bre Innovation Park Visitor Centre: Energy Modelling and Efficiency Strategies for a Zero Energy Building

Group members Ioanna Vrachimi Georgia-Charoula Anagnostou Evangelos Kyrou David Enonche Ochiba MSc Sustainable Engineering: Renewable Energy Systems and the Environment

BRE Innovation Park @ Ravenscraig Visitor Centre

Net Zero Energy Building Aim Visitor Centre: Net Zero Energy Building

Project Aim Demand Supply Financial Analysis Final Decision Combinations Financial Analysis Final Decision PROJECT APPROACH

Existing Building

Triple glazing low-e Windows Materials & Technologies Triple glazing low-e Windows Ceiling phase change material Floor Polyurethane and epoxy based resin flooring systems Lighting Large windows for maximum daylight harvesting U - values (W/m2K) Roof 0.1 Floor External walls 0.15 Windows 0.9

Underfloor Heating System Materials & Technologies MVHR Solar Thermal Flat Plate Collector Underfloor Heating System ASHP Photovoltaics 18 Panels – 4.5kW in total Batteries 6 Batteries (1104 Ah) Electric Heaters

Specific Energy Demand Energy & Environmental Performance Existing Issues Energy surplus NOT exported to the grid Summer Overheating Specific Energy Demand 59 kWh/m2

Shading Effect Month: July

Air Source Heat Pump Air to water; combination with underfloor heating system Annual electrical demands for heating down by 2/3 COP = 2.5 - 4 TOTAL ELECTRICITY 22 %  

26 % Ground Source Heat Pump Underground temperature at 6 meters depth in the UK ≈ 10oC Water Temperature = 35oC Seasonal COP ≈ 4.8 TOTAL ELECTRICITY 26 %

Biomass Boiler  0.5 tonne of wood pellets required to cover annual heating demands. Average wood pellet price = 4.34 p/kWh TOTAL ELECTRICITY 32 %

Supply - Electricity PV Panels Wind Turbine 4.5 kW – 9 kW

Site Vs Source Source Energy = 2.67 x Site Energy Site Energy

Energy Flows – Net Zero SITE Energy Building BEST

Best Combination for Net Zero SITE Energy Building 18 x (4.5 kW)

Energy Flows – Net Zero SOURCE Energy Building Existing BEST

30 x Best Combination for Net Zero SOURCE Energy Building (7.5 kW) Demand/Supply matching rate was the criterion. (7.5 kW) (2.5 kW)

Financial Analysis Capital Costs Maintenance Costs Operational Costs Revenues (FIT, RHI) Payback Periods

24 PVs (6 kW) + Electric Heaters Financial Analysis – Net Zero SITE Energy Building years Payback Period (negative) 24 PVs (6 kW) + Electric Heaters 18 PVs (4.5 kW) + Biomass 18 PVs (4.5 kW) + ASHP 18 PVs (4.5 kW) + GSHP 18 x (4.5 kW) Best Combination

Financial Analysis – Net Zero SOURCE Energy Building 18 PVs (4.5 kW) + 1 WT (6 kW) + Electric Heaters 30 PVs (7.5 kW) + 1 WT (2.5 kW) + ASHP 30 PVs (7.5 kW) + 1 WT (2.5 kW) + GSHP 24 PVs (6 kW) + 1 WT (2.5 kW) + Biomass years Payback Period (6 kW) 18 x (4.5 kW) Best Combination

Parameters to be considered Model-based results Weather Impact Analysis based on current market prices Capital cost available - no loan rates/inflation considered Heating Demands Cooling Demands - Blinds Effectiveness Supply Output Visitor Centre, ESP-r model

Conclusions Best demand/supply matching ≠ Cost-effective solution Energy export to the grid is essential: High energy surplus Significant revenues from FITs No incentives for energy storage (expensive & limited capacity) Effective use of shading rather than energy-intensive cooling system

Net Zero Site Energy Net Zero Source Energy Achievable with small enhancements - replace heating supply Lower Capital Costs Lower demand matching - dependence on electricity price Net Zero Source Energy Energy Imports are minimized - low dependence on electricity price Higher Capital Costs (2 to 10 times up) Expenses are eliminated - net revenues up to £1800/year Shorter payback periods

Thank You! Any Questions?