Http-__WP 1 - D 3.3 Final Publishable Report

7/29/2019 Http-__WP 1 - D 3.3 Final Publishable Report

1/62

1

EIE 329 E-TOOL

FINAL REPORT

Distributed to EIE-agency and E-TOOL partners

Legal disclaimer:

The project Energy-toolset for improving the energy performance of existing buildings (E-TOOL) is supported by the European Commission through theIntelligent Energy Europe Programme (Grant agreement number EIE/04/239/S07.38676). The sole responsibility for the content of this publication lies withthe authors. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Communities. The European Commission is not responsible for any use that may bemade of the information contained therein.


2/62

2

LIST OF CONTENT

1 Summary............................................................................................................................................32 Objectives...........................................................................................................................................63 The scope of the project report...........................................................................................................64 The project partners............................................................................................................................75 Project flow chart...............................................................................................................................96 Tool configuration............................................................................................................................117 Description of the E-TOOL software...............................................................................................118 Bench marking of the energy consumption......................................................................................159 Accessibility of the input data..........................................................................................................16

10 Energy saving measures...............................................................................................................2011 Top 10 energy saving measures in 6 EU countries...................................................................2712 Investment costs of energy saving measures................................................................................2813 Energy performance (bench mark) after energy retrofitting........................................................3414 Quality of the E-TOOL rating......................................................................................................4115 Accuracy of results - questionnaire..............................................................................................4416 Description of the contribution to advancement on the state of the art........................................4617 Feasibility and impact of E-TOOL...............................................................................................46

17.1 Feed-back from workshops, training seminars........................................................................4717.2 Feed-back from the market actors............................................................................................4817.3 Training/instruction for using E-TOOL ...................................................................................48

17.4 Time required for completing the carry out E-TOOL certification.........................................4917.5 Reproducibility.........................................................................................................................5017.6 Comparison of rating methodologies E-TOOL operational rating to assessment rating.........50

18 Support of the implementation of energy savings in building by E-TOOL energy rating...........5118.1 Criteria for the evaluation of the implementation....................................................................5118.2 Acceptance of results by clients...............................................................................................5218.3 Accuracy of the results.............................................................................................................54

19 Overall evaluation of E-TOOL for energy rating.........................................................................5520 E-TOOL energy rating - discussion and recommendations.........................................................5821 Reduction of barriers and support to policy implementation.......................................................5922 Resume of achieved results..........................................................................................................59

23 Lessons learned............................................................................................................................6124 Recommendations........................................................................................................................61


3/62

3

1 Summary

Operational rating of the energy performance of existing buildingsThe overall objectives of the proposed action is to promote the implementation of the EU building performancedirective (2002/91/EF, 16th December 2002) by developing a simple and practical energy-toolset, which on aEuropean level can support the implementation of the directive in relation to existing domestic, commercial andpublic buildings.

The E-TOOL project developed a simple and practical "E-TOOL", which can increase the efficiency of energyperformance rating of existing buildings. The criteria for developing E-TOOL are:

Energy certification shall be carried out within 2-3 man hours; The results of the energy certification shall be communicated at the survey to the house owners in an

easy understandable way.

The E-TOOL shall efficiently support the energy consultants in making the energy performancecertificates.

The E-TOOL

The input data for E-TOOL are: General data of the building, owner, type etc. - energy consumption data -general characteristics of the building, including: Heating, cooling, domestic hot water system, lightning andthermal envelope.

For out put data, see below:


4/62

4

E-TOOL can be down loaded from: www.e.tool.org, including the E-TOOL handbook.

Testing the E-TOOL

The evaluation criteria for the regional testing of E-TOOL were: User friendliness (functional aspects) of the tool- time required completing the rating and clients report - acceptance of the results by client - accessibility of thedata needed for the tests - improvements to the tool (with respect to local building practice and climate).

The tests were carried out for: Slovenia, 500 residential buildings and 50 public buildings - Bulgaria, 600residential buildings - Greece,100 public buildings - Austria, 50 commercial buildings - Spain,100 publicbuildings - Denmark, 1.000 residential buildings.

Evaluation criteria Results "Mark"

Bench marking of energy

consumption

Specific benchmark data are in general not available,

therefore benchmarking is not implemented in the E-TOOL

rating.

To be

improved

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

measures

Top 10 energy measures identified, U-values etc. are fixed,

output for investment costs and energy savings acceptable

for standard buildings

Good for

typical

buildings

Energy performance after

implementing energy savings

Acceptable results when comparing with energy audits Acceptable

Accuracy - compare with energy

audit

Acceptable for energy saving measures and energy

performance after implementing energy saving measures

Acceptable

Need of education Small need of education Good

Time required Around 2/3


5/62

5

Accuracy of results 80% good/acceptable. Acceptable

The operational energy rating, e.g. E-TOOL rating, could be the optimum rating, providing theobjective is cost efficiently to identify potential energy saving measures.

The best results with E-TOOL rating are achieved on buildings with regular structure and where thedata are transparent and representative.

Impact of operational rating of the energy performance of existing buildings

With a limited input of resources it has been possible to develop the E-TOOL to a level, where it hasgot positive evaluation results, e.g. on users acceptance of the results.

The experience has shown that 90% of the on-site ratings can be performed within 1-2 hours withacceptance of the results from 60% of the clients.

With the combination of measured energy consumption and a simple rating tool, the rating can beperformed by experienced persons after short training in the use of E-TOOL.

The results from the workshops carried show that the among market actors, there is a interest for the E-TOOL being seen as an efficient tool to support the implementation of energy saving measures in theexisting building stock.

The E-TOOL project has experienced a large difference in access to transparent and reliable buildingdata in the European countries, from regions with almost zero data to regions with high valuable data.

Recommendation for European energy performance ratingIs it recommended to introduce both an operational tool and and calculated rating tool in the nationalcertification scheme and then leave it to the experts to decide or set up some rules for which rating toolto use under particular conditions.

The partners

Naturgas Midt-Nord DK), energy supply company, (Coordinator). CENER, Centro Nacional de Energas Renovables (ES), scientific institution.

Upper Austria Energiesparverband (AU), regional energy agency. Thessaloniki Metropolitan Development Agency, Natural Gas of Macedonia S.A.(GR), regional publicauthority.

SIGMA Consultants Ltd (GR), private consultant company. Building and Civil Engineering Institute ZRMK (SI), research institute. Sofia Energy Centre (BU), private consultant company. Deuca Energia S.L. (ES), private consultant company.

For more information:www.e.tool.org


6/62

6

2 Objectives

Overall objectives on European level

The overall objectives are to promote the implementation of the EU building energy performancedirective (2002/91/EF, 16th December 2002) - with focus on developing an operational and simple toolwell suited for practicable application - with the energy consultants as the main target group. Theseobjectives have within the project been translated into:

Energy certification shall be carried out within 2-3 man hours

The results of the energy certification shall be communicated at the survey to the house ownersin an easy understandable way.

The E-TOOL shall efficiently support the energy consultants in making the energy performancecertificates.

Specific objective of the E-TOOL project

The energy-toolset was developed with a special focus on buildings in the southern/south-eastern part

of the Europe Union.

The E-TOOL project developed a simple and practical toolset, with the purpose of increase theefficiency of energy performance rating of existing buildings. The saving measures were calculated onthe basis of the actual energy consumption operational rating and on basis of benchmarks for energyconsumption for different categories of buildings.

3 The scope of the project report

This report is supported by the Intelligent Energy Europe (IEE-2004/239)-project, E-TOOL (Energy-toolset for improving the energy performance of existing buildings) is to be considered as a stand-aloneand result-oriented report. The main project results are described as well as the lessons learnt and themain results that have been achieved. The scope of the final report therefore is therefore to describe,how the E-TOOL supports the improvement of the energy performance of existing buildings, referringto the results of the project.

The general guideline of the methodology that has been applied, for the E-TOOL-rating of energyperformance is based on the methodology of measured (operational) energy rating. In contrast, otherrelated projects are based on the methodology of calculated (asset) energy rating.


