work package 4: assessment of energy savings related to ... 4.3 asset.ashx… · 1 1/69 1 1 1 1...

1/69

Work Package 4: Assessment of energy savings related to sustainable summer comfort

Deliverable 3 Evaluation of energy savings

Final version

Authors:Laurent Grignon Massé, Dominique Marchio, David Da Silva, Jérôme Adnot,Philippe Rivière, Armines, Centre for Energy and Processes

Contribution:Lorenzo Pagliano, Marco Pietrobon, eERGNicole Holanek, AEACarlos Lopes, STEMSusana Camelo, Helder Gonçalves, INETI

Project management:Barbara Droeshel, IZES

The sole responsibility for the content of this report lies with the authors. It does not represent theopinion of the European Communities. The European Commission is not responsible for any use thatmay be made of the information contained therein.

3/69

Table of contents

Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 51 Development of a methodology for the assessment of energy savings related tosustainable summer comfort ................................................................................................. 71.1. What does “energy saving” mean in our context? ............................................. 71.2. General approach .................................................................................................... 81.3. Summer comfort assessment ............................................................................... 121.3.1 Assessment of summer comfort in the methodology .............................. 121.3.2 Summer comfort evaluation in the standard EN 15251........................... 121.3.3 Long term indices and default criterion kept for the study.................... 15

1.4. Determination of default coefficients characterizing the stock of heating andcooling appliances ............................................................................................................. 161.4.1 European heating market............................................................................. 161.4.2 Reference efficiencies of the different heating systems ........................... 171.4.3 European cooling market ............................................................................. 201.4.4 Reference efficiencies of the different cooling systems............................ 211.4.5 EU reference efficiencies............................................................................... 22

2 Presentation of obtained results.................................................................................. 232.1. Offices...................................................................................................................... 232.1.1 Evolution of cooling needs and summer comfort improvement ........... 232.1.2 Default saving values.................................................................................... 30

2.2. Retail........................................................................................................................ 362.2.1 Evolution of cooling needs and summer comfort improvement ........... 362.2.2 Default saving values.................................................................................... 38

2.3. Flat ........................................................................................................................... 392.3.1 Evolution of cooling needs and summer comfort improvement ........... 392.3.2 Default saving values.................................................................................... 43

3 A few words on the economical dimensions ............................................................ 453.1. Determination of costs according to relevant functional units (e.g. m² ofsolar shading)..................................................................................................................... 451.4.1 External screen blinds and external Venetian blinds ............................... 451.4.2 External screen blinds and external Venetian blinds with radiationcontrol 451.4.3 Efficient windows.......................................................................................... 451.4.4 Special paintings............................................................................................ 461.4.5 Insulation........................................................................................................ 461.4.6 Energy efficient office equipment ............................................................... 461.4.7 Energy efficient lightings and ballasts ....................................................... 461.4.8 Automatic operable openings ..................................................................... 461.4.9 Extraction system .......................................................................................... 47

4/69

3.2. Determination of costs in € per m² of treated surface(or per referencebuilding) ............................................................................................................................. 47

4 Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 485 References....................................................................................................................... 496 Appendix 1 Terminology adopted in the frame of Work Package 4................... 517 Appendix 2 – Detailed simulation results ................................................................. 537.1. Office 1 .................................................................................................................... 537.2. Office 2 .................................................................................................................... 597.3. Retail........................................................................................................................ 657.4. Flat ........................................................................................................................... 66

5/69

Introduction

Context and general objective of Work Package 4Energy efficiency policy in the building sector in most EU member states is still verymuch oriented towards a reduction of energy consumption for heating purposes,even if energy consumption for cooling shows a sharply increasing trend, as this isthe case in many countries.In the frame of the implementation of the Directive on Energy End use Efficiency andEnergy Services (EEE ESD) the member states need to prepare Energy EfficiencyAction Plans (EEAP), which can be seen as a good chance to integrate cooling energyconsumption issues into energy efficiency policy. The Energy Efficiency Action Plansinclude, however, an estimation of the energy savings related to the implementationof measures. In their first EEAP, each Member State will have to report on how theywill reach their targets and in the two subsequent plans they will also have to reporton what has been achieved. This might come up as an additional barrier for theintegration of sustainable cooling solutions in the EEAP, since there is only limitedand separated knowledge about assessing the energy savings resulting frommeasures on sustainable summer comfort. Simplified procedures to evaluate theenergy consumption cut related to these solutions are lacking.

Within the Keep Cool II project, Work Package 4 (WP 4) aims at making use of theknow how developed within KeepCool I and II and giving support to the nationalinstitutions preparing the EEAP under the Directive on energy end use efficiency andenergy services. This will be done by developing an approach for a bottom upassessment of the energy savings related to sustainable summer comfort solutions.The main results of the work package will be:

- “benchmarks” (typical values) of energy savings…- …related to single or packaged technical measures of sustainable summer

comfort…- …applied to typical building types.

We also made the decision to only focus on existing buildings and led apart newones. This because building code makers have defined buildings along with typicalclimates taking into account national specificities and they use these buildings tocalculate possible improvements (in terms of energy savings) and associated costs todetermine the requirements for the next building code. A very specific work incooperation with national organisms in charge of national building codes wouldhave been needed and this was not feasible in terms of budget and allocated time.Furthermore, people in charge of national building codes are aware of the wholeenergy consumption of buildings respecting the regulation and can quite simplycalculate the savings realized by comparison to the previous code (let’s mention for

6/69

example that “Promoting energy efficient new buildings (40 – 60 kWH/m²/year)” forprivate households is a measure already included in the German NEEAP).

If the part of the contract that relates to WP 4 focuses on NEEAP, it is important tonotice that these results will be perfectly relevant for others users such as people incharge of building codes, of promoting sustainable summer comfort…

The main objective of WP 4 is therefore to provide benchmarks of energy savingsimplied by the implementation of Energy Efficiency Improvement (EEI) actions(relative to summer comfort) in European existing buildings. Unitary savings will begiven in terms of energy need, energy use and primary energy.

Main steps of Work Package 4WP 4 is based on three deliverables whose main outcomes are presented in Figure 1.

In Deliverable 1, reference cases (i.e. buildings considered as representative of theEuropean building stock) are defined. Furthermore, as performing buildingsimulations for every European country would have been be time consuming(compared to our resources) it has been decided to define several climatic areas forEurope.

In Deliverable 2, EEI action and packages of EEI actions that worth to be studied aredetermined and characterized.

In Deliverable 3, the main outcome is to provide benchmarks of energy savingsvalues for combinations of improvement actions, buildings and climatic areas.

Figure 1. Presentation of the main outcomes of the different WP 4 deliverables

7/69

1 Development of a methodology for the assessment of energy savings related to sustainable summer comfort

1.1. What does “energy saving” mean in our context?

Contrary to other sectors (lighting, heating, cars…), air conditioning in buildings is anon mature market and an important part of the European building stock is still notcooled or air conditioned. This particularity must be analyzed: if it is possible torealize real savings in air conditioned (AC) buildings, how to deal with non airconditioned ones?

EEI actions relative to summer comfort in buildings that are not AC will not reducethe amount of energy currently consumed but will contribute to reduce or avoid theconsumption connected to the possible installation of new active AC systems and inthis way, save energy compared to the trend.

The situation is therefore the following:EEI actions in AC buildings will reduce the energy need for cooling. In somecases, the energy need for cooling can be reduced sufficiently so that there isno need for active cooling or the energy need can be met with a sustainablepassive cooling solution.Naturally ventilated (NV) buildings can be comfortable or non comfortable insummer (comfortable buildings can also become uncomfortable duringextreme events like heat waves and owners can look for a cooling solution).Theoretically, we are only interested in uncomfortable ones and face twopossible situations:

Some EEI actions will improve the comfort (reduce the number ofoverheating hours).Some EEI actions (rather packages of actions) will make the buildingcomfortable.

In the first configuration, we suggest using the same saving value than for ACbuildings (this to support the installation of sustainable solutions). In the secondconfiguration, we suggest using the total consumption of the reference building (AC)as obtained saving.

8/69

1.2. General approach

The proposed methodology for calculations is represented in Figure 2 and its maincalculation steps are presented hereafter.

Reference European buildings are presented in Deliverable 1. This methodologyrequires studying buildings (reference ones or improved ones) in two ways: airconditioned and naturally ventilated (with the possibility to open the windows).

Calculation of unitary gross annual savings in terms of cooling needsThe base case and in the base case for which a certain EEI action has beenimplemented must be simulated in air conditioned mode (i.e. fixed temperature setpoint). This enables to obtain the amount of energy to be extracted from bothbuildings to maintain the intended temperature conditions during the year (coolingneeds in kWh/m²/year).

The base case for which a given EEI action has been implemented must be alsosimulated in naturally ventilated mode (without fixed temperature set point) withthe possibility to open the windows. This enables to assess indoor thermal comfortwhen there is no air conditioning system. Then, it is up to the user to fix what theyconsider as comfortable indoor climatic conditions (called “comfort criterion”hereafter) and choose if the EEI action (or package) implies a reduction of the coolingload (the building is not comfortable when it is not air conditioned) or enables toavoid the use of air conditioning (the building is comfortable even when it is not airconditioned).

Annual savings in terms of cooling needs are therefore determined using thefollowing equation:

If the comfort criterion is not fulfilled:EEIref CNCNCN_

If the comfort criterion is fulfilled:refCNCN_

Where:CN_ is the annual saving in terms of cooling needs [kWh/m²/y]refCN is the annual cooling needs of the reference case obtained from simulations [kWh/m²/y]EEICN is the annual cooling needs of the reference case in which the EEI action has been applied.

