Johannes Weninger My Energy Bill Is Zero Contents

a term paper for the course urban ecology, institute for urban design, university of innsbruck

thoughts about the urgent challenge of energy efficiency in an urban context and proposals for a future direction

Johannes Weninger my energy bill is zero Contents

The Challenge 3 The BIG project 4 The urgent challenge of energy efficiency 7 Sustainability 9 Energy use in buildings 10 Summary 12 The Tactics 13 Handling the challenge 14 The holistic approach 15 Financial mechanisms 15 Changing behavior 16 The BIG approach 18 Summary 20 Conclusion 21 Laws and regulations 22 Architects in meantime 23 Chapter 1 THE CHALLENGE

“A building has a long life cycle, so its effect on the environment is a long and continuing issue to consider.” - NGO, China from the EEB project perception research The BIG project

When the Bjarke Ingels Group, an architectural office from Denmark (in the following named BIG), got faced with a project they would call afterwards Little Denmark, they did not knew where their work would take them to. But they had a definite position: creating a long needed new manifesto for hedonistic sustainability. The first thing they did, was to check the “10 commandments of good consumption” and to reformulate them in a way they would fit into BIGs direction of thinking. You can see this in Figure 1-1.

THE CHALLENGE At the same time there was a heated debate triggered by “Copenhagen Consensus” - Bjorn Lom- borg’s initiative to put a price tag and a priority on earth’s greatest social and environmental chal- lenges - which uncovered a fundamental misunderstanding that pits ecology against economy as good vs. evil. But in fact, they are not diametric opposites, but rather two sides of the same story. Ecological initiatives will only prosper in the real world if they work as viable economic models. And business models based on wearing down our natural resources are not viable models for long term growth.

Figure 1-1: 10 commandments of good consumption © by BIG (Bjarke Ingels Group), Denmark

BIG must have thought the same way when they formulated the sentence “Economy and ecology need to merge into ecolomy” and so they started - with their changed commandments as back- ground - to think about a system, a designed society like a perpetual motion engine, with the goal to reduce Denmarks energy bill to zero. Even when this sounds not very reliable at the first glance, their final research result and proposal proves that the idea is not that bad at all. But we’ll come back to this a little bit later. 4 | THE CHALLENGE For now we should have a closer look at Denmark to understand the meaning of reducing an whole

countries energy bill to zero. THE CHALLENGE Denmark is at its core (without Greenland and Färöer) about 47.000 km2 large and has about 129 inhabitants per km2. Regarding to the overall oil consumption of the country each inhabitant uses 3643 kilogramms of oil per year. That is more than twice as much than the worlds average. But Den- marks trend in this sector inclines to a drastically reduction. While the worlds oil consumtion raised about 4,4 percent within the last 20 years, Denmarks spent about 5,7 percent less. But even when Denmark is on his way to an energy equilibrium their energy bill is with about 175.000.000 mWh1 per year still enormous. Just to get a rough image about the values: With the fuel they burn for their daily lives we would be able to send a rocket to Mars and back again 50 times per year! So now we have got some basic data and we’ve already got into contact with the main actor in BIGs Little Denmark. But what would it take to supply all of Denmark with sustainable energy? BIG did a research on that and checked three different types of sustainable energy sources:

1 The Sun 2 Biogas 3 The Wind

If we would rely on the sun, the best region to place our solar panels would be definitely the Stor- strom County in the south-east of Denmark. The Storstrom County is a conglomerate of a few small islands and nowadays, because of its geographical location, well-known for its products from the sea, and its harbors which makes access from the Baltic Sea more convenient. Aside from that, Danish historical records often make mention of castles and churches built in this region by the members of the Danish royal family themselves. Many sites in Storstrom County have been witness to many historic battles of Denmark, such as with the Germans, Swedish, and Austrians over the centuries. The battle for Denmarks lower energy bill would be the last one for the Storstrom County because it would take almost the whole region to place our 1.747 m2 of solar panels, as shown in Figure 1-2. But there would be not just a huge loss of land, also the cost would be with about 1.000.000.000.000 € enormous. So Option A sounds not good at all. Let’s move on and check the biogas solution. Biogas, as a renewable energy source, is basically biological material from living, or recently living organisms. As an energy source, biomass can either be used directly, or converted into other energy products such as biofuel. But independent of the way you want to use it - to produce it, you need to feed something or you need to grow something. Depending on the raw materials different biogas yields are reached and depending upon its com- position a gas with variable methane content is produced. Plants as a raw material will result in a higher yield (m3 per ton) while using manure will produce gases with a higher methane percent- age. Well, Denmarks currently most common raw material in biogas production is pig manure. Therefore it seems natural to use it for our small experiment. But let’s make it quick: If we rely on biogas we would need the manure from a pig farm the size of the greater metropolitan area of copenhagen. And thats about 2.000 km2. But theres one more option left. Not just pigs are producing manure, also humans do. An average

