RENOVATING BUILDINGS THROUGH EN- ERGY ROOF AND …RENOVATING BUILDINGS THROUGH EN-ERGY ROOF AND...

RENOVATING BUILDINGS THROUGH EN-ERGY ROOF AND FACADE SYSTEMSA Pilot Case Study

Andreea Bianca Baias

Master Thesis in Energy-efficient and Environmental BuildingsFaculty of Engineering | Lund University

Renovating Buildings through Active Roof and Facade Systems Andreea Bianca Baias

3

Abstract Nowadays society is becoming more aware of the fact that energy use has a negative environmental impact, contributing to fossil fuels depletion and global warming increase. Therefore, the Swedish Parliament has adopted the The European Comission’s 20-20-20 goals; climate and energy policy targets that shall be achieved by 2020, referring to 20% reduction of CO2 emissions, 20% increase in energy efficiency and 20% renewable resources (Heinsten, 2013). One way to achieve these standards is to consider the strategy of renovating buildings using building integrated photovoltaic systems. Responding directly to the building’s needs, such systems replace conventional materials for the building envelope and generate power at the same time, improving the eco-efficiency of the building. Through the use of simulation software like Design Builder and Sam (System Advisor Model) and calculations, the present study aims to suggest renovation solutions of a building’s envelope, using energy systems (building integrated photovoltaics), for a multi-family building, situated in Malmö, Sweden. The research strives to give an overview over existing renovation projects which implemented buildings integrated photovoltaics, and future prospects and barriers in building integrated photovoltaic industry. The results of the study show performance of a wide range of building integrated photovoltaic systems for the roof and façade of a building in Malmö, Sweden, for active renovation strategies, alone or combined with some passive renovation strategies. The general conclusion of this research is that energy systems (BIPV) can have a positive contribution to the energy renovation of the studied residential building, from Malmö, Sweden, but their impact varies according to factors which need to be taken into account before choosing such a renovation strategy. Building integrated photovoltaics should be considered due to their multi functionality as a building component (replaces a traditional building element, produces electricity, increases the appealing aesthetics of a building, increases the environmentally friendly factor of a building due to renewable energy).


4

Preface The present document represents the final project of the master degree, promotion 2015, in the field of Energy-efficient and Environmental Building Design from Lund University.

The thesis has been developed as a research project in the field of Building Integrated Photovoltaic Systems. The project has been supervised by assistant prof. Åke Blomsterberg, senior researcher in the department of Energy and Building Design, Architecture and Built Environment of Lund University, Sweden.

I found this project challenging and very appealing. I am very greatful to my supervisor, Åke Blomsterberg, for great feedback and communication, his patience and continuous support and to Ms. Maria Wall, the director of the Master Programme, for making this degree a reality. I would also like to thank Eliasson Foundation, who supported this Master Programme.

I am very thankful to all those who believed in me, not only during this projet’s development, but everyday, to my friends from Sweden and back home, who have always helped me and showed me the brighter view of story, to my family, without whom I would have not had the chance to have any amazing experience in my life.

I would also like to show my appreciation to Henry David Thoreau, who’s words played an inspirational role in my life, helping me to trust my life decisions.

“Do not worry if you have built your castles in the air. They are where they should be. Now put the foundations under them.” Henry David Thoreau

Andreea Bianca Baias

May 2015


5

Nomenclature PV Photovoltaic BIPV Building Integrated Photovoltaic DHW Domestic Hot Water No. (no.) number LCC Life Cycle Cost calculation CAD Computer Aided Design g-value solar heat gain coefficient d thickness λ thermal conductivity R thermal resistance U-value thermal transmittance coefficient VAT Value Added Tax NPV Net Present Value


6


7

Table of content Abstract ............................................................................................................. 3 Preface ............................................................................................................... 4 Nomenclature .................................................................................................... 5 Table of content ................................................................................................. 7 1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 9

1.1 Background and Problem Motivation 9 1.2 Question and Aim 11 1.3 Scope and Objectives 11 1.4 Overall Approach 11 1.5 Limitations 12

2 Literature and Market Review ................................................................. 13 2.1 Materials and Products 14 2.2 Inspiring Projects 15 2.3 BIPV: Barriers and Prospects 20

3 Description of Case Study Building ........................................................ 23 3.1.1 Building Components 24 3.1.2 Air Tightness 25 3.1.3 Building Services Engineering 25 3.1.4 Measured Energy Use 25

4 Method and Tools .................................................................................... 27 4.1 Climate Analysis and Surrounding Conditions 27

4.1.1 Temperature, Relative Humidity and Precipitation 28 4.1.2 Solar Radiation 29 4.1.3 Shadow Analysis 30

4.2 Modelling 31 4.2.1 Passive Strategies 32 4.2.2 Active Strategies- Energy Systems Production 33 4.2.3 Input Data 34

4.3 Life Cycle Cost Analysis 37 4.3.1 LCC-method 38 4.3.2 Electricity Price 39

4.4 (Computer Simulation) Tools 40 5 Results ..................................................................................................... 43

5.1 Energy Performance of the Building Envelope (- Passive Strategies for Renovation) 43 5.2 Energy Output of BIPV Systems 47 5.3 Life Cycle Cost Analysis 49

6 Discussion and Conclusions .................................................................... 55 7 Further Research ..................................................................................... 58 References ....................................................................................................... 59 Appendix A. Extracts from the feasibility study......................................... 65 Appendix B. Building Components .............................................................. 69 Appendix C. Solar Study .............................................................................. 72 Appendix D. Simulation Input Data ............................................................ 73 Appendix E. Building Integrated Photovoltaic Systems ............................ 74


8


9

1 Introduction

1.1 Background and Problem Motivation

Throughout history, building industry has been subject to many changes, as the technology developed in order to provide best solutions for human comfort and wellbeing. Along its development, building industry, like the entire society, did not consider its environmental impact, resources being used in a careless way. Nowadays, the energy use of the building sector, according to the International Energy Agency, represents an average of 40% of the overall primary energy use (International Energy Agency IEA, 2014). During the 20th century big construction and infrastructure projects were developed, such as Brasília in Brazil, and the Million Programme in Sweden, including cities, towns and suburbs, often being part of the same project. The reason for these massive projects was the economy of scale, when costs per unit generally decreased with increasing scale. The Million Programme (Swedish: Miljonprogrammet) was an ambitious political housing programme in Sweden, which started in 1960’s. Under direction of Swedish Social Democratic Party, the programme was to make sure that everybody could have a place to live, at a reasonable price. The purpose was to build one million dwellings during 10 years, namely between 1965- 1974. The result was of 1,006,000 dwellings built, of varying types, of which 60% were apartments in multi-family dwellings. As the Million Programme was very ambitious and over one million dwellings were built during 10 years, their technical quality was diverse, but relatively good, ensuring occupants comfort and wellbeing, without any consideration for sustainability or energy saving measures (Wikipedia, Million Programme, 2015). Nowadays, most of the buildings built during the Million Programme require renovation, unless they were already refurbished. After 40-45 years, most of the building components are damaged, such as roofs, façades, window connections, due to aging and imperfect materials and workmanship. Besides, ventilation and electricity systems may be in need of replacement, as living standards are different than half a century ago. The building’s installations might approach their end of life or at least could use a thorough check in order to avoid leaks. Besides, the houses were built before the building regulations imposed strict requirements on air tightness and insulation, resulting in substantial heat losses (Lind, 2014) (Högberg, 2009). Erik Stenberg, architect and lecturer at the KTH School of Architecture, thinks that the houses built during the Million Programme are in urgent need of technical upgrading, but they should not be torn down, as the buildings are well constructed, solidly built and the prefabricated concrete modular structures are perfect to readapt. His renovation suggestions refer to redesigning the apartments’ layout, as they are too monotonous and add more energy-efficient and environmental friendly solutions. Besides, the rehabilitation mesures should take into consideration social integration and possible future social changes (Stenberg, 2015). Starting with the end of the 20th century, people engaged in a more sustainable way of living, becoming aware of the limited natural resources and their environmental impact. Therefore, the building industry started to adopt a sustainable development, minimizing energy, carbon and environmental footprint, optimizing resources and energy conservation.


10

In 2002, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union launched Directive 2002/91/EC, 2002, an Energy Performance for Buildings Directive, driving EU member states to adopt a legislation which will result in lowering the energy use for new and refurbished buildings to passive house level and Net Zero Energy Buildings by 2020. As many of the existing buildings are old and poorly designed when it comes to their energy performance, their refurbishment would bring large potential to reduce the energy use and improve their overall performance. The Swedish Parliament has adopted the The European Comission’s 20-20-20 goals, climate and energy policy targets that shall be achieved by 2020, referring to 20% reduction of CO2 emmisions, 20% increase in energy efficiency and 20% renewable resources. (Heinsten, 2013) In this context, buildings play an essential role, something that was underlined in the Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings. The directive states that national plans for nearly zero energy buildings should be established and the member states shall ensure that all new buildings are nearly zero energy buildings, no later than 31 December 2020. In accordance with the Swedish Energy Agency (Statens Energimyndighet, 2010), the national strategy for nearly zero energy buildings shall significantly contribute to the achievement to imposed targets. Requirements for specific energy use of buildings should be made stricter, in relation to present requirements. The general energy requirements for nearly zero energy buildings should, in accordance with EPBD2 be, in order of priority: 1. Very energy-efficient outer shell 2. Very energy-efficient installations 3. A large proportion of the energy required shall be renewable At this moment it is very important to plan building renovations carefully and take advantage of all means available, including renewable energy. A relatively new concept, energy systems (for roof and façades) could have a high potential when it comes to renovation of buildings’ envelope. Energy systems consist of renewable energy which is integrated in the roof and façade panels, as solar cells. PV-integration avoids green area and space burdening (as it happens in case of terrestrial PV systems), thus achieving an improvement of the eco-efficiency and value and fulfilling high aesthetic design expectations. Energy systems refer to Building Integrated Photovoltaics (BIPV), which are photovoltaic materials used in the building envelope, in order to replace conventional materials and generate power at the same time. As the literature research confirms (discussed in the next chapter), there is wide technology to support BIPV implementation in the residential market, in both new construction and retrofit projects. However, there is not enough literature about PVs and BIPVs relevant to residential buildings renovations. This study presents ideas on possible renovation solutions implementing BIPVs.


11

1.2 Question and Aim

Question to be answered

If a residential building from the Million Programme in Sweden would be restored, using energy roof and façade systems, which renovation solution would be most suitable, depending on market availability and life cycle cost analysis? Aim

The main aim of this study is to assess multiple energy systems (BIPV) that could be integrated into a building’s envelope, for a pilot building located in Malmö, Sweden and come up with an efficient renovation solution. 1.3 Scope and Objectives

Scope

The scope of this research project is to identify a range of energy systems (BIPV) applicable for building integration and to assess their performance while integrated into a building’s envelope. The testing will be done for a residential building located in Malmö, Sweden. Objectives

The study has two main objectives defined: O1. Determine state-of-the art for Energy Systems (BIPV). O2. Establish an optimal renovation solution for a residential building in Sweden, depending on energy performance and cost estimates. 1.4 Overall Approach

The present study approaches a relatively new aspect of building envelope renovations: energy roof and façade systems. Due to recentness of this subject, the overall approach was adapted to fit possible situations which may be encountered in reality, with software simulation and modelling. The following section summarizes the course of action taken in this study and gives an overall view of the research. The course of action has been divided in four main parts, with steps, as they are described below.

Literature and Market Review: identify and read about successful renovation projects which implemented energy roof or/and façade systems, market survey for energy roof and façade systems and BIPVs, create a database with PV modules which can be integrated in the building envelope, determine future prospects and possible barriers based on various previous studies

Case Study Building: choose a representative building with high renovation potential, gather technical information about the building, document its energetic performance based on available information

Strategies, Modelling and Computer Simulations: identify possible renovation solutions for the building envelope (both passive and active), perform simulations for each case and collect data for further analysis, perform cost estimates for each case, combine cases in order to find “the best renovation scenario”


12

Final Conclusions: draw final conclusions of the research, highlight future research possibilities in connection with future prospects and possible barriers

1.5 Limitations

Several limitations and assumptions were made in order to be able to perform the study in the given time-frame. These are stated below:

One study case building; building data available was not detailed enough, measured energy use was for the entire building complex, including different buildings and therefore possible deviations from reality

Renovation measures considered only for the building’s envelope No possibility of exactly determining accuracy of calculations and simulations Market availability did not cover all inverters considered, therefore, some prices

were assumed, compared to other inverters’ prices Cost estimates did include only insulation price, windows price, cost of labour,

scaffolding cost, prices for BIPV systems, according to suppliers information or estimations and BIPVs maintenance costs. Everything else was excluded

PV energy production did not consider lower outputs due to ageing and usage Only one scenario for energy prices and interest rates in Sweden


13

2 Literature and Market Review The following section presents a summary about research on renovation projects using solar photovoltaic technologies and BIPV systems, as energy roof and façade systems, available on the market, in European countries, with the aim to identify useful previous knowledge and possible parameters to study. Building integrated photovoltaics (BIPV) refer to photovoltaic materials which are used in the building envelope, in order to replace conventional materials and generate power at the same time. They can be used for roofs, skylights, façades and windows, as they are available in multiple forms, such as: flat roofs (thin film solar cells integrated in roofing membrane, modules), pitched roofs (conventional modules and modules shaped like tiles and shingles), façades (modules mounted over the existing structure) and glazing (semi-transparent modules), having the weatherproofing function of glass.. (Wikipedia, Building-integrated photovoltaics, 2015) (C changes, 2015) Former generations of building photovoltaics used for on site generation, employed modules and panels mounted directly onto the roof of buildings, with minimal aesthetic concern. Valuable architectural appeal was added to buildings, as technology developed and photovoltaic systems were upgraded in such way that they replace parts of the building envelope and at the same time being able to provide savings in electricity and material costs and reduce emission of CO2. BIPV can be either incorporated into the construction of new buildings, or used for existing buildings retrofits. For more than 30 years, solar technology advanced so that photovoltaic products can be fully integrated within building components and a wide range of articles became available on the market. As these articles can be used together with other materials popular in architecture, like metal and glass, architects started to design new and retrofit projects including BIPV. Because of this, the market is under continuous development, trying to comply with latest architectural requirements. If the first products available were designated for roofs and façades, nowadays the market brings up a bigger variety of products, such as solar shingles and tiles, membranes and semi-transparent products. The perfect building envelope area for PV integration is considered to be the roof, as it receives the maximum solar radiation, in case of no obstructions and neighbouring shadows. Besides, pitched roofs of a certain angle, usually equal with the latitude of its location, provide the best “habitat” for solar energy. In roof systems, framed modules are the most typical, simply replacing the tiles. Because of the frames, sometimes, these modules are considered less attractive, frameless systems being preferred or even solar tiles and shingles, replacing the old, traditional roof tiles. Other products, like flexible laminates are not so popular, being used only when modules are excluded because of weight or rigidity, mostly for curved or non flat surfaces. Otherwise, semi-transparent systems, wafer-based, are used to replace conventional skylights, becoming more popular (Heinstein, 2013). After roofs, façades are the areas most suitable for BIPV systems implementation, where modules can be integrated as façade layers or cladding system for curtain walls. Even if BIPV façades are attractive for modern architecture, they are not widely distributed, being mainly designated for commercial and high-rise buildings. This happens because most of the times stakeholders are not ready to accept the high initial investments. However, an


14

interesting application for further development is combining thermal insulation with PVs, as the available market is not fitted with such systems yet (Heinstein, 2013). 2.1 Materials and Products

This project will explore means of renovating a building using energy systems (BIPV) for the roof construction and the South façade. In order to do so, a market survey was performed and numerous PV modules were looked at and stored in a database. Because the simulation software did not always allow data which was not available within its own database, the decision of changing the database was made. Therefore, a new database was created. Eightyfive PV modules were considered for building integration, all being available on the market (44 suppliers) but chosen from the component libraries available in SAM (System Advisory Model, see chapter 4.4), the computer tool used for energy output simulations, in order to obtain an accurate design with no errors. The purpose was to study a broad range of products, therefore most of the modules have different shapes and sizes, efficiencies and are made of different materials. Their main classification is being made after the material used for solar cells technology, including monocrystalline silicon, polycrystalline silicon, copper indium gallium selenide and heterojunction silicon. Silicon wafer based crystalline cells (c-Si) come in two types: monocrystalline silicon cells and multicrystalline silicon cells, being the most predominant on the market. Monocrystalline silicon cells (mono-Si) are easily recognizable by an external even coloring, which is typically black or blue and uniform look. They are made of silicon ingots, which are cylindrically shaped; the monocrystalline silicon has a single and continuous crystal lattice structure with practically zero defects or impurities, resulting in a high efficiency, usually around 15%. Polycrystalline (multicrystalline) panels are made up from raw silicon which is melted and poured into a square mold, cooled and cut into perfectly square wafers. The individual crystals are not completely aligned together, so these cells are not so efficient as monocrystalline ones. Their aspect is a bit different as well, with random crystal arrangement. Monocrystalline silicon cells are more expensive than polycrystalline cells due to the fact that the manufacturing process is more complicated. The modules mostly available on the market are opaque and flat because of Si-solar cells properties. However, semi-transparent solutions are possible by a specific encapsulation of the cells between glass-glass laminates, at particular distances between cell arrays. The modules have either aluminium frames or are frameless, being used as in roof solutions, opaque or semi-transparent façade solutions or semi-transparent skylights. They were building integrated since early 1990s (C changes, 2015) (Heinstein, 2013). HIT-Si (heterojunction silicon based) solar cells consist of thin amorphous silicon layers on monocrystalline silicon wafers, available as typical wafer based panels. They are recommended for roof and façade applications. The efficiency potential of a HIT-cells module is around 20%, but unfortunately they are the most expensive on the market, at the moment. Thanks to new production technology, it is expected that prices for HIT-cells to decrease in the future and this technology to replace traditional mono-crystalline and polycrystalline silicon-wafer based technology (DeWolf, 2012). CIGS (Copper indium gallium selenide) solar cells are alternative thin film solar cells with a coating layer made by copper, indium, gallium, sulphur and selenium. Several experts


15

believe that this technology has a minor negative feature, because of the production technology which involves gallium, sulphur and especially selenium, known for causing health issues. Due to the fact that the film material has a high absorption coefficient, it is thought that CIGS solar cells perform well even under diffused light conditions, available modules having efficiencies up to 13.4%. Besides, it is known that these cells tend to display higher efficiency during initial stages of use. CIGS also allows development of semi-transparent solutions. (Wikipedia, Copper indium gallium selenide solar cells, 2015) All PV modules considered for this study have efficiencies between 13% and 21%, depending on their technology and material. There are 3 CIGS solar modules, 2 HIT-Si PVs, 45 multicrystalline solar modules and 35 monocrystalline solar modules in the database. The products life expectancy is about 25 years, with 25 yeas of linear performance warranty. Details about the PV modules can be seen in Annex E, where the entire BIPV database is presented. BIPV manufactures that were exploited mentioned that most of available products are suitable for both new building implementation and buildings retrofit projects, without any detailed information. Of course, chosing the right product depends on many design factors and technological requirements. 2.2 Inspiring Projects

The research prior to this study was carried out in order to find out more information about energy roofs and façades, BIPV integration and to read about renovation projects that were actually implemented. Most of the reviewed renovation projects were described in the Solar Heating and Cooling Programme and the Energy in Buildings and Communities Programme, both programmes being carried out within the International Energy Agency. Some of the retrofit projects which were considered to be very interesting and inspiring for the author of this study are presented below, based on available information. Many of the renovation projects which include solar energy from renewable sources, use building integrated photovoltaics because of their appealing aesthetics and new value added to the building. Some of the projects adopted solutions with PV modules placed on the roof, trying to create an attractive design and aspect. It was really difficult to document renovation projects, specifically in what PV modules and BIPVs are concerned, because no detailed data or technical details were provided in short reports, reviews or published articles. Usually what was mentioned was if the solar systems were attached to the building or integrated and the total power of the systems. 2.2.1 Hållbara Järva, Stockholm, Sweden The project Hållbara Järva, planned and designed between 2011-2014, aimed at major renovation of Million Programme buildings situated in Järva area, in Stockholm, Sweden. The main goal of the project was reducing the energy consumption by 50% in seven houses in Husby, Akalla and Rinkeby, adding new energy efficient technologies and integrating solar technology (as seen in Figure 2.1). The investment in solar cells would make this space one of Sweden's solar densest areas. The entire project’s costs were estimated at 200 million SEK, out of which 55 million SEK were governmental funding; 22% of the investment costs were used for solar energy. (Stockholms Stad. Hållbara Järva!, 2015)


16

Figure 2.1 Renovated building from Hållbara Järva project, Stockholm, Sweden. ©Stockholm Stad

Throughout this project, it was aimed to ensure energy efficient buildings and climate-friendly electricity. Concerning renewable electricity, firstly there were considered several wind turbines, but following thorough investigation, it was too difficult to find a suitable location in such a populated urban area in Stockholm, due to noise issues and it was decided to implement solar technology. Solar energy systems were considered to be integrated into balcony railings, facades and roofs and even if solar energy proved not to be as profitable as wind energy, it can be implemented on bigger surfaces in urban areas of the city. According to Lisa Enarsson, the project manager, it was aimed for 10 000 m2 of solar cells, equivalent of 1.4 MWp, which would result in an energy output of 1.3 GWh/year. The solar energy system started to be implemented at the beginning of 2013. (Stockholms Stad. Hållbara Järva!, 2015) There were many challenges, like creating a database to be used for calculations and simulations, in order to find the best scenario, depending on the modules’ slope, orientation, nebulosity etc. Even if solar panels on the façade are less effective than those on the roof, they were considered because of their symbolic value (VVS-FORUM, 2015). As Swedish Housing’s (Svenska Bostäder) entire housing stock must be renovated by 2022, the most energy-efficient concepts will be adopted directly. (Stockholms Stad. Hållbara Järva, 2015) The seven properties which are now completely renovated can be considered an example and many lessons have been learnt from the project. For the future, better planning of the solar systems is desired and solar modules should be acquired directly from solar energy companies. For this project, there were 10-15 entrepreneurs involved, not being specialized in photovoltaic installations. Thus, working directly with solar energy companies would probably give a better result. The energy produced by the solar modules is used in common areas, such as lifts, laundries and for ventilation. It is expected a payback period of seven years and a estimated life of 20 years. The goals were too ambitious when the Swedish Housing renovated the seven houses: the energy use should have been reduced by 50 %. It has succeeded in terms of thermal use, but not totally. The hot water use did not decrease, but this is also because the water consumption is not measured for each apartment and there are apartments with many inhabitants, which would be a reasonable explanation.


