Rapport Isolation-ECOFYS EU

U-VALUES
FOR BETTER ENERGY PERFORMANCE OF BUILDINGS
Report established by ECOFYS for EURIMA

Thomas Boermans
Carsten Petersdorff
(Ecofys Germany)
supported by international Ecofys staff

Erwin Mikkers (Ecofys NL)
Ronald Voskens (Ecofys Spain)
Andy Horsley (Ecofys UK)
Michal Siembab (Ecofys Poland)
Cinzia Maga (Ecofys Italy)
PEPLDE061916
ECOFYS GmbH, Eupener Straße 59, 50933 Cologne, Germany, Tel. +49 221 510907-0
U-values
For Better Energy Performance Of Buildings
Report established by ECOFYS for EURIMA
ECOFYS >>> U-VALUES FOR BETTER ENERGY PERFORMANCE OF BUILDINGS
FOREWORD
At the Gleneagles Summit in July 2005, leaders of the G8 addressed the serious and long-term challenges
of secure and clean energy, climate change and sustainable development. Agreeing to act with resolve
and urgency, they adopted a Plan of Action and launched a dialogue with other significant energy users.
The G8 leaders asked the International Energy Agency (IEA) to come up with recommendations on action
and to be a major partner in the dialogue.
The IEA took policy recommendations to the G8 summits in St. Petersburg in June 2006 and in
Heiligendamm in June 2007 and further recommendations will be taken to future G8 summits.
Buildings comprise the largest end use of energy; nearly 40 per cent of the world’s end energy use is
spent on buildings, including lighting, installed appliances and equipment. Compelling and cost effective
opportunities to reduce energy consumption in buildings exist both in IEA member countries and in
developing countries.
A policy to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions and to ensure sustainable
development has to include measures to reduce the end use of energy in buildings. Consequently
recommendations on policies for buildings are an important component of the IEA package of
recommendations for the G8.
Furthermore, the Governing Board of the IEA endorsed five specific recommendations for policies on
energy efficiency in buildings in March 2007 and has strongly encouraged all IEA Member Countries to
adopt these policy actions.
Among IEA recommendations, is the enforcement and regular updating of mandatory standards for new
buildings (Building Codes). These requirements should be based on least costs over the longer term, to
ensure that new buildings are constructed to be energy efficient. The recommendations also propose to
set energy requirements for existing buildings to be met by major refurbishment.
This study conducted by Ecofys for EURIMA, is a valuable contribution to the IEA’s work on policy
recommendations, especially for Building Codes, where the Ecofys Study both supports and extends the
IEA recommendations. Showing the gap between existing requirements and the economic optimum over
30 years, the Ecofys study documents that, even in countries with a long tradition of energy requirements,
there is still substantial potential to increase efficiency in new buildings without additional costs for end
users.
The study also demonstrates that the efficiency requirements when refurbishing existing buildings should
be almost the same as for new buildings. Combined with the earlier Ecofys EURIMA studies, this emphasises
the potential efficiency gains through refurbishment and other policies to upgrade existing buildings.
The IEA highly welcomes this new study for its contribution to the dialogue among governments, major end energy
users and other parties involved in raising the energy efficiency of new and existing buildings worldwide.
William Ramsay
Deputy Executive Director of IEA*
* INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY

TABLE OF CONTENTs
1 Executive Summary 8
2 Introduction 9
2.1 Framework and boundaries of the study 11
2.1.1 Cost effectiveness per component 11
2.1.2 Economic optimum 12
2.1.3 Simple linear investment 13
2.1.4 The Passive House 14
2.2 Use of the study and assumptions/restrictions of the analyses 14
3 Background 15
3.1 European heating and cooling degree days maps 15
3.1.1 Definition heating/cooling degree days 15
3.1.2 European heating degree days map 16
3.1.3 European cooling degree days map 17
4 Insulation and cooling 18
4.1 Impact of climate zones 19
4.2 Impact of building components 20
4.3 Sensitivity related to other factors 21
4.4 Conclusions on energy demand for cooling 27

5 U-values according to cost-efficiency 29
5.1 Methodology 29
5.2 Mechanisms of U-value optimum 31
5.3 Input calculations 35
5.3.1 Energy prices 35
5.3.2 Investment costs 39
5.4 Results 39
6 U-values according to climate protection targets 48
6.1 Background 48
6.2 Methodology 49
6.3 Results 51
6.4 Sensitivity analysis Post-Kyoto targets 52
7 Overview results cost efficiency and climate protection 56
8 Comparison of results 58
8.1 Cost-efficient U-values versus required U-values 58
8.2 Verification of results in an EPBD context 61
9 Conclusions 63
10 References 64
Annex 1 66
Annex 2 70
Annex 3 74
Annex 4 78
Annex 5 99
E x ec u t i v e S u m m ar y
The calculations of the overall energy performance of buildings, according to the EPBD has to consider
an integrated approach that takes into account all building related energy losses and gains. National or
regional energy performance requirements are given in national or regional regulations for fully integrated
overall energy performance.
In many countries additional requirements on the maximum energy transmission for single building
components expressed in U-values or R-values are given, reflecting the knowledge that it saves costs
and improves comfort to ensure first a low energy demand of a building before supplying the remaining
energy demand in the most efficient way.
However the national U-value requirements for building components (roof, floor, wall, windows, etc.)
often describe minimum requirements that do not reflect the economic optimum or specific environmental
targets.
Additionally, the sharp rise in energy prices of the last years and current discussions on climate protection
targets have considerably changed the boundary conditions for applying insulation to buildings in Europe.
This study therefore aims to contribute to the discussion of policymakers and regulators concerning
reconsideration of the national or regional required or recommended U-values for building components.
Regarding the recommendation of U-values, one could choose for a financial point of view and calculate
an economic optimum for insulation levels derived from the necessary investment costs and according
energy cost savings from reduced heating and cooling energy demand. Another approach is to calculate
necessary insulation levels to meet climate protection targets. In this study the results for both approaches
have been assessed, leading to the following conclusions:
>T
he different argumentations, both for cost effectiveness and in the climate protection approach,
result in comparable maximum U-values. This means that climate protection and cost efficiency are
not contradictory but can be well combined.
>R
ecommended maximum U-values resulting from the analyses based on cost-efficiency and
possible Post-Kyoto targets are in most cases more ambitious than current national standards,
offering room for improvement of requirements.
>T
he study demonstrates that once the cost savings for heating and cooling energy exceed the
total investment costs for insulation measures, the optimum U-value (mainly determined by the
contribution of insulation) is the same for new and existing buildings, as long as no technical
limitations occur. In this sense the recommended U-values apply to new and existing buildings.
> In residential buildings of southern Europe thermal insulation also reduces the energy demand for
cooling. Especially roof and wall insulation combined with proper shading and a good ventilation
strategy provides very robust and considerable savings. A well balanced package of floor, wall and
roof insulation results in a significant and cost-effective reduction in the energy demand for heating
and cooling.
2 ] I N T R O D U C T I O N
The European Directive on Energy Performance of Buildings (EPBD), which came into force 16 December
2002 to be implemented in the legislation of Member States in 2006, aims to improve the overall energy
efficiency of new buildings and large existing buildings during significant renovation. Because the building
sector being responsible for about 40% of Europe’s total energy consumption, the EPBD is an important
step for the European Union to reach in order that it should achieve the level of saving required by the
Kyoto Agreement; the EU is committed to reduce CO2 emissions by 8 per cent by 2010 relative to the
base year of 1990.
The impact of the EPBD has been quantified in earlier Eurima studies1 for the potential monetary savings,
investments and CO2 savings. All studies were carried out by Ecofys. The basis for the analysis is the
ECOFYS energy model of the European building stock BEAM (Built Environment Analysis Model).
Questions concerning the EPBD and its implementation were covered in the following Ecofys-reports:
Report Content
Mitigation of CO2 Emissions from the Building Reduction of CO2 emissions in the EU15 building
Stock – Beyond the EU Directive on the Energy stock resulting from current and extended EPBD.
Performance of Buildings Excursus:
Report II, February 2004 Effects of insulation on cooling demand.
Cost-Effective Climate Protection in the EU Building Economic assessment of CO2 mitigation measures
Stock and retrofit packages in the EU15 countries
Report III, February 2005
Cost-Effective Climate Protection in the Building Reduction of CO2-emissions in the new Eastern
Stock of the New EU Member States - Beyond European member states (New EU8) resulting
the EU Directive on the Energy Performance of from current and extended EPBD including an
Buildings economic assessment of retrofit measures and
Reports IV and V, August 2005 packages.
Sensitivity Analysis of cost effective Climate Sensitivity analysis of the calculations on cost-
Protection in the EU Building stock efficiency for the EU15 and NEW8 (reports III to V)
Report VI, June 2006 on basis of 5 energy-price scenarios.
The reports cover the topics of CO2-emission savings and cost efficiency from energy saving measures in
the existing EU15 and the New EU8 countries. The proven cost effectiveness of the investigated retrofit
packages confirms the validity of the principles of the Trias Energetica, which postulate that energy-
saving measures should be implemented to reduce demand first. The remaining energy demand then
should be preferably generated by renewable technologies, or with energy efficient technologies based
on fossil fuels.
1
Eurima Ecofys studies:
see: http://www.eurima.org/document_library/eurima_publications.cfm
10 ECOFYS >>> U-VALUES FOR BETTER ENERGY PERFORMANCE OF BUILDINGS
The reports conclude that these principles can be implemented by the EPBD, following its transposition in
national regulations, by the introduction of minimum insulation levels (or maximum U-values) in addition
to the requirements for overall energy performance.
The calculations of the overall energy performance of buildings, according to the EPBD has to consider an
integrated approach, that takes into account the calculation rules given in a suite of CEN standards for all
building related energy losses and energy gains. National or regional energy performance requirements
are given in national or regional regulations for fully integrated overall energy performance.
In many countries additional requirements on the maximum energy transmission for single building
components expressed in U-values or R-values are given. However the national U-value requirements for
building components (roof, floor, wall, windows, etc.) often describe minimum requirements that do not
reflect the economic optimum or specific environmental targets.
The study aims to contribute to the discussion concerning reconsideration of the national or regional
required or recommended U-values for building components. Regarding the recommendation of U-values,
there are two lines of argument that are reasonable to follow:
1. Cost effectiveness: In article 6 ‘Existing buildings’ the EPBD states that when buildings with a
total useful floor area over 1 000 m2 undergo major renovation, their energy performance should
be upgraded in order to meet minimum requirements in so far as this is technically, functionally
and economically feasible. It is essential to assess which measures are technically, functionally and
economically feasible for average local market conditions.
2. Climate change: In the Post-Kyoto discussion the EU25 ministers for the environment set the
target for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions as 70-90% by 2050. Taking retrofit cycles
of 30-50 years in the building stock into account, each building which undergoes refurbishment in
2010 has to fulfil these targets. To implement the targets on a wide scale in 2010 their feasibility
has to be demonstrated now. This raises the question, what does the target of 70-90% reduction
actually mean for the maximum energy consumption and the associated minimum insulation
standard of retrofitted houses in different European climates?
In order to make recommendations for minimum thermal performance levels for building component in
Europe, the following steps have been taken:
> Background work description:

• Development of a European heating and cooling degree days maps for the EU25
• Calculation of insulation impact on cooling energy demand in southern Europe
>R
ecommendation for U-values (thermal performance levels) based on cost-effectiveness and
2 different price scenarios from the Ecofys-report “Sensitivity analysis of cost effective climate
protection in the EU building stock”, which refers to:
• WEO reference scenario and
• Peak price scenario
>M
inimum requirements calculations on overall energy performance to meet the Post-Kyoto targets
and conclusion on according insulation standards.
The detailed approach, giving results and their interpretation is described in the following chapters.
ECOFYS >>> U-VALUES FOR BETTER ENERGY PERFORMANCE OF BUILDINGS 11
2.1 Framework and boundaries of the study

In many European countries the present required U-values for residential buildings may be considered
as minimum performance levels. These are no longer entirely based on changed economic conditions
resulting from rising energy prices over the past years but reflect an increasing commitment to reduce
CO2 emissions and avoid climate change. These required U-values are given or derived from a calculation
based on the integrated method applied to the whole building energy performance, following the principle
of the EPBD (2.1.1).
Taking into account any given energy price, one could define three options for energy performance
improvement, see Figure 2.
Option 1: legal requirements (minimum energy performance)

Option 2: economic optimum (best practice range)
Option 3: maximum energy performance (state of the art)
The study aims to make recommendations for U-values for the building components wall, roof and (ground)
floor for residential buildings (new and existing) on the level of economic optimum (option 2).
The intended recipients of the study are regulators and policy makers. All analyses are based on parameters
applicable in a social context regarding interest rates, taxes and CO2-mitigation costs. These are applicable
in the cost-efficiency analyses on the level of the society, but are not necessarily appropriate for investors
and private house owners.
The option chosen for analysis is Option 2. Option 1 fails to provide full environmental benefits and optimum
social cost effectiveness. Options 3 while probably not economic optimum is still cost effective and should
be delivering even better environmental benefits. But the potential complexity of implementing this latter
option has not been investigated in this study (2.1.3). It is thought that this option would require a more
regional and detailed analysis, which also would include the principle of the Passive House (2.1.4).
2.1.1 Cost effectiveness per component

The EPBD requires the integrated calculation of energy demand reducing measures, e.g. (solar-) gains,
internal heat production and external energy supply for heating and cooling.
The study does not optimise between the possible energy demand reducing and energy supply measures
for the building. For each of the components floor, wall and roof the optimum U-values necessary to
reduce the energy demand for heating and cooling has been calculated. No interaction and cross effects
have been taken into account.
However, in a separate chapter combinations of insulation measures were defined to assess the influence
of insulation on cooling, see chapter 4. Also, results of the study (U-values for all three components) have
been integrated, and overall energy performance of a typical building obtained following the principle of
the calculation method of the EPBD for four countries: Sweden, Poland, Netherlands and Spain.
2.1.2 Economic optimum

For each of these building components U-values are given separately for the particular insulation thickness
that provides the (theoretical) maximum profit from capitalised investments and energy cost savings.
The economic optimum from investment costs and energy savings is a theoretical calculated optimum.
The optimum is placed in the minimum zone of the total costs curve. That is why in reality the optimum
covers a rather wide zone. (see Figure 1 and Figure 2).
Figure 1: Definition of economic optimum
Costs +
t costs
vestmen
Linear in
max. IC -∆E= optimum

Total costs Insulation
negative = profit thickness
Energy savings
Costs -
Figure 2: Position of the economic optimum
Costs +
t costs
vestmen
Linear in
cost-neutral
economic optimum
Insulation
thickness
minimum BEST PRACTICE STATE of the ART

Energy savings
Costs -
Both to the left and to the right from the theoretical economic optimum U-values, on the basis of the
corresponding optimum are to be considered as profitable investments i.e as long as the total costs from
investments and energy costs savings are negative. But even beyond the point of cost neutrality of a single
measure a synergetic combination of measures can justify to invest beyond that point if the aggregated
costs of the combined measures are negative. This however is not considered in the calculations made
in this study.
The study calculates and compares the relative position of the optimum from the existing minimum
U-values, either required or recommended at present in the EU countries.
It should be appreciated that other reasons than the economic optimum may apply to the existing given
U-values in national and regional regulations or recommendations.
Due to the shape of the cost curves around the optimum (see basic principle in Figure 1 and Figure 2)
it is possible to go beyond the calculated optimum with still reasonable cost efficiency, leading to higher
energy and CO2-emissions savings. Taking into account not only cost efficiency but also environmental
targets, reduced dependency of energy imports etc., this can be a meaningful option, which is realised
already in some of the assessed countries.
2.1.3 Simple linear investment

As mentioned before, the study does not take into account additional investments and/or avoided or
lower investments brought about by the need for physical changes to the building resulting from change
in insulation thickness nor does it allow lower investments in other energy efficiency measures or in the
design concept of the building.
As examples:
>A continuously increasing investment could be necessary as insulation thickness is increased. This
is because increased insulation thickness brings with it the need for:
•Thicker window frames
•Increased cavity width
•Increased width of the wall supporting the foundations
•Different timber beams in the roof construction, etc.
Figure 3: Non-linear investment costs (1)
s
Costs + cost
ent
vestm
ar in
-line t costs
Non vestmen
Linear in
Insulation
Total costs thickness
Energy savings
Costs -
>A
positive effect of the increasing insulation thickness is a lower energy demand which would
require a lower capacity from the boiler and the heat transfer system in the building.
Figure 4: Non-linear investment costs (2)
Costs +
ent costs
r investm
Non-linea
Insulation
Total costs thickness
Energy savings
Costs -
The study does not take into account these positive or negative changes in the investment cost as the
insulation thickness for particular component is increased, nor does it take into account the impact of other
building components or the consequences from other energy related investments.
The study does assume a simple linear investment, based on the incremental costs per centimetre of
insulation thickness based on an average.
2.1.4 The Passive House

The study, as mentioned before, does not deal with a complete building evaluation for determination of
the most (cost-) effective combination of energy efficiency measures but looks at insulation measures
per component assuming traditional heating systems. But when combining different energy efficiency
measures in a meaningful way, synergies in terms of energy savings and cost can be achieved as e.g.
demonstrated by the Passive House concept.
The Passive House concept is based on the principle that heating and cooling demand is reduced to
an absolute minimum. For this the reduction of heating, cooling and ventilation on the related energy
demand has an overwhelming priority. The remaining demand is then supplied preferably by a combined
ventilation-heating-cooling solution, which is preferably using solar heat, photovoltaic energy, heat pump
and/or earth heat and cooling energy. This principle concept does not rely on traditional heating and
ventilation systems. The Passive House concept also relies on the principle that thermal bridges have been
reduced to absolute minimum by design of the construction (or by renovation).
The Passive House concept economically balances the various available solutions mentioned before.
The commonly applied U-values for the Passive Houses are of the order of U=0,10 to 0,05 W/m2K and
often incorporate an insulation exceeding 40 to 50 centimetres in thickness.
The study does not deal with Passive House concept, the heating systems and ventilation systems,
that have been assumed in the study are traditional systems and there is no whole building evaluation
for determination of the most (cost-)effective combination of energy efficiency measures.
2.2 Use of the study and assumptions/restrictions

of the analyses
Summarising with reference to the boundaries and restrictions mentioned under chapter 2.1 the study
should be required reading for policy makers and regulators.
It is expected that the study will stimulate a review of national U-value requirements or recommendations
with respect to:
• residential buildings: new and existing
• the actual and expected energy price
• the contribution of the national building stock to Post-Kyoto CO2-target
The results are based on:

