| 1. |
- Aabrekk, S., et al.
(författare)
-
Deliverable 2.2 Possible market strategies for one stop shops of renovation of single family house. : Report prepared for Nordic Innovation Centre
- 2012
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- The document describes examples of missions, visions and strategies based on the potentialpiloting models defined in report 3.2. It is based on status of interest amongst thestakeholders, and the information, figures and challenges which were discussed in the reportD 2.1 Stakeholder interests. The different service models will request different missionsdepending on the stakeholder in charge of the model. Also visions and strategies could bedifferent depending on the composition of services (core business) offered within each pilot aswell as the additional services offered by sub suppliers and the network connected to the pilot.In the report D2.1 Stakeholders interests, the following 5 different piloting models aresuggested:Type 1 Joint venture of industry, retailers and contractorsType 2 Joint venture of construction/renovation, industry and architect/engineering companiesType 3 Complementary businesses expand their business into renovationType 4 Joint venture of type house producer, bank and home owner associationType 5 Energy/building consultant, real estate agent and financing institutions, e.g. bankIn this report we have described mission, vision and market strategies for 4 existing orproposed models; The Project Manager by Bolig Enøk, from Norway (type 1), ENRA concept(type 2) and K-Rauta & Rautia (type 3) from Finland, and ProjectLavenergi (type 2) fromDenmark. Cleantech by Dong Energy (type 3) from Denmark is also addressed, but notdescribed in detail. As there is no concrete examples representing two of the models fromD2.1 (types 4 and 5), we have made a theoretical exercise in developing mission, vision andmarket strategies for type 5 model, while type 4 is not handled.It may be concluded that there are commercial actors in different parts of the value chainwhich see an opportunity in developing different approaches of “one stop shops” for energyefficient holistic renovations. The concepts are still in a development phase and differ inrespect to how they are organised (as supply side). We may say that the pilots in the differentcountries also find inspiration from each other through this research project. Due to thecomplexity of a holistic renovation project, it is a prerequisite with good partnerships even inthe development phase. In all identified models there is however one main actor taking thelead and ownership to the business model.Independent of the business model the responsible company needs to make some strategicchoices. The starting point is the SWOT analysis which sums up all major challenges for therespective business model. How the strategies should be developed is described in this report.Although the main target group for this report is companies seeing an interest in developingbusiness models for renovation, we found some important issues identified in the SWOTanalysis which the authorities may influence including lack of interest in the market (need ofmore public attention through holistic campaigns), fragmented solutions (stop subsidisingsingle measures without a holistic plan), serious vs unserious companies (need of certificationsystems to build credibility), cost focus leads to limited renovation (need of subventionschemes for holistic retrofitting including tax deduction measures) and finally lack incompetence within companies (need of support to training and collaboration acrosscompanies).
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Börjesson, Pål, et al.
(författare)
-
Biomass Transportation
- 1996
-
Ingår i: Renewable Energy. - : Elsevier BV. - 0960-1481. ; 9:1-4, s. 1033-1036, s. 1033-1036
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Extensive utilisation of logging residues, straw, and energy crops will lead to short transportation distances and thus low transportation costs. The average distance of transportation of biomass to a large-scale conversion plant, suitable for electricity or methanol production using 300 000 dry tonne biomass yearly, will be about 30 km in Sweden, if the conversion plant is located at the centre of the biomass production area. The estimated Swedish biomass potential of 430 PJ/yr is based on production conditions around 2015, assuming that 30% of the available arable land is used for energy crop production. With present production conditions, resulting in a biomass potential of 220 PJ/yr, the transportation distance is about 42 km. The cost of transporting biomass 30-42 km will be equivalent to 20-25% of the total biomass cost. The total energy efficiency of biomass production and transportation will be 95-97%, where the energy losses from transportation are about 20%. Biomass transportation will contribute less than 10% to the total NOx, CO, and HC emissions from biomass production, transportation, and conversion.
|
|
| 4. |
- Börjesson, Pål, et al.