7/62

7

The energy performance certification is being implemented all over the EU. In this context, the resultsand findings of this report are important and to be considered in the perspective that this project andresults are based on measured energy rating. The results are recommended to be taken into account inimplementing at the EU-level, the energy performance building directive.

The background for carrying through the project under the coordination of the Danish Naturgas Midt-Nord is in particular the experience from the Danish energy performance certification system, based onthe methodology of calculated energy rating, and the energy supply companies experience with energyrating of existing buildings using the measured energy methodology.

Based on these experiences, it was determined that the calculated energy rating is costly and has notproved to have the expected effect in terms of documented implementation of rational use of energy inexisting buildings. In contrast, the measured energy rating methodology has shown to be cost efficientand to support rational use of energy in existing residential buildings.

4 The project partners

The proposed action is covering main parts of Europe: The north (Denmark), the south-west with arelatively wealthy region (Spain), the middle-central (Austria) and the south-east (Greece, Slovenia andBulgaria) and by that has a European dimension. The proposed action can give a substantial support tothe implementation of the EU Building Directive on a European scale. The partners cover thesedifferent regions of Europe and different types of relevant experience and know how:

Partner Name Acronym Activity Country1 Naturgas Midt- Nord NGMN Energy supply company Denmark2 Fundacin Cener-Ciemat CENER Scientific institutions Spain3 Ober-sterreich Energiesparverband ESV Regional/local authority Austria4 Thessaloniki Metropolitan Development Agency TMDA Regional/local authority Greece5 Sigma Consultants Ltd SIGMA Consultants - Energy experts Greece6 Sofia Energy Centre SEC Scientific institutions Bulgaria7 Building and Civil Engineering Institute ZRMK Scientific institutions Slowenia8 Deuca Energia DEUCA Consultants - Energy experts Spain

Figure 1: Project partners

The partners can be described briefly as follows:

Partner 1: Naturgas Midt/Nord (Denmark)

Naturgas Midt-Nord (NGMN) is a public owned gas utility, owned by 74 municipalities in the Northernpart of Denmark.


8/62

8

Partner 2: Cener (Spain)

CENER is the Renewable Energy National Centre of Spain. It is a technological centre oriented andspecialized in renewable energies. CENER is integrated in the CENER-CIEMAT Foundation.

Partner 3: Upper Austria Energiesparverband (Austria)

O.. Energiesparverband (ESV) is the regional energy agency of Obersterreich/Upper Austria, anindustrial region in the Northern part of Austria.

Partner 4: Thessaloniki Metropolitan Development Agency (Greece)

Thessaloniki Metropolitan Development Agency Natural Gas of Macedonia S.A. (TMDA NGM) isan Intermunicipal Public Commercial Organisation whose shareholders are the Municipality of

Thessaloniki and the Municipalities of the widest region of Thessaloniki

Partner 5: SIGMA (Greece)

SIGMA Consultants Ltd (SIGMA) is an engineering and consultancy firm with a long standing activityin the Greek and European market.

Partner 6: Building and Civil Engineering Institute ZRMK (Slovenia)


9/62

9

Building and Civil Engineering Institute ZRMK, l.t.d., Ljubljana, Slovenia, (short name BCEI ZRMK)is a daughter company of ZRMK Holding, j.s.c., founded in 2003 for R&D and consultancy in buildingand civil engineering.

Partner 7: Sofia Energy Centre (Bulgaria)

Sofia Energy Centre (SEC) has been established as a successor of EC (DG XVII) Energy Centre Sofiaand it has gained a lot of experience in the field of promotion, dissemination and market penetration ofnovel EU energy technologies in Bulgaria.

Partner 8: Deuca Energia S.L. (Spain)

The Spanish Company is constituted in Girona in 1996 as Engineering and Consultancy Company.

Main activities are in the planning, promotion and realization of energy projects.

5 Project flow chart

The following flow-chart represents the different tasks that have been completed within the E-TOOL

project.

Data collection: Necessary to obtain all input data for energy consumptions, prices and buildingcharacteristics

Tool Development: Based on the requirements of the data collection, the tool was developed with theresult of the energy consumptions before and after the implementation of the energy saving measures,pay-back times, investments, CO2 savings and a certificate.

Test preparation: Important step for the application of the tool, including training of energy auditors.


10/62

10

Regional testing and evaluation: Testing of different kind of buildings (public, private, hotels, ..) in thedifferent partner countries and evaluation of the tests

Handbook: Guide for users and energy experts with indication of the practical aspects of the tool.

Dissemination: Inform about the project results on workshops, training seminars, conferences,

Homepagewww.e-tool.org.

Data collection Tool development

Regional testingand evaluation

Handbook Dissemination

Preparation oftesting

Figure 1: Project structure


11/62

11

6 Tool configuration

Through the description of the E-TOOL configuration is it the intention to give an introduction and

overview of how the E-TOOL works, the main components of the tool - and to evaluate, based on the

findings of the project, if E-TOOL elements work accordingly to, what is the intention.

The E-TOOL consists of 3 main components, which will be described and evaluated:

Bench marking of the energy (heating/cooling) consumption of different main buildingcategories.

Guidelines for typical energy saving measures, including cost estimations and pay-back-time.

Output in terms of energy consumption after carrying out the proposed energy saving measures

E-TOOL provides data about the impact produced by the implementation of some energy saving

measures in existing buildings, quantifying, not only the energy and CO2 emission savings, but also the

expected payback time.

Three fundamental premises have been taken into account when choosing the most representative

saving measures:

The effective energy savings produced by these measures should be measurable and calculable

independently of the orientationand shadowing of the studied building.

The cost of the saving measures should be easy to calculate by experts in each country.

The measure should be applicablein most buildings.

7 Description of the E-TOOL software

The E-TOOL is described in: "e-tool - handbook, manual for energy rating of existing buildings,

December 2006, and it can be down loaded from: www.e-tol.org. Here will be made a short

introduction, also to give background information for the section of the Final Report concerning the

feasibility of the E-TOOL.


12/62

12

The E-TOOL was developed by Cener, Navarra, Spain, in close cooperation with especially Naturgas

Midt-Nord of Denmark. Cener prescribes its right to the E-TOOL, in the sense that parties, who want to

use the tool, shall contact Cener to ask about permission.

The E-TOOL confirm with CEN standards TC89/prEN wi 1+3+4, when possible.

The E-TOOLSET methodology has three main parts:

E-TOOL User Data Sheets E-TOOL Process E-TOOL Report

E-TOOL User - Data Sheets

Data Collection Saving Measures Selection

1.-General Data Building

2.-Data Consumption

Location

CategoryShape and physicaldata

Fuel typeAnnual consumConsumption included

-Heating-Cooling-Domestic Hot Water-Lighting

-Envelope

E-TOOL PROCESS

DATA BASE

-Energy saving coefficients for saving

measures.-Correlations to calculate energy savings

depending on measures characteristics.

INPUTS FOR EACH COUNTRY

-Prices of saving measures.-Average consumption value depending onthe type of building and the climatic zone.

-Energy prices and annual rate of increase.-CO2 emissions.

E-TOOL Report

Potential savings, initial investments, pay-back times, CO2 savings for all saving measure initially selected.