This is obtained by simulations [kWh/m²/y]

Calculation of unitary gross annual savings in terms of heating needsImprovement actions can sometimes impact the heating demand and this must betaken into account when evaluation the energy saving potentials of actions. Annualsavings in terms of heating needs are determined using the following equation:

9/69

EEIref HNHNHN_Where:

HN_ is the annual saving in terms of heating needs [kWh/m²/y]refHN is the annual heating needs of the reference case obtained from simulations [kWh/m²/y]EEIHN is the annual heating needs of the reference case in which the EEI action has been applied.

This is obtained by simulations [kWh/m²/y]

Calculation of unitary gross annual savings in terms of final energyImprovement actions do not only impact cooling needs but also other usages. In thisstudy, savings values include the following usages: lighting, electric equipments,ventilation, cooling and heating (and not only cooling). Assumptions on typicalseasonal efficiencies of European heating and cooling appliances are necessary toderive annual savings in terms of final energy from savings in terms of cooling andheating needs. A distinction should be made between electricity savings and fuelsavings. Annual electricity saving is the sum of electricity savings due to heating andcooling and due to the three others usages taken into account (ventilation, lightingand office equipments). For these three usages, electricity savings are directlyobtained from the simulations ; regarding heating and cooling, the followingequations must be used:

SEERCNEC

__

EUE

HNWE EUEH__

Annual fuel savings are assumed to be the result of heating needs reduction:

FUE

HNWF FUE__

Where:

CE_ is the annual savings in terms of electricity stemming from cooling demand reduction[kWh/m²/y]

HE_ is the annual savings in terms of electricity stemming from heating demand reduction[kWh/m²/y]

CN_ is the annual saving in terms of cooling needs [kWh/m²/y]SEER is the Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio in cooling mode representative of the AC existingstock

HN_ is the annual saving in terms of heating needs [kWh/m²/y]F_ is the annual savings in terms of fuel [kWh/m²/y]

FUEis the Seasonal efficiency in heating mode representative of the stock of fuel using equipments

EUEis the Seasonal efficiency in heating mode representative of the stock of electricity using

equipments (heat pump, resistive…)EUEW and FUEW are the repartition factors between electricity using equipments and fuel using

equipments ( RW + BW =1).

10/69

Calculation of unitary gross annual savings in terms of primary energyAnnual savings in terms of primary energy are derived from savings in terms of finalenergy and from assumptions on conversion factors to primary energy:

FE CFFCFEP *_*__Where:

P_ is the annual savings in terms of primary energy [kWh/m²/y]E_ is the annual savings in terms of electricity [kWh/m²/y]

ECF is the conversion factor for electricityF_ is the annual savings in terms of fuel [kWh/m²/y]FCF is the conversion factor for fuel

In the frame of Deliverable 4.3, a methodology has been developed to derive energysaving figures related to sustainable summer comfort.

In treating both air conditioned buildings and naturally ventilated ones, thismethodology takes into account the fact that air conditioning in buildings is a nonmature market (an important part of the European building stock is still not cooledor air conditioned) and that the problem of the reduction of energy consumptionsdue to cooling must be also addressed at the source, in buildings that are currentlynot air conditioned.

Another main point of this methodology is that it gives a significant liberty to theuser providing a clear calculation chain. Thus, the user can decide to not employ ourdefault assumptions and calculate new values with his own assumptions regardingseasonal efficiencies, conversion factors or comfort criterion. Moreover, as the resultsare given for five climatic areas and twenty reference buildings (see Deliverable 4.1),this methodology also enables to take into account “external conditions commonlyaffecting energy use” as specified in the Directive on Energy End use Efficiency andEnergy Services (EEE ESD).

11/69

Figure2.MethodologydevelopedforW

P4.3

12/69

1.3. Summer comfort assessment

1.3.1 Assessment of summer comfort in the methodology

In the developed methodology, in order to conclude if an EEI action could enable toavoid the installation of classic air conditioning systems, we study the indoorclimatic conditions and provide comfort indices. Then it is up to user to choose thecomfort criteria and the conditions from which the building is assumed to not requireAC (however we will provide default comfort criteria).

When dealing with thermal comfort, a distinction must be made between threeterms:

- A short term index is objective information on the indoor climate at a giventime (for example: hourly temperature, hourly PMV)

- A short term criterion is a factor that allows making a judgment on indoorthermal comfort at a given time (often on an hourly basis). For example thefact to say that “when the temperature is higher than 26 °C the situation isuncomfortable” is a criterion.

- A long term index, often based on short term index, is objective informationon the indoor climate over a given period (for example: degree hours).

- A long term criterion is a factor that allows making a judgment on indoorthermal comfort over a given period (often on a yearly basis). For example; thefact to say that “when the temperature is higher than 26 °C more than 10 % ofthe occupation time, the building is uncomfortable” is a criterion.

Of course, in this deliverable, we are looking for long term indices to specify if abuilding can be considered as comfortable over a typical year. In the followingsection, we present the most common indices based on the analytic and adaptiveapproaches. In the last subpart, we give a final list of long term indices to beproposed to the user and define the default criterion we are going to use to derivebenchmarks of energy savings.

1.3.2 Summer comfort evaluation in the standard EN 15251

Building categories in EN 15251Four categories of buildings are defined in this standard according to the occupants’level of expectations (Table 1) and the comfort ranges depend on them. We decidedthat all the buildings studied in the frame of this work package are within thecategory II.

13/69

Table 1. Categories of buildings according to [CEN, 2009]Categories Explanation

IHigh level of expectation, recommended for spaces occupied by very sensitive and

fragile persons with special requirements like handicapped, sick, very young childrenand elderly persons.

II Normal level of expectation, should be used for new buildings and renovationsIII An acceptable, moderate level of expectation, may be used for existing buildings

IV Values outside the criteria for the above categories. This category should only beaccepted for a limited part of the year.

Short term indices and criteria based on the analytic indices (PMV/PPD)The PMV (“Predicted Mean Vote”) and the PPD (Predicted Percentage ofDissatisfied) were developed by Fanger. In brief, these indices mainly depend on sixparameters; four regarding indoor climate (air temperature, mean radianttemperature, air velocity, relative humidity) and two concerning people (physicalactivity, clothing thermal resistance). A PMV equal to zero represents the optimumcomfort when the thermal balance is null and this index can vary from –3 (cold) to 3(hot). It is also possible to predict the reaction of individuals thanks to the PPD indexthat aims at calculating the expected number of thermally dissatisfied people in agroup according to the PMV. The recommended criteria according to the buildingcategory are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2. Recommended criteria for AC buildings [CEN, 2009]Categories Thermal state of the body as a whole

Predicted Percentage of Dissatisfied[%]

Predicted Mean Vote

I < 6 0.2<PMV<0.2II < 10 0.5<PMV<0.5III < 15 0.7<PMV<0.7IV >15 PMV< 0.7 or PMV>0.7

Given that the PMV/PPD indices are difficult to use because they require theknowledge of several parameters that difficult to access in the field, recommendedindoor operative temperature ranges are also given in EN 15251 (Table 3). They weredetermined assuming clothing, activity of the occupants, low airspeed and ahumidity of 50 %.

Table 3. Default indoor operative temperature ranges recommended for AC buildings

Building types CategoriesOperative

temperature range inWinter (1 clo) [°C]

Operativetemperature range inSummer (0.5 clo) [°C]

I 21 25 23.5 25.5II 20 25 23 26

Residential (bedrooms, living rooms…)1.2 met

III 18 25 22 27Residential, other rooms: kitchen… I 18 25

14/69

II 16 251.5 metIII 14 25I 21 23 23.5 25.5II 20 24 23 26

Offices: Single and landscaped officeconference room, auditorium,

classrooms.1.2 met III 19 25 22 27

I 19 21 22.5 24.5II 17.5 22.5 21.5 25.5

Infant schools1.4 met

III 16.5 23.5 21 26I 17.5 20.5 22 24II 16 22 21 25

Retails1.6 met

III 15 23 20 26

Short term indices and criteria based on the adaptive approachIn EN 15251, the adaptive approach is proposed as an optional method that can beused instead of the analytic one in naturally ventilated buildings. The acceptableindoor operative temperatures according to the adaptive approach are displayed inFigure 3 (for the three building categories). They depend on a running mean outdoortemperature defined by Equation 1. This is an exponentially weighted running meanof the daily mean external air temperature. It is also possible to use Equation 2, asimplification of Equation 1.

...]..).[1( 3221 edededrm (1)11 .).1( rmedrm (2)

where rm is the running mean temperature for today, 1rm the running meantemperature for the previous day, 1ed the daily mean external temperature for theprevious day, 2ed the daily mean external temperature for the day before and so on.is a constant between 0 and 1and it is recommended to use 0.8

It should be noticed that humidity is not taken into account by this approach even ifit turns out to be a very important parameter notably when dealing with naturalventilation. Humidity must be studied in detail when the implementation of naturalventilation is considered in a given location.

15/69

Figure 3. Acceptable indoor operative temperatures according to EN 15251

1.3.3 Long term indices and default criterion kept for the study

Long term comfort indicesIn order to give the opportunity to use either the analytic approach or the analyticapproach (which is an optional method according to the standard 15 251), wedecided to keep two comfort zones (one for each approach) for a “normal level ofexpectation” (category II in the standard).

There are two main methods to assess thermal comfort over the year. Both are kept inour study.

