Presentation to Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Conference, 2008, Stuttgart, BRD on the Passivhaus in Scandinavia. organiser website: http://www.reeco.eu/startseite.html Program for conference - 7 - 9 March, 2008 http://www.lamaisonpassive.fr/forum/Passivhouse-Conference-CEP08.pdf

1. The Passivhaus Concept for Non-Residential Buildings in
Scandinavia: Case Studies and Progress
European Passive House Conference
Stuttgart, BRD 7 -9 March, 2008
David N. Benjamin, PhD, Sivilarkitekt, MNAL
Fridtjof Nansens Pl. 9 0160 Oslo, Norway
Telephone: +47 22425040
email: david@benjaminarkitektur.no

2. Energy Use in Buildings in Scandinavia
• For period from 1990 to 2007
• Swedish office bldgs 144 Kwh/m2 - yr
• Norwegian office bldgs 225 – 325 Kwh/m2 – yr
• (In 1931, norwegian offices used about 214 kwh/m2 – yr)
• Danish office bldgs 115 and above Kwh/m2 – yr
• For last 10 years, energy use in Norwegian office buildings has
gotten worse
• Due to increased use of glass facades in Norway, thus high U
value, difficulty with air leakage, and high internal heat gain in
summer months cooling season: Year round problems

3. Scandinavian Building Energy: Norwegian Schools are the
Exception
• 1931 era schools, energy use at about 167 Kwh/m2 – yr
• Era of after 1997, school energy use about 155 Kwh/m2 – yr
• not large improvement, but in the right direction

4. Scandinavia: Rate of Yearly Construction in M2
Consequences for Energy and Climate Gases
• Norway building offices/administration buildings at low rate of 2.000.000
m2/yr, and peak rate of 5.000.000 m2/yr (2007)
• At peak rate: normal total primary supplied energy use for individual bldgs of
300 Kwh/m2-yr translates to 1.05 million Mwh
• Reduction of energy intensity to new Norwegian standard for office buildings,
165 Kwh/m2-yr, applied sector wide, gives reduction of 675,000,000 Kwh/yr
• Translates to 20,25 million metric tonnes CO2, if produced with coal
• (.3 tonnes/Kwh energy used), or about 202,5 million USD at 10 $/Tonne
• Energy saved in Norway in buildings, means less Norwegian demand for
Norwegian Hydro power
• Thus, this hydro power can be sold to Europe, and replace power produced
with coal, oil, gas, or other non-renewable resources

5. Solutions for Getting to Efficiency: The Passivhaus Standard
• The 10 W/m2 phenomenon: at this power rating, buildings
can more or less heat themselves, independent of climate
• In central Europe, this means an energy demand for space
heating of 15 Kwh/m2-yr
• Main space heating load from the return air itself in the
ventilation system through a heat exchanger
• The specifications necessary to get to this level of power
rating make for a better built, cleaner, and more
operationally economic building,
• mechanical, filtered ventilation with ECM motors,
• tight, no draft spaces, therefore less wear and tear on structure
• low U value windows that produce no draft and less cold radiative heat loss w fine
tuned solar heat gain factor and transmittance
• more of the right light where and when it is needed
• Money saved on shorter, simpler ventilation duct runs, lower pressure

6. Higher Efficiency Buildings: Higher Solar Component
• Higher efficiency building envelope allows for larger
component of space heating, space cooling if necessary,
water heating, and lighting to be provided by natural, passive
sources:
• natural light for space heating and as visual light source
• Natural light for solar thermal water heating, that can also be
used to pre-heat ventilation box
• earth tunnels can provide space cooling, pre-cooling of intake
air for economizer cycle with dampers in intake run of
ventilation
• Higher solar component allows for slight reductions to
mechanical plant sizing

7. Progress Toward Scandinavian, Non-Residential Passive Houses
• 42 non-residential passive houses in Europe, from
www.passivhausprojekte.de
• 0,3% of the total of approximately 13,000 total passive
houses in Europe
• Approximately 100 passive houses existing, under
construction, or in planning stages now in Scandinavia
• Only xxx are non-residential buildings
• Why?

8. Scandinavia: The Climate and Economic Challenge
• Climate: Most of Norway, large part of Sweden has a yearly
degree day of 5.000 °C or more, compared to much of West-
Germany with about 2,900 °C from http://www.ecofys.com
• Norway/Sweden therefore approximately 72% more
temperature difference for all 24 hour periods of the year,
below the normal minimum temperature set point for
residential and some work interiors, 18 °C
• Much greater challenge to space heating demand
• Kiruna, Sweden has a DD level of 7.074 °C! Approximately 2,5
times the value of most of Germany

9. Other Challenges
• Despite moderating influence of ocean at coast, frequent high
winds cool the micro climate
• Further inland, continental climate is extremely cold
• Above Polar Circle, 66 2/3° 6 months of night, so no solar
component, near Jokkmokk, Sweden on map
• Historical availability of biomass (wood) for fuel or hydro
power for electrical generation
• Norwegian electricity still approx 90% from hydro, but
changing
• Norwegians selling hydro and buying other electricity from
gas, oil, nuclear because of price differences

