The impact of energy-saving installations in European homes on the life cycle cost

STUDY
THE IMPACT OF ENERGY-SAVING INSTALLATIONS IN
EUROPEAN HOMES ON THE LIFE CYCLE COST
Guy Kasier
11/09/2012
ECI Publication No. Cu0176
Available from www.leonardo-energy.org

Publication No. Cu0176
Issue Date: 2012-09-11
Page i
Document Issue Control Sheet
Document Title: The impact of energy-saving installations in European homes on
the Life Cycle Cost
Publication No.: Cu0176
Issue: 01
Release: Public
Author(s): Guy Kasier
Reviewer(s): Diedert Debusscher/Hans De Keulenaer
Document History
Issue Date Purpose
1 2012-07-06 Draft NL
2 2012-07-12 Draft NL after comments
3 2012-08-20 Final NL
4 2012-09-11 Final EN
Disclaimer
While this publication has been prepared with care, European Copper Institute and other contributors provide
no warranty with regards to the content and shall not be liable for any direct, incidental or consequential
damages that may result from the use of the information or the data contained.
Copyright© European Copper Institute
Reproduction is authorized providing the material is unabridged and the source is acknowledged.

Page ii
CONTENTS
Summary .....................................................................................................................................................1
1 Introduction..............................................................................................................................................2
2 Energy consuming applications in the home ..............................................................................................2
3 The shell-related energy-saving measures .................................................................................................3
4 Other energy-saving installations ..............................................................................................................3
5 The energy calculations.............................................................................................................................3
6 Lower energy consumption, lower LCC, or both? .......................................................................................4
7 The cases ..................................................................................................................................................4
7.1 The energy-saving installations ........................................................................................................................4
7.2 Parameters used...............................................................................................................................................5
8 Case 1: New apartment in Central Europe..................................................................................................6
8.1 Reference energy consumption........................................................................................................................6
8.2 The Life Cycle Cost............................................................................................................................................7
9 Case 2: Renovated apartment in southern Europe .....................................................................................8
9.1 Reference energy consumption........................................................................................................................8
9.2 The Life Cycle Cost............................................................................................................................................9
10 Case 3: Newly constructed house in northern Europe ............................................................................ 10
10.1 Reference energy consumption....................................................................................................................10
10.2 The Life Cycle Cost........................................................................................................................................11
11 Case 4: Renovated house in southern Europe......................................................................................... 12
11.1 Reference energy consumption....................................................................................................................12
11.2 The Life Cycle Cost........................................................................................................................................13
12 Conclusions........................................................................................................................................... 14
13 Bibliography.......................................................................................................................................... 15

Page 1
SUMMARY
The energy-saving measures most often applied in homes relate to better insulation of the outer shell.
Nevertheless, other technologies and installations can drastically drive down the energy consumption of a
home. These include, amongst others, the solar boiler, heat pump, and integrated home system. Some of
these less well-known techniques do even better than additional insulation, depending, of course, on the
climate, the type of building (apartment or house), and the age of the building (new construction or
renovation). Nevertheless, in these cases the additional investment has a short payback period and results in a
lower home life cycle cost (LCC). That is the conclusion of a study carried out by PB calc & consult bvba for the
European Copper Institute.
This report gives a summary of four cases from that study. For the solar boiler, we see an energy reduction of
10 to 15%. The LCC increases by 1% or falls by 4% over a period of thirty years, depending on the particular
circumstances. A geothermal heat pump in northern Europe does very well, consuming 43% less energy and
providing an LCC reduction of 17%. We also see that different configurations of integrated home systems to
control the heating, cooling, and sun blinds always reduce energy consumption by between 5% and 21%. With
controlled sun blinds, the LCC sometimes falls by 5% or rises by 13%, depending on the situation. Finally,
automated standalone sun blinds are also examined. Here we see energy reductions of 3% to 15%. The LCC
however is always higher (4% to 18%) compared to the reference building.
Subsidy schemes generally include incentives for insulating the outer shell even though this is not always the
best—and certainly not the only—investment able to reduce energy consumption and the LCC. Other energy-
saving installations and techniques deserve a place alongside the better known measures.

