IEE ECOLISH Improvement of Energy Efficiency of Low Income Housing Zoltán MAGYAR Hungary

IEE ECOLISH

Improvement of Energy Efficiency of Low Income Housing

Zoltán MAGYAR

Hungary

The problem - general

• Energy use in residential buildings in EU is 9500 PJ (= 23% of total use) > largest proportion

• Measures on existing residential buildings will make major contribution in energy and CO2 reduction

But large number of barriers:

• Technologies are available (more based on new buildings)• Financial constraints • Social constraints• Organisation

The problem - specific

• Social housing and (extreme) low incomes– Often high energy consumption (poor thermal and building physical

quality, building services)– In combination with poor IAQ and Thermal Comfort– Increasing energy prices (>> inflation rates), leading to fuel poverty

• Problematic spread ownership– how to organise– who is interested/responsible

• Allocation and risk of revenues of investments– Investors do often not have repays of investments– How to allocate the repays?

Objectives of ECOLISH

Objective: investigate and demonstrate the feasibility and the potential of instruments like

Energy Performance Contracting

Target groups: occupants with low income

Means: organising ESCO companies and EPC, involving occupants

… organised on 4 pilot locationsHeerlen - the Netherlands

Ogre- Latvia

Pieria – Greece

Pécsvárad – Hungary

Representing 4 different

Regions, cultures and climate zones

(moderate, cold, mild, continental)

Ogre (LV) Heerlen (NL) Pecsvarad (HU) Pierniki (GR)

Number of investigated apartments 238

837 single family

dwellings 107 150

Ownership 100% 80 % private, 20 % rented 99%

Workers Housing Organisation and

inhabitants Occupancy person/app. 2.2 2.8 2.2 2.6

Age ≤ 18 16% 24% 16% 14% under 14

Age 18 - 65 63% 66% 75%59% between 15-

65

Age 65+ 21% 10% 9% 27% Occupant behavior no heat during the nights 0 80% 31% 100%

Occupant behavior Lowering temperature during the nights 100% 20% 69% 0%

Analysis of the pilot locations

Social analysis (questionairre, 97 questions)• Ownership of the apartments• Average occupancy/ apartments• Age group distribution• Occupants heating habits/behaviour

Technical analysis •Temperature•Building structure•Heating, DHW, cooking, ventilating•Energy use•Habits•Calculation

Pilot location Heerlen (NL)

Energy analysis EPBD• Original1960’s * Renovation 1980’s

– 5075 m3 nat. gas * 2605 m3 nat. gas – EI = 4.05 (G-label) * EI = 2.68 (F-label)

Actual situation

• Fitted gas consumption: 2190 m3

• Energy-index = 2.18 (E-label)

• Some packages:Costs Pay-back time CO2 red. EI Label[euro] [years] [%] [-] [-]

0. Average actual situation 0 0 0 2.18 E1. Renovation of building envelope 13880 23.6 36.4 1.47 C2. HE-combined boiler, mechanical exhaust 4385 85.6 3.4 2.13 E3. HE-combined boiler, mechanical exhaust and solar system 7785 61.1 8.2 2.05 E4. HE-combined boiler, mechanical exhaust and heatpump boiler 8055 999 -5 2.24 E5. HE-combined boiler, demand controlled ventilation 5251 45.3 7.4 1.99 D6. HE-combined boiler, demand controlled ventilation and solar system 8651 45 12.2 1.9 D7. HE-combined boiler, demand controlled ventilation and heatpump boiler 8921 999 -1 2.09 E8. Blockheating Cogen 1445 999 -4 2.25 E9. Districtheating (minewater with HP) 6476 18.2 68.1 1.9 D10. Measures 1 and 2 18265 31.2 36.6 1.47 C11. Measures 1 and 5 19132 29.5 40.4 1.33 C12. Measures 1 and 6 22531 31.1 45.2 1.24 B

b. Additional package

Measures

Basic package plus:

Insulation Behind Facades /stuck (180 m2)

HE glazing +insulated panels

Investment

€ 114.000 inclusive VAT

Gas saving

7.500 m3 yearly.

Financial scheme:Financing by savings € 104.000Own contribution € 10.000Home appreciation PM

Monthly cost additional package

€ -

€ 50

€ 100

€ 150

€ 200

€ 250

€ 300

€ 350

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

jaren

per

maa

nd

, p

er a

pp

arte

men

t

energy

interest

reference

d. Sustainable package

d Sustainable package

Measures

Complete package plus:

solar collector

Investment

€ 208.000 inclusive VAT

Gas saving

10.700 m3 yearly.

Financial scheme:Financing by savings € 149.000Own contribution € 59.000

Home appreciation PM

Monthly cost sustainable package

€ -

€ 50

€ 100

€ 150

€ 200

€ 250

€ 300

€ 350

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

jaren

per

maa

nd

, p

er a

pp

arte

men

t

energy

interest

reference

Overview packagesOverview packages Vieheide

€ -

€ 50.000

€ 100.000

€ 150.000

€ 200.000

€ 250.000

Basic Additional Complete Sustainable

Packages

Inve

stm

ent

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Em

issi

on

red

. [t

on

/jr]

Investment

Ow n contribution

Emission reduction

Ogre, Latvia Concrete panel houses

Typical social problems• Problems connected to social and

political change and transition taking place in Latvia;

• Lack of income;• Individual problems economic and

social, lack of self-esteem and self-reliance, young people prefer to move to Riga and work abroad. Lack of interest in municipal politics and public issues is also a problem at the individual level;

• Lack of extension and knowledge in home economics and especially in house management;

• Lack of free time • FUEL POVERTY!

