View stunning SlideShares in full-screen with the new iOS app!Introducing SlideShare for AndroidExplore all your favorite topics in the SlideShare appGet the SlideShare app to Save for Later — even offline
View stunning SlideShares in full-screen with the new Android app!View stunning SlideShares in full-screen with the new iOS app!
1 Towards zero emission buildings: learning and professional development in energy operation of large buildings •Background & research focus •Findings from work in progress •Presentation of cases & further research Helen Jøsok Gansmo STS Norwegian University of Science and Technology Helen.email@example.com .
N Research Centre on Zero Emission Buildings, ZEB• Vision: eliminate GHG emissions caused by buildings • Main objective of ZEB: develop competitive products and solutions for existing and new residential and commercial/public buildings that will lead to market penetration of buildings with zero emissions of GHG related to their production, operation and demolition• ZEB activities divided in five work packages: o WP1: Advanced materials technologies o WP2: Climate‐adapted low‐energy envelope technologies o WP3: Energy supply systems and services o WP4: Energy efficient use and operation (T. Berker, R. Bye, H. Gansmo et al.) o WP5: Concepts and strategies for zero emission buildingswww.zeb.no/ firstname.lastname@example.org www.zeb.no
ZEB: zero emission buildings• Inter‐/nationally no clear and agreed definition – Balance between energy export and import over a period of time must be zero (or positive)• ZEBs intrinsically connected to the energy infrastructure (el, district heating, gas, bio, etc.) the buildings are part of #1 Reduce energy demand#2 Generate renewable energy – The best form of clean and renewable energy is the energy not used Sartori, Graabak & Dokka (2010) email@example.com www.zeb.no
Energy efficiency• Building industry: “the 40 % sector” in an environmental context. – 40 % of all use of materials and products are related to buildings – Buildings account for about 40 % of all primary energy use (contribute to significant GHG emissions) • Reducing the demand for energy may be more cost‐efficient than extending the capacity in the energy supply system. – A combination of making buildings more energy‐efficient and using a larger fraction of renewable energy is therefore a key issue to meet the global challenges related to climate change and resource shortages. – Reducing the energy consumption related to both existing and future building stock complements the broad international research on new renewable energy sources. • Energy efficiency is the simplest and cheapest climate initiative• Few property owners actually make their buildings more energy efficient firstname.lastname@example.org www.zeb.no
Existing buildings towards ZEBs• In developed economies, at least half of the buildings that will be in use in 2050 have already been built. Marnay, C. & M. Stadler et al. (2008): “A Buildings Module for the Stochastic Energy Deployment System.” Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Report LBNL‐291. Mahadev Raman (2009): “Mitigating Climate Change: What America’s Building Industry Must Do.” Design Intelligence. http://www.institutebe.com/Existing‐Building‐Retrofits/Why‐Focus‐On‐Existing‐Buildings.aspx• Energy consumption in the building sector (residential, industrial and commercial buildings) constitute a total of 80 TWh in Norway. – Goal: saving 10 TWh of energy use in buildings over 10 years • Minimum 8 TWh must be saved in existing buildings through rehabilitation and implementation of energy efficiency measures. • Energy efficiency measures in existing buildings are essential for achieving the goal. email@example.com www.zeb.no
Energy dichotomies• Production vs consumption – Architects/industry vs inhabitants• Attitude vs action – Information deficit vs weak regulations• Technology fixes – behavior changes – Technologies to save energy do not travel well from laboratories to a building’s everyday life (Berker 2006) – Mismatch between design of smart systems and use of the systems ‐> potential for energy saving not realized (Jeltsma et al. 2003) – Sustainability will not be reached by technology alone, but by deep learning by individuals, society and institutions (Brown & Vergragt 2008)• Dichotomies overlook dynamic, ongoing processes as well as other relevant actors “in between” – Building operators have a special position in making buildings work; they negotiate between users, technologies and the building. Their understanding is vital for reaching energy efficiency goals (Aune, Berker & Bye 2008) firstname.lastname@example.org www.zeb.no
Research focus• Towards ZEB through learning from – (energy efficiency) operation of – existing buildings• What and who promotes energy saving behavior in large buildings, and how? – What kind of “in between” actors exist/are missing – What stimulates energy efficiency – What energy management processes are developed – How do the “in betweens” learn and share knowledge email@example.com www.zeb.no
Initial cases of large buildingsCase Description Users Energy mg.mentThe Co‐operative Resource for housing Board members of “Guidance and Housing Federation of cooperative (board housing cooperatives, lobbying”Norway (NBBL) members) researchers, policyRøros Rehabilitation Health institution, Guests: 3 days to 5 Involves “in between short term rehab stays weeks actors” internally and (heart, lung, cancer, externally. Visual obesity) control + central operation systemNTNU Large university, Faculty, students, = several campuses researchers: DaytimeSiT: Student Welfare Provides student Students: 0,5 – 5 years Techno fixes.organisation housing, cafeterias, (average 1,5 years) Excludes “in between day care, sports and actors” , relies on health facilities users firstname.lastname@example.org www.zeb.no
Preliminary findings: Sum of case initiatives as measurements towards ZEB?• Case study buildings operated internally without professional FM• Low degree of end‐user involvement• Energy efficiency management characterized by – internal resources – “personal” drive from (single) beacons – local knowledge – centralized operation systems combined with observations• Driven by CSR and environmental goals rather than economy• Argue that project design/development and operation must be regarded together involving “in between” actors all the way• Different socio‐technical systems “in between” to enhance energy efficiency email@example.com www.zeb.no