Total potential savingsTotal investment cost of energy saving measures

Payback time of the energy saving measuresTotal CO2 savings

Initial E -Tool BenchmarkFinal E-Tool Benchmark

Best five energy saving measures selection

Figure 2: Flow Diagram of the E-TOOL software

Input data


13/62

13

The types of input data are: General data of the building, owner, type etc. Energy consumption data - screen picture, if relevant General characteristics of the building, including:

o Heatingo Coolingo Domestic hot water systemo Lightningo Thermal envelope

Figure 3: Front pages of E-TOOL version 1 and E-TOOL version 5

Output data

Summary for each potential energy saving measure: Potential savings, (kWh/year) Initial investment (EURO) Payback in years CO2 savings (kg)

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

E-TOOLSET

Goes to:

Page 1

Page 2

Page 3

1- CLIMATIZATION SYSTEMS

1.1- HEATING 1.1-SAVING MEASURES Page 3

1.2- COOLING 1.2- SAVING MEASURES Page 4

2- DOMESTIC HOT WATER

2.1- SAVING MEASURES Page 5

3- LIGHTING

3.1- LIGHTS / REGULATION 3.1- SAVING MEASURES Page 6

4- USAGE

4.1- OCCUPANCY, HEATING-COOLING SCHEDULES 4.1 SAVING MEASURES Page 7

5- THERMAL ENVELOPE

5.1- INSULATION 5.1- SAVING MEASURES Page 8

5.2- OPENINGS 5.2- SAVING MEASURES Page 8

Page 9

CONSUMPTION DATA

SUMMARY- Benchmarking

2.1- EQUIPMENT/ RENEWABLE ENERGY

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BUILDING

GENERAL DATA OF THE BUILDING


14/62

14

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


15/62

15

Figure 4: Certificate format

8 Bench marking of the energy consumption

Why bench marking?

One of the ideas behind the E-TOOL methodology is to identify groups of similar buildings with asimilar energy (in climates with over-heating problems heating also includes cooling) consumption. If itis possible to identify these groups, it can be derived what energy consumption could be expected in agiven building and then compare this with the actual energy consumption - and thereby get a goodindication of the energy standard of the building. This information can be used for looking for typicalpotential energy savings measures, which could lead you to an energy performance of the building to beexpected, when having a rational use of heat.

To identify such groups of building you need statistic data on energy consumption of the existingbuilding stock.

Sources for data for bench marking of the energy consumption of existing buildings

The benchmark data have been obtained during the data collection process in the partner countries thathad these data available, such as Denmark, as well as during the realization and evaluation of the testsfor the same type of buildings that have been tested with E-TOOL.


16/62

16

In Denmark there exist statistic data from the heating and electricity consumption of 46,000 singledwellings, which have been rated for energy certificates using the calculated methodology.

Of other sources for statistic data on energy consumption can be mentioned the IEE-projects: EP-Label,

enper-exist and e-impact. EUROSTAT is another source of information. The data of these projects havebeen taken into consideration to get an orientation and a general impression of energy consumptions ofbuildings as reference data in the general evaluation of the E-TOOL project within the frame of theEPBD Building Platform.

Bench marking of energy consumption

Bench marking of the energy consumption of the existing building stock in typical building categoriesis intended to be a support for energy experts making building energy performance rating. But in mostcountries there is a lack of reliable data. This means that the use of bench marking of the energy

consumption has not had the extend as expected in the project proposal.Not using bench mark data as an integrated part of the E-TOOL methodology did not mean that theenergy expert carrying out the energy performance rating did not compare an actual measured heatingconsumption with what could be expected of heating consumption for a typical building of the typecertified. Experience from the tests has shown that many experts have their own experience to draw on.An alternative is also to use the numbers of the actual building code for when the building was erected,if the building code included maximum heating/energy consumption.

Recommendations

It would be recommended to support the establishment a European data-base for energy consumptionfor existing EU-building stock, also to be able to follow the development of the energy standard of theexisting building stock.

9 Accessibility of the input data

Introduction

As the overall E-TOOL methodology is based on measured energy rating, is the accessibility of the dataof the actual energy consumption of the building of importance.

Besides these consumption data, further input data are needed for carrying out an E-TOOL certification,such as:

General data of the building, age, type etc. Energy consumption data General characteristics of the building, including:

o

Heating system


17/62

17

o Coolingo Domestic hot water systemo Lightningo Thermal envelope

The energy experts carrying out the regional testing of the E-TOOL have been questioned about theaccessibility of the data needed.

Accessibility of input data for E-TOOL certification

Denmark

For the operational rating is the access to transparent and reliable data for the energy consumptionimportant.

In less than 10% of the tests have improvements of the access to data been proposed.These are mainly the tests where it has been difficult to calculate how much of the energy consumptionfor heating have been covered with firewood or biomass,

Austria

Although it is in some cases challenging to obtain the building data for completing the e-tool, it is a

useful instrument to assess building qualities and to show the building owner the potential of energyefficiency measures.

For the success of the e-tool it is crucial that only qualified advisers use it.

Greece

The evaluation of the accessibility of data in Greece can be taken from following column diagram:


18/62

18

Figure 5: Accessibility of data

Slovenia

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


Spain

The main draw-back is the dependency of the E-TOOL on the energy consumption data andinformation on building characteristics (constructive plans, boiler data, etc.).

The evaluation of the accessibility of data in Spain can be taken from following column diagram:

Accessibility of the data

needed for the tests

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

VERY EASY EASY MEDIUM DIFFICULT VERY

DIFFICULT

respons

e


19/62

19

Accessibility of data for the tests- Spain

0

20

4060

80

Very

good

Good Medium Difficult Very

difficult

Percentage

[%]


Bulgaria

Good accessibility of data was registered in 80% of the tests; fair availability of data was registered in18% of the tests and in 2% of the tests significant data was missing. Missing data is in most casesconnected to the energy consumption: missing bills for electricity or heat energy.

Accessibili ty of the data neede d for the tests

424

97

6

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400450

Good Fair Improve


Building can be assessed as a whole with regard to the heat energy consumption, as there is availabledata from the district heating companies. But it is not possible to have such data for consumption ofelectricity as each flat has its own electrical meter.


20/62

20

Conclusion and recommendations on accessibility of input data

No general conclusions at a European level can be made on the accessibility of data for the E-TOOLrating using the measured data. In some countries, e.g. Denmark, the accessibility of accounted

consumption is good. In other countries are such data not present for different reasons.To use the E-TOOL measured rating methodology it will in many cases be necessary to compromise onthe quality of the input data on measured energy consumption using estimates, e.g. based on what thebuilding owner remembers about the size/level of energy bills or simply estimates based on the energyexperts' experience.

Even if the energy expert does not know the exact energy consumption of an existing building, it is stillpossible on the site to identify the potential energy saving measures and make a calculation of thepotential energy savings that can be obtained by implementing these measures. This is the mostimportant part of the E-TOOL rating, which can be carried through, even with estimates on actual

energy consumption of the building being energy rated.If energy savings shall be implemented into the existing building stock of EU, then the problem of lackof information about the actual energy consumption of the buildings shall be solved, e.g. by demandingthe energy supply companies to register the energy consumption. This will in the future provide theenergy authorities with information about the development of the energy consumption.

10 Energy saving measures

Introduction

For the E-TOOL based on the methodology of measured rating, are the guidelines for energy savingmeasures, including costs estimated and information about potential energy savings, key elements. Thiselement of the tool is where the tool actually carries out calculations - on investment costs, energysavings and thereby cost savings.

The overall idea is to be able to identify a relatively limited number of cost efficient energy savingmeasures, which can be described sufficiently precise to be able to estimate the potential energy savingmeasures for a specific building. The investment costs, energy and money savings are transformed into

standard figures per m2

for each specific energy saving measure for each country/region.

The data on energy saving measures are specific for each country and are put into a price matrix of theE-TOOL, from which the tool draws information for calculations. The E-TOOL differs from energyrating tools based on calculated rating basically by using default for U-values of walls and other basisstructure. Taking into account the inaccuracy related to real effect in terms of obtained energy savingsdue to in-complete data of the existing building, e.g. the thickness of the insulation, then this element ofthe E-TOOL is not considered to have major influence on the overall rating accuracy.


21/62

21

Energy saving measures have been identified

For the 6 involved countries: Austria, Bulgaria, Denmark, Greece, Slovenia and Spain have been

identified the "top 10 energy saving measures" and as result, it has shown up to be to a very high degreethe same energy saving measures.

The criteria for selecting the measures have been to select the most common measures within thecountry. Results from each country.