Page 2
1 INTRODUCTION
Europe must save energy. Appropriate household energy-saving installations for both new constructions and
renovations can help in this. But what does it cost? What is the total cost of certain measures over a thirty-
year period when we take into account the investment, maintenance, and usage costs? There are a number of
less well-known technologies and installations that can be applied in addition to the more widely known
applications involving the outer shell (roof, floor, and wall insulation and frames and glazing). This raises the
question of how these compare to one another and to shell-only related measures with regard to energy
reductions and life cycle cost (LCC).
The European Copper Institute (ECI) commissioned a limited study of the impact of different energy-saving
measures and installations in European houses and apartments based on a thirty-year life cycle cost (LCC). In
certain cases it reveals surprising results where the less well-known energy-saving technologies and
installations sometimes do better than the more common shell-related energy-saving measures. This report
provides local and European level policymakers with indications for making choices between different energy-
saving measures that can be applied to existing and new houses and apartments. These choices can play a role
in achieving the European 2020 objectives (20% energy-saving, 20% renewable, and 20% lower emissions).
A summary is given of four cases in three different climate zones (northern, central, and southern Europe).
2 ENERGY CONSUMING APPLICATIONS IN THE HOME
Depending on the climate zone, the heating or cooling of the home can account for the bulk of household
energy consumption. It is followed by the production of hot tap water (HTW) and the household electricity
consumption where savings can primarily be made on the lighting. Finally, there are also saving measures for
ventilation systems.
Example 1: On the left we see how the various energy consuming applications compare to one another in a new
passive house in northern Europe. On the right is the situation in a new apartment in central Europe.
Example 2: The share devoted to active cooling is greater in southern Europe than in the other climate zones.

Page 3
3 THE SHELL-RELATED ENERGY-SAVING MEASURES
The most widely recognized energy-saving measure is the insulation of the home’s outer shell. This includes
roof insulation, insulation of the outside walls, floor insulation, and the fitting of insulating frames and glazing.
These measures only affect two of the major energy consuming applications, i.e. heating and cooling of the
home and in fact the necessary directives are already in place for new constructions regarding insulation and
airtightness (hermetic considerations). However, there are many existing homes in Europe that are not yet
adequately insulated. It is not always easy to refit insulation, especially in occupied older houses and
apartments. The easiest refit is generally roof insulation, because this usually causes less disruption to
everyday activities within the home. Floor insulation is generally ruled out. Exterior walls can be insulated in
three ways: on the outside, on the inside or in the wall cavity. These cannot always be applied, due to
considerations such as applying outside insulation on an individual terraced house, the resulting decrease the
usable floor area with indoor insulation, and homes without cavity walls.
4 OTHER ENERGY-SAVING INSTALLATIONS
In addition to the shell-related energy-saving measures, we have included less well-known energy-saving
technologies in this study.
 The solar boiler that accumulates solar heat that can be used for HTW
 Heat pumps that use the ground or air heat for heating and HTW
 Automatic sun blinds that reduce radiant solar heat in the summer and let this heat in during winter.
 Smart Integrated Home Systems (IHS) reduce the energy consumption for heating and cooling by zone
heating/zone cooling, presence detection, automatic switching with timer programmes, a standby
temperature mode, and all-off switches (at the entrance door, garage door, and bedroom) that set
the climate control to night mode.
In our study of the IHS installations, we have only calculated the energy reduction for the heating and
cooling in order to not to obscure the comparability of other energy-reducing measures which only act on
the heating and cooling. In this way, the IHS installations gain a place alongside the other energy-saving
measures. Note however that with IHS installations the general electricity consumption (primarily lighting)
can also be reduced.
5 THE ENERGY CALCULATIONS
The Passive House Planning Package model (PHPP) was used to calculate the energy consumption for the four
cases presented. This model is supported by the International Passive House Association
(http://www.passivehouse-international.org/).
For the IHS installations, we used several external studies as a basis. The calculations were carried using a
conservative estimate of a 10% saving on the heating and cooling. If the IHS has a feedback facility for the
energy consumption (for example, via a touch screen or smartphone), an extra 2% saving is taken into account.
This is indeed a conservative estimate because a number of studies specify higher—sometimes much higher—
saving potentials. The energy saving from IHS will in many installed applications be higher than shown by the
ECI study. The LCC will also decrease due to the higher energy savings.

