Black Sea Basin Joint Operational Programme 2007-2013

Black Sea Basin Joint Operational Programme 2007-2013BSBEEP Black Sea Buildings Energy Efficiency PlanGA2: Preparation and implementation – Analysis of internal current situationActivity GA2.4Recording and pre-selection of potential buildings as targets for the implementation of retrofitting actions. Case study: Municipality of Kavala The sole responsibility for the content of this publication lies with the authors. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Communities. The European Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein. Black Sea Buildings Energy Efficiency Plan 2 (BSBEEP)Black Sea Basin Joint Operational Programme 2007-2013Black Sea Buildings Energy Efficiency Plan (BSBEEP) project aims at the establishment of strong regional partnerships and cooperation schemes in Black Sea area through the reinforcement of administrative capacities of local authorities and bodies in a very crucial sector (energy efficiency in buildings) having major environmental and economic impacts locally and globally. The ultimate goal is to achieve change in the way they treating energy for buildings; facilitating change in the way local societies are acting. Furthermore, the project focuses on the establishment of a knowledge and experience exchange network aiming at the promotion of buildings energy efficiency. The network will engage a wide spectrum of organizations such as local and regional authorities, universities and research centers and NGOs which will help promoting energy efficiency in buildings at local and regional level. Meanwhile it will focus on raising awareness and mobilizing private sector and leverage funds to support future initiatives.Τen partners are participating in the BSBEEP Project from six different countries; Munipality of Kavala (GR), Municipality of Galati (RO), Municipality of Cahul (MD), Municipality of Mykolayiv (UA), Municipality of Samsun (TR), Municipality of Tekirdag (TR), Democritus University of Thrace (GR), University Dunarea de Jos of Galati (RO), American University of Armenia (AM) and Renewable Resources and Energy Efficiency Fund (AM).More details about BSBEEP Project are available on its website: www.bsbeep.com.3 Table of Contents 1 Introduction………………………………………………………………….. 5 2 System description…………………………………………………………. 5 2.1 Selection of the building to be 5 assessed…………………………………… 2.2 Analytical description of the current situation of the 5 building…………….. 2.2.1 Climate data and 6 topography…………………………………………. 2.2.2 Use profile and thermal 6 zones………………………………………… 2.2.3 Building 8 envelope………………………………………………………. 2.2.4 Electro-mechanical 8 systems…………………………………………... 2.2.5 Summary of energy performance of the 11 building…………………… 3 Retrofitting actions implementation…………………………………….. 13 3.1 The life cycle analysis 13 approach…………………………………………….. 3.2 Environmental impact 15 assessment………………………………………….. 3.2.1 Eco-Indicator 15 99………………………………………………………… 3.2.2 IPCC GWP 16 100a……………………………………………………….. 3.3 Energy saving intervention 17 practices……………………………………….. 3.3.1 Intervention No 1: External 18 insulation………………………………… 3.3.2 Intervention No 2: Frame 19 replacement………………………………. 3.3.2 Intervention No 3: Placement of external 21 sunshades……………….4 3.3.4 Intervention No 4: Insulation of H/C distribution 23 system…………… 3.3.5 Intervention No 5: Installation of 25 timers/thermostats……………….. 3.3.6 Intervention No 6: Installation of lighting 26 sensors…………………… 3.3.7 Intervention No 7: Bulbs 28 replacement………………………………... 3.3.8 Intervention No 8: Solar water heater 30 installation…………………… 3.3.9 Intervention No 9: P/V system 32 installation…………………………… 3.4 Assessment of interventions with the application of 34 LCA………………… 4 Conclusions………………………………………………………………….. 38 References…………………………………………………………………… 39 Annex A………………………………………………………………………. 405 Black Sea Building Energy Efficiency Plan - BSBEEP1. IntroductionThe aim of the specific study is to identify potential buildings as targets for retrofitting actions and propose specific energy-saving related interventions for the amelioration of their energy performance (pilot demonstration project – Case study: Municipality of Kavala). The outcome of the proposed interventions will be quantified and assessed with the application of the life cycle assessment approach in order to holistically examine the impact of their implementation. The analysis described in this study is expected to increase the capacity of the examined municipality by providing practical guidelines, ideas and proposals related with decision making in energy efficiency in buildings. The case study presented can act as an exemplar for the municipality in order to assess interventions in various municipal buildings.2. System description 2.1 Selection of the building to be assessedIn order to select a potential building as a target for the implementation of retrofitting actions, screening energy audits were performed in a significant number of municipal buildings in the Municipality of Kavala (for more information see Activity GA2.1 study and Annex A – www.bsbeep.com). The energy consumption assessment e-tool developed by BSBEEP team (for more information see Activity GA2.2 study – www.bsbeep.com) was applied in selected buildings in order to further quantify the potential of energy saving interventions. The Municipal Library of Kavala, was selected as a reference building. The specific building was chosen for the following reasons: Many citizens visit the library, thus a potential energy update of the building could act as an exemplar, raising awareness of the visitors and also better communicate the effort of the municipality to follow an efficient energy responsible strategy.  The selected building has received a low score from the energy assessment e-tool developed by the BSBEEP team (Score: 51/100 Points). The specific building presents significant thermal and lighting needs, thus there is a noticeable potential of improvement. 2.2 Analytical description of the current situation of the buildingIn order to evaluate the interventions to be proposed for the energy upgrade of the Municipal Library of Kavala, an initial energy audit of the building was6 Black Sea Building Energy Efficiency Plan - BSBEEP performed, based on guidelines of the current Greek legislation and the application of relative software. In this section, an analytic description of the building is provided in terms of prevailing climate data, topography, building use profile, building envelope and electromechanical systems available, in order to estimate its energy footprint/characteristics.2.2.1 Climate data and topographyThe climatic data for the region of Kavala are defined by the national guidelines (T.O.T.E.E. 20701-3/2010, "Climate data of Greek Regions"). The climate is generally characterized as Mediterranean with mild winter and dry, hot summer. The prevailing wind direction is south-east. The coldest month is January with an average temperature of 3.9 ˚C, while the hottest month is July with an average temperature of 24.7 ˚C. The average annual temperature is 15.4 ˚C and the average annual humidity is 71%. The average annual rainfall is close to 700mm whereas the number of days with rain is 90 days. The altitude of the area where the building is placed is less than 500m, while the area belongs to the climate zone C (according to degree days).Another important factor affecting the energy performance of the building is shading of the building components by nearby environment. More specifically, the five-storey library is located in densely built urban environment among high buildings (over 4 floors) (Figure 1). The main façade of the library (Figure 2) is facing southwest and is not obscured by external obstacles. The sides of the building come into contact with