choice of retrofitting strategies for the individual
buildings[15], ICT supported typology of existing building stock for CAD/CAM modular retrofit, the
integration and optimization of energy systems including heating, cooling, and ventilation in existing
buildings and within retrofit modules, the integration of technologies to include users in the planning of
retrofit and afterwards to improve their adequate use of the investment and the integration of the
technologies necessary to connect the retrofitted buildings to the grid.
It is not a pure ICT project but in each of the aspects, the use of ICT will be necessary for supporting
the positive outcome.
14
Source: AEE-INTEC., Austria.
15
See also: Rey, E., Office building retrofitting strategies: multi criteria approach of an architectural and
technical issue, Energy and Buildings 36 (2004) 367-372, www.elsevier.com/locate/enbuild
141.2.6 Potential impact
Potential impact will be very large. Certainly if this can increase the existing market demand for
renovation of utility buildings and make it meet with a more adequate market offer.
The Smart Reno UP 2020 Key Innovation is also relating to the needs and opportunities for creation of
a new generation of s illed wor ers and SMEs (e.g. systematic training training providers…) with a
large impact on job creation in industrial as well as service oriented economical sectors.
Jobs we all know are very much needed these days and which are very similar to the industrial jobs
that recently have been lost so massively in the EU.
1.3 Deployment status
The Smart Reno UP 2020 Key Innovation has the specific target to create and provide on a large
scale the instruments necessary to simultaneously create a large market pull by the owners of public
utility buildings and an evenly strong market push from the side of the construction and renovation
industries.
Since the technologies are available in pilot cases for different types of housing constructions single
dwellings and apartment buildings) but not yet on a large scale for utility buildings, there is an urgent
need for adaptation and transfer of these technologies towards utility buildings and for the creation of
the instruments for master planning and stakeholder involvement for adequate retrofit and use of
public utility building stock. [16]
The Smart Reno UP 2020 Key Innovation initiative would also encompass application of this Set of
Solutions tool in a number of example projects, with involvement of city and industry partners.
Once the instruments are available, commercial viability and successful deployment in more cities and
regions would be imminent.
1.4 Technical feasibility and viability
The technical feasibility and viability of the modular retrofit of existing buildings is clear: all aspects are
readily available on the market, be it in many cases still in prototype settings. There are however
already “off the shelve” industriali ed products available which could be used in combination with the
above described planning and effect measurement solutions.
Some of the more known products are already in production in larger series in Germany, Austria, the
UK and Switzerland,
For more detailed information we refer to the Sci-Network, Sustainable Construction & innovation
through procurement, state of the art report, Multifunctional façade systems. [17]
1.5 Financial Cost/Benefit analysis and return on
investment
16
For an overview of some industrial retrofit of school buildings in Austria and Denmark see also
Passivhus Norden 2012 Congress, Architectural freedom and industrialized architecture - retrofit design
to passive house level, Inge Vestergaard, Associate Professor, Cand. Arch. Aarhus School of
Architecture,
29.06.2012, Aarhus, Denmark.
17
Treberspurg,M., Djalili, M. Multifunctional façade systems, State of the art report, October 2010,
www.Sci-network.eu
151.5.1 Estimated timescale for proposed technology to be commercially
available
Timescales would be different for the specific aspects of the Smart Reno UP 2020 Key Innovation tool.
All technology is basically available but has to be converted towards utility buildings and the utility
building renovation industry.
Depending on the mutual engagement of the building and construction industry, the above-mentioned
SP providers (mainly universities) and the resources (EU and member states) invested in the project,
the tools for assessment and master planning and typology would be available within a period of 12 –
24 moths, production and installation of modular retrofits would be possible in pilots within a period of
24-36 months (longer procurement) and on a large scale within a period of 3 to 5 years.
1.5.2 An example of some key timetable aspects
If Smart Reno-UP was to be designed as an implementation project, it would require the following
estimated time periods:
Months 0 to 3:
- Feasibility study (including letters of intent and final project design, consenting and contracting of
partners
Months 4 to 6:
- Procurement according to EU and member state standards for R&D projects (for all aspects but not
for the building retrofit pilot projects where other -lengthier- standard procurement rules would / might
apply specific to the member states involved).