17

The overall surface covered was of 10 600 m2, equivalent of 1.4 MWp, with a production of 1.3 GWh/year. The total investment was around 11 000-13 000 SEK/m2 with an expected payback period of seven years and a estimated life of 20 years. (VVS-FORUM, 2015) Throughout this project, developers have worked with sustainable transport and bicycle promotion measures, including the upgrade of bicycle paths. The area's unique heritage values were to be preserved and the entire process was focused on dialogue, information and environmental education. The uniqueness of the project is that it takes a broader approach and puts a high effort in solar energy. The project will demonstrate experience of integrating a large amount of solar modules in isolated neighborhoods and it will be very inspiring for other cities (Stockholms Stad. Hållbara Järva!, 2015). 2.2.2 PlusEnergy Renovation with PV-façade in Romanshorn,

Switzerland A multi-storey residential and commercial building from the 60’s, located in Romanshorn, Switzerland, was energetically renovated by the architecture company from Zurich, Viriden+ Partner AG. Combining solar technology with aesthetics and functionality, resulted in the first large renovated PlusEnergy multi family building in Switzerland.1 Figure 2 below illustrates the building before and after the renovation.

Figure 2.2 The building from Romanshorn, Switzerland, before (left) and after (right) the renovation. ©Viridén + Partner AG, Zürich

The existing building, built up in 1962, was a concrete structure with a light blue and yellow façade, in need of renovation. Because it was centrally located, it did not bring a positive

1 PlusEnergy refers to building design, describing a residential, commercial or retail building which produces more energy (on-site, from renewable-energy sources) over the course of a year than it uses (imports from external sources).


18

value to the town, showing advanced depreciation of the center. The building accommodated both commercial and residential spaces: three stores, a bar, a doctor’s office and six apartments. Regarding its renovation, it was decided for the building to be extended, thus resulting 56% more net floor space and 44% more building volume, comprising three stores and 22 renovated or newly built apartments with two to four and a half rooms. The renovation works started in October 2011 and they were completed a year after (EE News, 2015). The building envelope was highly insulated, resulting in components with U-values between 0.09 W/m2K and 0.12 W/m2K, for the opaque parts. The windows were triple glazed and achieved a U-value of 0.80 W/m2K. The south and west façades of the building include perfectly integrated 295 m2 of PV modules, equivalent of 53 kWp, generating 25 650 kWh/year electricity. Photovoltaic modules were integrated into the flat roof as well, equivalent of 26.3 kWp (110 m2). Besides, 69 m2 of solar panels were installed on the roof. The renovation also included installation of aluminium frames around the wood metal windows and twelve steel balconies. Moreover, a heat recovery ventilation system has been installed in the building. The renovated building envelope together with the ventilation system helped decreasing the energy demand from 195 kWh/m2year (296 120 kWh/year) before the renovation, to 35 kWh/m2year (84 100 kWh/year) after the renovation. Despite the greater 56% area of the building, the energy use is 62% less than before. The entire energy need is provided by the PV system and the solar thermal collectors. Moreover, an excess energy of 4000 kWh/year (enough for household comsumption of four people or three electric vehicles to operate with zero emissions) is fed in the form of solar power into the grid. The total investment costs were approximately 7.3 million francs (7 million euros) (Swiss Solar Agency, 2015) (EE News, 2015). Aa an ideal combination between technology, functionality and aesthetics, this project is considered a conclusive proof of how today’s solar architecture can enhance. It is a future-oriented building, which won Norman Foster Solar Award 2013 and European Solar Prize 2013. 2.2.3 A Renovation to PlusEnergy Standard- Kapfenberg, Austria A four-storey residential building situated in Kapfenberg, Austria was renovated between March 2012 and January 2014. The analyzed building was built in the early 60’s, made of prefabricated sandwich concrete elements without insulation. On each floor, there were six apartments, with a living space area between 20 and 65 m2. Because the building’s energy demand caused high heating and operating costs, but also due to the fact that some apartments were not rented and their layout needed to be changed, refurbishment of the building was considered. The apartments’ layout was changed and adapted to requirements and needs, in order to make it more attractive to possible new occupants. Large sized active and passive prefabricated façade elements were installed, along with a highly insulated new flat roof. Besides, the façade elements integrated new windows of high thermal quality along with external shading devices which would prevent overheating during warm season. The U-values were <0.10 W/m2K for the roof, <0.17 W/m2K for the façade and <0.90 W/m2K for the windows and doors. The heat supply accomplished by the local district heating was


19

supplemented by 144 m2 of solar thermal panels installed on the south façade, with a calculated energy production of 39.5 MWh/year. Besides, a new mechanical ventilation system was installed, with heat recovery of 65%, which was controlled automatically based on CO2 concentration, in half of the building, and manually, by occupants, by a three-stage switch, in the other half of the building. A photovoltaic system of 550 m2, equivalent of 80 kWp, was installed on the roof, on an extra mounted scaffold. In addition to this, photovoltaic panels (80 m2, equivalent of 12 kWp) were installed on the south façade, next to the solar thermal panels. The total energy output of the PV system is 80 MWh/year. After renovations, the apartment building resulted in an PlusEnergy building (International Energy Agency, 2015). The total renovation costs were about 4.3 million euros. The calculated energy savings are estimated to be of 252 MWh/year. Besides the energy savings, there were other benefits that came along with the renovation: new and larger balconies with thermal bridges reduction, which improved the building’s reputation, new functional areas for the occupants, modern living spaces with windows that were openable to east and west side and better indoor climate. The tenants’s first feedback was positive, their expectations being generally answered. 2.2.4 Gårdsten Renovation to Solar Houses- Göteborg,Sweden Gårdsten is a district in Göteborg, where most of the buildings were built in early 70’s, during the Million Program. Due to the fact that buildings in that area were in great need of renovation, the housing association Gårdstensbostäder was formed and retrofit projects started to be carried out in 2000. The main objectives of renovation were reducing the energy demands, improving the aesthetics and occupants’ living environment and using renewable energy resources. In Figure 2.3, one of the buildings from Gårdsten, after renovation, can be seen.

Figure 2.3 Solar House from Gårdsten ©GÅRDSTENSBOSTÄDER


20

The buildings were made of prefabricated concrete elements and they had flat roofs. Some buildings had access from balcony walkways with an external staircase leading to entrances from the walkway balconies and some other buildings had internal staircase and recessed balconies. The heat was supplied by local district heating and buildings had supply and exhaust mechanical ventilation (Gårdstens Bostäder, 2015). The renovation measures during the first two stages, Solhus 1 and Solhus 2, included additional insulation for roof and façades, replacement of the inner window pane by low emission glass in the existing double-glazed windows conversion to exhaust air ventilation for buildings with balcony access and installation of heat recovery for the other buildings, solar collectors integrated into the roof or façades, energy efficient lighting systems. During a later stage of the refurbishing, Solhus 3, some of the buildings had PV systems integrated into the roof or in the balconies (Humphries, 2013). After the renovation, a follow up from 2004 showed that operating costs have been cut by reducing the buildings’ heating, ventilation and hot water requirements by 45%, from 5 000 to just over 2 700 MWh/year (Gårdstens Bostäder, 2015). The project was considered very important and successful, thus winning numerous awards like “Building of the Year” in the class “Renovation Project of the Year 2000”, SEAS Solar Price - Honorable Mention for the year facility 2003 - Solhusområde 2, World Habitat Award in 2005 etc. 2.3 BIPV: Barriers and Prospects

Nowadays, technology develops at a high speed and brings up new solutions, but BIPV market is far from being flourishing. Even though integrating photovoltaic technology in building elements is considered to be promising, as no additional space is required and solar modules simply replace traditional building materials, there are several factors which hold back BIPV implementation. Based on literature review, some of these factors are marked out in this chapter, along with possible future promises. Generally, barriers in BIPV industry may be categorized as it follows: market barriers, legal and administrative barriers, technical barriers and perception barriers (Consortium of the Sunrise Project, 2008). Market barriers. Some of the main drawbacks in PV industry are the high initial investment, costs and the long payback period, which influence real estate owners who are oriented towards short period ownership. Because they cannot see a profitable investment, real estate owners discard BIPV solutions. (Kanters, 2015) Even if photovoltaic systems require high initial costs, it is not considered the fact that they generate electricity and the material itself pays back the high initial cost. Besides, many building actors are not familiar with concepts concerning pv industry and they cannot understand the prices for solar modules, which are currently expressed in €(SEK)/kWp, being unable to estimate prices in €(SEK)/m2 (Consortium of the Sunrise Project, 2008). In general, façade options are discussed towards the end of the design and where the budget is limited, there is no change that can be made in order to influence BIPV solutions. In projects where the biggest argument for BIPV is environmentally friendly solution and green technology, only a few square meters included PV panels. Besides, aesthetics play a critical role when it comes to BIPV and the balance between aesthetics desire and energy performance has a high influence on cost efficiency. Some developers who implement BIPV are willing to sacrifice a small percentage of the energy output for what they consider to be


21

an appealing appearance, while others are not (Koinegg, 2013). Perhaps a barrier with a big influence as the high initial investment is the fact that full financial studies can be made only after completion of a project, when the energy output and performance of a system can be assessed (Kanters, 2015). Legal and administrative barriers. Building integrated photovoltaic systems cannot be used for all buildings, as some being part of the cultural heritage. There are unclear or inexistent legislation in Scandinavian countries towards solar energy (Kanters, 2015). Not only in Scandinavian counties, but generally, there is a lack of standards and long term implementation targets or programmes regarding PV industry (Consortium of the Sunrise Project, 2008). Moreover, building industry and PV industry have no interconnections regarding regulations (Koinegg, 2013) and coming up with some connected standards would be difficult as building industry regulations are different in each country. Technical barriers. The difference and separation between building industry and PV industry is one of the main drawbacks for BIPV development. Many workers and developers from building industry do not understand PV technology and cannot see building integrated photovoltaics at full potential and benefit. Generally, in building industry, new techniques and products are not so easily implemented, as novelty comes together with uncertainty and lack of proof. As there are not so many examples of projects which implemented BIPV solutions, building industry actors are reserved towards them. Usually, architects, building developers and real estate owners lack of knowledge in what solar energy is concerned and too many buildings are designed without taking into account energy issues (Koinegg, 2013). It is important that BIPV solutions to be considered at beginning of design as many buildings which considered them at a late stage of design, did not succeed in implementing the energy systems. There should be active involvement of building developers together with engineers, architects, modules manufacturers and installers in order to implement building integrated photovoltaic systems from the very first stage of design and solve total integration of modules without later errors or malfunction (Consortium of the Sunrise Project, 2008). Most of PV modules and systems have a life expectancy of 25 years, which is rather low, compared for example to the life expectancy of a traditionally tiled roof, between 25 and 50 years, which sometimes can hold up even 100 years (Heinstein, 2013). Another barrier is the fact that manufacturers and producers come up with their own sizes and the modules are not standardized- which makes it more difficult for planners to choose a solution. Besides, in case of renovation projects, some modules are too heavy, sometimes due to their frame, which could easily be replaced with a better solution. Architects may consider that the market has a limited choice of appealing products available for building integration (Kanters, 2015) (Consortium of the Sunrise Project, 2008). Perception barriers. Even up to date, advantages of solar energy and BIPVs are not very clear for architects and clients; the added value of BIPV as a multifunctional building component (replaces a traditional building element, produces electricity, increases the appealing aesthetics of a building, increases the environmentally friendly factor of a building due to renewable energy) is not known or advertised. Knowledge of planners, developers or architects ig generally limited, only a few are experts in solar energy and make use of it in their designs. (Consortium of the Sunrise Project, 2008) Besides, because


22

nearly every manufacturer and producer of photovoltaic modules creates their own module size/aspect, offering their own format to protect the market share, BIPVs are not always considered appealing. It is difficult and inconvenient for an architect to design and plan a building according to a given and restrictive module layout (Heinstein, 2013). There are numerous barriers and drawbacks in what BIPVs are concerned, but there are many factors which help overcome these issues and bring up positive influences for the future. As a general feeling, BIPV industry is expected to grow in the future. The high initial prices are continuing to fall, some governments offer subsidies for solar energy, case studies are documented and reports are made public in order to demonstrate advantages of BIPV systems, technology and market starts to produce PV products that are more easily integrated into buildings and correspond better to architectural requirements. Building industry actors start to be more awake to BIPV advantages and value and to gain more knowledge in this field. Besides, many building owners want to install BIPV because of financial benefit, independence feeling and better image of buildings (environmentally friendly, sustainable architecture) (Heinstein, 2013) (James, 2011) (Koinegg, 2013). In Sweden, BIPV implementation may see a positive change in the future, due to governmental decision which seem helpful and favourable to actors who consider integrating solar energy. Governmental support for solar energy was first introduced in July 2009 and subsidies have existed since then, with a variation regarding amounts (in 2009- maximum 60% of the total investment; from 2012- 45% of the investment cost, or two million SEK, when this value was higher). Starting with 1st of January 2015, the Swedish Government has implemented a new support level for solar energy, 30% for companies and 20% for other applicants. The financial aid is calculated based on the eligible installation costs: the highest aid per PV system is 1.2 million SEK and the eligible costs may not exceed 37 000 SEK plus VAT per installed kilowatt peak power. The support is eligible for all types of grid-connected photovoltaic systems and photovoltaic/solar hybrid systems, which are implemented by 31 December 2016. (Energimyndigheten. Stöd till solceller, 2015) Besides, there is a tax credit for generation of renewable energy: excess production of electricity from solar systems which is fed back to the grid, is paid by 60 öre/kWh, up to a maximum of 18000 SEK per year (Skatteverket. Skattereduktion för mikroproduktion av förnybar el, 2015).

As stricter energy requirements will be developed, a growth of BIPV systems could be expected. The European Comission’s 20-20-20 goals, referring to 20% reduction of CO2 emmisions, 20% increase in energy efficiency and 20% renewable resources by 2020, represent powerfull arguments for BIPV expansion and development in the future. (Heinstein, 2013) Therefore, project developers, architects and real estate owners will be gradually forced into coming to terms with BIPV. Unfortunately, the laws will force stakeholders and developers to adopt these solutions only by 2020.


23

3 Description of Case Study Building This sub-chapter introduces the pilot building chosen for this study. All information presented refer to data which concerns the building before any renovation. It is very important to be mentioned that nowadays, Building One has been renovated in some amount, in 2012, but none of the renovations are taken into account throughout this study. Vårsågen is a housing complex which was built in 1974 and is representative of the multi-family buildings built during the Million Homes Programme (1965-1975) in Sweden. It is located in the south-eastern part of Malmö, on Gånglåtsvägen 51, 53 and 55. The entire area consists of three high rise buildings, which are surrounded from 3 directions by low rise buildings, as it can be seen in Figure . Required information and technical details regarding properties of the building components and user profiles were taken from the Feasibility Study (Andersson, 2013) established by WSP Environmental and Fastighets AB Trianon; extracts from the feasibility study are presented in Appendix A.

Figure 3.1 Vårsången complex buildings- situation plan

The investigated building is one of the three high rise buildings, referred to as Building One, as labelled in the previous figure. This building was built during the Million Homes Programme, what makes it a perfect example of a building with a high renovation potential. This is because it has not been renovated since contruction, more than 40 years ago, being in a deprived state. Besides, Building One might have a good potential for solar energy, as there are no big obstacles around, to cause shading. The entire housing complex has a total built area of 33 691 m2. Building One comprises the Basement Level, Ground Floor and 7 Floors, with a total floor area of 6 032 m2 and a


24

building envelope area of 6 741 m2. It accommodates 3 stairwells, 3 elevators, 71 apartments and 2 laundry rooms. 3.1.1 Building Components The load bearing structure of the building is made of concrete. The roof is made of concrete, loose brick blocks and concrete. The exterior walls are made of 250mm bearing brick, mineral wool and lightweight concrete. The building has recessed balconies, consisting of concrete, mineral wool and fiber cement board, with concrete slabs. The floor slabs are made of concrete, having 250mm thickness. Most of the windows are double glazed, only 10% of them were previously replaced with triple glazed windows. The external envelope structure was considered to be heavy weight structure, with details as shown in Figure .

Figure 3.2 Construction details for the external wall (left) and roof (right)

The overall heat transfer coefficients of the building components were calculated according to existing details and drawings, the results being listed in Table 3.1. Specific details can be seen in Appendix B. Table 3.1 Overall heat transfer coefficient for building envelope elements

Element U-value ((W/m2)K)

Exterior wall 0.32-0.4* Roof 1.19 Slab on the ground 1.1 Basement Walls 1.0 Double glazed windows 2.9 Triple glazed windows 1.7 *The calculated U-value of the exterior wall was between 0.32- 0.40 W/m2K, but during all simulations, the imposed U-value was 0.4 W/m2K In Table 3.2 are listed the window-to-wall ratios for each façade. Table 3.2 Window-to-wall ratio

Façade North East South West Window-to-wall Ratio (%) 5.1 17.77 5.1 31.89


25

3.1.2 Air Tightness The building envelope air leakage was measured in two apartments (51-33 and 51-63), using the blower door pressurization test. The results of the pressurization test showed an acceptable air tightness for both apartments. The measured air leakage consists mainly of air leaks around window corners and through apartment doors towards the stairwell. It was suspected that the air leakage consists of deficiencies at the air seal between the window frame and the outer wall. The measured value for the airtightness is 0.9 l/s, m2* at a pressure of 50 Pa (further details may be seen in Appendix A). * leakage airflow rate through the building's envelope at 50 Pa reference pressure, divided by the envelope area 3.1.3 Building Services Engineering The ventilation system consists of mechanical exhaust air with slot vents at the windows and airing valves. It is possible to control the ventilation rate via a 5-step transformer. The heating source is district heating, which is supplied through the main substation, where district heating meters are placed. It serves all the buildings that have their own substations. Even if the buildings were equipped with district heating metering, it is unclear whether the meters worked and statistics were recorded or not. Domestic hot water is provided by a heat exchanger which is situated in the buildings substation. 3.1.4 Measured Energy Use The energy performance of the building was determined according to measured values. The metering devices for heating and domestic hot water were placed in the district heating space inside the basement, on Gånglåtsvägen 13, while the metering devices for building electricity are located on Gånglåtsvägen 51 – 55. Building Electricity is measured at the building level, then the standard deduction made for laundry, outdoor light poles and underground parking. District heating use was determined according to statistics registered by the metering device, for the entire area Vårsången 6, including 3 high-rise buildings and 3 surrounding low rise buildings (as shown in Figure 2). The registered values are listed in Table 3.3, as they were taken from the Feasibility Study (Andersson, 2013). Table 3.3 Measured energy use

Value District heating and DHW (without correction) 4942 MWh year District heating and DHW (corrected)* 4703 MWh year District heating for space heating and DHW heating 140 kWh/m² Atemp year

Building electricity 109 MWh year Building electricity 18 kWh/m² Atemp year Total energy use 158 kWh/m² Atemp year *According to the authors of the Feasibility Study (Andersson, 2013), the energy use for district heating and domestic hot water, without correction, refers to the measured value for


26

the year of 2012 (namely, 4942 MWh). Due to the fact that 2012 was a much colder year than other years, the value was recalculated for an average situation where outside temperatures were “normal”, resulting the corrected value (namely, 4703 MWh). This correction was made in order to compare energy use between buildings and between different years. Regarding DHW only, it was assumed an energy use of 63 kWh/m2 year. The calculated value is based on the use of district heating in June – August; the value is high, which is probably due to some district heating used to heat the building during the summer months. Before any renovations were made, the energy use for domestic hot water was around 57 kWh/m2 year, for district heating only, 83 kWh/m2 year and for total building electricity, around 25 kWh/m2 year (Zender). Apparently, there are many tenants per apartment, which is why the domestic hot water indicates such a big value for the energy use; besides, the registered indoor temperatures indicate high values, between 20° C- 25° C, during winter.


27

4 Method and Tools The following chapter presents the research and assumptions made with regards to the analyzed building to be refurbished by means of Energy Roof and Façade Systems. It describes the methods used throughout the study and the necessary tools for different computer simulations. In order to asses the impact of different renovation solutions, the energetic behavior of the case study building was studied using a dynamic building energy simulation tool. In order to do so, an analysis of the local climate and surroundings was performed and later on, a 3D model of the building was designed. It is very important to be mentioned that in 2012, Building One has been renovated in some amount, but none of the renovations are taken into account throughout this study. The entire modelling and research is done for the building as it was before any changes were made. Afterwards, possible renovation strategies/solutions were exemplified and further analyzed using different simulations tools, described at the end of this chapter. 4.1 Climate Analysis and Surrounding Conditions

Building One is situated in a southern neighborhood of Malmö, Fosie. The district is mostly composed of apartment buildings built up during the 60s and 70s, with high rise buildings, houses and green areas. In Figure 4.1 can be seen the 3D model of the building, its orientation and surrounding elements.

Figure 4.1 Computer 3D model for Building One and surroundings

All computer simulations used as location Copenhagen, which is considered to have similar climatic conditions as Malmö. Copenhagen weather files were used as well. Besides, available climatic data for Malmö is from the nearest weather station located in Copenhagen, Denmark.


28

4.1.1 Temperature, Relative Humidity and Precipitation The city of Malmö has an oceanic climate, relatively mild, with warm summers and cold winters during which snowfall does not always occur or last. During midsummer, there are 17 hours of daylight, while during midwinter there are only 7. In the following pictures are presented monthly averages for temperature, precipitation and relative humidity (Wikipedia, Malmö, 2015) (Weather online, 2015) (Weather and climate, 2015).

Figure 4.2 Monthly average temperatures in Malmö, Sweden

Figure 4.3 Precipitation and average rainfall days in Malmö, Sweden

-1

4

9

14

19

24

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Average Temperatures/ °C

Average High Temperature Average Low Temperature

0

20

40

60

80

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec0

5

10

15

20Average Rainfall Days Precipitation/ mm

Precipitation Average Rainfall Days


29

Figure 4.4 Relative humidity in Malmö, Sweden

4.1.2 Solar Radiation Climate-specific surface irradiation images were generated using DIVA-for-Rhino simulation software and Grasshopper graphical algorithmic graphical editor. Besides, annual irradiation was calculated at node locations, on the roof and facades of the building. The irradiation on the buildings can be divided into different categories, according to its applicability depending on the annual irradiation, as it can be seen in Table 4.1. Building facades with an annual solar irradiation of less than 650 kWh/m²year are considered not suitable for PV systems, while the lowest limit for roofs is 800 kwh/m²year (Kanters, 2014). Table 4.1 Solar irradiation threshold values for different categories- values in (kW/m2 year) (Kanters, 2014)

Unsuitable Reasonable Good Very Good Facades 0-650 651-900 900-1020 > 1020 Roof 0-800 800-900 900-1020 > 1020 In the following picture, annual solar irradiation on the building’s roof and façade can be seen. The irradiation values for roof vary between 951-970 kWh/m2year, while values for the upper South façade vary between 790- 811 kWh/m2year, 665-790 kWh/m2year for the lower South façade and 300-560 kWh/m2year for the East and West façades. According to Table 4.1, out of all façades, only the South façade was considered suitable for solar energy integration.

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Relative Humidity/ %


30

Figure 4.5 Solar irradiation distribution on Building One

Besides, in order to see how the distribution of solar irradiation varies throughout the year, images with monthly solar irradiation can be seen in Appendix C.