- Percentage outside range: the proportion of the occupied hours during whichthe temperature lies outside the acceptable zone

- Degree hours criterion: the time during which the actual operativetemperature exceeds the specified range during occupied hours is weightedby the number of degrees by which the range has been exceeded

Of course, the indoor operative temperature depends on the thermal zone of thebuilding. EN 15251 specifies that the different parameters for the indoor environmentof the building meet the criteria of a specified category when the parameter in therooms representing 95 % of the occupied space is not more than as example 3 % (or 5%) of occupied hours a day, a week, a month and a year outside the limits of thespecified category (Annex A and B). Since there are different climatic conditions inthe different rooms, this means that the parameter is calculated for each room andmust not exceed 3 or 5 % outside the limits. Thus, according to the standard, it isnecessary to check that the index of the worst thermal zone does not exceed 3 or 5 %(provided that this thermal zone represents more than 5 % of the occupied space).

16/69

Regarding comfort assessment in naturally ventilated buildings, we provide longterm indices of the worst thermal zone provided that this zone represents more than5 % of the occupied space.

The following long term indices are kept:- Percentage outside range based on a maximum operative temperature of 26 °C

(default value in the standard for Category II)- Degree hours based on a maximum operative temperature of 26 °C (default

value in the standard for Category II)- Percentage outside range based on the adaptive comfort range (Category II)- Degree hours based on the adaptive comfort range (Category II)

Default comfort criterionOur default assumption is that a building is comfortable if the percentage of timeoutside zone is lower than 5 % over the year.

1.4. Determination of default coefficients characterizing the stock of heating and cooling appliances

The objective of this section is to determine default figures (representative of theEuropean situation) to derive default saving values. Regarding conversion factors,the values mentioned in the Directive EEE ESD are kept: 2.5 for electricity to primaryenergy, 1 for fuel to primary energy. As previously explained (section 1.2), thefollowing information is then needed:

- a seasonal energy efficiency ratio in cooling mode representative of theEuropean air conditioning stock

- a seasonal efficiency in heating mode representative of the European stock offuel using heating appliances

- a seasonal efficiency in heating mode representative of the European stock ofelectricity using heating appliances

- the repartition factors between electricity using equipments (for heating) andfuel using ones

1.4.1 European heating market

Residential sectorIn [Iles, 2002], a project funded under SAVE II that aimed to improve knowledge andunderstanding of the stock of domestic heating systems in EU member states, stockdata are given in number of heating systems installed in 2005 for EU 15 (Table 4).‘CH’ and ‘DH’ mean respectively central heating and district heating.

17/69

Table 4. Stock 2005. Number of installed heating systems, in millions of units. Appendix 4 of [Iles,2002].

Tertiary sectorThe issue of finding figures on heating stock for non residential building wasrecently met by the project ‘Eco design of Boilers and Combi Boilers’(http://www.ecoboiler.org/). In addition to usual problems (‘residential’ boiler canactually be sold to the non residential sector, small enterprises (shops for example)can share the heating system with residential customers …), no EU wide survey ofthe non residential heating sector has been found.

We assumed that the repartition of energy sources for heating purpose (gas, oil,electricity…) is the same for both sectors. This is likely to be realistic since the choiceof an energy source mainly depends on the national energy supply context (energyprices…) which is almost identical for both sectors.However heating capacities of systems are likely to be higher in the non residentialsector and this can change efficiency figures. As a result we suggest keeping therepartition presented in Table 4 but considering that all local heaters become centralones.

1.4.2 Reference efficiencies of the different heating systems

Efficiency of heating appliancesEfficiency is affected by the calorific value of the fuel burned, which is commonlymeasured in two ways:

- “gross calorific value” (GCV) is the full amount of heat which can theoreticallybe extracted

18/69

- “net calorific value” (NCV) excludes the quantity of heat of condensation ofwater present in exhaust gases, and is always a lower figure, around 90 % ofthe GCV.

In energy modeling it is essential to know whether efficiency figures are based onGCV or NCV, and to ensure that subsequent calculations use figures for fuel cost andcarbon intensity on the same basis.Efficiency calculated on a GCV basis always has a theoretical upper limit of 100%. Ona NCV basis, however, this is not so and the upper limits are about 111% for naturalgas, 108.6% for LPG, and 106.7% for oil. It is very important to be aware of this whenefficiency figures are quoted and compared.

Seasonal efficiency values from [Iles, 2002][Iles, 2002] also provides some figures regarding seasonal efficiencies of domesticheating appliances that will also be kept for the non residential sector in this study(Table 5). The term “efficiency” is used here as the ratio of useful heat output from aheat generator (e.g., a boiler, or heating appliance) to the energy supplied to it. For aboiler, the heat lost from the casing and in flue gases discharged from the building isnot regarded as useful. In this report, the seasonal efficiency is calculated byassuming it is around 10% lower than the nominal efficiency. It has to be kept inmind that efficiency values given in Table 5 concern the main heating system andauxiliary systems are not taken into account.

Table 5. Efficiency stock in 2005 in % (seasonal efficiency, Net Calorific Value)

Regarding District Heating, the authors explain that the efficiency value “is oftenbased on political rather than technical arguments. As in most building performancecodes, this efficiency is set around 100%” ([VHK, 2002]).

19/69

The 45 % given for electric heating exactly corresponds to the average efficiencyvalue for power generation and distribution chosen by authors. Thus, they assume aseasonal efficiency of 100 % when considering the appliance alone and do not takeinto account heat pumps.

Seasonal efficiency figures from [DEFRA, 2008]Boiler efficiencies are often expressed as AFUE (Annual Fuel Usage Efficiency). Thisseasonal efficiency takes into account part load boiler operation, i.e. the efficiencylosses when a boiler has to switch on and off and must therefore constantly warmitself before contributing to space heating. Typical AFUEs for boilers are given by theDepartment for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (UK) in [Defra 2008]. They arebased on the SEDBUK index that takes into account two tests (part load and fullload) and gives result in GCV.

- 55% for old heavy weight model- 65% for old lightweight model- 78% for new non condensing model- 88% for new condensing model

Seasonal efficiency figures from [VHK, 2007]In [VHK, 2007], VHK calculates a single efficiency value (sales and loads weightingfigure) representative of the boiler stock for different years:

Table 6. Gross calorific values/ Primary energy consumption [Eco Boiler, Task 7]1990 1995 2000 2005

Seasonalefficiencies

42 % 44 % 46 % 48 %

These efficiency figures are given in terms of GCV, taking into account primaryenergy (electric input is taken into account with a 2.5 primary energy conversationfactor coefficient).

Efficiency of emitters and distribution Efficiency values of emitters and distribution relate to heat losses of piping in notinhabited areas of the house plus excessive local transmission losses through thebuilding fabric at places where emitters are positioned. Distribution and emitterlosses are estimated to be relatively minor (<10%) according to [VHK, 2002].

Electricity consumptions of auxiliariesEven “fuel using equipments” consume electricity. Circulation pumps areresponsible for most of the electrical energy consumed by boilers, as can be seen inTable 3 (these have been the subject of a SAVE II study, Promotion of EnergyEfficiency in Circulation Pumps Especially in Domestic Heating Systems (Grundfosswith ECI and VHK, June 2001)).

20/69

However, since the aim of this project is to assess energy savings due to a reductionof energy needs and not improvement on equipments, we assume that the auxiliaryconsumption will stay the same. Furthermore, the power required by the heatingsystem is as a rule at least 100– 200 times greater than the power consumed by thepump ([OMV, 2002]). In primary energy, with a conversion factor of 3.3, efficiencywill then decrease by about 3 %.

Table 7. Electrical consumption sources of gas and oil fired heating systems [Iles, 2002]

1.4.3 European cooling market

The percentage of air conditioning types by sector is given in Figure 4. Districtcooling does nor appear but according to Ecoheatcool WP2 (which deals with districtheating and cooling), the market share of district cooling is today about 1 2% of thetotal European cooling market. This technology will not be taken into account inwhat follows.

Figure 4. The percentage AC type by user sector for the EU in 1998 [Adnot, 2003]

The repartition of air conditioning types by sectors kept for the calculations are givenin Table 8. In a first time, we will not take into account rooftops that are essentiallyused in supermarkets and consider “packages&splits” in the same category thanroom air conditioners.

21/69

Table 8. Repartition of air conditioning types kept for the three studied sectorsOffices Residence Retails

Roof tops 0 0 0Packages and split 0 0 0

Chillers 75 0 23Room air conditioner 25 100 77

1.4.4 Reference efficiencies of the different cooling systems

Regarding cooling equipments, the seasonal efficiency means the ratio between thecooling load extracted from the building and the electricity consumed in thispurpose. This seasonal efficiency must take into account consumptions of auxiliaryequipments (pump, fan) and must be representative of the existing stock.

It is assumed that the figures from the EECCAC study (Adnot, 2003) arerepresentative of the existing stock. The auxiliaries can reach the same order ofmagnitude than the real chiller consumption for central systems (see Figure 5 asexample).

Figure 5. Contribution of each piece of equipment in % of total consumption in Seville (perstandardized square meter for cooling, fans, pumps)

In the frame of EECCAC, 18 air conditioning systems were simulated (newequipments in 2003) in three different climates. The seasonal efficiency is calculatedwith auxiliaries (SSEER) and without (SEER). Minimum and maximum values are

22/69

given in Table 9. We suggest keeping 1.5 for chillers and 1.8 for room airconditioners.

Table 9. SEER and SSEER obtained by the simulation of central systems (CAV) and individualappliances (RAC) in the frame of EECCAC [Adnot, 2003]

SEER SSEERMin Max Min Max

Seville CAV 1.8 3.14 0.97 2.09London CAV 1.66 5.04 0.55 1.99Milan CAV 1.83 3.61 0.88 1.85Seville RAC 1.64 1.91 1.54 1.78London RAC 1.64 1.96 1.57 1.86Milan RAC 1.77 2.07 1.65 1.92

1.4.5 EU reference efficiencies

Efficiencies of boilers vary significantly, meaning that quite arbitrary guesses have tobe made on boiler efficiency. We keep 60 % (energy need for heating/ energy use forspace heating – definitions in Appendix 1) both for residential and non residentialfactor. The second one may be equipped with higher efficiency equipments (Table 2)but efficiency loss due to distribution and emission are likely to be also higher. Wecan also assume that any less energy efficient equipment would also receive energyefficiency upgrades.