Months 6 – 12:
- Production of the master planning tool, typology tool and instruments for engagement of
stakeholders
Months 12 onwards:
- Testing of the master planning, typology and instruments for engagement of stakeholders.
Months 24 onwards:
- Testing of modular production and use in first pilot modular retrofits starts 24 months after start of
project.
Months 36 onwards:
- After positive evaluation of pilots: promotion of and implementation in the EU construction and
renovation market of modular retrofit over a period of 36 months.
1.5.3 Analysis of the key risks
The Smart Reno UP 2020 Key Innovation can be implemented in all EU communities (larger as well as
smaller cities provinces counties comunidades L nder regions …) since they all own or are
supervising and setting standards for public and private ownership of community utility buildings.
There are no unavoidable technical risks.
16Financial risk is low, since most of the buildings will have to be renovated anyway within a certain
period as of now. The larger market we can create, the smaller the financial risk for the owners of the
building stock as well as for the industry.
This innovative renovation approach saves money (e.g. by no need to make the buildings empty, by
not having to move populations twice to and from the alternative housing, by extreme shortening of the
onsite construction time, by avoiding construction delays caused by frost etc., due to the industrialized
production). All of this will contribute to the very cost-effective energy efficient retrofit.
Since all these buildings are either publicly owned or used for public services the retrofit might be very
well co-financed through ESCO’s (which is the case in the Antwerp example with the ESC EANDIS).
Alternative financing would be possible through combinations of local authorities with structural
investors since this is a very safe investment with a reasonably short payback time between 7 and 15
years (interesting for private and public pension funds issues of public bonds etc. …)
1.5.4 Some information on the scale of financing required
The scale of financing required will be depending on the scale of the implementation of the
methodology. As mentioned above the cost per m2 gross floor surface in Austria ranges in the pilot
phase between 240 and 1,450 Euro/m2 + VAT. If the average cost of modular façade retrofit would be
850 Euro / m2 GFS, and due to economies of scale one could lower the cost with 30 %, to less than
600 euro/m2 the individual projects could well be financed within the cost of traditional façade and
window renovation. This without taking into account the benefits (social as well as financial) of not
having to move populations / services from the public building.
1.6 Suitable city context
The Smart Reno-UP methodology is especially suitable for urban contexts. Local authorities who own
larger public building portfolios will be in need of smart master planning tools to ensure the best
possible return on investment of their renovation initiatives.
Furthermore the modular retrofit of existing buildings will not only avoid costly moves of services or
users but will also avoid very expensive investments in building site installation which are necessary
when renovating the classical way. The modular retrofit will in many cases be possible with cranes put
on the public streets surrounding the retrofit building and will not be needing extra building surface.
1.7 Cities where the innovation (or parts thereof) have
been tested or piloted
As already mentioned above in chapter 1.1, the modular retrofit innovation has been already piloted in
a number of cities, mainly in Austria, Switzerland, Germany and Scandinavia.
This in not an exhaustive list. If Smart Reno-UP will be continued as a project, one of the first tasks will
be to create a browser based and permanently updated list of pilots implementing modular façade
retrofit.
Bad Ragaz, Pizolstrasse, apartment building, Switzerland, 2013; 900 m2
Mattacher, Englisberg, apartment building, Switzerland, 2013; 800 m2
Bruck and der Mur, Austria, courthouse, 2012; 2,566 m2
Biel, Switzerland, public office building, 2012; 1,400 m2
Leoben/Donawitz, Austria, 256 apartments, 2011; 14,700 m2
17Elmsholm, Germany, School, 2010, 820 m2
Weiz, Austria, public office building, 2010, 650 m2
Morges, Rue des Fosses, Switzerland, office building, 2010;1,600 m2
Graz, Dieselweg Riegel, Austria,100 apartments 1950-ies, 2009; 5,000 m2
Graz, Dieselweg Punkthauser, Austria, 104 apartments 1950-ies, 2009; 5,700 m2
Linz, Makartstrasse, Austria, 50 apartments, 2006; 2,700 m2
Ertfurt, Germany, LEG Thuringen, office building, PHS modular retrofit, 2002; 4,000 m2
Risor, Norway, technical college ,TES energy façade, 2008, m2 nn.