two four-storey residential buildings. The shading profile of the building was estimated with the application of 4M GCAD software, taking into account the solar orbit in the specific region. Figure 1. Topography of the Municipal Library building.2.2.2 Use profile and thermal zones7 Black Sea Building Energy Efficiency Plan - BSBEEPThe library building is a five storey building with basement and ground floor. For the estimations, it was considered that the total building consist one thermal zone, since the surface of the parts of the buildings that could perceived as different thermal zones (e.g. ground floor) was less than 10% of the total area of the building. The basic characteristics of the buildings and the desired operating conditions/use profile are summarized in Tables 1 and 2 respectively. It should be noted the complete absence of any kind of automation system (classification D) and control management (e.g. with thermostats).Figure 2. The main façade of the building.Table 1. Basic characteristics of the building. Characteristic Value Type of use Library Total area [m²] 1,496 Total volume [m3] 5,041 Heat capacity [kJ/(m²∙K)] 260 D Automation systems classification (lowest) Air infiltration [m3/h] 1,428 Natural ventilation coefficient (tertiary 0 sector)Table 2. Use profile. Characteristic Value Visiting hours 6 Days of operation 5 Months of operation 12 15/10 to Heating period 30/4 Cooling period 1/6 to 31/88 Black Sea Building Energy Efficiency Plan - BSBEEPAverage indoors heating temperature [°C] 20 Average indoors cooling temperature [°C] 26 Average indoors relative humidity - winter [%] 35 Average indoors relative humidity - summer [%] 50 Required fresh air [m3/h/m²] 4.18 Lighting level [lux] 500 Lighting power per unit area for reference building 9.1 [W/m²] Annual consumption of hot water [m3/m²*year] 0.11 Average desired temperature for hot water [°C] 50 Average annual temperature of water supply system 16.4 [°C] Heat emitted by the users per unit area [W/m²] 17.0 Average coefficient of users presence 0.18 Heat emitted by appliances per unit area [W/m²] 0.50 Average coefficient of functioning appliances 0.182.2.3 Building envelopeThe thermal properties of the building envelope were analytically estimated. The U-values of all building components are summarized in Table 3. The vertical building components of the envelope (walls and columns) are covered with a light coating whereas the total area occupied is 1450m². The frames of the building are made of metal and are double glazed with an air gap of 12mm covering a total area of 228m². The basement which houses the electromechanical installations of the building and also is used as storage space, does not present any heating needs. The insulation of the shell is not continuous and for this reason it is necessary to calculate the existing thermal bridges. The total length of all thermal bridges is 2,113 m and the estimated heat loss is 634.5 W/K.Table 3. U-values of main building components. U-value Building component [in W/(m²∙K)] Walls 0.387 Beams and columns 0.479 Roof 0.397 Floors 0.033-0.342 Windows 3.000 Unheated space 0.241-3.0002.2.4 Electro-mechanical systemsVentilation system9 Black Sea Building Energy Efficiency Plan - BSBEEPThe ventilation of the building is carried out mechanically by the central ventilation system (Figure 3). The overall system flow is 14.4 m3/s, without recirculation.Figure 3. Ventilation system of the building.Heating system The heating of the building is performed with the application of a central oil- boiler (400 kW) with an efficiency of 90% (Figure 4). The insulation of the distribution network is insufficient (estimated thermal distribution losses coefficient ≈ 90%). Floor fan coils are used as terminal units with an efficiency of 93%.10 Black Sea Building Energy Efficiency Plan - BSBEEPFigure 4. Heating system of the building (oil boiler, distribution network and fan coils).Lighting system The lighting of the building is achieved using conventional fluorescent lamps in the main rooms and incandescent lamps in auxiliary areas (e.g. staircases and toilets). In total, 162 fluorescent type T8-36W lamps, 128 fluorescent type T8- 18W, 13 incandescent lamps of 60W and 22 spots of 40W are used. The total actual lighting power was estimated to be 8.8 W/m2. According to relative national guidelines, the required level of lighting for library buildings is 500 lux, while the corresponding installed capacity is taken equal to 9.1 W/m2.Cooling system The air conditioning of the building is carried out by a central air-cooled chiller with a cooling capacity of 286kW and a performance coefficient (EER) of 2.5 (Figure 6). The cooling system utilizes the same terminal units (fan-coils) with the heating system. The distribution network is also considered in this case as poorly insulated. 11 Black Sea Building Energy Efficiency Plan - BSBEEPFigure 5. Lighting system of the building.Figure 6. Cooling system of the building.Elevator A hydraulic powered (16kW) elevator is used (Figure 7) in the specific building. According to national guidelines (Τ.Ο.Τ.Ε.Ε. 20701-4/2010), the specific system was not included in the analysis of the energy performance of the building.12 Black Sea Building Energy Efficiency Plan - BSBEEPFigure 7. Elevator of the building (external).2.2.5 Summary of energy performance of the building The required heating and cooling loads for the building, including ventilation needs for every season, are given in Table 4. The corresponding energy consumptions by end use are given in Table 5.Table 4. Required heating and cooling loads – current situation. Required loads [in kWh/m²] Month Heatin Cooling DHW g January 4.60 0.00 0.40 February 3.20 0.00 0.30 March 1.60 0.00 0.40 April 0.00 0.00 0.40 May 0.00 0.00 0.40 June 0.00 5.10 0.40 July 0.00 6.80 0.40 August 0.00 6.30 0.40 September 0.00 0.00 0.40 October 0.00 0.00 0.40 November 1.30 0.00 0.40 December 4.30 0.00 0.40 Total 15.10 18.20 4.30Table 5. Final energy consumption by end use [in kWh/m²] – current situation. Heatin Coolin DH Lightin Tota Month g g W g l13 Black Sea Building Energy Efficiency Plan - BSBEEP12.2 January 10.50 0.00 0.40 1.30 0 February 7.30 0.00 0.30 1.10 8.80 March 4.00 0.00 0.40 1.30 5.60 April 0.40 0.00 0.40 1.20 1.90 May 0.00 0.00 0.40 1.30 1.60 June 0.00 3.40 0.40 1.20 4.90 July 0.00 4.50 0.40 1.30 6.10 August 0.00 4.10 0.40 1.30 5.70 September 0.00 0.00 0.40 1.20 1.60 October 0.10 0.00 0.40 1.30 1.70 November 3.10 0.00 0.40 1.20 4.70 11.6 December 10.00 0.00 0.40 1.30 0 66.4 Total 35.40 12.00 4.40 14.00 0The total annual primary energy consumption per end use and energy consumption per fuel type, including the respective CO2 emissions, is presented in Tables 6 and 7. Table 6. Primary energy consumption per end use – current situation. Energy consumption End use [kWh/m²] Heating 42.5 Cooling 34.7 DHW 12.7 Lighting 42.0 RES contribution 0.0 Total* 132.6 *values may vary a little due to approximationsTable 7. Energy consumption and CO2 emissions per fuel – current situation. CO Energy consumption 2 Fuel type emissions [kWh/m²] [kg/year/m²] Electricity 32.8 32.4 Heating oil 33.7 8.9 Total 66.5 41.3In Table 8, the environmental impact of the current use profile of the buildings is presented for various impact categories. The assessment was performed with the application of relative life cycle assessment software and two different impact assessment methods (Eco-indicator 99 and IPCC GWP 2007 100a). More details regarding the steps, methods and units applied will be analytically described in the following section of the study. 