• the climate data in 100 European cities
• the economic optimum U-value (heat transmission value in W/m2K) in practice representing
a certain spread around this theoretical value
• the economic optimum, representing the Best Practice value for a single building component like
a wall construction, roof construction or floor construction
• a simplified linearity in the investment costs
• n on-specific prices for insulation materials and auxiliary materials
• the average U-values of non-insulated or existing constructions
• e nergy prices and energy mix per zone(north, central, south, east)
• investment costs of insulation measures per zone (north, central, south, east)
• ( social) interest rates of 4% and 6% (west and east respectively)
• residential buildings with traditional heating and ventilation systems (no heat recovery systems,
no Passive Houses)
Requirements for better U-values driven by the need for higher thermal values when electric heating is
applied are not covered. Also requirements for better U-values driven by other building physical conditions
like condensation risks or acoustical requirements are not covered.
3] BACKGROUND
3.1 European heating and cooling degree days maps

3.1.1 Definition heating/cooling degree days
Heating degree days express the severity of the cold over a specific time period taking into consideration
outdoor temperature and room temperature. For calculating heating degree days of European cities,
weather data where taken from METEONORM and calculated to heating degree days (HDD) using the
methodology applied by EUROSTAT, which form a common and comparable basis. External and internal
building conditions may require additional energy for cooling and ventilation in order to meet a defined
comfort level. This comfort level may be defined in building regulations or be given as user specifications.
In order to meet the comfort conditions quantification of the energy for cooling is either based on the
number of corresponding Cooling Degrees (similar to the number of Heating Degrees) or resulting from
a iterative numeric calculation (as done in this study with the calculation program TRNSys) driven by
maintaining the comfort level in the building at a given comfort temperature.
During preparation of this study EUROSTAT was working on a methodology to calculate cooling degree
days. Because it had not been finalized, the methodology as applied in the US (ASHRAE) was used.
Although meanwhile the US switched to a different approach developed by PNNL this does not really
affect the conclusions of the study. The use of HDD and CDD for energy modelling is an approximation
of reality, but acceptable for the purpose of the report.
The calculation methodology for HDDs and CDDs and a table of results for selected European cities is
described in Annex 1.
3.1.2 European heating degree days map

Based on the calculations of heating degree days, the following European map can be drawn:
Figure 5: European heating degree days map (EUROSTAT method)
It should be noted that due to the limited number of cities included in the map, the development of HDDs
cannot fully represent all regional details.
3.1.3 European cooling degree days map

Similarly, the following European map for cooling degree days can be drawn:
Figure 6: European cooling degree days map (ASHRAE method)
It should be noted that due to the limited number of cities included in the map, the development of CDDs
cannot fully represent all regional details.
4 ] In s u lat i on and cool i ng
The Ecofys report “Mitigation of CO2 Emissions from the Building Stock – Beyond the EU Directive on the
Energy Performance of Buildings” showed in an excursus, that insulation can, besides saving energy in
the heating period, also save cooling energy in southern climates during summer. To assess the effects
of added insulation on cooling demand in hot climates and the resulting influence on cost-efficiency of
insulation measures, calculations have been performed with the thermal simulation programme TRNSYS.
In a first step, calculations have been performed for southern Europe for a standard terrace house
(attached building) and multifamily house with typically high mass, average internal gains, external
shading, natural ventilation, to cover the assumed average situation of a single building in southern Europe
which already applies reasonable passive cooling strategies. The geometries have been adopted from the
standard houses used in previous Ecofys reports (Ecofys II to VI). The starting point for the assessment
of influence on cooling energy demand from added insulation is described in the following:
Reference buildings:
> Single family house (SFH): Terrace house with 120 m² usable floor area
> Multi family house (MFH): Building block with 1.600 m² usable floor area
Both reference buildings were assumed to have the following characteristics:

> Building materials: brick walls, concrete roof deck and floors, roof with light coloured covering
> Internal gains: 3 W/m²
> External shading of windows (75%)
> Natural ventilation
• Average air-exchange rate day: 0,65 (infiltration and ventilation via windows)
• air exchange rate night 2,5
> active cooling via air-conditioning system, maximum comfort temperature to keep: 25 °C
> Initial starting point: no insulation applied
In order to study the effect of insulation, internal heat gains and shadowing on the cooling demand to keep
the comfort conditions in the reference buildings, the following “package of measures” was applied:
> wall: U-value reduced from 1,7 to 0,6 W/m²K
> roof: U-value reduced from 2,25 to 0,5 W/m²K
> floor: U-value reduced from 1,0 to 0,5 W/m²K
4.1 Impact of climate zones

As the external climate conditions to a large extend determine the cooling demand, indicative analyses
were carried out for the described reference buildings in Seville (908 CDDs), Marseille (427 CDDs) and
Lyon (128 CDDs).The results are given in kWh of cooling energy demand per m² living area2.
Figure 7: Energy demand for cooling for a SFH in Seville, Marseille and Lyon
Energy demand cooling SFH [kWh/m² a]
Insulation: wall 0,6 / roof 0,5 / floor 0,5 W/m²K
35
without insulation
31
30
with insulation
25
20
17
15
10
6
[kWh/m² a]
4
5
0
Seville Marseille Lyon
Figure 8: Energy demand for cooling for a MFH in Seville, Marseille and Lyon
Energy demand cooling MFH [kWh/m² a]
20
18 without insulation
18
16 with insulation
14
12
12
10
6
4
4
[kWh/m² a]
0
2
The energy demand in kWh/m2 a refers to m2-usable floor area: to 1 m2 from the 120 m2 of the SFH and to 1 m2 of the 1600 m2 of the MFH.
The results show that substantial savings of cooling energy demand can be realised by adding insulation.
At the same time it is apparent that the total demand for cooling energy in residential buildings is
significantly decreased in moderate climates like Lyon compared with hot climates like Seville.
The calculated cooling demand of zero for Lyon thereby reflects the fact that the average indoor
temperature of the whole building in the absence of active cooling systems does not exceed 25°C during
summer. The situation can be different for a single room apartment within the building with a south facing
roof.
4.2 Impact of building components

The effect of the single measures, insulating the external walls, roof or ground floor is described in the
following graphs.
Figure 9: Energy savings from insulation measures in Seville

Savings energy demand cooling [kWh/m² a] SFH and MFH in Seville
16
14 SFH
14 13
12
MFH
10
8 7
6
6
4
4
2
2
0
[kWh/m² a]
-2
-2
-4
-4
-6
only wall only roof only floor (below) combined
When looking at the single measures wall, roof or floor insulation on their own, it is apparent that they
contribute in different ways to the savings of the combined insulation measures.
The insulation of a wall of the reference single family house in Seville reduces the cooling energy demand
by 4 kWh/m² year. Surprisingly the effect of roof insulation is positive. This is due to the particularly high
temperatures of the roof caused by solar radiation which leads to higher surface temperatures and a
consequential thermal insulation benefit.
The insulation of the ground-floor results in an increase of cooling demand in hot climates. This is caused
by the reduction of the cooling effect because of the relative cool temperatures of the ground in the
summer situation. On the other hand during the winter season the insulation of the ground floor results in
heating-energy savings. Therefore the recommended U-values in this study take into account the effect of
insulation on heating and cooling demand. However, regarding floor insulation further restrictions could
be given to meet demands such as the acoustic comfort (contact noise), building physics (level of surface
temperature given the humidity conditions in order to avoid condensation or desired fast response-time
of floor heating) that might require more insulation (a lower U-value) for floors.
An analogous effect of insulation on cooling demand, yet at a lower level, can be found for a single family
house in Marseille, see Figure 10
Figure 10: Energy savings from insulation measures in Marseille

Savings energy demand cooling [kWh/m² a] SFH and MFH in Marseille
16
SFH
14
12 MFH
10
6
4
4 3
2
2 1 1
0
-1
[kWh/m² a]
-2
-3
-4
-6
only wall only roof only floor (below) combined
For Lyon it could already be concluded from Figure 7 and Figure 8 that there is practically no cooling
demand for the residential buildings as described and that the effects of the insulation of the roof, exterior
walls or floor on the cooling demand can be neglected.
4.3 Sensitivity related to other factors

In a third step a sensitivity analysis was carried out to assess the impact of different situations concerning
external shading, internal heat gains, ventilation strategy and thermal mass on the cooling demand, in
relation to the degree of insulation applied.
The following scenarios have been simulated:

•N o external shading of windows (reference situation: 75% shading)
•H igher internal gains of 5 W/m² (reference: 3 W/m²)
•N o night ventilation (reference situation: air exchange rate night: 2,5)
• L ow mass wood-frame-buildings (reference: bricks and concrete)
The results of the sensitivity analysis for the reference single family house (SFH) and the reference multi
family house (MFH) in the three assessed locations can be seen from the following figures.
Figure 11: Sensitivity analysis cooling energy, SFH Seville

TRNSys: Energy demand cooling Seville SFH [kWh/m² a]
60
without insulation
51
50
with insulation
41
40 36 36
31 30
30
22 22
20 17 18
[kWh/m² a]
10
0
reference no shading high int. gains no night vent. low mass
Figure 12: Sensitivity analysis cooling energy, MFH Seville

Energy demand cooling Seville MFH [kWh/m² a]
35
without insulation
30
30
26 with insulation
25 23
22
21
20 18
17
16
15 13
12
10
[kWh/m² a]
0
When looking at the total energy demand for cooling, it is immediately apparent that traditional passive
cooling strategies like, external shading, reduction of internal heat loads, night ventilation and high building
mass (as achieved in the reference situation) are effective measures to decrease cooling energy demand.
This is the case for both single - and multifamily houses. Beyond that, increased insulation levels lead in
all the cases described (reference-situation and in the combined measures of the sensitivity analysis) to
a further reduction of cooling energy demand in the summer situation.
This means that the same insulation material that reduces heat losses of the building during winter also
reduces cooling energy demand in the summer situation by reducing the heat transfer from hot outside
environment to the chilled internal living areas of the house. This can be somewhat different from the
feeling that people might have when thinking of wearing for example a pullover during summer. But in
this case the high internal gains of a body are the reason for the resulting discomfort.
The situation within an insulated house can better be compared to a thermos bottle, which keeps
beverages hot in winter and cool in summer by reducing the heat transfer from hot to cold temperatures -
regardless its direction.
Focusing on the cooling energy savings resulting from added insulation (difference between U-values for
situations with and without insulation, shown in Figure 11 and Figure 12) the following picture can be
drawn.
Figure 13: Sensitivity analysis cooling-energy savings from insulation in Seville

TRNSys: savings cooling energy demand from insulation Seville [kWh/m² a]
35 33,1
reference
30
low mass
25
high int. gains
20
16,8
no night vent.
15 13,7 13,413,3
10,3 no shading
10
6,6 6,4 6,1
[kWh/m² a]
4,6
5
0
SFH MFH
It can be concluded, that the influence of insulation on cooling demand is relatively constant in the different
situations with the exception of technical premises like buildings with low mass (leading to significantly
larger saving potential) and buildings with no external shading equipment (reducing the savings potential).
This leads to the conclusion, that the benefit of insulation regarding cooling is quite robust against the
different behaviour of tenants who might have higher internal gains from e.g. electric applications3 or who
do not use ventilation strategies such as night ventilation. This is an important conclusion when examining
the figures below, which show the effect of insulation on cooling demand resulting from calculations of
optimal U-values based on cost efficiency.
The above also is valid for the climate conditions in Marseille and Lyon, which were taken as indicative
examples.
3
Concerning internal gains the situation can differ for non-residential buildings (esp. office-buildings) where very high internal gains from computers,
lighting etc. occur which might reduce, or even reverse, the positive effect of insulation on cooling demand.
Similar effects, at a lower level, can be observed for the scenarios investigated for Marseille.
Figure 14: Sensitivity analysis cooling energy, SFH Marseille

TRNSys: Energy demand Marseille SFH [kWh/m² a]
60
without insulation
50
with insulation
40
30
20
20
12
11
9 9
[kWh/m² a]
10 6 6 7
4 5
0
Figure 15: Sensitivity analysis cooling energy, MFH Marseille

Energy demand cooling Marseille MFH [kWh/m² a]
35
without insulation
30
with insulation
25
20
15
11
10 8 8
6 6 6
[kWh/m² a]
5
4 4
5 3
0
With the milder climate in Marseille, the total cooling demand is reduced. The lower number of cooling
degree days also leads to a (relative to the reference-situation) higher impact of the insulation situations
described in the sensitivity analysis, as can be seen from the next graph.
Figure 16: Sensitivity analysis cooling-energy savings from insulation in Marseille

TRNSys: savings cooling energy demand from insulation Marseille [kWh/m² a]
35
reference
30
low mass
25
high int. gains
20
no night vent.
14,9
15
no shading
10
7,2
[kWh/m² a]
5 2,8 2,6
2,2
1,0 1,2 1,1 0,6
0,2
0
SFH MFH
The following graphs describe the situation in Lyon.
Figure 17: Sensitivity analysis cooling energy, SFH Lyon

TRNSys: Energy demand cooling Lyon SFH [kWh/m² a]
60
without insulation
50
with insulation
40
30
20
[kWh/m² a]
10
5,2
0,3 0,6 0,1 0,2

0
In Lyon there is no cooling demand for the residential buildings described in the reference situation, with
or without insulation. A small increase of cooling demand (from 0 to 1 kWh/m² a) due to added insulation
can be observed for the unfavourable situation with no external shading. Significant effects on cooling
demand can only be seen in case of the low-mass building, where added the insulation eliminates the
cooling demand.
A similar picture can be drawn for a multi-family house in Lyon, see Figure 18.
Figure 18: Sensitivity analysis cooling energy, MFH Lyon

Energy demand cooling Lyon MFH [kWh/m² a]
35
without insulation
30
with insulation
25
20
15
10
[kWh/m² a]
5 2,7
0,3 0,7 0,1 0,2 0,1 0,2 0,3
0
Figure 19: Sensitivity analysis cooling-energy savings from insulation in Lyon

TRNSys: savings cooling energy demand from insulation Lyon [kWh/m² a]
35
reference
30
low mass
25
high int. gains

20
15 no night vent.
10
no shading
5
5 2,4
[kWh/m² a]
0
-0,4 -0,1 -0,3
-5
SFH MFH
Looking at the saving-potentials, the cooling issue plays only a minor role in the moderate climate of Lyon
for buildings with low mass but added insulation can avoid the demand for active cooling. However also
see explanations in chapter 4.1.
4.4 Conclusions on energy demand for cooling

The above calculation carried out to show the effect of insulation on cooling demand demonstrates that:
• regardless of the climate conditions (climate zones) a sound package of insulation measures
reduces the energy demand for cooling (in residential buildings).
This conclusion is also supported by the results for the cooling demand, if the calculated optimum
U-values (see values described in table below based on the results of chapter 5 “U-values according
to cost-efficiency”) are used. The 3rd and 4th bar in Figure 20 illustrates that the preliminary approach
with an improving insulation package was too conservative. The optimum U-values for roof, wall and floor
demonstrated may seem rather unusual (see Annex 2) but prove that considerable contributions in the
reduction of the cooling demand can be realised in buildings.
Table 1: Overview U-values: reference, package 1 and calculated financial optimum

for two different energy price scenarios
U-value Reference Package 1 Scenario WEO Peak price scenario

[W/m² K] introduction
chapter 4
Seville Marseille Lyon Seville Marseille Lyon
wall 1,70 0,60 0,39 0,29 0,21 0,32 0,26 0,18
roof 2,25 0,50 0,27 0,23 0,18 0,24 0,19 0,15
floor 1,00 0,50 1,44 0,43 0,28 1,06 0,39 0,23
Figure 20: Impact of optimum U-values on cooling demand, SFH

Impact of optimum U-values on cooling demand - Single-family house
35
31 Reference
30
U-values package 1
25
U-values price scenario WEO
20
17
U-values Peak price scenario
15
9
10
7
6
[kWh/m² a]
4
5 3 3
0
Figure 21: Impact of optimum U-values on cooling demand, MFH

Impact of optimum U-values on cooling demand - Multi-family house
20
18 Reference
18
16 U-values package 1
14
12 U-values price scenario WEO
12
10 U-values Peak price scenario

8
8 7
6
4
4
[kWh/m² a]
3 3 3
0
It is clear that the calculated U-values in both price Scenarios (WEO and Peak price scenarios) lead to
further cooling energy savings, compared to the insulation package as assessed in chapter 4 “insulation
and cooling”. A slight increase of cooling demand can be observed from scenario WEO to the Peak price
scenario for Seville, due to the higher insulation of the floor. The optimum U-value for the floor in the Peak
price scenario is calculated for the optimum from cooling AND heating. As the heating demand in this
case is requiring the lowest U-value (1.06 W/m2K), this is resulting in higher energy demand for cooling
only. The total energy demand over the seasons is meeting the optimum. For the assessed buildings in
Lyon, there is practically no cooling demand within the calculation methodology (one zone model, hourly
values), regardless the chosen insulation package, see also chapter 4.1.
> L ooking at the different components of the building envelope, the cooling-energy savings from
increased insulation are most significant for roof-insulation, followed by insulation of exterior walls.
The insulation of the ground floor increases cooling demand in hot climates with a sound package
of floor, wall and roof insulation still resulting in a significant reduction of cooling energy.
>E
ven under less favourable conditions (no shading, higher internal gains or a sub-optimal ventilation
regime to evacuate excess heat) insulation reduces the energy demand for cooling down to the
designed comfort temperature.
>T
he positive effect of insulation on the cooling energy demand seems to be especially the case
for low mass buildings, where added insulation can to a large extend “replace” the thermal inertia
of a massive building. In the study the case “low mass building” is not further elaborated and has
not been taken into account in the U-value maps.
5 ] U - v al u e s accord i ng to co s t - eff i c i enc y
5.1 Methodology
For an economic assessment of insulation measures (resulting from lower U-values), not only investments
but also the operational cost savings achieved (energy costs) are relevant. The methodology chosen,
which is analogous to that of the previous Ecofys reports (Ecofys reports III to VI), allows comparison of
the different costs over the whole life cycle of energy saving measures. The main elements of these life
cycle costs are capital costs and annual running costs.
>C
apital costs
Capital costs result from the investment in energy-saving measures. To compare the investments with
the annual running costs the investments are converted into constant annual capital costs. Therefore the
investment costs are multiplied by the equivalent annual cost factor or annuity factor, which is based on
the lifetime of the measure and a selected interest rate:
(1+i)n * i
a=
(1+i)n -1
Symbol Parameter EU15 NEW12