4.1.3 Shadow Analysis To be able to understand the Sun’s position and its influence during different seasons, a shadow study was made, using SketchUp. The shadows on the building’s roof and façades were analyzed, on a typical day of summer, spring and winter, respectively 21st of June, 21st of March and 22nd of December, as it can be seen in the following pictures.

Figure 4.6 Shadow analysis- 21st of March between 08:00-17:00


31

Figure 4.7 Shadow analysis- 21st of June between 07:00-19:00

Figure 4.8 Shadow analysis- 22nd of December between 10:00-15:00

It can be noticed that during summer, the shadow effect is less considerable than during the other seasons, because of the much higher position of the sun. 4.2 Modelling

In order to perform realistic simulations, 3D models of the building and its surroundings were built in Design Builder and CAD software (as seen in Figure 4.1); properties for the building envelope and occupants’ behavior were assigned. The models were simplified, consisting in simple volumes following the building’s layout. Each model encloses ground floor and 7 upper floors, and each floor comprises 3 different zones, each corresponding to the different stairs (left, middle, right). The structural partitioning walls were built as concrete internal walls, contributing to the thermal mass of the building. The simulation model for a typical floor can be seen in Figure 4.9.


32

Figure 4.9 Computer simulation model- typical floor

As this study focuses on the building’s envelope performance, no alterations regarding building services engineering were made. All simulations were performed for the same building, with the same architectural and structural composition, same position, orientation and identical occupants’ behavior. The parameters that change are related to the building envelope and will be further detailed in the next chapter (Passive Strategies). 4.2.1 Passive Strategies Different renovation alternatives were investigated, among which introducing heating setback, adding insulation on roof or/and exterior walls and changing the windows. Heating setback 2 degrees lower than the constant heating temperature 21 °C, was introduced during nights (between 00:00 and 04:00), when occupants are asleep and a slightly lower indoor temperature would not produce discomfort, and during holidays. Even if it is not a passive measure connected to the building envelope, it was decided to be investigated. In order to analyze the impact of adding insulation on roof or/and walls, different situations were considered: roof insulation of 10 cm, 20 cm and 30 cm and walls exterior insulation of 10 cm and 20 cm. For a better understanding, the analyzed cases will be named var.x.y, where x stands for roof insulation and y stands for walls insulation (see Table 9). The considered insulation has a thermal conductivity of 0.04 W/mK; in the following table, U-values of the roof and walls with different insulation thickness can be seen. Table 4.2 Overall heat transfer coefficient for modified building envelope elements

Element U-value ((W/m2)K)

roof with 10 cm insulation 0.30

roof with 20 cm insulation 0.17 roof with 30 cm insulation 0.12


33

wall with 10 cm insulation 0.19 wall with 20 cm insulation 0.13 Three types of windows were considered, all of them being energy efficient triple glazing. Each window type was modelled in Design Builder, the result having small alterations beside the available product on the market; their properties are listed below. Table 4.3 Alternative window solutions: real and simulation properties

Real Properties Simulation Properties

Window U-value/

((W/m2)K)

Solar Transmittance

(g-value) Visible

Transmittance U-value/ ((W/m2)K)

Solar Transmittance

(g-value) Visible

Transmittance Elit pine 1.1 1.3 0.54 0.72 1.329 0.547 0.687 Elit xceed 3.1 1.2 0.57 0.73 1.223 0.585 0.694 Elit xceed 2.1 1 0.5 0.71 1.064 0.569 0.694 Taking into account that most of the air infiltration consists of air leaks around window corners, for the cases when windows were changed, the air tightness was considered improved from 0.9 l/s, m2* at a pressure of 50 Pa to 0.6 l/s, m2* at a pressure of 50 Pa. (This measure was considered assuming that once the windows will be changed, the air leaks will be prevented by proper sealing and fastening of windows.) * leakage airflow rate through the building's envelope at 50 Pa reference pressure, divided by the envelope area For all cases, Design Builder is used to perform an annual simulation for the heating need. Simulations are performed as a parametric study to see how the heating need is affected in each case by the building’s envelope U-value, window type and air infiltration variation. 4.2.2 Active Strategies- Energy Systems Production The roof and façade energy systems were designed to supply the electricity need of the building, depending on the maximum available area. There were three photovoltaic systems considered: one for the roof, one for the upper South façade and one for the lower South façade. The decision to design two systems for the South façade was taken as the shadows vary considerably between the upper and the lower part of the façade and it was desired for simulation results to be as accurate as possible. Each photovoltaic system was designed accordingly, taking into account location (a specific weather file was used- Copenhagen) and system design parameters (available surface area, photovoltaic module and inverter performance characteristics and shadows from surrounding objects). As all systems are building integrated, the modules’ tilt is 0° for the roof system and 90° for the façade systems and there is no row spacing between them (the PV modules allow maintenance access, no specific space should be taken into consideration). For the roof system, the azimuth is 0° and for the façade systems, the azimuth is 180°. Other input data for each photovoltaic system, such as modules type and number, inverters type and number may be found in Appendix E. There were two main strategies considered: no yearly overproduction and no monthly overproduction (for June, when the building electricity need is the lowest), in order to find


34

the most cost-effective system. In all cases, the considered energy systems consisted of the same PV module types, meaning that no combinations between module types were made, for simplification of calculations and reducing the overall amount of time required. 4.2.3 Input Data Due to the fact that the available documentation plans with the building and surroundings were very old, it was difficult to get exact agreement between drawings and simulation geometry and some small differences between the Feasibility Report (Andersson, 2013) data and the simulation model were identified, as they can be seen in Table 4.4. Table 4.4 Building data: existing vs simulation model

Report Data Simulation Model

Atemp/ m2 6032 6092

Total Glazing Area/ m2 750 763

Gross Wall Area/ m2 3971 3598

Basement Wall Area/ m2 421 389

Roof (Attic) Area/ m2 768 762

Slab on the ground Area/ m2 790 762 For each of the considered cases, specific data was used, with detailed information presented in Appendix D. Data types and sources are presented in Table 4.5. Table 4.5 Data input and source used

Data Type Source and Value Weather file Taken from Energy Plus weather database (US Department of Energy, 2014)

U-values Taken from Feasibility Study established by WSP Environmental and Fastighets AB Trianon; some later values were recalculated.

Windows

Chosen from the Design Builder database, based on U-value requirements; some were modelled in Design Builder according to data provided by the supplier (Elitfönster)

Ventilation Rates 0.35 l/s-m2 according to Swedish Building Code Regulations Interior Lighting Intensity

250 lux/m2 with an installed power of 3.4 W/m2- 100 lux according to Design Builder guidelines regarding Sweden

Internal gains from people

1W/m2 according to user related inputs for residential buildings (Brukarindata bostäder) by SVEBY

Internal gains from household equipment Assumed 3 W/m2 for energy efficient appliances (not everything considered) Throughout the entire study, particular schedules were developed and used in order to ensure that the building behavior is as close to reality as possible. The schedules were designed for occupancy, electrical lighting and internal gains, as it may be seen in Figure 4.10- Figure 4.13. All schedules were developed by the author of this study, considered as close to reality, assuming that a high percentage of the occupants are away during working


35

days, between working hours and a big percentage of occupants do not spend their entire weekend at home. Of course, the internal gains and lighting schedules depend on the occupancy schedule. The summer lighting schedule is different from the winter lighting schedule, also because the occupants were assumed to have an energy efficient behavior and benefit from natural daylight as much as possible, therefore, electrical lighting is used less during the summer months, compared to the winter months.

Figure 4.10 Defined occupancy schedule

Figure 4.11 Defined internal gains schedule

Figure 4.12 Defined internal lighting schedule during summer months

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0:00 2:00 4:00 6:00 8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00 0:00

Intensity/%

Time/hr

Occupancy Schedule

Week Days

Weekends

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0:00 2:00 4:00 6:00 8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00 0:00

Intensity/%

Time/hr

Internal Gains Schedule

Week Days

Weekends

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0:00 2:00 4:00 6:00 8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00 0:00

Intensity/%

Time/hr

Summer Lighting Schedule Week Days

Weekends


36

Figure 4.13 Defined internal lighting schedule during winter months

During all simulations, no shading devices were considered, nor natural ventilation; there was no heat recovery for the mechanical ventilation system as it is an old building (built in 1974) and the heat recovery requirements were introduced in building code regulations only in 1975. For a better understanding of how simulation cases were defined and named, the following table should be carefully read. Except for the base case, all cases consider fresh air (7l/person) and heating setback, unless stated otherwise. Besides, for all the cases with changed windows, the air tightness was improved, from 0.9 l/s, m2* at a pressure of 50 Pa to 0.6 l/s, m2* at a pressure of 50 Pa. * leakage airflow rate through the building's envelope at 50 Pa reference pressure, divided by the envelope area Table 4.6 Definition of different simulation cases

Simulation Case Description Base Case Refers to the original building, with no changes or alterations.

var 0.0 Refers to the building with no insulation added, heating setback and improved air tightness as stated above

var 1.0 Refers to the building, with added roof insulation of 10 cm thickness. var 2.0 Refers to the building, with added roof insulation of 20 cm thickness. var 3.0 Refers to the building, with added roof insulation of 30 cm thickness. var 0.1 Refers to the building, with added wall insulation of 10 cm thickness.

var 1.1 Refers to the building, with added 10 cm roof insulation and wall insulation of 10 cm thickness.



var 0.2 Refers to the building, with added wall insulation of 20 cm thickness.



0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0:00 2:00 4:00 6:00 8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00 0:00

Intensity/%

Time/hr

Winter Lighting Schedule Week Days

Weekends


37


var x.y + window

Refers to the building, with added roof insulation of x cm thickness, added wall insulation of y cm thickness and changed windows; where x=(10, 20 or 30 cm), y=(10 or 20 cm) and windows can be of the following types: Elit pine 1.1, Elit xceed 3.1 or Elit xceed 2.1.

4.3 Life Cycle Cost Analysis

Cost estimates were performed for both passive and active strategies. In case of passive strategies, it includes insulation price, windows price, labour work and scaffolding cost, according to different suppliers or estimation based on actual available data. Costs not taken into account were costs derived from repairs that would be necessary due to weather tear and ageing (rendering, mortars, repaintings etc), maintenance in time (as it happens even if the building is not renovated), insulation fixing system, roof membrane, window sills, moisture safety measures or anything else that was not mentioned. The cost analysis done for the energy roof and façade systems considered prices for PV modules, additional materials required for BIPV modules, such as unanticipated additional framing parts (if necessary), sealant, adhesives (considered as 10% of total modules’ price (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2012)) and inverters, according to suppliers information or estimations, labour work, scaffolding costs and maintenance costs, everything else not being included. Even if all BIPV systems show a small degradation over the years, it was not taken into account. It was assumed for the building to be connected to the grid and so for the energy systems, therefore, the monthly surplus energy would be sold to the grid. In Table 4.7 below, all data considered for the LCC calculations can be seen, along with their sources. Table 4.7 Prices used for cost estimates and their source

Item/Product Price Source

Ursa Mineral Wool Board (10 cm thickness) 30.67 SEK/m2 (Billigare Byggvaror, 2015) Elitfönster Windows - (Elitfönster, 2015) Scaffolding 190 SEK/m2 Wikells Sektionsfakta

PV Modules - http://www.ecodirect.com/ http://www.freecleansolar.com/

Inverters - http://www.sonnetek.com/ http://www.freecleansolar.com/

Labour Work* 173 SEK/hour (Statistiska Centralbyrån, 2015) District Heating 0.73 SEK/kWh (Sveriges Officiella Statistiks, 2014)

Bought Electricity Price 1.27 SEK/kWh

(Nord Pool Spot, 2015) (Skatteverket. Skattesatser på bränslen och el under 2015) (Kraftringen, 2015) (Energimyndigheten, 2015) (Adolfsson, 2014) (Sveriges Officiella Statistiks, 2015)

http://www.sonnetek.com/

http://www.sonnetek.com/


38

Sold Electricity Price 0.60 SEK/kWh (Skatteverket. Skattereduktion för mikroproduktion av förnybar el, 2015)

* in case of labour work, it was assumed that workers need 15 minutes for installing 1 m2 of insulation of 10 cm thickness (double for 20 cm thickness and triple for 30 cm thickness) and between 20 and 30 minutes to install a BIPV module, depending on size Some of the windows that had dimensions which were not available on product datasheet (they could be custom ordered) had their prices estimated depending on the windows’ dimensions and available prices. Because of the fact that the available database of SAM software was not continuously updated, there were cases when some PV panels were discontinued of the market (with available modules recommedations), but previous available prices were considered and used. On the other hand, for some of the used inverters it was not possible to find available information regarding their price (only technological information), therefore some prices were estimated, taking into account inverters’ capacity and other inverters’ prices. There were two main strategies considered: no yearly overproduction and no monthly overproduction (for June, when the building electricity need is the lowest), in order to find the most cost-effective system. In case of no monthly overproduction, only the energy systems for the roof were considered, those who would not produce more than 110% of the building electricity need in June. In case of no yearly overproduction, all 85 energy systems were considered, for the entire building, the roof and façade systems, added up. 4.3.1 LCC-method The method used for the life cycle cost analysis was the sum of net present values (present worth), combining investment costs, heating and electricity costs, environmental costs and maintenance costs during a part of the operational phase of the building. For the capital borrowed to cover the investment cost an interest rate was assumed. The total life cycle cost can be defined as: LCC= Investment Costs + Electricity Costs + Heating Costs + Maintenance Costs + Environmental Costs Investment costs are calculated at year 0, while all other costs are calculated over the entire time period considered, using the net present value, taking into account the nominal interest rate and annual rate of price increase. With this procedure different systems can be compared. The environmental impact in costs is usually very difficult to determine and is therefore often left out, but it is to some extent taken into account by including energy. Future costs were calculated being discounted to today’s value, using the NPV formula which was the sum of present values for the incoming and outgoing cash flows, over the time of 25 years, as described below. The time period of 25 years was chosen equal to the linear performance warranty of the PV modules.

giigAP

NN

)1()1(11


39

Where A1 is the first year running cost, g is the annual rate of price increase (electricity, heating etc), i is the annual interest rate and N is the calculated period of time. In case of the cost estimates done for the passive strategies, the total NPV was the sum of the initial costs (insulation cost, windows cost, scaffolding cost and labout cost) and the running costs (the sum between the NPV for electricity and NPV for heating). The total net present worth calculated for the cases with active roof and façade systems, was the sum of the initial costs (system cost, scaffolding cost, labour cost), the NPV for electricity (both bought and sold) and the NPV for maintenance. In Table 4.8 below, financial rates used in this study are listed. Some of the financial rates were taken as found in available sources (Sveriges Officiella Statistiks, 2014) or from recommended values, as it is very difficult to predict future financial rates. Table 4.8 Financial rates used for cost estimates

Annual real rate of interest 4.5% Annual real electricity price increase (bought) 4.2% Annual real electricity price increase (sold) 4.2% Annual real heating price increase 2.0% Annual real PV-panel price increase -2.0% Annual price increase for maintenance 1.0% 4.3.2 Electricity Price It was a challenge to select the price for bought and sold electricity, as the complexity of electricity pricing in Sweden is big. The electricity price in a house comprises a fixed fee paid to the grid and electricity company and a variable price depending on consumption. The variable part of electricity is the sum of five different parts, as follows.

1. The Electricity Market Price is based on the Nordic spot market at Nord Pool Spot, depending on the cost of producing one kWh of power and the price that the consumer group is willing to pay for the final kWh. The price is determined hourly, by balancing these two factors: every bid specifies the volume in MWh/h that each member is ready to buy or sell at specific price levels (EUR/MWh) for each individual hour of the next day. The electricity market price chosed for this study is 0.5 kr/kWh (Nord Pool Spot, 2015).

2. The Energy Tax depends on location and Sweden and application of consumed electricity. The energy tax used for this calculation was 0.295 SEK/kWh. (Skatteverket. Skattesatser på bränslen och el under 2015)

3. The Electricity Transfer Fee. The grid owner charges a fee for transfer and grid use. One part of the transfer fee is represented by the fixed fee mentioned above, independent of consumption rate, and the other part is directly dependent on electricity consumption. Each grid company has their own specific electricity transfer fee, without strong variation between companies. The transfer fee used for this analysis was 0.175 SEK/kWh (Kraftringen, 2015).


40

4. The Electricity Certificate Fee. A law regarding energy certificates states that all people should be involved and pay for electricity generated from renewable sources. There is a fee for electricity certificates on all renewable electricity (Energimyndigheten, 2015). There are some companies which include this fee in the spot price and some others which specify it separately. Based on another research regarding electricity prices, during the last five years, the electricity certificate fee has varied between 0.04 and 0.08 SEK/kWh. The electricity certificate fee used in this calculations was 0.05 SEK/kWh. (Adolfsson, 2014)

5. Value Added Tax (VAT) is 25% of the summed up price, comprising all of the above.

The price for bought electricity was calculated taking into account everything mentioned above and the result was an average of 1.27 SEK/kWh, including VAT. All electricity components from above are available for boght electricity price. In case of surplus solar electricity which is sold back to the grid, starting with 1st of January 2015, the equivalent tax credit received is 0.6 SEK/kWh. (Skatteverket. Skattereduktion för mikroproduktion av förnybar el.) 4.4 (Computer Simulation) Tools

One computer simulation tool was used to study the building’s energy behavior, in different situations, Design Builder. Another computer simulation tool was used to analyze the output and performance of photovoltaic panels, SAM, and several CAD tools were used for climatic and site analysis and building 3D modelling. The following paragraphs give a short introduction to the employed tools. Design Builder

Design Builder is an easy to use interface software for the dynamic building energy simulation tool, Energy Plus (energy analysis and thermal load simulation program which allows optimizing the building design to use less energy and water), developed by Design Builder Software Ltd. The software allows 3D modelling of buildings, rendered images and site shading analysis and comparison between design alternatives; it can be used for building energy and comfort analyses, reports on daylight illuminance and average daylight factors (using an advanced Radiance ray-tracing engine), carbon emissions, early stage building cost estimation, Computational Fluid Dynamics, LEED Energy Modelling credit calculations (Design Builder, 2015). In the present study Design Builder is used for all the energy simulations, estimating the heating demand of the building and the overall impact of passive strategies (adding insulation, changing windows, improving airtightness). System Advisor Model (SAM)

System Advisor Model (SAM) is a computer software developed by U.S. Department of Energy and National Renewable Energy Laboratory, which calculates performance and financial metrics of renewable energy systems. SAM simulates the performance of wind, geothermal, biomass, photovoltaic, concentrating solar power, solar water heating, and conventional power systems; its financial model calculates financial metrics for different


41

residential, commercial and utility-scale power projects. It allows parametric and sensitivity analyses. (NATIONAL RENEWABLE ENERGY LABORATORY, 2015) In the present research SAM is used for simulating performance models in order to assess different Photovoltaic systems’ performance. CAD Tools

CAD software such as AutoCAD, SketchUp and Rhinoceros together with Grasshopper; in this study, the CAD software was used for 2D and 3D modelling, wind analysis and solar radiation and shadow analysis on roof and facades of the building. AutoCAD is a software application for 2D and 3D computer aided design, developed by Autodesk, Inc.; it has powerful features for design, documentation, customization and connectivity, which allows connection of a design to the real world. For this project, it was used for 2D drawings with construction details and building plans. SketchUp is a 3D modelling computer program, developed by Trimble Navigation, used for a broad range of drawing applications, including construction and mechanical engineering, architecture, interior design, landscape architecture, film and game design. It was used for 3D modelling of Building One and surrounding buildings and trees and for shadow analysis. Rhinoceros is a computer aided design and a 3D computer graphics application software developed by Robert McNeel & Associates; it is a NURBS (Non-uniform rational basis spline- mathematical representations of 3D geometry) surface modeler, allowing the user to customize menus, commands and interface. Grasshopper is a graphical algorithm editor which runs within Rhinoceros application, having the same developers; it is used to build generative algorithms (Autodesk, 2015) (SketchUp, 2015) (Rhinoceros, 2015) (Grasshopper, 2015). These tools were used for 3D modelling of the building and surrounding constructions and trees and for solar radiation analysis.


42


43

5 Results This chapter presents the results achieved in each stage of the study. The results are presented from two main perspectives: energy (energy use and energy output) and costs. In order to limit the extent of the paper, some rsults are detailed in the Appendix section. 5.1 Energy Performance of the Building Envelope (- Passive

Strategies for Renovation)

All simulations regarding the energy performance of the building envelope were performed with Design Builder. The input data used in all simulations may be seen in Appendix D. Figure 19 presents the yearly energy need per square meter, for the existing building, both measured values and simulated values. The measured values were taken from the Feasibility Study (Andersson, 2013) (Zender), while the simulated values were output values from Design Buider simulations. The energy need is separated into heating (space heating and domestic hot water heating) and building electricity (which includes household electricity and property electricity), as these are the main elements that influence the energy demand of a building; no cooling was considered for the building (nor the existing or improved cases). For the measured case, only property electricity need was available in the Feasibility Report (Andersson, 2013), while the simulations showed the building electricity including household and equipment electricity. According to SVEBY recommendations (SVEBY, 2012), the property electricity need is around 15 kWh/m2 and the household electricity is around 30 kWh/m2, a total building electricity of 45 kWh/m2. It was aimed for the total building electricity to be reduced by 30%, by reason of possible future energy saving measures (more energy efficient lights, refrigerators, electronics, laundry appliances etc). Settings regarding interior lighting- 250 lux (3.4 W/m2-lux) refer to an energy efficient ambient lighting, without taking into account possibility for additional lighting need; energy use due to miscellaneous activity- 3 W/m2 includes very energy efficient electrical appliances inside the building.

Figure 5.1 Measured energy use and simulation energy use for the existing building (building electricity refers to household and equipment electricity, for the simulation model)

83 85

57 56

18 32

0

60

120

180

Measured Simulated

Energy Use/ (kWh/m2)-year Space Heating

DHW Heating

PropertyElectricity

BuildingElectricity


44

The differences between the total energy use for the measured case (158 kWh/m2-year) and simulated case (173 kWh/m2-year), were considered small and therefore acceptable, since for the measured case there were available values only for property electricity and for the simulated case, values were for total building electricity. Compared to SVEBY recommendations, the total building electricity need for the simulated case, due to energy efficient measures, is 29% lower than the recommended value (45 kWh/m2), respectively 32 kWh/m2 year. For the existing building, the registered values of the interior temperatures vary between 20 °C and 25°C (Zender), being assumed that the heating is working all the time. In order to see how heating setback would influence the space heating, simulations with and without heating setback were performed. The results, for the Simulated base case and some of the improved cases can be seen in Figure 5.2.