• They spend 40 – 50 % of net income on energy cost

Pecsvarad, Hungary

• 121 flats in 10 buildings

• Min. floor area 65 m2

• Max. floor area 105 m2

Flat in the cornerCategory H (bad)

A+

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

A+

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

A+

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

Flat in the middle Category E (better than average)

General buildingCategory F (average)

Energy certification based on current situation

Indicators Actuel value Allowed value After renovation

Spec. heat loss factor 0,52 W/m3K 0,27 W/m3K 0,17 W/m3K

Intecrated energy performance 228 kWh/m2a 133 kWh/m2a 100 kWh/m2a

Buildings datas

Category A (energy saving) Category B (better than requirement)

75,3% 68,4% 92,7%

Category B (better than requirement)

After renovation

General buildings Flat in the middle Flat in the corner

A+

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

A+

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

A+

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

Pieriki, Greece

Space heating

Space heating

Specific gas consumption for heating DWH DWH

Total gas con. Total IEP

m³/a kWh/m²a m³/m²a m³/akWh/m²a m³/a kWh/m²a

Ogre 125 -- 67 192

Heerlen 1876 148 14,5 424 33,4 2300 181

Pecsvarad 1120 153 16 -- 60 1120 225

Pieriki -- 144 -- -- 54,5 -- 198

Comparison the energy usesIntegrated Energy Performance

EPBD certification in HungaryEPBD certification in Hungary

NAMEHEATING DEMAND

HEAT. PERIOD

HEATING ENERGY

PERFORMANCE

DHW ENERGY PERFOR-MANCE

INTEG. ENERGY PERFOR-MANCE

ALLO-WED

VALUECATEGORY

kW h/a kWh/m2a kWh/m2a kWh/m2a kWh/m2a

Ogre 18oC 144 5064 150,1 46,4 196,5 128,1 F

Pieriki 53 3504 161,7 13 174,7 142,7 E

Heerlen 90 4368 221,8 37,7 259,4 146,6 F

Pécsvárad 104 4632 169,7 64,8 234,5 133,94 F

1. All the pilot locations within their own local and

climate conditions with the HU calculation

2. Technical analysis of all the pilot locations within the

Hungarian standard and climate conditions

NAMEHEATING DEMAND

HEAT. PERIOD

HEATING ENERGY PERFOR-MANCE



ALLO-WED

VALUE

CATE-GORY


Ogre 18 oC 119 3840 100,6 46,4 146,9 128,1 D

Pieriki 71 4632 236 13 249,9 142,7 F

Heerlen 99 3624 196,8 37,7 234,5 146,6 F

Pécsvárad 104 4632 169,7 64,8 234,5 133,94 F

• Measures

• Thermal insulation of the external walls, roofs, and basement• Retrofitting of the installation (condensin boilers, TRV and in

case of Heerlen heat recovering ventilation)

3. Comparision of the insulation and retrofitting measures for all the pilot locations within their own

local and climate conditions with HU calculation

NAMEHEATING DEMAND

HEAT. PERIOD




ALLOWED VALUE

CATEGORY


Ogre 20 C 99 5472 87,9 46,4 134,3 128,1 D

Pieriki 23 2400 30,5 13 43,5 142,7 A+

Heerlen+heat recovery 46 648 18,6 36,5 55 146,6 A+

Pécsvárad 58 3480 45,8 44,3 90,1 133,94 A

3. Comparision of the insulation and retrofitting measures for all the pilot locations within their own

local and climate conditions with HU calculation

• Measures

• Thermal-insulation of the external walls, roofs, and basement

• Retrofitting of the installations (condensing boilers, TRV, and in case of Heerlen heat recovering ventilation)

4. Comparision of the thermo-insulation measures for all the pilot locations within the Hungarian standard

and climate conditions (in Pecsvarad)

NAMEHEATING DEMAND

HEAT. PERIOD



INTEG. ENERGY

PER-FOR-

MANCE

ALLOWED VALUE

CATEGORY


Ogre 82 3936 55 46,4 101,5 128,1 B

Pieriki 32 3216 45,9 13 58,8 142,7 A+

Heerlen +Heat recovery 51 528 14 36,5 50,5 146,6 A+

Pécsvárad 58 3480 45,8 44,3 90,1 133,94 A

4. Comparision of the insulation and retrofitting measures for all the pilot locations within the

Hungarian standard and climate conditions (in Pecsvarad)

Conclusions

• In social housing energy costs are high in combination with poor thermal comfort and indoor air quality

• Saving potential and benefits are high• Benefits can be allocated to investments• Specific problem is spread ownership: to be solved by organising

occupants and forming legal entities; very important to achieve any results and commitment.

• Important to provide a balanced set of energy saving measures, measures to improve IAQ and thermal comfort, in combination with ways how to finance this for these groups of housings that normally don’t have possibilities for this.

• Many buildings are at the end of their technical and economical lifetime• Risk allocation in energy exploitation is still a big problem

Recommendations

• Role of municipalities can be important, different political interest can be a threat

• ESCOs could play a new and important role. Residential sector can be a new and interesting business area

• We started with pilots, considered as „hopeless cases", but these cases appeared to be not so hopeless after all ……

www.ecolish.com

Documents

IEE ECOLISH Improvement of Energy Efficiency of Low Income Housing Zoltán MAGYAR Hungary