Buchloe, Germany, secondary school, TES energy façade, Modular retrofit of a secondary school in 6
weeks (3,500 m2 façade elements) on site. Watch also (in German):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=fioulRXziZU
Grebenzen, Zirbitzkogel, Austria, secondary school, 2011; 3,526 m2 GFA [18]
Gundelfingen a/d Donau, Germany, 2011; 2,877 m2 GFA
Schwanenstadt, Austria, polytechnic school building, 2008; 3,300 m2 GFA, Built approx. 0
rchitect renovation: ipl. Ing. ein Pl derl P U T - 2008 Performance: before renovation 135
kWh/m2a, after renovation 14.1 kWh/m2a , [19]
Riihimaki, Innova project, Finland, Architect renovation: K. Lylykangas 2011 – 12, Built 1975,
Performance: planned to meet max 25 kWh/m2a – passivhaus retrofit standard. [20]
Heimdalsvej, Frederikssund, Built 1972, Architect renovation: Mangor og Nagel 2011-12
Performance: before renovation 112kWh/m2a, after renovation simulation: 35.3 kWh/m2a, achieved
year one: 28.2 kWh/m2.
18
Nature Park School Zirbitzkogel Grebenzen, Neumarkt, Styria (Austria) build 1978, renovated 2009-11,
Gerhard Kopeinig, ARCH+MORE ZT
19
Pl derl ein et al. Erste Passivhaus Schulsanierung Berichte aus Energie- und Umweltsforschung
33/2008
20
Vestergaard, Inge, Transforming the Existing Building Stock to High Performed Energy Efficient and
Experienced Architecture, PHN 11 Helsinki (2011)
182. EXPECTED IMPACTS
2.1 Energy supplied or savings expected
2.1.1 First estimates for possible energy savings and CO2 exhaust
prevention using industrial modular retrofit
Formulas used:
Electricity: 1 kWh = 0.56 kg CO2
Gas: 1 m3 = 11.16 kWh = 1.78 kg CO2
2.1.1.1 Public floor space in the EU
A 2011 survey of all gross building floor space in EU27, Norway and Switzerland revealed that this
floor space totals approximately 30,500 km2, equaling the total surface of Belgium.
25 % of this floor space is made up by non-residential buildings of which 28 % are retail, 23 % are
offices (of which many are public buildings) and 28 % are pure public buildings such as schools 17%,
hospitals 7 % and sports facilities 4%. [21]
The majority of these buildings is not owned by the national governments but by local authorities such
as cities, urban communities, Länder, provinces, regions and others. If owned by a private entity, in
most cases these local authorities provide subvention for their construction and maintenance.
2.1.1.2 Estimation of the number of public school buildings in the EU
If school buildings count for 17 % of all non-residential floor space it is interesting to use these
buildings for a first calculation of possible energy gains and CO2 reduction.
The energy consumption is well known by the public authorities. Other reason for choosing the schools
is that about one quarter of the EU population spends their weekdays in school buildings and the other
EU inhabitants are either their parents or other family members. If we start improving the school
building stock, it will have impact on nearly everybody.
There are no sufficient or not at all exact data on the number and energetic qualities of school
buildings in the EU.
This might be one of the first data to collect if we want to proceed with school buildings retrofit on a EU
wide scale.
For a first rough estimate of the number of school buildings we can use the data from the Netherlands,
as well as Flanders and Wallonia in Belgium, with a focus on Antwerp as a medium sized European
city.
21
BPIE Buildings Performace Institute Europe Europe’s buildings under the microscope 20 p.8
191. The Netherlands: 16,8 mio inhabitants
Educational level Number of buildings
Pre- & Primary education 10,150
Secondary education 659
Higher education 39
10,748
The Netherlands: 1 school building / 1,534 inhabitants
2. Flanders [22]) 6.5 mio inhabitants
Educational level Number of buildings
Pre-school 2,240
Primary education 2,342
Secondary education 1,075
Higher education 29
Part time secondary vocational 57
5,743
Flanders: 1 school building/ 1,132 inhabitants
3. City of Antwerp: 0.502 mio inhabitants
360 school buildings
1 school building / 1,388 inhabitants
If the average in the EU is 1 school for every 1,350 inhabitants, a rough estimate gives us for the EU
27 with 502 mio inhabitants approximately 370,000 school buildings.