In our project, results must be provided both in terms of final energy and primaryenergy. It is therefore necessary to separate electricity using equipments and fuelusing ones. Kept values are given in Table 10 and Table 11. As a first approach, weconsider that electrical heating is only resistive (i.e. no heat pumps).

Table 10. Seasonal efficiencies and weighting coefficients for the residential and non residentialsectors sector

Electricity using equipments Fuel using equipmentsSeasonal efficiency 100 % 60 %

Weighting factors [%] 14 86

Regarding air conditioning equipments, the default efficiencies kept for this studyare given in Table 11.

Table 11. Repartition of air conditioning types kept for the three studied sectorsOffices Flats Retails

Kept seasonalefficiency (SEER)

1.5 1.8 1.5

23/69

2 Presentation of obtained results

This section aims at presenting benchmarks of energy savings related to sustainablesummer comfort. They have been obtained by simulating several improvementactions (characterized in Deliverable 2) in reference buildings (presented inDeliverable 1).

2.1. Offices

The improvement of summer comfort has been studied in two reference officebuildings:

- Office 1 has 12 identical floors of 1250 m². The glazed area corresponds to 45 %of the total vertical surface.

- Office 2 is a suburban building (1008 m²) with two floors. The glazed areacorresponds to 30 % of the total vertical surface.

2.1.1 Evolution of cooling needs and summer comfort improvement

Cooling needs and thermal comfort evaluation are given for the 13 EEI actions andthe reference case in Figure 6 and Figure 7 for Office 1 and in Figure 8 and Figure 9for Office 2. Regarding comfort, the results are given based on the adaptive theory(category 2 according to the standard EN 15251 – see section 1.3.2).

For Office 1, the best individual improvement action (Venetian solar protection withradiation control) enables to reduce cooling needs by about 70 % in Stockholm, Parisand Lisbon and 60 % in Milan and Palermo. In terms of thermal comfort, the sameaction cuts the number of discomfort hours by respectively about 80 % in Paris, 60 %in Lisbon, 50 % in Milan, 40 % in Stockholm and 35 % in Palermo. It can be noticedthat this single action enables to respect the default comfort criterion (as defined insection 1.3.3) for Paris.

For Office 2, the best individual improvement action (Venetian solar protection withradiation control) enables to reduce cooling needs by respectively about 65 % inStockholm, 50 % in Paris and Lisbon, 45 % in Milan and 40 % in Palermo. In termsof thermal comfort, the best action is the implementation of free cooling duringnights and days, this can cuts the number of discomfort hours by respectively about65 % in Paris, 55 % in Lisbon and Milan, 40 % in Stockholm and Palermo. It can benoticed that no single action enables to respect the default comfort criterion (asdefined in section 1.3.3).

24/69

In addition to the 13 individual EEI actions, four packages of actions have beensimulated (more information about their selection in Deliverable 4.2):

- Package 1: reduction of internal loads (lighting, equipments)- Package 2: Package 1 + Venetian shading (radiation control)- Package 3: Package 2 + Over ventilation (operable openings, Night and Day)- Package 4: Package 3 + insulation, efficient windows

The results in terms of cooling needs and thermal comfort are shown in Figure 10and Figure 11 for Office 1 and in Figure 12 and Figure 13 for Office 2.

Regarding packages, cooling needs can be reduced very significantly by theimplementation of Package 2: between 70 % and 85 % for Office 1, and between 60and 90 % for Office 2. In case of important retrofit with the implementation ofPackage 4, cooling needs can be almost totally suppressed for Stockholm and Paris inboth reference buildings and for Milan in Office 1 (only reduced by 90 % in Office 2).In the two warmest climates (Lisbon and Palermo), Package 4 cuts cooling needs byabout 80 90 %.

After the implementation of Package 4, Office 1 respects the default comfort criterionin naturally ventilated mode (as defined in section 1.3.3) in two climates (Paris andMilan) whereas Office 2 respects it for all climates except Palermo (8 % instead of 5%). The improvement in terms of thermal comfort is very significant. Thus, for Office2, Package 2 cuts the number of discomfort hours by about 40 % (Palerme) to 80 %(Paris) and whereas the reference percentage outside zone ranges between 35 % and65 %, Package 4 enables to reach values lower than 10 %. For Office 1, Package 2 cutsthe number of discomfort hours by about 35 % (Palerme and Stockholm) to 85 %(Paris) and whereas the reference percentage outside zone ranges between 25 % and60 %, Package 4 enables to reach values lower than 15 %.

25/69

020406080100

120

140

Ref

.R

oof i

nsul

.Li

ghtin

gSp

ecia

lpa

intin

gsEq

uipm

ents

Effic

ient

wind

ows

Scre

en(M

anua

l)M

ech.

vent

ilatio

nfo

r coo

ling

(N)

Vene

tian

(Man

ual)

Free

cool

ing

(nig

ht)

Mec

h.ve

ntila

tion

for c

oolin

g(N

/D)

Free

cool

ing

(nig

ht/d

ay)

Scre

en(R

ad.)

Vene

tian

(Rad

.)

Cooling needs [kWh/m²]

Sto

ckho

lmP

aris

Mila

nLi

sbon

Pal

erm

e

Figure6.EvolutionofcoolingneedsforthedifferentEEIactionsstudiedindependentlyforOffice1

26/69

010203040506070

Ref

.R

oof i

nsul

.Li

ghtin

gSp

ecia

lpa

intin

gsEq

uipm

ents

Effic

ient

wind

ows

Scre

en(M

anua

l)M

ech.

vent

ilatio

nfo

r coo

ling

(N)

Vene

tian

(Man

ual)

Free

cool

ing

(nig

ht)

Mec

h.ve

ntila

tion

for c

oolin

g(N

/D)

Free

cool

ing

(nig

ht/d

ay)

Scre

en(R

ad.)

Vene

tian

(Rad

.)

Percentage outside zone - adaptive comfort Cat II [%]

Sto

ckho

lmP

aris

Mila

nLi

sbon

Pal

erm

e

Figure7.EvolutionofthermalcomfortforthedifferentEEIactionsstudiedindependentlyforOffice1innaturallyventilatedmode

27/69

0102030405060708090

Ref

.R

oof i

nsul

.Li

ghtin

gEq

uipm

ents

Scre

en(M

anua

l)M

ech.

vent

ilatio

nfo

r coo

ling

(N)

Scre

en(R

ad.)

Free

cool

ing

(N)

Mec

h.ve

ntila

tion

for c

oolin

g(N

/D)

Effic

ient

wind

ows

Spec

ial

pain

tings

Free

cool

ing

(N/D

)

Vene

tian

(Man

ual)

Vene

tian

(Rad

.)

Cooling needs [kWh/m²]

Sto

ckho

lmP

aris

Mila

nLi

sbon

Pal

erm

e

Figure8.EvolutionofcoolingneedsforthedifferentEEIactionsstudiedindependentlyforOffice2

28/69

01020304050607080

Ref

.R

oof i

nsul

.Li

ghtin

gEq

uipm

ents

Scre

en(M

anua

l)M

ech.

vent

ilatio

nfo

r coo

ling

(N)

Scre

en(R

ad.)

Free

cool

ing

(N)

Mec

h.ve

ntila

tion

for c

oolin

g(N

/D)

Effic

ient

wind

ows

Spec

ial

pain

tings

Free

cool

ing

(N/D

)

Vene

tian

(Man

ual)

Vene

tian

(Rad

.)

Percentage outside zone - adaptive comfort Cat II [%]

Sto

ckho

lmP

aris

Mila

nLi

sbon

Pal

erm

e

Figure9.EvolutionofthermalcomfortforthedifferentEEIactionsstudiedindependentlyforOffice2innaturallyventilatedmode

29/69

As previously mentioned, in addition to individual EEI actions, four packages ofactions have been simulated:

- Package 1: reduction of internal loads (lighting, equipments)- Package 2: Package 1 + Venetian shading (radiation control)- Package 3: Package 2 + Over ventilation (operable openings, Night and Day)- Package 4: Package 3 + insulation, efficient windows

The obtained results are given in the four following figures (the individual action“efficient office equipments” is also plotted).

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Ref. Equipment Pack. 1 Pack. 2 Pack. 3 Pack. 4

Coo

ling

need

s [k

Wh/

m²]

StockholmParisMilanLisbonPalerme

Figure 10. Evolution of cooling needs for the different packages studied in Office 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60


Perc

enta

ge o

f tim

e ou

tsid

e zo

ne


Figure 11. Evolution of thermal comfort for the different packages studied for Office 1 in naturallyventilated mode

30/69

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90


Coo

ling

need

s [k

Wh/

m²]


Figure 12. Evolution of cooling needs for the different packages studied in Office 2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70


Perc

enta

ge o

f tim

e ou

tsid

e zo

ne


Figure 13. Evolution of thermal comfort for the different packages studied for Office 2 in naturallyventilated mode

2.1.2 Default saving values

A main issue regarding savings evaluation is interaction between usages. Figure 14gives examples of interactions that must be faced when dealing with summercomfort (an additional interaction could be added between air conditioning andheating due to the existence of reversible heat pumps). Figure 15 (example of Milan)shows that improvement actions do not only impact cooling needs but also otherusages. This is the reason why savings values given in this deliverable include thefollowing usages: lighting, electric equipments, ventilation, cooling and heating (andnot only cooling). Default saving values are calculated based on the equationsdescribed in section 1.2 and the assumptions given in section 1.4.

