IEE ECOLISH Improvement of Energy E fficiency of Low Income Housing

1. IEE ECOLISHImprovement of Energy Efficiency of Low Income Housing Zoltán MAGYAR Hungary

2. The problem - general • Energy use in residential buildings in EU is 9500 PJ (= 23% of total use) > largest proportion • Measures on existing residential buildings will make major contribution in energy and CO2 reduction But large number of barriers: • Technologies are available (more based on new buildings) • Financial constraints • Social constraints • Organisation

3. The problem - specific • Social housing and (extreme) low incomes • Often high energy consumption (poor thermal and building physical quality, building services) • In combination with poor IAQ and Thermal Comfort • Increasing energy prices (>> inflation rates), leading to fuel poverty • Problematic spread ownership • how to organise • who is interested/responsible • Allocation and risk of revenues of investments • Investors do often not have repays of investments • How to allocate the repays?

4. Objectives of ECOLISH Objective: investigate and demonstrate the feasibility and the potential of instruments like Energy Performance Contracting Target groups: occupants with low income Means: organising ESCO companies and EPC, involving occupants

5. … organised on 4 pilot locations • Heerlen - the Netherlands • Ogre- Latvia • Pieria – Greece • Pécsvárad – Hungary • Representing 4 different • Regions, cultures and climate zones • (moderate, cold, mild, continental)

7. Analysis of the pilot locations • Social analysis (questionairre, 97 questions) • Ownership of the apartments • Average occupancy/ apartments • Age group distribution • Occupants heating habits/behaviour • Technical analysis • Temperature • Building structure • Heating, DHW, cooking, ventilating • Energy use • Habits • Calculation

8. Pilot location Heerlen (NL)

9. Energy analysis EPBD • Original1960’s * Renovation 1980’s • 5075 m3 nat. gas * 2605 m3 nat. gas • EI = 4.05 (G-label) * EI = 2.68 (F-label)

10. Actual situation • Fitted gas consumption: 2190 m3 • Energy-index = 2.18 (E-label) • Some packages:

11. b. Additional package • Measures • Basic package plus: • Insulation Behind Facades /stuck (180 m2) • HE glazing +insulated panels • Investment € 114.000 inclusive VAT Gas saving 7.500 m3 yearly. • Financial scheme: • Financing by savings € 104.000 • Own contribution € 10.000 • Home appreciation PM

13. d. Sustainable package

14. d Sustainable package • Measures Complete package plus: • solar collector Investment € 208.000 inclusive VAT Gas saving 10.700 m3 yearly. Financial scheme: Financing by savings € 149.000 Own contribution € 59.000 Home appreciation PM

15. Overview packages

16. Ogre, Latvia Concrete panel houses

17. Problems connected to social and political change and transition taking place in Latvia; Lack of income; Individual problems economic and social, lack of self-esteem and self-reliance, young people prefer to move to Riga and work abroad. Lack of interest in municipal politics and public issues is also a problem at the individual level; Lack of extension and knowledge in home economics and especially in house management; Lack of free time FUEL POVERTY! Typical social problems • They spend 40 – 50 % of net income on energy cost

18. 121 flats in 10 buildings Min. floor area 65 m2 Max. floor area 105 m2 Pecsvarad, Hungary

19. Energy certificationbasedoncurrentsituation General building Category F (average) Flat in the middle Category E (better than average) Flat in the corner Category H (bad)

21. Pieriki, Greece

22. Comparison the energy usesIntegrated Energy Performance

23. EPBD certificationin Hungary

24. 1. All the pilot locations within their own local and climate conditions with the HU calculation

25. 2. Technical analysis of all the pilot locations within the Hungarian standard and climate conditions

26. 3. Comparision of the insulation and retrofitting measures for all the pilot locations within their own local and climate conditions with HU calculation • Measures • Thermal insulation of the external walls, roofs, and basement • Retrofitting of the installation (condensin boilers, TRV and in case of Heerlen heat recovering ventilation)

27. 3. Comparision of the insulation and retrofitting measures for all the pilot locations within their own local and climate conditions with HU calculation

28. 4. Comparision of the thermo-insulation measures for all the pilot locations within the Hungarian standard and climate conditions (in Pecsvarad) • Measures • Thermal-insulation of the external walls, roofs, and basement • Retrofitting of the installations (condensing boilers, TRV, and in case of Heerlen heat recovering ventilation)

29. 4. Comparision of the insulation and retrofitting measures for all the pilot locations within the Hungarian standard and climate conditions (in Pecsvarad)

30. Conclusions In social housing energy costs are high in combination with poor thermal comfort and indoor air quality Saving potential and benefits are high Benefits can be allocated to investments Specific problem is spread ownership: to be solved by organising occupants and forming legal entities; very important to achieve any results and commitment. Important to provide a balanced set of energy saving measures, measures to improve IAQ and thermal comfort, in combination with ways how to finance this for these groups of housings that normally don’t have possibilities for this. Many buildings are at the end of their technical and economical lifetime Risk allocation in energy exploitation is still a big problem

31. Recommendations Role of municipalities can be important, different political interest can be a threat ESCOs could play a new and important role. Residential sector can be a new and interesting business area We started with pilots, considered as „hopeless cases", but these cases appeared to be not so hopeless after all ……

32. www.ecolish.com