Austria:

Most of the buildings tested were built after 1970, the average heated area is around 1430 m. Theaverage indicator is about 175 kWh/ma and could be reduced to 117 kWh/ma after renovation. Onaverage 76,877 kWh savings could be achieved annually by implementing the suggested measures,

which would require investment costs of about 20,400 in the average.

The figure below shows the percentage of different energy saving measures for all types of buildings(offices, hotels and shops). The most attractive measures were the insulation of external walls, walls tounconditioned space, followed by the exchange of windows. The installation of a new boiler togetherwith a change of the fuel to biomass, the installation of a solar collector system, the insulation of pipesand the substitution of conventional lights by low consumption lights are other measures named quiteoften.

Other measures named for the prospected buildings were the installation of a modern boiler, theinstallation of presence detectors, a change to a gas boiler, the cleaning of the boiler, sealing of windowair leaks, the reduction of the heating set point and the installation of a water saving system.

Percentage of different energy saving measures

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Insulate

externalw

alls

(externally)

Insulate

walls

touncon

ditione

dspace

Change

windo

w

Chan

getobiomassbo

iler

Installs

olar

collct

orsystem

Chan

gelight

sto

lowconsum

ption

Insula

tethepipes

Installthe

rmostat(he

ating)

Installm

odernboile

r

Installp

rescen

cedetectors

Chan

getogas

boiler

Clea

nthebu

rner

Sealingwind

owairleaks

Redu

ceheatingsetp

oint

Installw

ater

saving

%


22/62

22

Figure 9: Distribution of energy saving measures

When the energy saving measures at the different types of examined buildings are evaluated, it can befound that there are some measures that are important for all types of buildings, such as insulation ofexternal walls and walls to unconditioned space, as well as the change of windows but there are alsosome differences.

Energy saving measures in hotels

In hotels, the most frequently suggested measures were the insulation of external walls, walls tounheated space and the roof, followed by the exchange of windows. Another very important measure isthe installation of a solar collector system, because of the high hot water consumption in hotels.

Further suggestions were the change of lights to low efficient ones, the insulation of pipes, the changeto a biomass boiler and the installation of thermostats.

Percentage of different energy saving measures in hotels

0,00%

5,00%

10,00%

15,00%

20,00%

25,00%

Install

mod

ernbo

iler

Change

tobiomassb

oile

r

Chan

getogas

boile

r

Clea

nthebu

rner

Insulate

thepipes

Installthe

rmostat(he

ating)

Redu

cehea

tingsetp

oint

Install

water

saving

Install

solarc

ollct

orsystem

Chan

gelight

sto

lowconsum

ptio

n

Install

prescen

cedetectors

Insula

teexte

rnal

walls(externally)

Insula

tewalls

tounconditione

dspace

Sealin

gwind

owairlea

ks

Chan

gewin

dow


Energy saving measures in shops

Similarly, in shops the most frequently suggested measures are the insulation of external walls, walls tounheated space and the roof, followed by the change of windows. Other measures are the installation ofa biomass boiler, a solar collector system, the change of lights to low consumption and the installationof presence detectors.


23/62

23

Percentage of different energy saving measures in shops

0,00%

5,00%

10,00%

15,00%

20,00%

25,00%

Installm

odernboile

r

Change

tobiomassboile

r

Change

togas

boiler

Cleanthebu

rner

Insulate

thepipes

Installthe

rmostat(he

ating)

Reduce

heatingsetpoint

Installw

ater

saving

Install

solar

collct

orsystem

Change

light

sto

lowconsum

ption

Installp

rescence

detectors

Insulateexternal

walls

(externally)

Insulat

ewalls

tounconditionedspace

Sealingwindow

airle

aks

Change

window


Energy saving measures in offices

In offices, the insulation of external walls and walls to unconditioned space, as well as the exchange ofwindows are measures that are named very often. Especially in offices the change of lights to lowconsumption is an attractive measure for energy savings with a share of around 12 % compared to 4,5

% in shops and 7,5 % in hotels. The installation of a biomass boiler and the insulation of the pipes arealso very important.

Percentage of different energy saving measures in offices

0,00%

5,00%

10,00%

15,00%

20,00%

25,00%

Install

modernbo

iler

Change

tobiom

assb

oiler

Change

togas

boiler

Clea

nthebu

rner

Insulat

ethepipes

Install

thermostat(he

ating)

Reduce

heatingsetp

oint

Installw

ater

saving

Install

solarcollctor

system

Chan

gelight

sto

lowconsum

ption

Install

prescence

detectors

Insulate

externalw

alls

(exte

rnally)

Insulat

ewalls

touncon

ditionedspace

Sealing

windowairleaks

Chan

gewindow



24/62

24

Bulgaria

Top 10 energy saving measures in Bulgaria (for multi dwelling buildings erected before 1999):


Denmark

Most frekvent measures for single dwellings

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Insulation Windows Air filtrat. Temp.Ctr. Boiler Pump

Frequency

%



25/62

25

Greece

Distribution of Energy Saving Interventions

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Cleaning

Burner

Installing

modernboiler

ChangeFuel Oil

toGas. Install

GasBoiler

InsulatingPipes Changing

Glazing-

Windows

Insulating

external Walls

InsulatingWalls

incontactto

unconditioned

premises

Reducing

HeatingSet

Point

Increasing

CoolingSet

Point

Changinglights

tolow

consumption

Installing

presence

detectors

InstallingHVAC

VRV

InstallingWater

Saving

Systems

InstallingSolar

Collectors

Installing

Reflective

Curtains

(Heating)

Installing

Reflective

Curtains

(Cooling)

Installing

Awnings

Improve

Windows

Inflitrations

Intervention

%


Slovenia

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

INSTALL MODERN

BOILER

INSULATE THE PIPES REDUCE HEATING SET

POINT

INSTALLING A SOLAR

COLLECTOR SYSTEM

CHANGING ALL LIGHTS

TO LOW

CONSUMPTION

INSULATING

EXTERNAL

WALLS(outer side of the

wall)

CHANGE WINDOWS INSULATING WALLS

CLOSE TO

UNCONDITIONED

SPACES

INSULATING ROOF

Frequency[%]

Figure 16: Distribution of energy saving measures single dwellings


26/62

26

0

5

10

15

20

25

INSTALL MODERN

BOILER


POINT

INSTALLING A SOLAR

COLLECTOR SYSTEM

CHANGING ALL LIGHTS

TO LOW

CONSUMPTION

INSULATING

EXTERNAL


wall)


CLOSE TO

UNCONDITIONED

SPACES

INSULATING ROOF

Frequency[%]

Figure 17: Distribution of energy saving measures block of dwellings

0

5

10

15

20

25

INSTALL MODERN

BOILER


POINT

INSTALLING A SOLAR

COLLECTOR SYSTEM

CHANGING ALL LIGHTS

TO LOW

CONSUMPTION

INSULATING

EXTERNAL


wall)


CLOSE TO

UNCONDITIONED

SPACES

INSULATING ROOF

Frequency[%]

Figure 18: Distribution of energy saving measures schools

Spain

With respect to the public schools and libraries that have been visited, following energy savingmeasures are considered to be the most common ones:

Windows: changing of frames without thermal bridges


27/62

27

Windows: changing from single to double glazing Walls: External insulation Heating system: changing of boilers (>20 years old) Heating system: installation of regulation system Heating system: installation of thermostats Water: installation of water saving systems (WC) Hot water: installation thermal panels for hot water production (kitchens of the public schools) Electricity: installation of presence detectors (corridors) Electricity: install low consumptions lamps (all)

Distribution of Energy Saving Interventions

0,00

5,00

10,00

15,00

20,00

25,00

Installation new

boiler

Changing lights

low consumption

Installation

presence detector

Insulation external

wall

Insulation internal

wall

Changing window Reduction heating/

increase cooling

set point

Solar panel DHW

%

Figure 19: Distribution of energy saving measures Spain

11 Top 10 energy saving measures in 6 EU countries

The top 10 energy saving measures have been made a trans-national comparison, because this hasimportance for which measures to include into the tool.