Page 4
6 LOWER ENERGY CONSUMPTION, LOWER LCC, OR BOTH?
The customer/architect/decision-maker must make an assessment for each house/apartment and decide
between reducing the energy consumption on the one hand and the total cost (LCC) on the other. When
selecting the energy-saving measures to be applied to a house or apartment, it is not only the extent to which
the energy costs are reduced that matters. For every energy-saving measure there is also an investment cost
and possibly a maintenance cost.
For many deciders, a balance must be struck between the reduced energy consumption and total cost in the
longer term. Others may elect maximum energy-saving, even when the total costs are higher than without the
energy-saving measures. There are, of course, those who go for maximum financial gain and let the total cost
override any energy-saving considerations. In certain cases, subsidies can provide an incentive for choosing
greater energy reductions, despite higher investment and maintenance costs.
7 THE CASES
A number of cases were developed in the study. These include a newly constructed apartment and house and
an (older) renovated apartment and house. In each case calculations are made for three climate zones
(northern, central, and southern Europe). The study is based on the existing situation (as built) or the current
condition of the building. We also carried out calculations to determine when buildings should be upgraded to
a Low-Energy (LE) standard. This situation is based on better insulation of the outer shell compared to the
existing situation. Calculations were also made for a passive building method for the newly constructed house.
In the latter case, the outer shell is extremely well insulated, triple glazing is used, and manually operated sun
blinds installed are standard.
A summary of the four cases is found below.
7.1 THE ENERGY-SAVING INSTALLATIONS
We compared a number of energy-saving installations relative to their specific situation. They are listed
individually below.
 ESI1: Insulation of the outer shell (roof and walls)
 ESI2: Better insulated frames and glazing
 ESI3: Solar boiler for HTW
 ESI4: Geothermal heat pump for heating and HTW
 ESI5: Air source heat pump for heating and HTW
 ESI6: Integrated home system (IHS) for heating, cooling, and sun blind control
 ESI7: Sun blinds with automatic standalone control
For ESI6 (IHS), we examined six different installations:
 ESI6a: Small IHS installation with components for controlling heating and cooling only
 ESI6b: Same as ESI6a, but extended with a touch screen for energy consumption feedback
 ESI6c: IHS installation for controlling heating, cooling, and thirty additional applications such as
lighting points
 ESI6d: Same as ESI6c, but extended with a touch screen for energy consumption feedback
 ESI6e: IHS installation for controlling heating, cooling, thirty additional applications, and controlling
sun blinds on the east, south, and west side of the home that allow 30% of the solar heat into the
interior
 ESI6f: Same as ESI6e, but extended with a touch screen for energy consumption feedback

Page 5
In the ESI6c, ESI6d, ESI6e, and ESI6f cases, the IHS executes many more functions than just controlling the
heat, cooling, thirty other applications, or the sun blinds (e and f). It would then not be relevant to take
account of the total price of the IHS installation (including the control of the thirty other applications) when
making a comparison to other energy-saving installations that only act on heating and cooling. For installations
c, d, e, and f we have counted the specific components for controlling the heating and cooling as 100%. For the
costs of a number of other components (supply, central controller, touchscreen) that are jointly used for
controlling the heating, cooling, and other applications, we have only counted a certain percentage of the
heating, cooling. and sun blinds. In this way, the calculation of the LCC for these installations can be compared
to the other energy-saving measures.
7.2 PARAMETERS USED
We have used certain parameters in all cases:
 Period for the life cycle cost calculation: thirty years
 Discount rate: 5%
 Inflation: 2%
 Energy inflation Brussels (Central Europe): 2.85%
 Energy inflation Helsinki (Northern Europe): 3.14%
 Energy inflation Rome (Southern Europe): 2.55%
We used the following values for the replacement and maintenance of the IHS:
 Year of replacement of the IHS components: 21
 Per cent replacement of the IHS components: 25%
 Maintenance contract: every five years
 Per cent maintenance contract compared to total investment IHS system: 8%
The value of all these parameters can be adjusted in the spread sheets, which the LCC automatically
recalculated for each case.