This estimate can be extended to other types of non-residential or public buildings.
2.1.1.3 Average energy use of schools in the EU
Of course, here the data will vary greatly. In some countries, the energy quality of the school buildings
is far above the average, in others it is far below.
However, for this first calculation we consider the buildings suitable for deep low energy retrofit those
school buildings that have a yearly average energy use of 260 kWh/m2a GFA.
Example 1: The Netherlands
22
Onderwijs Vlaanderen, Zakboek 2009-2010, Dept. of Education, Brussels, 2010.
20The Dutch have 7,480 pre- and primary schools in 10,150 buildings. The total energy bill for gas and
electricity amounts to € 223 million (2007).
All primary schools exhaust 809 kiloton of CO2. A classical retrofit makes savings of 30–40% on
electricity and 15–20% on gas very well possible. This would lead to € 54 million in costs savings and
to 196 kiloton less CO2 emissions.
If retrofitted to Passive House Standard or better Energy+ standard, savings on heating would be
about 80 % when low energy quality buildings would be renovated.
Energy saving measures can very easily be combined with the improvement of the indoor air quality,
leading to better learning results of the pupils and a far better indoor environment for pupils and staff.
This is easily done in the case of modular retrofit of the complete building shell.
Average annual energy consumption of a school building (2007) in the Netherlands was 25,000–
30,000m3 gas and 50,000–60,000 kWh electricity (which amounts to72 to 87 ton CO2 annually).
An average annual use per m2 of gross floor surface of 10 m3/m2 gas and 20 kWh/m2 electricity. [23]
The energy content of one m3 natural gas is 9.5278 to 12.7931 kWh, an average of 11.16 kWh [24].
The above leads to the total annual energy use of 131.6 kWh /m2 gross floor surface GFA.
Example 2: Antwerp city public education company AgSO
AgSO has 251 school buildings (kindergartens, primary, secondary, hospital etc.)
Many of them are older buildings with less than average insulation. Average energy consumption here
is 250 kWh / m2a for heating and 40 kWh for electricity; which means totally 290 kWh/m2a.
Hardly any school building is insulated. One third of the Antwerp school buildings were built in the late
19th century. One third was build between the first and the WW-II.
One third was erected in the sixties to keep up with the baby boom. Many of the latter buildings, are
not or hardly insulated, they have steel or aluminum windows with single glazing and 30 – 50 year old
HVAC installations. The ten last steam heating installations were removed only two years ago!
Example 3: Similar situation in Wallonia, the French-speaking part of Belgium.
Older survey dating from 1994 in Wallonia shows an average for public school buildings of 32
kWh/m2a for electricity and 200 kW/m2a for heating, totaling to 232 kWh/m2a [25]
Since there has been hardly any investment in school buildings nor in energy savings, the data will be
quite similar today.
Example 4: Survey of energy use in schools in Flanders in 2007 [26]
The energy and water costs are a significant cost item for schools. Based on the 2007 energy prices,
the average Flemish primary school of approximately 2,000 m2 annually paid € 2 000 on energy and
water bills. An average high school of 8,000 m2 had to pay € 05 000 per year. The share of fuel,
electricity and water in the total energy cost is 63%, 32% and 5%.
23
Source: Ecoschools Nederland, 2008: www.eco-schools.nl
24
Source: CREG – België – 2012.
25
http://app.bruxellesenvironnement.be/energiePlus/nl/CDRom/analysefacture/donnees/-
donconsommaecoles.htm
26
Vlaamse overheid, Vlaams Ministerie van Onderwijs en Vorming Departement Onderwijs en Vorming
Stafdienst , source: ErbisWeb and eBench, energy use Flemish schools in 2005, climate corrected,ISBN
D/2007/3241/239, Die Keure, Brussels, 2007, p.17.
21The table below shows the average energy use in Flemish schools (Benchmark 2005).
Averages (*)
Low Average High Schools
2
Fuel (kWh/m ) 161 213 233 67
2
Electricity (kWh/m ) 19 27 29 85
3 2
Water (m /m ) 0.208 0.303 0.333 77
Table 1: average values in Flemish schools.
(*) ‘Low’ is value of 33.3% of schools, below the average 33.3 %; ‘ igh’ is value of 33,3% above the
average 33.3%.