14 Black Sea Building Energy Efficiency Plan - BSBEEPTable 8. Life cycle assessment results – current situation. Method: Eco-indicator 99 Total Score Impact category [in kPt]* Carcinogens (C) 78.258 Respirable Organics (RO) 0.014 Respirable Inorganics (RI) 82.389 Climate Change (CC) 21.716 Radiation (R) 0.097 Ozone Layer (OL) 0.003 Ecotoxicity (E) 16.283 Acidification/Eutrophication (AE) 3.625 Land Use (LU) 0.951 Minerals (M) 0.324 Fossil Fuels (FF) 42.435 Total 246.094 Method: IPCC 2007 GWP 100a Total Score Impact category [in kg CO2 eq.] Global warming potential 3.98 ∙106 * One point is representative for one thousandth of the yearly environmental load of one average European inhabitant.3. Retrofitting actions implementation The specific study is related with energy saving, microclimate improvement (i.e. temperature, humidity, day lighting etc.) and environmental performance of buildings. The study mainly focuses on the comparative environmental evaluation of alternative interventions based on the methodology of Life Cycle Analysis (LCA). 3.1 The life cycle analysis approachLife cycle analysis (or life cycle assessment - LCA) is a method for assessing the environmental impact of a system, taking into account various life cycle stages of the system under examination (e.g. from raw material extraction through materials processing, manufacture, distribution, use, repair and maintenance, and disposal or recycling). LCA is considered as a complementary and a more comprehensive tool with respect to other environmental management systems (EMS) for supporting an effective integration of environmental aspects in business and economy (Frankl, 2002).The environmental impact of various retrofitting actions was assessed with the15 Black Sea Building Energy Efficiency Plan - BSBEEP application of a relative LCA software (SimaPro 7.2). The LCA standard four steps approach (Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], 2006) namely: 1) goal and scope, 2) inventory analysis, 3) impact assessment and 4) interpretation that has been developed according to the principles of ISO 14040 standard series was followed. A brief description of the implementation stages of LCA is presented in Table 9.Table 9. Implementation stages of LCA. Stage Description 1 Goal and scope Definition of the aim of the study, functional unit, definition system boundaries and quality of data. 2 Life cycle inventory Data collection, material flow chart development analysis and environmental impacts distribution. 3 Life cycle impact Classification and characterization of the data assessment (mandatory step) and normalization and weighting (optional step). 4 Life cycle interpretation Analysis and assessment of the assumptions and results. Amelioration of previous steps.Goal and scope step includes actions such as defining the aim, functional unit and the boundaries of the system under examination. Life cycle inventory (LCI) is a list of all materials and emissions that occur during the life cycle of the system under examination. Without an LCI, no basis exists to evaluate comparative environmental impacts or potential improvements (Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], 2006). For the specific study, the life cycle analysis of the proposed interventions for the energy upgrade of the Municipal Library of Kavala, included the extraction of raw materials, the manufacturing of the products/systems, their transportation to retailer-customer, their installation and use for a period of 20 years (including maintenance). The disposal phase was not assessed due to unavailability of relative data.Impact assessment is necessary for the comprehension of the inventory results. During this step, the effects of the resources used and the emissions generated are grouped and quantified into a number of impact categories. Impact assessment in LCA traditionally focused on environmental impacts derive from emissions, wastes, resource use and energy consumption (Pennington et al., 2004). Finally the results are interpreted according to the goal and scope of the study. More details regarding LCA can be found elsewhere (United Nations Environment Program [UNEP], 2003; Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], 2006). Some of the benefits and challenges due to the implementation of the LCA methodology to the building sector are summarized in Table 10.The implementation of the LCA approach to assess building constructions often requires a number of assumptions and modifications. The LCA model was developed with the application of the databases found in relative software and especially the Ecoinvent database. The masses of the materials and the processes needed to16 Black Sea Building Energy Efficiency Plan - BSBEEP construct each intervention were estimated. Maintenance and transportation needs were also included. In order for the model to be adequately developed, data from different databases found in software were applied. An attempt was made however to retain the level of robustness to the maximum possible. Table 10. Benefits and challenges due to the implementation of the LCA methodology to the building sector (Angelakoglou et al., 2013). Benefits Challenges Provision of a common base reference The large variety of materials for the for benchmarking alternative, construction of buildings and thus products, materials and processes the significant time and cost in terms of their environmental required for LCA implementation. performance. Identification of environmental “hot The interconnection and hidden flows spots” of the system’s life cycle. of materials during their composition to construction components. Development of innovative, eco- The long life time of buildings and the friendly products and processes. different life time of various construction components and materials that incommode the analysis. Support of the scientific and theoretical The regulation issues and influences background for the environmental by external factors (constructors characterization of a product. and users) that significantly affect the parameters of LCA methodology. Strategic - supporting tool for decision makers.3.2 Environmental impact assessmentThe data collected in the life cycle inventory (2nd Step) had to be translated into potential human health and environmental impacts (3rd Step of LCA implementation – Impact assessment). For the specific reason two different impact assessment methods namely a) Eco-Indicator 99 and b) IPCC 2007 GWP 100a were selected. The specific methods were chosen due to their wide applicability. Eco-indicator follows an endpoint approach whereas IPCC a midpoint approach. Midpoint indicators focus on the environmental mechanism of an impact category (cause-effect), whereas the endpoint indicates the relative importance of the emissions or extractions (Bare et al., 2000). Endpoint approaches are more understandable to the decision makers include however a higher risk of uncertainty. Midpoint and endpoint approaches have pros and17 Black Sea Building Energy Efficiency Plan - BSBEEP cons and in that aspect it is suggested that both methodologies should be combined (Goedkoop et al., 2011).3.2.1 Eco-Indicator 99The endpoint impact assessment step for LCA implementation was based on the Eco- Indicator 99 (EI99) methodology (Goedkoop & Spriensma, 2001). An overview of the characteristics of this method is given in Table 11. The Eco-Indicator 99 method offers a way to measure various environmental impacts, and shows a final result in a single score. The normalization and weighting were performed at damage category level (human health, ecosystem quality and resources) while the damage categories were normalized on a European level (damage caused by 1 European per year).Table 11. Eco-Indicator 99 methodology overview. Impact assessment methodology Eco-Indicator 99 General - Damage category level (endpoint level), characteristics - Normalization and weighting, - Three versions are available (Hierarchist, Individualist and Egalitarian perspective). Impact Categories - 3 Damage