Page 6
8 CASE 1: NEW APARTMENT IN CENTRAL EUROPE
New apartment with two facades, two bedrooms, and a usable floor area of 111.65 m². We examined the as-
built situation.
The following facilities were installed in the as-built reference:
 Small gas condensation boiler and use of radiators
 Gas boiler with coil for HTW
 Ten litre electric boiler in the kitchen
 Gas cooker
 Active cooling in three zones
 Ventilation type C
Additional energy-saving measures:
 ESI1: This new apartment already has basic insulation. The thickness of the insulation is increased on
the front and rear facade.
 ESI2: In the as-built situation, this apartment already has well-insulated frames and glazing. Nothing is
changed here.
 ESI3: A solar boiler is installed with a storage capacity of 300 litres, good for a buffer of two to three
days. The condensation boiler with gas boiler remains in use. The ten litre electric boiler is removed.
 ESI6: The various IHS installations are also left out
 ESI7: Standalone automatic sun blinds
8.1 REFERENCE ENERGY CONSUMPTION
The energy consumption per function in the as-built reference is given below. The values are expressed in
primary kWh/year.
For this newly constructed apartment in Central Europe, the largest consumers are the heating, the general
electricity consumption (lighting and appliances), and the preparation of HTW.

Page 7
8.2 THE LIFE CYCLE COST
The above table clearly shows that the energy costs (Use) are decreased the most in ESI3 (solar boiler). The IHS
systems do relatively well with a reduction of 5.5% to 8.6%. Furthermore, we see that the installation of more
insulation in the facades (ESI1) and the use of standalone sun blinds do not bring about a big reduction in
energy costs.
For the total LCC—which consists of the energy costs (Use), maintenance, and investment—the ESI6c and
ESI6d IHS systems perform the best. IHS system ESI6a only costs EUR 461 more than the reference over thirty
years. The solar boiler is only EUR 1,133 more expensive compared to the as-built reference. Furthermore,
there is only a minimal reduction of the LCC for ESI1. The ESI6e, ESI6f, and ESI7 systems are always
substantially more expensive. This is because, amongst other things, the sun blinds have to be completely
replaced after fifteen years.
The mutual relationship between the different energy-saving measures with regard to the primary energy
savings and total cost (LCC) over thirty years compared to the as-built reference.
Ref. as built
ESI1
ESI3
ESI6a
ESI6b
ESI6c ESI6d
ESI6e ESI6f
ESI7
86,000
88,000
90,000
92,000
94,000
96,000
98,000
100,000
102,000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
NetPresentValue30years(€)
Primary energy savings (%)
Overview ESI Case1 Brussels

Page 8
9 CASE 2: RENOVATED APARTMENT IN SOUTHERN EUROPE
Renovated apartment with two facades, three bedrooms, office and usable floor area of 188.38 m². We
examined the as-built situation.
 Invertible air conditioning (cooling/heating)
 Electric boiler for HTW
 Electric cooker
 Active cooling in five zones
 ESI1: The facades and the internal walls next to the stairwell are insulated with 90 mm glass wool
 ESI2: Well-insulated wooden frames and glazing are fitted
 ESI3: Because of the construction, it is not possible to install a solar boiler
 ESI6: The various IHS installations are integrated
 ESI7: Standalone automatic sun blinds
primary kWh/year.
For this renovated apartment in southern Europe, the largest consumers are the active cooling, heating,
preparation of HTW, and the general electricity consumption (lighting and appliances).