As a general approach for the project has comparisons between the different involved countries, e.g. ofenergy consumption, not been carried out., The differences in climate, building traditions, utilization ofbuildings, different numbers of housing area per resident etc. makes it too complex to evaluate withinthis project scope.


28/62

28

Ranking of measureMeasure

AU BG DK GR SI ES Priority

Insulation outer walls 1 1 3 4 2 2 HighInsulation of roofs 6 - 3 HighInsulation, uncond.spaces 1 5 5 HighInsulation of pipes 7 10 6 LowChange windows 3 2 2 6 1 1 HighReducing/stop airfiltration

7 4 9 Medium

Temperature control 8 8 6 2 7 4 Medium

Energy efficient pump 4 Medium

Install presence detector 10 3 7 Medium

Energy efficient light 6 3 1 8 8 LowIncrease cooling set point 5 LowChange to biomass boiler 4 - Mediu

mChange to gas boiler 7 Mediu

mChange to efficient boiler 9 1 8 4 3 Mediu

mClean burner 10 Low

Install solar collector 5 9 6 LowWater savings 4 5 Low

12 Investment costs of energy saving measures

Introduction

For each of the energy saving measures included in the E-TOOL is the identified national (regional)

investment costs based on inputs from the partners of the project. For some of the common energysaving measures have been carried out trans-regional comparison of costs to give some ideas about thelevel of investment costs in the different parts of EU. The results are shown below. The specific costsfor a building will depend on the specific conditions and also on the terms of defining costs, but thefigures can give some indication of level of costs in different countries.

The following energy saving measures are included: Insulation of wall/floor/roof Changing windows / glass Installing biomass boiler Installation of more energy efficient oil boiler Installation of more energy efficient gas boiler


29/62

29

New control for the energy system Solar collector

The following table gives an overview of selected investment cost of energy saving measures and

shows the wide variety of the costs:

Region Wall insulation(16 cm)

/m2

Double glazingwindows

(1.2 W/mK )/m2

New biomassboiler

(50 kW)/kW

Insulation ofpumps and pipes

/m

Slovenia 43 - 76 130 - 208 70 - 300 1 -6Austria 60 - 80 250-450 300 - 400 2 - 5Bulgaria 28 - 40 19 - 120 48-200 3Denmark 170 250 400 7

Spain 15-20 130-150 190-215 5-10Greece 35-40 176-220 - 12

The collected data of the investment cost are entered in the development of the E-TOOL to calculate thecost of selected energy saving measures with the E-TOOL.

The following figures show the average investment costs for different energy saving measures in therespective countries. The underlying data for the investment costs can be found in the Annex.

Average investment costs for insulation of wall, floor and roof

De

nmark

Denmark

Denmark

Denmark

DenmarkA

ustria

Austria

Austria

Austria

Austria

Slovenia

Slovenia

Slovenia

Slovenia

Slovenia

Bulgaria

Bulgaria

Bulgaria

Bulgaria

Bulgaria

Spain

Spain

Spain

Spain

Spain

Greece

Greece

Greece

Greece

Greece

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

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

[/m2]

Denmark Austria Slovenia Bulgaria Spain Greece

Figure 20: Average investment costs


30/62

30

The average investment costs for the insulation of the wall (8 and 16 cm), the insulation of the floor (10cm), and the costs for roof insulation (10 and 20 cm) are shown. The costs to insulate the walls are veryhigh in Denmark, followed by Austria and Slovenia. Greece has the highest prices concerninginsulation of floors.

Average investment costs for windows

Denmark

Denmark

Austria

Austria

Slovenia

Slovenia

Bulgaria

Bulgaria

Spain S

pain

Greece

Greece

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

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

[/m

2]



In Austria the average investment costs for windows with double- and triple glazing are the highestamong the different countries.


31/62

31

Average investment costs for new biomass boilers

Denmark

Denmark

Denmark

Austria

Austria

Austria

Slo

venia

Slovenia

Slovenia

Bulgaria

Bulgaria

Bulgaria

Spain

Spain

Spain

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

< 50 kW 50-100 kW 100-500 kW

[/kW]

Figure 22: Average investment costsThe average investment costs for smaller biomass boilers 50 kW inevery country. Biomass boilers up to 50 kW are most expensive in Denmark and Austria, between 50 -100 kW and 100 500 kW we have the highest investment costs in Austria and Slovenia.

Average investment costs for a new oil boiler

Denmark

Denmark

Denmark

Denmark

Austria

Austria

Austria

Austria

Slovenia

Slovenia

Slovenia

Slovenia

Bulgaria

Bulgaria

Bulgaria

Bulgaria

Spain

Spain

Spain

Spain

0

50

100

150

200

250

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

[/kW]


Oil boilers up to 100 kW have the highest average investment costs in Denmark, followed by Austria.

The costs for a new oil boiler are almost the same for every capacity in Bulgaria and Spain.


32/62


33/62

33

The average investment costs for a new control system are much cheaper in Bulgaria and Spain,especially for heating systems >100 kW. Overall the costs for the installation of a new control systemare the highest in Austria and Greece.

Average investment costs for a solar collector system

Denmark

Denmark

Austria

Austria

AustriaS

lovenia

Slovenia

Slovenia

Bulgaria

Bulg

aria

BulgariaS

pain

Spain

Spain

Greece

Greece

Greece

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

8 m2 30-100 m2 >100m2

[/m2]



The average investment costs for the installation of a solar collection system up to 100 m2 are thefewest in Greece (around 100 /m2) and Denmark (around 200 /m2), for systems above 100 m2 therehave been no data for Denmark. For solar collector systems of 8 m2 there is not much difference in theaverage costs, only in Spain the installation is more expensive.

Results from Austria

In Austria the costs of energy savings in shops, offices and hotels have been compared.


34/62

34

Average savings and costs of energy saving measures

0

20.000

40.000

60.000

80.000

100.000

120.000

Shops Office Hotel

[][kWh]

Costs ()

Savings (kWh)

Figure 27: Average savings

Payback time for energy saving measures in Bulgaria:

Thermal insulation of external walls 8 years; Thermal insulation of roof (water-proofing of roof excluded) 4,5 years Thermal insulation and water-proofing of roof 15,5 years Thermal insulation of basements ceiling 9 years Repair and draught-proofing of windows and external doors 4 years Replacement of windows 20 years Installation of local heating (change of fuel) 11 years.

13 Energy performance (bench mark) after energy retrofitting

It is very simple to derive to the energy performance (bench mark) after retrofitting of the buildingimplementing the energy saving measures - by taking the actual measured heating consumption anddeduct the estimated energy savings through implementing the energy saving measures.

The energy performance can then be compared to what should be the energy consumption of thebuilding, e.g. compared to the standard of the actual building code, or rating the building according tothe national certification energy performance categories.

Because bench mark of the energy consumption after retrofitting is very dependent on the regionalconditions there has not been made a trans-regional comparison.


35/62

35

Results from Austria on commercial buildings

This figure shows the benchmarks for the different building types before and after energy savingmeasures. The greatest difference between the benchmark before and after renovation was discovered athotels. The results are from Austria.

Benchmarks before and after energy saving measures

0,00

20,00

40,00

60,00

80,00

100,00

120,00

140,00

160,00

180,00

200,00

Shops Office Hotel

kWh/m2a

Indicator before

Indicator after

Figure 28: Benchmarks

Most of the buildings tested were built after 1970, the average heated area is around 1,430 m. Theaverage indicator is about 175 kWh/ma and could be reduced to 117 kWh/ma after renovation. Onaverage 76,877 kWh savings could be achieved annually by implementing the suggested measures,which would require investment costs of about 20,400 in average.