Categories (Human Health, Ecosystem Quality, Resources) - 11 impact categories More details (online) http://www.pre.nl/content/eco-indicator-99/Additionally, in EI99 the normalization depends on the perspective applied. In this study the hierarchist perspective was applied maintaining its recommended weighting set (Human health, Ecosystem quality, Resources - 2,2,1 respectively). That was due to the fact that no raw data were available and in order for the results to be more comparable (since average values are offered by the software for most of the cases regarding energy consumption, transport requirements, emissions and so forth). In the hierarchist perspective damages are assumed to be avoidable by good management. The examined impact categories of EI99 that were assessed in this study are presented in Table 12. By consolidating all the results of the EI99 method into one single score a general idea of the environmental performance is provided. The method applied in the specific software expresses the aggregated results with a non metric unit called eco-points (Pts). One point is representative for one thousandth of the yearly environmental load of one average European inhabitant. The lower the number of points, the higher the environmental performance (since points express impact). It should be noted however that weighting of results in LCA embeds a high risk of uncertainty, thus those results should be adopted cautiously.3.2.2 IPPC GWP 100a18 Black Sea Building Energy Efficiency Plan - BSBEEPClimate change is a global challenge with serious consequences for the social and economic infrastructure as well as the natural environment. The global warming potential (GWP) was examined using the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) GWP 100a method (100a expresses the reference time which is 100 years). The IPCC method includes characterization factors for the direct (except CH4) global warming potential of air emissions expressed in kgCO2 equivalent, the basic unit for measuring global warming. In other words, IPCC has created a method that extrapolates the environmental impacts of all the emissions of a predefined system (mainly greenhouse gases) to CO2 equivalent.Table 12. Impact categories of EI99 method. Impact Abbr Description Unit Category . Carcinogens C Carcinogenic effects of emissions DALY* of carcinogenic substances in the atmosphere, hydrosphere and soil Resp. RO Respiratory problems due DALY Organics to emissions of organic substances in the atmosphere Resp. RI Respiratory problems due to dust DALY Inorganics emission, sulfur and nitrogen oxides in the atmosphere Climate CC Increased illness and deaths due DALY Change to global climate change Radiation R Effect of radioactive radiation DALY Ozone Layer OL Increased illness and death due to DALY increased ultraviolet radiation Ecotoxicity E Effect of emissions PAF×m2×year of eco toxic substances in the ** atmosphere, hydrosphere and soil Acidification/ AE Effect of emissions of acidifying PDF×m2×year Eutrophicatio substances and eutrophication n Land Use LU Effect of either change in land PDF×m2×year use or land occupation Minerals M Loss and lower grade ore or mineral MJ surplus*** Fossil Fuels FF Loss and lower fuel quality MJ surplus *Disability Adjusted Life Years, **Potentially Affected/Disappeared Fraction of plant species, ***Additional energy requirement to compensate lower future ore grade3.3 Energy saving intervention practices19 Black Sea Building Energy Efficiency Plan - BSBEEPThe interventions to be analyzed were chosen, after a round of consultation with municipal authorities in order to satisfy the following criteria: Compliance with existing regulations  Initial cost < 60.000€  Implementation time < 4 monthsIn total nine (9) interventions were qualified for analysis, and more specifically:  Intervention No 1: External insulation  Intervention No 2: Frame replacement  Intervention No 3: Placement of external sunshades  Intervention No 4: Insulation of heating and cooling distribution system  Intervention No 5: Installation of timers/thermostats  Intervention No 6: Installation of lighting sensors  Intervention No 7: Bulbs replacement  Intervention No 8: Solar water heater installation  Intervention No 9: PV system installationThe interventions are analytically presented below, including the energy 2 consumption per end use and per fuel (in kWh/m ), the direct and indirect CO2 emissions and the life cycle results per impact category, for the examined building after each intervention.3.3.1 Intervention No 1: External insulationThe specific intervention refers to the insulation of the external walls of all floors (basement not included), corresponding to a total surface of 1450.2 m2. The insulation will be performed with the application of extruded polystyrene insulation boards (FibranXPS) and by coating them with expanded polystyrene (TEKTOTERM). Analytical estimations and efficiency checks regarding the thermal resistance (RΛ) and U-values were performed according to the proposals and guidelines of relative national regulations.The estimated total annual primary energy consumption per end use and energy consumption and direct CO2 emissions per fuel type, after the external insulation, are presented in Tables 13 and 14. Table 13. Primary energy consumption per end use – Intervention No 1. Energy consumption [kWh/m²] End use After intervention Current building No1 Heating 42.5 36.6 Cooling 34.7 34.8 DHW 12.7 12.7 20 Black Sea Building Energy Efficiency Plan - BSBEEPLighting 42.0 42.0 RES contribution 0.0 0.0 Total* 132.6 126.8 *values may vary a little due to approximationsTable 14. Energy consumption and CO2 emissions per fuel – Intervention No 1. Current building After intervention No1CO2 Energy Energy CO2 Fuel type emissions consumptio consumptio emissions [kg/year/m n [kWh/m²] n [kWh/m²] [kg/year/m²] ²] Electricity 32.8 32.4 32.8 32.4 Heating 28.3 7.5 33.7 8.9 oil Total 66.5 41.3 61.1 39.9The LCA results are summarized in Table 15 and Figure 8. The installation of external insulation is estimated to save approximately 5.8 kWh for heating per year, whereas it will not affect the electrical energy consumption. Moreover a reduction of both the direct greenhouse gases emitted during the use phase of the building and the overall impact arising from the LCA of the intervention, is observed. In that aspect, the installation of external insulation is acceptable in terms of energy and environmental performance.Table 15. LCA results – Intervention No 1. Method: Eco-indicator 99 Total Score [in kPt] Impact category After intervention Current building No1 Carcinogens (C) 78.258 75.211 Respirable Organics (RO) 0.014 0.015 Respirable Inorganics (RI) 82.389 78.077 Climate Change (CC) 21.716 20.940 Radiation (R) 0.097 0.093 Ozone Layer (OL) 0.003 0.009 Ecotoxicity (E) 16.283 15.633 Acidification/Eutrophication (AE) 3.625 3.488 Land Use (LU) 0.951 0.912 Minerals (M) 0.324 0.312 Fossil Fuels (FF) 42.435 43.563 Total 246.094 238.249 Method: IPCC 2007 GWP 100aTotal Score [in kg CO2 eq.] Impact category After intervention Current building No121 Black Sea Building Energy Efficiency Plan - BSBEEPGlobal warming potential 3.98 ∙106 3.84 ∙106Figure 8. Life cycle assessment of Intervention No 1.3.3.2 Intervention No 2: Frame replacementThe specific intervention refers to the replacement of 88 frames in total with a total surface of 227.9 m2. The frames will be replaced with new double-glazing metal ones, with a 12mm air-gap and a U-value of 2.8 W/m2 K.The estimated total annual primary energy consumption per end use and energy consumption and direct CO2 emissions per fuel type, after the frame replacement, are presented in Tables 16 and 17. Table 16. Primary energy consumption per end use – Intervention No 2. Energy consumption [kWh/m²] End use After