Figure 1-2: The area in Storstrom County covered with solar panels © by BIG (Bjarke Ingels Group), Denmark

danish inhabitant produced 0,5 tons of manure and 2,5 tons of waste per year. And according to BIGs research Danish waste is as combustible per kilo as wood. The combusted waste fuel plus the biogas from the average dane is sufficient to cover one’s share in the Danish energy bill. In fact, the Danish population could become their own energy source. So Option B sounds almost better than Option A. Let’s have a look at Option C - the wind power. Basically the total amount of economically extractable power available from the wind is consider- ably more than present human power use from all sources. And wind is for free, even when the wind farms aren’t, and an inexhaustible source. In addition offshore wind power can harness the better wind speeds that are available offshore compared to on land, so offshore wind power’s contribution in terms of electricity supplied is higher. Compared to the environmental impact of traditional energy sources, the environmental impact of wind power is relatively minor. Wind power consumes no fuel, and emits no air pollution, un- like fossil fuel power sources. The energy consumed to manufacture and transport the materials used to build a wind power plant is equal to the new energy produced by the plant within a few months.2 So wind power seems like a wise choice to bet on. And Denmark with its flat landscape and direct access to the sea seems like the perfect surrounding. But even with the technology developed furthest we would still need a windfarm of 75 x 75 km of windmills to keep Denmark covered. And then the country would heavily rely on one massive centralised enterprise.

2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power 6 | THE CHALLENGE So what we can see is that even with this fast research of BIG Denmarks energy bill could easily be

covered, but betting all on one energy source does not seem like a wise choice. THE CHALLENGE BIG also thought like that when they had a look at their research results. And so they came up with a new idea that will be shown a little bit later in Chapter 2. In the meantime there are a few questions left. What causes architects to step out of their domain planning buildings and to come up with new ideas about energy reduction? Do they just care about the future more than others? Or is architecture linked stronger to energy demand than other disciplines? And of course: What exactly is

The urgent challenge of energy efficiency

The WBCSD, a CEO-led, global association of some 200 international companies dealing exclusively with business and sustainable development3, identified buildings as one of the five main users of energy where “megatrends” are needed to transform energy efficiency. According to their statistics buildings account for 40% of primary energy in most countries, and the trend in consumption is rising. The International Energy Agency (IEA), a Paris-based autonomous intergovernmental organization which acts as a policy adviser to its member states and has a broad role in promoting alternate energy sources (including renewable energy), rational energy policies, and multinational energy technology co-operation4, estimates that current trends in energy demand for buildings will stimulate about half of energy supply investments to 2030.5 And that’s just the current trend. If building site energy consumption in China and India, two of the worlds currently most growing countries in the building sector, grows to the current levels of the United States, China’s and India’s consumption will be respectively about four and seven times greater than they are today. And both countries are already on their way. Figure 1-3 is out of the WBCSDs “Energy Efficiancy in Buildings Report” (following named EEB Re- port) and shows a projection based on current population forecasts combined with current energy use per capita based on Japanese and US levels. The arrows in the graph show the consumption levels back in 2003. Data provided by IEA and TIAX analysis, US Census 2006.

Figure 1-3: Best and worst case projections of site energy demand © by World Business Council for Sustainable Development

3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WBCSD 4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Energy_Agency 5 IEA, World Energy Outlook 2006 THE CHALLENGE | 7 Even the best case in this graph highlights the fact that energy consumption will grow dramatically without action to improve energy efficiency substantially. The construction boom, especially in China, is increasing energy demand significantly, but economic development and other factors are adding to the challenge because they also increase buildings’ energy needs. Currently China is adding 2 billion square meters a year, equivalent to one-third of Japan’s existing building area. This means China is building the equivalent of Japan’s building area every three years. Currently there are large differences in space per person between regions, especially the much

THE CHALLENGE greater residential space per capita in the US. The differences are less marked in commercial buildings, except for China, which currently uses much less commercial space per capita than other regions. This has significant implications for energy use, assuming that space demands in China move toward those in Europe and Japan, if not the US. Today energy use for buildings in the US is substantially higher than in the other regions, and it seems that this is likely to continue (see Figure 1-4). Due to the EEB Report consumption in China and India will grow rapidly, however, and China’s building energy consumption will be approach- ing Europe’s by 2030, while India will have overtaken Japan. If current trends continue, commercial building energy use in China will more than double during this period. Energy consumption in Western Europe will rise only moderately and will remain flat in Japan. Building energy in Brazil will grow, but will remain relatively small in 2030 compared with other regions.