Average energy consumption in Flanders:- is 240 kWh/m2 annually.
Overall average in this limited benchmark: 262 kWh/m2a
This benchmark needs to be enlarged. This might be a very interesting subject for a survey by the
BPIE, the Buildings Performance Institute Europe or a similar partner.
2.1.1.4 School buildings suitable for modular retrofit.
Findings of the 2012 Eracobuild SchoolVentCool survey of school buildings support the thesis that
about 20 % of all EU school buildings are suitable for modular industrialized retrofit to levels of Passive
House Standard or Energy+ standard.
This calculation has been based on the building typology resulting from the survey of schools in six
member states. The survey concludes that schools combining very regular structures (mostly 1960 –
1990) and a high potential for energetic improvement (averaging 250 kWh/m2a of energy
consumption) are most suitable for industrial modular retrofit.
The above mentioned still means a potential market of 60,000 – 70,000 school buildings in the EU.
2.2 Financial cost/benefit analysis and return on
investment (period)
In a report to the Antwerp city government, their public autonomous building company ag VESPA
compared financial cost/benefits between modular retrofit and traditional renovation. This report
concludes that modular retrofit of the building shell and deep renovation of the interior of the building
including all HVAC, will have a net cost similar to new builds.
But VESPA considers deep renovation and modular retrofit favorable over classic new build or classic
renovation due to the possibility to renovate existing buildings without having to move the users
population, avoiding moving and rental costs. The impossibility for placing new buildings due to lack of
adequate plots in the city and not in the least the avoidance of nuisance to the public (in the case of
their survey school populations) are further advantages of modular retrofit.
The initial price tag would currently in Belgium be approximately the same as for new builds but extra
costs would be far less (not moving populations for a long time; not having to rent or modify existing
own alternative premises for the time of the renovation and others).
22Cost benefit would largely be linked to the creation of a larger market for modular industrialized retrofit.
The more demand, the more production, the more state of the art knowledge and skills, the more
competition and the lower the price.
It is also important to stress here that existing buildings have in any case the need for partial
renovation every 15-20 years, and that a complete deep renovation is scheduled every approximately
35 years. These data will differ in de various EU member states but each county has its ‘standards’ for
this. And consequently each EU country provides the budgets for maintenance and renovation of its
(local) public building stock.
These budgets can be applied for the smart retrofit of the building stock, and if energy saving proves to
be substantial, it could / would mean that pay-back time would fall within a reasonable period (at the
least less than the normal period between two renovations…).
Is modular retrofit economically feasible?
The table below shows the ROI averages compared to savings in private stock and public bonds [27].
ROI 7% private ROI 3% public
Life time
profitability (years) profitability (years)
(years)
(*) (**)
Measures reg. electrical appliances,
15 9 12
(eg. Energy saving pumps, tools,...)
Installation measures (eg. Renovation of
heating installation, relighting,...) and new 25 12 18
windows
Insulation measures
40 13 23
(eg. Roof and wall insulation)
Table 2: maximal ROI for different energy savings measures
(*) Calculated according to a real net financial profit of 7% per year, being the long term profit on private
stock < 2008. An investment with the equal ROI will be equally profitable as a long-term investment in
private stock.
(**) Calculated according to a real net financial profit of 3% per year, being the long term profit on public
bonds < 2008. An investment with the equal ROI will be equally profitable as a long-term investment in
public bonds.
2.3 Expected impact on GHG emissions
2.3.1 First rough calculation of possible CO2 reduction
If the average school building in the EU uses 30.000 m3 of gas and an average use of 55,000 kWh in
electricity, the total consumption of our schools in the EU can be estimated to be 11.1 billion m3 gas
(123,9 billion kWh) and 20.35 billion kWh of electricity. Totaling 144.25 billion kWh/year.
School buildings suitable for modular retrofit (2,500 m2 in average) will have a yearly energy
consumption of 2,500 m2 x 250 kWh= 625,000 kWh.
27
Vlaamse overheid, Vlaams Ministerie van Onderwijs en Vorming Departement Onderwijs en Vorming
Stafdienst , source: ErbisWeb and eBench, energy use Flemish schools in 2005, climate corrected,ISBN
D/2007/3241/239, Die Keure, Brussels, 2007, p.31.
23You can also read