36/62

36

Results from Bulgaria

Results from Denmark

Comparison of DK-certificates and E-TOOL

Single Dwellings - energy consumption before and after savingLeft collum DK certificates - Right collum E-TOOL

0

50

100

150

200

250

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

Year of construction

kWh/m2

Before

After

%

pay-back

BeforeAfter

%

pay-back

Figure 29: Comparison E-TOOL to energy audit


37/62


38/62

38

225,4

255,8

209,4

231,5

155,5164,2

141,8151,6

0,0

50,0

100,0

150,0

200,0

250,0

300,0

BLOCK OF DWELLINGS SCHOOLS MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS SINGLE DWELLING

[kWh/m2]

INITIAL E-TOOL BENCHMARK

FINAL E-TOOL BENCHMARK

Figure 31: Benchmark Slovenia

Block of dwellings

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

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

Energyconsumption[kWh/m2

]`

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Paybacktime[year]

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



39/62

39

0,0255

0,01900,0202

0,0289

0,0165

0,0103

0,0129

0,0175

0,0000

0,0050

0,0100

0,0150

0,0200

0,0250

0,0300

0,0350

BLOCK OF DWELLINGS SCHOOLS MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS SINGLE DWELLING

[kWh/m3*DD]

INITIAL E-TOOL BENCHMARK

FINAL E-TOOL BENCHMARK


Single dwelling

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1 10 19 28 37 46 55 6473 82 9110010911

8127

13614515416317

218119

0199208217

22623

524425

326227128028

9298307

Energyconsumption[kWh/m2]`

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Paybacktime[year]

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



40/62

40

Results from Spain

Overview tested buildings Spain

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Schools Office

building

Library -

Music school

Social

services

Museums Sport Bus station-

Market hall

En

ergyconsumption[kWh/m2]

[kWh/m2 before]

[kWh/m2] afer

Figure 35: Benchmark Spain

Conclusions on bench mark after implementing energy saving measuresThe following energy savings are obtained from the national values on energy consumption before andafter implementing the energy saving measures. It has to be taken into account that it is different typesof buildings etc., but the numbers give some indications about the potential for energy savings.

Country Type of buildings Energy savings, %

Shops 38%Offices 20%

Austria

Hotels 38%Bulgaria Dwellings, blocks 46%

Denmark Dwelling, blocks and single 25%Greece Public 20%

Slovenia Dwellings and public 33%Spain Public 40%

The E-TOOL calculates the energy performance of the building (after implementing the energy savingmeasures proposed) and show the result as a part of the E-TOOL energy performance rating.


41/62

41

14 Quality of the E-TOOL rating

Introduction

A key issue in evaluating the E-TOOL rating is to be able to answer the simple question. What is thequality of the E-TOOL rating?

With the approach used in this project the focus of the certificate is to make estimations of potentialenergy savings - in existing buildings. So this has been the criteria for evaluating the performance of theE-TOOL. This is also the central point with regard to implementation of energy savings in the existingbuilding sector - and therefore should also be the central point for promoting the implementation of theenergy performance building directive.

Two methods have been used for evaluating the quality of the E-TOOL energy rating:

Compare E-TOOL/energy audit's proposals for energy saving measures - in Denmark andSlovenia

Questionnaire to energy experts about the accuracy of results based on the energy expert'sexperiences - carried out in Denmark, Slovenia and Spain

Compare E-TOOL/energy audit certificate's proposals for energy saving measures

A pragmatic approach of looking into the results of using the E-TOOL methodology and compare itwith the use of other certification methodologies with respect of identification of potential energysaving measures. Does the E-TOOL identify the same potential energy saving measures.


The results from Denmark include also a comparison with energy audit (calculated) rating, which ingeneral comes to higher energy consumption than the measured (operational) rating.For energy saving measures the calculated rating has identified energy savings measures of around thesame size as the E-TOOL

Results from Slovenia

Comparison of the E-tool results with an energy audit of a block of dwellings, built in 1980.

The building characteristics are: 50 apartments with totally 100 residents Heated floor area 3.100 m2 External wall area 1.940 m2

Uwall values of approx. 0,8 W/(m2

K)


42/62

42

Windows 640 m2 Uwindow value 3,0 W/(m

2K) with high air leakage

Recommended measures: Additional thermal insulation of outer wall with 15 cm thick polystyrene layer. Installation of energy efficient windows with low-e double glazing (Uw=1,1W/m

2K) Additional insulating roof (TI=25cm) Additional insulating walls close to unheated spaces (TI=12cm) Improvement of boiler house and install modern boiler

POTENTIAL SAVINGS

POTENTIAL

SAVINGS

INITIAL

INVESMENT

INITIAL

INVESMENT PAY-BACK PAY-BACK CO2SAVINGS CO2SAVINGS

E-tool Energy Audit E-tool Energy Audit E-tool Energy Audit E-tool Energy Audit

Investment measure [kWh/a] [kWh/a] [] [] [year] [year] [kg/m2] [kg/year]

improvement of boiler

house and install modern

boiler 130.357 85.500 86.000 92.000 11,6 19,0 26.071 17.100

additional insulating walls

close to unheated spaces

(TI=12cm) 17.827 5.230 15.070 7.840 13,7 27,7 3 .565 1.046

change windows from 3,0 to

1,1 [W/m2K] (640 m2) 124.319 163.800 146.286 157.084 20,6 17,6 24.863 32.760

additional insulating

external walls (TI=15cm,

faade) 117.107 76.000 68.953 94.125 9,6 22,0 23.421 15.200 additional insulating of roof

(TI=25cm) 23.263 18.300 17.056 8.175 11,8 10,5 4.653 3.660

Comparison E-TOOL with Energy Audit Slovenia

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

-

20.000

40.000

60.000

80.000

100.000

120.000

140.000

E-TOOL Energy Audit

POTENTIAL SAVINGS [kWh/a]

INITIAL INVESTMENT []

CO2 SAVINGS [kg/year]

Figure 36: Comparison E-TOOL with Energy Audit Slovenia


43/62


44/62

44

Comparison between E-TOOL and Energy Audit

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

-

5.000

10.000

15.000

20.000

25.000

E-TOOL Energy Audit

POTENTIAL SAVINGS [kWh/a]

INITIAL INVESTMENT []

CO2 SAVINGS [kg/year]

Figure 40: Comparison E-TOOL with Energy Audit Slovenia

15 Accuracy of results - questionnaire


E-TOOL evaluation (DK)Result of questionnaires

0

20

40

60

80

100

Survey Function Access Client

Answerin%

Fair

Good

Improve

Figure 41: Result of questionnaires

Results from Slovenia


45/62

45

Figure 42: Result of questionnaires

Results from Spain

Accuracy of the results: Satisfied 60% Accepted 30% Not sufficient (improvements necessary) 10%

Conclusion concerning the accuracy

Evaluation Denmark Slovenia Spain Average

Good 27% 40% 60% 42%Sufficient 34% 40% 30% 38%

In-sufficient 39% 20% 10% 20%

Time required to complete the

survey and the report

0

5

10

15

20

25

less than

30

minutes

30 - 60

minutes

1 - 2

hours

2 - 3

hours

more than

4 hours

Other

response

Accurancy of results based

on your experiences

0

5

10

15

20

25

EXCE

LENT

VERY

GOOD

GOOD

SUFF

ICIENT

INSU

FFICIENT

response

Accessibility of the data

needed for the tests

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

VERY EASY EASY MEDIUM DIFFICULT VERY

DIFFICULT

response

Acceptance of results by client

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

EXCE

LENT

VERY

GOOD

GOOD

SUFF

ICIENT

INSU

FFICIENT

response


46/62

46

The average figure of 80% of energy experts expressing that the E-TOOL rating is good or sufficientmust be said to be satisfactory.

Conclusion on the quality of the E-TOOL rating

In general and overall terms based on evaluation of comparison with energy audits and evaluation byenergy experts the E-TOOL rating seems to be of a satisfactory quality.

16 Description of the contribution to advancement on the state ofthe art

Focus of E-TOOL development on Southern Europe and East/Southern part of Europe

The energy audits and the implementation of energy saving measures are more advanced in theNorthern part of Europe, such as in the partner countries Denmark and Austria.