Figure 1-4: Building energy projection by region – 2003/2030 © by World Business Council for Sustainable Development The sources of energy vary greatly, with a significant amount of coal and biomass burned on site in China and India, but with a much higher share of electricity being used in other countries. This variation contributes to large differences in primary energy consumption because of the additional energy demands of power generation and distribution. Development and urbanization are asso- ciated with increased electricity use, which will significantly increase primary energy demand in China and India.6 End uses vary by sector, region and climate. For example, refrigeration is a major user of energy in food retailing, while non-food retail uses substantially more energy for lighting than other sectors do. Food service and food sales are high-intensity sub-sectors, but the large amount of office space means this is likely to be the greatest overall energy user. Energy use varies among residential buildings, but space and water heating are substantial components in most regions.

6 IEA “Energy Statistics and Energy Balances”. (2003); IEA “Energy Technology Perspectives 2006: Scenarios and Strategies to 2050.” 8 | THE CHALLENGE Currently more than four-fifths of site energy use typically occurs in the operational phase of a

building’s life, as Figure 1-5 shows. THE CHALLENGE

Figure 1-5: Life cycle energy use © by World Business Council for Sustainable Development So we can see that there is really an urgend need for a better energy efficiency and we also can see that buildings a playing a big role in this problematic topic. If we could reduce the energy consumption during the operational phase of a building’s life, the proportion of energy embodied in materials and construction would rise and with a risen sustainability in our buildings we would have done the first step in the right direction. But what exactly is

Sustainability

Basically sustainability is the capacity to endure7, as Wikipedia tells us. This means that a building out of concrete is more sustainable that a building out of cardboard. Even when the needed energy on production level is much higher. The advantage, and following the essence of sustainability, of the concrete building is that it is still existing after heavy rain. The house made out of cardboard has to be rebuild every time, so that it will need much more ressources in terms of work or money in the end. So we see that sustainability is more than just endurance, it is about physical resources, the amount of work and the possibility of regeneration. So the right definition should be: Sustainability de- scribes the use of a regenerateable system in a manner that this system is preserved in his essential qualities and that his inventory in natural manner can be regenerated.8 This means that sustainability tells that the present generation should satisfiy his demands without endangering the ability of the future generation satisfying his own demands.9 And currently we are not acting like this at all, but at least we start to care. So today there are several upcoming ways of living more sustainable - from controlling living conditions (e.g., ecovillages, eco-municipalities and sustainable cities), to reappraising work practices (e.g., using permaculture, green building, sustainable agriculture), or developing new technologies that reduce the consumption of resources. According to that sustainability is studied and managed over many scales and in many contexts of environmental, social and economic organization. The focus ranges from the total carrying capacity

7 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainability 8 Rainer Pfluger, Unit for Energy Efficient Buildings, University of Innsbruck 9 The Global Challenge, Chapter 3: Sustainable Development, Article 27 THE CHALLENGE | 9 Energy use in buildings

Energy efficiency factors in buildings vary according to geography, climate, building type and location. The distinction between developed and developing countries is important, as is the contrast between retrofitting existing buildings and new construction. In all cases there are different standards of building quality. It is vital that energy efficiency permeates all levels and is not restricted to highend properties.

THE CHALLENGE This complexity means it is impossible to develop a single solution for all markets and all cultures. Climate change will increase site energy demand as people seek to maintain comfort levels in more extreme conditions. The other main drivers are:10 • Demographics • Economic development • Lifestyle changes • Technology and the spread of new equipment

(sustainability) of planet Earth to the sustainability of economic sectors, ecosystems, countries, municipalities, neighbourhoods, home gardens, individual lives, individual goods and services, occu- pations, lifestyles, behaviour patterns and so on. In short, it can entail the full compass of biological and human activity or any part of it. But even when there is currently a huge movement towards a more sustainable or “green” world, there is lack in the populations knowledge with at least the same size. According to the WBCSDs EEB Report people recognize that sustainable buildings are important for the environment but underestimate buildings’ contribution to greenhouse gas levels, which is actually about 40%. They also generally overestimate the cost premium (see Figure 1-6), which is likely to be under 5% in developed countries, although possibly higher in China, Brazil and India. But that lack of in-depth understanding is a barrier, but not a lack of awareness. 100% of the developers in the United States have heard of green buildings. Awareness of environmental building issues is relatively high in all markets. But in most markets the numbers drop sharply on questions about involvement in green building activity. Typically only a third of those who said they were aware of green buildings had considered involvement, and only a third of that smaller group had actually been involved (11% of the total). The results in Japan are particularly interesting – 13% awareness of green/sustainable buildings compared to an average for other regions of 84%. This is odd given that its building energy use is the lowest of the developed countries. So we see that on our way to pure sustainability there are a few more steps to take. Especially today financiers and developers are the main barriers to more sustainable approaches in the building value chain. That’s because investors have the final decision-making authority on buildings and, under current circumstances, they are pursuing profit maximization. And sustainable building option conflicts with profit maximization. But even when money rules and profit maximation is a really big thing in the modern world, there are many more aspects that influences sustainability decisions and some of them even drive buis- nesses and decision-makers to choose sustainability.