31/69

Figure 14. Example of interactions between usages

0

100

200

300

400

500


Prim

ary

ener

gy [k

Wh/

m²]

Heating Cooling Lighting Equipment Ventilation

Figure 15. Comparison of the reference case to the studied packages regarding the primary energyconsumed for different usages in the (Office 2 – Milan)

Based on the assumptions presented in section 1.4, default values for unitary energysavings have been calculated and reported in Table 12 for Office 1 and Table 13 forOffice 2.Regarding comfort, the results are given based on the adaptive theory (category 2according to the standard EN 15251 – see section 1.3.2). The comfort index innaturally ventilated buildings mentioned in Table 12 and Table 13 refers to thepercentage of hours outside the adaptive comfort range (see Figure 3 Category II).

Table 12. Default saving values for Office 1 (savings are positive values)

EEI actions and packages

Comfortindex in NVbuildings

[%]

Unitarysavings(fuel)

[kWh/m2]

Unitarysavings

(electricity)– [kWh/m²]

Unitarysavings(primaryenergy)[kWh/m2]

Screen blind Manual control 33,9 5,5 6,6 11,0Screen blind Radiation control 26,7 5,5 15,5 33,2

Venetian Manual control 24,3 7,6 8,4 13,4Venetian Radiation control 24,4 6,0 17,0 36,5

Efficient windows 20,8 2,1 14,3 33,7Treat walls and roofs 17,2 0,7 0,5 0,6Insulate the roof 32,6 1,1 0,1 0,9

Energy efficient equipments 36,7 19,7 29,5 54,0Efficient lighting 33,0 9,3 8,9 13,0

Free cooling (night) 33,2 0,0 4,0 9,9

Stockholm

Free cooling (night/day) 32,7 0,0 12,9 32,1

32/69

Mechanical ventilation for cooling(night)

27,1 0,0 1,6 4,0

Mechanical ventilation for cooling(night/day)

30,5 0,0 7,6 18,9

Package 1 32,7 29,4 38,3 66,3Package 2 22,0 27,7 53,1 105,0Package 3 21,3 27,7 55,0 109,8Package 4 8,9 33,4 56,8 108,7





Free cooling (night) 24,9 0,0 18,9 47,4Free cooling (night/day) 18,4 0,0 25,1 62,8


16,6 0,0 6,5 16,3


19,8 0,0 14,0 34,9

Package 1 23,5 17,6 40,9 84,6Package 2 4,1 18,2 65,1 144,5Package 3 3,8 18,2 65,2 144,8

Paris

Package 4 0,3 0,0 66,3 165,9Screen blind Manual control 34,0 6,1 9,6 17,9Screen blind Radiation control 30,2 0,3 23,2 57,7






19,1 0,0 7,2 18,0


26,0 0,0 13,8 34,6


Milan


Lisbon

Venetian Manual control 30,5 1,1 19,7 48,1

33/69

Venetian Radiation control 45,7 0,8 49,5 122,8Efficient windows 21,3 6,1 18,1 51,3

Treat walls and roofs 47,2 1,6 5,8 13,0Insulate the roof 46,9 0,2 0,2 0,6




45,0 0,0 6,2 15,4


52,1 0,0 17,4 43,5








39,0 0,0 5,4 13,5


45,8 0,0 13,7 34,2


Palerme

Package 4 10,3 4,0 102,4 260,1

Table 13. Default saving values for Office 2 (savings are positive values)



[%]


[kWh/m2]

Unitarysavings





Efficient windows 36,7 1,0 7,5 17,7Treat walls and roofs 35,9 1,1 1,1 1,7

Stockholm

Insulate the roof 48,4 6,2 1,2 3,1

34/69




30,5 0,0 5,3 13,2


46,0 0,0 12,2 30,4








15,3 0,0 4,4 11,1


30,7 0,0 9,9 24,7


Paris







17,1 0,0 1,6 4,1


27,6 0,0 4,5 11,2

Package 1 31,2 21,3 45,4 92,1Package 2 15,2 21,6 52,8 110,5

Milan

Package 3 6,5 21,6 58,0 123,5

35/69







30,4 0,0 1,3 3,2


57,3 0,0 8,6 21,5


Lisbon







31,7 0,0 0,7 1,8


47,5 0,0 4,9 12,3


Palerme

Package 4 8,0 2,6 76,8 194,6

36/69

2.2. Retail


Regarding the small retail, four individual actions have been studied and twopackages (Package 1: efficient lighting and window awning ; Package 2: all theactions). The obtained results are given in terms of cooling needs (Figure 16 andFigure 18), and comfort (Figure 17 and Figure 19). Thermal comfort is only assessedbased on the analytic approach (default values of the standard EN 15251) becauseadaptive means (e.g. window opening) in this kind of buildings are very limited.

The best individual improvement action (window awning with radiation control)enables to reduce cooling needs by about respectively 70 % in Lisbon, 65 % inStockholm, 60 % in Paris and 50 % in Milan and Palermo. In terms of thermalcomfort, the same action cuts the number of discomfort hours by about 60 % inLisbon and 35 40 % others climates.

Regarding packages, cooling needs can be reduced very significantly by theimplementation of Package 1 (from 60 % for Palermo to 85 % for Stockholm), andalmost totally suppressed with Package 2 (90 95 % for Stockholm, Paris and Lisbon,80 % for Milan and 75 % for Palermo). After the implementation of Package 2, thereference retail respects the default comfort criterion in naturally ventilated mode (asdefined in section 1.3.3) in two climates (Lisbon and Milan). This criterion is almostrespected for Stockholm and Paris (resp. 6.7 and 6.9 %) whereas for Palermo thebuilding remains quite uncomfortable (17 %).

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Reference Mech. ventilationfor cooling

Efficient lighting Efficientwindows

Window awning

Coo

ling

need

s [k

Wh/

m²]


Figure 16. Evolution of cooling needs for the different individual EEI actions studied for retails

37/69

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Reference Efficient windows Efficient lighting Mech. ventilationfor cooling

Window awning

Perc

enta

ge o

f tim

e ou

tsid

e zo

ne [%

] StockholmParisMilanLisbonPalerme

Figure 17. Evolution of the thermal comfort index (% of hours > 26 °C) for the different individualEEI actions studied for retails

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Reference Window awning Package 1 Package 2

Coo

ling

need

s [k

Wh/

m²]


Figure 18. Evolution of cooling needs for the different packages studied for the retail

38/69

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Reference Window awning Package 1 Package 2

Perc

enta

ge o

f tim

e ou

tsid

e zo

ne [%

]


Figure 19. Evolution of thermal comfort for the different packages studied for the retail


Based on the assumptions presented in section 1.4, default values for unitary energysavings have been calculated and reported in Table 14.

Table 14. Default saving values for the retail (savings are positive values)



[%]


[kWh/m2]

Unitarysavings

(electricity) –[kWh/m²]


External window awning 36,4 13,0 20,6 38,4Install efficient windows 22,1 9,8 14,4 45,9Energy efficient lighting 31,9 35,3 57,2 107,6Mechanical ventilation for

cooling (night/day)30,0 1,6 7,7 17,8

Package 1 30,3 49,9 74,1 135,4

Stockholm

Package 2 14,2 44,8 79,3 153,5External window awning 6,6 2,2 18,0 42,7Install efficient windows 37,6 31,5 10,7 58,1Energy efficient lighting 24,4 24,3 58,4 121,6Mechanical ventilation for

cooling40,9 3,9 10,4 22,1

Package 1 29,8 27,1 72,9 155,3

Paris

Package 2 24,3 0,6 79,4 199,1External window awning 15,1 1,6 19,4 47,0Install efficient windows 6,9 25,9 16,1 66,1Energy efficient lighting 32,5 21,5 58,5 124,7

Milan

Mechanical ventilation forcooling (night/day)

18,5 2,6 7,1 15,1

39/69

Package 1 28,4 23,2 75,1 164,6Package 2 26,4 2,0 88,5 219,2

External window awning 23,0 3,0 23,2 55,0Install efficient windows 11,7 19,0 16,5 60,2Energy efficient lighting 3,3 12,1 58,1 133,3Mechanical ventilation for

cooling (night/day) 37,1 6,0 4,3 4,7

Package 1 14,7 15,3 77,2 177,6

Lisbon

Package 2 32,7 2,7 83,5 206,0External window awning 30,1 1,8 34,5 84,5Install efficient windows 29,0 14,3 24,9 76,6Energy efficient lighting 7,7 8,1 62,8 149,0Mechanical ventilation for

cooling (night/day) 2,5 6,5 5,1 6,2

Package 1 49,7 10,0 94,1 225,3

Palerme

Package 2 32,0 1,6 103,1 256,1

2.3. Flat


Regarding the residential sector, eight individual actions have been studied. Theobtained results are given in terms of cooling needs (Figure 20) and thermal comfort(Figure 21). Regarding comfort, the results are given based on the adaptive theory(category 2 according to the standard EN 15251 – see section 1.3.2).

First of all, it appears that the two actions “Roof insulation” and “Wall insulation” donot necessary reduce the cooling demand, it is only the case only in Milan andPalerme for the first action and in Lisbon and Palerme for the second one. In terms ofcomfort in naturally ventilated buildings, these actions do not allow to improve thesituation because of too high inside temperature (our reference buildings areuncomfortable).

The difference in terms of results between the actions on solar protections withradiation control and those with manual control is significant. Thus the installation ofVenetian blind (with manual control) can save between 10 and 30 % of the initialcooling demand whereas between 50 % and 90 % can be saved by using a radiationcontrol. This is due to the fact that in the case of manual control, it is assumed thatsolar protections are not used when the flat is empty, which is the case during mostof the afternoons, and this lets most of the solar radiation getting into the buildingand increases the cooling demand. On the contrary, the radiation control is notlinked to the building occupation. This enhances the importance of occupantbehaviors: pulling down solar protection before leaving the house in summer canbring about significant savings.