+ Norway
+ Switzerland
a Annuity factor 0,0578 0,0726
i Interest rate 4% 6%
n Service Lifetime 30 yrs 30 yrs
The chosen interest rates and service lifetimes are consistent with the previous Ecofys studies on the
cost-effectiveness of energy-efficiency measures in the EU building stock (Ecofys III to V). The applied
interest rates are default social interest rates.
It is however important to note that the applied social interest rates may differ significantly from interest
rates or expected returns on investment for individuals or companies, i.e. the cost optimum for society
is often different from an investor’s optimum. Public policy usually attempts to minimise costs to society.
The report differentiates between the investment costs in fixed costs and additional costs per centimetre
of insulation, as shown in the following equation.
IC = ICf + ICadd * d
IC Investment costs
ICf Fixed costs
ICadd Additional costs per cm insulation
d Thickness of insulation
> Fixed costs

The “fixed” costs per m² represent the part of the total costs that are necessary to carry out the insulation
measure, regardless of the thickness of insulation that is applied. These are for example cost for fixings,
preparation of the surface etc. The fixed costs per m² are very much dependant on the insulation technique,
for example insulation in wood frame facades or inclusion in a thermal composite system. The investments
(cost per m²) referred to include material and labour costs as well as appropriate taxes (VAT).
> Additional costs per cm insulation

The additional costs per centimetre of insulation are the costs necessary for every additional centimetre.
The investments (cost per m²) referred to include material and labour costs as well as appropriate taxes
(VAT).The costs per additional centimetre thickness can be assessed, for example, by looking at the
total costs of a insulation system with 10 cm and with 30 cm and dividing the difference in costs by 20
(increase in insulation thickness). The result can be considered to be the same for both retrofit and the
new buildings4. The fixed costs however may be different for new buildings and for retrofit.
Annual running costs

For the annual operation costs the energy cost savings for heating and cooling are taken into account. Therefore
the energy savings are multiplied by the respective energy costs, which are specified in section 5.3.
Energy savings heating

The energy-savings of different insulation measures for heating applications are calculated according to
the following equation:
ΔE = HDH * ΔU *1/η
ΔE [kWh/m² a] Energy-savings (per m2 surface area of the construction element)

HDH [kKh/a] Thousands of Heating Degree Hours (per year) = HDD*24/1000
ΔU [W/m²K] Difference in U-values before and after retrofit
η [-] Efficiency of heat generation and distribution
Energy savings cooling

To evaluate the energy saving for cooling purposes in hot climates, calculations have been performed with
the thermal simulation programme TRNSys.
Economic optimum and U-value maps

To find the economic optimum of insulation measures, it is common to use graphs which represent the
life cycle costs which vary depending on the insulation thickness. Usually these graphs show a minimum
at a certain applied insulation thickness which is the economic optimum, leading to a specific U-value of
the component; the optimal U-value.
In the following chapters the graphs show the economic optimum value in case insulation is applied to
external walls, roof and ground floor. The optimal U-values based on cost efficiency have been calculated
for 100 cities in Europe.
4
An exception is the insulation of cavity walls in retrofit applications (quite common e.g. in The Netherlands and the UK), which is done by filling
the existing air gap.
5.2 Mechanisms of U-value optimum

To clarify the influence of different parameters on the optimum U-value, the mechanisms which determine
the U-value are described in the following text.
Principle of a determination of the U-value optimum

The two graphs in Figure 22 show the development of costs (investment in insulation) and associated
savings (saved energy costs for heating and cooling) for the example of an external wall in Amsterdam.
By adding up the costs and savings, a total cost-curve can be drawn, with the lowest point representing
the optimum insulation solution, from an economic point of view. The same situation is described,
firstly depending on thickness of insulation (first graph of Figure 22) and then depending on resulting
U-value (second graph of Figure 22). In this second case, the optimum insulation level is circa. 16 cm
of insulation, resulting in an U-value of 0.21 W/m²K. The optimum U-value is characterised by the lowest
U-value (or: maximum insulation thickness) for which the savings of energy costs per additional centimetre
are higher than the corresponding increase in annual capital costs.
Figure 22: Mechanisms of U-value optimum – base case
Cost analysis external wall insulation retrofit, per m²

6 annual capital costs
4
energy cost savings cooling
2
annual costs [Euro/m².a]
annual overall costs

0 x
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
-2 energy cost savings heating
-4
-6
-8
-10
thickness additional insulation [cm]

annual capital costs 6
4
2

x 0
1,5 1,4 1,3 1,2 1,1 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1
energy cost savings heating -2
-4
-6
-8
-10
U-value [W/m² K]
The curve for the cost savings shows a typical development against increasing insulation thickness with
especially large savings generated by the first centimetres of insulation, (first graph in Figure 22). In the
second graph, the development of savings improves in a linear way as U-value are reduced and there are
corresponding energy and energy cost savings resulting from reduced heat transmission losses.
Influence of the fixed costs

The fixed costs per m², which are the result of the insulation technique, determine whether an insulation
measure is cost effective (lowest point of the total cost-curve below the zero-line), which is usually the
case5, or alternatively (lowest point of the total cost-curve above) zero-line, not cost effective which
might occur in case of expensive techniques/improvements or an already high insulation standard of
a component, which limits the possible savings. But the fixed costs only result in an offset of the graph
and determine the position of the resulting curve.
From an economic point of view, an investor will choose for an insulation measure, if the potential
annual energy cost savings exceed the annual investment costs (fixed costs + additional costs for added
centimetre of insulation).
If then insulation is applied, the envisaged U-value should be chosen according to the economic optimum,
which on itself is independent of the level of the fixed costs.
If a component however already has a rather good thermal performance (a low U-value) the additional
energy savings may not exceed the annual investment costs for applying additional insulation. This might
be the case in some Scandinavian situations in the existing building stock.
The optimum insulation thickness and corresponding U-value is from the investment point of view only
affected by the costs of additional insulation. Of decisive importance for the optimum is the balance
between the costs for an additional centimetre of insulation and the corresponding energy costs-savings.
This mechanism is described in the two pictures of Figure 23, which show a theoretical situation with
fixed costs per m² of 80 Euro (base case in Figure 22: 31,5 Euro per m²), with the optimum U-value still
at 16 centimetres of insulation (U-value of 0,21 W/m²K).
Figure 23: Mechanisms of U-value optimum – sensitivity fixed costs

6
4
2 annual overall costs

0 x energy cost savings heating
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
5
as proven in the Ecofys reports “Cost-Effective Climate Protection in the EU Building Stock” and “Cost-Effective Climate Protection in the Building Stock of
the New EU Member States - Beyond the EU Directive on the Energy Performance of Buildings”
Cost analysis insulation external wall retrofit, per m²

annual capital costs 8
6
4

energy cost savings cooling 2
energy cost savings heating x 0

1,5 1,4 1,3 1,2 1,1 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
U-value [W/m² K]
Influence of wall construction without insulation

The next two graphs in Figure 24 show the situation of the example wall assuming the existing wall
already has a U-value of 1 W/m²K (starting point in base case Figure 22 examples before: 1.5 W/m²K).
It can be seen that the curve for the total costs has moved upwards, representing the reduced cost
efficiency of the measure. This is similar to the previously mentioned effect of a higher level of fixed costs
per m². However in this case the U-value optimum is still at 0.21 W/m²K. The determining factor is again
the lowest U-value (or: maximum insulation thickness) for which the savings of energy costs per additional
centimetre are higher than the corresponding increase in costs. This optimum U-value is not affected by
the “history” of U-value-development of the respective component.
Figure 24: Mechanisms of U-value optimum – sensitivity starting point U-value

4
2
0 x energy cost savings heating
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
-2
-4
-6
-8


6
annual capital costs
annual overall costs 4

2
energy cost savings heating

x 0
1,5 1,4 1,3 1,2 1,1 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1
-2
-4
-6
-8
U-value [W/m² K]
Parameters affecting the optimum U-value

To summarize the above mentioned processes, the optimal U-value from an economic point of view
(answering the question which U-value represents the best economic value, compared to less or more
insulation added) does not depend on:
•T he fixed costs per m² (Euro/m²)
•T he U-value before carrying out the insulation measures
These parameters determine, whether it is an economic benefit to add insulation to a building (vertical
position of the cost curve).
The U-value optimum if insulation is applied depends on:

•T
he investment cost for additional centimetres of insulation (Euro/cm and m²)
•T
he climate conditions, defining the amount of energy saved by adding insulation
•T
he costs of energy saved (Euro/kWh)
These parameters determine the shape of the optimum curve and thus the position of its optimum.
Following these processes, the following important conclusions can be drawn:

>T
he optimum U-value, if insulation is applied, is for a given location the same for new buildings and
for retrofit actions, this is despite differing fixed costs per m² and different U-value starting points
(both of which do not affect the optimum of the cost curve) but usually with the same costs per
additional centimetre and the same local climate conditions and energy costs.
>T
he U-value optimum is also quite robust concerning different application methods that affect the
fixed costs per m² but are rather similar regarding costs per additional cm of added insulation.
The inputs used for the data which affect the U-value optimum are described in the following chapter.
5.3 Input calculations

In the EU, rather different starting points are given for the calculation of optimal U-values for cost efficiency
purposes. In the first place this are the climate conditions, which have been taken into account for 100
selected cities, based on climate data from METEONORM.
The factors energy prices, fuel mix, U-values before applying insulation and investment costs have also
been taken into account, according to the definitions and data-inputs used in previous Ecofys-studies,
expressed as average values in zoned levels for:
• c old zone of EU15 (+ Norway)
•m oderate zone of EU15 (+ Switzerland)
•w arm zone of EU15
•N ew EU8 (+ Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Montenegro,
Macedonia and Albania)
To be able to draw a complete European U-value-map, the major factors influencing the validity of the
4 zones have been checked during the present study for the additional countries (mentioned above in
brackets); this goes beyond the previously assessed EU15 and New EU8. As a result, the additional
countries can be allocated to the 4 zones with reasonable accuracy. In the following chapters, the inputs
for the following calculations are described. In Annex 2 the calculated results for 100 cities in Europe
are given.
5.3.1 Energy prices

The Ecofys-study “Sensitivity Analysis of cost effective Climate Protection in the EU Building stock”
described 5 scenarios (1 to 5). For the current report a price scenario was made on the basis of the
forecasts from the new available IEA world energy outlook 2006. Additionally the results were calculated
for the peak price scenario from the Ecofys-study “Sensitivity Analysis of cost effective Climate Protection
in the EU Building stock”. For both scenarios, the average energy prices for the timeframe from 2006
to 2036 were used as input for the cost-calculations.6
Scenario “WEO reference”

>T
he assumption of the average oil price for the time period 2006 to 2036 is derived from the
current IEA World Energy Outlook 2006, which describes a substantially higher scenario for the oil
price until 2030 than the World Energy Outlook 2005. The average increase in costs is assumed
to be 1,5% p.a.
>W
ith the price for gas and district heating being dependent on the oil price, these values have been
adapted accordingly.
>S
everal reliable studies assume only a moderate increase of the electricity price in the long term.
Data from EUROSTAT statistics have therefore been projected to the future with an 1,5% increase
per year. The same approach was used for wood prices.
6
The energy prices reflect the price per kWh for end-consumers including all taxes
Table 2: Scenario “WEO reference”
Increase rate 1,5% Average 2006-2036

Gas cent/kWh 7,73
Oil cent/kWh 7,06
Electricity cent/kWh 11,83
District heating cent/kWh 8,14
Wood cent/kWh 4,83
As prices and forecasts for coal used in private household are difficult to obtain and coal is also rarely
used (only to some extent in the NEW8 countries) the price of coal per kWh is estimated parallel to the
price for heating oil).
Figure 25: price development Scenario “WEO reference”
Scenario “WEO reference”

20 Electricity
District heating
15
Energy price [cent/kWh]
Gas
10 Oil
Wood
0
2005 2015 2025 2035
Peak price Scenario

> In this scenario, it was assumed the peak price from August 2005 for Brent crude oil at the stock
exchange (70 US dollar/barrel) becomes the average price in the future. Please note that the price
of 70 USD/barrel corresponds in the year 2032 to 117 US dollar in nominal terms.
>T
hereby the usual price difference from the prices paid at the stock exchange to the final customer
(paying for litres of oil delivered) was taken into account.
>T
he other energy carriers were set at the value calculated in Scenario 4 (high price scenario of the
report “Sensitivity Analysis of cost effective Climate Protection in the EU Building stock”) for the
year 2032.
Table 3: Energy Prices Peak price scenario
Increase rate 1,5% Average 2006-2036

Gas cent/kWh 10,82
Oil cent/kWh 10,07
Electricity cent/kWh 15,03
District heating cent/kWh 9,31
Wood cent/kWh 5,69
Figure 26: price development Peak price scenario
Peak price Scenario

20 Electricity
District heating
15
Energy price [cent/kWh]
Gas
10 Oil
Wood
0
2005 2015 2025 2035
The energy price scenarios described reflect the assumed average price development of different energy
carriers in the EU25. At the same time, considerable differences in energy prices can be found when
looking into the different regions of the EU.
To take into account typical regional differences, the price scenarios were assumed to be valid for the
moderate European zone. Typical and long term differences in energy prices for private consumers
between the moderate European zone and the other zones have been assessed on basis of EUROSTAT
data on consumer prices in the years 2000 to 2006. According to the differences found, the energy price
scenarios have been adapted for each region according to the following table.
Table 4: Energy price levels in the EU
Energy price levels EU15 northern EU15 moderate EU15 southern NEW8
Coal 100% 100% 100% 100%
Oil 120% 100% 120% 100%
Gas 120% 100% 100% 70%
Biomass 80% 100% 120% 90%
Solar and other RES 100% 100% 100% 100%
Steam (district heat) 120% 100% 100% 90%
Electricity 100% 100% 70% 80%
Thereby it is assumed that the current energy price difference between regions will remain for several
years in the future. The values already take into account recent developments, like the rise in gas prices
in Eastern Europe.
To be able to calculate the average energy costs of heating energy saved during an assumed service life
of energy saving investments of 30 years, the fuel mixes assumed in the PRIMES-scenarios [PRIMES]
for the year 2015 was assumed. The corresponding fuel mixes for the different zones are described
in Table 5.
Table 5: Fuel mix from EU25 Primes scenario (only for heating purposes)
Fuelmix 2015 EU15 northern EU15 moderate EU15 southern NEW8

Coal 0% 0% 0% 5%
Oil 14% 19% 17% 7%
Gas 2% 55% 62% 45%
Biomass 14% 9% 10% 8%
Solar and other RES 0% 1% 1% 1%
Steam (district heat) 28% 4% 0% 24%
Electricity 42% 11% 10% 10%
For cooling appliances the use of electric systems has been assumed to be applied in most cases.
The before mentioned assumptions on price scenarios and fuel mixes lead to the following average prices:
Table 6: Resulting average energy prices 2006-2036 in cent/kWh end energy including tax
Cent/kWh WEO reference Peak price scenario

EU15 northern 9,62 12,03
EU15 moderate 7,80 10,61
EU15 southern 7,71 10,59
NEW8 6,40 8,33
5.3.2 Investment costs

The data for investment costs are taken from the previous Ecofys-studies “Cost-Effective Climate
Protection in the EU Building Stock” and “Cost-Effective Climate Protection in the Building Stock of the
New EU Member States - Beyond the EU Directive on the Energy Performance of Buildings”. As described
in chapter 5.2 “Mechanisms of U-value optimum”, the U-value optimum has been calculated from the
investment side only depending on the incremental costs per centimetre insulation.
The investments referred to include material and labour costs, per m² as well as appropriate taxes
(VAT). The costs per additional centimetre can be, for example assessed by looking at the total costs of
a insulation system with 10 cm and with 30 cm and dividing the difference in costs by 20 (increase in
insulation thickness). The result is different from the fixed costs per m² but can be considered the same
for both retrofit and in new building.
Table 7: investment costs insulation
Spec. costs [Euro/cm/m²] EU15 northern EU15 moderate EU15 southern NEW8 (Eastern EU)
External wall 1,88 1,25 1,25 1,00
Roof 1,20 0,80 0,80 0,80
Floor 1,50 1,00 1,00 0,80
To calculate the annual costs based on the investments described, an interest rate of 4%
(Eastern Europe: 6%) has been assumed.
5.4 Results
In the following graphs, the life cycle costs are presented as examples for 3 cities (Stockholm, Amsterdam
and Seville) in 3 climatic zones, based on the price scenario “WEO reference”.
Whether or not it is feasible to start to apply additional insulation depends on the fixed costs per m², the
starting point regarding U-value and the costs of saved energy. For example coupled retrofit actions on
external walls in Stockholm, with the given inputs are not cost efficient (annual overall costs always above
zero) because of the higher investment costs and the good U-value (0,5 W/m²K) at the starting point for
the calculations. This looks different from the case of a new building in Stockholm or from the examples
situations in Amsterdam and Seville (curves for annual overall costs have a minimum below zero).
On the other hand, the optimum U-value only depends on investment costs for the additional centimetres
of insulation and corresponding energy-cost-savings. This effect makes the U-value recommendations
robust against differing starting points of U-value and fixed costs per m².
Figure 27: Cost efficiency insulation of external walls retrofit and new, price scenario “WEO reference”
Stockholm
Cost analysis external wall insulation retrofit, per m² Cost analysis external wall insulation new, per m²
8 8
6
6
4