10 World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Energy Efficiency in Buildings Report, 2007 10 | THE CHALLENGE THE CHALLENGE

Figure 1-6: Estimates of cost premium for “a certified sustainable building” © by World Business Council for Sustainable Development The WBCSDs EEB Report identified eight main factors that influence decision-makers about sustainable buildings - in the good and in the bad:

1 Personal know–how 2 Business community acceptance 3 A supportive corporate environment 4 Personal commitment 5 Economic demand 6 Positive climate impact 7 Pragmatic involvement 8 Building attractiveness

Four of these are the main barriers to greater consideration and adoption by building professionals and are the most significant in influencing respondents’ consideration of “sustainable building”:

1 Personal know–how – whether people understand how to improve a building’s environmental performance and where to go for good advice 2 Business community acceptance – whether people think the business community in their ma– ket sees sustainable buildings as a priority 3 A supportive corporate environment – whether people think their company’s leaders will su– port them in decisions to build sustainably 4 Personal commitment – whether action on the environment is important to them as individ– als

But even if the decision-marker would finally choose the path to sustainability, according to Dyllick and Hockerts11 the business case alone will not be sufficient to realise a sustainable development. THE CHALLENGE | 11 They point towards eco-effectiveness, socio-effectiveness, sufficiency, and eco-equity as four criteria that need to be met if sustainable development is to be reached. And with the current thinking, as shown in Figure 1-7, there is a long, long way to go. THE CHALLENGE

Figure 1-7: “What do you see as the role of your company in the adoption of sustainable building practices?” © by World Business Council for Sustainable Development

Summary

So what have we heard so far? We have heard that there is a real problem uprising. And even when it is still at the horizon we have to change our behaviour or the problem will become reality. The urgend demand for a better energy efficiancy, the change to a more sustainable lifestyle and a better enlightenment of the population in terms of energy consumption has to be part of our future thinking. We have also heard that buildings are part of this problem at a high rate of 40%. So architects and planners have the future liability to plan in a more sustainable and energy efficiant way and to use their knowledge in the building industry to come up with new large-scale concepts to improve overall sustainablilty and energy efficiancy of urban areas. And we have already heard a bit about sustainability ifself, the current situation concerning energy efficiancy and we have been thrown into a project done by the Danish architectural office BIG and even if we not know yet what exactly is their idea of a sustainable society, we at least know now their approach to this topic and some of their research results. But is this ever really going to an end? Is there nothing we can do? Are there no tactics? Well... Of course there are.

11 Dyllick, T. & Hockerts, K. 2002. Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11(2): 130-141. 12 | THE CHALLENGE Chapter 2 THE TACTICS

“Today it is possible, based on the geographical positioning of the building, the type of construction, thinking about the thickness of the walls, insulation, all that… it is possible to employ techniques that allow us to spend less energy.” - NGO, Brazil from the EEB project perception research Handling the challenge

Even if the knowledge, technology and skills are already available they are not being widely used to achieve lower energy use in buildings. The previous pages have shown that progress is hampered by barriers in the form of industry structure and practices, lack of know-how and support and a lack of leadership. So new appropriate policies and regulations in the building industry are essential to achieve market changes what gets clear when having a look at the EEB Reports research results, which reveal that many building industry professionals only adopt new practices if they are required by regula- tion (see page 12). Governments need to concentrate on the most efficient and cost-effective approaches. Research for the UNEP Sustainable Buildings and Construction Initiative (SBCI) found that the most effective instruments are policies that were both successful in reducing emissions and costeffective.12 And even if some governments have already introduced building codes and other relevant policies still more needs to be done to encourage improved energy performance. Examples of government action in addition to building codes:13

1 Brazil: Measures to improve the efficiency of lighting equipment 2 China: Mandatory energy labeling for domestic appliances broadening and updating volun– tary energy labelling THE TACTICS 3 European Union: Building “energy passport” required by the Energy Performance in Buildings Directive 4 India: Efficiency standards and new mandatory energy labeling 5 Japan: Top Runner efficiency standards for equipment 6 US: Energy efficiency programs for utility companies

According to the WBCSDs EEB Report a more effective policy framework for energy efficiency should cover the following:

1 Urban planning 2 More effective building codes to enforce minimum required technical standards 3 Information and communication to overcome the lack of know–how and to highlight the en– ergy performance of individual buildings; a combination of voluntary and mandatory schemes is already emerging 4 Incentives including tax incentives to encourage energy efficiency in building equipment, materials and occupant consumption 5 Energy pricing to make energy more valued by users, to decouple utilities’ revenues from the volume of energy supplied and to encourage local and renewable generation 6 Enforcement, measurement and verification to make sure policies and regulations (including building codes) are effective and support market measures such as trading

Given a supportive policy framework, there are three approaches that can help break down the barriers: a holistic design approach, financial mechanisms and relationships, and behavioral changes.13

