BPIE: Europe's buildings under the microscope - PU Europe

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Figure 2B7 – Building envelope insulation requirements Source : BPIE survey. Cost optimality line is based on the analysis undertaken by Ecofys in the study on U-Values for Better Energy Performance of Buildings, 2007 2 Roof 2 Walls U Values [W/m 2 K)] U Values [W/m 2 K)] 1,5 1 0,5 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 HDD Floor U Values [W/m 2 K)] 2 1,5 1 7 6 5 4 3 0,5 2 1 0 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 HDD HDD Maximum U Value requirement Ecofys 2007 cost optimality line U Values [W/m 2 K)] 1,5 1 0,5 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 HDD Window/door MT CY PT EL ES IT LV (1) FR BG BE NL IE HU SI HDD (5) 560 782 1282 1663 1842 1907 1970 2483 2686 2872 2902 2906 2922 3053 Roof 0.59 0.85 0.9-1.25 0.35-0.5 0.45- 0.32- 0.65 0.65 0.2κ-0.35κ 0.2- 0.25 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.25 0.25 0.2 Walls 1.57 0.85 1.45-1.8 0.4-0.6 0.57- 0.94 0.33- 0.62 0.25κ-0.5κ 0.36- 0.40 0.35 0.4 0.4 0.37 0.45 0.28 Floor 1.57 2 0.45-0.5 0.62- 0.29- 0.69 0.38 0.2κ-0.35κ 0.37- 0.40 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.37 0.45 0.9 Window/ Door 5.8 3.8 2.6-3.2 3.1-5.7 1.3-3.7 1.8κ-2.4κ 1.7-1.9 1.8 2.5 4.2 2.2 1.6 1.1 -1.6 UK (3) RO DE SK CH (2) DK CZ AT PL LT EE SE (4) NO FI HDD 3115 3129 3239 3453 3482 3503 3571 3573 3616 4094 4444 5444 5646 5850 Roof 0.2 0.2 0.24 0.19 0.17 or 0.2 0.2 0.24 0.2 0.25 0.16 0.15-0.2 0.18 0.09 Walls 0.3 0.56 0.24 0.32 0.17 or 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.35 0.3 0.2 0.2-0.25 0.22 0.17 Floor 0.25 0.35 0.3 0.17 or 0.2 0.2 0.45 0.4 0.45 0.25 0.15-0.2 0.4-0.6 0.18 0.16 Window/ Door 2 1.3 1.7 1.3 1.8 1.7 1.4 1.7 1.6 0.7-1.4 1.6 1.0 NOTES (1) Depending on type of building (residential, public, industrial etc.) where κ is a temperature factor, κ = 19/(Tin-Tout), Tin and Tout denote indoor and outdoor temperatures, respectively. (2) Depending on evidence of thermal bridges (3) For England & Wales (4) Depending on type of building (residential and non residential) & type of heating (electric and non electric). These represent overall U values (5) Mean HDD values for period 1980-2004 based on Eurostat data LEGEND HDD: Heating degree days. 84 | Europe’s buildings under the microscope
iii. Other requirements A number of countries (e.g. Austria, Denmark, France, Estonia and Poland) have introduced minimum requirements for specific fan power (generally expressed in W/l.s or kW/m 3 .s.). Given the increasing use of mechanical ventilation system, the fan power requirement in low energy buildings is becoming an important issue. Additionally most countries have requirements associated with the minimum performance of boilers and airconditioning systems. Most building codes require minimum levels of daylight to be achieved within buildings, whilst ensuring that solar gains do not result in significant overheating and/or the requirement for air conditioning. Building requirements associated with limiting solar gains vary from simple approaches (e.g. limiting window areas on building aspects exposed to solar gains) through to requirements for complex modelling and simulation to demonstrate that effective measures have been adopted to provide solar protection. The Concerted Action report 1 recommended that much greater attention should be given to the issue of estimating the impact of summertime overheating in the methodology in order to reduce the rapid increase in demand for air conditioning. In addition to specifying maximum U values, several countries have also set limits for maximum permissible thermal bridging. This is generally expressed in W/mK. Thermal bridges can significantly increase the building energy demand for heating and cooling and in nearly Zero Energy Buildings thermal bridging can account for a significant proportion of the total heat loss or gain. Thermal bridging is specific to the design and specification and can be complex and time consuming to calculate. For this reason, some countries allow a default thermal bridging value to be used, based upon a percentage (typically 15%) of the overall heat loss calculation. However, if a detailed thermal bridging calculation has been undertaken, which demonstrates that thermal bridges have been reduced or eliminated, this value can be used instead of the default. ASIEPI estimate that “a third of EU Member States have no real ‘goodpractice’ guidance on thermal bridges in the framework of their building energy regulations. The quality of guidance in the remaining States is very varied” 35 . 