Page 9
The above table clearly shows that the greatest reduction in energy costs (Use) (20% to 21%) occur with ESI6e
and ESI6f (IHS with controlled sun blinds). The automatic sun blinds (ESI7) score very well (14.2%). After that
comes better glazing (11.9%) and the insulation of the walls (9.8%). The other IHS systems do relatively well
with a reduction of 7.3% to 8.6%.
The IHS systems ESI6c and ESI6d perform the best regarding the total LCC, which consists of energy costs (Use),
maintenance, and investment. ESI1 (insulation) only yields a very limited saving compared to the as-built
reference. In the IHS systems ESI6a and ESI6b, the total LCC is also lower than the reference. The better frames
and glazing, and the systems that control the sun blinds, also score very highly with regard to LCC. This is partly
due to the fact that this apartment has many windows and thus many sun blinds. The sun blinds are also
completely replaced after fifteen years.
In this specific case, we must conclude that, when we see the much lower energy consumption, subsidies for
IHS systems that control the sun blinds yield more than subsidies for the shell-related energy-saving measures.
Ref. As built ESI1
ESI2
ESI6a
ESI6b
ESI6c ESI6d
ESI6e ESI6f
ESI7
100,000
105,000
110,000
115,000
120,000
125,000
130,000
135,000
0 5 10 15 20 25
Overview ESI Case 2 Rome

Page 10
10 CASE 3: NEWLY CONSTRUCTED HOUSE IN NORTHERN EUROPE
Newly constructed terraced house with two facades, four bedrooms, and a usable floor area of 121.58 m². We
examined the passive building situation. Much more insulation is installed in this situation, triple glazing is
installed, and the house already has manually operated sun blinds.
The following facilities were installed in the reference passive building:
 Electric floor heating
 Electric cooker
 Ventilation type D
Additional energy-saving measures in the passive building situation:
 ESI3: Production of HTW with a solar boiler
 ESI4: A geothermal heat pump for the heating and HTW
 ESI6: The various IHS systems are also discussed here
The energy consumption per function in the reference passive building is given below. The values are
expressed in primary kWh/year.
For this new terraced house in northern Europe, the largest consumers are the heating, general electricity
consumption (lighting and appliances), and the preparation of HTW.

Page 11
The use of a geothermal heat pump (ESI4) in this passive building situation results in a spectacular reduction in
the energy costs (Use) and the total LCC. The energy consumption falls by 42.5% and the LCC by 16.5%. The
solar boiler (ESI3) also does well with an energy reduction of 14.9%. The LCC reduction is only 0.3%. The IHS
systems score between 4.2% to 6.3% reduction of energy consumption. Here we see that the ESI6c and ESI6d
systems do better for LCC than the other IHS installations and the solar boiler, but not as well as the heat
pump. This still means a gain of EUR 1,912 compared to the reference passive building. Compared to the other
cases, we also see that the LCC of the IHS systems that control the sun blinds is scarcely higher (2%) than the
reference passive building. This is explained by the costs of the sun blinds with manual operation, which are
already installed as standard in passive buildings, while this is not the case in the other situations (as built and
low energy).
savings and total cost (LCC) over thirty years compared to the reference passive building. The high energy
savings and much lower LCC due to the application of the heat pump (ESI4) are notable.
Ref. Passive ESI3
ESI4
ESI6a
ESI6b
ESI6c ESI6d
ESI6e ESI6f
130,000
135,000
140,000
145,000
150,000
155,000
160,000
165,000
170,000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Overview ESI Case 3 Helsinki

Page 12
11 CASE 4: RENOVATED HOUSE IN SOUTHERN EUROPE
Old renovated terraced house with two facades, two bedrooms, attic, and a usable floor area of 134.71 m².
We examined the as-built situation.
 Invertible air conditioning (cooling/heating)
 Electric cooker
 Active cooling in 4 zones
 ESI1: Facade insulation with 90 mm of glass wool. Roof insulation with 140-mm of glass wool.
 ESI2: Aluminium frames and better glazing.
 ESI3: Solar boiler with 2.5 m² collectors, without additional storage capacity.
 ESI6: The various IHS installations are examined.
 ESI7: Standalone automatic sun blinds.
primary kWh/year.
In this old terraced house in southern Europe, the largest consumers are heating, active cooling, preparation of
HTW, and the general electricity consumption (lighting and appliances).