4 2
2 0 x
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
-2
0 x 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 -4
-2 -6
-8
-4
-10
-6 -12
thickness additional insulation [cm] thickness additional insulation [cm]
Amsterdam
6 6
4
4
2
2
x
0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
0 x 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
-2
-4
-2
-6
-4 -8
-6 -10
-12
-8
-14
-10 -16
Seville
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 x 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
0 x
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
-1 -1
-2 -2
-3 -3
-4 -4
annual capital costs energy cost savings cooling
annual capital costs energy cost savings cooling annual overall costs energy cost savings heating
annual overall costs energy cost savings heating

Figure 28: Cost efficiency insulation of roofs retrofit and new, price scenario WEO reference
Stockholm
Cost analysis insulation pitched roof retrofit, per m² Cost analysis insulation pitched roof new, per m²
4 5
3
2 0 x 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

1
-5
0 x 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
-1
-10
-2
-3 -15
-4
-5 -20
Amsterdam
4 5
2
0 x 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
x
0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
-2 -5
-4 -10
-6
-15
-8
-10 -20
Seville
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 x 0 x 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
-1 -1
-2 -2
-3 -3
-4 -4
-5 -5

Figure 29: Cost efficiency insulation of floors retrofit and new, price scenario WEO reference
Stockholm
Cost analysis insulation floor retrofit, per m² Cost analysis insulation floor new, per m²
5 6
4 4
3

2
2
0 x 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
1
-2
0 x 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
-4
-1
-2 -6
-3 -8
Amsterdam
4,0 4,0
3,0
2,0
2,0
1,0
0,0 x 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
0,0 x 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
-2,0
-1,0
-4,0
-2,0
-6,0
-3,0
-4,0 -8,0
Seville
3,0 3,0
2,5 2,5
2,0 2,0
1,5
1,5
1,0
1,0
0,5
0,5
0,0 x
-0,5
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0,0 x 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
-1,0 -0,5
-1,5 -1,0
-2,0 -1,5

As with the results of previous Ecofys-studies, insulation measures are in most cases cost efficient, with
the exception of retrofit of walls and floors in northern Europe and floor insulation in southern Europe.
Therefore in the following calculations, the optimum U-value is described assuming insulation measures
are applied (equal to the minimum in the cost curve beyond the starting point). In parallel to the findings
in chapter 4 the effect of taking cooling energy into account becomes clear in the example of southern
Europe (Seville) and results in more ambitious values for facades and roofs and less ambitious values
for floors. In the following graphs, the starting points and optimum U-values based on cost efficiency
are described. Starting point for new buildings is no insulation, for retrofit see Table 8.
Figure 30: Starting points and optimum cost efficiency Stockholm, scenario WEO reference
Cost efficiency optimum new and retrofit
1,8
starting points Stockhom
1,54
1,6
cost efficiency Stockholm

1,4
1,2
1,07 1,06
1,0
0,8
0,6 0,50 0,50 0,50

U-Value [W/m² K]
0,4
0,24 0,24
0,20 0,20
0,16 0,16
0,2
0,0
wall retrofit roof retrofit floor retrofit wall new roof new floor new
Figure 31: Starting points and optimum cost efficiency Amsterdam, WEO reference
3,0
2,70 starting points Amsterdam
2,5
2,22 2,25 cost efficiency Amsterdam
2,0
1,50 1,50
1,5
1,20
1,0
U-Value [W/m² K]
0,5
0,28 0,28
0,21 0,21
0,17 0,17
0,0
Figure 32: Starting points and optimum cost efficiency Seville, WEO reference
2,5
2,25 2,25 starting points Seville
2,05
2,0 1,89 cost efficiency Seville
1,70
1,66
1,44 1,44
1,5
1,0
U-Value [W/m² K]
0,5 0,39 0,39

0,27 0,27
0,0
The optimum U-value, if insulation is applied, is the same in retrofit and new buildings, see Chapter 5.2.
In the following, graph only one value is displayed in the tables and graphs this being applicable to both
retrofit actions and new buildings.
From the R-value point of view the graph shows the relationship between centimetres of insulation added
and the corresponding U- and R-value for a wall construction.
Figure 33: Centimetres of insulation, U-value and R-value

U [W/m² K] R [m² K/W]
2,00 10
1,80 9
1,60 8
1,40 7
1,20
6
1,00
5
1,00
4
0,80
0,60 3
0,40 2
0,20 1
- 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
thickness insulation layer [cm]

The following graphs show the results of this life cycle cost curves in respect to their financial optimum
for the assessed 100 cities, grouped according to heating degree days. The detailed data per city can
also be found in Annex 2.
Figure 34: Recommended U-values cost efficiency for walls, WEO reference
Overview U-value-recommendations walls [W/m² K] U-value [W/m² K]
0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6
Palermo
Palermo
Faro
Faro
Seville
Sevilla
Athens
Athens
Lisbon
Lisboa Valencia Barcelona Split
Valencia
Barcelona
Split
Cagliari
Cagliari
Bari
Bari
Rome
Roma
Porto
Porto
Tirana
Tirana
Koper
Koper Santander Napoli
Santander
Naples
Ajaccio
Ajaccio Marseille Volos
Marseille
Volos
Trieste
Triest
Madrid
Madrid Bordeaux Toulouse
Bordeaux
Toulouse
Brest
Brest Salonniki Firenze Chirpan Zagreb Budapest Skopje
Salonniki
Florence
Chirpan
Zagreb
Budapest
Skopje
Bitola
Bitola Constanta Beograd Novi Sad Nantes
Constanta
Belgrade
Novi Sad
Nantes
Tours
Tours
Vienna
Wien
Sofia
Sofia Salamanca Paris
Salamanca
Paris
Limoges
Limoges Dublin
Dublin
Milan
Milano Bukarest Bratislava LjublianaPlymouth London Cardiff Sarajevo
Bucarest
Bratislava
Ljubliana
Plymouth
London
Cardiff
Sarajevo
Prague
Prag
Lucenec
Lucenec Bruxelles Geneve Tusimice Essen Cherbourg Lyon StraßbourgKilkenny KlapeidaAmsterdamBergenSwinonjsciePoznan Warschau GdanskManchesterSalzburg Bregenz Zürich Bremen
Brussels
Geneva
Tusimice
Essen
Cherbourg
Lyon
Strasbourg
Kilkenny
Klapeida
Amsterdam
Bergen
Swinonjscie
Poznan
Warsaw
Gdansk
Manchester
Salzburg
Bregenz
Zürich
Bremen
Berlin
Berlin
Leipzig
Leipzig
Riga
Riga
Vilnius
Vilnius GoteborgStockholm Belfast EdinburgNewcastle Graz
Goteborg
Stockholm
Belfast
Edinburgh
Newcastle
Graz
Kiel
Kiel
Munich
München
KopenhagenTallinn Bolzano
Copenhagen
Tallinn
Bolzano
Oslo
Oslo Birmingham
Birmingham
Innsbruck Aalborg Helsinki Trondheim Oulu
Innsbruck
Aalborg
Helsinki
Trondheim
Oulu
Tromsö
TromsöHammersfestUmea
Hammersfest
Umea
Lulea
Lulea
Ivalo
Ivalo
Kiruna
Kiruna
WEO reference
Figure 35: Recommended U-values cost efficiency for roofs, WEO reference
Overview U-value-recommendations roof [W/m² K] U-value [W/m² K]
0,00 0,05 0,10 0,15 0,20 0,25 0,30 0,35 0,40
Palermo
Faro
Palermo
Lisboa
Athens
Faro
Seville
Split
Athens
Sevilla
Valencia
Barcelona
Lisbon
Valencia
Barcelona
Porto
Split
Koper
Cagliari
Cagliari
Bari
Rome
Bari
Roma
Santander
Porto
Tirana
Tirana
Koper
Napoli
Ajaccio
Santander
Marseille
Naples
Zagreb
Ajaccio
Constanta
Skopje
Marseille
Volos
Trieste
Volos
Madrid
Triest
Madrid
Bordeaux
Firenze
Toulouse
Chirpan
Budapest
Brest
Salonniki
Florence
Beograd
Bitola
Chirpan
Novi
Bordeaux
Zagreb
Budapest
Toulouse
Skopje
Sad
Bitola
Salonniki
Brest
Constanta
Belgrade
Bukarest
Sofia
Bratislava
Novi Sad
Nantes
Ljubliana
Tours
Nantes
Vienna
Sofia
Sarajevo
Tours
Salamanca
Paris
Lucenec
Prag
Limoges
Swinonjscie
Tusimice
Dublin
Milan
Poznan
Warschau
Bucarest
Bratislava
Salamanca
Ljubliana
Wien
Plymouth
London
Limoges
Paris
Cardiff
Dublin
Sarajevo
Plymouth
Milano
Prague
Lucenec
London
Brussels
Cherbourg
Geneva
Cardiff
Tusimice
Essen
Klapeida
Lyon
Cherbourg
Gdansk
Lyon
Strasbourg
Riga
Kilkenny
Vilnius
Bruxelles
Klapeida
Geneve
Amsterdam
Straßbourg
Bergen
Essen
Swinonjscie
Amsterdam
Kilkenny
Poznan
Warsaw
Manchester
Bergen
Gdansk
Goteborg
Manchester
Salzburg
Bregenz
Tallinn
Salzburg
Zürich
Bregenz
Bremen
Berlin
Zürich
Bremen
Leipzig
Riga
Berlin
Stockholm
Leipzig
Vilnius
Goteborg
Stockholm
Belfast
Edinburg
Newcastle
Belfast
Edinburgh
Newcastle
Kopenhagen
Graz
München
Graz
Birmingham
KielBolzano
Kiel
Munich
Copenhagen
Tallinn
Bolzano
Aalborg
Oslo
Oslo
Helsinki
Innsbruck
Birmingham
Trondheim
Innsbruck
Aalborg
Helsinki
Hammersfest
Oulu
Tromsö
Trondheim
Oulu
Umea
Tromsö
Hammersfest
Lulea
Umea
Ivalo
Lulea
Kiruna
Ivalo
Kiruna
WEO reference
Figure 36: Recommended U-values cost efficiency for floors, WEO reference
Overview U-value-recommendations floor [W/m² K] U-value [W/m² K]
0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0 1,2 1,4 1,6
Palermo
Athens
Palermo
Sevilla
Faro
Faro
Seville
Lisboa
Valencia
Athens
Barcelona
Lisbon
Roma
Valencia
Cagliari
Barcelona
Split
Cagliari
Bari
Porto
Bari
Napoli
Rome
Volos
Santander
Porto
Split
Tirana
Koper
Triest
Madrid
Santander
Firenze
Naples
Salonniki
Ajaccio
Marseille
Koper
Volos
Tirana
Ajaccio
Trieste
Marseille
Salamanca
Madrid
Bordeaux
Milano
Toulouse
Skopje
Brest
Novi
Bordeaux
Salonniki
Florence
Toulouse
Chirpan
Constanta
Zagreb
Sad
Zagreb
Budapest
Chirpan
Skopje
Bitola
Beograd
Bitola
Constanta
Bukarest
Belgrade
Budapest
Novi Sad
Brest
Nantes
Bratislava
Tours
Sofia
Vienna
Ljubliana
Sofia
Nantes
Salamanca
Paris
Bolzano
Tours
Limoges
Sarajevo
Dublin
Milan
Lucenec
Prag
Bucarest
Swinonjscie
Tusimice
Bratislava
Ljubliana
Plymouth
Wien
London
Limoges
Paris
Cardiff
Plymouth
Dublin
Sarajevo
Prague
London
Lucenec
Cherbourg
Brussels
Cardiff
Geneva
Tusimice
Amsterdam
Geneve
Lyon
Essen
Cherbourg
Poznan
Warschau
Lyon
Strasbourg
Klapeida
Kilkenny
Gdansk
Klapeida
Bruxelles
Amsterdam
Straßbourg
Bergen
Essen
Swinonjscie
Manchester
Kilkenny
Poznan
Warsaw
Salzburg
Gdansk
Bregenz
Manchester
Salzburg
Zürich
Bremen
Bregenz
Zürich
Berlin
Leipzig
Bremen
Berlin
Belfast
Edinburg
Newcastle
Leipzig
Riga
Vilnius
Riga
Goteborg
Vilnius
Bergen
Goteborg
Stockholm
Stockholm
Belfast
Edinburgh
Newcastle
Kopenhagen
Graz
München
Graz
Birmingham
Kiel Tallinn
Kiel
Munich
Copenhagen
Tallinn
Aalborg
Innsbruck
Bolzano
Oslo
Birmingham
Trondheim
Helsinki
OsloHammersfest
Innsbruck
Aalborg
Helsinki
Oulu
Tromsö
Trondheim
Oulu
Umea
Tromsö
Hammersfest
Lulea
Umea
Ivalo
Lulea
Kiruna
Ivalo
Kiruna
WEO reference
From the data above, U-value maps can be derived, see Annex 5. For an overview of results per city,
see Annex 2.
6 ] U - v al u e s accord i ng to cl i m ate
p rotect i on target s
6.1 Background
The objective of the United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is to stabilise
greenhouse gas concentrations to avoid dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.
This target is formulated in Article 2 of the UNFCCC [UNFCCC 1992], which is accepted by nearly all
countries in the world.
Several countries, including the European Union (EU), and many environmental non-governmental
organisations have agreed that global average temperature increase should be limited to 2°C above
pre-industrial levels to avoid such dangerous interference. As early as 1996, the Council of Ministers
of the EU agreed that “global average temperatures should not exceed 2 degrees Celsius above
pre-industrial level and that therefore concentration levels lower than 550 ppm CO2 should guide global
limitation and reduction efforts” [EU Council 1996]. The target of 2°C has been reaffirmed subsequently
as the EU’s submissions to the international negotiation processes in 2006 ([UNFCCC 2006a, 2006b]).
The EU states that it “will require global greenhouse gas emissions to peak within the next two decades,
followed by substantial reductions in the order of at least 15% and perhaps by as much as 50% by 2050
compared to 1990 levels.”
The reduction of global emissions by 2050 will have to be achieved differentiated between countries based
on their different responsibilities for climate change and different mitigation capabilities. Developed countries
that have contributed most to historical emissions will have to reduce emissions substantially. Developing
countries may increase emissions for a defined period and would later also reduce emissions. Accordingly,
industrialised countries’ will have to reduce emission by -70% to -90% in 2050 compared to their 1990
emissions to meet the 2°C target ([den Elzen and Meinshausen 2005]; [Höhne et al. 2005]).
It is likely that emissions in the building sector will have to be reduced more than the average over all
sectors. Emission reduction costs and capabilities differ among sectors. The International Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) is the most important scientific advisory body to the UNFCCC. Its third assessment report
[IPCC 2001] identified emission reduction costs until 2020. For many developed countries these costs
were estimated to be up to 200 US $ per ton of carbon avoided for a number of sectors, e.g. transport,
energy supply and agriculture. Especially for the building sector estimated emission reduction costs are
mainly negative which means that they can save up to 400 US $ per ton of carbon avoided until 2020
[IPCC 2001]. The cost effectiveness of the CO2 mitigation measures in the building stock were confirmed
in several reports ([Ecofys 2004], [Ecofys 2005]). The high reduction potentials and the cost efficient
reduction measures require the building sector to realise an emission reduction share above average
compared to the other sectors. Assuming that the target for the industrial countries should be 80% and
taking into account that the EU-building stock will further increase in the next years, it is assumed that the
building sector has to contribute with 85% CO2-emission-savings until 2050 referred to 1990.
At the same time, the foreseen development of the fuel mix for space heating purposes (for example
switching from coal and oil to gas and increasing the share of biomass and other renewables, see Figure
37) and the increase in system efficiency compared to 1990 (e.g. condensing boilers) will result in an
improvement of the CO2-emission factor for households of about 19%. This leads to an average of 82%
to be saved on energy demand for space heating.7
7
The assumed improvement of the CO2 emission factor results in a relatively small change of the saving target from 85% to 82%. This is caused by the
application of the improved emission factor on a high overall saving objective. Mathematically it results from following calculation:
1 - (1-85%)/(1-18.8%) = 81,53%
The fuel mix according to the PRIMES-scenario is shown in the graph below.
Figure 37: Fuel mix development PRIMES-scenario for EU25
End-energy demand PRIMES-scenario EU 25
electricity
3.000.000
steam (district heat)
solar and other RES
2.000.000
biomass
gaz
1.000.000
oil
GWh
coal
0
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
6.2 Methodology
The energy demand of a reference building in 1990 was used as a baseline in order to calculate the
required insulation standards to reach the energy savings described in the Post-Kyoto targets. An insulation
standard corresponding to possible Post-Kyoto targets for 2050 is then defined by the necessary energy
saving measures to reach the target energy and corresponding CO2-savings compared to the reference
situation. The European building stock in 1990 was dominated (and still is) by single family houses built
before 1975 that have not been renovated yet. This type of buildings has therefore been chosen as the
reference situation.
As in 1990 also buildings with already less energy demand existed (buildings built between 1975 and
1990 and buildings that have been already renovated at that time) the U-values to meet possible Post-
Kyoto targets could also be a bit more ambitious. However this small effect is by far dominated by the
final decision on CO2-saving targets until 2050, which easily can lead to a factor 2 in ambition concerning
energy demand of buildings, as described in the sensitivity analysis of chapter 6.4. As a consequence,
the calculated values for possible Post-Kyoto targets can only be a rough estimate which still give a good
indication concerning the position of the calculated financial optimum of U-value in relation to climate
protection targets.
The specification of the reference single family house (as also used in chapter 4 ”Insulation and
cooling”) and the qualities assumed for the building envelope have been taken from the Ecofys
reports II to V. The insulation levels and corresponding energy demand per m² and year are described
in the following table.
Table 8: Baseline assumptions for savings according to Post-Kyoto targets
Zones
Single family house built northern moderate southern eastern
before 1975
U-value floor 0,50 1,20 2,25 1,22
U-value wall 0,50 1,50 1,70 1,29
U-value roof 0,50 1,50 2,25 1,08
U-value window 3,00 3,50 4,20 4,20
resulting energy demand 160 264 151 265
[kWh/m² a]
Houses built before 1975 have usually not been insulated. The U-values described are therefore only
dependant on the average building materials and techniques used for floors, external walls and roofs used
at that time.
To assess the insulation standard necessary to meet the Post-Kyoto targets, the energy demand of the
reference buildings was compared to buildings with a set of applied energy saving measures with the aim
to reach the desired energy savings compared to the reference situation.
To define the packages of measures to reach the desired energy savings several measures were combined
taking into account:
> a reasonable balance between insulation measures, improvement of windows and the use of
ventilation systems with heat recovery
> increasing insulation level from floor insulation via wall insulation to roof insulation
By using these principles, the packages of measures with the desired energy performances (82% savings
compared to the baseline) were defined in an iterative process of calculating the results for increasingly
ambitious packages.
The calculations were carried out in accordance with the principles of the European Norm EN 832, as
applied in the Ecofys reports II to VI. The Post-Kyoto targets were thereby assumed to be the same for
the 4 assessed zones.
6.3 Results
Table 9 shows the maximum U-values based on a Post-Kyoto target of 85% CO2-emission-savings for
the building stock. It should be borne in mind that the savings target can also be reached by other
combinations of measures, e.g. including ventilation with heat recovery (VHR, given with the respective
system-efficiency) in other climate zones than northern Europe or putting a different emphasis on
improved windows.
Table 9: Measures to reach Post-Kyoto targets (85% CO2-emission savings)
Measures to reach CO2- Zones

emission-savings of 85%
northern moderate southern eastern
U-value floor 0,25 0,30 0,80 0,25
U-value wall 0,20 0,22 0,50 0,20
U-value roof 0,15 0,18 0,35 0,18
U-value window 1,1 1,2 1,6 1,0
VHR (efficiency in %) 80% - - -
[kWh/m² a]
Taking into account the retrofit cycles of 30 to 40 years, this means that from the year 2010 or the latest
2020 onward, all new houses and retrofit actions have to be carried out with the ambition to have the
total building stock in 2050 on the targeted level.
However these targeted U-values represent a theoretical average for the total building stock in 2050.
One can imagine that these results will be achievable through fundamental improvement of the energy
performance of the existing building stock and new constructions performing even better than above
targets, in the next decades.
6.4 Sensitivity analysis Post-Kyoto targets