intervention Current building No2 Heating 42.5 40.3 Cooling 34.7 34.8 DHW 12.7 12.7 Lighting 42.0 42.0 RES contribution 0.0 0.0 Total* 132.6 130.5 *values may vary a little due to approximationsTable 17. Energy consumption and CO2 emissions per fuel – Intervention No 2. Fuel type Current building After intervention No2Energy CO2 Energy CO2 consumptio emissions consumptio emissions22 Black Sea Building Energy Efficiency Plan - BSBEEP[kg/year/m n [kWh/m²] n [kWh/m²] [kg/year/m²] ²] Electricity 32.8 32.4 32.8 32.4 Heating 31.7 8.4 33.7 8.9 oil Total 66.5 41.3 64.5 40.8The LCA results are summarized in Table 18 and Figure 9. Table 18. LCA results – Intervention No 2. Method: Eco-indicator 99 Total Score [in kPt] Impact category After intervention Current building No2 Carcinogens (C) 78.258 77.169 Respirable Organics (RO) 0.014 0.014 Respirable Inorganics (RI) 82.389 80.336 Climate Change (CC) 21.716 21.432 Radiation (R) 0.097 0.097 Ozone Layer (OL) 0.003 0.003 Ecotoxicity (E) 16.283 16.060 Acidification/Eutrophication (AE) 3.625 3.579 Land Use (LU) 0.951 0.944 Minerals (M) 0.324 0.376 Fossil Fuels (FF) 42.435 43.008 Total 246.094 243.019 Method: IPCC 2007 GWP 100aTotal Score [in kg CO2 eq.] Impact category After intervention Current building No2 Global warming potential 3.98 ∙106 3.92 ∙106The replacement of frames is estimated to save approximately 2.1 kWh for heating per year, whereas it will not affect the electrical energy consumption. Moreover a reduction of both the direct greenhouse gases emitted during the use phase of the building and the overall impact arising from the LCA of the intervention, is observed. In that aspect, the replacement of frames is acceptable in terms of energy and environmental performance.23 Black Sea Building Energy Efficiency Plan - BSBEEPFigure 9. Life cycle assessment of Intervention No 2.3.3.3 Intervention No 3: Placement of external sunshadesThe specific intervention refers to the installation of external blinds at the façade of the library buildings which will cover 27 openings and a total area of 73.4 m2.The estimated total annual primary energy consumption per end use and energy consumption and direct CO2 emissions per fuel type, after the placement of external sunshades, are presented in Tables 19 and 20. Table 19. Primary energy consumption per end use – Intervention No 3. Energy consumption [kWh/m²] End use After intervention Current building No3 Heating 42.5 42.5 Cooling 34.7 24.1 DHW 12.7 12.7 Lighting 42.0 42.0 RES contribution 0.0 0.0 Total* 132.6 121.3 *values may vary a little due to approximationsTable 20. Energy consumption and CO2 emissions per fuel – Intervention No 3. Fuel type Current building After intervention No3Energy CO2 Energy CO2 consumptio emissions consumptio emissions n [kWh/m²] [kg/year/m n [kWh/m²] [kg/year/m²] 24 Black Sea Building Energy Efficiency Plan - BSBEEP²] Electricity 32.8 32.4 29.1 28.8 Heating 33.7 8.9 33.7 8.9 oil Total 66.5 41.3 62.8 37.7The LCA results are summarized in Table 21 and Figure 10. The placement of external sunshades is estimated to save approximately 11.3 kWh for electrical energy per year, whereas it will not affect the energy consumption for heating. A reduction of both the direct greenhouse gases emitted during the use phase of the building and the overall impact arising from the LCA of the intervention, is observed. The environmental performance of the specific intervention is higher in comparison with the two pre-mentioned interventions.Table 21. LCA results – Intervention No 3. Method: Eco-indicator 99 Total Score [in kPt] Impact category After intervention Current building No3 Carcinogens (C) 78.258 74.3340 Respirable Organics (RO) 0.014 0.013 Respirable Inorganics (RI) 82.389 77.329 Climate Change (CC) 21.716 20.632 Radiation (R) 0.097 0.093 Ozone Layer (OL) 0.003 0.0030 Ecotoxicity (E) 16.283 15.468 Acidification/Eutrophication (AE) 3.625 3.444 Land Use (LU) 0.951 0.905 Minerals (M) 0.324 0.319 Fossil Fuels (FF) 42.435 41.290 Total 246.094 233.836 Method: IPCC 2007 GWP 100aTotal Score [in kg CO2 eq.] Impact category After intervention Current building No3 Global warming potential 3.98 ∙106 3.78 ∙10625 Black Sea Building Energy Efficiency Plan - BSBEEPFigure 10. Life cycle assessment of Intervention No 3.3.3.4 Intervention No 4: Insulation of heating and cooling distribution systemThe insulation of the heating/cooling distribution network refers to the utilization of foam-material with an average nominal section of 38mm, a thickness of 19mm and a length of 180m in order to cover both heating and cooling distribution network. The estimated total annual primary energy consumption per end use and energy consumption and direct CO2 emissions per fuel type, after the insulation of heating and cooling distribution system, are presented in Tables 22 and 23. Table 22. Primary energy consumption per end use – Intervention No 4. Energy consumption [kWh/m²] End use After intervention Current building No4 Heating 42.5 39.7 Cooling 34.7 34.1 DHW 12.7 12.7 Lighting 42.0 42.0 RES contribution 0.0 0.0 Total* 132.6 129.2 *values may vary a little due to approximationsTable 23. Energy consumption and CO2 emissions per fuel – Intervention No 4. Fuel type Current building After intervention No4Energy CO2 Energy CO2 consumptio emissions consumptio emissions n [kWh/m²] [kg/year/m n [kWh/m²] [kg/year/m²]26 Black Sea Building Energy Efficiency Plan - BSBEEP²] Electricity 32.8 32.4 32.5 32.2 Heating 31.2 8.2 33.7 8.9 oil Total 66.5 41.3 63.7 40.4 The LCA results are summarized in Table 24 and Figure 11. The insulation of the heating/cooling distribution network is estimated to save approximately 0.6 kWh for heating and 2.8kWh of electrical energy per year. Moreover a reduction of both the direct greenhouse gases emitted during the use phase of the building and the overall impact arising from the LCA of the intervention, is observed. In that aspect, the insulation of the hating/cooling distribution network is acceptable in terms of energy and environmental performance.Table 24. LCA results – Intervention No 4. Method: Eco-indicator 99 Total Score [in kPt] Impact category After intervention Current building No4 Carcinogens (C) 78.258 76.360 Respirable Organics (RO) 0.014 0.014 Respirable Inorganics (RI) 82.389 79.351 Climate Change (CC) 21.716 21.174 Radiation (R) 0.097 0.096 Ozone Layer (OL) 0.003 0.003 Ecotoxicity (E) 16.283 15.878 Acidification/Eutrophication (AE) 3.625 3.535 Land Use (LU) 0.951 0.930 Minerals (M) 0.324 0.316 Fossil Fuels (FF) 42.435 42.474 Total 246.094 240.131 Method: IPCC 2007 GWP 100aTotal Score [in kg CO2 eq.] Impact category After intervention Current building No4 Global warming potential 3.98 ∙106 3.88 ∙10627 Black Sea Building Energy Efficiency Plan - BSBEEPFigure 11. Life cycle assessment of Intervention No 4.3.3.5 Intervention No 5: Installation of timers/thermostatsIn order to better control the indoors temperature of the various areas of the building and thus prevent unnecessary energy waste, the installation of timers/thermostats is examined. More specifically, it is proposed to install seven (7) modules, two (2) on the ground floor and one (1) in each and every one of the other floors. The estimated total annual primary energy consumption per end use and energy consumption and direct CO2 emissions per fuel type, after the installation of timers/thermostats, are presented in Tables 25 and 26. Table 25. Primary energy consumption per end use – Intervention No 5. Energy consumption [kWh/m²] End use After intervention Current building No5 Heating 42.5 29.4 Cooling 34.7 23.1 DHW 12.7 12.7 Lighting 42.0 42.0 RES contribution 0.0 0.0 Total* 132.6 107.9 *values may vary a little due to approximationsTable 26. Energy consumption and CO2 emissions per fuel – Intervention No 5. Fuel type Current building After intervention