12 IEA “Energy Statistics and Energy Balances”. (2003); IEA “Energy Technology Perspectives 2006: Scenarios and Strat egies to 2050.” 13 World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Energy Efficiency in Buildings Report, 2007 14 | THE TACTICS The holistic approach

A holistic approach begins with master planning, takes the whole life cycle into account and em- braces integrated building design processes. So approach is essential to maximize the potential of individual technologies and innovations. It begins at the community planning level to gain efficien- cies on a larger scale than can be achieved in individual buildings. Master planning considers the community in its entirety as well as single buildings. But there is just the possibility to create new urban centers with an entirely sustainable plan when they are being created from scratch. Contrary many existing and rapidly growing cities have little room to maneuver due to existing constraints. In that case, master planning has to be implemented within the existing urban environment. Within individual buildings, efficiency is improved with a great degree of collaboration between specialists. Integration helps to adopt approaches, technologies and materials that can significantly lower energy use in buildings in economically attractive ways. Costs can be minimized with this holistic approach to integrated design and innovation.

About 84% of total building energy is typically consumed during the use phase, as already shown THE TACTICS in Chapter 1. The building lifespan is important, as the grey energy in material and construction will be more significant if the building lifespan is shorter. The challenge in reducing energy demand of buildings during the use phase is to avoid increasing the energy use in other phases. So the current trend where the lifetime has been decreasing needs to be reversed - with help of high-quality systems and materials or maintenance and repair - to achieve the sustainable approach. To make this possible the currently existing sequential approch (finalizing one stage before moving to the next) in a projects design phase has to be changed to optimize the many factors and intro- duce cost-effective innovations at an early stage. But building performance depends not only on the performance of individual elements but also on how they perform as integrated systems and the building envelope is particularly important. It is the starting point of energy efficient buildings and the main determinant of the amount of energy required to heat, cool and ventilate. Specifically, it determines how airtight a building is, how much heat is transmitted through “ther- mal bridges” and how much natural light and ventilation can be used. Considering equipment and infrastructure is also important, while the design brings together all the influences on energy efficiency. So we can see there is a huge area of responsibility for architects an planners where they have the possibiliy to improve energy effiaciancy and sustainability.

Financial mechanisms

Financial considerations are basically critical to property development and investment, but they also appear to be limiting the advance of energy efficiency. This is true of major development projects as well as smaller projects as single family houses. Basically owner-occupiers are in the best position to make long-term investment decisions about their buildings because they enhance their property. So they will tend to have a longer term perspective and stand to benefit directly from energy savings. This applies both: owners specifying a new building and owners considering restoration. Compared to this investors time horizons are quite shorter and this increases the importance for their investment calculations compared with sell returns. In any case, energy costs are often hidden in operational costs and not considered by most investors.

THE TACTICS | 15 However, in the recent time the awareness of climate change and expectations of rising energy costs leads people and organizations to attach more value to energy efficiency. A McGraw-Hill study14 reported that professionals expect “greener buildings” to achieve an average increase in value of 7.5% over comparable standard buildings, together with a 6.6% improved return on investment. Average rents were expected to be 3% higher. Some good news for energy efficiency. But within the population the perceptions of the cost necessary to achieve greener buildings are likely to be significantly higher than the actual cost. The average perception was 17%, but cost studies on actual properties have shown much lower figures.15 For commercial properties, the Fraunhofer Institute has shown that the energy demand of new office buildings can be reduced by 50% without increasing construction costs.16 A more comprehensive study by Davis Langdon Adamson, a construction management services firm, confirmed these broad conclusions but with an important caveat: location and climate are more important than the level of energy efficiency to the ultimate cost.15 Retrofitting energy efficiency in existing buildings can also be cost-effective. A research for the IEA concluded that substantial energy savings could be achieved in hot and cold climates, with significant net cost savings. As much as 80% of heating energy was saved in the least efficient buildings, with an overall 28% energy saving.17 And even if energy costs are just a relatively small part of total costs, they are the most important to gain energy efficiency. According to the EEB Report energy managers and investment decisionmakers need to develop a common methodology and language for valuing energy efficiency projects in a similar manner to other investments. A financial risk management model would identify: THE TACTICS

1 Energy consumption elements directly affected by changes within the facility which includes the energy volume risk, asset performance risk and energy baseline uncertainty risk 2 Energy consumption risks outside the facility that could be hedgeable, which includes energy price risk, labor cost risk, interest rate risk and currency risk

Such a risk management framework would allow energy efficiency experts and investment decision-makers to exchange the information they need to expand investment into energy efficient buildings projects. Further calculations about sustainability of energy efficient improvements should not be calculated with the amortisation approach as often suggested. This approach does not implement the lifetime and remaining value of the installation at a special point during its lifetime. In this case we need to use finacial mathematical methods to calculate the right values to be able to prove a special energy efficient building parts sustainability.18

Changing behavior

Today energy has important symbolic and behavioral aspects. In many people’s minds, energy saving is a negative symbol of hard times, whereas energy consumption is a sign of prosperity. In developing countries, using energy can be a symbol of progress; social recognition can come from consumption.

