In the frame of the implementation of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) recast (2010/31/EU) (European Parliament & Council, 2009), the EU Member States were asked to develop policies appropriate to their national situations and provide the necessary financing to foster the transition to Nearly Zero-Energy Buildings (NZEB). However, acknowledging the variety in building culture and climate throughout Europe, the EPBD does not prescribe a uniform approach for implementing NZEB. Member States were required to draw up National Plans for increasing the number of NZEBs, with targets that may be different for different building categories. According to paragraph 3 of Article 9, these plans shall include NZEB definitions reflecting national, regional or local conditions, and numerical indicators of primary energy use and ratio covered by Renewable Energy Systems (RES) (D’Agostino et al., 2016).
The EPBD recast asked Member States to calculate cost-optimal levels of minimum energy performance requirements for new and existing buildings by using the comparative methodology framework established by the European Commission. This cost-optimal calculation framework involves the following steps: i) definition of national reference buildings representing the national building stock; ii) identification of energy efficiency measures and packages to be evaluated; iii) calculation of primary energy demand of the reference buildings with the identified energy efficiency measures; iv) calculation of global costs related to each of the energy efficiency measure and package considering long term expenditures and savings during the calculations period; v) sensitivity analysis for input data; vi) derivation of cost-optimal levels of energy performance requirements.
While the Member States are updating their plans and calculations (Boermans et al., 2015) in line with the regulatory background, a recent research project (ENTRANZE18)
provided primary energy levels and benchmarks for building renovation which may represent the cost-optimal and NZEB targets across Europe (Zangheri et al., 2018). According to this study, the NZEB area appears characterized by medium-high and high recurrences of efficiency and RES technologies in all countries. For instance, a typical NZEB building has a well-insulated envelope19 (including insulation layers of 10-30 cm
and double or triple low-e windows), efficient generators (e.g. condensing boiler or ground source heat pump or district heating) in some case assisted by heat recovery strategies, and installed renewable solar systems (normally both thermal and photovoltaic). Otherwise the cost-optimal benchmarks are more heterogonous. Various are the retrofit solutions able to reach this target, that overall is characterized by the competition between the deepest actions regarding envelope, thermal systems and solar renewable systems. As expected, it is difficult to minimize the global costs applying a high-performance envelope, very efficient generators, a heat recovery strategy and a PV plant at the same time. This occurs only in some particular locations.
The data included in Table 6 can be used as key operational characteristics of the technical renovation solutions reaching the cost-optimal and NZEB energy levels.
18https://www.entranze.eu/
Table 6. Energy saving with respect to the pre-retrofit primary energy level and associated investment costs (EUR/m2) for the cost-optimal and NZEB
renovation levels of single family houses (SFH) and multi-family houses (MFH).
NUTS2
SFH MFH
Cost-optimal level NZEB level Cost-optimal level NZEB level
Energy saving Investment costs [€/m2] Energy saving Investment costs [€/m2] Energy saving Investment costs [€/m2] Energy saving Investment costs [€/m2] BG34 60% 215 90% 425 60% 150 75% 230 BG41 60% 215 90% 425 60% 150 75% 230 CZ04 70% 290 90% 451 45% 135 70% 224 CZ08 70% 290 90% 451 45% 135 70% 224 DE40 75% 560 90% 733 50% 343 80% 429 DEA1 75% 560 90% 733 50% 343 80% 429 DEA2 75% 560 90% 733 50% 343 80% 429 DEA3 75% 560 90% 733 50% 343 80% 429 DEC0 75% 560 90% 733 50% 343 80% 429 DED2 75% 560 90% 733 50% 343 80% 429 DED5 75% 560 90% 733 50% 343 80% 429 DEE0 75% 560 90% 733 50% 343 80% 429 EL53 80% 330 80% 330 75% 220 75% 220 EL65 70% 320 70% 320 70% 160 75% 170 ES12 80% 520 95% 570 75% 300 85% 280 ES21 80% 520 95% 570 75% 300 85% 280 ES24 80% 520 95% 570 75% 300 85% 280 ES41 80% 520 95% 570 75% 300 85% 280
Table Continued: Energy saving with respect to the pre-retrofit primary energy level and associated investment costs (EUR/m2) for the
cost-optimal and NZEB renovation levels of single family houses (SFH) and multi-family houses (MFH).