Due to the fact that negotiations on Post-Kyoto targets have just started, a sensitivity analysis was carried
out for the targets of 80% and 90% of CO2-emission-savings to be realised by the building stock.
If improvements of energy efficiency of systems and changes in fuel mix are taken into account, the
energy demand has to be decreased by 75% to reach 80% of CO2-savings and 88% to reach 90%
savings in CO2-emissions. The corresponding possible energy efficiency packages to reach these targets
are described below.
However, the decision on saving 80% or 90% of CO2-emissions (respective 75% or 88% of energy
demand) leads to a factor 2 in ambition concerning the targeted energy standard of a building as
described in the following graph.
Figure 38: Energy demand for SFH (moderate zone) depending on different energy saving targets
Energy demand for SFH per m²

depending on energy saving targets
300
SFH
250
200
150
energy demand [kWh/m²a]
100
factor 2 in
50 ambition
0
before 1975, 75% 82% 88%
not renovated
energy demand savings [%]

Corresponding possible energy efficiency packages to reach these targets are described below.

U-value floor 0,30 0,45 1,00 0,40
U-value wall 0,28 0,35 0,65 0,30
U-value roof 0,20 0,25 0,50 0,20
VHR (efficiency in %) 80% - - -
[kWh/m² a]
Compared to the solutions necessary to reach the 85% CO2 emission savings, the targeted U-values for
floor, façade and roof to reach 80% savings could be less ambitious, providing the quality of windows is
kept at the same level.

U-value floor 0,20 0,20 0,60 0,25
U-value wall 0,15 0,13 0,40 0,20
U-value roof 0,12 0,10 0,30 0,18
VHR (efficiency in %) 80% - - 50%
[kWh/m² a]
To reach CO2-emissions savings of 90%, substantial improvements compared to the 85%-savings

scenario are necessary for target U-values, the quality of windows and integration of ventilation systems
with heat recovery. An overview of the targeted U-values depending on the ambition of possible
Post-Kyoto targets is shown in the following graphs.
Figure 39: U-values for floors according to different Post-Kyoto targets
Targeted U-values for floors in Europe according to different Post-Kyoto targets

1,20
80% savings
1,00
85% savings
0,80 90% savings
0,60
0,40
U-value [W/m² k]
0,20
0,00
Figure 40: U-values for walls according to different Post-Kyoto targets
Targeted U-values for walls in Europe according to different Post-Kyoto targets

0,70
80% savings
0,60
85% savings
0,50
90% savings
0,40
0,30
U-value [W/m² k]
0,20
0,10
0,00
Figure 41: U-values for roofs according to different Post-Kyoto targets
Targeted U-values for roofs in Europe according to different Post-Kyoto targets

0,60
80% savings
0,50
85% savings
0,40 90% savings
0,30
0,20
U-value [W/m² k]
0,10
0,00
7 ] O v er v i ew re s u lt s co s t eff i c i enc y and cl i m ate

p rotect i on
The following 4 graphs show a comparison of the results of the cost-efficiency calculations compared to
possible Post-Kyoto targets (85% savings). The cities Stockholm, Amsterdam, Seville and Warsaw were
the assessed regions.
Figure 42: Results cost efficiency and Post-Kyoto (85% savings) for Stockholm
Comparison results cost efficiency and Post-Kyoto, Stockholm

0,30
WEO reference
0,25
0,25 0,24
Peak price scenario
0,22
0,20 0,20
0,20 Post-Kyoto target
0,18
0,16
0,15
0,15 0,14
0,10
U-value [W/m² K]
0,05
0,00
wall roof floor
Figure 43: Results cost efficiency and Post-Kyoto (85% savings) for Amsterdam
Comparison results cost efficiency and Post-Kyoto, Amsterdam

0,35
WEO reference
0,30
0,30 0,28
Peak price scenario
0,25 0,23
0,22
0,21 Post-Kyoto target
0,20 0,18 0,18

0,17
0,14
0,15
U-value [W/m² K]
0,10
0,05
0,00
wall roof floor
Figure 44: Results cost efficiency and Post-Kyoto (85% savings) for Seville
Comparison results cost efficiency and Post-Kyoto, Seville

1,60
1,44 WEO reference
1,40
Peak price scenario

1,20
1,06
Post-Kyoto target
1,00
0,80
0,80
0,60 0,50
U-value [W/m² K]
0,39
0,40 0,35
0,32
0,27 0,24
0,20
0,00
wall roof floor
Figure 45: Results cost efficiency and Post-Kyoto (85% savings) for Warsaw
Comparison results cost efficiency and Post-Kyoto, Warsaw

0,30
WEO reference
0,26
0,25
0,25 0,23 Peak price scenario
0,21
0,20
0,20 0,19 0,19
0,18 Post Kyoto target
0,17
0,15
0,10
U-value [W/m² K]
0,05
0,00
wall roof floor
In general, the recommendations based on cost-efficiency are similar to the recommendations derived
from possible Post-Kyoto targets. If adapted, the findings on floor insulation and cooling demand, could
also account for floors in southern Europe, which show larger differences in this comparison.
As an important conclusion it can be stated that the climate targets discussed and the corresponding
insulation levels necessary can be justified from a financial point of view.
8 ] C o m p ar i s on of re s u lt s
The results of the calculations for U-value from an economic point of view and from the viewpoint
of possible Post-Kyoto targets are compared hereinafter with existing requirements in the assessed
countries. This can be done in two ways.
The first way is to directly compare the U-value from above calculations with legal requirements on
component level. This comparison is done in chapter 8.1.
In a second approach, the calculated U-value are used as input for national calculation schemes to meet
the required standards on the overall energy performance of a building according to the EPBD. According
comparisons are described in chapter 8.2.
8.1 Cost-efficient U-values versus required U-values

In combining the results of the calculations with the required U-values the following figures can be drawn.
The figures may visualise the gap between the existing minimum requirements and what on the basis
of today’s (May - September 2007) energy prices and environmental targets should be recommended.
For a detailed overview on the specified values for national regulations for component requirements and
the according results from the cost-efficiency calculations please see information from [EURIMA 2007]
in Annex 3.
Figure 46: Existing and recommended U-values on the basis of cost efficiency (WEO 2006
energy prices scenario) and CO2 climate targets for wall constructions
WEO 2006 - wall

1,30
1,25
1,20
1,15
1,10
1,05
recommended U-value for wall
1,00
0,95 exist. required U-value for wall (low)
0,90
0,85 exist. required U-value for wall (high)
0,80
0,75
0,70
U-value [W/m² K]
0,65
0,60
0,55
0,50
0,45
0,40
0,35
0,30
0,25
0,20
0,15
0,10
0,05
0,00
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
HDD
Figure 47: Existing and recommended U-values on the basis of cost efficiency (Peak price
energy scenario) and CO2 climate targets for wall constructions
Peak price - wall

1,30
1,25
1,20
1,15
1,10
1,05
recommended U-value for wall
1,00
0,95 exist. required U-value for wall (low)
0,90
0,85 exist. required U-value for wall (high)
0,80
0,75
0,70
U-value [W/m² K]
0,65
0,60
0,55
0,50
0,45
0,40
0,35
0,30
0,25
0,20
0,15
0,10
0,05
0,00
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
HDD
energy prices scenario) and CO2 climate targets for roof constructions
WEO 2006 - roof

0,80
0,75
0,70
0,65 recommended U-value for roof
0,60 exist. required U-value for roof (low)
0,55
exist. required U-value for roof (high)
0,50
0,45
U-value [W/m² K]
0,40
0,35
0,30
0,25
0,20
0,15
0,10
0,05
0,00
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
HDD
energy scenario) and CO2 climate targets for roof constructions
Peak price - roof

0,80
0,75
0,70
0,65 recommended U-value for roof
0,60 exist. required U-value for roof (low)
0,55
exist. required U-value for roof (high)
0,50
0,45
U-value [W/m² K]
0,40
0,35
0,30
0,25
0,20
0,15
0,10
0,05
0,00
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
HDD
energy prices scenario) and CO2 climate targets for floor constructions
WEO 2006 - floor

2,00
1,90
1,80
1,70
recommended U-value for floor
1,60
1,50 exist. required U-value for floor (low)
1,40
1,30 exist. required U-value for floor (high)
1,20
1,10
U-value [W/m² K]
1,00
0,90
0,80
0,70
0,60
0,50
0,40
0,30
0,20
0,10
0,00
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
HDD
scenario) and CO2 climate targets for floor constructions
Peak price - floor

2,00
1,90
1,80
1,70
recommended U-value for floor
1,60
1,50 exist. required U-value for floor (low)
1,40
1,30 exist. required U-value for floor (high)
1,20
1,10
U-value [W/m² K]
1,00
0,90
0,80
0,70
0,60
0,50
0,40
0,30
0,20
0,10
0,00
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
HDD
The calculated results for price scenario “WEO reference” are in most cases more ambitious than current
national standards.
Exceptions are floors in Finland and the UK (where in both cases the 3-step-development floor – wall
– roof in insulation thickness seem to be not reflected) and (due to cooling issues taken into account in
this study) floors in southern parts of Spain and Greece.
However, concerning floor insulation further restrictions could be given to meet demands like the acoustical
comfort (contact noise) and building physics (level of surface temperature to avoid condensation or
shorter response time of floor heating etc.) that might require more insulation (a lower U-value) for floors.
As the analyses in this study is based solely on either economical or environmental (Post-Kyoto-targets)
aspects of energy savings from insulation measures such design criteria were not taken into account.
Annex 5 gives a visual representation on European maps showing the difference between indicative existing
requirements per country and optimum U-values as calculated for WEO 2006 and Peak price scenarios.
8.2 Verification of results in an EPBD context

The Energy Performance Buildings Directive defines that an over all energy assessment for the building
should be made. Next to that on a national or regional level requirements or recommendations are given
to meet minimum thermal performances on a component level.
For verification purposes the calculated optimum U-values for a few cities/countries were given as input
in the national calculation schemes following the CEN standards and methodology addressed in the
EPBD assuming commonly used energy supply (e. g. heating system) and energy saving measures and
provisions (windows, air tightness, ventilation, lighting, etc.).
The conclusions of these calculations are described in the next page. For a full overview of data inputs
and calculations, please refer to Annex 4.
Sweden
In the new Swedish building code from 2006 there are two requirements concerning energy efficiency.
1. T
he maximum energy use (excluding household electricity) of a house must not exceed
110 kWh/m2 per year in the southern half of Sweden, where Stockholm is located. The exception
is if the heating system consists of electrical resistance heaters, then the energy should be
a maximum of 75 kWh/m2.
2. T
he mean U-value of the construction parts (including thermal bridges) must not exceed
0.50 W/m2K.
The ventilation norm requires 0.35l/s m2 of fresh air. In the previous Swedish building code there was
also a maximum value for the leakage through the building envelope on 0.8 l/s m2.
The calculations performed with the recommended U-values (WEO reference and peak price scenario)
match with these two requirements, when the air exchange rate from ventilation complies with the
Swedish norm and no electricity heating is used (maximum demand: 110 kWh/m2 per year).
The Netherlands
The recommended U-values for wall, floor, and roof from the analyses were taken as the input in the
energy performance calculation carried out in accordance with the EPBD for a Dutch “reference dwelling”
(in the NL the “epc calculation” according the NEN NPR 5129 as assigned in the national building decree
“Bouwbesluit”). The performance requirement defined in the Dutch Building Decree is epc =< 0,8. With
the calculated U-values this requirement has been met (WEO reference scenario: epc = 0,79; peak price
scenario: epc = 0,77) without any special or additional installations and using the generic data for all other
impacts on the performance the requirements also meet the “safety net” requirements on the component
level U< 0,37 W/m2K (Rc ≥ 2,5 m2K/W).
Poland
The calculations performed with the recommended U-values (WEO reference and peak price scenario)
for Poland result in buildings with energy performance “class E” and are meeting the requirements given
for new buildings.
Spain
Calculations made by CENER from Spain conclude that for the two types of buildings located in Madrid,
the U-values of the peak price scenario satisfy all energy requirements defined in section CTE DB HE-1
restriction of energy demand.
The two buildings located in Seville also meet the global energy demand even though the input U-value
for the component floor is not in accordance with the local requirement in the climatic zone B (because
of the negative effect of floor insulation on cooling demand which has been taken into account in the
present study).
Even without external shading assumed in the calculations from CENER (an unfavourable situation
which reduces the positive effect of insulation on cooling demand, as described in chapter 4.3)
the calculations for both cities also show a reduced energy demand for cooling when implementing the
U-values of the peak price scenario.
From the above verifications of the calculated U-values for Sweden, the Netherlands, Poland and Spain
it is reasonable to conclude that the recommended U-values are in line with the corresponding national
performance levels by referring to and being in accordance with the EPBD.
9 ] concl u s i on s
U-value optimum and cost effectiveness

Whether it is cost effective or not to start applying additional insulation, depends on the fixed costs per
m², the starting point regarding U-value and the costs of saved energy. The study demonstrates that once
the cost savings for heating and cooling energy exceed the total investment costs for insulation measures,
the optimum U-value (mainly determined by the contribution of insulation) is, in any given location,
identical for different insulation applications as long as no technical limitations occur. U-value optimum
only depends on investment costs for the incremental centimetres of insulation and on the corresponding
additional energy-cost-savings.
Recommendations for retrofit and for new buildings

As the U-value recommendations are robust against different initial levels of U-value and the fixed costs for
insulation measures per m², the recommended optimum U-values apply to new and existing buildings.
Cost-efficiency and Post-Kyoto approach

Besides the economical analysis, a climate protection approach was able to identify the contribution of
the residential buildings to the achievement of a 2050 CO2 emissions reduction target of 85%, hence
the U-value requirements for the total building stock. When comparing the U-values resulting from the
economical and the climate protection approach, it is very interesting to note that they are comparable
for any given region. This means that there are at least two fundamental argumentations, economic and
environmental, to move requirements towards the U-values recommended.
U-values recommended versus current national building codes

Recommended optimum U-values resulting from the analyses based on cost-efficiency and Post-Kyoto
targets are in most cases more ambitious than current national standards. The gaps differ significantly
depending on countries and the building component envisaged. However, the current situation of energy
prices justifies reviewing the U-value requirements in Europe.
Insulation and cooling energy demand

In residential buildings of southern Europe, thermal insulation also reduces the energy demand for cooling.
Especially roof and wall, insulation provides very robust and considerable savings. A well balanced
package of floor, wall and roof-insulation, combined with proper shading and a good ventilation strategy,
results in a significant and cost-effective reduction in the energy demand for heating and cooling. This
effect can be generalized for all residential buildings with reasonable passive cooling strategies and is
quite robust in relation to “non designed behaviour” of tenants, or in case of a lower mass building.
1 0 ] R eference s and e x ternal contr i b u tor s
Den Elzen, M.G.J. and Meeting the EU 2°C climate target: global and regional emission implications.
M. Meinshausen. MNP-report, No. 728001031. Bilthoven, the Netherlands: Netherlands
(2005). Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP). http://www.gci.org.uk/briefings/rivm.pdf.
Ecofys VI (June 2006) Sensitivity Analysis of Cost Effective Climate Protection in the EU Building
Stock (Ecofys VI). Report for EURIMA European Insulation Manufacturers
Association. Carsten Petersdorff, Thomas Boermans, June 2006
Ecofys IV/V (Aug. 2005) Cost-Effective Climate Protection in the Building Stock of the New EU Member
States - Beyond the EU Directive on the Energy Performance of Buildings
(Ecofys IV and V). Report for EURIMA European Insulation Manufacturers
Association. August 2005
Ecofys III (Feb. 2005) Cost-Effective Climate Protection in the EU Building Stock (Ecofys III).
Report for EURIMA European Insulation Manufacturers Association. Carsten
Petersdorff, Thomas Boermans et al. February 2005
Ecofys II (Feb. 2004) Mitigation of CO2-emissions from the building stock – beyond the EU directive
on the energy performance of buildings (Ecofys II). Report for EURIMA and
EuroACE. Carsten Petersdorff, Thomas Boermans et al. February 2004
EU Council. (1996). Communication on Community Strategy on Climate Change, Council