One of the motivations of starting-up E-TOOL was to use these long-term experiences and to transferthem to other countries. In this sense, it has to be underlined that that e-tool was developed withSpecial focus on buildings in Southern Europe and East/Southern part of Europe. It means that E-tool needs modification or improvements to be used in Northern climate, as here the energy savingmeasures are more precise and not only of general character.

17 Feasibility and impact of E-TOOL

Introduction

In this context is focused on the feasibility and the impact of the E-TOOL in relation to the objectivesdefined for the tool. By "feasibility" is meant E-TOOL's ability of fulfilling the functional objectivesdefined. By "impact" is meant E-TOOL's ability of making an impact in terms implementing energysavings in the building sector of existing buildings. The objectives for the functionality of the E-TOOLare:

Operational/simple/practicable. Promote the implementation of the energy performance building directive. Promote the implementation of energy savings in the building sector.

The feasibility and impact have first of all been evaluated by the energy experts testing the tool. Inconnection to the testing activities the energy experts have filled out questionnaires concerning:

Applicability of the tool, giving characters of: Good/fair/improve. User (energy expert) friendliness, giving characters of: Good/fair/improve.


47/62

47

Accessibility of the data needed for the tests, giving characters of: Good/fair/improve. Acceptance of the results by the client, giving characters of: Good/fair/improve. Time required for completing the survey and the reporting. Improvements of the tool.

17.1 Feed-back from workshops, training seminars

The feasibility and impact of E-TOOL have also been evaluated through the regional workshops carriedout with attendance of regional energy experts, who haven given their feed back on the performance ofthe tool etc. Supplementary to the workshops have been carried out interviews with energy experts, e.g.from energy companies, with evaluation of the tool.

The aim of the training seminars was to explain the usage of the E-TOOL to the energy auditors,technicians of public administration and energy companies. The main tasks therefore have beenfulfilled, as a large number of implied and qualified people were reached and the philosophy and thepractical aspects of the present project could be demonstrated.

The two regional workshops aimed at the dissemination of the project results and the discussion mainlyof the practicable aspects when applying E-TOOL. In the case of Demark and Slovenia, a special pointof discussion was the comparison of E-TOOL to the national certificates.

The general feed-back of the auditors that used E-TOOL was positive, despite of the fact that this toolcould not cove all different aspects of the particular buildings in each partner country.

For example, in the case of large building complex as public buildings, the user influence is importanton the total energy consumption. This is especially important to sport complex building with highenergy consumptions where it is worth to reduce the energy consumption from very high to lowerlevels.

The interaction between the data collection, default values and software is in general a major factor forthe accuracy of the rating. The operational and calculated rating methods have identified the same costefficient saving measures, but the calculated savings and pay-back time are different. It was concludedthat the differences could be caused by calculation models and default values. The difference betweenthe metered and the calculated consumption is often seen by the danish experts and it could be

explained with the software for calculated rating did not take the surplus energy from indirect sourcesinto account.

It was the general opinion that the simple structure of E-TOOL has maintained its reproducibilitycompared to the more detailed structure of the DK-software and reporting. In comparison with morecomplex and advanced rating tools using calculated rating has E-TOOL shown a shorter rating time andhas identified the same potential for cost efficient energy savings in the buildings.

The efficiency of the rating in time is depended on how detailed the examination and registration of thebuilding is required. The calculated rating will in most cases require more data than the operationalrating. The E-TOOL rating took about 1-2 hours for survey and reporting, whereas with calculated

rating takes the process 3-4 hours and it is not feasible at all, because of the low fee, if not the energy


48/62

48

rating is combined with a condition rating of the building. The impact of E-TOOL compared with theDK-certificates is difficult to evaluate.

E-TOOL has been developed with focus on Southern European buildings and modified to adapt the

regional differences in climate and buildings. The experts draw the attention to the uncontrolled airfiltration through building joints walls and roofs and other examples characteristic for the Northernclimate.

It was the experts opinion that the surveyor must have a good and broad knowledge about buildingsand installations, combined with experience from the building industry. The more advanced andcomplex rating tool the better qualifications and training. Technical data about the building in form ofdrawings and other as-built documentation are rare available.

The energy performance of a building depends on in general on climate envelope, efficiency of heatinginstallations and use of buildings.

The results of E-TOOL rating depend on representative and transparent data about building andaccounted energy consumption. With regards to the experts acceptance of E-TOOL as a comprehensivetool for energy rating of existing buildings in comparison with the obligatory DK-certification it wasthe opinion, that for smaller, regular buildings as flats, apartments ect.The use of E-TOOL will be limited where a detailed data acquisition is required and nonerepresentative data for energy consumption are available. With additional modifications could E-TOOLmeet the requirements to a additional rating tool for buildings in Northern Europe.

17.2 Feed-back from the market actors

The E-TOOL software was developed to be a simple and practicable tool that could be used by theenergy auditors prior to training and instruction. The efficient tool is in general accepted from themarket actors, such as energy auditors, public administration and private households as end user, as theresults are clear and the proposed implementation of the energy saving measures are given also with aneconomical point of view. Therefore, the inclusion of the investment and pay-back time in the resultsand not only a certificate is important for the real implementation of the measures.

17.3 Training/instruction for using E-TOOL

An important indication if the E-TOOL is simple is that it is easy for energy experts to use the tool withlittle education or training activities. Nevertheless, it has to be underlined that the results depends on thequalification of the auditor.Prior to the Testing with the E-TOOL in the 6 involved partner countries, training activities of theenergy experts were carrying out. Each partner decided on his own how to train the experts and tochoose the necessary academic background of the auditors.

Country Education activity

Austria Training seminars were carried out for 50 energy experts in energy management

and cooling of commercial buildings. As part of the seminars E-TOOL was


49/62

49

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

software.Denmark The experts involved in testing the E-TOOL had brief instructions, and they were

able to use it directly. They were instructed, if they had any questions.Greece Mini seminars were carried out instructing the energy experts in the software and

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

registeredSpain The testing of E-TOOL was carried out by energy experts from the local region.

The public administration technicians of the local government as end users and alocal company that is responsible for the implementation of the energy savingmeasures that are proposed for the public buildings were trained additionally.

From the experience of the regional training activities in connection to preparing regional testingactivities it can be concluded that education of energy experts in using the E-TOOL can be made with ashort instruction for one day or less. This is a clear indicator that the E-TOOL is a simple tool - forenergy experts with experience in energy rating.

17.4 Time required for completing the carry out E-TOOL certification

The time used for completing an E-TOOL certification including survey and reporting to the end-user(house owner) gives a good indication, if the tool is simple and practicable. The time required is also animportant success criteria defined for the E-TOOL, with a maximum of 2-3 hours for a standarddwelling.

As part of the regional testing activities the energy experts carrying out the testing of the E-TOOL wereasked to answer a question of: "Time required for completing the survey and the reporting".

Denmark

For Denmark, a typical value is to perform the test and survey on single dwellings was done within 1-2hours in 95% of the cases.

Greece

In Greece, the time effort is reasonably higher due to the additional time effort for the data baseestablishment as well as due to the fact that more complex buildings were tested.

Spain


50/62

50

In Spain the energy rating only included public buildings, most of them larger buildings with a poordata base that had to be established expressively for the project. Therefore, the target of E-TOOL ratingwithin 2-3 hours can't be satisfied. The time spent was up to 7 hours with possibility of reducing to 5hours by improving efficiency.

General overview

From the testing activities it can be concluded, taking the limited number of tests into account, whichthe E-TOOL is able to carry out energy rating within the objective of 2-3 man hours. This only countsfor "standardised buildings".

Nevertheless, the comparison between the countries does not give a representative picture. The mostimportant factor is the availability of the input data and the complexity of the building on the time that

has to be spent for the complete test procedure.

The following table gives an overview on the time spent in some representative partner countries.

