Search

The need to improve the energy efficiency of buildings has introduced the concept of nearly zero-energy buildings into European energy policies. Moreover, a percentage of the building stock will have to be renovated annually to attain high energy performance. Conventional passive interventions in buildings are focused on increasing the insulation of the building envelope to increase its energy efficiency during the operating phase. Often, however, intervention practices imply the incorporation of embodied energy into the building materials and increase the associated environmental impacts. This paper presents and evaluates a comparison of two different proposals for a real-world building renovation. The first proposal was a conventional project for energy renovation, while the second was a low-energy building proposal (following the Passivhaus standard). This study analysed the proposals using an integrated life cycle and thermal dynamic simulation assessment to identify the adequacy of each renovation alternative regarding the post-renovation energy performance of the building, including an evaluation of the introduction of a renewable insulation material into the low-energy building proposal, specifically a specific cork solution. The most significant conclusion was the convenience of the renovation, achieving energy savings of 60% and 80% for the conventional and Passivhaus renovations (ENERPHIT), respectively. The former supposed less embodied energy and environmental impacts but also generated less energy savings. The latter increased the embodied impacts in the building, mainly for the large amount of insulation material. The environmental implications of both proposals can be compensated for within a reasonable period of time, over 2 years in the majority of alternatives and impact categories. However, the ENERPHIT project was 30% better than the conventional proposal when the total lifespan of the building was considered. The introduction of cork did not fit the requirements for competing with the common non-renewable insulation materials because it did not imply better environmental performance in buildings, but cork insulation solutions currently present ample room for improvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper analyses the energy and economic performance of roof and/or façades Building Integrated flat-plate PhotoVoltaic and Thermal (BIPVT) collectors for residential applications. Aim of the analysis is to assess the active and passive effects due to the building integration of solar technologies on the building energy consumptions. In particular, a comparison among innovative building-plant system configurations, based on BIPVT collectors for the simultaneous production of electricity, thermal energy, and domestic hot water, is carried out. The simulation models of the proposed system layouts are designed and implemented in TRNSYS simulation environment for the dynamic assessment of their energy and economic performance. By means of the developed simulation model, the occurring summer and winter building passive energy effects due to the PVT building integration are also analysed. Several case studies are developed by modelling a representative multi-storey residential building and by taking into account different European climates. For such case studies a suitable energy parametric analysis is performed by varying the thermal resistances and capacitances of the building envelope. By the simulation results interesting design and economic feasibility guidelines are obtained. In particular, by varying the weather location and the building-plant configuration, the adoption of BIPVT panels produces a decrease of the primary energy demands from 67% to 89%. The passive effects of the BIPVT system in both the winter and summer season are also assessed for all the investigated climate zones. The calculated economic profitability resulted slightly better for roof BIPVT panels than for roof and façade applications. For the investigated case studies, the pay back periods appear quite long, varying from 11 years for South European weather zones to 20 for North European ones. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]