Conclusions. European Council, Brussels.
Eurima 2007: Overview of existing required or recommended U-values for 100 European
cities. (April 2007)
EUROSTAT (2006) EUROSTAT database on http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu
Höhne, N., Options for the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, research report
D. Phylipsen, for the German Federal Environmental Agency. Climate Change 02/05,
S. Ullrich and ISSN 1611-8855. Berlin: ECOFYS GmbH. www.umweltbundesamt.de.
K. Blok. (2005).
International
Energy Agency (IEA): World energy outlook (WEO) 2006
IPCC. (2001). Climate Change 2001: Mitigation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
METEONORM. Meteonorm climate database V 5.1
PNNL: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL); http://www.pnl.gov/
PRIMES Scenarios. Energy-Economy-Environment Modelling Laboratory ICCS/NTUA.

http://www.e3mlab.ntua.gr/manuals/PRIMESld.pdf
TRNSYS. Thermal energy simulation tool. www.trnsys.com
UNFCCC. (1992). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Bonn: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat.
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf.
UNFCCC. (2006a). Issues relating to reducing emissions from deforestation in developing

countries and recommendations on any further process. Submissions from
Parties, FCCC/SBSTA/2006/MISC.5 (http://www.unfccc.int).
UNFCCC. (2006b). Views regarding Article 3, paragraph 9, of the Kyoto Protocol, Submissions
from Parties, FCCC/KP/AWG/2006/MISC.1 (http://www.unfccc.int).
Build Desk The Netherlands
CENER Centro National de Energias Renovables, Spain
Mid Sweden University Anna Joelsson, Department of Engineering, Physics and Mathematics, Sweden
SEGEFA ULg Julien Charlier, Université de Liège, Belgium
University of Warsaw Prof. Alexander Panek, Poland
Contacts in national Energy Agencies, Universities, and Ministries who contributed with
information on existing required U-values (see Annex 3)
Eurima arket Development Committee members and local representatives of

M
member companies
A N N E X 1 ]
Heating degree days (HDD)

According to the EUROSTAT-method, the HDD’s are defined as:
HDD = (18 °C - Tm) if Tm is lower than or equal to 15 °C (heating threshold)
HDD = 0 if Tm is higher than 15 °C
where Tm is the mean ((Tmin + Tmax)/ 2) outdoor temperature over a period of 1 day. Calculations are
executed on a daily basis, added up to a calendar month - and subsequently to a year.
Cooling Degree days (CDD)

According to the ASHRAE-method, the CDDs are defined as.
CDD = (Tm- 18.3°C) if Tm is higher than or equal to 18.3 °C
CDD = 0 if Tm is lower than 18.3 °C
where Tm is the mean ((Tmin + Tmax)/ 2) outdoor temperature over a period of 1 day.
Calculations are executed on a daily basis, added up to a calendar month - and subsequently to a year.
18.3 °C corresponds to 65 Fahrenheit.
The following table presents heating and cooling degree days of selected European cities according to
the methodologies that have been described on basis of temperature data (long term averages) from
METEONORM.
(EUROSTAT/ASHRAE) Heating Degree Days and Cooling Degree Days
Table 12: Heating and cooling degree days of European cities, sorted by country
City Country HDD CDD

Tirana Albania 1815 467
Vienna Austria 2844 221
Salzburg Austria 3376 107
Bregenz Austria 3385 63
Graz Austria 3670 65
Innsbruck Austria 4256 13
Brussels Belgium 3067 67
Sarajevo Bosnia-Herzegovina 3550 88
Chirpan Bulgaria 2839 430
Sofia Bulgaria 3097 168
Split Croatia 1486 663
Zagreb Croatia 2723 257
Prague Czech Republic 3431 67
Tusimice Czech Republic 3633 57
Copenhagen Denmark 3720 22
Aalborg Denmark 3933 16
Tallinn Estonia 4760 14
Helsinki Finland 4898 16
Oulu Finland 5831 11
Ivalo Finland 7008 0
Ajaccio France 1499 272
Marseille France 1622 427
Bordeaux France 2034 184
Toulouse France 2105 238
Brest France 2236 1
Nantes France 2377 106
Tours France 2450 138
Paris France 2702 114
Limoges France 2833 106
Cherbourg France 2872 8
Lyon France 2897 128
Strasbourg France 3101 96

Essen Germany 3052 102
Bremen Germany 3265 53
Berlin Germany 3296 102
Liepzig Germany 3395 80
Kiel Germany 3610 30
Munich Germany 3730 47
Athens Greece 876 1020
Volos Greece 1587 838
Salonniki Greece 2012 710
Budapest Hungary 2856 260
Dublin Ireland 2846 1
Kilkenny Ireland 3147 5
Rome Italy 1253 786
Palermo Italy 585 919
Cagliari Italy 1210 648
Bari Italy 1330 559
Naples Italy 1451 480
Trieste Italy 1771 509
Florence Italy 1920 437
Milan Italy 2616 286
Bolzano Italy 3993 24
Riga Latvia 4430 41
Klapeida Lithuania 3999 26
Vilnius Lithuania 4339 50
Skopje Macedonia 2646 346
Bitola Macedonia 2832 252
Bergen Norway 3985 2
Oslo Norway 4714 9
Trondheim Norway 5211 0
Tromsö Norway 5584 0
Hammersfest Norway 5954 0
Swinonjscie Poland 3653 30
Poznan Poland 3668 74
Warsaw Poland 3747 82

Gdansk Poland 4004 12
Faro Portugal 805 489
Lisbon Portugal 846 410
Porto Portugal 1247 147
Constanta Romania 2702 298
Bucarest Romania 3051 273
Novi Sad Serbia 2712 332
Belgrade Serbia 2753 279
Bratislava Slovakia 3152 150
Lucenec Slovakia 3532 99
Koper Slovenia 1789 505
Ljubliana Slovenia 3165 137
Seville Spain 931 908
Valencia Spain 1024 627
Barcelona Spain 1156 516
Santander Spain 1428 167
Madrid Spain 1860 596
Salamanca Spain 2596 179
Goteborg Sweden 4010 16
Stockholm Sweden 4210 43
Umea Sweden 5747 1
Lulea Sweden 5943 3
Kiruna Sweden 7076 2
Geneva Switzerland 3000 156
Zürich Switzerland 3413 77
Amsterdam The Netherlands 3039 27
Plymouth United Kingdom 2699 7
London United Kingdom 2800 58
Cardiff United Kingdom 2812 20
Manchester United Kingdom 3073 20
Belfast United Kingdom 3353 2
Edinburgh United Kingdom 3393 0
Newcastle United Kingdom 3470 3
Birmingham United Kingdom 3518 5
A N N E X 2 ]
Optimum U-values based on cost-efficiency and climate

protection targets
Table 13: Results Optimum U-values based on cost-efficiency sorted by country
U-value optimum cost-efficiency WEO reference Peak price scenario

City Country wall roof floor wall roof floor
Tirana Albania 0,31 0,25 0,43 0,26 0,23 0,39
Vienna Austria 0,23 0,18 0,28 0,19 0,15 0,24
Salzburg Austria 0,20 0,16 0,26 0,18 0,14 0,22
Bregenz Austria 0,20 0,16 0,26 0,18 0,14 0,22
Graz Austria 0,19 0,16 0,24 0,17 0,13 0,21
Innsbruck Austria 0,18 0,14 0,23 0,16 0,12 0,20
Brussels Belgium 0,21 0,17 0,26 0,18 0,14 0,23
Sarajevo Bosnia-Herzegovina 0,22 0,19 0,28 0,19 0,17 0,25
Chirpan Bulgaria 0,25 0,21 0,33 0,21 0,18 0,30
Sofia Bulgaria 0,23 0,20 0,30 0,20 0,18 0,26
Split Croatia 0,33 0,29 0,55 0,28 0,25 0,48
Zagreb Croatia 0,25 0,23 0,33 0,22 0,19 0,30
Prague Czech Republic 0,22 0,19 0,28 0,19 0,18 0,25
Tusimice Czech Republic 0,21 0,19 0,28 0,19 0,17 0,23
Copenhagen Denmark 0,19 0,16 0,24 0,16 0,13 0,21
Aalborg Denmark 0,18 0,15 0,23 0,16 0,13 0,21
Tallinn Estonia 0,19 0,17 0,23 0,17 0,14 0,21
Helsinki Finland 0,18 0,15 0,22 0,17 0,13 0,20
Oulu Finland 0,17 0,14 0,21 0,15 0,12 0,18
Ivalo Finland 0,15 0,12 0,19 0,14 0,11 0,17
Ajaccio France 0,29 0,24 0,43 0,26 0,20 0,39
Marseille France 0,29 0,23 0,43 0,26 0,19 0,39
Bordeaux France 0,26 0,20 0,35 0,23 0,18 0,30
Toulouse France 0,26 0,20 0,35 0,21 0,18 0,30
Brest France 0,26 0,20 0,32 0,21 0,17 0,28
Nantes France 0,24 0,19 0,30 0,20 0,16 0,26

Tours France 0,24 0,19 0,30 0,20 0,16 0,26
Paris France 0,23 0,18 0,28 0,19 0,16 0,24
Limoges France 0,23 0,18 0,28 0,19 0,15 0,24
Cherbourg France 0,21 0,18 0,28 0,18 0,15 0,24
Lyon France 0,21 0,18 0,28 0,18 0,15 0,23
Strasbourg France 0,21 0,17 0,26 0,18 0,14 0,23
Essen Germany 0,21 0,17 0,26 0,18 0,14 0,23
Bremen Germany 0,20 0,16 0,26 0,18 0,14 0,22
Berlin Germany 0,20 0,16 0,26 0,18 0,14 0,22
Leipzig Germany 0,20 0,16 0,26 0,18 0,14 0,22
Kiel Germany 0,19 0,16 0,24 0,17 0,13 0,22
Munich Germany 0,19 0,16 0,24 0,16 0,13 0,21
Athens Greece 0,39 0,29 1,44 0,32 0,24 1,44
Volos Greece 0,28 0,22 0,59 0,24 0,19 0,51
Salonniki Greece 0,26 0,20 0,51 0,22 0,18 0,41
Budapest Hungary 0,25 0,21 0,30 0,21 0,19 0,26
Dublin Ireland 0,23 0,18 0,28 0,19 0,15 0,24
Kilkenny Ireland 0,21 0,17 0,26 0,18 0,14 0,23
Palermo Italy 0,48 0,34 1,44 0,39 0,29 1,44
Cagliari Italy 0,32 0,25 0,69 0,28 0,22 0,59
Bari Italy 0,32 0,25 0,69 0,28 0,21 0,51
Rome Italy 0,32 0,25 0,84 0,28 0,21 0,59
Naples Italy 0,30 0,24 0,59 0,26 0,20 0,51
Trieste Italy 0,28 0,21 0,51 0,23 0,18 0,41
Florence Italy 0,26 0,21 0,51 0,23 0,18 0,41
Milan Italy 0,23 0,18 0,37 0,20 0,16 0,31
Bolzano Italy 0,19 0,15 0,29 0,16 0,13 0,24
Riga Latvia 0,20 0,18 0,25 0,17 0,15 0,22
Klapeida Lithuania 0,21 0,18 0,26 0,18 0,16 0,23
Vilnius Lithuania 0,20 0,18 0,25 0,17 0,16 0,22
Skopje Macedonia 0,25 0,23 0,35 0,22 0,19 0,30
Bitola Macedonia 0,25 0,21 0,33 0,21 0,18 0,28

Bergen Norway 0,21 0,17 0,25 0,18 0,15 0,22
Oslo Norway 0,19 0,15 0,22 0,17 0,13 0,20
Trondheim Norway 0,18 0,14 0,22 0,16 0,13 0,19
Tromsö Norway 0,17 0,14 0,21 0,15 0,12 0,19
Hammersfest Norway 0,17 0,13 0,20 0,15 0,12 0,18
Swinonjscie Poland 0,21 0,19 0,28 0,19 0,17 0,23
Poznan Poland 0,21 0,19 0,26 0,19 0,17 0,23
Warsaw Poland 0,21 0,19 0,26 0,19 0,17 0,23
Gdansk Poland 0,21 0,18 0,26 0,18 0,16 0,23
Faro Portugal 0,43 0,31 1,06 0,35 0,27 0,84
Lisbon Portugal 0,39 0,31 0,84 0,35 0,27 0,69
Porto Portugal 0,32 0,27 0,59 0,28 0,22 0,46
Constanta Romania 0,25 0,23 0,33 0,22 0,19 0,30
Bucarest Romania 0,23 0,20 0,33 0,21 0,18 0,28
Belgrade Serbia 0,25 0,21 0,33 0,22 0,19 0,30
Novi Sad Serbia 0,25 0,21 0,35 0,22 0,19 0,30
Bratislava Slovakia 0,23 0,20 0,30 0,20 0,18 0,26
Lucenec Slovakia 0,22 0,19 0,28 0,19 0,17 0,25
Koper Slovenia 0,31 0,27 0,43 0,26 0,24 0,39
Ljubliana Slovenia 0,23 0,20 0,30 0,20 0,18 0,26
Seville Spain 0,39 0,27 1,44 0,32 0,24 1,06
Valencia Spain 0,35 0,27 0,84 0,30 0,24 0,69
Barcelona Spain 0,35 0,27 0,69 0,30 0,22 0,59
Santander Spain 0,30 0,25 0,51 0,26 0,21 0,46
Madrid Spain 0,26 0,21 0,51 0,23 0,18 0,46
Salamanca Spain 0,23 0,18 0,37 0,20 0,16 0,31
Geneva Switzerland 0,21 0,17 0,28 0,18 0,15 0,23
Zürich Switzerland 0,20 0,16 0,26 0,18 0,14 0,22
Goteborg Sweden 0,20 0,17 0,25 0,18 0,15 0,22
Stockholm Sweden 0,20 0,16 0,24 0,18 0,14 0,22
Umea Sweden 0,17 0,14 0,21 0,15 0,12 0,18
Lulea Sweden 0,17 0,13 0,20 0,15 0,12 0,18