Time DK Slovenia ES Greece

0,5 - 1 2 28 0 19

1- 2 95 43 15 22

2 -3 2 17 40 30

3 - 4 1 10 40 22


51/62

51

other national certifications. This comparison gives an indication on the quality of the developed toolwithin the frame of the present contract as a simple and user-friendly tool.

The results of E-TOOL rating of single dwellings in Denmark and Slovenia indicate a good consistencyin the overall picture and trends of the two different rating methodologies calculated rating andoperational rating.

Most notable is the difference between the metered and the calculated consumption, the same resultscan be seen from other comparisons in DK of the calculated and metered consumption, they also showsa lower metered consumption than calculated. For both ratings is it clear that the eldest buildings havethe largest saving potential and shortest pay-back time.

Comparison of E-TOOL rating and DK-certificates

Single Dwellings - energy consumption before and aftersaving

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

0

50

100

150

200

250

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

Year of Contruction

kWh/m

0

10

20

30

40

50Before

After

% saving

pay-back

Before

After

% saving

pay-back

E-TOOL

DK-certif.

Figure 44: Comparison of E-Tool results with assessment audit Single Dwellings (Denmark)

In the case of Slovenia, the E-TOOL results were compared with respect to the calculated energysavings.

18 Support of the implementation of energy savings in buildingby E-TOOL energy rating

18.1 Criteria for the evaluation of the implementation


52/62

52

The overall objective of the project has been to develop a tool, which can promote the implementationof the EU building performance building directive. This objective has been "translated" into developinga tool, which can be applied for efficient energy rating of existing buildings.

Above has been described how the E-TOOL performs in relation to: Accessibility of input data Generation of proposals for energy saving measures Generating bench marks of energy consumptions after implementing energy saving measures Need for education of energy experts Time required for the E-TOOL rating

Additionally to these evaluations of the single elements of the E-TOOL has also been carried out anevaluation of the overall performance of the tool in relation to:

Acceptance of results by the clients Accuracy of results - based on the energy experts' experiences.

The evaluation has been carried through the energy experts carrying out the tests of the tool filling out aquestionnaire.

18.2 Acceptance of results by clients

On important aspect in the evaluation process of the E-TOOL project is the acceptance of the outcomeof the results and the functioning of the tool by the experts. In general terms, it can be concluded thatthe clients acceptance of the results is good.

Acceptance Denmark Greece Slovenia Spain

Good 75% 52% 38% 90%Fair 22% 32% 55% 5%


Results of clients acceptance of the results

In the following, some examples are given that were supplied by the project partners.

Greece

The main reason of the E-Tools relative high acceptance from its users, is the simplicity of the tool andthe fact that the completion of an audit does not require as many working hours like other morecomplex software do, demanding the input of data relative to energy use, geometrical features andbuildings use. Such methodologies aim in simulating the buildings operation and usually do not


53/62

53

incorporate any data related to the financial evaluation of the buildings operation and the measuresproposed for the improvement of its energy behaviour. Thus E-Tool proved to be in advance, providingvery useful information regarding the pay-back period of the measures proposed by the auditors,helping the financial directors of the services to have draft estimation on the economics of theinterventions. The presentation of the financial appraisal for a number of occasions proved to be astrong motivation to the clients to take into strong consideration E-Tools results. The relative highlevel of the tools acceptance is presented at the following graph.

Figure 45: Results from questionnaires with experts evaluation (Greece)

Slovenia

External experts from ENSVET energy advisory network that tested E-TOOL in their ever day workexpressed their opinion about the tool. As and additional feature, the partners from Slovenia developed

an own new webpage that was used to collect the experts opinion. This is an important aspect to beconsidered.

Spain

Satisfied 90%

Accepted 5%

Not sufficient (improvements necessary) 5%

The E-TOOL and the corresponding activities are highly accepted by the client. Acceptance of theresults by client was mostly very acceptable like a clearness of results too. The end user, in this case thelocal municipality, was generally spoken satisfied with the results of the E-TOOL. Nevertheless, themain draw-backs came from the availability of the input data. In some buildings it was very time-intensive to get all the needed data. In some cases (special buildings) E-TOOL was considered not to besufficient enough and it was considered to be a too simple tool.


54/62

54

18.3 Accuracy of the results

In this context, the evaluation is not made by actually carrying out precise energy audits to compare theE-TOOL energy rating. In stead is used a "subjective" evaluation method based on the energy expert'sexperience. The "audit-evaluation" has been made by comparing energy audits and E-TOOL ratings,mentioned previously in the report.

In the case of Slovenia, the external experts from ENSVET energy advisory network that tested E-TOOL in their ever day work expressed their opinion about the tool and as well on the accuracy of theobtained results.

For this purpose, the web-site http://www.gi-zrmk.si/EU_projekti/E-tool was used to collect the expertsresults of testing and their opinions.

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

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

Accuracy Denmark Greece Slovenia Spain

Good 42% 65% 39% 60%Fair 22% 24% 39% 30%


Overview on the accuracy of results

The evaluation of the accuracy of the results obtained by E-TOOL is not scope of the work of thepresent project. In order to precise an absolute comparison of the obtained results by E-TOOL based onthe operational rating method with other methods or national certification standards based onassessment rating, it is recommended in further studies within the frame of the EU network to definethe criteria on the accuracy of the results.

The experts that used in the different countries the E-TOOL expressed their singular and subjectiveoption on the tool based on their own experiences while working with other methods and came to theconclusion that the results that have been obtained are within a representative margin and thereforewere considered to be accurate.


55/62

55

19 Overall evaluation of E-TOOL for energy rating

Introduction

Above has been described the results of the evaluation of E-TOOL for energy rating with respect todifferent specific evaluation criteria. In this section it is the intention to summarize the results ofevaluation, to discuss the results and to make recommendations on the utilization of E-TOOL, and ingeneral the measures (operational) rating methodology for energy rating of existing buildings.

Summarization of evaluation of single elements.

Evaluation criteria Results "Mark"

Bench marking of energyconsumption

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

To beimproved

Accessibility of input data Positive feed-back AcceptableGuidelines for energy savingmeasures

Top 10 energy measures identified, U-values etc. arefixed, output for investment costs and energy savingsacceptable for standard buildings

Good fortypical

buildingsEnergy performance after

implementing energy savings

Acceptable results when comparing with energy audits Acceptable

Accuracy - compare with energyaudit

Acceptable for energy saving measures and energyperformance after implementing energy savingmeasures

Acceptable

Need of education Small need of education GoodTime required Around 2/3


56/62

56

Often the results have to be interpreted. The energy experts shall have the know-how and experience toclarify about or assess data, eventual not correct calculations, inter etc. For doing that a high level ofknow-how and experience is required. For the success of the e-tool it is crucial that qualified energyexperts use it.

Therefore a focus was put on the qualification of the advisers. The training seminars organised weresuccessful and ensured that a number of experts are able to use the e-tool.

Bulgaria

The real energy consumption in multi-dwelling buildings in Bulgaria is not relevant for testingthe building, as many households do not heat the whole dwelling or maintain very lowtemperature in the rooms. When using the data from the energy bills it appears that the building

does not need any improvement. This is because we assess not the building, but the userbehaviour For energy certification in Bulgaria we have to assess the whole building, its qualities and

energy characteristics. It is not possible to make this assessment flat by flat. It is very difficult to collect the data regarding the energy consumption. There is always

something missing (either invoices for heating or for electricity) Building can be assessed as a whole with regard to the heat energy consumption, as there is

available data from the district heating companies. But it is not possible to have such data forconsumption of electricity as each flat has its own electrical meter.

The E-TOOL is very useful at the beginning of the refurbishment process, as different energy

saving measures can be easily assessed. The E-TOOL is also useful for public buildings as schools and hospitals were the indoor

temperature should reach a minimal required comfort and the building is managed by oneorganisation.

Denmark

The energy

Http-__WP 1 - D 3.3 Final Publishable Report

Documents