Search

Highlights • A pre and post renovation energy use analysis of almost 90,000 renovated dwellings. • The (p)rebound effects explain only partly disappointing energy renovation results. • Effectiveness of renovations are dependent on state of building prior to renovation. • Effectiveness of renovations are dependent on type of occupant. • Deep renovations often save less energy than expected but are the most effective. Abstract Energy renovations often result in lower energy savings than expected. Therefore, in this study we investigate nearly 90,000 renovated dwellings in the Netherlands with pre and post renovation data of actual and calculated energy consumption. One of the main additions of this paper, compared to previous studies on thermal renovation, is that it only takes dwellings into account with the same occupants before and after renovation, using a large longitudinal dataset. Overall this paper shows new insights towards the influence of the energy efficiency state of a building prior to energy renovation, the type of building, the number of occupants, the income level of the occupants and the occupancy time on the actual energy savings, the energy saving gap and on the probability of lower energy savings than expected. We also investigate if the influence is different per type of thermal renovation measure. Some of the findings are: it is impossible to conclude which single thermal renovation measure is the most effective because this is dependent on the energy efficiency of the building prior to the energy renovation, type of building, income level and occupancy; occupants with a high income save more energy than occupants with low income; dwellings with employed occupants benefit more from improved building installations than dwellings occupied by unemployed occupants; The prebound and rebound effects are only part of the explanations for lower than expected energy savings; Deep renovations result more often in lower than expected energy savings than single renovation measures but nevertheless they result in the highest average energy saving compared to other thermal renovation measures. The results could be used for more realistic expectations of the energy reduction achieved by thermal renovations, which is important for (amongst others) policy makers, clients and contractors who make use of energy performance contracting, home owners, landlords and (social) housing associations and as a starting point to improve the energy calculation method. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The difference between actual and calculated energy is called the ‘energy-performance gap’. Possible explanations for this gap are construction mistakes, improper adjusting of equipment, excessive simplification in simulation models and occupant behaviour. Many researchers and governmental institutions think the occupant is the main cause of this gap. However, only limited evidence exists for this. Therefore, an analysis is presented of actual and theoretical energy consumption based on specific household types and building characteristics. Using a large dataset (1.4 million social housing households), the average actual and theoretical energy consumptions (gas and electricity) of different household types and characteristics (income level, type of income, number of occupants and their age) were compared for each energy label. Additionally, the 10% highest and lowest energy-consuming groups were analysed. The use of combinations of occupant characteristics instead of individual occupant characteristics provides new insights into the influence of the occupant on energy demand. For example, in contrast to previous studies, low-income households consume more gas per m2(space heating and hot water) than households with a high income for all types of housing. Furthermore, the performance gap is caused not only by the occupant but also by the assumed building characteristics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]