Kiruna Sweden 0,15 0,12 0,19 0,14 0,11 0,17
Amsterdam The Netherlands 0,21 0,17 0,28 0,18 0,14 0,23
Plymouth United Kingdom 0,23 0,18 0,28 0,19 0,16 0,24
London United Kingdom 0,23 0,18 0,28 0,19 0,15 0,24
Cardiff United Kingdom 0,23 0,18 0,28 0,19 0,15 0,24
Manchester United Kingdom 0,21 0,17 0,26 0,18 0,14 0,23
Belfast United Kingdom 0,20 0,16 0,26 0,18 0,14 0,22
Edinburgh United Kingdom 0,20 0,16 0,26 0,18 0,14 0,22
Newcastle United Kingdom 0,20 0,16 0,26 0,17 0,13 0,22
Birmingham United Kingdom 0,19 0,16 0,24 0,17 0,13 0,22
A N N E X 3 ]
Requirements on component level [EURIMA 2007]
Table 14: Requirements or recommendations for U-values as per April 2007 [EURIMA 2007]
existing requirements
U-value [W/m² K]
wall roof floor
City Country low high low high low high
Tirana Albania AL 0,53 0,53 0,38 0,38 0,59 0,59
Vienna Austria AT 0,35 0,50 0,20 0,25 0,35 0,40
Salzburg Austria AT 0,35 0,50 0,20 0,25 0,35 0,40
Bregenz Austria AT 0,35 0,50 0,20 0,25 0,35 0,40
Graz Austria AT 0,35 0,50 0,20 0,25 0,35 0,40
Innsbruck Austria AT 0,35 0,50 0,20 0,25 0,35 0,40
Brussels Belgium BE 0,60 0,60 0,40 0,40 0,90 1,20
Sarajevo Bosnia-Herzegovina BA 0,80 0,80 0,55 0,55 0,65 0,65
Chirpan Bulgaria BG 0,50 0,50 0,30 0,30 0,50 0,50
Sofia Bulgaria BG 0,50 0,50 0,30 0,30 0,50 0,50
Split Croatia HR 1,20 1,20 0,75 0,75 0,90 0,90
Zagreb Croatia HR 0,90 0,90 0,65 0,65 0,75 0,75
Prague Czech Republic CZ 0,30 0,38 0,24 0,30 0,30 0,45
Tusimice Czech Republic CZ 0,30 0,38 0,24 0,30 0,30 0,45
Copenhagen Denmark DK 0,20 0,40 0,15 0,25 0,12 0,30
Aalborg Denmark DK 0,20 0,40 0,15 0,25 0,12 0,30
Tallinn Estonia EE 0,25 0,25 0,16 0,16 0,25 0,25
Helsinki Finland FI 0,25 0,25 0,16 0,16 0,25 0,25
Oulu Finland FI 0,25 0,25 0,16 0,16 0,25 0,25
Ivalo Finland FI 0,25 0,25 0,16 0,16 0,25 0,25
Ajaccio France FR 0,40 0,40 0,25 0,25 0,36 0,36
Marseille France FR 0,40 0,40 0,25 0,25 0,36 0,36
Bordeaux France FR 0,36 0,36 0,20 0,20 0,27 0,27
Toulouse France FR 0,36 0,36 0,20 0,20 0,27 0,27
U-value [W/m² K]
wall roof floor
Brest France FR 0,36 0,36 0,20 0,20 0,27 0,27
Nantes France FR 0,36 0,36 0,20 0,20 0,27 0,27
Tours France FR 0,36 0,36 0,20 0,20 0,27 0,27
Paris France FR 0,36 0,36 0,20 0,20 0,27 0,27
Limoges France FR 0,36 0,36 0,20 0,20 0,27 0,27
Cherbourg France FR 0,36 0,36 0,20 0,20 0,27 0,27
Lyon France FR 0,36 0,36 0,20 0,20 0,27 0,27
Strasbourg France FR 0,36 0,36 0,20 0,20 0,27 0,27
Essen Germany DE 0,30 0,30 0,20 0,20 0,40 0,40
Bremen Germany DE 0,30 0,30 0,20 0,20 0,40 0,40
Berlin Germany DE 0,30 0,30 0,20 0,20 0,40 0,40
Leipzig Germany DE 0,30 0,30 0,20 0,20 0,40 0,40
Kiel Germany DE 0,30 0,30 0,20 0,20 0,40 0,40
Munich Germany DE 0,30 0,30 0,20 0,20 0,40 0,40
Athens Greece GR 0,70 0,70 0,50 0,50 1,90 1,90
Volos Greece GR 0,70 0,70 0,50 0,50 1,90 1,90
Salonniki Greece GR 0,70 0,70 0,50 0,50 0,70 0,70
Budapest Hungary HU 0,45 0,45 0,25 0,25 0,50 0,50
Dublin Ireland IE 0,27 0,37 0,16 0,25 0,25 0,37
Kilkenny Ireland IE 0,27 0,37 0,16 0,25 0,25 0,37
Palermo Italy IT 0,64 0,64 0,60 0,60 0,60 0,60
Cagliari Italy IT 0,57 0,57 0,55 0,55 0,55 0,55
Bari Italy IT 0,57 0,57 0,55 0,55 0,55 0,55
Rome Italy IT 0,50 0,50 0,46 0,46 0,46 0,46
Naples Italy IT 0,57 0,57 0,55 0,55 0,55 0,55
Trieste Italy IT 0,50 0,50 0,46 0,46 0,46 0,46
Florence Italy IT 0,50 0,50 0,46 0,46 0,46 0,46
Milan Italy IT 0,46 0,46 0,43 0,43 0,43 0,43
Bolzano Italy IT 0,46 0,46 0,43 0,43 0,43 0,43
Riga Latvia LV 0,25 0,40 0,20 0,20 0,25 0,25
U-value [W/m² K]
wall roof floor
Klapeida Lithuania LT 0,20 0,50 0,16 0,40 0,25 0,50
Vilnius Lithuania LT 0,20 0,50 0,16 0,40 0,25 0,50
Skopje Macedonia MK 0,90 0,90 0,60 0,65 0,75 0,75
Bitola Macedonia MK 0,90 0,90 0,60 0,65 0,75 0,75
Bergen Norway NO 0,18 0,22 0,13 0,18 0,15 0,18
Oslo Norway NO 0,18 0,22 0,13 0,18 0,15 0,18
Trondheim Norway NO 0,18 0,22 0,13 0,18 0,15 0,18
Tromsö Norway NO 0,18 0,22 0,13 0,18 0,15 0,18
Hammersfest Norway NO 0,18 0,22 0,13 0,18 0,15 0,18
Swinonjscie Poland PL 0,30 0,50 0,30 0,30 0,60 0,60
Poznan Poland PL 0,30 0,50 0,30 0,30 0,60 0,60
Warsaw Poland PL 0,30 0,50 0,30 0,30 0,60 0,60
Gdansk Poland PL 0,30 0,50 0,30 0,30 0,60 0,60
Faro Portugal PT 0,50 0,70 0,40 0,50 - -
Lisbon Portugal PT 0,50 0,70 0,40 0,50 - -
Porto Portugal PT 0,50 0,70 0,40 0,50 - -
Constanta Romania RO 0,70 0,83 0,33 0,50 0,60 0,91
Bucarest Romania RO 0,70 0,83 0,33 0,50 0,60 0,91
Belgrade Serbia RS 0,90 0,90 0,65 0,65 0,75 0,75
Novi Sad Serbia RS 0,90 0,90 0,65 0,65 0,75 0,75
Bratislava Slovakia SK 0,32 0,46 0,20 0,30 0,25 0,35
Lucenec Slovakia SK 0,32 0,46 0,20 0,30 0,25 0,35
Koper Slovenia SI 0,15 0,60 0,15 0,25 0,25 0,45
Ljubliana Slovenia SI 0,15 0,60 0,15 0,25 0,25 0,45
Seville Spain ES 0,82 0,82 0,45 0,45 0,82 0,82
Valencia Spain ES 0,82 0,82 0,45 0,45 0,82 0,82
Barcelona Spain ES 0,73 0,73 0,41 0,41 0,73 0,73
Santander Spain ES 0,73 0,73 0,41 0,41 0,73 0,73
Madrid Spain ES 0,66 0,66 0,38 0,38 0,66 0,66
Salamanca Spain ES 0,66 0,66 0,38 0,38 0,66 0,66
U-value [W/m² K]
wall roof floor
Geneva Switzerland CH 0,20 0,30 0,20 0,30 0,20 0,30
Zürich Switzerland CH 0,20 0,30 0,20 0,30 0,20 0,30
Goteborg Sweden SE 0,18 0,18 0,13 0,13 0,15 0,15
Stockholm Sweden SE 0,18 0,18 0,13 0,13 0,15 0,15
Umea Sweden SE 0,18 0,18 0,13 0,13 0,15 0,15
Lulea Sweden SE 0,18 0,18 0,13 0,13 0,15 0,15
Kiruna Sweden SE 0,18 0,18 0,13 0,13 0,15 0,15
Amsterdam The Netherlands NL 0,37 0,37 0,37 0,37 0,37 0,37
Plymouth United Kingdom GB 0,25 0,35 0,13 0,20 0,20 0,25
London United Kingdom GB 0,25 0,35 0,13 0,20 0,20 0,25
Cardiff United Kingdom GB 0,25 0,35 0,13 0,20 0,20 0,25
Manchester United Kingdom GB 0,25 0,35 0,13 0,20 0,20 0,25
Belfast United Kingdom GB 0,25 0,35 0,13 0,20 0,20 0,25
Edinburgh United Kingdom GB 0,25 0,35 0,13 0,20 0,20 0,25
Newcastle United Kingdom GB 0,25 0,35 0,13 0,20 0,20 0,25
Birmingham United Kingdom GB 0,25 0,35 0,13 0,20 0,20 0,25
Table 14 provides an overview of the existing requirements or recommendation given in the above
mentioned countries or cities. The list provides the actual information per April 2007 and might be subject
to changes. The requirements may differ for different building types, building age, etc. This information is
too detailed for the purpose of this study. For this reason the table provides “high” and “low” values per
component wall, roof and floor, covering the extremes of the reported U-values.
A N N E X 4 ]
Verification of U-value input into national EPBD calculation
Sweden
Department of Engineering, June 29, 2007

Physics and Mathematics
Anna Joelsson
PhD student
Results from energy demand calculations in a Swedish context
The calculations shown below is a rough evaluation of the economically optimal U-

values suggested in the Ecofys report “U-values for better energy performance of
buildings” to answer the question: Does a new house constructed with the U-values
suggested for Stockholm, Sweden pass the requirements of the Swedish building code?
Swedish regulation
In the new Swedish building code from 2006 there are two energy efficiency
requirements for a house to fulfill.
1. The maximum energy use (excluding household electricity) of a house must
not exceed 110 kWh/m2 per year in the southern half of Sweden, where
Stockholm is located. The exception is if the heating system consists of
electrical resistance heaters, then the energy should be a maximum of 75
kWh/m2.
2. The mean U-value of the construction parts (including thermal bridges) must
not exceed 0.50 W/m2K.
The ventilation norm requires 0.35l/s m2 of fresh air. In the previous Swedish
building code there was also a maximum value for the leakage through the building
envelope on 0.8 l/s m2.
Assumptions for the calculations

The calculations are based on a reference house used by Joelsson and Gustavsson1.
The house has 1 ½ floors, a heated area of 144 m2 and a ventilated volume of 329 m3.
The total window area is 17.6 m2 and the largest window areas face east and west and
no windows face north. The windows were triple-glazed, of which two panes formed
a sealed unit with low emissivity coating.
The U-value for the windows was set to 1.1 W/m2 K, in accordance with the report
and for the doors (area of 4 m2) to 1.0.
The construction of concrete and bricks was assumed to have the insulation on the
inside, giving a heat capacity of the house of 81 Wh/K m2. In accordance with the
report, natural ventilation was used. The ventilation and air-leakage were assumed to
be 0.35l/s m2 and 0.8 l/s m2, respectively and the indoor air temperature was assumed
to be 20º C. The calculations were performed for a house supplied by district heating.
1
Joelsson, A. and Gustavsson, L. 2007. "Implementing energy efficiency in Sweden's existing housing stock." In
Proceedings of the eceee Summer Study. June 4-9, 2007. La Colle Sur Loupe, Côte d'Azur, France.
Department of Engineering, June 29, 2007

Physics and Mathematics
Anna Joelsson
PhD student
Calculations of the energy demand for heating were made for four scenarios, with the
Swedish software ENORM.
Results
1. WEO scenario U-values.

Here the Swedish ventilation norm of 0.35l/s m2 and leakage of 0.8 l/s m2 was used
during all 24 hours.
The result for this calculation was 105 kWh/m2.
2. WEO scenario U-values. Light construction

Assuming insulation on the outside giving a higher heat capacity of 158 Wh/K m2
Using the Swedish ventilation norm of 0.35l/s m2 and leakage of 0.8 l/s m2 during all
24 hours.
3. Peak price scenario U-values and Swedish norm ventilation

Here the Swedish ventilation norm of 0.35l/s m2 and leakage of 0.8 l/s m2 was used
during all 24 hours.
4. Peak price scenario U-values and Ecofys report reference ventilation

There was a given day and night air-exchange rate of 0.65 and 2.5 respectively. The
Swedish ventilation norm of 0.35l/s m2 corresponds to an exchange rate of 0.55,
which allows 0.06 l/s m2 for leakage. The night exchange rate of 2.5 means a
ventilation rate of 1.5 l/s m2 if the leakage is still 0.06 l/s m2. The night value was
used for 10 hours per day.
Requirement number 2
No full calculation of the mean U-value of the construction has been performed.
However, a rough estimate, not considering thermal bridges, gives a value of 0.24
W/m2K, which is half of the maximum of 0.50 W/m2K. Therefore is seems likely that
this requirement could be fulfilled if the building is planned and erected with
consideration taken to energy performance, including thermal bridges.
The Netherlands
NEN, NPR 5129 EP woonfuncties en woongebouwen
ALGEMENE GEGEVENS
Projectomschrijving : Onderzoek Rockwool EPC < 0,8
Bestandsnaam : C:\Documents and Settings\hauemat\Bureaublad\Chris\Standard semi detached dwelling - WEO scenario.EPW
Omschrijving bouwwerk : Standaard 2 onder 1 kap (SenterNovem)
Adres :
Soort bouwwerk : Woonfunctie

Overige gebouwgegevens : - Rc-waarden conform Peak price scenario
- Uraam = 1,80 W/m2K (HR++ met goede kozijnen)
- geisoleerde voordeur
- qv10;kar = 0.625 (standaard goede kierdichting)
- balansventilatie met WTW (rendement 75 %)
- gelijkstroom ventilatoren
- verwarming: HR 107 ketel, HT-systeem, radiatoren
- warmtapwater: CV-combi Hrww (rendement 70 %)
- zonwering
- werkelijke tapwaterleidinglengtes opgegeven
- thermische bruggen gedetailleerd opgegeven
EPC-eis : 0.80
INDELING GEBOUW
Type Omschrijving zone Ag [m²]
Verwarmd begane grond 51.57
Verwarmd eerste verdieping 51.57
Verwarmd tweede verdieping 30.58
------------- +
totaal 133.72
BOUWKUNDIGE GEGEVENS - TRANSMISSIE

Definitie scheidingsconstructies zone: begane grond
constructie begrenzing constructiedeel A Hkr Rc U ZTA helling zon- beschaduwing
[m²] [m] [m²K/W] [W/m²K] [-] [°] wering
noordgevel buiten, N metselwerk 9.2 4.59 0.21
raam bg noord 6.1 1.80 0.60 90 nee constante overstek
zuidgevel buiten, Z metselwerk 9.3 4.59 0.21
deur bg glas 0.4 1.80 0.60 90 ja sector 1 belemmerd
tuindeur bg glas 2.3 1.80 0.60 90 ja constante overstek
deur 1.4 3.40 0.00 90 nee sector 1 belemmerd
tuindeur 1.9 3.40 0.00 90 nee constante overstek
oostgevel buiten, O metselwerk 20.4 4.59 0.21
raam bg 2.2 1.80 0.60 90 ja minimale belemmering
EPW - NPR 5129 V2.02 12 feb 2007 - 13:04 / EPC=0.79 blz. 1
WEO reference

[m²] [m] [m²K/W] [W/m²K] [-] [°] wering
glas deur bg 0.3 1.80 0.60 90 nee minimale belemmering
deur bg 2.4 2.00 0.00 90 nee minimale belemmering
vloer kruip vloer 53.0 0.63 3.23 0.12
---------- +
Totaal 108.8
Definitie scheidingsconstructies zone: eerste verdieping

[m²] [m] [m²K/W] [W/m²K] [-] [°] wering
raam 1v 5.1 1.80 0.60 90 nee constante overstek
raam 1v 5.1 1.80 0.60 90 ja constante overstek
raam 1v (3x) 1.7 1.80 0.60 90 ja minimale belemmering
---------- +
Totaal 55.8
Definitie scheidingsconstructies zone: tweede verdieping

[m²] [m] [m²K/W] [W/m²K] [-] [°] wering
dak buiten, boven dak 67.9 5.74 0.17
raam 0.6 1.80 0.60 39 nee minimale belemmering
---------- +
Totaal 88.1
BOUWKUNDIGE GEGEVENS - BELEMMERINGEN EN OVERSTEKKEN

Definitie beschaduwing zone: begane grond
constructie constr.deel beschaduwing belemmeringen overstekken besch.factor
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
noordgevel raam bg noord constante overstek 20 20 20 20 20 79 79 20 1.00
zuidgevel tuindeur bg glas constante overstek 20 20 20 20 20 79 79 20 0.90
tuindeur constante overstek 20 20 20 20 20 79 79 20 0.90
Definitie beschaduwing zone: eerste verdieping

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
noordgevel raam 1v constante overstek 20 20 20 20 20 46 46 20 1.00
zuidgevel raam 1v constante overstek 20 20 20 20 20 46 46 20 0.90
WEO reference
BOUWKUNDIGE GEGEVENS - LINEAIRE KOUDEBRUGGEN

Er is gerekend volgens de uitgebreide methode m.b.t. de koudebruggen.
Definitie lineaire koudebruggen zone: begane grond
constructie begrenzing koudebrug l/P type detail Psi Psi;gr Psi;e Eps
[m] [W/mK] [W/mK] [W/mK] [m²/m]
noordgevel buiten, N binnenblad-gevel 2.70 (eigen waarde) 0.078
bovendorpel 3.67 (eigen waarde) 0.065
stijl 3.30 (eigen waarde) 0.049
onderdorpel 3.67 (eigen waarde) 0.054
zuidgevel buiten, Z binnenblad-gevel 2.70 (eigen waarde) 0.078
oostgevel buiten, O bovendorpel 3.04 (eigen waarde) 0.065
vloer kruip langsgevel 8.12 -0.185 0.612 0.0012
onderdorpel 4.15 -0.177 0.673 0.0012
kopgevel 8.41 -0.177 0.884 0.0012
Definitie lineaire koudebruggen zone: eerste verdieping

[m] [W/mK] [W/mK] [W/mK] [m²/m]
Definitie lineaire koudebruggen zone: tweede verdieping

[m] [W/mK] [W/mK] [W/mK] [m²/m]
dak buiten, boven kozijnaansluiting 3.20 gevel: kozijnaansluiting 0.100
dakvoet 11.32 (eigen waarde) -0.001
nok 5.66 (eigen waarde) 0.015
schuin dak-bouwmuur 11.10 (eigen waarde) 0.131
schuin dak-kopgevel 11.10 (eigen waarde) 0.150
BOUWKUNDIGE GEGEVENS - INFILTRATIE

qv10;kar/m² van de woonfunctie: 0.625 [dm³/sm²]
WEO reference
BOUWKUNDIGE GEGEVENS - THERMISCHE CAPACITEIT

bouwtype van de woonfunctie: traditioneel, gemengd zwaar
INSTALLATIE W - VERWARMING EN HULPENERGIE

Verwarmingssysteem 1 - Verwarming 1
verwarmingstoestel type toestel : individueel centraal verwarmingstoestel
type luchtverwarmer/ketel : HR-107 Ketel
aanvoertemperatuur : hoog temperatuursysteem (HT)
installatiekenmerken individuele bemetering : ja
installatie voorzien van buffervat : nee
type verwarmingslichaam : overig (bijv. radiatoren)
opwekkingsrendement (Nopw;verw) : 0.950 [-]
systeemrendement (Nsys;verw) : 0.950 [-]
hulpenergie aantal ketels-cv/luchtverwarmers met waakvlam : 0
gasketels-cv : voorzien van ventilator
: voorzien van elektronica
: circulatiepomp voorzien van pompregeling
warmtepomp : geen circulatiepomp aanwezig
individuele warmtepomp : geen parallel buffervat aanwezig
gebouwgebonden warmte-kracht : lengte circulatieleiding 0.00 km
aangewezen zones: begane grond
eerste verdieping
tweede verdieping
INSTALLATIE W - WARMTAPWATER
nr. opwekkingstoestel klasse Nopw;tap qv;wp aantal aantal Lbadr Laanr Lcirc d;inw Qbeh;tap;bruto
[-] [dm³/s] badr aanr [m] [m] [m] [mm] [MJ]
1 gasgestookt combitoestel HRww 4 0.619 - 1 1 4.3 5.4 0.0 <= 10 10880
INSTALLATIE W - VENTILATIE
Ventilatiesysteem 1 - Ventilatie 1
ventilatievoorziening : mechanische luchttoe- en afvoer
type warmteterugwinning : tegenstroom-warmtewisselaar
Nwtw : 0.75
regelbaar door bewoners : nee
toevoer in zomer : toevoer niet uitschakelbaar
bypass aanwezig : 100% bypass
type voorverwarming : voorverwarming door warmteterugwinning
aangewezen zones : begane grond
Nwtw : 0.75
WEO reference

aangewezen zones : eerste verdieping
Nwtw : 0.75
aangewezen zones : tweede verdieping
INSTALLATIE W - VENTILATOREN
ventilatiesysteem type ventilator
Ventilatiesysteem 1 - Ventilatie 1 gebalanceerde ventilatie, gelijkstroom
INSTALLATIE W - KOELING
koelsysteem: type toestel : geen koelmachine aanwezig
vrije koeling : nee
opwekkingsrendement voor koeling (Nopw;koel) : 0.000 [-]
systeemrendement voor koeling (Nsys;koel) : 0.000 [-]
INSTALLATIE E - VERLICHTING
omschrijving zone Ag [m²] Qprim;vl [MJ]
begane grond 51.6 2909
eerste verdieping 51.6 2909
tweede verdieping 30.6 1725
------------ + ------------ +
totaal 133.7 7543
RESULTATEN - INFORMATIEF
CO2-emissie 3132 kg
Risico te hoge temperaturen [TOjuli]