No5Energy CO2 Energy CO2 consumptio emissions consumptio emissions n [kWh/m²] [kg/year/m n [kWh/m²] [kg/year/m²] 28 Black Sea Building Energy Efficiency Plan - BSBEEP²] Electricity 32.8 32.4 28.7 28.4 Heating 22.3 5.9 33.7 8.9 oil Total 66.5 41.3 51.0 34.3The LCA results are summarized in Table 27 and Figure 12. The installation of timers/thermostats is estimated to save approximately 11.6 kWh for heating and 13.1kWh of electrical energy per year. Moreover a reduction of both the direct greenhouse gases emitted during the use phase of the building and the overall impact arising from the LCA of the intervention, is observed. In that aspect, the installation of timers/thermostats is acceptable in terms of energy and environmental performance.Table 27. LCA results – Intervention No 5. Method: Eco-indicator 99 Total Score [in kPt] Impact category After intervention Current building No5 Carcinogens (C) 78.258 63.689 Respirable Organics (RO) 0.014 0.011 Respirable Inorganics (RI) 82.389 66.229 Climate Change (CC) 21.716 17.671 Radiation (R) 0.097 0.079 Ozone Layer (OL) 0.003 0.002 Ecotoxicity (E) 16.283 13.253 Acidification/Eutrophication (AE) 3.625 2.949 Land Use (LU) 0.951 0.774 Minerals (M) 0.324 0.265 Fossil Fuels (FF) 42.435 35.345 Total 246.094 200.267 Method: IPCC 2007 GWP 100aTotal Score [in kg CO2 eq.] Impact category After intervention Current building No5 Global warming potential 3.98 ∙106 3.24 ∙10629 Black Sea Building Energy Efficiency Plan - BSBEEPFigure 12. Life cycle assessment of Intervention No 5.3.3.6 Intervention No 6: Installation of lighting sensorsIn order to better manage the electricity consumed for lighting needs a total of eleven (11) lighting sensors will be installed, two on the ground floor and first four floors (two per floor) and one on the last one. The specific sensors will turn on/off the lights according to the adequacy of day lighting. The estimated total annual primary energy consumption per end use and energy consumption and direct CO2 emissions per fuel type, after the installation of the lighting sensors, are presented in Tables 28 and 29. In this case, a slight increase in oil consumption is expected, due to reduced contribution of artificial lighting to the heat of the building during the winter months.Table 28. Primary energy consumption per end use – Intervention No 6. Energy consumption [kWh/m²] End use After intervention Current building No6 Heating 42.5 43.0 Cooling 34.7 34.5 DHW 12.7 12.7 Lighting 42.0 40.0 RES contribution 0.0 0.0 Total* 132.6 130.8 *values may vary a little due to approximationsTable 29. Energy consumption and CO2 emissions per fuel – Intervention No 6. Fuel type Current building After intervention No6Energy CO2 Energy CO2 consumptio emissions consumptio emissions n [kWh/m²] [kg/year/m n [kWh/m²] [kg/year/m²]30 Black Sea Building Energy Efficiency Plan - BSBEEP²] Electricity 32.8 32.4 32.0 31.6 Heating 34.2 9.0 33.7 8.9 oil Total 66.5 41.3 66.2 40.6The LCA results are summarized in Tables 30 and Figure 13. The installation of lighting sensors is estimated to save approximately 1.8 kWh of electrical energy per year. Also in this case a positive environmental impact is observed in most impact categories.Table 30. LCA results – Intervention No 6. Method: Eco-indicator 99 Total Score [in kPt] Impact category After intervention Current building No6 Carcinogens (C) 78.258 77.227 Respirable Organics (RO) 0.014 0.014 Respirable Inorganics (RI) 82.389 80.304 Climate Change (CC) 21.716 21.426 Radiation (R) 0.097 0.096 Ozone Layer (OL) 0.003 0.003 Ecotoxicity (E) 16.283 16.070 Acidification/Eutrophication (AE) 3.625 3.576 Land Use (LU) 0.951 0.939 Minerals (M) 0.324 0.321 Fossil Fuels (FF) 42.435 42.857 Total 246.094 242.832 Method: IPCC 2007 GWP 100aTotal Score [in kg CO2 eq.] Impact category After intervention Current building No6 Global warming potential 3.98 ∙106 3.92 ∙10631 Black Sea Building Energy Efficiency Plan - BSBEEPFigure 13. Life cycle assessment of Intervention No 6.3.3.7 Intervention No 7: Bulbs replacementBefore replacing the existing artificial lighting system, analytical photometric calculations were performed based on detailed guidelines in order to ensure the efficient illuminance of the library building. Based on the results of this study the necessary loads were calculated.The estimated total annual primary energy consumption per end use and energy consumption and direct CO2 emissions per fuel type, after the replacement of lamps, are presented in Tables 31 and 32. The existing incandescent and fluorescent lamps will be replaced with new, energy efficient LED-type. These lamps emit lower amounts of heat during operation in comparison with conventional ones and as a result, they contribute less to the heating of the building during the winter months. As a result, a slight increase in oil consumption for heating is expected. Table 31. Primary energy consumption per end use – Intervention No 7. Energy consumption [kWh/m²] End use After intervention Current building No7 Heating 42.5 50.2 Cooling 34.7 31.7 DHW 12.7 12.7 Lighting 42.0 16.0 RES contribution 0.0 0.0 Total* 132.6 111.3 *values may vary a little due to approximations32 Black Sea Building Energy Efficiency Plan - BSBEEPTable 32. Energy consumption and CO2 emissions per fuel – Intervention No 7. Current building After intervention No7CO2 Energy Energy CO2 Fuel type emissions consumptio consumptio emissions [kg/year/m n [kWh/m²] n [kWh/m²] [kg/year/m²] ²] Electricity 32.8 32.4 22.8 22.6 Heating 40.6 10.7 33.7 8.9 oil Total 66.5 41.3 63.4 33.3The LCA results are summarized in Table 33 and Figure 14. The replacement of the current bulbs with new energy efficient ones is estimated to save approximately 21,3 kWh for electrical energy consumption. Moreover a reduction of both the direct greenhouse gases emitted during the use phase of the building and the overall impact arising from the LCA of the intervention, is observed. In that aspect, the replacement of bulbs is acceptable in terms of energy and environmental performance.Table 33. LCA results – Intervention No 7. Method: Eco-indicator 99 Total Score [in kPt] Impact category After intervention Current building No7 Carcinogens (C) 78.258 65.693 Respirable Organics (RO) 0.014 0.012 Respirable Inorganics (RI) 82.389 68.322 Climate Change (CC) 21.716 18.230 Radiation (R) 0.097 0.082 Ozone Layer (OL) 0.003 0.003 Ecotoxicity (E) 16.283 13.669 Acidification/Eutrophication (AE) 3.625 3.043 Land Use (LU) 0.951 0.799 Minerals (M) 0.324 0.273 Fossil Fuels (FF) 42.435 36.465 Total 246.094 206.590 Method: IPCC 2007 GWP 100aTotal Score [in kg CO2 eq.] Impact category After intervention Current building No7 Global warming potential 3.98 ∙106 3.34 ∙10633 Black Sea Building Energy Efficiency Plan - BSBEEPFigure 14. Life cycle assessment of Intervention No 7.3.3.8 Intervention No 8: Solar water heater installationThe specific intervention refers to the installation of a solar collector to be utilized for water heating. The available surface area of the roof where the collectors can be installed is approximately 210m2 and not obscured by artificial or natural barriers during the day. The building adjacent to the library on the northwest side, has almost the same height with the examined building, thus not restricting insolation even during the afternoon. The piping of hot water distribution network is considered insulated in accordance with the minimum requirements of national regulation and guidelines (T.O.T.E.E. 20701-1/2010).The estimated total annual primary energy consumption per end use and energy consumption and direct CO2 emissions per fuel type, after the solar collectors installation, are presented in Tables 34 and 35. Table 34. Primary energy consumption per end use – Intervention No 8. Energy consumption [kWh/m²] End use After intervention Current