Figure 5.2 Space Heating influenced by heating setback

According to results presented in the figure above, the heating setback strategy would reduce the space heating need by approximately 7%. After this simulation, it was decided to take heating setback into account, as it lowers the space heating need. It was considered for all further simulations and it will not be mentioned again. This means that the constant heating set point temperature is 21°C, expect for holidays and between 00:00-04:00, when the heating temperature is 19°C. The results showed in Figure 5.3- Figure 5.6 show the impact of adding insulation in the opaque elements of the envelope, namely walls and roofs, of the Building One and changing windows to more energy efficient ones. Only values for space heating need are listed, as building electricity need and heating need for domestic hot water remain the same. All figures display the same cases, the difference being use of various windows as it can be seen in the description of each figure. As mentioned before, for the cases with changed windows, the air tightness was changed to 0.6 l/s, m2* at a pressure of 50 Pa.

80

74

78

73

78

72

81

75

78

72

85

78

65

70

75

80

85

var 1

.0

var 1

.0 w

ith h

eat

setb

ack va

r 2.0

var 2

.0 w

ith h

eat

setb

ack va

r 3.0

var 3

.0 w

ith h

eat

setb

ack va

r 0.1

var 0

.1 w

ith h

eat

setb

ack va

r 0.2

var 0

.2 w

ith h

eat

setb

ack

Sim

ulat

ed

Sim

ulat

ed w

ith h

eat

setb

ack

Space Heating/ ((kWh/m2)- year)


45

Figure 5.3 Energy Use for the Building with added insulation and existing windows (U-value: 2.9 W/m2K and 1.7 W/m2K for 10% of the windows)

As it can be seen in Figure 5.3 above, there is a positive influence on the heating need during the heating season when the insulation thickness is increased. Adding insulation only to the roof does not have a high effect on the space heating need, due to the fact that the roof area is considerably small, when compared to the entire building’s envelope area. Thus, space heating need can be lowered by 13% up to 27% when insulation is added to the building’s envelope. The same trends are present in the cases of the building with changed windows, but the savings for space heating need are considerably higher. The savings vary between 34.5%, when no insulation was added, but the windows were replaced to triple glazing with a U-value of 1.3 W/m2K, and 62.7%, when insulation was added on the roof (30 cm) and walls (20 cm) and the windows were replaced to triple glazing with a U-value of 1.0 W/m2K.

Figure 5.4 Energy Use for the Building with added insulation and windows with U-value= 1.3 W/m2K

85 74 73 72 75 66 65 64 72 64 62 62

0

60

120

180

Sim

ulat

ed

var 1

.0

var 2

.0

var 3

.0

var 0

.1

var 1

.1

var 2

.1

var 3

.1

var 0

.2

var 1

.2

var 2

.2

var 3

.2

Energy Use/ ((kWh/m2)- year)

Space Heating DHW Heating Building Electricity

85 56 52 50 49 47 39 37 35 46 37 34 34

0

60

120

180

Sim

ulat

ed

var 0

.0

var 1

.0

var 2

.0

var 3

.0

var 0

.1

var 1

.1

var 2

.1

var 3

.1

var 0

.2

var 1

.2

var 2

.2

var 3

.2Energy Use/ ((kWh/m2)- year)



46



As the differences between the U-values of the triple glazed windows are significantly small, so are the differences for space heating need, when comparing cases with different types of windows. The annual total building electricity need is 191466 kWh (31 kWh/m2). The monthly building electricity need can be seen in Table 5.1. The differences between months are based mostly on electricity needed for interior lighting, which is considerably less during summer months, thanks to longer periods of daylight. The monthly lowest household electricity need is 13326 kWh, registered in June.

85 50 40 39 39 44 36 33 33 43 35 32 32

0

60

120

180

Sim

ulat

ed

var 0

.0

var 1

.0

var 2

.0

var 3

.0

var 0

.1

var 1

.1

var 2

.1

var 3

.1

var 0

.2

var 1

.2

var 2

.2

var 3

.2



85 56 45 43 42 45 37 33 33 44 36 32 32

0

60

120

180

Sim

ulat

ed

var 0

.0

var 1

.0

var 2

.0

var 3

.0

var 0

.1

var 1

.1

var 2

.1

var 3

.1

var 0

.2

var 1

.2

var 2

.2

var 3

.2

Energy Use/ ((kWh/m2) -year)



47

Table 5.1 Monthly total building electricity need

Electricity Need/ kWh

January February March April May June 17507 15820 17526 16945 13808 13326

July August September October November December 13808 13792 16954 17507 16954 17517

5.2 Energy Output of BIPV Systems

All simulations concerning energy output of different building integrated photovoltaic systems were performed with SAM (System Advisor Model) software. The components of each system and the input data used for each system, in all simulations, may be seen in Appendix E. The energy systems were always designed according to the maximum available area (independent of the module’s type) on the roof and south façade, where the solar irradiation was the highest and considered suitable for solar technology integration, according to Table 4.1. As the building is connected to the grid, depending on the monthly energy output of the systems, electricity will be bought or sold to the grid. In case of no yearly overproduction, all three BIPV systems (integrated in roof and south façade) were considered, while in case of no monthly overproduction, roof systems were considered only. The systems were supposed to cover the electricity need in June (which was the lowest of the year); a percentage less than 10% was considered acceptable for monthly overproduction, due to annual tear and ageing resulting in lower energy production. There were roof systems which were not taken into consideration, because of the high monthly overproduction: 8, 10, 13, 17, 23, 54, 55, 77, 78, 83, 84. Table 5.2 shows the yearly energy output of several systems, including the systems with the highest and lowest energy production, integrated into the roof and façade construction. Details with monthly output can be seen in Appendix E for all systems integrated into the roof and into the south façade (upper and lower as they were treated separately). Table 5.2 Yearly energy output

System Output/kWh Output/ (kWh/m

2

floor area) Output/ (kWh/m

2

PV area)

35- roof 54850 9.00 81.79 11- roof 82662 13.57 123.84 51- roof 98222 16.12 146.51 83- roof 114478 18.79 172.95

46- upper S facade 6957 1.14 74.01

11- upper S facade 9520 1.56 104.38

51- upper S 8694 1.43 94.91


48

facade 83- upper S

facade 13911 2.28 145.36 46- lower S

facade 5819 0.96 72.92 11- lower S

facade 9171 1.51 102.47 51- lower S

facade 8771 1.44 97.56 83- lower S

facade 12054 1.98 141.65 Table 5.3- Table 5.6 shows the Solar Fraction for the energy systems mentioned in Table 5.2, separately and the overall energy systems (made by roof systems, upper south façade systems and lower south façade systems, together). Values for all systems can be seen in Appendix E. The Solar Fraction is calculated as the proportion between the amount of energy provided by the solar technology and the total building electricity required (32 kWh/m2 year). Table 5.3 Solar fraction for the roof systems

Solar Fraction Roof Systems

11 35 51 83 43% 29% 40% 60%

Table 5.4 Solar fraction for the upper south façade systems

Solar Fraction Upper south façade Systems

46 11 51 83 4% 5% 4% 7%

Table 5.5 Solar fraction for the lower south façade systems

Solar Fraction Lower south facade Systems

46 11 51 83 3% 5% 5% 6%

The highest solar fractions, between 29% and 60% are resulted from the roof systems, as they have the highest energy output of all systems. The façade systems generate energy which is equivalent of 3% to 7% of the total building electricity need. There are small differences (1% or less) between the solar fraction for the upper south façade systems and lower south façade systems, mainly because of higher solar irradiation on the upper part of the façade and more shadowing on the lower part, but also because in some cases, depending on modules sizes, the number of integrated modules in the upper façade was bigger than the number of modules integrated in the lower part of the façade. Table 5.6 Solar fraction for the total energy output- roof and south façade systems

Solar Fraction Overall Energy Systems 11 35 46 83 51 53% 36% 36% 73% 49%


49

The energy systems are able to cover between 36% and 73% of the total building electricity need, depending on the system. System outputs vary considerably, depending on the PV modules efficiency, total area and solar cell technology; the best way to assess the energy systems is to carry out a life cycle cost analysis based on their performance and maintenance need. The difference between the two approaches, no yearly overproduction and no monthly overproduction can be noticed better in the following chapter, where cost analysis is ilustrated. 5.3 Life Cycle Cost Analysis

5.3.1 LCC for Passive Strategies The cost estimates were calculated for a period of time of 25 years (which is the linear performance warranty of the PV modules), in order to be easier to compare and combine with the cost estimates for the energy systems. There were some strategies that would not be able to pay back the investment in 25 years, like changing the windows without any other renovation, changing the windows and adding some insulation or adding insulation only on exterior walls. So as to compare different renovation scenarios, the net present value, in 25 years, was calculated (as explained before, in 4.3.1) and compared with the NPV for the existing building (referred to as base case), which included only the running costs for heating and electricity, for 25 years. In Figure 5.7, all passive strategies (adding insulation, changing windows or combining these) and their cost estimates are illustrated, in terms of NPV, for a period of 25 years.


50

Figure 5.7 Net Present Value in 25 years, for different scenario renovations

For an easier comparison, the same cost estimates are illustrated (in Figure ) in percentages, compared to the NPV for the existing building (referred to as base case), which is assumed as 100%. Therefore, every renovation measure “whose NPV was situated below 100%” was considered cost effective, as it would request a lower amount of money, in 25 years, compared to the existing building. The solution with the highest savings, which had a NPV 7% lower than the existing building (referred to as base case) in 25 years, was adding 20 cm of insulation on the roof. Adding insulation on both walls (10 cm) and roof (10 cm, 20 cm or 30 cm) would result in NPV saving of 5%, in 25 years and the investment costs would be paid back in 14 years. Changing windows to more energy efficient ones (with a U-value of 1.3 W/m2K) and adding insulation on the roof (20 cm or 30 cm) would not bring any profit and the pay back time is 25 years, but can be considered for other reasons, like thermal comfort (better windows, improved joint connections etc).

11800000

12300000

12800000

13300000

13800000

14300000

14800000

15300000

BaseCase

var0.0

var1.0

var2.0

var3.0

var0.1

var1.1

var2.1

var3.1

var0.2

var1.2

var2.2

var3.2

Net Present Value/ SEK

insulation insulation+ windows (U-value 1.3 W/m2K)insulation+ windows (U-value 1.2 W/m2K) insulation+ windows (U-value 1.0 W/m2K)


51

Figure 5.8 Net Present Value percentages compared to existing building (base case), in 25 years

Because a building’s lifespan is higher than 25 years, cost estimates were performed also for a period of time of 50 years, to have another view of the passive strategies’ influences. After a period of time of 50 years, the only renovation solutions which are not economical are changing the windows to highly efficient ones (U-value of 1.0 W/m2K) and adding insulation on the external walls (10 cm or 20 cm), combined. In Figure , all passive strategies and their cost estimates are illustrated, in terms of NPV, for a period of time of 50 years.

Figure 5.9 Net Present Value in 50 years, for different scenario renovations

90%

95%

100%

105%

110%

115%

120%

BaseCase

var0.0

var1.0

var2.0

var3.0

var0.1

var1.1

var2.1

var3.1

var0.2

var1.2

var2.2

var3.2

Net Present Value/%

insulation insulation+ windows (U-value 1.3 W/m2K)

insulation+ windows (U-value 1.2 W/m2K) insulation+ windows (U-value 1.0 W/m2K)

19300000

19800000

20300000

20800000

21300000

21800000

22300000

22800000

BaseCase

var0.0

var1.0

var2.0

var3.0

var0.1

var1.1

var2.1

var3.1

var0.2

var1.2

var2.2

var3.2

Net Present Value/ SEK



52

The same cost estimates are illustrated (in Figure 10) in percentages, compared to the NPV for the existing building (referred to as base case), which is assumed as 100%. Generally, the highest savings, when NPVs are compared, in 50 years, are around 10%, for measures like changing windows to more energy efficient ones (U-value of 1.3W/m2K or 1.2W/m2K) combined with adding insulation on walls and roof.

Figure 5.10 Net Present Value percentages compared to existing building (base case), after 50 years

5.3.2 LCC for Energy Systems The cost estimates were made for a period of time of 25 years, as all PV modules have 25 years of linear performance warranty. It was not analyzed if the building’s structure can take up the BIPV load or if additional works need to be made, which of course, would bring up higher costs. It was rather difficult to compare the solutions, since the modules have different producers and they behave differently, depending on the solar technology and efficiency, but also because the systems do not cover the exact same area, since the modules come in different sizes. As there were two main strategies adopted for energy systems, their cost estimates results will be treated separately, as it follows.

No monthly overproduction For each system, the NPV, in 25 years, was compared to the building’s NPV (in terms of building electricity consumption) as if no renovations were made. Out of a total of 74 systems integrated into the roof, 4 systems turned out to be not profitable after 25 years, 9 systems would register savings up to 5% of the NPV when compared NPV of the existing building, in 25 years. Besides, There were 53 systems which would reach savings between 5% and 10% and 8 systems which registered savings higher than 10%. When NPVs where compared, after 25 years, the most profitable system would be system 7, with 15% savings; it consisted of 655 m2 of multicrystalline silicon modules (340 Conergy PH 285P pieces), equivalent to 97.5 KWp and 25 inverters (Agepower AP 3000TL-US

85%

88%

91%

94%

97%

100%

103%

BaseCase

var0.0

var1.0

var2.0

var3.0

var0.1

var1.1

var2.1

var3.1

var0.2

var1.2

var2.2

var3.2

Net Present Value/%



53

277V), with a total energy output of 80447 kWh in a year and total initial cost of 1.39 million SEK (equivalent of 14250 SEK/kWp or 2120 SEK/m2 of photovoltaic modules).

No yearly overproduction: In order to compare the 85 systems, their NPV, in 25 years, was compared to the building’s NPV (in terms of building electricity consumption) as if no renovations were made. The cost estimate results indicated that 14 systems would not be profitable at all, 55 systems would bring in savings less than 5%, 15 systems would register savings between 5% and 10% and 1 system would reach savings higher than 10%. The most profitable energy system solution would be system 7 with savings of 14%, consisting of 857 m2 of multicrystalline silicon Conergy PH 285P modules (340 pieces integrated in the roof, 55 in the upper south façade and 50 in the lower south façade), equivalent of 127 kWp and 33 inverters (25- Agepower AP 3000TL-US 277V, 4- Auxin Solar AXU-PV3000U 240V, 4- Auxin Solar AXU-PV4000U 240V). The energy output of the system was 100970 kWh in a year and the total initial cost was 1.89 million SEK (equivalent of 14880 SEK/kWp or 2205 SEK/m2 of photovoltaic modules). In order to notice if there is a big difference between multicrystalline modules and monocrystalline modules, there were several systems which considered modules made by the same producer, having the same efficiency, area and prices, but different materials. There were four system (integrated into the roof and south façade) “pairs” compared: 62-63, 68-69, 72-73, 74-75. The differences in yearly energy output were up to 8%, for systems 62-63, 0% for systems 68-69 and 3% for the other systems. Comparing the net present value, after 25 years, the differences were relatively small (around 1%), between 5000 kr and 54000 kr. 5.3.3 Combining Passive Strategies with Energy Systems To be able to analyze benefits from both passive strategies and energy systems, together, some combinations were assessed, taking into account strategies that proved to bring in some of the highest savings, in 25 years, when NPVs are compared. The first 12 energy systems which registered the highest savings were analyzed in combination with all passive strategies. In general, it was noticed that savings were almost equal if the energy system was integrated only in the roof (no monthly overproduction strategy) or in the roof and south façade (no yearly overproduction strategy), so, only results which considered integration of energy system in both roof and south façade would be presented. In case of changing the windows to the most energy efficient ones, with a U-value of 1.00 W/m2K, the savings were almost insignificant, when adding the most profitable energy system, system 7. In all of the other combinations, when the most efficient windows were used, the solution could not be paid back in 25 years. In Table 5.7 below, combinations between most profitable energy systems and passive strategies are listed, along with NPV savings, when compared to the existing case, without any renovation, after 25 years. The passive strategies refer to those described in 4.2.3.1 Table 4.6 and 4.2.1.


54

Table 5.7 Net Present Value savings in percentages, when compared to the existing building (base case), after 25 years

Passive Strategy Energy System

var 3.0

var 3.1

var 3.0+ windows 1.3

var 3.1+ windows 1.3

var 3.0+ window 1.2

var 2.1+ window 1.2

System 7 14% 11% 7% 9% 8% 6% System 16 11% 9% 5% 7% 5% 4% System 10 11% 9% 5% 7% 5% 4% System 41 11% 9% 5% 7% 5% 4% System 76 11% 9% 4% 7% 5% 4% System 40 11% 9% 4% 6% 5% 4% System 6 11% 9% 4% 6% 5% 3%

System 17 10% 8% 4% 6% 4% 3% System 18 10% 8% 3% 6% 4% 3% System 21 10% 8% 4% 6% 4% 3% System 47 10% 8% 3% 6% 4% 3% System 85 10% 8% 3% 5% 4% 2%

In the previous table, what were considered to be the best solutions were presented. The present worth savings were up to 14%, but most of the solutions registered savings between 3% and 9%. Many of the results were very close, or the same, even if the energy systems were very different in modules, efficiencies, energy output, prices etc. All above analyzed systems were made of silicon wafer based crystalline cells, either multicrystalline or monocrystalline.


55

6 Discussion and Conclusions Considering the results presented in the previous chapter, a main conclusion can be drawn that energy systems (BIPV) can have a positive contribution to the energy renovation of the studied residential building, from Malmö, Sweden. As the studied building is representative for buildings built through the Million Programme, during the 60’s, it is likely that similar results can be obtained for other retrofit projects, when renovation solutions analyzed in this study are taken into account. Regarding the question posed in the beginning of the study (stated in section 1.2) there is always place for discussion when it comes to choosing a suitable solution. Even if results show that the most cost effective renovation solution refers to adding 30 cm insulation on the roof and choosing system 7 as energy system for the roof and south façade, others options should be taken into account as well. Considering the fact that the building is relatively old and windows are original, since construction, changing windows would considerably improve the air tightness and the thermal comfort inside the building. Besides, adding insulation on exterior walls is a very costly measure compared with the possible energy savings, even if it is a measure with a long life span. Therefore, a solution considered to be suitable would consist of adding 30 cm roof insulation, changing the windows to more energy efficient ones (with a U-value of 1.2 W/m2K) and integrating PV modules into the roof and south façade (857 m2 of multicrystalline silicon modules, equivalent of 127 kWp with a total energy output of 100970 kWh in a year). This solution, with a total investment cost of 5.3 million SEK (870 SEK/m2 floor area), when compared to the existing case without any renovation, after 25 years, would bring in savings of 965 000 SEK (which counts for 8%). The energy savings resulted after implementing these solutions, as shown in theoretical calculations, are listed in Figure , below.

Figure 6.1 Energy use for the existing building (Measured Case) and a proposed renovation solution

This renovation solution would bring up energy savings of 19.5% and the energy systems would provide 50% of the yearly building electricity need.

83

39

57

56

18

16

16

0

40

80

120

160

Measured Case Proposed RenovationSolution


Building ElectricityProduced by BIPV

Building Electricity

Property Electricity

DHW Heating

Space Heating


56

In Figure 6.2 below, cost estimates for the existing building and the proposed renovation solution are illustrated, as Net Present Value, in 25 years; the sold electricity cost is expressed as a negative value, since it brings profit and it is not a discharge. The heating use has been considerably lowered, due to passive improvements (changing windows and adding roof insulation) and half of the building electricity is covered by renewable energy generated by the BIPV systems integrated in the roof and south façade. Even if the initial investment for these measures is high, in 24 years the total investment is paid off and after that, savings start be noticed. Besides, changing windows with better ones results in higher indoor thermal comfort and an increased value of the building. The building’s value and image flourishes once the BIPV systems are installed and half of the needed electricity is generated by renewable technology, on site.

Figure 6.2 Net Present Value in 25 years, for the existing building (Measured Case) and proposed renovation solution. The electricity costs are for the total building electricity need, including both property and household electricity.

In the results detailed in the previous chapter, the differences between integrating energy systems into the roof only or both roof and façade were very small, in terms of financial savings. Even if choosing a bigger system requires higher initial investment costs, it is more environmentally friendly, as more energy is generated by renewable resources. Another conclusion is that the influence of BIPV systems (referred to as energy systems) depends mainly on modules materials, efficiency and performance but also on components prices. The literature research shows that BIPV market is far from being flourishing, due to many reasons which hold back this industry. Many of the analyzed renovation solutions, which include energy systems would not be taken into consideration by real estate owners, who are oriented towards short time ownership and do not want to invest in something which is not profitable for them; this is because the solutions require high investment costs and they have a long payback period.

-100000

1300000

2700000

4100000

5500000

6900000

8300000

9700000

11100000

12500000

Measured Case Proposed RenovationSolution

Net Present Value/SEK Heating Cost

BoughtElectricity Cost

Sold ElectricityCost

Insulation Cost

Windows Cost

Total EnergySystem Cost

Scaffolding Cost

Labour Cost

MaintenanceCost


57

Besides, from the literature search, it can be concluded that documentation about renovation projects is very difficult to find and in most of the cases, only general information is available, without valuable details. Guideline and recommendation literature is something of great importance for future development of energy systems. Even so, there is a big improvement regarding BIPV industry and lately, there are more examples about renovated buildings with such solutions, compared to past literature. Several barriers have to be removed in order for this industry to bloom, while developing future legislation and regulations towards solar energy might be the most important step.


58

7 Further Research This project can be further analysed in several ways. Deeper studies regarding Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCC sensitivity analyses) can be performed with a focus on one or more of the aspects treated in this project, including what was left aside. Besides, Life Cycle Assessment should be performed, in order to mark out the environmental aspects. Different renovation solutions such as HVAC systems, strategies for DHW reduction, daylight harvesting solutions, detailed analysis of electrical lighting etc. could be analyzed and combined with what was assessed in this research, in order to achieve Passive House Levels or even Netz Zero Energy targets.


59

References

1. Adolfsson, Martin; Hjerpe, Hannes; 2014. Master Thesis in Energy Efficient and Environmental Buildings. Calculation Model for LCC-analyses of Photovoltaic Systems in Sweden. LTH, Lund University.

2. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc., 2009. ASHRAE Handbook. Fundamentals. 1791 Tullie Circle, N.E., Atlanta.

3. Andersson, Christina; Lundborg, Mattias; June 2013, Halvera Mera, Projekt nr 2012:13 – 14. En förstudie i linje med Rekorderlig Renovering. Demonstrationsprojekt för energieffektivisering i befintliga flerbostadshus från miljonprogramstiden. Förstudierapport för kv Vårsången, Fastighets AB Trianon.

4. Autodesk. AUTOCAD Overview. Viewed March 2015.

http://www.autodesk.com/products/autocad/overview 5. Billigare Byggvaror. BILLIG ISOLERING FRÅN ISOVER OCH URSA. Viewed April

2015. http://www.billigarebyggvaror.se/sortiment/isolering-19966348

6. Blair, Nate; Dobos, Aron P.; Freeman, Janine; Neises, Ty and Wagner, Michael; Ferguson, Tom; Gilman, Paul and Janzou, Steven; 2014. System Advisor Model, SAM 2014.1.14: General Description.