Omschrijving zone TOjuli
begane grond 0.16 (laag - matig risico)
eerste verdieping 0.54 (laag - matig risico)
tweede verdieping 0.01 (laag - matig risico)
WEO reference
RESULTATEN - ENERGIEPRESTATIEGEGEVENS
verwarming Qprim;verw 18677 MJ
hulpenergie Qprim;hulp;verw 3138 MJ
warmtapwater Qprim;tap 17585 MJ
ventilatoren Qprim;vent 5184 MJ
verlichting Qprim;vl 7543 MJ
zomercomfort Qzom;comf 405 MJ
koeling Qprim;koel 0 MJ
bevochtiging Qprim;bev 0 MJ
comp. PV-cellen Qprim;pv 0 MJ
comp. WK Qprim;comp;WK 0 MJ
----------------- +
totaal Qpres;tot 52532 MJ
Qpres;toel 53334 MJ
Qpres;totaal / (( 330 * Ag;verw + 65 * Averlies ) * Cepc ) = EPC

52532 133.7 236.9 1.12 0.79 Epc voldoet aan EPC-eis Bouwbesluit 1 januari 2006
RESULTATEN - AANDACHTSPUNTEN
Er zijn geen waarschuwingen.
WEO reference
ALGEMENE GEGEVENS
Projectomschrijving : Onderzoek Rockwool EPC < 0,8
Bestandsnaam : C:\Documents and Settings\hauemat\Bureaublad\Chris\Standard semi detached dwelling - Peak price scenario.EPW
Omschrijving bouwwerk : Standaard 2 onder 1 kap (SenterNovem)
Adres :
Soort bouwwerk : Woonfunctie

Overige gebouwgegevens : - Rc-waarden conform Peak price scenario
- Uraam = 1,80 W/m2K (HR++ met goede kozijnen)
- geisoleerde voordeur
- qv10;kar = 0.625 (standaard goede kierdichting)
- balansventilatie met WTW (rendement 75 %)
- gelijkstroom ventilatoren
- verwarming: HR 107 ketel, HT-systeem, radiatoren
- warmtapwater: CV-combi Hrww (rendement 70 %)
- zonwering
- werkelijke tapwaterleidinglengtes opgegeven
- thermische bruggen gedetailleerd opgegeven
EPC-eis : 0.80
INDELING GEBOUW
Type Omschrijving zone Ag [m²]
Verwarmd begane grond 51.57
Verwarmd eerste verdieping 51.57
Verwarmd tweede verdieping 30.58
------------- +
totaal 133.72
BOUWKUNDIGE GEGEVENS - TRANSMISSIE

Definitie scheidingsconstructies zone: begane grond
[m²] [m] [m²K/W] [W/m²K] [-] [°] wering
raam bg noord 6.1 1.80 0.60 90 nee constante overstek
deur bg glas 0.4 1.80 0.60 90 ja sector 1 belemmerd
tuindeur bg glas 2.3 1.80 0.60 90 ja constante overstek
deur 1.4 3.40 0.00 90 nee sector 1 belemmerd
tuindeur 1.9 3.40 0.00 90 nee constante overstek
raam bg 2.2 1.80 0.60 90 ja minimale belemmering
Peak price scenario


[m²] [m] [m²K/W] [W/m²K] [-] [°] wering
glas deur bg 0.3 1.80 0.60 90 nee minimale belemmering
deur bg 2.4 2.00 0.00 90 nee minimale belemmering
vloer kruip vloer 53.0 0.63 3.23 0.12
---------- +
Totaal 108.8
Definitie scheidingsconstructies zone: eerste verdieping

[m²] [m] [m²K/W] [W/m²K] [-] [°] wering
raam 1v 5.1 1.80 0.60 90 nee constante overstek
raam 1v 5.1 1.80 0.60 90 ja constante overstek
raam 1v (3x) 1.7 1.80 0.60 90 ja minimale belemmering
---------- +
Totaal 55.8
Definitie scheidingsconstructies zone: tweede verdieping

[m²] [m] [m²K/W] [W/m²K] [-] [°] wering
dak buiten, boven dak 67.9 5.74 0.17
raam 0.6 1.80 0.60 39 nee minimale belemmering
---------- +
Totaal 88.1
BOUWKUNDIGE GEGEVENS - BELEMMERINGEN EN OVERSTEKKEN

Definitie beschaduwing zone: begane grond
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
noordgevel raam bg noord constante overstek 20 20 20 20 20 79 79 20 1.00
zuidgevel tuindeur bg glas constante overstek 20 20 20 20 20 79 79 20 0.90
tuindeur constante overstek 20 20 20 20 20 79 79 20 0.90
Definitie beschaduwing zone: eerste verdieping

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
noordgevel raam 1v constante overstek 20 20 20 20 20 46 46 20 1.00
zuidgevel raam 1v constante overstek 20 20 20 20 20 46 46 20 0.90
Peak price scenario

BOUWKUNDIGE GEGEVENS - LINEAIRE KOUDEBRUGGEN

Er is gerekend volgens de uitgebreide methode m.b.t. de koudebruggen.
Definitie lineaire koudebruggen zone: begane grond
[m] [W/mK] [W/mK] [W/mK] [m²/m]
vloer kruip langsgevel 8.12 -0.185 0.612 0.0012
onderdorpel 4.15 -0.177 0.673 0.0012
kopgevel 8.41 -0.177 0.884 0.0012
Definitie lineaire koudebruggen zone: eerste verdieping

[m] [W/mK] [W/mK] [W/mK] [m²/m]
Definitie lineaire koudebruggen zone: tweede verdieping

[m] [W/mK] [W/mK] [W/mK] [m²/m]
dak buiten, boven kozijnaansluiting 3.20 gevel: kozijnaansluiting 0.100
dakvoet 11.32 (eigen waarde) -0.001
nok 5.66 (eigen waarde) 0.015
schuin dak-bouwmuur 11.10 (eigen waarde) 0.131
schuin dak-kopgevel 11.10 (eigen waarde) 0.150
BOUWKUNDIGE GEGEVENS - INFILTRATIE

qv10;kar/m² van de woonfunctie: 0.625 [dm³/sm²]
Peak price scenario

BOUWKUNDIGE GEGEVENS - THERMISCHE CAPACITEIT

bouwtype van de woonfunctie: traditioneel, gemengd zwaar
INSTALLATIE W - VERWARMING EN HULPENERGIE

Verwarmingssysteem 1 - Verwarming 1
verwarmingstoestel type toestel : individueel centraal verwarmingstoestel
type luchtverwarmer/ketel : HR-107 Ketel
aanvoertemperatuur : hoog temperatuursysteem (HT)
installatiekenmerken individuele bemetering : ja
installatie voorzien van buffervat : nee
type verwarmingslichaam : overig (bijv. radiatoren)
opwekkingsrendement (Nopw;verw) : 0.950 [-]
systeemrendement (Nsys;verw) : 0.950 [-]
hulpenergie aantal ketels-cv/luchtverwarmers met waakvlam : 0
gasketels-cv : voorzien van ventilator
: voorzien van elektronica
: circulatiepomp voorzien van pompregeling
warmtepomp : geen circulatiepomp aanwezig
individuele warmtepomp : geen parallel buffervat aanwezig
gebouwgebonden warmte-kracht : lengte circulatieleiding 0.00 km
aangewezen zones: begane grond
eerste verdieping
tweede verdieping
INSTALLATIE W - WARMTAPWATER
nr. opwekkingstoestel klasse Nopw;tap qv;wp aantal aantal Lbadr Laanr Lcirc d;inw Qbeh;tap;bruto
[-] [dm³/s] badr aanr [m] [m] [m] [mm] [MJ]
1 gasgestookt combitoestel HRww 4 0.619 - 1 1 4.3 5.4 0.0 <= 10 10880
INSTALLATIE W - VENTILATIE
Nwtw : 0.75
aangewezen zones : begane grond
Nwtw : 0.75
Peak price scenario


aangewezen zones : eerste verdieping
Nwtw : 0.75
aangewezen zones : tweede verdieping
INSTALLATIE W - VENTILATOREN
ventilatiesysteem type ventilator
INSTALLATIE W - KOELING
koelsysteem: type toestel : geen koelmachine aanwezig
vrije koeling : nee
opwekkingsrendement voor koeling (Nopw;koel) : 0.000 [-]
systeemrendement voor koeling (Nsys;koel) : 0.000 [-]
INSTALLATIE E - VERLICHTING
omschrijving zone Ag [m²] Qprim;vl [MJ]
begane grond 51.6 2909
eerste verdieping 51.6 2909
tweede verdieping 30.6 1725
------------ + ------------ +
totaal 133.7 7543
RESULTATEN - INFORMATIEF
CO2-emissie 3132 kg
Risico te hoge temperaturen [TOjuli]

Omschrijving zone TOjuli
begane grond 0.16 (laag - matig risico)
eerste verdieping 0.54 (laag - matig risico)
tweede verdieping 0.01 (laag - matig risico)
Peak price scenario

RESULTATEN - ENERGIEPRESTATIEGEGEVENS
verwarming Qprim;verw 18677 MJ
hulpenergie Qprim;hulp;verw 3138 MJ
warmtapwater Qprim;tap 17585 MJ
ventilatoren Qprim;vent 5184 MJ
verlichting Qprim;vl 7543 MJ
zomercomfort Qzom;comf 405 MJ
koeling Qprim;koel 0 MJ
bevochtiging Qprim;bev 0 MJ
comp. PV-cellen Qprim;pv 0 MJ
comp. WK Qprim;comp;WK 0 MJ
----------------- +
totaal Qpres;tot 52532 MJ
Qpres;toel 53334 MJ
Qpres;totaal / (( 330 * Ag;verw + 65 * Averlies ) * Cepc ) = EPC

52532 133.7 236.9 1.12 0.79 Epc voldoet aan EPC-eis Bouwbesluit 1 januari 2006
RESULTATEN - AANDACHTSPUNTEN
Er zijn geen waarschuwingen.
Peak price scenario

Poland
PN-02025 PN-02025 PN-02025 PN-02025

Świnoujscie Poznań Warszawa Gdansk
Multifamily house – WEO 2006
Energy class (heating + 1,25 1,25 1,25 1,25

ventilation + hot water) E E E E
Net energy
(GJ/year) 889,23 889,23 889,23 889,12
for heating
Energy for
heating with
(GJ/year) 1223,36 1223,36 1223,36 1221,25
system overall
efficiency (0,73)
Air exchange (5932
1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0
rate m3/h)
Windows
(%) 30 30 30 30
area/heated area
Multifamily house – Peak price

ventilation + hot water E E E E
Net energy
(GJ/year) 879,24 879,24 879,24 875,45
for heating
Energy for
heating with
(GJ/year) 1207,68 1207,68 1207,68 1207,68
system overall
efficiency (0,73)
Air exchange (5932
1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0
rate m3/h)
Windows
(%) 30 30 30 30
area/heated area
PN-02025 PN-02025 PN-02025 PN-02025

Świnoujscie Poznań Warszawa Gdansk
Single family house – WEO 2006

ventilation + hot water) E E E E
Net energy
(GJ/year) 66,59 66,59 66,59 66,45
for heating
Energy for
heating with
(GJ/year) 105,60 105,60 105,60 105,60
system overall
efficiency (0,63)
Air exchange (253,8
0,6 0,6 0,6 0,6
rate m3/h)
Windows
(%) 28 28 28 28
area/heated area
Single family house – Peak price

ventilation + hot water E E E E
Net energy
(GJ/year) 65,33 65,33 65,33 64,85
for heating
Energy for
heating with
(GJ/year) 103,82 103,82 103,82 103,05
system overall
efficiency (0,63)
Air exchange (253,8
0,6 0,6 0,6 0,6
rate m3/h)
Windows
(%) 28 28 28 28
area/heated area
Spain


 
           
               
             
            




              


            
                

 


   
    
    




 
 



 


            
          

              
               
   



             








 

 




               
                
             


               
               



 



1
Conventional 4-6-4 double glazing windows have been selected, with a glass transmittance of Ug=
3.3 W/m2K and a solar factor of 0.75, metal frames without heat bridge break, U= 5.7 W/m2K.
 


               




 

                 
                


              

              


2
Conventional 4-6-4 double glazing windows have been selected with glass transmittance Ug= 3.3
W/m2K and a solar factor of 0.75, and metal frames with heat bridge break, U= 3.2 W/m2K.
3
Conventional 4-6-4 double glazing windows have been selected, with a glass transmittance of
Ug=3.3 W/m2K and a solar factor of 0.75, metal frames without heat bridge break, U= 5.7 W/m2K.
 




 

                 

               


4
Conventional 4-6-4 double glazing windows have been selected with glass transmittance Ug= 3.3
W/m2K and a solar factor of 0.75, and metal frames with heat bridge break, U= 3.2 W/m2K. And
external shading of windows (75%) has also been necessary in order to comply the cooling demand.
 
A N N E X 5 ]
In general the U-value zones follow the outline of the heating degree days map. Differences can be found
in Eastern Europe (where lower energy prices and higher interest rates lead - despite lower investment
costs - to less ambitious values for the economic optimum) and in southern Europe (where the issue of
cooling plays a role in the U-value recommendations).
To give an impression of the influence of different cost assumptions, the U-value optimum was also
calculated for the “Peak price scenario” as described in chapter 5.3. The corresponding results are
described in figures 54, 57 and 60 in the next pages.
WALL
Figure 52: U-value map for walls
average building regulations
Figure 53: U-value map for walls, WEO reference Figure 54: U-value map for walls, peak price scenario
ROOF
Figure 55: U-value map for roofs
Figure 56: U-value map for roofs, WEO reference Figure 57: U-value map for roofs, peak price scenario
FLOOR
Figure 58: U-value map for floors
Figure 59: U-value map for floors, WEO reference Figure 60: U-value map for floors, peak price scenario
Figure 61: Cities map

Design|www.morris-chapman.com
10/2007
375 Avenue Louise, Box 4

1050 Brussels, Belgium
Phone: +32 (0)2 626 2090
Fax: +32 (0)2 626 2099
info@eurima.org - www.eurima.org

Rapport Isolation-ECOFYS EU

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Rapport Isolation-ECOFYS EU

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

U-VALUES

FOR BETTER ENERGY PERFORMANCE OF BUILDINGS

Report established by ECOFYS for EURIMA

supported by international Ecofys staff

* INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY

2.1 Framework and boundaries of the study 11

2.1.1 Cost effectiveness per component 11

2.1.2 Economic optimum 12

2.1.3 Simple linear investment 13

2.1.4 The Passive House 14

2.2 Use of the study and assumptions/restrictions of the analyses 14

3.1 European heating and cooling degree days maps 15

3.1.1 Definition heating/cooling degree days 15

3.1.2 European heating degree days map 16

3.1.3 European cooling degree days map 17

4 Insulation and cooling 18

4.1 Impact of climate zones 19

4.2 Impact of building components 20

4.3 Sensitivity related to other factors 21

4.4 Conclusions on energy demand for cooling 27

5 U-values according to cost-efficiency 29

5.2 Mechanisms of U-value optimum 31

5.3 Input calculations 35

5.3.1 Energy prices 35

5.3.2 Investment costs 39

6 U-values according to climate protection targets 48

6.4 Sensitivity analysis Post-Kyoto targets 52

7 Overview results cost efficiency and climate protection 56

8.1 Cost-efficient U-values versus required U-values 58

8.2 Verification of results in an EPBD context 61

> Background work description:

2.1 Framework and boundaries of the study

Option 1: legal requirements (minimum energy performance)

2.1.1 Cost effectiveness per component

2.1.2 Economic optimum

Figure 1: Definition of economic optimum

max. IC -∆E= optimum

Figure 2: Position of the economic optimum

minimum BEST PRACTICE STATE of the ART

2.1.3 Simple linear investment

Figure 3: Non-linear investment costs (1)

2.1.4 The Passive House

2.2 Use of the study and assumptions/restrictions

The results are based on:

3.1 European heating and cooling degree days maps

3.1.2 European heating degree days map

Figure 5: European heating degree days map (EUROSTAT method)

3.1.3 European cooling degree days map

Figure 6: European cooling degree days map (ASHRAE method)

4 ] In s u lat i on and cool i ng

Both reference buildings were assumed to have the following characteristics:

4.1 Impact of climate zones

4.2 Impact of building components

Figure 9: Energy savings from insulation measures in Seville

Figure 10: Energy savings from insulation measures in Marseille

4.3 Sensitivity related to other factors

The following scenarios have been simulated:

Figure 11: Sensitivity analysis cooling energy, SFH Seville

Figure 12: Sensitivity analysis cooling energy, MFH Seville

Figure 13: Sensitivity analysis cooling-energy savings from insulation in Seville

Figure 14: Sensitivity analysis cooling energy, SFH Marseille

Figure 15: Sensitivity analysis cooling energy, MFH Marseille

Figure 16: Sensitivity analysis cooling-energy savings from insulation in Marseille

4 Insulation and cooling 18

2.2 Use of the study and assumptions/restrictions