building No8 Heating 42.5 42.4 Cooling 34.7 34.7 DHW 12.7 8.7 Lighting 42.0 42.0 RES contribution 0.0 0.0 Total* 132.6 128.5 *values may vary a little due to approximations34 Black Sea Building Energy Efficiency Plan - BSBEEPTable 35. Energy consumption and CO2 emissions per fuel – Intervention No 8. Current building After intervention No8CO2 Energy Energy CO2 Fuel type emissions consumptio consumptio emissions [kg/year/m n [kWh/m²] n [kWh/m²] [kg/year/m²] ²] Electricity 32.8 32.4 31.4 31.0 Heating oil 33.7 8.9 33.7 8.9 Solar 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 energy Total 66.5 41.3 66.5 39.9The LCA results are summarized in Table 36 and Figure 15. The installation of a solar water heater is estimated to save approximately 4.1 kWh for electrical energy per year. A reduction of both the direct greenhouse gases emitted during the use phase of the building and the overall impact arising from the LCA of the intervention, is observed. In that aspect, the installation of a solar water heater is acceptable in terms of energy and environmental performance.Table 36. LCA results – Intervention No 8. Method: Eco-indicator 99 Total Score [in kPt] Impact category After intervention Current building No8 Carcinogens (C) 78.258 75.863 Respirable Organics (RO) 0.014 0.013 Respirable Inorganics (RI) 82.389 78.911 Climate Change (CC) 21.716 21.051 Radiation (R) 0.097 0.094 Ozone Layer (OL) 0.003 0.002 Ecotoxicity (E) 16.283 15.793 Acidification/Eutrophication (AE) 3.625 3.514 Land Use (LU) 0.951 0.924 Minerals (M) 0.324 0.325 Fossil Fuels (FF) 42.435 42.117 Total 246.094 238.612 Method: IPCC 2007 GWP 100aTotal Score [in kg CO2 eq.] Impact category After intervention Current building No8 Global warming potential 3.98 ∙106 3.85 ∙10635 Black Sea Building Energy Efficiency Plan - BSBEEPFigure 15. Life cycle assessment of Intervention No 8.3.3.9 Intervention No 9: PV system installationThe specific intervention refers to the installation of a photovoltaic system on the roof of the library. Under this framework an analytical techno-economical study was performed. Based on the results of this study, the examined PV system consists of 72 collectors of 0.24kWp each. The total installed power of the system is 17.28 kWp. Respective loads were further estimated.The estimated total annual primary energy consumption per end use and energy consumption and direct CO2 emissions per fuel type, after the PV system installation, are presented in Tables 37 and 38. Table 37. Primary energy consumption per end use – Intervention No 9. Energy consumption [kWh/m²] End use After intervention Current building No9 Heating 42.5 42.5 Cooling 34.7 34.7 DHW 12.7 12.7 Lighting 42.0 42.0 RES contribution 0.0 -47.0 Total* 132.6 85.4 *values may vary a little due to approximations36 Black Sea Building Energy Efficiency Plan - BSBEEPTable 38. Energy consumption and CO2 emissions per fuel – Intervention No 9. Current building After intervention No9CO2 Energy Energy CO2 Fuel type emissions consumptio consumptio emissions [kg/year/m n [kWh/m²] n [kWh/m²] [kg/year/m²] ²] Electricity 32.8 32.4 21.6 21.4 Heating oil 33.7 8.9 33.7 11.8 Solar 22.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 energy Total 66.5 41.3 77.3 33.2The LCA results are summarized in Table 39 and Figure 16. The installation of PV in this case, is not only energy efficient but also exhibits relatively lower environmental impacts in comparison with other interventions. By implementing the specific intervention, approximately 47.2 kWh of electrical energy per year will be saved improving in this way the energy efficiency of the buildingTable 39. LCA results – Intervention No 9. Method: Eco-indicator 99 Total Score [in kPt] Impact category After intervention Current building No9 Carcinogens (C) 78.258 50.862 Respirable Organics (RO) 0.014 0.011 Respirable Inorganics (RI) 82.389 53.859 Climate Change (CC) 21.716 14.443 Radiation (R) 0.097 0.122 Ozone Layer (OL) 0.003 0.003 Ecotoxicity (E) 16.283 10.632 Acidification/Eutrophication (AE) 3.625 2.457 Land Use (LU) 0.951 0.859 Minerals (M) 0.324 0.336 Fossil Fuels (FF) 42.435 29.463 Total 246.094 163.051 Method: IPCC 2007 GWP 100aTotal Score [in kg CO2 eq.] Impact category After intervention Current building No9 Global warming potential 3.98 ∙106 2.65 ∙10637 Black Sea Building Energy Efficiency Plan - BSBEEPFigure 16. Life cycle assessment of Intervention No 9.3.4 Assessment of interventions with the application of LCAA reduction of both the direct greenhouse gases emitted during the use phase of the building and the overall impact arising from the LCA of all interventions, is observed. In that aspect, the interventions proposed in the specific study are acceptable in terms of energy and environmental performance. However various factors must be assessed in order to make a final decision regarding the adoption or not of the specific intervention proposals. In the specific chapter a number of economical, energy and environmental criteria were assessed using relative indicators, in order to discuss the potential of every intervention.In order to facilitate comparisons among various interventions the results of the study are summarized in Table 40 and Figures 17 and 18. According to the results presented in the specific Table/Figures, interventions No 5 (installation of timers/thermostats), No 7 (bulbs replacement) and No 9 (P/V system installation) seem to have the higher positive impact in increasing the environmental performance of the building. Interventions in the building shell (No1 and No2), are acceptable in terms of energy and environmental performance, do not however seem a viable choice economically (due to negative Net Present Value - NPV). The final selection of the intervention to be applied should further take into account the level of nuisance of the visitors of the Library as well as the time needed to be installed. It is estimated that all interventions (No 3 – No 9) can be accomplished within a one month period, whereas the nuisance of most of them is low with the exception of interventions No 3 and No 7 which will affect the38 Black Sea Building Energy Efficiency Plan - BSBEEP functionality of the library for a certain period. In that aspect it would be better if some of the interventions were performed during a period of low trespassing by visitors.39 Black Sea Building Energy Efficiency Plan - BSBEEPTable 40. Summary of the results of the study. F u el c o n s u Payback NPV m Indirect emissions period [€] pt [years] Primary Direct emissions io 2 Interventio energy [kg CO2/m ] Energy class n n consumption [k [kwh/m2] w h/ m 2] El e ct [kP 6 Heating [kg CO2 eq ∙10 ] ri t] ci ty 3 24 Current 2. C 132.60 33.70 41.30 6. 3.98 - - - building 8 09 0 - -5.80 - -5.40 -1.40 7. -0.14 84 1) External C 3 58,000 38,238 7.5 insulation 23 2. 126.80 28.30 39.90 8. 3.84 8 25 0 2) Frame C -2.10 - -2.00 -0.50 - -0.06 45,600 10,756 16.340 Black Sea Building Energy Efficiency Plan - BSBEEP3. 07 replacemen 3 24 t 2. 130.50 31.70 40.80 3. 3.92 8 02 0 - - 3. 12 -11.30 - -3.60 -0.20 3) 7 .2 Placement 0 5 C 11,100 8,492 7 of external 2 23 sunshades 9. 121.30 33.70 37.70 3. 3.78 1 84 0 - - 0. 4) -3.40 -2.50 -0.90 5. -0.10 3 Insulation of 99 0 H/C C 3,000 12,110 2.5 3 distribution 24 2. system 129.20 31.20 40.40 0. 3.88 5 10 0 - - 4. 45 5) -24.70 -11.4 -7.00 -0.74 1 .8 Installation 0 2 of C 550 48,712 2 2 timers/ther 20 8. mostats 107.90 22.30 34.30 0. 3.24 7 27 0 6) C - 1,500 1,621 6 - Installation 0. -1.80 +0.50 -0.70 3. -0.06 of lighting 8 26 sensors 0 130.80 3 34.20 40.60 24 3.92 2. 2.41 Black Sea Building Energy Efficiency Plan - BSBEEP0 83 0 - - 1 39 -21.30 0. +6.90 -8.00 -0.64 .5 7) Bulbs 0 0 replacemen C 0 16,300 20,631 5.5 t 2 20 2. 111.30 40.60 33.30 6. 3.34 8 59 0 - - 1. -4.10 - -1.40 7. -0.13 8) Solar 4 48 water 0 C 2,000 5,109 3.5 heater 3 23 installation 1. 