Page 13
It is immediately clear here that the installation of wall and roof insulation in an old house without insulation
yields the best result for energy savings (39.3%) and reduction of the LCC (27.2%). As cited earlier, roof
insulation will seldom present a problem, but wall insulation cannot be installed in certain cases. Only the
installation of roof insulation will bring down the results of ESI1. The IHS installations without sun blind control
are always cheaper (up to EUR 5,305) than the replacement of the frames and glazing, while the energy
savings of the ESI6b and ESI6d systems come out at the same level as ESI2 (9.3%). Here, too, we see that the
IHS installations with control of the sun blinds save more energy (11.1% and 12.5%) than any other system
(except ESI1). The LCC, on the other hand, rises a little above the as-built reference. A solar boiler can be an
alternative in cases where installation is possible.
Ref. as built
ESI1
ESI2
ESI3
ESI6a ESI6b
ESI6c
ESI6d
ESI6e ESI6f
ESI7
110,000
115,000
120,000
125,000
130,000
135,000
140,000
145,000
150,000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Overview ESI Case 4 Rome

Page 14
12 CONCLUSIONS
Energy-saving measures such as the insulation of the outer shell of the house or apartment are often
discussion points in debates and deliberations on energy savings in homes. Sometimes they are applied, while
in fact there are other less well-known measures and installations that have a greater impact on energy
reduction and on the total price tag of the home in the long-term.
In subsidy schemes, there tends to be incentives for insulating the outer shell, even though this is not always
the best or only appropriate investment for energy savings and LCC. In most but not every case, we have been
able to demonstrate that the application of a solar boiler, a heat pump, an IHS installation with or without
feedback on the energy consumption, and controlling of sun blinds, and the standalone automatic control of
sun blinds, can sometimes lead to better returns regarding the energy reductions and total LCC over thirty
years. Climate also plays a role. So while a measure may do well in southern Europe, it does not necessarily
provide equivalent results in northern and central Europe.
In the IHS installations, we started with a conservative estimate of 10% and 12% saving (with and without
feedback). A number of studies state higher energy savings. In this ECI study, we did not take into account the
savings in general electricity consumption (lighting and appliances) that can be obtained by these IHS systems.
It is obvious that the practical savings in energy and LCC will be greater than presented here for all IHS
installations.
This ECI study is too small to be able to draw generally applicable conclusions across all of Europe. It would
therefore be useful to do a larger scale study in which well-known and less well-known energy-saving
installations are studied and compared with regard to the reduction of energy and LCC.

Page 15
13 BIBLIOGRAPHY
 The effectiveness of feedback on energy consumption Sarah Darby, April 2006, Oxford + Appendix:
summary of quantitative findings
 Werkdoc TNO studie - zoneheating in woningen, onderzoek naar potentiële
besparingsmogelijkheden. W. Kornaat, 23 February 2011
 Rapport REG-Domotica, Anny Piessens, 25 March 2004, Vlaams Elektro Innovatiecentrum (VEI), Geel
 The Missing Link (draft). Guy Kasier, 8 June 2011, ECI
 The New electrical installation part 3. Guy Kasier, 12 July 2011, ECI
 Four energy saving tools for facility managers. Tonya Russell.
http://aec.us.com/four-energy-saving-tools-for-facility-managers.html
 Escorp-EU25 - energy saving and CO2 reduction potential from solar shading systems and shutters in
the EU-25. Dick Dolmans, ES-SO, 2006
 Presentatie: Rol van zonnewering in de koeling van gebouwen door Dick Dolmans, ES-SO, 16 January
2009
 ES-SO energiebesparing door zonnewering, August 2007
 Guide de la fermeture et de la protection solaire 2010
 Ventilation systems: monitoring of performances on site by Samuel Caillou and Paul Van Den Bossche
for BBRI Passive House Symposium proceedings. October 2011, Brussels
 Ground-source heat pump barometer, a study carried out by EurObserv’ER dated September 2011
 Life cycle costing. David Chapman, August 2011, Leonardo Energy
http://www.leonardo-energy.org/busbar-book-continuing-tradition-1936 (chapter 3)

The impact of energy-saving installations in European homes on the life cycle cost

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Similar to The impact of energy-saving installations in European homes on the life cycle cost

Similar to The impact of energy-saving installations in European homes on the life cycle cost (20)

More from Leonardo ENERGY

More from Leonardo ENERGY (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

The impact of energy-saving installations in European homes on the life cycle cost