| 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. |
- 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.
|
|
| 4. |
- Dodoo, Ambrose, 1979-, et al.
(författare)
-
Effect of thermal mass on life cycle primary energy balances of a concrete- and a wood-frame building
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Applied Energy. - : Elsevier BV. - 0306-2619 .- 1872-9118. ; 92:1, s. 462-472
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- In this study we analyze the effect of thermal mass on space heating energy use and life cycle primary energy balances of a concrete- and a wood-frame building. The analysis includes primary energy use during the production, operation and end-of-life phases. Based on hourby- hour dynamic modeling of heat flows in building mass configurations we calculate the energy saving benefits of thermal mass during the operation phase of the buildings. Our results indicate that the energy savings due to thermal mass is small and varies with the climatic location and energy efficiency levels of the buildings. A concrete-frame building has slightly lower space heating demand than a wood-frame alternative, due to the benefit of thermal mass inherent in concrete-based materials. Still, a wood-frame building has a lower life cycle primary energy balance than a concrete-frame alternative. This is due primarily to the lower production primary energy use and greater bioenergy recovery benefits of the wood-frame buildings. These advantages outweigh the energy saving benefits of thermal mass. We conclude that the influence of thermal mass on space heating energy use for buildings located in Nordic climate is small and that wood-frame buildings with CHP-based district heating would be an effective means of reducing primary energy use in the built environment.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Dodoo, Ambrose, et al.
(författare)
-
Life cycle primary energy implication of retrofitting a wood-framed apartment building to passive house standard
- 2010
-
Ingår i: Resources, Conservation and Recycling. - : Elsevier. - 0921-3449 .- 1879-0658. ; 54:12, s. 1152-1160
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Here we analyze the life cycle primary energy implication of retrofitting a four-storey wood-frame apartment building to the energy use of a passive house. The initial building has an annual final energy use of 110 kWh/m(2) for space and tap water heating. We model improved thermal envelope insulation, ventilation heat recovery, and efficient hot water taps. We follow the building life cycle to analyze the primary energy reduction achieved by the retrofitting, considering different energy supply systems. Significantly greater life cycle primary energy reduction is achieved when an electric resistance heated building is retrofitted than when a district heated building is retrofitted. The primary energy use for material production increases when the operating energy is reduced but this increase is more than offset by greater primary energy reduction during the operation phase of the building, resulting in significant life cycle primary energy savings. Still, the type of heat supply system has greater impact on primary energy use than the final heat reduction measures.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
- Dodoo, Ambrose
(författare)
-
Life cycle primary energy use and carbon emission of residential buildings
- 2011
-
Doktorsavhandling (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- In this thesis, the primary energy use and carbon emissions of residential buildings are studied using a system analysis methodology with a life cycle perspective. The analysis includes production, operation, retrofitting and end-of-life phases and encompasses the entire natural resource chain. The analysis focuses, in particular, on to the choice of building frame material; the energy savings potential of building thermal mass; the choice of energy supply systems and their interactions with different energy-efficiency measures, including ventilation heat recovery systems; and the effectiveness of current energy-efficiency standards to reduce energy use in buildings. The results show that a wood-frame building has a lower primary energy balance than a concrete-frame alternative. This result is primarily due to the lower production primary energy use and greater bioenergy recovery benefits of wood-frame buildings. Hour-by-hour dynamic modeling of building mass configuration shows that the energy savings due to the benefit of thermal mass are minimal within the Nordic climate but varies with climatic location and the energy efficiency of the building. A concrete-frame building has slightly lower space heating demand than a wood-frame alternative, because of the benefit of thermal mass. However, the production and end-of-life advantages of using wood framing materials outweigh the energy saving benefits of thermal mass with concrete framing materials.A system-wide analysis of the implications of different building energy-efficiency standards indicates that improved standards greatly reduce final energy use for heating. Nevertheless, a passive house standard building with electric heating may not perform better than a conventional building with district heating, from a primary energy perspective. Wood-frame passive house buildings with energy-efficient heat supply systems reduce life cycle primary energy use.An important complementary strategy to reduce primary energy use in the building sector is energy efficiency improvement of existing buildings, as the rate of addition of new buildings to the building stock is low. Different energy efficiency retrofit measures for buildings are studied, focusing on the energy demand and supply sides, as well as their interactions. The results show that significantly greater life cycle primary energy reduction is achieved when an electric resistance heated building is retrofitted than when a district heated building is retrofitted. For district heated buildings, the primary energy savings of energy efficiency measures depend on the characteristics of the heat production system and the type of energy efficiency measures. Ventilation heat recovery (VHR) systems provide low primary energy savings where district heating is based largely on combined heat and power (CHP) production. VHR systems can produce substantial final energy reduction, but the primary energy benefit largely depends on the type of heat supply system, the amount of electricity used for VHR and the airtightness of buildings.Wood-framed buildings have substantially lower life cycle carbon emissions than concrete-framed buildings, even if the carbon benefit of post-use concrete management is included. The carbon sequestered by crushed concrete leads to a significant decrease in CO2 emission. However, CO2 emissions from fossil fuels used to crush the concrete significantly reduce the carbon benefits obtained from the increased carbonation due to crushing. 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 provide higher carbon benefits than post-use carbonation.In summary, wood buildings with CHP-based district heating are an effective means of reducing primary energy use and carbon emission in the built environment.
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
