Assessing the Myths on Energy Efficiency When Retrofitting Multifamily Buildings in a Northern Region
In the light of EU’s requirements to achieve a major cut in energy use by 2050, Sweden has the same target. The built environment must by 2020 reduce energy use by 20 and 50 % by 2050. The size of the future building stock will naturally increase and regardless of how energy efficient future buildings will be, the energy performance of the old stock must be improved in order to reach those goals. In major renovation projects involving multifamily buildings in large residential areas in the cities, 50 % reduction can be achieved. This is cost-effective and profitable even if the rent is increased.
Gävleborg is a sparse region in the North, with few cities. Multifamily buildings are generally much smaller than in large cities and owners are reluctant to impose changes that increase rents due to the housing situation in the region. In consequence, the Regional Council and the University of Gävle set out to assess the potential and feasibility of reducing energy use and carbon dioxide emissions in this region’s multifamily buildings. Eleven real buildings were investigated, each having various ownership forms, different technical attributes and heating sources. Energy audits and measurements were conducted to assess the condition of each building. Performances of the buildings and proposed improvements were simulated with building energy simulation programs, whilst life cycle cost analyses were conducted to study viability. Carbon dioxide emission (CO2) reductions were estimated for each improvement.
Based on the results, a concluding discussion is made on whether or not some myths on energy use and retrofitting are true. The following is concluded: It is possible to reach a 50 % reduction, but it is not economical with the costs involved and with today’s energy prices and moderate price increase over time.
Retrofitting or improvements made in the building’s services systems (HVAC) are more economical than actions taken to improve performance of building by constructions. HVAC improvements give about 20 % reduction in energy use. However, mechanical ventilation systems with heat recuperation are not economical, though these may or may not substantially reduce use of thermal energy.
Solar energy is, despite the latitude of the region, economically viable—especially PV solar energy. Photovoltaic panels (PVs) are becoming viable—the combination of PVs and district heating is beneficial since saving electricity is more important than thermal energy in district-heated areas.
KeywordsRetrofit Multifamily buildings Energy savings
Funders of the EKG project are acknowledged: Swedish Energy Agency, Regional Council of Gävleborg and University of Gävle. The authors are in debt to co-workers Gustav (Persson) Söderlind, Linn Liu and Sanne Godow-Bratt.
- Abel E, Filipsson P, Sundström T (2012) Belok Totalprojekt—Ekonomisk bedömning, BELOK—Energieffektivisering av befintliga lokalbyggnader. CIT Energy Management, GothenburgGoogle Scholar
- Akander J, Cehlin M, Persson G, Godow-Bratt S (2012) Energieffektivisering av flerbostads-fastigheter—Elva lokala exempel år 2012, Rapport 2012:16. Länsstyrelsen, GävleborgGoogle Scholar
- Aton Teknikkonsult AB (2007) Energideklaration av bostadsbyggnader, metoder för besiktning och beräkning, Version 2, StockholmGoogle Scholar
- Boverket (2007) Energy use in buildings: subgoal 6—Report for the detailed evaluation of Good Built Environment 2007, National Board of Housing Building and Planning, KarlskronaGoogle Scholar
- Byman K, Jernelius S (2012) Ekonomi vid ombyggnader med energisatsningar. Slutrapport, Stockholm StadGoogle Scholar
- Eurostat (2014) Renewable energy in the EU28—Share of renewables in energy consumption up to 14 % in 2012. News release 37/2014—10 Mar 2014Google Scholar
- Nils Holgersson Gruppen (2013) District heating prices of the Gävleborg Region www.nilsholgersson.nu Accessed in Oct 2012
- SABO (2009) Hem för miljoner—Förutsättningar för upprustning av miljonprogrammet—rekordårens bostäder. Sveriges Allmännyttiga Bostadsföretag, StockholmGoogle Scholar
- SCB (2009) Bostads-och byggnadsstatistik årsbok 2009—Boende, byggande och bebyggelse. ISBN: 978-91-618-1473-2. Statistiska Centralbyrån, StockholmGoogle Scholar
- SCB (2012) Bostads-och byggnadsstatistik, årsbok 2012—Boende, byggande och bebyggelse. Statistiska Centralbyrån, StockholmGoogle Scholar
- SEA (2012) Energistatistik för flerbostadshus 2011, ES 2012:05. Swedish Energy Agency, EskilstunaGoogle Scholar
- SEA (2013) The energy use situation in Sweden 2013. (Energiläget 2013, ET 2013: 22). Swedish Energy Agency (SEA), EskilstunaGoogle Scholar
- SEA (2013) Energy price—natural gas and electricity. Swedish Energy Agency, EskilstunaGoogle Scholar
- Socialstyrelsen (Public Health Agency) (2005) Temperatur inomhus. ISBN: 91-7201-972-7. Socialstyrelsen, LindesbergGoogle Scholar
- SOU (2008) Ett Energieffektivare Sverige. Delberänkande av Energi- effektivseringsutredningen, SOU 2008:25. Statens Offentliga Utredningar, StockholmGoogle Scholar
- SPBI (2013) The price of heating oil in Sweden. Swedish Petroleum and Biofuel Institute, StockholmGoogle Scholar
- SVEBY (2009) Brukarindata för energiberäkningar i bostäder, Projektrapport 2009-04-14. Svebyprogrammet, StockholmGoogle Scholar
- Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute (2014). http://www.smhi.se/klimatdata/meteorologi/stralning/1.2927. Accessed 31 Jul 2014
- Wikells Byggberäkningar AB (2013) Wikells Sektionsdata—ROT Teknisk-Ekonomisk Sammanfattning av ROT-byggdelarGoogle Scholar