7. C changes. Types of Solar Panel. Viewed March 2015. Solar electric installer in UK, http://www.c-changes.com/types-of-solar-panel

8. Consortium of the Sunrise Project (EPIA, WIP, FIEC, UIA-ARES). Barriers for the

introduction of Photovoltaics in the building sector. Sunrise Project, 2008. 9. Design Builder. Design Builder. Viewed March 2015.

http://www.designbuilder.co.uk/

10. DeWolf, Stefaan; Descoeudres, Antoine; Holman , Zachary C. and Ballif , Christophe; 2012. High-efficiency Silicon Heterojunction Solar Cells: A Review. Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Institute of Microengineering, Neuchâtel, Switzerland.

11. DIRECTIVE 2002/91/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE

COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION 16 December 2002 on the energy performance of buildings. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32002L0091&from=EN

12. EE News, Switzerland. Viridén + Partner: Solarpreis für saniertes PlusEnergie-

Mehrfamilienhaus. Viewed May 2015. http://www.ee-news.ch/de/article/27681/viriden-partner-solarpreis-fuer-saniertes-plusenergie-mehrfamilienhaus

http://www.billigarebyggvaror.se/sortiment/isolering-19966348

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32002L0091&from=EN

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32002L0091&from=EN


60

13. Elitfönster. Prislista. Viewed April 2015. http://www.elitfonster.se/Documents/Prislistor/Prisbok_2015.pdf

14. Energimyndigheten. Elcertifikat. Viewed May 2015. http://www.energimyndigheten.se/foretag/elcertifikat/

15. Energimyndigheten. Stöd till solceller. Viewed May 2015. https://www.energimyndigheten.se/Hushall/Aktuella-bidrag-och-stod-du-kan-soka/Stod-till-solceller/

16. Energy Design Resources, Architectural Energy Corporation, Boulder, CO. Design Brief. Building Integrated Photovoltaics. Viewed March 2015. http://energydesignresources.com/media/1756/EDR_DesignBriefs_integphotovoltaics.pdf?tracked=true

17. Energy in Buildings and Communities Programme. International Energy Agency. Annex 56. Cost Effective Energy and Carbon Emissions Optimization in Building Renovation. Viewed January 2015. http://www.iea-annex56.org/

18. Engineering Toolbox, 2014. Hot Water Consumption per Occupant. Viewed February 2015. http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/hot-water-consumption-person-d_91.html

19. European Commision, The EU climate and energy package. The 2020 climate and energy package. Viewed May 2015. http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/package/index_en.htm

20. Gårdstens Bostäder. Solar buildings in Gårdstens. Viewed May 2015.

http://www.gardstensbostader.se/Global/G%C3%A5rdstensbost%C3%A4der/Broschyrer/SolarBuildings.pdf

21. Gilman, Paul; 2014. SAM Photovoltaic Model (pvsamv1) Technical Reference. DRAFT.

22. Grasshopper. Grasshopper Algorithmic Modeling for Rhino. Viewed March 2015. http://www.grasshopper3d.com/

23. Gumm, Michael; 2008. Integrating Photovoltaics Onto Building Envelope Surfaces.

RCI 23rd International Convention & Trade Show, Phoenix, AZ, February 28 - March 4, 2008.

24. Heinstein, Patrick; Ballif, Christophe and Perret-Aebi, Laure-Emmanuelle; 2013.

Building Integrated Photovoltaics (BIPV): Review, Potentials, Barriers and Myths. DE GRUYTER.

25. Högberg, L, Lind, H & Grange K; 2009. Incentives for Improving Energy Efficiency

When Renovating Large-Scale Housing Estates: A Case Study of the Swedish Million Homes Programme. MDPI Open Access Journals Platform, 2009.

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/hot-water-consumption-person-d_91.html




61

26. Humphries, Helen Elizabeth Herrera; 2013. Master’s Thesis within Sustainable Energy

Systems Programme. Evaluation of PV Systems in Gårdstens. Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden.

27. IEA Solar Heating and Cooling Programme, 2010. Advanced and Sustainable Housing

Renovation. A GUIDE FOR DESIGNERS AND PLANNERS. June 2010.

28. International Energy Agency IEA, 2014. Energy Efficiency. Viewed March 2015 http://www.iea.org/aboutus/faqs/energyefficiency/

29. International Energy Agency IEA, 2015. Energy in Buildings and Communities

Programme. Annex 56. Cost Effective Energy and Carbon Emissions Optimization in Building Renovation. Demonstrating Project, Kapfenberg. Viewed January 2015. http://www.iea-annex56.org/Groups/GroupItemID6/Kapfenberg.pdf

30. James, Ted; Goodrich, Alan; Woodhouse, Michael; Margolis, Robert and Ong, Sean;

2011. Building-Integrated Photovoltaics (BIPV) in the Residential Sector: An Analysis of Installed Rooftop System Prices. NATIONAL RENEWABLE ENERGY LABORATORY.

31. Kanters, J., 2014. Compare. [Online] Available at: http://www.solarplanning.org/compare.html

32. Kanters, Jouri; 2015. Planning for solar buildings in urban environments. An analysis of

the design process, methods and tools. Division of Energy and Building Design, Department of Architecture and Built Environment, Lund University, Faculty of Engineering LTH.

33. Koinegg, Johann; Brudermann, Thomas; Posch, Alfred and Mrotzek, Maximilian; 2013.

Building integrated photovoltaic: An analysis of prospects and barriers. University of Graz, Institute for Systems Sciences, Innovation & Sustainability Research.

34. Kraftringen. Elnät. Elnätsavgifter 2015, Prislista Syd. Viewed May 2015.

http://www.kraftringen.se/Privat/El/Elnat/Elnatsavgifter/Elnatsavgifter-Skane/

35. Kuhn, Tilmann E.; Herkel, Sebastian and Henning, Hans-Martin. Active Solar Facades (PV and solar thermal). Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems ISE, Freiburg, Germany.

36. Lind, Hans; Annadotter, Kerstin; Björk, Folke; Högberg, Lovisa; af Klintberg, Tord;

2014. Sustainable renovation strategy in the Swedish Million Homes Programme: A case study. School of Architecture and the Built Environment KTH, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.

37. National Institute of Building Sciences. Whole Building Design. Building Integrated

Photovoltaics (BIPV). Viewed March 2015. http://www.wbdg.org/resources/bipv.php


62

38. NATIONAL RENEWABLE ENERGY LABORATORY. System Advisor Model (SAM). Viewed March 2015. https://sam.nrel.gov/

39. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Ted James, Alan Goodrich, Michael

Woodhouse, Robert Margolis and Sean Ong; 2012. Building-Integrated Photovoltaics (BIPV) in the Residential Section: An Analysis of Installed Rooftop Prices. Denver, Colorado, May 2012.

40. Nord Pool Spot. Price Information in Nord Pool Spot. Viewed May 2015. http://www.nordpoolspot.com/How-does-it-work/Day-ahead-market-Elspot-/Price-formation-in-Nord-Pool-Spot/

41. PV RESOURCES. Building Integrated Photovoltaics- BIPV. Viewed March 2015.

http://www.pvresources.com/BIPV.aspx 42. Report T.41.A.2: IEA SHC Task 41 Solar energy and Architecture. SOLAR ENERGY

SYSTEMS IN ARCHITECTURE- integration criteria and guidelines. September 2012.

43. Rhinoceros. Rhinoceros Features. Viewed March 2015. https://www.rhino3d.com/features

44. Shafqat, Omar; 2011. Decreasing Energy Use by 50% in Swedish Multifamily buildings

by 2050 - Obstacles and Opportunities. Department of Energy, Technology Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.

45. Sick, Friedrich; Erge, Thomas; Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems Freiburg, Germany. PHOTOVOLTAICS IN BUILDINGS. A Design Handbook for Architects and Engineers. International Energy Agency, Paris, France.

46. Skatteverket. Skattereduktion för mikroproduktion av förnybar el. Viewed May 2015. http://www.skatteverket.se/privat/fastigheterbostad/mikroproduktionavfornybarel/skattereduktionformikroproduktionavfornybarel.4.12815e4f14a62bc048f4220.html

47. Skatteverket. Skattesatser på bränslen och el under 2015. Viewed May 2015. https://www.skatteverket.se/foretagorganisationer/skatter/punktskatter/energiskatter/skattesatser.4.77dbcb041438070e0395e96.html

48. SketchUp. SketchUp. Viewed March 2015. http://www.sketchup.com/

49. Solar Heating and Cooling Programme. International Energy Agency. Task 37. Advanced Housing Renovation with Solar & Conservation. Viewed January 2015. http://task37.iea-shc.org/

50. Solar Heating and Cooling Programme. International Energy Agency. Task 40. Net Zero Energy Solar Buildings. Viewed February 2015. http://task40.iea-shc.org/

https://www.skatteverket.se/foretagorganisationer/skatter/punktskatter/energiskatter/skattesatser.4.77dbcb041438070e0395e96.html

https://www.skatteverket.se/foretagorganisationer/skatter/punktskatter/energiskatter/skattesatser.4.77dbcb041438070e0395e96.html


63

51. Statistiska Centralbyrån. Genomsnittlig timlön för arbetare, privat sektor (KLP) efter

näringsgren SNI2007 och övertidstillägg. Månad 2008M01 - 2015M02. Viewed April 2015. http://www.statistikdatabasen.scb.se/pxweb/sv/ssd/START__AM__AM0101__AM0101A/LonArb07Privat/table/tableViewLayout1/?rxid=ff474241-ab31-4262-a162-a4ef64f8d3b9

52. Statens Energimyndighet. “Uppdrag 13: Nationell strategi för lågenergibyggnader.” ER 2010:39. Energimyndigheten, Eskilstuna, Sweden. October 2010.

53. Stenberg, Erik, Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan. Miljonprogrammets styrkor och svagheter. Viewed May 2015. https://www.kth.se/forskning/pa-djupet/miljonprogrammets-styrkor-och-svagheter-1.329345

54. Stockholms Stad. Hållbara Järva. Viewed May 2015. http://carbonn.org/uploads/tx_carbonndata/Sustainable%20J%C3%83%C2%A4rva.pdf

55. Stockholms Stad. Hållbara Järva!. Viewed May 2015 http://www.stockholm.se/hallbarajarva

56. SVEBY, 2012. Brukarindata bostäder. Viewed February 2015. http://www.sveby.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Sveby_Brukarindata_bostader_version_1.0.pdf

57. Sveriges Officiella Statistiks. Energy prices and switching of suppliers, 2nd quarter 2014 , Table 5A, District heating prices for multi-dwelling buildings January 2004 – June 2014. Mean value SEK/MWh. Viewed April 2015. http://www.scb.se/Statistik/EN/EN0304/2014K02/EN0304_2014K02_SM_EN24SM1403.pdf

58. Sveriges Officiella Statistiks. Page 17. Energy prices and switching of suppliers, 2nd

quarter 2014. Average electric energy price customers with 2-years agreements for household consumers July 2004 – June 2014. Öre/kWh (excl. taxes). Viewed April 2015. http://www.scb.se/Statistik/EN/EN0304/2014K02/EN0304_2014K02_SM_EN24SM1403.pdf

59. Swiss Solar Agency. Building Renovation in Romanshorn, Switzerland. 107%-PEB-

Sanierung Viridén, 8590 Romanshorn/TG. Viewed May 2015. http://www.solaragentur.ch/sites/default/files/g-13-09-17_solarpreispublikation_2013_def_ka_viriden_romanshorn.pdf

60. THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, European Commission (2010): Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings (recast). 2010.

http://www.statistikdatabasen.scb.se/pxweb/sv/ssd/START__AM__AM0101__AM0101A/LonArb07Privat/table/tableViewLayout1/?rxid=ff474241-ab31-4262-a162-a4ef64f8d3b9



http://www.sveby.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Sveby_Brukarindata_bostader_version_1.0.pdf

http://www.sveby.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Sveby_Brukarindata_bostader_version_1.0.pdf

http://www.solaragentur.ch/sites/default/files/g-13-09-17_solarpreispublikation_2013_def_ka_viriden_romanshorn.pdf

http://www.solaragentur.ch/sites/default/files/g-13-09-17_solarpreispublikation_2013_def_ka_viriden_romanshorn.pdf


64

61. Vidén, S.; 1999. Rekordårdens bostadsbyggande. In Rekordåren—en Epok i Svenskt Bostadsbyggande; Hall, T., Ed.; Boverket: Malmö, Sweden, 1999.

62. VVS-FORUM, SOLENERGI. Hållbara Järva Solceller. March 2015

63. Weather and climate, Average Weather in Malmö, Sweden, 2014. AVERAGE

MONTHLY PRECIPITATION OVER THE YEAR (RAINFALL, SNOW). Viewed January 2015. http://www.weather-and-climate.com/average-monthly-Rainfall-Temperature-Sunshine,malmo,Sweden

64. Weather online, Weather for Malmö, Sweden, 2014. Monthly Climate Average. Viewed

January 2015. http://www.worldweatheronline.com/Malmo-weather-averages/Skane-Lan/SE.aspx

65. Wikipedia. Building-integrated photovoltaics. Viewed February 2015.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building-integrated_photovoltaics

66. Wikipedia. Copper indium gallium selenide solar cells. Viewed February 2015. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_indium_gallium_selenide_solar_cells

67. Wikipedia. History of Construction. Viewed March 2015.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_construction

68. Wikipedia. Malmö. Geography. Viewed January 2015. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malm%C3%B6#Geography

69. Wikipedia. Million Programme. Viewed March 2015. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Million_Programme

70. Zender, Martin; Contractors Project Manager for Vårsången. Personal Communication, Information regarding energy use for Vårsången, before renovations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malm%C3%B6#Geography

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Million_Programme


65

Appendix A. Extracts from the feasibility study Specific information regarding the building’s properties, energetic performance and user profiles was taken from a Feasibility Study established by WSP Environmental and Fastighets AB Trianon; translated information can be consulted below. Table A.7.1 Generic data of Building One.

Building

Construction Year 1974 No. of Apartments 71 No. of floors above ground 8 Basement yes No. of stairwells 3 No. of lifts 3 No. of laundry rooms in building 2 No. of independent laundries 0 No. of engine heaters 0 No. of light poles 15

Area BOA, m2

Area LOA, m2 0

Area Atemp, m2 6032 m² *measured value according to energy declaration Table A.7.2 Construction techniques and materials.

Structure Concrete.

Roof Concrete, loose Leca (Light Expanded Clay Aggregate), concrete. Roofs were later supplemented with 100mm EPS+ Masonite.*

Exterior Walls

250mm bearing brick, 65mm mineral wool, 65mm lightweight concrete. At balconies concrete, mineral wool and fiber cement sheet.

Window Partially double glazing. About 10% have been replaced to triple glazing. Balconies Recessed balconies with concrete slabs.

Floor Slabs Concrete.

*According to a recent site visit (March 2015), the roof was never supplemented with EPS and Masonite Table A.7.3 Building Services. System description of existing installations.

Ventilation Mechanical exhaust air with slatted vents at the windows and airing valves. It is


66

possible to control via a 5-step transformer.

Heating

Incoming district heating is conducted via the main plant, where district heating meter is placed. It serves all the buildings that have their own substation. The buildings are equipped with metering for district heating, but it is unclear whether these work and statistics are recorded.

DHW Domestic hot water is provided by a heating exchanger which is situated in the buildings boiler room. The pipe system is original.

Boiler Rooms

The control system is newly replaced. The replaced equipment is not removed. While older storage tanks that are not used are left.

Table A.7.4 Meters Location.

Reference Year Meter Location Service Area Heating &

DHW 2012 Gånglåtsvägen 13, district

heating space in the basement The whole area Vårsången 6 Building

Electricity 2012 Gånglåtsvägen 51 - 55 Gånglåtsvägen 51 - 56 (the

investigated building) Cold Water - - -

DHW - - - Household Electricity - - -

Table A.7.5 Energetic Performance. Yearly measured values.

Recorded Value Heat and hot water (without correction) 4942 MWh Heat and hot water (statistically corrected) 4703 MWh Heat and hot water 140 kWh/m² Atemp Property electricity 109 MWh

Property electricity 18 kWh/m² Atemp Energy Performance 158 kWh/m² Atemp Household Electricity - Table A.7.6 Air Leakage- Apartment 51-33.

Apartment 51-33

Leakage [l / s, m2] of the enclosing-area according to EN 138 29

Leakage [l / s, m2] building envelope

Measurement uncertainty

Negative pressure of 50 Pa 0.22 0.89 ± 0.5% Positive pressure of 50 Pa 0.24 0.97 ± 1.3% Mean 0.23 0.93


67

Table A.7 Air Leakage- Apartment 51-63.

Apartment 51-63

Leakage [l / s, m2] of the enclosing-area according to EN 138 29

Leakage [l / s, m2] building envelope

Measurement uncertainty

Negative pressure of 50 Pa 0.21 0.86 ± 0.5% Positive pressure of 50 Pa 0.22 0.87 ± 1.3% Mean 0.22 0.87 Table A.7.7 Calculation Input Data.

Before Operation

The information has been determined from

Atemp m2 6032 Energy Certificate Aom Enclosing area towards the outside and unheated spaces m2 6741 Measured Drawings

Glazing Area (NB: not window area) m2 -North 26

Window area is measured from the drawings, glass proportion is adopted

m2 -East 220 Same as above

m2 -South 42 Same as above

m2 -West 311 Same as above

U-values and Areas W/(m2K) / m2

Exterior Wall W/(m2K) / m2 0.32 - 0.4 /

3971 Calculated/ Measured from drawings

Basement Wall W/(m2K) / m2 1.0 / 421 Same as above

Roof/ Attic W/(m2K) / m2 0.2 / 768 Same as above

Windows/ Doors W/(m2K) / m2 1.7 - 2.9 /

750 Same as above

Slab on the ground W/(m2K) / m2 1.1 / 790 Same as above

Thermal Bridges W/K 0.34 - 0.82 Estimated

Ventilation, Basic flow l/s, m2 0.33 Data from OVK

Specific air leakage, at 50 Pa l/s, m2 0.9 Measured by pressure test in two apartments

DHW kWh/year 65* Assumed value Household Electricity kWh/year

Measured value

Propoerty Electricity kWh/year

Measured value


68

* Calculated value based on the use of district heating in June – August; the value is high, which is probably due to some district heating which is used to heat during the summer months. Cold water Statistics has unfortunately not been available.


69

Appendix B. Building Components U-value calculations for roof and walls, both originally, for the existing building and for the improved cases, with added insulation. Table B.1 U-value calculation for base case roof.

Layer d λ R

[m] [W/mK] [(m2K)/W] Outdoor 0.04 Asphalt paper 0.002 0.3 0.0066667 Concrete 0.05 1.7 0.0294118 LECA 0.2 0.36 0.5555556 Concrete 0.16 1.7 0.0941176 Interior Rendering 0.01 0.7 0.0142857 Indoor 0.1 Σ 0.840 U= 1.190 Table B.2 U-value calculation for improved roof, with 10 cm added insulation.

Layer d λ R

[m] [W/mK] [(m2K)/W] Outdoor 0.04 Asphalt paper 0.002 0.3 0.0066667 EPS 0.1 0.04 2.5 Concrete 0.05 1.7 0.0294118 LECA 0.2 0.36 0.5555556 Concrete 0.16 1.7 0.0941176 Interior Rendering 0.01 0.7 0.0142857 Indoor 0.1 Σ 3.340 U= 0.299 Table B.3 U-value calculation for improved roof, with 20 cm added insulation.

Layer d λ R

[m] [W/mK] [(m2K)/W] Outdoor 0.04 Asphalt paper 0.002 0.3 0.007


70

EPS 0.2 0.04 5 Concrete 0.05 1.7 0.029 LECA 0.2 0.36 0.556 Concrete 0.16 1.7 0.094 Interior Rendering 0.01 0.7 0.014 Indoor 0.1 Σ 5.840 U= 0.171 Table B.4 U-value calculation for improved roof, with 30 cm added insulation.

Layer d λ R

[m] [W/mK] [(m2K)/W] Outdoor 0.04 Asphalt paper 0.002 0.3 0.0066667 EPS 0.3 0.04 7.5 Concrete 0.05 1.7 0.0294118 LECA 0.2 0.36 0.5555556 Concrete 0.16 1.7 0.0941176 Interior Rendering 0.01 0.7 0.0142857 Indoor 0.1 Σ 8.340 U= 0.120 Table B.5 U-value calculation for base case exterior wall.

Layer d λ R

[m] [W/mK] [(m2K)/W] Outdoor 0.04 Brick 0.25 0.6 0.4166667 Mineral Wool 0.065 0.04 1.625 Lightweight Concrete 0.065 0.12 0.5416667 Interior Rendering 0.01 1 0.01 Indoor 0.13 Σ 2.763 U= 0.362


71

Table B.6 U-value calculation for Improved exterior wall, with 10 cm added insulation.

Layer d λ R

[m] [W/mK] [(m2K)/W] Outdoor 0.04 Brick 0.25 0.6 0.4166667 EPS 0.1 0.04 2.5 Mineral Wool 0.065 0.04 1.625 Lightweight Concrete 0.065 0.12 0.5416667 Interior Rendering 0.01 1 0.01 Indoor 0.13 Σ 5.263 U= 0.190 Table B.7 U-value calculation for Improved exterior wall, with 20 cm added insulation.

Layer d λ R

[m] [W/mK] [(m2K)/W] Outdoor 0.04 Brick 0.25 0.6 0.4166667 EPS 0.2 0.04 5 Mineral Wool 0.065 0.04 1.625 Lightweight Concrete 0.065 0.12 0.5416667 Interior Rendering 0.01 1 0.01 Indoor 0.13 Σ 7.763 U= 0.129


72

Appendix C. Solar Study In order to be able to see the variation of the solar irradiation distribution over the year, simulations for monthly irradiation were performed and the output can be seen below.

Figure C Monthly solar irradiation over the year


73

Appendix D. Simulation Input Data Table D.1 Input data for all simulation cases used in Design Builder.

Base Case Improved cases Activity

Occupancy 0.02 ppl/m2 0.02 ppl/m2 Metabolic rate 1 1

DHW Consumption 2.3 l/m2 day 2.3 l/m2 day Heating setpoint/setback 22.5 °C /22.5 °C 21 °C/19 °C Fresh Air 0 7 l/person

Ventilation Rate 0.35 l/s/ m2 0.35 l/s/ m2

Internal Gains 3 W/m2 3 W/m2 Lighting- target illuminance 250 lux 250 lux Construction

Airtightness 0.9 l/s/ m2 0.9 and 0.6 l/s/ m2

ext wall U-value 0.4 W/m2 K 0.191 and 0.129 W/m2 K

roof U-value 1.19 W/m2 K 0.3; 0.171 and 0.12 W/m2 K

window U-value 2.9 and 1.7 W/m2 K 2.9 and 1.7 W/m2 K

basement wall U-value 1.0 W/m2 K 1.0 W/m2 K slab on the ground U-value 1.1 W/m2 K 1.1 W/m2 K Lighting

Sweden 3.4 W/m2- 100 lux 3.4 W/m2- 100 lux HVAC mech ventilation always on always on Heat recovery NO NO

heating always on

always on with a heating schedule for setback temperature

DHW Sweden- 65°C (10°C)/ occupancy based

Sweden- 65°C (10°C)/ occupancy based


74

Appendix E. Building Integrated Photovoltaic Systems Table E.1 Database with all photovoltaic modules considered in this study.