(författare)
-
Future Production and Utilisation of Biomass in Sweden: Potentials and CO2 Mitigation
- 1997
-
Ingår i: Biomass & Bioenergy. - 1873-2909 .- 0961-9534. ; 13:6, s. 399-412
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Swedish biomass production potential could be increased significantly if new production methods, such as optimised fertilisation, were to be used. Optimised fertilisation on 25% of Swedish forest land and the use of stem wood could almost double the biomass potential from forestry compared with no fertilisation, as both logging residues and large quantities of excess stem wood not needed for industrial purposes could be used for energy purposes. Together with energy crops and straw from agriculture, the total Swedish biomass potential would be about 230 TWh/yr or half the current Swedish energy supply if the demand for stem wood for building and industrial purposes were the same as today. The new production methods are assumed not to cause any significant negative impact on the local environment. The cost of utilising stem wood produced with optimised fertilisation for energy purposes has not been analysed and needs further investigation. Besides replacing fossil fuels and, thus, reducing current Swedish CO2 emissions by about 65%, this amount of biomass is enough to produce electricity equivalent to 20% of current power production. Biomass-based electricity is produced preferably through co-generation using district heating systems in densely populated regions, and pulp industries in forest regions. Alcohols for transportation and stand-alone power production are preferably produced in less densely populated regions with excess biomass. A high intensity in biomass production would reduce biomass transportation demands. There are uncertainties regarding the future demand for stem wood for building and industrial purposes, the amount of arable land available for energy crop production and future yields. These factors will influence Swedish biomass potential and earlier estimates of the potential vary from 15 to 125 TWh/yr.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
- Dodoo, Ambrose, 1979-, et al.
(författare)
-
Building energy-efficiency standards in a life cycle primary energy perspective
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Energy and Buildings. - : Elsevier BV. - 0378-7788 .- 1872-6178. ; 43:7, s. 1589-1597
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- In this study we analyze the life cycle primary energy use of a wood-frame apartment building designed to meet the current Swedish building code, the Swedish building code of 1994 or the passive house standard, and heated with district heat or electric resistance heating. The analysis includes the primary energy use during the production, operation and end-of-life phases. We find that an electric heated building built to the current building code has greater life cycle primary energy use relative to a district heated building, although the standard for electric heating is more stringent. Also, the primary energy use for an electric heated building constructed to meet the passive house standard is substantially higher than for a district heated building built to the Swedish building code of 1994. The primary energy for material production constitutes 5% of the primary energy for production and space heating and ventilation of an electric heated building built to meet the 1994 code. The share of production energy increases as the energy-efficiency standard of the building improves and when efficient energy supply is used, and reaches 30% for a district heated passive house. This study shows the significance of a life cycle primary energy perspective and the choice of heating system in reducing energy use in the built environment.
|
|
| 10. |
- Dodoo, Ambrose, et al.
(författare)
-
Carbon implications of end-of-life management of building materials
- 2009
-
Ingår i: Resources, Conservation and Recycling. - : Elsevier BV. - 0921-3449 .- 1879-0658. ; 53:5, s. 276-286
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- In this study we investigate the effects of post-use material management on the life cycle carbon balance of buildings, and compare the carbon balance of a concrete-frame building to that of a wood-frame building. The demolished concrete is either landfilled, or is crushed into aggregate followed by exposure to air for periods ranging from 4 months to 30 years to increase carbonation uptake of CO2. The demolished wood is assumed to be used for energy to replace fossil fuels. We calculate the carbon flows associated with fossil fuel used for material production, calcination emission from cement manufacture, carbonation of concrete during and after its service life, substitution of fossil fuels by recovered wood residues, recycling of steel, and fossil fuel used for post-use material management. We find that carbonation of crushed concrete results in significant uptake of CO2. However, the CO2 emission from fossil fuel used to crush the concrete significantly reduces the carbon benefits obtained from the increased carbonation due to crushing. Stockpiling crushed concrete for a longer time will increase the carbonation uptake, but may not be practical due to space constraints. Overall, the effect of carbonation of post-use concrete is small. The post-use energy recovery of wood and the recycling of reinforcing steel both give higher carbon benefit than the post-use carbonation. We conclude that carbonation of concrete in the post-use phase does not affect the validity of earlier studies reporting that wood-frame buildings have substantially lower carbon emission than concrete-frame buildings.
|
|