40/69

The best individual improvement action (Venetian blind with radiation control)enables to reduce cooling needs by about respectively 90 % in Stockholm and Paris,65 % in Milan and Lisbon, and 50 % and Palermo. In terms of thermal comfort, thesame action cuts the number of discomfort hours by about 90 % in Paris, 80 85 % inStockholm and Lisbon, 60 % in Milan and 20 % in Palerme.

The packages of EEI actions studied for the flat depend on the climate. There arebasically 3 packages (Package 1: special paintings and Venetian blind, Package 2:Package 1 plus roof insulation and Package 3: Package 2 plus wall insulation) butsome of them do not reduce the cooling demand in some climates. Hereafter, we onlykeep the Packages that enable to improve the situation: only one package forStockholm, Paris and Lisbon, two packages for Milan and the three packages forPalerme. The obtained results are given in terms of cooling needs (Figure 22) andthermal comfort (Figure 23).

Regarding packages, cooling needs can be reduced very significantly by theimplementation of Package 1 (from 47 % for Palermo to 93 % for Stockholm). Theimplementation of Package 2 and 3 (only for Palerme) slightly reduce cooling needs(for Palerme, a reduction of about 20 % between Pack 1 and Pack 2, and 3 % betweenPack 2 and Pack 3).

After the implementation of Package 1, the reference flat respects the default comfortcriterion in naturally ventilated mode (as defined in section 1.3.3) in three climates(Paris, Lisbon and Milan). This criterion is almost respected for Stockholm (5.5 %)whereas for Palermo the building remains quite uncomfortable (16.2 %).Furthermore, as previously noticed for individual actions, Package 2 and 3 do notimprove thermal comfort in naturally ventilated mode for Palerme.

41/69

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Reference Wall insul. Screen(manual)

Venetian(manual)

Roof insul. Efficientwindows

Screen(Rad.)

Specialpaintings

Venetian(Rad.)

Coo

ling

need

s [k

Wh/

m²]


Figure 20. Evolution of cooling needs for the different individual EEI actions studied for theresidential sector

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Reference Wall insul. Screen(manual)

Venetian(manual)

Roof insul. Efficientwindows

Screen(Rad.)

Specialpaintings

Venetian(Rad.)

Perc

enta

ge o

f tim

e ou

tsid

e zo

ne [%

]


Figure 21. Evolution thermal comfort for the different individual EEI actions studied for theresidential sector in naturally ventilated mode

42/69

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Reference Venetian(Rad.)

Pack. 1 Pack.2 Pack 3

Coo

ling

need

s [k

Wh/

m²]


Figure 22. Evolution of cooling needs for the different packages studied for the flat

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Reference Venetian(Rad.)

Pack. 1 Pack.2 Pack 3

Perc

enta

ge o

utsi

de z

one

[%]


Figure 23. Evolution of thermal comfort for the different packages studied for the flat

43/69


Based on the assumptions presented in section 1.4, default values for unitary energysavings have been calculated and reported in Table 15.

Table 15. Default saving values for the flat (savings are positive values)



[%]


[kWh/m2]

Unitarysavings





Efficient windows 19,0 4,0 9,5 19,8Treat walls and roofs 33,7 1,3 1,5 2,4Insulate the roof 38,4 9,3 2,2 3,7Insulate the walls 35,7 5,4 0,6 7,0

Stockholm




Paris




Package 1 1,0 19,6 16,1 20,6

Milan




Lisbon

Package 1 0,6 12,3 38,1 82,9

44/69




Package 1 16,2 15,3 36,2 75,3Package 2 20,8 9,2 40,6 110,7

Palerme

Package 3 23,4 8,4 40,8 110,3

45/69

3 A few words on the economical dimensions

In the frame of this Work Package, we assessed energy savings due to theimplementation of EEI actions related to summer comfort. Although this work wasnot included in the initial contract, we thought it would be interesting to completethis study by focusing on economical aspects.

Comprehensive cost benefit analysis are not performed here because this would haverequired too much work to gather national specific economic data while this task isnot included in the contract. We decided to provide bibliographical data on thepurchase and installation costs for the different EEI actions selected in D 4.2 and fordifferent European countries. Given that these costs depend on many parameters(brand, supplier, number of purchased products, taxes…), the exercise is quite trickyand the figures must only be considered as orders of magnitude and must be usedcarefully.

3.1. Determination of costs according to relevant functional units (e.g. m² of solar shading)

1.4.1 External screen blinds and external Venetian blinds

French contextIn the frame of the OPTISOL project [ARMINES, 2009b], it appears that the cost ofsolar shading was 150 €/m² of solar shading (excluding tax). According to thisproject, the cost of solar shading does not depend on the solar factor.

1.4.2 External screen blinds and external Venetian blinds with radiation control

French contextIn the frame of the CLIMHYBU project [ARMINES, 2009a], the cost of a controlsystem for solar shading was estimated to 175 €/unit (excluding tax).

1.4.3 Efficient windows

French contextIn the frame of the OPTISOL project [ARMINES, 2009b], it appears that the cost perm² of windows was :

150+430/Uwindows if the frame is in wood or in PVC150+580/Uwindows if the frame is in aluminum

46/69

For this action, Uwindows = 1.09 and the cost of windows is then about 545 €/m² and682 €/m² (excluding tax).

1.4.4 Special paintings

French contextWe did not find any relevant information for this action.

1.4.5 Insulation

French contextIn the frame of the OPTISOL project [ARMINES, 2009b], the cost excluding tax wasestimated to about 10 14 €/(m².Rth) where Rth is the thermal resistance of theinsulating material. In our case, this leads to 35 45 € per m² of insulating material.

1.4.6 Energy efficient office equipment

French contextOur improvement action is based on the purchase (for 12 m²) of :

- A screen 20 W : 180 € (Energy Star)- A computer 50 W : 500 € (Energy Star)- A printer 50 W : 100 €

This figures come from the Energy Star website (I must check and give thereference).This leads to about 65 € per m² of office.

1.4.7 Energy efficient lightings and ballasts

French contextIn the frame of the OPTISOL project [ARMINES, 2009b], the cost of efficient lightingwas estimated equal to about 40 €/m² (excluding taxes) for lighting systems of 710 W/m².

1.4.8 Automatic operable openings

French contextIn the frame of the CLIMHYBU project [ARMINES, 2009a], the cost of automaticcontrol system for windows was estimated to 235 €/window (excluding tax).

47/69

1.4.9 Extraction system

French contextRegarding the installation of extraction systems for cooling, [Fleury, 2008] estimatedthe cost at 100 € per m² of treated surface (excluding taxes).

3.2. Determination of costs in € per m² of treated surface(or per reference building)

In this section, the cost previously gathered are used to calculate the costs of EEIactions per m² of treated surface (or per base case). This consisted in applying the costfigures to the two office reference cases defined in D4.1.The following assumptions were made for the calculations:

- Solar shadings are assumed to be installed in windows oriented to the South :1956.6 m² for Office 1 and 108 m² for Office 2.

- Regarding windows, it is assumed that frames are in PVC.- Regarding automatic openings, the surface of 1 window is assumed to be 3 m².

The ranges of values are given in Table 16.

Table 16. Costs of EEI actions in €/m² of treated surface (the treated area is 12150 m² for Office 1 and762 m² for Office 2)

France Germany Sweden Italy AustriaExternal screen blindExternal Venetian

blind21 – 24 €/m²

External screen blind(radiation control)External Venetianblind (radiation

control)

30 – 34 €/m²

Efficient windows 125 – 175 €/m²Special paintings ?

Insulation 4 – 50 €/m²Energy efficientoffice equipment

50 €/m²

Energy efficientlightings and ballasts

40 €/m²

Automatic operableopenings

18 – 25 €/m²

Extraction system 100 €/m²

48/69

4 Conclusions

In the frame of Deliverable 4.3, a methodology has been developed to derive energysaving figures related to sustainable summer comfort.

In treating both air conditioned buildings and naturally ventilated ones, thismethodology takes into account the fact that air conditioning in buildings is a nonmature market (an important part of the European building stock is still not cooledor air conditioned) and that the problem of the reduction of energy consumptionsdue to cooling must be also addressed at the source, in buildings that are currentlynot air conditioned.

Another main point of this methodology is that it gives a significant liberty to theuser providing a clear calculation chain. Thus, the user can decide to not employ ourdefault assumptions and calculate new values based on simulation results presentedin Appendix and on his own assumptions regarding seasonal efficiencies, conversionfactors or comfort criterion.

Regarding benchmarks of energy savings provided in this Deliverable 4.3 (Table 12,Table 13, Table 14 and Table 15), it appears that sustainable summer comfort can turnout to be a significant source of energy savings. About summer comfort in offices andretails, our results show that one should focus on the installation of Venetian blinds(notably with radiation control) and the reduction of internal loads. In offices forexample, this can already decrease very significantly discomfort hours by up to 80 %and the cooling demand by up to 90 %. For the flat, Venetian blinds with radiationcontrol can reduce largely the cooling demand (between 50 % and 90 %) whereas thegains for the same shading device with manual control are more limited (between 10and 30 %). This enhances the importance of occupant behaviors: pulling down solarprotection before leaving the house in summer can bring about significant savings.