Røros Rehabilitation• 8300 sq m. low, narrow and long building in the World Heritage Site Røros • Dry climate. Challenging temperature range ‐40 to 30 C • District heating. Electricity for lighting, pumps and other equipment• Ventilation system rebuilt after 2 years because architects did not listen to local knowledge• Most important issues – House keeping and receptionists (nurse) responsible for energy saving (turn down, switch off, unplug) – Local knowledge and daily observations crucial – feeling of ownership – Rehab architecture bad for energy efficiency – Energy saving lighting systems and bulbs not good enough – Technical forum for operation managers in the organization – “FM is a waste of money – but would like to be evaluated/updated by their expertise” firstname.lastname@example.org www.zeb.no
NTNU• Norways most popular student city. 20 000 students. 7 different faculties/53 departments at 7 major campuses with more than 100 laboratory facilities. 550 000 sq m of heated area in buildings from 100 to 2 years old• Most important issues – Central operation system for surveillance and identification of potential savings combined with hands on observation/local knowledge – Includes everybody in operation/enhances their knowledge to build up a better organization with devoted employees and better results • Relies on beacons/tinkerers • Building maintenance/ care takers are next group to be included • NTNU recently established an energy efficiency group incl end users – Participates with local knowledge in project planning/design and operation to integrate solutions with other buildings – Network of ”know‐hows” as ”in betweens” – Energy efficiency profit “given” to faculty/research• Potential – Teach faculty/students how to work energy efficiently – Disseminate their solutions to others – Case for teaching/research email@example.com www.zeb.no
SiT Student Welfare organisation• Non‐profit organization led by students – employs professionals• Promotes a more environmentally friendly everyday life through information campaigns – QUIZ – How environmentally friendly are you? http://www.sit.no/environment/quiz/ Too cool for comfort?• Mix of technology fixes and awareness rising/environmental attitudes as well as deficit reports from users – Operators/house keeping only present upon malfunction/students moving out – Students are ”fresh” tenants with short stays (1,5 years) – Technologies: • From passive houses to old buildings • Eco‐showers/faucets • Automatic energy saving lighting • Collective/dense environments, shared facilities (1 kitchen, 8 stoves for 116 students) • Individual metering for shared units • Comfort switch: activate comfort for 3 hours • Challenge: more diff to finance rehab than new buildings• Potential – Give students incentives to save – Utilize part time student reps as opinion leaders as well as maintenance people – Teach students how to live energy efficiently for their later life (cf. Janda 2011) firstname.lastname@example.org www.zeb.no
• How students are informed…. Passive and low energy houses The passive houses have requirements for heating below 80 kWh per m2/year. • low energy housing with a power requirement for heating below 100 kWh per m2/year.• Eco‐friendly laundries where the heat from the washing machines and dryers is used to preheat water for other washing machines and to warm up buildings. • Energy‐efficient lamps and lighting control motion sensors, photocell control on all outside lights• The student timer and night setback energy saving control for heaters, "the student timer“, automatically lowers the room temperature to seven degrees if not being served within three hours. Maximum comfort temperature in the flats is 24 degrees; maximum back temperature is 17 degrees.• Most SiT apartments are fitted with equipment for night setback of the heat.• Water‐related measures eco‐showers in all apartments reducing water consumption about 50 %. If you shower five minutes a day, it costs about 1200 kWh p/y; with eco‐showers approx. 600 kWh p/y. Ordinary showers use 16‐20 gallons of water per minute; eco‐ showers use 8‐10. SiT housing will also replace old toilets because they use much more water per flushing than new ones. An old toilet uses about 9 liters flushing, a new approx. 6 liters.• To put it all in perspective, here’s a little economy: ‐ 1m3 ‐ 1000 liters of water cost 21.80 (7.37 water and sewage from 14.42, 2010 price). A toilet running a little all the time can easily consume 200,000 liters of water a year = 4360, ‐. ‐ Small leak from the hot water faucet (1 drop per second = 7000 liters per year) costs approx. 560 kWh per year (kWh price kr.1) + kr.153, ‐ in the water fee = 713, ‐. ‐ The dripping from the hot water faucet (30,000 liters/year) costs approx. 2400 kWh (kWh price kr.1) per year + £. 654, ‐ in the water fee = 3054, ‐ ‐ Crane running (100,000 liters pr.year) costs 8000 kWh (kWh price kr.1) per year + £. 2180, ‐ in the water fee = 10,180,‐.• Electric locks on all exterior doors to prevent cold air from intruding during winter,.• Vegetarian food In our canteens, there’s always possible to go vegetarian. The production of vegetarian food requires much less resources than animal foods, and it also contributes to far less pollution. Cereals and plants are used for animal feeding, and in this process lots of energy gets lost. Just like humans, animals consume energy for living, and thus give off heat and fertilizer. On top of all, the energy comes from fossil fuels normally used to transport animals for slaughter and produce artificial fertilizers. email@example.com www.zeb.no
Paradox and further research• Energy management driven by environmental goals. Profit returned to end‐users (who do not take part in the measures) – What motivates energy management? • To do a good job! Utilize and enhance local knowledge – “We don’t need FM in the daily operation but would occasionally like to learn from them.” (Rehab with small operation org) – “We work to keep FM out! We are better than most consultants because we have local knowledge and connect the buildings in an integrated system!” (NTNU with large operation org) – What would be the added value of FM?• Helen.firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com www.zeb.no