NUTS 2
SFH MFH
Cost-optimal level NZEB level Cost-optimal level NZEB level
Energy
saving costs [€/mInvestment 2] Energy saving costs [€/mInvestment 2] Energy saving costs [€/mInvestment 2] Energy saving costs [€/mInvestment 2]
ES42 80% 520 95% 570 75% 300 85% 280 HU31 80% 500 95% 620 55% 290 80% 330 ITG2 60% 170 75% 340 50% 105 65% 150 PL21 75% 310 90% 450 50% 150 80% 255 PL22 75% 310 90% 450 50% 150 80% 255 PL41 75% 310 90% 450 50% 150 80% 255 PL51 75% 310 90% 450 50% 150 80% 255 PL71 75% 310 90% 450 50% 150 80% 255 PL81 75% 310 90% 450 50% 150 80% 255 RO41 60% 215 90% 425 60% 150 75% 230 RO42 60% 215 90% 425 60% 150 75% 230 SI03 65% 200 95% 400 60% 140 95% 250 SK02 90% 450 95% 475 80% 255 85% 270 UKC2 20% 130 60% 450 30% 160 65% 400 UKE2 20% 130 60% 450 30% 160 65% 400 UKE3 20% 130 60% 450 30% 160 65% 400 UKE4 20% 130 60% 450 30% 160 65% 400 UKF1 20% 130 60% 450 30% 160 65% 400 UKG2 20% 130 60% 450 30% 160 65% 400
Table Continued: Energy saving with respect to the pre-retrofit primary energy level and associated investment costs (EUR/m2) for the
cost-optimal and NZEB renovation levels of single family houses (SFH) and multi-family houses (MFH).
NUTS 2
SFH MFH
Cost-optimal level NZEB level Cost-optimal level NZEB level
Energy
saving costs [€/mInvestment 2] Energy saving costs [€/mInvestment 2] Energy saving costs [€/mInvestment 2] Energy saving costs [€/mInvestment 2]
UKL1 20% 130 60% 450 30% 160 65% 400
UKL2 20% 130 60% 450 30% 160 65% 400
UKM7 20% 130 60% 450 30% 160 65% 400
UKM8 20% 130 60% 450 30% 160 65% 400
The investment costs are considered constant over a period of 30-40 years, as generally assumed by Member States for their cost-optimal calculations (Boermans et al., 2015). When it comes to technology deployment projections, a direct comparison to the data supporting the EC Reference Scenario (De Vita et al., 2018), is not trivial. This is because the type of renovation measures used are not described in detail and it is not clear how the geographical regions (Centre/West, North, South and East) were defined. However the investment costs used in (De Vita et al., 2018) seem lower that those collected for this study. The main reason for these discrepancies likely is the technological packages associated to our renovation levels. Usually, these also include energy efficiency measures regarding the thermal building systems (e.g. condensing boilers, heat pumps, heat recovery, etc.) and renewable technologies (i.e. thermal solar and photovoltaic). The obtained primary energy saving potential is presented in the following figures. These map the final results obtained by considering 3 scenarios:
"Theoretical NZEB" refers to the total technical potential related to the renovation of all occupied existing dwellings to the NZEB level. We consider it as the theoretical maximum amount of energy that could be saved with energy efficiency measures, disregarding all non-engineering constraints such as economic or market barriers. It takes into account the size and the current characteristics of the building stock and the technical factors associated to the renovation measures.
With "Theoretical cost-optimal" we refer to a more realistic technical potential related to the renovation of all occupied existing dwellings to the cost-optimal level, which minimise the global cost of the building over a period of 30 years. And "Business As Usual at 2050", which considers a realistic dynamic of
renovations (rate of 1.5% yearly) and an equal distribution between cost-optimal and NZEB refurbishments.
Due to the high number of occupied dwellings, the top five coal regions with the highest potential in energy savings for all scenarios are in Germany. Namely, Düsseldorf (DEA1, 34.34, 49.02 and 18.76 TWh), Köln (DEA2 31.92, 44.02 and 17.09 TWh), Brandenburg (DE40 19.52, 26.72 and 10.4 TWh), Münster (DEA3 19.2, 26.06 and 10.18 TWh) and Saxony-Anhalt (DEE0 16.28, 22.65 and 8.76 TWh), respectively to the three scenarios considered. The maximum energy saving potential (associated with the "Theoretical NZEB" scenario) resulting in all the German regions under investigation represents 5.9% of the national primary energy consumption in 2017. This ratio increases up to 9.2% for Slovenia, while the lowest potential (0.6%) is observed in Italy (represented by only one region, ITG2, Sardegna).