35 ASIEPI Information Papers P188 and P189 http://www.asiepi.eu/wp-4-thermal-bridges/information-papers.html Europe’s buildings under the microscope | 85
Page 1 and 2:
Europe’s buildings under the micr
Page 3 and 4:
Foreword Buildings are at the pivot
Page 5 and 6:
ContentS FOREWORD Acknowledgements
Page 7 and 8:
ExEcutivE summAry From the emotiona
Page 9 and 10:
Space standards (expressed through
Page 11 and 12:
Buildings vary remarkably in terms
Page 13 and 14:
The absence of previous requirement
Page 15 and 16:
It is, however, not sufficient to o
Page 17 and 18:
In all the scenarios, the estimated
Page 19 and 20:
Introduction A vital picture of the
Page 21 and 22:
The Challenge Many experts agree th
Page 23 and 24:
Europe’s buildings under the micr
Page 25 and 26:
areas. These factors were defined f
Page 27 and 28:
A. building typology From large com
Page 29 and 30:
The floor space breakdown per count
Page 31 and 32:
IE UK GR NO NL MT SI DK IT SK FR FI
Page 33 and 34: Figure 1A8 - The non-residential se
Page 35 and 36: While the dataset of residential bu
Page 37 and 38: Size Information on the size of non
Page 39 and 40: Ownership and tenure The ownership
Page 41 and 42: Data availability on the ownership
Page 43 and 44: C. Energy Performance It is widely
Page 45 and 46: Mtoe Figure 1C3 - Historical final
Page 47 and 48: The performance of households depen
Page 49 and 50: Within the existing European stock,
Page 51 and 52: In addition to the lack of sufficie
Page 53 and 54: Specific energy use (kWh/m 2 a) in
Page 55 and 56: A. Barriers & Challenges Improving
Page 57 and 58: years, while many businesses will n
Page 59 and 60: Lack of advice/information Even wit
Page 61 and 62: Figure 2A2 - Building owner’s dec
Page 63 and 64: B. Regulatory and legislative frame
Page 65 and 66: At the moment all countries have im
Page 67 and 68: Although the certification schemes
Page 69 and 70: Number of countries with penalties
Page 71 and 72: IE IT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK
Page 73 and 74: Table 2B4 - Calculated impacts and
Page 75 and 76: LV NL NO PL PT SI SK SE UK The Mini
Page 77 and 78: Table 2B6 - Summary of building ene
Page 79 and 80: egulated energy and total energy re
Page 81 and 82: LT LV MT NL NO PL PT RO SE SI SK Mi
Page 83: Prescriptive-based requirements for
Page 87 and 88: Building code requirements for exis
Page 89 and 90: Enforcement and Compliance Building
Page 91 and 92: Financial programmes fall into the
Page 93 and 94: Table 2C2 - A summary of selected f
Page 95 and 96: D. Other Programmes The BPIE 2011 s
Page 97 and 98: Europe’s buildings under the micr
Page 99 and 100: The previous chapters so far have g
Page 101 and 102: Even when viewed purely in economic
Page 103 and 104: At the other end of the scale, reno
Page 105 and 106: New Member States from Central and
Page 107 and 108: Determining the practical limit for
Page 109 and 110: Figure 3B1 - Cost reductions for di
Page 111 and 112: projects to assess the viability of
Page 113 and 114: C. Setting the scene This section e
Page 115 and 116: An initially slow growth in the ann
Page 117 and 118: Scenario 4 - Two-stage renovation T
Page 119 and 120: Table 3C7 - Overall results to 2050
Page 121 and 122: Figure 3C3 below compares the prese
Page 123 and 124: Final remarks and policy recommenda
Page 125 and 126: • Finally, the EU should support
Page 127 and 128: • A reliable and continuous data
Page 129 and 130: DEFINITIONS Air-conditioning system
Page 131 and 132: U-Value: is the measure of the rate
show all

BPIE: Europe's buildings under the microscope - PU Europe

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?