10. Solutions for Scandinavia: Economics
• Amory Lovins: The cheapest energy is the energy that you do
not buy: Negawatts
• Conservation and energy efficiency are thus the cheapest and
probably the easiest way to buy new energy generation, not new
coal or even solar plants
• But conservation and energy efficiency will allow for more use of
renewable energies as peaks loads are shaved and base load is
reduced for central generating plants or for local generation at
source, such as for industrial/commercial buildings or dwellings,
thus low energy intensity technologies such as passive solar space
heating, solar thermal hot water heating, and others become
significant additions to the overall energy supply for buildings, and
thus economically viable

11. Solutions for Scandinavia: Comfort/Productivity
• Building a conserving, energy efficient building with the passive
house technologies and design methods also produces a more
comfortable building
• More comfortable buildings = often higher employee productivity=
often less employee absenteeism
• Lower U value building envelope, including windows, mean less
cold drafts, less radiative cooling from people during heating
season, less chance of condensation and mold growth
• Tighter building means less cold (or hot) drafts of air, sturdier, less
chance of mold growth, less maintenance, longer structure life
• Fine tuned Solar Heat Gain Factor and Transmittance factor of glass
mean more solar energy in winter and less heat gain in summer

12. Scandinavina Solutions: Policy and
Implementation
• Scandinavian governments, environmental organisations,
professional societies, and universities are working on issue,
some promoting passivhaus standard
• New network group Passivhus Norden starting
• Initiating partners were IVL (the Swedish Environmental
Institute) and the Norwegian State Housing Bank
• All Scandinavian countries accepted EU Directive 2002 91/EC
of 2002 on the Energy Performance of Buildings, with
guideline classifications from G (worst) to A (best) and an A+
for ”zero net energy buidings”
• Level A basically a passivhaus

13. Solutions for Scandinavia: Passivhäuser and almost Passivhäuser
New IEE proposal from Nordic countries to develop the
passivhaus standard for the Nordic countries, headed by Riiki
Holopainen at VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, see
www.vtt.fi
Statens Bygforsknings Institut in Denmark has ongoing
research
project ”Det energirigtige, fleksible kontorhus” (The Energy
Smart Office Building) to get to about 95-100 Kwh/m2-yr,
good
because new buildings in DK about 175
Kwh/m2-yr, for total primary energy supplied
similiar programs ongoing in Sweden and Norway

14. Case Studies: Nydalspynten Office Building, Oslo, Norway

15. Case Studies: Nydalspynten
Niels Torp Arkitekter

16. Case Studies: Nydalspynten
• design primary energy use at 85 Kwh/m2-yr
• well below new Norwegian energy code level 165 Kwh/m2-yr
• design space heating demand of 17 Kwh/m2-yr
• extra cost of triple glazing and extra insulation, should have
gone all the way to 15 Kwh/m2-yr

17. Case Studies: Vargbroskolan pre-school, Storfors, Sweden
K-Konsult
• New pre-school
• Normal school total primary energy at approx. 250 Kwh/m2-
yr
• Vargbroskolan aiming for 50-60 Kwh/m2-yr
• Should reach passivhaus stnd for power intensity of 10 W/m2
and space heating of 15 Kwh/m2-yr

20. Case Studies: Arts/Performance Centre at Valenheim, Norway
part of the Norwegian Wood Program, 2008
Arkitektgruppen Valenheim

21. Case Studies: Valenheim, Norway

22. Case Studies: Valenheim, Norway
• performance hall design total primary energy demand at 120
Kwh/m2-yr
• new Norwegian standard for cultural centres 180 Kwh/m2-yr
• Design total primary energy demand for small artist
apartments at passivhaus standard, under primary energy
demand 60 Kwh/m2-yr and space heating of 15 Kwh/m2-yr

23. Case Studies: Preikestollhytta, West Coast, Norway
mountain lodge at the Preikestoll cliff, Helen & Hard Architects

24. Case Studies: Preikestollhytta
• massive wood element construction provides reasonable
insulation values
• design primary energy demand at 60% below code level, or
144 Kwh/m2-yr
• far from passive house standard, but good attempt
considering the aesthetic and cultural imperatives of building
a wooden cabin that is supposed to look innovative

25. Case Studies: Preikestollhytta

26. Case Studies: Preikestollhytta

27. Case Studies: Preikestollhytta

28. Case Studies: Grong School, Grong, Norway
Letnes Arkitektkontor

29. Case Studies: Grong School, Grong, Norway
• project from 1998, before the Passive House concept known in
Scandinavia
• small school at 1.001 m2
• extra insulation, heat recovery ventilation, updraft help to
ventilation to save on fan power
• provides a low 107 Kwh/m2-yr primary energy demand, measured
and confirmed
• high space heating demand at 87 Kwh/m2-yr due to designers and
engineers concentration on reducing ventilation fan power and
daylighting
• problems with CO2 sensor, did not account for infiltration in design
phase
• 2002, added hydronic heating, consumption down to approx 70
Kwh/m2-yr

30. Case Studies: Grong School, Grong, Norway

31. Case Studies: Grong School, Grong, Norway

32. Case Studies: Grong School, Grong, Norway