49/69

5 References

[Adnot, 2003] Energy Efficiency and Certification of Central AirConditioners (EECCAC), Adnot et al., Study for the D.G.Transportation Energy (DGTREN) of the Commission of theE.U., 2003

[ARMINES, 2009a] Projet CLIMHYBU, CLIMatisation HYbride des immeublesde Bureaux, 2009

[ARMINES, 2009b] Projet OPTISOL, Contrat ADEME/ARMINES n° : 06 04C0119, Rapport Final, Août 2009

[CEN, 2009] NF EN ISO 15251, Détermination analytique etinterprétation du confort thermique par le calcul des indicesPMV et PPD et par des critères de confort thermique local,European Commitee for Standardization, 2007

[DEFRA, 2008] Boiler efficiency database, Department for EnvironmentFood and Rural Affairs, http://www.boilers.org.uk/

[Fleury et al, 2008] Comparaison internationale Bâtiment et énergie, C11 –Climatisation basse consommation, Emmanuel Fleury,Orlando Catarina, Experts : F. Bourmaud, R. Daccord, D.Marchio, http://www.prebat.net/benchmark/document/C11clim basse conso 2008.pdf, 2008

[Iles, 2002] Labeling and other measures for heating systems indwellings, Final technical report, Iles P. et al., Save projectNo. 4.1031/Z/99 283 prepared for the Commission of theEuropean Communities, 2002

[OMV, 2002] SAVE II Labeling & other measures for heating systems indwellings. Final Report Jan.2001 Appendix 5 Electricalconsumption of gas & oil central heating. OMV, Sweden.

[VHK, 2002] SAVE II Labeling & other measures for heating systems indwellings. Final Report Jan.2002 Appendix 4 Stock modelof residential heating systems. VHK, Netherlands

50/69

[VHK, 2007] Preparatory study on Eco Design of boilers, Task 7 report, R.Kemna et al.,2007

51/69

6 Appendix 1 - Terminology adopted in the frame of Work Package 4

Energy need, energy use and primary energy

Energy need for heating and coolingHeat to be delivered to or extracted from a conditioned space to maintain theintended temperature conditions during a given period of time.

Energy need for humidification and dehumidificationLatent heat in the water vapor to be delivered to or extracted from a conditionedspace by a technical building system to maintain a specified minimum or maximumrelative humidity within the space.

Energy use for space heating or cooling or domestic hot waterEnergy input to the heating, cooling or hot water system to satisfy the energy needfor heating, cooling (including dehumidification) or hot water respectively.

Delivered energyEnergy, expressed per energy carrier, supplied to the technical building systemsthrough the system boundary, to satisfy the uses taken into account (heating, cooling,ventilation, domestic hot water, lighting, appliances, etc…) or to produce electricity.

Primary energyEnergy that has not been subjected to any conversion or transformation process.Primary energy includes non renewable energy and renewable energy, if both aretaken into account it can be called total primary energy.

End use Energy Efficiency Improvement (EEI) measure, actions and programs

We suggest keeping the initial wording based on the EMEEES study (a Europeanproject that aims at assisting the commission in developing harmonized evaluationmethods).

EEI measureESD article 3h): “all actions that normally lead to verifiable and measurable orestimable energy efficiency improvement”. According to EMEEES project: Type ofEEI measures can be, e.g., EEI programs, EEI policy instruments, energy services andother measures, e.g., incentive programs, building codes, energy performancecontracting, voluntary agreements. EEI measures facilitate end use EEI actions.

52/69

End use EEI actionCan be a technical, organizational, or behavioral action taken at an end user’s site (orbuilding, equipment…), but not necessarily by the end user himself, that improvesthe energy efficiency of the energy end using facilities or equipment, and therebysaves energy. An end use action can be taken individually and evaluated separately.

EEI programESD Article 3g): “activities that focus on groups of final customers and that normallylead to verifiable and measurable or estimable energy efficiency improvement”(remark by EMEEES project: i.e., a special type of EEI measures)

Abbreviations

AC: Air conditionedNV: Naturally ventilatedEEI: Energy Efficiency Improvement

53/69

7 Appendix 2 – Detailed simulation results

7.1. Office 1

Table 17. Comfort assessment in naturally ventilated mode – adaptive comfort – Cat IStockholm Paris Milan Lisbon Palerme

Percentage outside zone [%]Reference 45,1 38,0 49,6 62,5 69,5

Screen blind Manualcontrol

38,6 31,0 44,4 56,3 61,3

Screen blind Radiationcontrol

38,6 16,2 33,4 41,5 51,5

Venetian Manual control 36,3 28,4 42,8 53,8 58,1Venetian Radiation control 36,4 10,1 25,0 30,1 46,3

Efficient windows 26,7 27,1 40,5 61,0 70,2Treat walls and roofs 44,7 36,1 48,0 59,8 66,4Insulate the roof 45,1 38,0 49,6 62,5 69,5

Energy efficient equipments 44,1 35,1 48,4 61,9 68,3Efficient lighting 44,4 36,6 49,1 62,1 68,6

Free cooling (night) 42,0 23,3 49,3 55,4 49,5Free cooling (night/day) 43,1 25,1 31,7 52,1 51,3Mechanical ventilation for

cooling (night)41,2 25,6 39,8 58,9 58,4


35,2 22,4 36,9 56,1 54,6

Package 1 43,5 33,8 47,7 61,4 67,5Package 2 36,3 9,2 23,9 30,9 45,6Package 3 32,2 6,9 12,2 26,3 27,7Package 4 16,7 1,8 3,5 21,6 18,0

Degree hoursReference 8257,1 3977,9 7714,8 11232,0 12354,6


5269,5 2602,4 5779,3 7965,1 10148,8


3658,9 816,5 2805,5 3483,2 6493,8





cooling (night)6760,5 2671,2 4551,5 9767,4 8024,6

Mechanical ventilation for 4825,8 2030,9 3784,8 8221,9 6996,7

54/69

cooling (night/day)Package 1 7751,5 3403,1 7080,7 10802,8 12023,3Package 2 3441,8 361,4 1859,2 2470,0 4949,3Package 3 4470,7 335,3 706,6 3441,4 2131,7Package 4 1199,5 34,4 73,5 1657,2 862,0

Table 18. Comfort assessment in naturally ventilated mode – adaptive comfort – Cat IIStockholm Paris Milan Lisbon Palerme



26,7 20,3 30,2 48,7 51,4


24,3 9,0 22,5 30,5 43,6





cooling (night)30,5 19,8 26,0 52,1 45,8


28,5 16,8 23,7 48,5 42,6




3216,1 1771,4 3883,7 6193,1 8322,4


1949,7 385,7 1923,0 2271,4 4875,0





cooling (night)4552,1 1903,7 3325,1 7916,5 6349,5


55/69


Table 19. Comfort assessment in NV mode – operative temperature higher than 26 °CStockholm Paris Milan Lisbon Palerme



30,3 28,3 40,2 57,9 61,6


27,9 16,1 31,3 45,1 53,7





cooling (night)33,4 23,1 39,2 59,6 60,8


27,6 19,7 36,5 56,2 57,8




4246,2 3123,3 7091,4 9846,1 13839,8


2510,7 1155,4 4032,1 5164,4 9949,0





cooling (night)5507,0 2825,9 5452,8 11387,1 11411,9


56/69


Table 20. Electric consumption, heating and cooling needs

Heating needs[kWh/m2]

Coolingneeds

[kWh/m2]

Electricconsumption

lighting[kWh/m2]

Electricconsumptionequipment[kWh/m2]

Electricconsumptionventilation[kWh/m2]

StockholmReference 85,8 37,3 22,2 61,9 12,4


89,7 26,4 22,3 61,9 12,4

Screen blindRadiation control

89,7 12,9 22,4 61,9 12,4

Venetian Manualcontrol

91,2 23,3 22,3 61,9 12,4

Venetian Radiationcontrol

90,0 10,1 22,7 61,9 12,4

Efficient windows 87,3 14,2 23,0 61,9 12,4Treat walls and roofs 86,3 36,4 22,2 61,9 12,4Insulate the roof 85,0 37,6 22,2 61,9 12,4Energy efficientequipments

99,6 30,3 22,2 35,1 12,4

Efficient lighting 92,3 36,5 12,9 61,9 12,4Free cooling (night) 85,8 31,3 22,2 61,9 12,4

Free cooling(night/day)

85,8 18,0 22,2 61,9 12,4

Mechanical ventilationfor cooling (night)

85,8 33,7 22,2 61,9 13,2

Mechanical ventilationfor cooling (night/day)

85,8 24,6 22,2 61,9 13,3


ParisReference 24,2 48,2 19,5 61,9 5,1


26,3 37,7 19,4 61,9 5,1


24,5 18,5 19,6 61,9 5,1


27,1 34,6 19,4 61,9 5,1


24,6 12,6 20,0 61,9 5,1

Efficient windows 12,5 31,9 20,5 61,9 5,1

57/69

Treat walls and roofs 24,9 45,5 19,5 61,9 5,1Insulate the roof 23,7 48,5 19,5 61,9 5,1Energy efficientequipments