Prod

ucer

Prod

uct

LxW

/ m2

Mat

eria

l

No

of c

ells

Pow

er (P

MP

P)/ W

Vol

tage

(VM

PP)/

V

Cur

rent

(IM

PP)/

A

VO

C/ V

ISC

/ A

Effi

cien

cy (η

)/ %

T IS

C (α

) / (%

/C)

T V

OC

(β)/

(%/C

)

T P

MP

P (γ)

/ (%

/C)

TNO

CT/ °

C

Perf

gua

rant

ee

ASMS-270P 1.94x1.00 multi-c-Si 72 269.219 35.1 7.69 44.5 8.42 13.91 8.43E-02 -3.63E-01 -4.34E-01 45.4 25 yearsASMS-235M 1.64x1.00 mono-c-Si 60 234.98 31 7.58 37.3 8.24 14.33 3.85E-02 -3.36E-01 -4.90E-01 45.4 25 yearsHolding ON 225-60 1.657x1.00 multi-c-Si 60 225.147 29.9 7.53 36.7 8.18 13.59 8.00E-02 -3.70E-01 -1.08E+00 48.9 25 yearsHolding ON 250-60 1.657x1.00 multi-c-Si 60 249.888 30.4 8.22 37.2 8.74 15.08 8.00E-02 -3.70E-01 -4.80E-01 48.9 25 yearsSolarmodule Powerplus 225P1.564x1.00 multi-c-Si 60 226.24 29.23 7.74 36.43 8.24 14.47 5.89E-02 -3.33E-01 -4.30E-01 44.3 25 yearsPE 310P 1.938x1.00 multi-c-Si 72 310.025 37.04 8.37 46.2 8.69 16 4.00E-02 -3.00E-01 -4.50E-01 47.2 25 yearsPH 285P 1.927x1.00 multi-c-Si 72 286.706 35.66 8.04 44.77 8.86 14.88 8.99E-02 -4.14E-01 -4.35E-01 46.3 25 yearsPH 260P 1.626x1.00 multi-c-Si 60 260.51 31.05 8.39 38.53 8.72 16.02 9.62E-02 -4.14E-01 -4.37E-01 45.8 25 yearsPH 245M BL 1.626x1.00 mono-c-Si 60 245.779 30.12 8.16 37.94 8.61 15.12 8.99E-02 -4.12E-01 -4.43E-01 46.2 25 yearsS19H270 1.628x1.00 mono-c-Si 60 269.869 31.49 8.57 38.35 9.05 16.58 4.00E-02 -3.20E-01 -4.30E-01 45.6 25 yearsA18.245 1.628x1.00 multi-c-Si 60 245.828 30.2 8.14 38 8.59 15.1 4.70E-02 -3.25E-01 -4.59E-01 49 25 yearsM6L60-245 1.60x1.00 mono-c-Si 60 245.316 30.55 8.03 37.58 8.66 15.33 3.44E-02 -3.37E-01 -4.56E-01 44.5 25 yearsM6L60-265 1.60x1.00 mono-c-Si 60 265.307 31.03 8.55 38.26 8.86 16.58 3.44E-02 -3.37E-01 -4.56E-01 44.5 25 years

Alps TechnologyATI-M660-240 1.61x1.00 multi-c-Si 60 240.538 30.72 7.83 36.84 8.32 14.94 5.48E-02 -3.62E-01 -5.20E-01 50.2 25 yearsSM-250PC8 1.663x1.00 multi-c-Si 60 250.712 30.8 8.14 37.5 8.67 15.08 5.20E-02 -3.21E-01 -4.30E-01 47.4 25 yearsSM-295PC8 1.983x1.00 multi-c-Si 72 295.482 36.3 8.14 45 8.67 14.9 2.50E-02 -3.18E-01 -4.43E-01 44.2 25 yearsASEC 325-G6S 1.956x1.00 mono-c-Si 72 324.99 35.99 9.03 45.48 9.39 16.62 7.29E-02 -3.43E-01 -4.50E-01 51.4 25 yearsASEC 300-G6M 1.956x1.00 multi-c-Si 72 299.975 35.5 8.45 44.78 8.83 15.34 6.58E-02 -3.43E-01 -4.61E-01 50 25 years

Apos EnergyAP 240M 1.682x 1.00 multi-c-Si 60 244.838 30.72 7.97 37.5 8.46 14.56 4.22E-02 -3.70E-01 -5.42E-01 43.1 25 yearsA-300P 1.945x1.00 multi-c-Si 72 299.829 36.52 8.21 44.97 8.89 15.42 3.55E-02 -3.69E-01 -4.93E-01 45.4 25 yearsA-245P 1.629x1.00 multi-c-Si 60 244.652 29.37 8.33 37.38 8.82 15.02 5.70E-02 -3.64E-01 -4.87E-01 45.1 25 years

Avancis PowerMaxSTRONG 125 1.094x1.00 CIGS 104 124.96 44 2.84 59.3 3.22 11.42 7.61E-03 -5.23E-01 -3.65E-01 52.6 25 yearsAC-315M-156-72S 1.94x1.00 mono-c-Si 72 315.234 37.98 8.3 46.03 8.88 16.25 8.75E-02 -4.37E-01 -4.34E-01 44.4 25 yearsAC-295P-156-72S 1.94x1.00 multi-c-Si 72 295.005 35.5 8.31 45.45 8.86 15.21 8.50E-02 -3.69E-01 -4.39E-01 45.7 25 yearsAC-265M-156-60S 1.623x1.99 mono-c-Si 60 256.245 31.06 8.25 38.15 8.65 15.79 8.30E-02 -4.27E-01 -4.40E-01 44 25 yearsc-Si M 72 NA41126 305Wp1.956x1.00 mono-c-Si 72 305.095 37.9 8.05 46.3 8.47 15.6 5.00E-02 -3.60E-01 -5.10E-01 46.5 25 yearsc-Si P 72 NA41126 305Wp1.956x1.00 multi-c-Si 72 280.02 35.9 7.8 45.1 8.34 14.32 6.00E-02 -3.30E-01 -4.60E-01 49.4 25 yearsc-Si M 60 NA42117 255Wp1.58x1.99 mono-c-Si 60 255.064 30.51 8.36 38 8.92 16.14 7.90E-02 -3.49E-01 -4.65E-01 47.8 25 yearsBP4190T 1.254x1.00 mono-c-Si 72 189.952 37.1 5.12 45.3 5.56 15.15 9.80E-02 -3.65E-01 -4.52E-01 45 25 yearsBP3237T 1.67x1.00 multi-c-Si 60 236.964 29.4 8.06 36.7 8.6 14.19 7.90E-02 -3.30E-01 -4.63E-01 49.4 25 years

CentroSolar CP6240SW 1.61x1.00 multi-c-Si 60 240.063 28.75 8.35 36.53 8.7 14.91 1.23E-01 -3.53E-01 -4.44E-01 46.5 25 yearsGCS-225-P60-C7-0151.567x1.00 multi-c-Si 60 224.368 29.6 7.58 36.9 8.09 14.32 1.02E-01 -3.61E-01 -4.95E-01 47.4 25 yearsGCS-350-M80-240 2.142x1.00 mono-c-Si 80 349.59 43 8.13 51.5 9.4 16.32 9.00E-02 -3.60E-01 -5.10E-01 47.3 25 years

Cosmos EnergySL-230-20 1.597x1.00 multi-c-Si 60 236.21 29.9 7.9 37.2 8.24 14.79 5.68E-02 -3.91E-01 -5.55E-01 48.1 25 yearsDow ChemicalDPS-13-1000 0.127x1.00 CIGS 5 13.2 2.4 5.5 3.2 6.3 10.39 -5.08E-04 -3.60E-01 -5.13E-01 63.5 25 yearsEnp Sonne Solar Technikk ENP-M180MO 1.279x1.00 mono-c-Si 72 179.914 36.2 4.97 44.2 5.36 14.07 4.72E-02 -3.79E-01 -5.09E-01 44.4 25 years

ET-M572190WWZ 1.262x1.00 mono-c-Si 72 189.984 36.89 5.15 44.85 5.64 15.05 1.90E-02 -3.14E-01 -4.46E-01 48.3 25 yearsET-A-P660225B 1.635x1.00 multi-c-Si 60 230.124 29.39 7.83 36.99 8.42 14.07 6.56E-02 -3.34E-01 -4.79E-01 47.5 25 yearsET-A-M672305B 1.946x1.00 mono-c-Si 72 305.068 36.06 8.46 46.11 9.08 15.68 5.55E-02 -3.39E-01 -4.79E-01 47.3 25 yearsET-A-M672310WW1.94x1.00 multi-c-Si 72 310.353 37.71 8.23 45.8 8.79 16 4.10E-02 -3.46E-01 -4.46E-01 47.7 25 yearsEX-290PB 1.94x1.00 multi-c-Si 72 290.16 37.2 7.8 45.1 8.41 14.96 8.34E-02 -4.23E-01 -4.65E-01 46.1 25 yearsEX-235P 1.642x1.00 multi-c-Si 60 235.155 30.5 7.71 37 8.4 14.32 7.33E-02 -3.04E-01 -4.53E-01 46.7 25 years

Fire Energy FE5P-240M 1.70x1.00 mono-c-Si 96 243.512 48.8 4.99 59.3 5.4 14.32 8.90E-02 -3.74E-01 -4.76E-01 42.4 25 yearsFluitecnik FTS280P 1.834x1.00 multi-c-Si 72 279.986 35.13 7.97 44.73 8.56 15.27 8.32E-02 -4.00E-01 -5.48E-01 50.8 25 yearsGESOLAR GES-P270 1.937x1.00 multi-c-Si 72 279.856 35.38 7.91 44.5 8.52 14.45 5.28E-02 -3.60E-01 -4.79E-01 47.5 25 yearsGlobal Solar EnergyFG-1BTN-300 2.85x1.00 CIGS 108 298.65 54.3 5.5 69.7 6.4 10.48 4.00E-03 -3.65E-01 -4.80E-01 54.2 25 years

96M405 2.574x1.00 mono-c-Si 96 405.018 48.68 8.32 60 8.86 15.73 8.80E-02 -3.64E-01 -4.70E-01 46.9 25 years72M315 1.952x1.00 mono-c-Si 72 314.5 37 8.5 45.5 9 16.11 4.10E-02 -3.46E-01 -4.46E-01 50.1 25 yearsHEE275AU75 1.952x1.00 multi-c-Si 72 274.95 35.25 7.8 43.36 8.27 14.09 2.86E-02 -3.17E-01 -4.82E-01 47.5 25 years

alfasolar

Antaris Solar

Apollo Solar Energy

Atersa

AXITEC

Bosch Solar Energy

BP Solar

Colored Solar

ET Solar Industry

Exiom Solution

Helios Energy Europe

Electrical Data (NOCT)- 48°C (800W/m2; 20°C; wind 1m/s) Temperature Coefficients

Aavid Solar

Conergy

Aleo Solar


75

Solar Fractions of the analyzed energy systems are noted below. Table E.2 Solar fraction for the roof systems

Solar Fraction

Roof Systems

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 39% 39% 36% 40% 40% 45% 42% 45% 43% 46% 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

43% 43% 46% 39% 40% 42% 48% 44% 40% 43% 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

43% 35% 45% 44% 43% 43% 41% 44% 42% 39% 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

41% 39% 45% 42% 29% 39% 42% 39% 43% 45% 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

42% 38% 39% 43% 41% 30% 44% 43% 39% 38% 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

ITS270Nyz3 1.931x1.00 mono-c-Si 72 270.675 36.43 7.43 44.64 8.21 14.02 5.93E-02 -3.97E-01 -5.53E-01 47.1 25 yearsx235 1.635x1.00 multi-c-Si 60 236 29.5 8 36.9 8.5 14.43 3.70E-02 -3.87E-01 -5.35E-01 47.5 25 yearsISF-255 Black 1.594x1.00 mono-c-Si 60 255.543 30.9 8.27 37.9 8.86 16.03 5.50E-02 -3.50E-01 -4.50E-01 48.9 25 yearsISF-235 1.594x1.00 mono-c-Si 60 235.2 30 7.84 36.8 8.42 14.76 4.20E-02 -3.23E-01 -4.64E-01 44.3 25 yearsLG295N1C-G3 1.588x1.00 mono-c-Si 60 297.012 31.8 9.34 39.3 9.94 18.7 3.00E-02 -3.00E-01 -4.30E-01 43.5 25 yearsLG275N1W-G3 1.624x1.00 mono-c-Si 60 277.536 31.36 8.85 38.72 9.44 17.09 3.00E-02 -3.10E-01 -4.30E-01 46.5 25 years

Luxco LXP-2L285T 1.94x1.00 multi-c-Si 72 285.224 36.15 7.89 45.2 8.58 14.7 4.37E-02 -3.92E-01 -5.43E-01 46.5 25 yearsLX-290P-156-72+ 1.94x1.00 multi-c-Si 72 290.324 36.2 8.02 44.1 8.7 14.97 5.86E-02 -3.26E-01 -4.61E-01 46.3 25 yearsSolo Line 140P 1.002x1.00 multi-c-Si 36 140.015 17.48 8.01 22.57 8.97 13.97 6.05E-02 -3.39E-01 -4.88E-01 46.2 25 years235-6 PR 1.642x1.00 multi-c-Si 60 235.128 30.3 7.76 37.4 8.42 14.32 8.77E-02 -3.52E-01 -4.42E-01 47.1 25 yearsPowertech Plus 250-6 MH1.623x1.00 mono-c-Si 60 249.888 30.4 8.22 37.51 8.88 15.4 6.50E-02 -3.23E-01 -4.30E-01 47 25 years

Moser Baer PhotovoltaicMBPV CAAP BB 245 W1.646x1.00 multi-c-Si 60 245.875 30.85 7.97 37.77 8.37 14.94 8.50E-02 -3.64E-01 -5.03E-01 46.9 25 yearsPS295PB-24-T 1.94x1.00 multi-c-Si 72 296.756 36.3 8.12 45.4 8.58 15.19 5.70E-02 -3.53E-01 -4.54E-01 45.4 25 yearsPS295M-24-T 1.94x1.00 mono-c-Si 72 294.959 36.55 8.07 45.7 8.53 15.2 4.10E-02 -4.43E-01 -4.51E-01 45.4 25 yearsPS285MB-24-T 1.94x1.00 mono-c-Si 72 284.925 36.25 7.86 45.3 8.38 14.69 4.90E-02 -4.43E-01 -4.52E-01 45.3 25 years

REC ScanModuleSCM225 1.664x1.00 multi-c-Si 60 224.07 29.1 7.7 36.8 8.2 13.47 1.04E-02 -3.52E-01 -4.62E-01 50.5 25 yearsREC260PE(BLK) 1.587x1.00 multi-c-Si 60 260.95 30.7 8.5 37.8 9.01 16.44 3.58E-02 -3.37E-01 -4.47E-01 46.5 25 yearsREC245PE 1.587x1.00 multi-c-Si 60 245.224 30.2 8.12 37.2 8.68 15.45 2.49E-02 -2.97E-01 -4.25E-01 45.5 25 yearsSYP280M 1.94x1.00 mono-c-Si 72 279.84 35.2 7.95 44.8 8.33 14.42 4.90E-02 -4.28E-01 -5.58E-01 46.7 25 yearsSYP280P 1.94x1.00 multi-c-Si 72 279.84 35.2 7.95 44.8 8.33 14.42 4.70E-02 -3.96E-01 -5.32E-01 46.1 25 yearsMM185 1.341x1.00 mono-c-Si 48 185.651 23.68 7.84 29.78 8.51 13.84 8.60E-02 -2.88E-01 -4.25E-01 47.8 25 yearsMM285T 1.95x1.00 multi-c-Si 72 291.009 36.79 7.91 44.93 8.5 14.92 5.46E-02 -3.44E-01 -4.57E-01 46.2 25 yearsSKA225M60-WN 1.627x1.00 mono-c-Si 60 225.131 28.9 7.79 38.2 7.92 13.84 3.59E-02 -3.73E-01 -5.10E-01 52.1 25 yearsSKA225P60-WN 1.627x1.00 multi-c-Si 60 225.04 29 7.76 37.2 8.14 13.83 8.99E-02 -5.87E-01 -4.47E-01 44.2 25 yearsSKA240M60-WN 1.627x1.00 mono-c-Si 60 240.056 29.6 8.11 38.4 8.32 14.75 3.29E-02 -3.75E-01 -5.16E-01 51.8 25 yearsSKA240P60-WN 1.627x1.00 multi-c-Si 60 240.056 29.6 8.11 37.4 8.55 14.75 8.99E-02 -5.87E-01 -4.47E-01 44.2 25 years

Samsung SDI PV-MBA1CG2551.631x1.00 mono-c-Si 60 254.675 30.5 8.35 38.1 8.89 15.61 5.28E-02 -3.36E-01 -4.70E-01 44.8 25 yearsVBHN245SA11B 1.261x1.00 HIT-Si 72 245.422 44.3 5.54 53 5.86 19.46 3.00E-02 -2.40E-01 -3.00E-01 48.3 25 yearsVBHN215AA01B 1.247x1.00 HIT-Si 72 215.46 42 5.13 51.6 5.61 17.28 3.56E-02 -2.78E-01 -3.36E-01 46 25 years

Schuco InternationalMPE 235 PS03 1.577x1.00 multi-c-Si 60 235.2 29.4 8 37.1 8.5 14.91 8.00E-02 -3.39E-01 -4.41E-01 47.9 25 yearsSOLON Corvus 240 1.501x1.00 mono-c-Si 60 240.218 29.62 8.11 36.75 8.56 16 7.90E-02 -3.70E-01 -4.55E-01 51.6 25 yearsSOLON Black 280-09 2801.805x1.00 mono-c-Si 72 280.192 35.2 7.96 43.69 8.44 15.52 4.73E-02 -4.982 -5.23E-01 48.8 25 yearsSOLON Blue 270-09 2801.805x1.00 multi-c-Si 72 279.691 35.95 7.78 44.08 8.2 15.5 4.16E-02 -3.68E-01 -4.84E-01 47.4 25 yearsSPR-X21-255 1.182x1.00 mono-c-Si 72 254.66 42.8 5.95 51 6.3 21.54 4.00E-02 -2.40E-01 -3.00E-01 43.6 25 yearsSPR-230NE-BLK-D 1.244x1.00 mono-c-Si 72 230.04 40.5 5.68 48.2 6.05 18.49 3.90E-02 -2.52E-01 -3.31E-01 50.3 25 years

SweModule 255 x 1.635x1.00 multi-c-Si 60 253.98 30.6 8.3 38 8.8 15.53 3.70E-02 -3.87E-01 -5.35E-01 47.5 25 years

SunPower

Isofoton

LG Electronics

Luxor Solar

MAGE Solar

Phono Solar Technology

REC Solar

Risen Energy

Ritek

Saint Gobain Solar

Sanyo Electric of Panasonic Group

SOLON

Innotech Solar


76

40% 43% 40% 51% 47% 41% 41% 40% 38% 42% 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70

39% 43% 43% 42% 37% 45% 42% 41% 41% 37% 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80

42% 39% 38% 41% 40% 42% 54% 49% 41% 43% 81 82 83 84 85

41% 40% 60% 52% 42%

Table E.3 Solar fraction for the upper south façade systems

Solar Fraction

Upper south façade

Systems

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 5% 5% 4% 5% 5% 6% 6% 5% 5% 5% 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 5% 5% 5% 4% 5% 6% 6% 6% 5% 6% 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 5% 4% 6% 6% 5% 5% 6% 6% 6% 5% 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 5% 5% 6% 5% 4% 5% 5% 5% 6% 6% 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 6% 5% 5% 6% 6% 4% 5% 6% 5% 5% 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 5% 5% 5% 6% 6% 6% 6% 5% 5% 5% 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 5% 6% 5% 6% 4% 5% 5% 6% 6% 4% 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 6% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 7% 6% 6% 6% 81 82 83 84 85

6% 6% 7% 7% 5%

Table E.4 Solar fraction for the lower south façade systems

Solar Fraction

Lower south facade

Systems

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 5% 4% 4% 5% 4% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 5% 5% 5% 4% 5% 5% 6% 5% 4% 5%

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 5% 3% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 5% 4% 5% 5% 3% 4% 5% 4% 6% 5%

41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 5% 4% 4% 5% 5% 3% 4% 5% 5% 5%


77

51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 5% 5% 4% 6% 5% 5% 5% 4% 5% 5%

61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 5% 5% 5% 5% 4% 5% 5% 5% 5% 4%

71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 5% 5% 4% 5% 5% 5% 6% 5% 5% 5%

81 82 83 84 85 5% 5% 6% 6% 5%

Table E.5 Solar fraction for the total energy output- roof and south façade systems

Solar Fraction Overall Energy Systems

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 49% 48% 44% 49% 49% 57% 53% 55% 53% 57% 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 53% 52% 57% 48% 50% 53% 60% 56% 49% 54% 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 53% 43% 57% 55% 52% 54% 51% 55% 53% 48% 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 51% 48% 55% 51% 36% 49% 52% 48% 55% 56% 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 52% 47% 48% 54% 51% 36% 53% 54% 50% 48% 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 49% 53% 49% 63% 57% 52% 52% 49% 47% 52% 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 49% 54% 54% 52% 45% 55% 52% 52% 52% 46% 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 53% 49% 47% 51% 50% 52% 68% 60% 51% 54% 81 82 83 84 85

52% 52% 73% 65% 52%

Information regarding each BIPV system considered, the monthly (during the first year) and yearly (for the first 25 years) energy output.