14 McGraw-Hill Construction: Green Building SmartMarket Report 2006. 15 World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Energy Efficiency in Buildings Report, 2007 16 Herkel and others, Energy efficient office buildings – Results and Experiences from a Research and Demonstration Program in Germany, Building Performance Congress 2006; see www.enbau-monitor.de 17 IEA Information Paper, High-rise refurbishment: The energy efficient upgrade of multi-storey residences in the European Union 18 Rainer Pfluger, Unit for Energy Efficient Buildings, University of Innsbruck 16 | THE TACTICS And even lifestyle or habit may increase energy consumption. For example, people tend to prefer individual houses rather than apartments. Houses are also getting larger, with fewer people per household. In the EU, the number of households increased twice as much as the population between 1960 and 1990.19 So the transition to using energy efficiently is difficult because it requires widespread changes in habits, ranging from turning off appliances when not in use to buying more energy efficient appliances. But this is also influenced by several factors. While cost is important, cultural, educational and social factors also influence people’s attitudes. People may fail to buy energy efficient equipment due to:15

1 Lack of information on equipment performance 2 Lack of concern for energy efficiency – consumers tend to be more concerned with criteria such as technical performance and aesthetic design 3 Cost difference between standard and energy efficient equipment THE TACTICS And even when people generally understand the point of saving energy and know what to do there are still 36% which do not want to lose comfort; 25% think their action would be just a drop in the ocean; another 25% say they cannot afford it, and 22% say it is too much effort.15 But people may not have an accurate understanding of the effort needed to achieve energy efficiency and the resulting advantages in terms of energy consumption. In other words, they may feel too much effort would be required for too little return. According to the EEB Report these barriers to energy efficient behavior are linked to three issues:

1 Lack of awareness and information on energy consumption and cost – people are often not aware that they are wasting energy – which prevents them from behaving efficiently 2 Habit – people are in the habit of leaving lights on, not adjusting heating and using ovens even though they consume more energy than microwaves do 3 The rebound effect – the reduction of energy savings because the saving leads to additional activity through either greater use of the same product or for another energy–using action

Consumers tend to want more user-friendly technologies and economic incentives such as bo- nuses for reducing energy use. But energy efficient behavior can become almost automatic when trends in lifestyle, energy efficient technology and behaviors become the same. This shows the importance of lifestyles and behavior in energy consumption. So the behavior must be affected permanently. Information and education are key elements to change knowledge into action. This includes advertising campaigns on energy efficiency, energy labeling of appliances, advice on energy efficient equipment or behavior, education at school and the use of information technologies such as consumption meters. Expert advice, through audits, may be necessary to help people become aware of possible energy savings and measure the impact of their behavior. And wellinformed consumers choose actions to save energy with minimal impact on their comfort. There must be a balance between energy-saving value and any perceived loss of comfort.20

19 Revue Durable, 2002 20 ACEEE Summer Session Proceedings, 2006, “Effectiveness of Displaying Energy Consumption Data in Residential Buildings: To Know Is to Change” by Tsuyoshi Ueno, Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry; Kiichiro Tsuji, Osaka University; and Yukio Nakano, Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry. THE TACTICS | 17 The BIG approach

So we have now heard that there is some kind of Holy Trinity within the energy efficiancy problem: the planners or architects as developers in the first phase of a project, the investors who make their decisions based on a very strict financial calculation and the population, which could make improvement with changing lifestile. And even when all three are playing the same role in the efficiancy game, we will just have a closer look at one of those three: the planners and architects. So what is it that an architect can do in terms of energy efficiancy? The answer is depending on the projects scale. Small scale projects like houses or even skyscrapers gives an architect the possibility for a sustainable planning and for the use or development of energy efficiant materials or systems. They are the practical base of an architects field of work. When the projects get bigger in scale, they start to get less practical and move towards theory. So the most urban concepts are theoretical works. And architectural theory is not a theory that actually comes up with good solutions but they are definitely radical every time. BIGs Little Denmark, which we have already started to discuss in Chapter 1, is exactly one of those projects. So let’s resume what we already know about the research: BIG was searching for a way to reduce Denmarks energy bill and tested a few options of renewable energy sources. Named they are: wind, biogas and solar radiation. For each of them BIG calculated the amount needed to cover Denmarks energy needs. What they found out is that Denmarks energy bill could easily be covered

THE TACTICS with each of those three methods, but betting all on one energy source did not seem like a wise choice. Not to them. Not to us. The currently amount of energy from renewable sources in Denmark is at about 22% and provided by windmills with a wingspan of 130 meters. One windmill can cover the energy consumption of about 2.000 Danish housholds. So why not just expand in this direction? The answer is easy. The economy of Denmark just cannot handle more energy from sustainable energy sources. If they would expand in this direction, their energy in terms of electricity would become to expensive for the consumer.21 This is further illustrated in Figure 2-1.