32,5 38,1 19,5 35,1 5,1



24,2 10,5 19,5 61,9 5,1


24,2 30,7 19,5 61,9 10,3

Mechanical ventilationfor cooling (night/day) 24,2 19,1 19,5 61,9 10,5


MilanReference 33,3 70,3 18,5 61,9 7,5


37,6 54,9 18,6 61,9 7,5


33,5 34,6 19,1 61,9 7,5


38,6 51,2 18,6 61,9 7,5


33,7 26,0 19,6 61,9 7,5


41,0 59,6 18,5 35,1 7,5



33,3 26,6 18,5 61,9 7,5


33,3 52,2 18,5 61,9 12,3


33,3 41,9 18,5 61,9 12,6


LisbonReference 4,5 113,0 17,6 61,9 6,8


5,1 90,5 17,8 61,9 6,8


5,0 50,6 18,7 61,9 6,8

58/69


5,3 83,1 17,8 61,9 6,8


5,1 36,6 19,0 61,9 6,8


7,1 100,0 17,6 35,1 6,8



4,5 65,6 17,6 61,9 6,8


4,5 91,9 17,6 61,9 14,7


4,5 74,5 17,6 61,9 15,0


PalermeReference 2,3 117,6 17,8 61,9 7,5


2,9 97,4 17,9 61,9 7,5


2,5 60,1 18,8 61,9 7,5


3,1 90,9 17,9 61,9 7,5


2,6 46,1 19,3 61,9 7,5


4,0 104,0 17,8 35,1 7,5



2,3 63,6 17,8 61,9 7,5


2,3 95,2 17,8 61,9 17,0


2,3 82,2 17,8 61,9 17,4


59/69

7.2. Office 2

Table 21. Comfort assessment in naturally ventilated mode – adaptive comfort – Cat IStockholm Paris Milan Lisbon Palerme



49,1 43,2 38,0 64,0 54,8


45,8 43,3 38,1 66,9 53,9





cooling (night)51,9 37,9 34,0 65,0 53,5


48,7 31,7 27,7 56,1 47,6




8754,3 5484,8 5577,2 9449,9 9958,2


5283,9 4058,7 3821,9 6355,6 6904,8





cooling (night)7914,5 4800,6 4581,9 9311,3 9074,4


5305,0 3326,6 3431,0 6369,7 7133,6

Package 1 8355,3 5272,2 5427,7 9979,5 10248,2Package 2 1415,7 897,7 1660,9 3032,9 3945,5

60/69

Package 3 1385,7 396,8 548,8 691,5 1554,9Package 4 101,4 48,8 71,3 193,8 676,6

Table 22. Comfort assessment in naturally ventilated mode – adaptive comfort – Cat IIStockholm Paris Milan Lisbon Palerme


Screen blind Manualcontrol 44,1 35,7 32,3 57,4 49,5


39,0 33,7 29,3 57,0 45,5





cooling (night)46,0 30,7 27,6 57,3 47,5


40,1 24,9 22,4 46,7 41,1





3735,3 2646,2 2591,1 4074,5 5090,3





cooling (night)6121,4 3555,2 3458,6 7072,4 7227,0


4073,9 2295,1 2516,6 4493,2 5514,9

Package 1 6930,2 3971,9 4191,8 7734,4 8296,9Package 2 929,5 400,1 956,8 1535,1 2594,6

61/69

Package 3 1017,5 195,0 228,7 276,9 903,3Package 4 37,8 5,8 7,2 51,2 282,6





34,6 36,3 36,5 63,3 57,2





cooling (night)42,9 33,4 34,6 62,8 56,8


39,5 27,8 29,9 56,1 51,2





4179,4 3605,9 5200,1 8573,2 10664,2





cooling (night)6274,9 4227,0 5834,7 11527,4 12827,4


3662,2 2783,4 4598,4 8539,3 10769,5

Package 1 7085,8 4968,9 6928,6 12340,0 14193,7Package 2 1019,0 733,6 2837,9 5208,4 7321,3

62/69

Package 3 91,0 151,0 1257,9 1750,0 4222,5Package 4 0,9 53,7 608,6 1075,6 3145,7



Coolingneeds

[kWh/m2]

Electricconsumption

lighting[kWh/m2]





72,3 24,1 37,3 62,4 12,4


69,5 12,9 42,7 62,4 12,4


73,7 21,7 37,5 62,4 12,4


69,7 11,1 47,5 62,4 12,4


82,0 24,8 36,5 34,8 12,4



68,9 5,2 36,5 62,4 12,4


68,9 22,6 36,5 62,4 13,6


68,9 11,5 36,5 62,4 14,1


ParisReference 36,8 36,4 34,4 62,4 8,4



35,0 19,5 39,0 62,4 8,4

Venetian Manualcontrol 39,7 26,6 35,2 62,4 8,4


35,2 17,5 43,5 62,4 8,4

Efficient windows 24,9 23,3 39,0 62,4 8,4Treat walls and roofs 38,7 31,8 34,4 62,4 8,4Insulate the roof 34,9 40,1 34,4 62,4 8,4Energy efficient 45,9 27,5 34,4 34,8 8,4

63/69

equipmentsEfficient lighting 43,2 33,2 19,8 62,4 8,4

Free cooling (night) 36,8 20,0 34,4 62,4 8,4Free cooling(night/day)

36,8 8,2 34,4 62,4 8,4


36,8 24,5 34,4 62,4 11,9


36,8 16,0 34,4 62,4 12,1


MilanReference 64,5 39,8 32,0 62,4 11,5


67,7 33,1 32,8 62,4 11,5

Screen blindRadiation control 64,7 23,8 36,5 62,4 11,5

Venetian Manualcontrol 68,9 31,2 32,9 62,4 11,5

Venetian Radiationcontrol 64,8 21,9 41,0 62,4 11,5


73,5 32,2 32,0 34,8 11,5


Free cooling(night/day) 64,5 21,4 32,0 62,4 11,5


64,5 29,4 32,0 62,4 16,8


64,5 25,0 32,0 62,4 16,9




9,9 55,9 28,0 62,4 10,6


8,7 40,2 34,2 62,4 10,6


10,5 52,0 28,3 62,4 10,6

Venetian Radiation 8,7 36,6 40,7 62,4 10,6

64/69

controlEfficient windows 5,6 49,0 32,5 62,4 10,6

Treat walls and roofs 11,2 50,7 27,2 62,4 10,6Insulate the roof 6,1 70,5 27,2 62,4 10,6Energy efficientequipments

11,7 57,8 27,2 34,8 10,6



8,5 37,6 27,2 62,4 10,6


8,5 57,4 27,2 62,4 17,4


8,5 46,4 27,2 62,4 17,4




10,8 71,7 28,4 62,4 11,5


9,5 53,2 35,2 62,4 11,5


11,4 68,1 28,7 62,4 11,5


9,5 48,6 42,4 62,4 11,5


12,3 72,7 27,7 34,8 11,5



9,3 57,1 27,7 62,4 11,5


9,3 70,2 27,7 62,4 19,7


9,3 63,1 27,7 62,4 20,2


65/69

7.3. Retail



Window awning 22,1 24,4 18,5 14,7 32,0Efficient windows 31,9 40,9 28,4 32,7 50,3Efficient lighting 30,0 29,8 26,4 30,1 44,1


30,3 24,3 23,0 29,0 40,9

Package 1 14,2 15,1 11,7 7,7 24,1Package 2 6,6 6,9 3,3 2,5 16,9




7532,1 3892,0 2985,5 3101,4 6829,9

Package 1 1313,7 1423,8 647,3 320,1 2045,7Package 2 393,7 375,4 81,3 65,4 1052,0



Coolingneeds

[kWh/m2]

Electricconsumption

lighting[kWh/m2]






132,2 39,7 97,6 19,5 1,6

Package 1 165,9 8,1 46,9 19,5 2,3Package 2 162,3 2,6 46,9 19,5 1,4

ParisReference 56,5 47,9 97,6 19,5 2,2



Package 1 75,4 10,7 46,9 19,5 2,2Package 2 56,1 4,1 46,9 19,5 2,8

MilanReference 75,3 57,6 97,6 19,5 2,0

66/69



77,1 44,9 97,6 19,5 3,2

Package 1 91,5 17,6 46,9 19,5 2,0Package 2 76,7 9,0 46,9 19,5 2,5




Package 1 34,9 9,2 46,9 19,5 2,6Package 2 26,1 3,8 46,9 19,5 3,6




18,3 93,2 97,6 19,5 4,6

Package 1 20,8 39,1 46,9 19,5 2,0Package 2 14,9 24,9 46,9 19,5 3,3

7.4. Flat

Table 27. Comfort assessment in NV mode – Adaptive comfort cat IIStockholm Paris Milan Lisbon Palerme



27,2 20,7 21,5 39,7 42,9


13,2 4,4 13,3 16,0 37,5


Efficient windows 19,0 9,7 18,1 36,4 40,7Treat walls and roofs 33,7 21,2 14,2 21,8 28,2Insulate the roof 38,4 25,9 28,2 50,7 50,1Insulate the walls 35,7 25,4 23,8 45,6 44,8

Package 1 5,5 0,9 1,0 0,6 16,2Package 2 0,7 20,8Package 3 23,4

Degree hours

67/69

Reference 4836,7 2126,0 2527,3 3487,0 5934,7Screen blind Manual

control1856,3 1498,5 2112,5 2754,4 5680,2


374,2 169,0 830,6 698,9 4320,8




Table 28. Comfort assessment in NV mode – Operative temperature higher than 26 °CStockholm Paris Milan Lisbon Palerme



27,7 24,3 28,6 50,2 52,1


14,2 11,7 23,8 36,9 50,0






2145,4 2535,7 4064,2 6246,6 10413,0


469,6 689,9 2349,1 3168,6 8808,2




68/69



Cooling needs[kWh/m2]

Electricconsumption

lighting[kWh/m2]


StockholmReference 42,5 32,1 13,6 1,3




Package 1 45,2 1,8 13,6 1,3Paris

Reference 46,6 25,3 13,6 2,6Screen blind Manual control 48,1 20,3 13,6 2,6Screen blind Radiation control 48,3 6,4 13,6 2,6



Package 1 50,5 2,1 13,6 2,6Milan




Package 1 119,9 3,1 13,6 5,2Package 2 76,9 2,9 13,6 5,2

LisbonReference 9,7 70,7 13,6 3,9




69/69

Package 1 18,3 7,2 13,6 3,9Palerme





work package 4: assessment of energy savings related to ... 4.3 asset.ashx… · 1 1/69 1 1 1 1...

Documents