1. Roof BIPV Systems

PV System 1 2 3 4 5

PV Module

Aavid Solar ASMS-270P

Aavid Solar ASMS-235M

Conergy Holding-C ON 225-60


Conergy SolarModule PowerPlus 225P

Module material Multi-c-Si Mono-c-Si Multi-c-Si Multi-c-Si Multi-c-Si Inverter SMA America Auxin Solar Aero-Sharp: Aero-Sharp: Aero-Sharp:


78

(Sandia) SB3000US 208V

AXU-PV3000U 208V

X01030L2E1 240V

X01030L2E1 240V

X01-040L2E1 240V

No of modules 340 400 400 400 420 No of inverters 23 22 20 23 16 Modules per string 10 10 10 10 10 No of strings 34 40 40 40 42 Total module area/ m2 659.6 656 662.8 662.8 656.9

Annual Energy kWh 74974 74544.4 69064.1 76516.9 75829.3

kWh/m2 floor area 12.31 12.24 11.34 12.56 12.45 kWh/m2 PV area 113.67 113.63 104.20 115.44 115.44

Monthly Energy/ kWh Jan 1008.62 977.494 829.005 911.348 961.215 Feb 2273.11 2239.57 2019.4 2230.22 2254.41 Mar 5464.06 5440.88 5032.57 5571.34 5514.4 Apr 8222.28 8209.19 7636.99 8462.76 8343.76 May 11837.6 11850.2 11060.8 12265.1 12053.7 Jun 12685.4 12675.6 11830.2 13120.7 12921.3 Jul 12178.4 12135.6 11323.9 12557 12388 Aug 9984.1 9908.06 9229.79 10232.8 10133.5 Sept 5881.57 5804.16 5377.37 5953.14 5926.09 Oct 3437 3369.2 3080.42 3405.02 3425.03 Nov 1251.51 1211.97 1050.87 1157.11 1205.85 Dec 750.261 722.448 592.922 650.365 701.898

PV System 6 7 8 9 10

PV Module Conergy PE 310P

Conergy PH 285P

Conergy PH 260P

Conergy PH 245M BL

Aleo Solar S19H270

Module material Multi-c-Si Multi-c-Si Multi-c-Si Mono-c-Si Mono-c-Si

Inverter (Sandia)

Auxin Solar: AXU-PV3000U 240V

Agepower AP 3000TL-US 277V

Auxin Solar AXU-PV3000U 208V


Xantrex Tech Inc GT30-208 V

No of modules 340 340 410 410 410


79

No of inverters 25 25 25 24 3 Modules per string 10 10 10 10 10 No of strings 34 34 41 41 41 Total module area/ m2 658.9 655.2 666.7 666.7 667.5

Annual Energy kWh 86023.2 80446.8 86398.4 82369.2 88618.9


Monthly Energy/ kWh Jan 1134.32 1062.45 1133.22 1086.67 1130.33 Feb 2593.05 2422.41 2587.41 2478.92 2626.74 Mar 6275.38 5864.1 6276.14 5999.18 6421.26 Apr 9455.8 8842.52 9482.66 9047.3 9730.21 May 13631.1 12757.1 13707.8 13050.5 14090 Jun 14596.6 13659.2 14694.2 13981.1 15112.9 Jul 13996.4 13092.6 14088.6 13408.5 14491.9 Aug 11451.8 10706.6 11524.4 10973.7 11852.8 Sept 6726.73 6282.69 6742.73 6441.7 6916.39 Oct 3914.09 3653.08 3914.04 3747.02 4000.09 Nov 1409.34 1317.39 1408.32 1350.23 1418.63 Dec 838.662 786.505 838.693 804.31 827.626

PV System 11 12 13 14 15

PV Module

Aleo Solar A18.245

alfasolar M6L60-245

alfasolar M6L60-265

Alps Tech ATI-M660-240

Antaris Solar SM-250PC8

Module material Multi-c-Si Mono-c-Si Mono-c-Si Multi-c-Si Multi-c-Si

Inverter (Sandia)

Topper Sun Energy Tech TS-S3000 208V



Solectria PVI 2500 208V


No of modules 410 410 410 410 400 No of inverters 23 23 25 26 27 Modules 10 10 10 10 10


80

per string No of strings 41 41 41 41 40 Total module area/ m2 667.5 656 656 660.1 665.2



Monthly Energy/ kWh Jan 1105.17 1077.28 1170.19 954.424 990.15 Feb 2508.54 2454.51 2664.77 2231.28 2305.34 Mar 6045.61 5938.94 6444.32 5458.15 5629.87 Apr 9086.79 8957.23 9717.86 8225.39 8513.43 May 13073.8 12922.3 14015.8 11856 12308.2 Jun 13990.2 13840.4 15012.4 12659.8 13192.1 Jul 13420.5 13265.7 14389.7 12116.9 12648.5 Aug 10985.1 10851.4 11773 9879.23 10341.8 Sept 6475.87 6363.57 6905.6 5801.41 6047.18 Oct 3780.66 3701.11 4017.48 3360.35 3498.39 Nov 1370.14 1336.37 1451.41 1189.75 1238.59 Dec 819.468 797.85 866.832 698.488 726.011

PV System 16 17 18 19 20

PV Module


Apollo Solar En ASEC-325G6S

Apollo Solar En ASEC-300G6M

APOS Energy AP 240M Atersa A-300P

Module material Multi-c-Si Mono-c-Si Multi-c-Si Multi-c-Si Multi-c-Si

Inverter (Sandia)

SolarEdge Tech Inc SE6000-208V



Resonix: EVSK3510WG 208V


No of modules 330 340 340 390 340 No of inverters 13 15 14 22 24 Modules per string 10 10 10 39 34 No of strings 33 34 34 10 10


81

Total module area/ m2 654.4 665 665 656 661.3

Annual Energy kWh 81180 92153.9 85036.6 76501.1 82366.6


Monthly Energy/ kWh Jan 1091.92 1246.03 1149.01 1010.43 1100.04 Feb 2460.2 2805.65 2589.7 2314.1 2496.62 Mar 5912.13 6732.93 6216.92 5610.46 6026.64 Apr 8902.87 10111.9 9336.48 8447.71 9068.29 May 12836.3 14554.1 13434.7 12156.5 13055.1 Jun 13753.8 15577.3 14375.2 12983.7 13960.4 Jul 13195 14953.8 13796 12420.4 13373.3 Aug 10805 12244.6 11293.9 10138.2 10931.7 Sept 6350.7 7228.09 6667.09 5958.03 6430.08 Oct 3707.69 4229.81 3900.93 3464.92 3748.27 Nov 1353.81 1545.28 1424.62 1249.93 1360.17 Dec 810.34 924.649 852.236 746.778 815.925

PV System 21 22 23 24 25

PV Module Atersa A-245P

Avancis PowerMax STRONG 125

AXITEC AC-315M-156-72S

AXITEC AC-295P-156-72S


Module material Multi-c-Si CIGS Mono-c-Si Multi-c-Si Mono-c-Si

Inverter (Sandia)


Advanced Solar Photonics PV240V

Refusol 12kW 480V

Resonio EVSK4700WG 208V


No of modules 340 610 340 340 410 No of inverters 24 14 7 18 28 Modules per string 34 61 34 34 41 No of strings 10 10 10 10 10 Total module area/ m2 667.9 667.3 659.6 659.6 665.4


82

Annual Energy kWh 82924.3 67675.6 87000 83876.8 81403.1

kWh/m2 floor area 13.61 11.11 14.28 13.77 13.36

kWh/m2 PV area 124.16 101.42 131.90 127.16 122.34

Monthly Energy/ kWh Jan 1105.3 939.92 1147.97 1094.78 1037.72 Feb 2517.45 2081.56 2594.98 2524.48 2419.3 Mar 6072.15 4943.02 6299.84 6125.3 5914.11 Apr 9129.9 7397.22 9539.24 9231.27 8953.67 May 13123.7 10612.3 13829.5 13288.4 12946.8 Jun 14037.8 11378 14824 14227.5 13878.5 Jul 13456.8 10952.7 14201.4 13645.2 13300.1 Aug 11012.8 9006.3 11602.6 11171.6 10874 Sept 6492.19 5347.01 6762.81 6573.03 6350.64 Oct 3787.51 3150.13 3921.7 3822.22 3669.68 Nov 1370.23 1163.53 1422.2 1366.53 1297.93 Dec 818.368 703.777 853.89 806.466 760.576

PV System 26 27 28 29 30

PV Module

Bosch Solar Energy c-SI M 72 NA41126 305Wp

Bosch Solar Energy c-SI P 72 NA21126 280Wp

Bosch Solar Energy c-Si M60 NA42117 225W

BP Solar BP4190T

BP Solar BP3237T

Module material Mono-c-Si Multi-c-Si Mono-c-Si Mono-c-Si Multi-c-Si

Inverter (Sandia)

SUNNA TECH LTD 5000TL-US-240 V


Kaco New Energy GmbH Blue Planet 3601xi 240V

OPTI-Solar GT 4000 208V

Kaco New Energy GmbH Blue Planet 3601xi 240V

No of modules 340 340 420 530 400 No of inverters 14 13 20 18 18 Modules per string 34 34 42 53 40 No of strings 10 10 10 10 10 Total module area/ m2 665 665 663.6 664.6 668

Annual Energy


83

kWh 83184.6 77892.5 84271.8 81030.2 74584.9 kWh/m2

floor area 13.65 12.79 13.83 13.30 12.24 kWh/m2 PV area 125.09 117.13 126.99 121.92 111.65

Monthly Energy/ kWh Jan 1104.69 1042.71 1067.13 1037.01 945.614 Feb 2518.28 2364.7 2511.44 2411.12 2225.72 Mar 6096.29 5700.37 6143.27 5900.06 5442.27 Apr 9172.25 8565.24 9283.26 8926.81 8216.54 May 13201.5 12320.5 13398.2 12903.1 11853.5 Jun 14103.9 13178.7 14348.2 13811.3 12690.2 Jul 13503.9 12641.3 13754.8 13224.4 12168.6 Aug 11028.7 10345.3 11244.4 10798.3 9947.52 Sept 6489.37 6102.77 6590.79 6311.81 5838.19 Oct 3779.99 3564.37 3813.17 3649.3 3380.26 Nov 1367.48 1292.9 1341.07 1295.09 1188.63 Dec 818.186 773.624 776.211 761.741 687.652

PV System 31 32 33 34 35

PV Module

CentroSolar Sonnenstromfabrik CP6240SW

Colored Solar CGS-225-P60-C7-015

Colored Solar CGS-350-M80-240

Cosmos Energy SL230-20

Dow Chemical DPS-13-1000

Module material Multi-c-Si Multi-c-Si Mono-c-Si

Multi-c-Si CIGS

Inverter (Sandia)

Kaco New Energy Blue Planet 2901xi240V


Ingeteam Energy SA INGECON SUN 6TL U 277V

Xantrex Tech Inc GT30-208V

Xantrex Tech XW4024-120-240-60 120 V

No of modules 410 420 310 420 5280 No of inverters 24 22 13 25 11 Modules per string 41 42 31 42 528 No of strings 10 10 10 10 10 Total module area/ m2 660.1 658.1 664 670.7 670.6

Annual Energy kWh 78925.5 74287 85822.4 79521.8 54849.5


84


Monthly Energy/ kWh Jan 1012.56 957.366 1122.67 1023.6 617.722 Feb 2363.03 2233.95 2573.88 2390.59 1645.27 Mar 5751.59 5438.37 6271.97 5838.24 4084.23 Apr 8682.05 8193.9 9467.01 8792.97 6113.46 May 12516.2 11794.8 13675 12649.8 8711.69 Jun 13411.9 12613.3 14606 13501.4 9293.81 Jul 12867.8 12088.3 13968.9 12925.9 8938.87 Aug 10534.2 9880.17 11383.7 10548.6 7312.9 Sept 6186.91 5813.86 6666.46 6213.61 4375.92 Oct 3589.5 3376.12 3866.14 3608.38 2530.74 Nov 1270.82 1197.92 1390.7 1281.29 817.81 Dec 738.867 698.772 829.787 747.342 407.144

PV System 36 37 38 39 40

PV Module Enp Sonne Solar T ENP-M180MO

ET Solar Industry ET-M572190WWZ

ET Solar Ind ET-A-P660225B

ET Solar Industry ET-A-M672305B

ET Solar Ind ET-P672310WW

Module material Mono-c-Si Mono-c-Si Multi-c-Si Mono-c-Si Multi-c-Si

Inverter (Sandia)

Topper Sun E T TS-S3000 208V



SunPower Corp (Original Mfg-PV Powered): SPR 3200 240V




kWh/m2 12.30 13.27 12.19 13.51 14.11


85

floor area kWh/m2 PV area 112.69 120.85 110.74 124.44 130.33

Monthly Energy/ kWh Jan 995.946 1078.86 965.325 900.779 1149.08 Feb 2267.33 2441.87 2238.37 2337.39 2595.49 Mar 5485.48 5893.84 5436.55 5961.21 6256.91 Apr 8259.49 8876.46 8183.54 9114.54 9429.62 May 11896 12805.6 11772.3 13240.5 13617.5 Jun 12715.5 13710.9 12591.9 14196.5 14585.6 Jul 12173.2 13146.9 12071.9 13602.1 13988.3 Aug 9942.65 10752.7 9873.61 11101.6 11440.9 Sept 5842.08 6314.24 5815.01 6430.6 6713.95 Oct 3400.88 3679.7 3380.41 3642.13 3913.31 Nov 1231.36 1335.66 1204.2 1180.21 1425.07 Dec 737.843 801.185 708.753 620.856 851.982

PV System 41 42 43 44 45

PV Module Exiom Solution EX-290PB

Exiom Solution EX-235P

Fire Energy FE5P-240M

Fluitecnik FTS280P

GESOLAR GES-P270

Module material Multi-c-Si Multi-c-Si Mono-c-Si Multi-c-Si Multi-c-Si

Inverter (Sandia)



Solectria PVI 5300-5300-P 208V

Topper Sun En Tech TS-S3000 208V

Solectria Renewables PVI10kW-208V


Annual Energy kWh 79686 72135 75030.4 82255.8 78112.8



86

Monthly Energy/ kWh Jan 1057.78 921.264 944.203 1116.64 936.177 Feb 2398.26 2148.4 2213.83 2527.28 2286.77 Mar 5799.1 5252.15 5444.61 6073.18 5698.04 Apr 8750.24 7940.84 8263.1 9084.15 8642.92 May 12645.5 11476.3 11971 13008.1 12488.8 Jun 13538.4 12290.5 12825 13868.5 13358.6 Jul 12974.1 11776.5 12276 13287.6 12793 Aug 10601.2 9621.17 10021.1 10858.4 10439.8 Sept 6212.09 5627 5834.96 6446.85 6101.87 Oct 3613.9 3254.18 3361.56 3778.86 3502.41 Nov 1312.02 1151.48 1183.88 1377.75 1193.95 Dec 783.14 675.058 691.318 828.748 670.695

PV System 46 47 48 49 50

PV Module

Global Solar Energy FG-1BTN-300

Helios Energy Europe 96M405


Helios Energy Europe HEE275AU75

Innotech Solar ITS270Nyz3

Module material CIGS Mono-c-Si Mono-c-Si Multi-c-Si Mono-c-Si

Inverter (Sandia)

Kostal Solar Electric Piko 5.3 US 230V

SunPower Corp Original SPR380-1f-1 UNI 240V

SunPower Corp Original SPR3200 240V


Resonix EVSK3510WG 208V




Monthly Energy/ kWh


87

Jan 770.61 1125.84 894.237 968.215 980.62 Feb 1745.91 2547.68 2324.52 2262.81 2230.62 Mar 4190.55 6156.18 5953.15 5520.56 5389.93 Apr 6258.58 9279.14 9126.65 8330.01 8091.87 May 8956.75 13389.8 13309 12014.4 11625.9 Jun 9554.65 14332.2 14283.4 12852.6 12400.3 Jul 9170.85 13737.3 13685.1 12314.4 11865.1 Aug 7505.25 11231.9 11159.1 10058.5 9680.7 Sept 4469.05 6592.45 6432.63 5901.65 5712.35 Oct 2625.47 3839.47 3631.54 3421.17 3333.05 Nov 955.634 1394.19 1172.79 1212.03 1209.8 Dec 571.214 835.842 616.115 705.332 726.651

PV System 51 52 53 54 55

PV Module Innotech Solar x235

Isofoton ISF-255 Black

Isofoton ISF-235

LG Electronics LG295N1C-G3

LG Electronics LG275N1W-G3

Module material Multi-c-Si Mono-c-Si Mono-c-Si Mono-c-Si Mono-c-Si Inverter (Sandia)






No of modules 410 420 420 420 410 No of inverters 26 29 27 34 31 Modules per string 41 42 42 42 41 No of strings 10 10 10 10 10 Total module area/ m2 670.4 669.5 669.5 667 665.8


kWh/m2 floor area 12.42 13.63 12.60 16.12 14.64

kWh/m2 PV area 112.88 123.98 114.65 147.26 133.97

Monthly Energy/ kWh Jan 985.809 1065.75 982.924 1263.98 1149.2 Feb 2291.97 2480.34 2292.12 2933.12 2666.69 Mar 5569.22 6050.93 5595.24 7140.55 6491.36 Apr 8367.5 9135.96 8455.03 10796.4 9805.19 May 12011.3 13188.7 12203.4 15589.6 14154.4 Jun 12822 14122.7 13068.6 16718.1 15172.5


88

Jul 12279.1 13538.7 12521.1 16029.8 14551.4 Aug 10029.9 11066.7 10234.9 13121 11908.1 Sept 5920.85 6486.06 5991.84 7676.14 6975.64 Oct 3444.52 3757.3 3467.86 4445.88 4043.06 Nov 1227.27 1331.93 1228.21 1579.61 1436.4 Dec 722.859 781.472 720.103 928.101 843.741

PV System 56 57 58 59 60

PV Module

Luxco LXP-2L285T

Luxor Solar LX-290P-156-72+

Luxor Solar Solo Line 140P

MAGE Solar 235-6 PR

MAGE Solar Powertech Plus 250-6-MH

Module material Multi-c-Si Multi-c-Si Multi-c-Si Multi-c-Si Mono-c-Si

Inverter (Sandia)

Solectria Renewables PVI10kW-480 V


HiQ Solar Mini3500-US 208V






Monthly Energy/ kWh Jan 1021.97 1048.02 944.497 934.254 1026.28 Feb 2382.15 2381.69 2269.51 2174.25 2382.59 Mar 5795.75 5762.75 5580.41 5306.18 5805.56 Apr 8719.75 8688.58 8433.11 8018.39 8771.79 May 12531.5 12539.5 12149.1 11581.6 12668.8 Jun 13376.8 13423.6 13000.6 12407.1 13578.4 Jul 12805.1 12863.6 12460 11894.8 13021.9 Aug 10452.7 10515.1 10184.5 9725.23 10653


89

Sept 6160.86 6166.73 5979.99 5695.07 6238.7 Oct 3581.36 3587.49 3452.36 3297.12 3614.24 Nov 1275.01 1298.05 1195.3 1168.18 1282.99 Dec 745.416 777.088 679.041 685.125 753.404

PV System 61 62 63 64 65

PV Module

Moser Baer PV MBPV CAAP BB 245W

Phono Solar Tech PS295PB-24-T

Phono Solar Tech PS295M-24-T

Phono Solar Tech PS285MB-24-T

REC ScanMosule SCM225

Module material Multi-c-Si Multi-c-Si Mono-c-Si Mono-c-Si Multi-c-Si

Inverter (Sandia)









Monthly Energy/ kWh Jan 970.842 986.587 987.592 944.676 911.049 Feb 2264.7 2406.62 2410.21 2313.27 2115.14 Mar 5530.03 5997.17 6006.55 5777.97 5143.27 Apr 8341 9114.24 9129.22 8788.25 7743.44 May 12021.1 13190.9 13213.7 12728 11147.7 Jun 12850.2 14127.7 14153.7 13634 11926 Jul 12303.7 13531.4 13557.3 13057.9 11439.2 Aug 10044.4 11047.9 11069.9 10659.2 9356.08 Sept 5895.22 6438.99 6451.02 6205.97 5510.63 Oct 3415.23 3690.32 3696.87 3552.9 3202.3


90

Nov 1210.8 1258.62 1260.27 1206.95 1138.21 Dec 711.2 707.757 708.274 676.102 668.524

PV System 66 67 68 69 70

PV Module

REC Solar REC260PE (BLK)

REC Solar REC245PE

Risen Energy SYP280M

Risen Energy SYP280P Ritek MM185

Module material Multi-c-Si Multi-c-Si Mono-c-Si Multi-c-Si Mono-c-Si

Inverter (Sandia)



Solectria Ren PVI10kW-208V

Solectria Ren PVI10kW-208V

PV Powered PVP1800 120V



kWh/m2 floor area 14.04 13.24 12.88 12.92 11.62

kWh/m2 PV area 128.33 121.04 118.94 119.35 105.54

Monthly Energy/ kWh Jan 1103.25 1036.91 949.727 951.178 752.192 Feb 2560.44 2408.49 2321.02 2322.89 1989.62 Mar 6233.56 5866.71 5771.43 5775.81 5100.27 Apr 9410.74 8866.3 8720.83 8737.57 7821.51 May 13577.7 12804.9 12543.3 12582.1 11394.1 Jun 14545.3 13729.4 13377.2 13433.3 12239.4 Jul 13945.1 13167.6 12794.8 12854.2 11735.5 Aug 11406.8 10776.2 10430 10484.9 9580.54 Sept 6686.41 6307.86 6130.62 6152.66 5528.26 Oct 3876.34 3654.05 3529.4 3539.6 3117.79 Nov 1377.81 1296.76 1207.25 1210.14 994.209 Dec 809.986 760.959 680.178 681.424 511.215

PV System 71 72 73 74 75


91

PV Module Ritek PM285T

Saint Gobain Solar SKA225M60-WN

Saint Gobain Solar SKA225P60-WN



Module material Multi-c-Si Mono-c-Si Multi-c-Si Mono-c-Si Multi-c-Si

Inverter (Sandia)






No of modules 340 410 410 410 410 No of inverters 7 25 25 26 26 Modules per string 34 41 41 41 41 No of strings 10 10 10 10 10 Total module area/ m2 663 667.1 667.1 667.1 667.1


kWh/m2 floor area 13.31 12.34 12.06 12.98 12.73

kWh/m2 PV area 122.30 112.71 110.14 118.52 116.21


PV System 76 77 78 79 80

PV Module

Samsung SDI PV-MBA1CG255

Sanyo El of P GR VBHN245SA11B

Sanyo El of P GR VBHN215AA01B

Schuco Int MPE 235 PS03

SOLON Corvus 240


92

Module material Mono-c-Si HIT-Si HIT-Si Multi-c-Si Mono-c-Si

Inverter (Sandia)


Solectria PVI 5300-P-240V





Annual Energy kWh 79841.4 104327 93058.9 78709.6 82755

kWh/m2 floor area 13.11 17.13 15.28 12.92 13.58

kWh/m2 PV area 119.40 156.11 140.81 118.84 125.31

Monthly Energy/ kWh Jan 1003.78 1354.73 1222.08 1011.17 1062.47 Feb 2360.01 3083.35 2773.93 2356.37 2477.71 Mar 5804.31 7485.94 6709.48 5739.94 6043.88 Apr 8801.23 11365.7 10157.6 8660.8 9113.57 May 12736.7 16526.3 14719 12486 13141.7 Jun 13635.7 17799.2 15831.6 13375.1 14064.2 Jul 13054 17107.7 15213.6 12830.4 13486.8 Aug 10654 14031.3 12481.3 10500.1 11024.7 Sept 6218.51 8153.42 7286.01 6166.27 6476.9 Oct 3582.65 4721.11 4232.18 3576.16 3755.8 Nov 1257.46 1694.13 1525.3 1266.38 1329.54 Dec 733.041 1004.2 906.576 740.583 778.014

