1. Marleen Spiekman EU ASIEPI REHVA Seminar, May 14 2009 Comparing EP-requirements over Europe

2. REHVA Seminar, May 14 2009WP 2: Comparing EP-requirements in Europe2 ASIEPI has received funding from the Community’s Intelligent Energy Europe programme under the contract EIE/07/169/SI2.466278. The sole responsibility for the content of this publication lies with the authors. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Communities. Neither the European Commission nor the authors are responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein. The contribution of CETE de Lyon to the ASIEPI project is funded in part by the French ministry for ecology, energy, sustainable development, and spatial planning (MEEDDAT).

3. REHVA Seminar, May 14 2009WP 2: Comparing EP-requirements in Europe3 Comparing requirement levels : 0,8 : E100

4. REHVA Seminar, May 14 2009WP 2: Comparing EP-requirements in Europe4 Just compare kWh/m 2 ! …? Differences between Member States: Climate conditions Indoor conditions Building practice Building use Assessment method: subsidiarity principle

5. REHVA Seminar, May 14 2009WP 2: Comparing EP-requirements in Europe5 IT LOOKS MORE EASY THAN IT IS !!!

6. REHVA Seminar, May 14 2009WP 2: Comparing EP-requirements in Europe6 In short: compare the baskets… Imagine a basket with the typical measures needed to fulfil the national minimum requirements For a common reference building Country A Country B ?? Comparison: Not only the types of fruits But also: if “apple A” is equal to “apple B”

7. REHVA Seminar, May 14 2009WP 2: Comparing EP-requirements in Europe7 Pilot studies ASIEPI Pilot study 1: Predefined: dimensions (incl. windows) & orientation

8. REHVA Seminar, May 14 2009WP 2: Comparing EP-requirements in Europe8

9. REHVA Seminar, May 14 2009WP 2: Comparing EP-requirements in Europe9 Results pilot study 1 : Some interesting figures: Member StateFloor area [m 2 ]Volume [m 3 ]Loss area [m 2 ] PL129229 NL129246 FI128248 DK152277 CZ129349281 DE153480293 ES129295 BE487296 FR123310 IT138314

10. REHVA Seminar, May 14 2009WP 2: Comparing EP-requirements in Europe10 Consequence of different measures Annual energy use: 75.000 MJ France: 123 m 2  610 MJ/m 2 Germany: 153 m 2  493 MJ/m 2 Almost 1/4 e more!

11. REHVA Seminar, May 14 2009WP 2: Comparing EP-requirements in Europe11 CB = Condensing boilerNCB = Non-Condensing Boiler DH = District heating Nat. = natural ventilationMech. = Mechanical ventilationNs/Me = Nat.supply & Mech.exhaust Results pilot study 1 MSU average Heat. syst. Cool. syst. DHW syst. Solar Coll. Vent. syst. Heat recov. DK0,38CB Nat. PL0,50CB Nat. CZ0,48NCB Nat. ES0,80(yes) DE0,55CB yesNs/Me BE0,48NCB Ns/Me FR0,43NCB Ns/Me IT0,66NCB FI0,33DH Mech.30% NL0,41CB Mech.95%

12. REHVA Seminar, May 14 2009WP 2: Comparing EP-requirements in Europe12 Pilot study step 2: preconditions Heating & DHW system: Combined Condensing boiler Ventilation system: Natural supply, mechanical exhaust No additional solar collector or PV system

13. REHVA Seminar, May 14 2009WP 2: Comparing EP-requirements in Europe13 CB = Condensing boiler Ns/Me = Nat.supply & Mech.exhaust Results pilot study 2 MSU average Heat. syst. Cool. syst. DHW syst. Solar Coll. Vent. syst. Heat recov. DK0,36CB Ns/Me PL0,40CB Ns/Me CZ0,48CB Ns/Me ES0,80 DE0.47CB Ns/Me BE0,54CB Ns/Me FR0,56CB Ns/Me IT0,70CB FI0,25CB Ns/Me NLNot possible CB Ns/Me

14. REHVA Seminar, May 14 2009WP 2: Comparing EP-requirements in Europe14 heating demand heating systems cooling demand/ summer comfort Cooling systemDHWFansLighting NLyes (yes) yes default FIyesno ESyesnoyesno ITyes no DKyes (yes) yes no FRyes yes, partly default(yes) (yes, partly default?)yes BEyes (yes) defaultyesno PLyes (?) yes?no CZyes (yes) yes DEyes (yes) yes no Items within EP requirement

15. REHVA Seminar, May 14 2009WP 2: Comparing EP-requirements in Europe15 Consequences Heating system not included in all MS: Case 1: house with non-condensing boiler Case 2: same house with condensing boiler Case 3: same house with heat pump Example (fictive figures!!): DK FI Case 1:U av. = 0,20 U av. = 0,35 Case 2: U av. = 0,35 U av. = 0,35 Case 3: U av. = 0,50 U av. = 0,35 Conclusion, based on: case 1: EP requirement in DK more strickt as is FI case 2: EP requirement in DK as strickt as is FI case 3: EP requirement in DK less strickt as is FI

16. REHVA Seminar, May 14 2009WP 2: Comparing EP-requirements in Europe16 CB = Condensing boiler Ns/Me = Nat.supply & Mech.exhaust NCB = Non- Condensing boiler Results pilot study 3 MSU average Heat. syst. Cool. syst. DHW syst. Solar Coll. Vent. syst. Heat recov. DK0,36 0,32CB NCB Ns/Me CZ0,48 0,43CB NCB Ns/Me ES0,80CB NCB DE0.47 0,42CB NCB Ns/Me BE0,54 0,42CB NCB Ns/Me FI0,25CB NCB Ns/Me

17. REHVA Seminar, May 14 2009WP 2: Comparing EP-requirements in Europe17 CB = Condensing boiler Ns/Me = Nat.supply & Mech.exhaust Pilot study Step 4 MSU average Heat. syst. Cool. syst. DHW syst. Solar Coll. Vent. syst. Heat recov. DE0.47CB Ns/Me BE0,54CB Ns/Me Simple calculations Result DE: 53.000 MJ BE: 56.000 MJ

18. REHVA Seminar, May 14 2009WP 2: Comparing EP-requirements in Europe18 CB = Condensing boiler Ns/Me = Nat.supply & Mech.exhaust Pilot study Step 4 MSU average Heat. syst. Cool. syst. DHW syst. Solar Coll. Vent. syst. Heat recov. DE0.47CB Ns/Me BE0,54CB Ns/Me Simple calculations Result DE: 53.000 MJ ? 55.000 MJ ? BE: 56.000 MJ ? 54.000 MJ ? Thermal bridges ?? Air tightness ??

19. REHVA Seminar, May 14 2009WP 2: Comparing EP-requirements in Europe19 ?? : 0,8: E100