128.50 33.70 39.90 8. 3.85 4 61 0 - - 3 78 -47.20 3. - -8.10 -1.33 .0 9) PV 2 4 system Β 0 40,000 52,219 5.4 installation - 16 0. 85.40 33.70 33.20 8. 2.65 4 05 0 Negative values reflect the savings achieved in the corresponding field in comparison with the existing situation.In the case of installation of P/V systems a negative value in the final electricity consumption is observed. This is because electricity production is more than that consumed to satisfy the needs of the building. The output energy is distributed to the network.42 Black Sea Building Energy Efficiency Plan - BSBEEP43 Black Sea Building Energy Efficiency Plan - BSBEEPFigure 17. Summary of LCA results with the application of Eco-Indicator 99 method.Figure 18. Summary of LCA results with the application of IPCC GWP 100a method.44 Black Sea Building Energy Efficiency Plan - BSBEEP4. Conclusions The aim of the specific study was to identify potential buildings as targets for retrofitting actions and propose specific energy-saving related interventions for the amelioration of their energy performance. The identification and selection of the buildings to be assessed was based on the results extracted from Group of Activities 2 of Black Sea Buildings Energy Efficiency Plan (BSBEEP) Project. More information regarding the activities and the results of the Project can be found on its relative website (www.bsbeep.com).In this case, the Municipal Library of Kavala, was selected as potential building for the implementation of retrofitting actions. The outcome of the proposed interventions was quantified and assessed with the application of the life cycle assessment approach in order to holistically examine the impact of their implementation. In total nine (9) interventions were analytically modeled and assessed for the Municipal Library of Kavala.The analytical energy audit performed, indicated that the actual energy consumption of the building is much higher than the estimated energy requirements of the building. In particular, consumption related with heating was too high, probably due to oversized boiler. For this reason, interventions related to strengthening the building envelope deem unprofitable (e.g. external insulation and replacement of frames). In contrast, interventions that achieved the best score in this analysis are those related to the improvement of electrical/mechanical installations of the building. When the ratio of energy consumption to the energy requirements of the building under consideration is greater than the corresponding ratio of the reference building, then the electrical/mechanical installations of the building are probably inefficient. In the present work the potential of replacing the boiler was not assessed due to unavailability of data required to perform the LCA.More attention should be given to the environmental impacts caused by the respective interventions. Decision makers should no neglect the fact that the ultimate goal of the energy upgrade of buildings is to achieve energy efficiency and subsequently to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other impacts related to the life cycle of the building. Focusing only in use phase or construction phase of a building (or intervention) may mislead effective decision making. LCA can provide a wider image of the impacts related to building life cycle.According to the results of the specific study, it could be inferred that the energy study of a building should be enriched, when possible, by introducing more assessment criteria (energy, environmental, economical and social). Sustainable development calls for a holistic approach while assessing the 45 Black Sea Building Energy Efficiency Plan - BSBEEP impact of a system and in that aspect, it is highly recommended to relative agents (municipal authorities, energy auditors, architects, building owners etc.) to adopt a more systemic thinking. Results of the specific study may help in this direction. ReferencesAngelakoglou, K.,Gaidajis, G. and Dimitriou M. (2013), Comparative evaluation of flat roof thermal systems: A life cycle analysis based approach, Journal of Sustainable Building Technology and Urban Development, 4 (3): 243-257.Bare, J.C., P. Hofstetter, D.W. Pennington and H. Udo de Haes. (2000). Midpoints versus Endpoints: The sacrifices and benefits, Life cycle impact assessment workshop summary, International Journal of LCA 5(6): 319-326.Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], (2006). Life Cycle Assessment: Principles and Practice. Scientific Applications International Corporation (SAIC), Contract No. 68 C02-067, Work Assignment 3-15, EPA/600/R- 06/060.Frankl, P. (2002). Life cycle assessment as a management tool. In A handbook of Industrial Ecology, pp. 530, ed. R.U. Ayres, L.W. Ayres. Edward Elgar Publishing.Goedkoop, M., & Spriensma, R. (2001). The eco-indicator 99 – A damage oriented method for life cycle impact assessment. Methodology Report. The Netherlands: Pre Consultants B.V., Amersfoort.Goedkoop, M., R. Heijungs, J. Struis, G. Huppes and D. Van der Ment, D. (2011). Combined midpoint/endpoint impact assessement [online]. Available from: http://www.leidenuniv.nl/cml/ssp/publications/2002_012.pdf Pennington, D.W., Potting, .J, Finnveden, G., Lindeijer, E., Jolliet, O., Rydberg, T., & Rebitzer, G. (2004). A life cycle assessment: Part 2: Current impact assessment practice. Environ Int, 30(5), 721-39.United Nations Environment Program [UNEP], (2003). Evaluation of environmental impact in life cycle assessment. 1st ed. Meeting Report, Paris: United Nations Publication in collaboration with United Nations Environmental Protection Agency, Centre for environmental science Leiden University and Environmental Analysis and Management Group, ISBN 92- 807-2144-5.46 Black Sea Building Energy Efficiency Plan - BSBEEPAnnex A List of municipal buildings with great potential to implement retrofitting actions. (For more information see GA2.1 study available at www.bsbeep.com)High Intervention Potential  Municipal Library of Kavala  Municipal Water Supply and Drainage of Kavala (“Lord Building”)  Indoor Swimming Pool of Kavala  1st / 4th High School of Kavala  1st / 5th / 6th Nursery School of Kavala  1st / 2nd / 3rd T.E.E. / EP.AL. of Kavala  2nd Primary School, 2nd / 3rd Kindergarten of Kavala  3rd Secondary School of Kavala (retrofitting actions have started)  5th High School of Kavala  5th / 6th Primary School, 5th Kindergarten of Kavala  6th High School and Music Secondary/High School of Kavala  8th Nursery School of Kavala  9th Primary School / Kindergarten of Kavala  14th Primary School / Kindergarten of Kavala  16th Primary School of Kavala (retrofitting actions have started)  18th Primary School / Kindergarten of Kavala  19th Primary School, 16th / 19th Kindergarten of KavalaMedium Intervention Potential  Kavala City Hall (A)  Kavala City Hall (B)  2nd Secondary School of Kavala  3rd High School / 4th T.E.E. / EP.AL. of Kavala  4th Primary School of Kavala  4th Secondary School of Kavala  5th Secondary School of Kavala 47 Black Sea Building Energy Efficiency Plan - BSBEEP 6th Kindergarten of Kavala  6th Secondary School of Kavala  7th Secondary School / 2nd High School of Kavala  8th Primary School / Kindergarten of Kavala  10th Primary School of Kavala  11th Primary School, 11th / 23rd Kindergarten of Kavala  12th Primary School / Kindergarten of Kavala (retrofitting actions have started)  13rd Primary School / Kindergarten of Kavala  17th Primary School / Kindergarten of Kavala  20th Primary School / Kindergarten of Kavala  21st Primary School / Kindergarten of Kavala  22nd Primary School/ Kindergarten of Kavala  25th Primary School of Kavala48

Black Sea Basin Joint Operational Programme 2007-2013

Details

Download

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

Support