As we see the cheapest sustainable energy source is still more than 30 times more expensive as nuclear power. So BIG decided that they would need more than just some calculations with renew-

21 Yes is more. An Archicomic on Architectural Evolution, © 2009 BIG A/S, ISBN 978-3-8365-2010-2 18 | THE TACTICS able energy sources. What Denmarks actually needs is a complete new concept. A concept that is not just sustainable and energy efficiant but has the possibility to actually change the society in a long term sense. A concept that includes a currency into which all energy can be invested, allowing free exchange between users and producers. So BIG analyzed the consumption pattern of each program in the Danish society to get an overview of the particular needs and excesses of energy, heat and water. With this information they were able to knit together a network of different programs that would reach an equlibrium of comple- menting energy supplies and demands. In architecture 90% of the energy is spent in heating the houses and just 10% of the energy consumption in the build environment is used for electricity. Ironically 80% of the energy spent on transportation is wasted and only 20% is used for movement, what belongs to the traditional com- bustion engine. In Denmark the total the amount of wasted energy exceeds the total amount of energy consumption.22 So the upcoming question is: is it possible to design an ecosystem is fed back in the loop as input?

The result would be an ecosystem - both economical and ecological - where energy would flow THE TACTICS through the system like a perpetual motion engine. All of Denmark would be like a single household where no ressource is wasted, no biproduct a dead end. A society in economical symbiosis. BIG further states that by systematic application of renewable energy sources, by using hydrogen as an energy exchange currency and by designing an ecosystem with programs of complement- ing consumption patterns it is possible to design a Denmark with a energy bill of zero. Figure 2-2 visualizes their approach.

22 http://www.big.dk/projects/ldk/ THE TACTICS | 19 When having a closer look at this graph, we can see what BIG relies on. Houses spend energy on heating while offices spend energy on cooling. Houses like the sun and need the passive heat gain while offices like the daylight but hate the glare and suffer from overheating. A supermarket spends most of its electricity on refrigerators, which esentially move heat from one place to another. If they would be combined with a swimming pool, a medium sized supermarket would be able to heat an entire public pool just with the energy that would otherwise be let into the air. So each program claims its optimum position in the whole, which is determined by solar orientation, urban adjacencies, proximity to symbiotic neighbors and other special requirements. But if we would follow this approach further, this would lead to one essential question. Is this strategy adaptable to any city or state on the world? Can it really be build into existing substances when it is determind by urban adjacencies? Or will lead us this approach to a perfect city which has to be raised from scratch? The project is not developed far enough to answer us these questions but maybe it will be the next step to a sustainable Danish society.

Summary

So we can see there are already some theoretical attempts how a future development for a better energy efficiancy and a more sustainable world could be. But it is important to understand that all of the tactics mentioned above will not work if they are on their own. For a guaranteed improvement on the energy sector all tactics have to be applied at once. THE TACTICS If these approaches are applied, we have at least a chance for a more sustainable future because they work not just in a certain scale but can be easily adapted on any project or problem. So we would have a possible solution for large scale problems like cities or whole states, we would be able to better the situation on product level (what can be in the scale of a house or a mobile phone, so the size is not important), we could improve whole production chains and with a little bit more education we also could change peoples behaviour. So, what’s the final conclusion?

10 World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Energy Efficiency in Buildings Report, 2007 20 | THE TACTICS Chapter 3 CONCLUSION

“It is necessary for the State to determine that greener buildings must receive more financial aid. Then the market will move into this.” - Architect, Spain from the EEB project perception research Laws and regulations

The EEB Report vision of zero net energy in the building sector in the year 2050 is principially reach- able, even when it sounds like a too good version based on a too bad prologue. But according to the EEB Report technology available today can already achieve dramatic improvements in building energy efficiency and would be sufficient to reach the 2050 goal, but market failures and behavioral barriers are blocking progress massively. The challenge in this first phase of energy efficiancy improvement has been to understand those impediments. In the next phase new ways will have to be explored to overcome those impediments and to develop a roadmap with practical measures that businesses can implement. But even when this is done, the building industry and the market are still highly complex. In fact much more complex than any other industry. Different approaches will be needed for different segments and sub-sectors and each of them will vary massively depending on their location. Each sub-sector (e.g., offices, hospitals, retail, apartments, detached houses) may have its own particular characteristics, and all of this will have to be researched and developed with sector-specific analy- ses in the future. For now the conclusions are concerned with the building market as a whole. But basically the strategy is clear. There are three key elements to reach a better energy efficiancy or in the the best case zero net energy:

1 Use less energy 2 Make more energy (locally) 3 Share surplus energy (through an intelligent grid)

But even when the elements two and three are valuable points, the most significant, long-term gains will come from using less energy. Also this is the only key element that supports the thought of sustainability because gaining more is basically the same than long-term exhaust ressources. Currently there are market and operational risks for businesses and there are opportunities. There will be substantial market demand for energy efficiency, but the timing and the value proposition are uncertain. Businesses that enter the energy efficient building market early could achieve first- mover advantages, but not for shure. Appropriate policies and regulations are necessary to ensure that the right conditions are in place for the market to work effectively. Given an appropriate policy framework, there are three broad

CONCLUSION business levers that can help remove the barriers to building energy efficiency:

1 Adopt a holistic approach – essential to integrate individual technologies and innovations 2 Make energy in buildings more valued by developing incentives, new commercial relationships and financial mechanisms, and clearer information about building energy performance 3 Educate and motivate building professionals and users in order to encourage behaviors that will respond more readily to market opportunities and maximize the potential of existing technology

According to the EEB Report, the upcoming EEB Project will explore how these levers can be developed. First, the group will create scenarios to evaluate paths toward zero net energy. These will help identify changes needed in building industry approaches, finance and behavior that will create the necessary levers. The EEB will then develop a preliminary action plan that will be used to influence policy-makers and stakeholders. In the final phase the plan will lead to a call for action by all those involved with the building industry.

22 | CONCLUSION Architects in meantime

But each of these phases will take serveral months or years until the right strategy has been found or all the research data has been collected and processed. And architects an planners are highly dependent from those laws and regulations because this is the base frame of their work. So what should architects and planners do until these new laws and regulations are given? Just wait and do nothing is definitely not the right way because the earlier we act energy efficiant the better the long-term result. Basically there are two different ways architects and planners can act:

1 The sustainable approach 2 The theoretical approach

Both of these two approaches are highly different from each other. The first one, aka the sustainable approach, referres to a energy efficiant way to build and represents the practical part of the architects field of work. When choosing this approach the planner should bother about gray energy values of building materials, life spans of materials and constructions and basic sustainability calculations. Or of course he can ask somebody who knows better than him. The sustainable approach follows the thought to extend lifetime spans of builded substances, so that the gray energy for construction, material production and transport is minimized. In addition to that the building should be as energy efficiant as possible while staying sustainable. Unsustain- able energy efficiancy cannot and should not be the goal because in a long-term perspective the energy efficiancy shrinks. Further the goal in the sustainable approach is not to build new substances but to use already existing substances. This also follows the thought of building restoration.

While this first approach is mainly used in practical sense and for small scale to mid scale projects, it CONCLUSION will not fit to large scale projects that well. In sense of the hedonistic approach architects an planners are in need of another way when processing large scale projects like masterplans, cities or even larger conglomerates as states or the world itself. Here appeals the second approch, the theoretical approach. While the first one has represented the practical part, this one represents the theoretical part of the architects field of work. It handels with overall systems and complex interactions more than with small scale parts of the system except it is needed for determining an potential emergence of the system. Normally - and also contrary to the sustainable approach - in an overall system is sustainability harder to detect than in a small scale project. Therfore energy efficiancy is more important and can lead to a lesser sustainable system, which itself exists of much more sustainable sub-parts. The theoretical approach tries to find answers on the overall energy efficiancy problem in a large scale while the sustainable approach just tries to work within the project boundaries. As often shown theory is often wrong before proved right. And therefore we should be aware that not every idea is a right or good idea. But when handling problems of this kind, every idea is at least valuable enough to be heard. Otherwise we would maybe miss the solution...

CONCLUSION | 23 For the topics energy efficiancy, energy use in buildings, the three approaches to handle the challenge and for all quotes: Energy Efficiency in Buildings - Business realities and opportunities, 2007, World Business Council for Sustainable Development Vision 2050, 2010, World Business Council for Sustainable Development

For the topics The BIG project and The BIG approach as well as for primary inspiration for the term paper topic: Bjarke Ingels Group, aka BIG, form Denmark in their online version: www.big.dk and in their printet version: Yes is more. An Archicomic on Architectural Evolution, © 2009 BIG A/S

For primary knowledge about sustainability and energy efficiancy in buildings: Rainer Pfluger, Unit for Energy Efficient Buildings, University of Innsbruck especially his course: Sustainable building renovation, WS 2011/12, University of Innsbruck

And of course the neverending source of knowledge, the greatest dictionary on earth and the largest text collection of all times: Wikipdia, www.wikipedia.com especially for sub-knowledge in terms of sustainability, renewable energy and energy itself

Finally special thanks to: my mom and dad (of course) Google (for the masses of translation) REFERENCES

24 | REFERENCES

Johannes Weninger Student of Architecture, University of Innsbruck Matr.-Nr. 04 15 488