1. NET ZERO HOUSE Etienne Hentzen Mark Horgan Mark Lewis Grant MacGregor Darren Tannock

2. RECAP  Rural design option  Tasks assigned  Geometry  Materials  Lighting and Ventilation  Energy Systems  Renewable Energy  Simple bungalow design  Climate and site data for surrounding area

3. GANTT CHART

4. GEOMETRY  Optimum roof pitch 35˚  Garage added on West façade  Finalised sizing of windows etc.  Design optimised  Open plan living

5. LIGHTING  Design of the house on DIALux  Simulation parameters:  White walls and ceiling with 90% reflection  Windows with 10% reflection and 70% transmittance  Light coloured wood on the floor with 52% reflection  Location of the house: Glasgow  Date of the simulation: 21st March 2013

6. LIGHTING  Natural lighting results;

7. LIGHTING  Artificial lighting model

8. LIGHTING  Artificial lighting results

9. LIGHTING  House lighting installation

10. LIGHTING  Lighting energy consumption;  Average hours of daylight in Scotland = 12,5 hours  This is the duration of the day in mid-March

11. MATERIALS  Ceiling / Floor  Exterior Walls

12. HEATING LOAD CALCULATIONS  Degree-day method (internal gains assumed at 3.5 Celsius internal gain)  20 Celsius set-point, thus base temp. 16.5 Celsius for calculation.  Solar Calculation using Oban data (solar calculator available on Myplace)

14. HEATING LOAD CALCULATIONS MonthSouth Glazing GainNorthEastTOTAL SOLAR GAIN (kWh) Jan307.779691535.6034931.06722374.4504 Feb598.516012368.0084563.87651730.401 Mar1060.946321144.823143.60881349.378 Apr1820.224948235.6415255.30272311.169 May2267.018953386.8381344.35692998.214 Jun2153.307818420.2894342.10752915.705 Jul1954.661923385.8333303.81392644.309 Aug1868.887256300.4178274.57122443.876 Sept1166.015338165.8861156.4281488.329 Oct794.907263994.8203991.94418981.6718 Nov451.744745744.3280443.58382539.6566 Dec245.98956826.5862422.12661294.7024 TOTAL14689.999842309.0762072.78719071.86

15. HEATING LOAD CALCULATIONS

16. TOTAL HEATING LOAD (kWh) 656.1235 200.4399 -447.626 -1563.17 -2482.93 -2624.82 HEATING -2472.55 COOLING -2272.11 -1155.89 -423.444 291.4514 692.9309 -11601.6 Annual Total Losses (kWh) 7470.27531 Annual Solar Gains (kWh) 19071.86

17. HEATING LOAD CALCULATIONS

21. ELECTRIC CAR  Fiat 500e  111-horsepower electric-drive motor  116 miles per gallon  Range of 130-160km (81-99 miles) after one full charge (4 hours at 240 volts)  Fuel consumption rate of 29kWh per 100 miles. (source : http://images.conceptcarz.com/imgxra/Fiat/Fiat-500e- Coupe-Image-028-800.jpg)

22. ELECTRICAL DEMAND  Assuming electric car is driven on average 50 miles per week (2600 miles per year) with a fuel consumption rate of 29kWh per 100miles;  29kWh * (2600/100) = 754 kWh/year

24. RENEWABLE SYSTEMS  Renewable energy sources considered:  Ground Source Heat Pump  Small Wind Energy Converter  Photovoltaic Panels

25. GROUND SOURCE  Ground Source Heat pumps are notoriously hard to generate data for.  Various case studies in cold climates suggest that ground source heat pumps can be used to great effect.  However, as sizing a heat pump system would involve to many uncertainties, it was decided not to continue with this energy source.

26. WIND POWER  The average site wind speed as specified by NOABL is 5.5m/s at 10m above ground level.  There is an abundance of wind power to be had at the site.  The situation is made better still by the fact the turbine will be placed at the brow of a shallow hill.

27. TURBINE SELECTION  All turbines are fairly quiet (<45Dba), and receive no noise penalty.  Values are obtained by determining the power in the wind, using the equation:  All values obtained should be considered conservative.  All turbines come with packages including inverters and grid connections.  All turbines have no cut out speed, and a similar survival speed. TurbineRated Power Cp @ 5.5m/s Swept Area (m2) Output pa at 5.5m/s Proven 66kW0.3423.87223kWh Eoltec Scirocco6kW0.3524.77717kWh Evance R90005kW0.3623.87648kWh

28. TURBINE SELECTION  Eoltec Scirocco is the best choice.  Highest power yield  Lowest noise output  Lowest weight

29. SOLAR POWER  European Commission Joint Research Council rates the site at around 900kW/h per m2 per year. Met Office data is similar to this figure.  Wunderground.com also gives a value obtained from NASA for the site that is in keeping with this figure, and this data shall be used in calculation of solar gains.  Solar Energy can provide useful power. JANUARYFEBRUARYMARCHAPRILMAYJUNE 1.082.052.853.854.544.37 JULYAUGUSTSEPTEMBEROCTOBERNOVEMBERDECEMBER 4.143.953.272.181.310.76 Total kWh/m2/Year = 1045 Average W/m2 = 119 http://www.wunderground.com/ calculators/solar.html

30. PANEL SELECTION  Research was undertaken into different types of panel:  Panasonic (Sanyo) HIT system  Sharp ND-R245A6 Polycrystalline Silicon  Sharp NA-E135G5 Thinfilm Microcrystalline

31. PANEL SELECTION  119 W/m2 is the average irradiance for a year based on the solar calculator.  It is assumed that the PV panel will be placed at the optimum angle i.e. 35˚  It is assumed that on average the operating temperature will be around 25˚C taking into account the wind speed and air temperature. Output was determined using the equation:  The values obtained are considered conservative. PanelMax Power (W) Irradiance (W/m2) Output (kWh pa) Output (kWh pa) for 10 panels HIT N2402401192502500 ND-R245A62451192552550 NA-E135G51351191411410

32. PANEL SELECTION  Panasonic HIT N240 system is the best choice  Does not require extensive modification  Most efficient at warmer temperatures  Guarantee of 80% effectiveness after 25 years  Low Weight and thin profile  Professional fitting available

33. THANKS FOR LISTENING QUESTIONS?