PV System 81 82 83 84 85

PV Module

SOLON Black 280-09 280

SOLON Blue 270-09 280

SunPower SPR-X21-255

SunPower SPR-230NE-BLK-D

SweModule 255x

Module material Mono-c-Si Multi-c-Si

Mono-c-Si Mono-c-Si Multi-c-Si

Inverter Sonneteck Soleil Sonneteck Soleil Solectria SolarEdge Solectria


93

(Sandia) 2000 Sonneteck 2000 120V

2000 Sonneteck 2000 120V

7500 240V

Tech Inc SE6000-240V

PVI 2500 208V


Annual Energy kWh 77909.3 77470.2 114478 99371.1 81029.6


Monthly Energy/ kWh Jan 779.66 764.682 1481.93 1327.35 1053.37 Feb 2215.5 2184.45 3374.13 2966.73 2450.23 Mar 5700.3 5638.57 8200.87 7152.08 5959.34 Apr 8702.24 8635.3 12470.5 10826.3 8959.65 May 12582.9 12523.2 18148.7 15727.9 12870.1 Jun 13464.3 13423.5 19555.1 16910.4 13739.9 Jul 12886.4 12851.1 18787.6 16245.1 13155.1 Aug 10487.2 10462.5 15408 13308.8 10742.2 Sept 6103.22 6061.27 8933.86 7756.35 6334.11 Oct 3439.23 3405 5165.67 4510.67 3682.04 Nov 1055.27 1039 1852.9 1648.48 1311.18 Dec 492.747 481.394 1098.51 990.716 772.328

2. Upper South Façade BIPV Systems

PV System 1 2 3 4 5

PV Module






Module material Multi-c-Si Mono-c-Si Multi-c-Si Multi-c-Si Multi-c-Si Inverter SMA America Auxin Solar Aero-Sharp: Aero-Sharp: Topper Sun


94

(Sandia) SB3000US 208V

AXU-PV3000U 208V

X01030L2E1 240V

X01030L2E1 240V

Energy Tech TS-S3000 208V


Annual Energy kWh 10264.8 8782.57 7931.88 8871.48 10333 kWh/m2 floor area 1.68 1.44 1.30 1.46 1.70 kWh/m2 PV area 96.20 95.67 85.47 95.60 100.13 Monthly Energy/ kWh Jan 392.553 337.325 300.891 337.17 395.139 Feb 643.708 560.96 505.792 565.364 651.85 Mar 1006.89 875.822 796.188 889.095 1018.63 Apr 1097.58 945.023 857.606 958.313 1107.07 May 1235.05 1055.3 955.65 1068.56 1242.94 Jun 1185.46 1004.27 906.494 1014.36 1189.93 Jul 1187.84 1005.29 907.143 1015.19 1192.15 Aug 1197.38 1018.81 923.908 1032.89 1204.71 Sept 883.831 753.989 680.54 761.256 888.919 Oct 748.885 641.613 580.353 648.929 753.674 Nov 365.073 310.489 274.495 308.098 366.225 Dec 320.528 273.658 242.837 272.288 321.754

PV System 6 7 8 9 10

PV Module Conergy PE 310P Conergy PH 285P

Conergy PH 260P

Conergy PH 245M BL

Aleo Solar S19H270


Inverter (Sandia)

Kaco New Energy GmbH Blue Planet 3502 xi 240V






95

No of modules 55 55 55 56 56 No of inverters 4 4 4 4 4 Modules per string 11 11 11 8 8 No of strings 5 5 5 7 7 Total module area/ m2 106.6 106 89.4 91.1 91.2 Annual Energy kWh 11782.4 10908.5 9800.91 9483.17 10277.2 kWh/m2 floor area 1.93 1.79 1.61 1.56 1.69 kWh/m2 PV area 110.53 102.91 109.63 104.10 112.69 Monthly Energy/ kWh Jan 451.424 417.047 375.01 362.165 392.557 Feb 743.218 690.392 619.689 598.589 650.165 Mar 1161.75 1080 968.317 936.784 1016.18 Apr 1261.94 1170.71 1050.86 1016.99 1102.23 May 1416.84 1312.4 1178.83 1141.19 1236.28 Jun 1356.66 1253.49 1127.09 1091.25 1181.59 Jul 1359.08 1255.55 1129.09 1093.14 1183.95 Aug 1371.63 1270.23 1141.8 1105.34 1198.51 Sept 1013.54 937.974 842.914 815.729 883.851 Oct 859.875 796.424 715.087 692.21 749.691 Nov 418.569 385.403 347.152 335.152 363.128 Dec 367.829 338.941 305.049 294.612 319.089

PV System 11 12 13 14 15

PV Module

Aleo Solar A18.245

alfasolar M6L60-245

alfasolar M6L60-265




Inverter (Sandia)






No of modules 56 56 56 56 56 No of 4 4 4 4 5


96

inverters Modules per string 8 8 8 8 8 No of strings 7 7 7 7 7 Total module area/ m2 91.2 89.6 89.6 90.2 93.1

Annual Energy kWh 9519.55 9378.95 10198.3 8565.57 9068.77 kWh/m2 floor area 1.56 1.54 1.67 1.41 1.49 kWh/m2 PV area 104.38 104.68 113.82 94.96 97.41 Monthly Energy/ kWh Jan 364.663 358.817 390.472 330.128 345.011 Feb 600.78 594.632 646.059 547.118 573.438 Mar 940.704 929.221 1009.2 856.39 899.49 Apr 1020.66 1006.93 1094.35 922.496 974.432 May 1145.15 1127.92 1226.34 1029.22 1092.06 Jun 1095.1 1077.06 1171.77 978.018 1041.71 Jul 1096.69 1078.69 1173.53 978.502 1043.96 Aug 1107.17 1091.86 1187.12 990.414 1058.95 Sept 818.692 806.153 876.638 735.016 779.795 Oct 695.469 684.495 744.203 627.027 662.161 Nov 337.501 331.502 361.018 303.34 317.968 Dec 296.958 291.657 317.564 267.945 279.827

PV System 16 17 18 19 20

PV Module



Apollo Solar En ASEC-300G6M2000TL-US-240V



Inverter (Sandia)


SunPower Corp SPR3801f UNI 208V

SUNNA TECH 3000TL-US 240V



No of modules 55 55 55 56 55 No of inverters 3 4 5 4 4


97

Modules per string 11 11 11 8 11 No of strings 5 5 5 7 5 Total module area/ m2 109.1 107.6 107.6 94.2 107


PV System 21 22 23 24 25







Inverter (Sandia)


GE Energy GEPVe-2500-NA-240 V

Renesola Z Replus 4200MTLB-US 208V



No of modules 56 96 55 55 56 No of inverters 4 4 4 4 4 Modules per string 8 8 11 11 8


98

No of strings 7 12 5 5 7 Total module area/ m2 91.2 105 106.7 106.7 90.9


PV System 26 27 28 29 30

PV Module




BP Solar BP4190T

BP Solar BP3237T


Inverter (Sandia)

Shenzen Byd Auto BSG5000-U 240 V


SUNNA TECH LTD SUNNA 4200TL-US-240V

Renovo Power Systems RN3000US 240V




99

No of strings 5 5 6 7 7 Total module area/ m2 107.6 107.6 104.3 105.3 93.5 Annual Energy kWh 10424.9 10645.9 11456.5 10925.7 9059.7 kWh/m2 floor area 1.71 1.75 1.88 1.79 1.49 kWh/m2 PV area 96.89 98.94 109.84 103.76 96.90 Monthly Energy/ kWh Jan 398.049 408.552 438.802 419.461 347.033 Feb 662.128 672.57 726.567 694.529 573.036 Mar 1038.12 1052.63 1136.73 1083.28 897.42 Apr 1122.31 1141.29 1230.26 1172.61 972.179 May 1254.77 1280.14 1377.78 1312.87 1089.78 Jun 1195.06 1223.9 1314.67 1252.99 1040.73 Jul 1196.31 1225.67 1316.59 1254.97 1042.26 Aug 1211.96 1236.9 1332.02 1270.18 1053.25 Sept 895.433 915.457 984.632 938.936 778.973 Oct 762.002 777.997 836.962 797.317 662.054 Nov 366.144 378.108 404.976 387.695 320.691 Dec 322.616 332.718 356.481 340.905 282.279

PV System 31 32 33 34 35

PV Module






Module material Multi-c-Si Multi-c-Si Mono-c-Si Multi-c-Si CIGS

Inverter (Sandia)





Xantrex Tech XW4024-120-240-60 120 V



100

Total module area/ m2 90.2 103.4 102.8 89.4 111.8

Annual Energy kWh 9113.91 10125 10965.6 8984.7 7712.13 kWh/m2 floor area 1.50 1.66 1.80 1.47 1.27 kWh/m2 PV area 101.04 97.92 106.67 100.50 68.98 Monthly Energy/ kWh Jan 344.152 390.099 422.85 347.711 276.176 Feb 571.736 643.126 705.103 574.567 467.665 Mar 898.096 1004.52 1100.71 897.503 754.79 Apr 978.179 1087.12 1182.87 967.333 832.733 May 1100 1216.57 1316.81 1078.71 945.601 Jun 1053.96 1160.96 1248.48 1026.02 912.937 Jul 1055.55 1161.85 1248.94 1025.83 911.776 Aug 1065.15 1173.01 1267.3 1036.06 904.568 Sept 784.745 869.812 940.255 770.685 667.107 Oct 664.21 740.015 802.199 657.735 560.127 Nov 319.027 360.425 387.751 319.879 257.86 Dec 279.1 317.503 342.402 282.668 220.772

PV System 36 37 38 39 40

PV Module

Enp Sonne Solar T ENP-M180MO






Inverter (Sandia)





INGETEAM ENERGY Ingecon Sun 5U 240V



101

Total module area/ m2 103.6 102.2 91.6 107 106.7 Annual Energy kWh 9874.96 10453.1 8865.95 11953.6 11546.5 kWh/m2 floor area 1.62 1.72 1.46 1.96 1.90 kWh/m2 PV area 95.32 102.28 96.79 111.72 108.21 Monthly Energy/ kWh Jan 380.937 401.023 339.992 460.376 442.614 Feb 630.542 661.631 561.385 755.054 731.998 Mar 983.048 1033.96 878.612 1179.48 1144.22 Apr 1061.84 1120.7 951.811 1280.66 1239.02 May 1185.79 1256.64 1066.24 1436.42 1388.16 Jun 1129.67 1201.01 1018.13 1375.01 1325.36 Jul 1130.23 1203.03 1019.31 1376.47 1327.54 Aug 1142.98 1215.51 1029.83 1386.87 1342.99 Sept 847.585 898.806 762.047 1027.65 992.537 Oct 721.471 763.154 647.896 873.185 843.19 Nov 351.227 371.17 314.066 426.76 408.996 Dec 309.621 326.413 276.613 375.711 359.896 PV System 41 42 43 44 45

PV Module

Exiom Solution EX-290PB

Exiom Solution EX-235P

Fire Energy FE5P-240M

Fluitecnik FTS280P

GESOLAR GES-P270


Inverter (Sandia)






No of modules 55 56 56 60 55 No of inverters 3 4 3 5 4 Modules per string 11 8 8 10 11 No of strings 5 7 7 6 5 Total module 106.7 92 95.2 110 106.5


102

area/ m2

Annual Energy kWh 10892 8824.43 9113.83 11607.6 10635.4 kWh/m2 floor area 1.79 1.45 1.50 1.91 1.75 kWh/m2 PV area 102.08 95.92 95.73 105.52 99.86 Monthly Energy/ kWh Jan 414.716 337.551 348.148 450.087 407.44 Feb 690.41 560.603 580.67 738.404 673.246 Mar 1079.53 876.61 906.712 1154.01 1054.15 Apr 1170.38 948.055 980.127 1247.02 1143.19 May 1312.02 1061.27 1095.97 1393.74 1279.88 Jun 1253.13 1011.81 1044.26 1329.01 1222.05 Jul 1254.84 1013.51 1045.85 1328.74 1222.73 Aug 1267.47 1026.9 1061.06 1337.69 1235.2 Sept 936.41 758.408 782.995 996.445 913.585 Oct 793.233 644.352 665.114 849.964 776.397 Nov 384.017 311.363 320.845 415.571 376.237 Dec 335.797 273.976 282.104 366.911 331.346

PV System 46 47 48 49 50

PV Module

Global Solar Energy FG-1BTN-300





Module material CIGS Mono-c-Si Mono-c-Si Multi-c-Si Mono-c-Si

Inverter (Sandia)



Shenzen Byd Auto BSG5000-U 240V

SUNNA TECH SUNNA 3000TL-US-240 V




103


PV System 51 52 53 54 55



Isofoton ISF-235



Module material Multi-c-Si Mono-c-Si Mono-c-Si Mono-c-Si Mono-c-Si

Inverter (Sandia)







Annual Energy kWh 8694.01 10055.8 9236.32 11825.9 10565.4 kWh/m2 1.43 1.65 1.52 1.94 1.73


104

floor area kWh/m2 PV area 94.91 105.19 96.61 124.09 118.31 Monthly Energy/ kWh Jan 334.165 383.882 352.874 450.444 404.308 Feb 553.537 635.785 585.02 744.991 665.859 Mar 867.087 995.854 916.537 1167.51 1040.71 Apr 937.677 1080.81 993.648 1269.6 1132.4 May 1045.89 1210.76 1111.98 1424.44 1271.29 Jun 995.265 1156.07 1060.66 1362.38 1217.59 Jul 994.781 1157.29 1061.55 1364.3 1219.27 Aug 1006.13 1171.23 1074.71 1380.09 1230.82 Sept 745.596 864.144 793.359 1016.89 908.614 Oct 635.436 733.524 673.99 862.236 769.984 Nov 307.078 354.48 325.376 416.618 375.046 Dec 271.387 312.004 286.636 366.415 329.488

PV System 56 57 58 59 60

PV Module Luxco LXP-2L285T



MAGE Solar 235-6 PR


Module material Multi-c-Si Multi-c-Si Multi-c-Si Multi-c-Si Mono-c-Si

Inverter (Sandia)



HiQ Solar Mini3500-US 208V




Annual Energy kWh 11094.7 11116.5 9697.62 9225.07 9869.7 kWh/m2 floor area 1.82 1.82 1.59 1.51 1.62 kWh/m2 103.98 104.18 96.78 93.66 101.33


105

PV area


PV System 61 62 63 64 65

PV Module







Inverter (Sandia)



Shenzhen Byd Auto BSG5000U 240V




Annual Energy kWh 9587.59 11191.5 10321.5 10853.2 8344.63 kWh/m2 floor area 1.57 1.84 1.69 1.78 1.37 kWh/m2 PV area 97.04 104.89 96.73 101.72 89.53


106


PV System 66 67 68 69 70

PV Module

REC Solar REC260PE (BLK)

REC Solar REC245PE


Risen Energy SYP280P Ritek MM185


Inverter (Sandia)



SUNNA TECH 4200TL-US-240

SUNNA TECH 4200TL-US-240


No of modules 60 60 55 55 72 No of inverters 5 5 3 3 6 Modules per string 10 10 11 11 9 No of strings 6 6 5 5 8 Total module area/ m2 95.2 95.2 106.7 106.7 96.6 Annual Energy kWh 10341.9 9727.4 10762.2 10784.5 8576.5 kWh/m2 floor area 1.70 1.60 1.77 1.77 1.41 kWh/m2 PV area 108.63 102.18 100.86 101.07 88.78 Monthly Energy/ kWh Jan 394.774 370.199 417.002 416.694 315.09 Feb 652.808 612.58 685.507 684.934 534.962


107

Mar 1022.6 960.447 1070.39 1070.11 848.878 Apr 1110.88 1044.31 1158.2 1159.5 925.959 May 1245.24 1171.87 1292.7 1295.97 1040.94 Jun 1190.06 1120.68 1232.61 1237.12 995.345 Jul 1191.38 1122.42 1231.35 1236.47 997.19 Aug 1204.9 1135.75 1240.13 1245.6 1013.2 Sept 888.91 836.524 922.97 925.472 738.58 Oct 754.317 709.238 786.768 787.991 623.717 Nov 364.884 342.345 384.781 384.958 289.688 Dec 321.117 301.059 339.81 339.619 252.94

PV System 71 72 73 74 75







Inverter (Sandia)







Annual Energy kWh 10894.7 9087.02 8782.67 9562.96 9276.8 kWh/m2 floor area 1.79 1.49 1.44 1.57 1.52 kWh/m2 PV area 101.53 99.75 96.41 104.97 101.83 Monthly Energy/ kWh Jan 418.001 349.248 334.911 368.065 354.083 Feb 689.685 572.204 552.737 604.15 585.149 Mar 1078.44 895.976 866.061 945.065 916.135 Apr 1169.98 975.243 942.329 1027.03 995.773


108

May 1310.47 1093.43 1057.87 1150.22 1117.05 Jun 1251.84 1047.18 1012.44 1100.21 1068.21 Jul 1252.91 1047.02 1013.67 1099.96 1069.45 Aug 1265.82 1053.43 1023.9 1107.59 1080.96 Sept 936.152 780.828 755.407 821.346 797.701 Oct 794.646 663.585 640.563 698.343 676.543 Nov 386.715 323.615 310.16 340.674 327.706 Dec 340.109 285.243 272.604 300.296 288.03

PV System 76 77 78 79 80

PV Module





SOLON Corvus 240


Inverter (Sandia)







Annual Energy kWh 9569.3 13556.5 12067.2 10843.3 10922.5 kWh/m2 floor area 1.57 2.23 1.98 1.78 1.79 kWh/m2 PV area 104.81 132.78 119.48 104.16 110.22 Monthly Energy/ kWh Jan 366.098 510.393 455.502 415.107 418.886 Feb 608.04 844.518 752.467 682.466 689.892 Mar 950.816 1323.24 1179.25 1067.25 1078.59 Apr 1029.72 1447.49 1289.41 1162.06 1172.05 May 1151.82 1634.98 1455.15 1304.95 1313.94 Jun 1097.42 1572.46 1398.88 1250.32 1256.73


109

Jul 1098.11 1578.85 1403.64 1251.79 1257.89 Aug 1112.03 1599.01 1419.79 1262.59 1270.03 Sept 822.113 1169.39 1040.43 932.596 938.833 Oct 698.352 985.215 877.689 790.514 796.46 Nov 337.786 475.619 424.142 385.208 388.011 Dec 296.991 415.379 370.843 338.473 341.147 PV System 81 82 83 84 85

PV Module





SweModule 255x


Inverter (Sandia)



SunPower SPR-3000m-240V




Annual Energy kWh 11555 11465.7 13911.1 12955.7 9765.78 kWh/m2 floor area 1.90 1.88 2.28 2.13 1.60 kWh/m2 PV area 106.69 105.87 145.36 128.53 106.61 Monthly Energy/ kWh Jan 446.318 441.101 522.68 489.478 376.96 Feb 735.698 728.162 868.58 811.298 622.461 Mar 1148.23 1137.03 1361.21 1269 971.885 Apr 1242.97 1232.18 1486.82 1385.25 1051.32 May 1388.39 1378.41 1678.06 1562.05 1173.54 Jun 1324.02 1315.69 1611.5 1499.87 1118.3 Jul 1323.51 1316.18 1618.34 1505.17 1117.69


110

Aug 1335.19 1329.22 1642.46 1522.55 1128.26 Sept 991.431 984.52 1199.78 1116.43 837.716 Oct 843.772 836.593 1011.09 940.827 713.317 Nov 412.062 407.664 486.073 456.184 347.615 Dec 363.383 358.965 424.517 397.551 306.694

3. Lower South Façade BIPV System

PV System 1 2 3 4 5

PV Module







Inverter (Sandia)

SMA America SB3000US 208V




Aero-Sharp: X01-030L2E1 240V


Annual Energy kWh 9144.19 8461.56 8146.34 9059.75 7985.83 kWh/m2 floor area 1.50 1.39 1.34 1.49 1.31 kWh/m2 PV area 94.27 93.81 89.42 99.45 91.16 Monthly Energy/ kWh Jan 305.296 283.433 272.577 303.599 258.954 Feb 556.241 523.991 502.189 558.478 489.081 Mar 913.335 858.299 824.554 916.252 810.624 Apr 999.263 930.289 894.715 994.605 881.589 May 1124.68 1039.51 1001.42 1113.38 986.227


111

Jun 1079.14 989.773 954.454 1061.64 939.2 Jul 1081.33 990.664 955.504 1062.79 940.698 Aug 1090.37 1003.04 966.085 1074.24 958.246 Sept 799.466 738.031 711.031 790.695 697.512 Oct 679.527 629.882 606.838 674.668 594.62 Nov 299.484 276.006 265.753 296.114 251.386 Dec 216.067 198.623 191.21 213.269 177.714

PV System 6 7 8 9 10 PV Module

Conergy PE 310P

Conergy PH 285P

Conergy PH 260P

Conergy PH 245M BL

Aleo Solar S19H270


Inverter (Sandia)

Auxin Solar: AXU-PV3000U 240V






Annual Energy kWh 10474.5 9618.2 9585.78 9135.5 9897.34 kWh/m2 floor area 1.72 1.58 1.57 1.50 1.62 kWh/m2 PV area 108.10 99.77 107.22 102.19 110.58 Monthly Energy/ kWh Jan 350.024 319.908 319.705 304.743 330.227 Feb 641.344 588.638 587.609 558.987 607.044 Mar 1052.87 967.095 963.92 917.727 995.202 Apr 1147.54 1054.16 1050.38 1000.75 1084.28 May 1287.98 1183.52 1178.83 1123.66 1216.82 Jun 1232.09 1131.67 1127.09 1074.99 1163.57 Jul 1233.95 1133.71 1129.09 1076.77 1165.8


112

Aug 1245.94 1146.31 1141.74 1087.82 1179.14 Sept 914.883 840.439 837.349 798.118 864.486 Oct 779.043 715.211 712.536 679.285 735.42 Nov 342.262 312.811 312.572 298.067 322.873 Dec 246.635 224.758 224.925 214.578 232.453

PV System 11 12 13 14 15

PV Module Aleo Solar A18.245

alfasolar M6L60-245

alfasolar M6L60-265




Inverter (Sandia)






No of modules 55 55 55 55 55 No of inverters 4 4 4 4 4 Modules per string 11 11 11 11 11 No of strings 5 5 5 5 5 Total module area/ m2 89.5 88 88 88.6 91.5

Annual Energy kWh 9170.74 9035.02 9821.08 8569.33 9142.96 kWh/m2 floor area 1.51 1.48 1.61 1.41 1.50 kWh/m2 PV area 102.47 102.67 111.60 96.72 99.92 Monthly Energy/ kWh Jan 307.039 301.823 328.534 288.351 304.755 Feb 561.026 555.331 603.173 531.849 560.729 Mar 921.564 910.352 988.383 872.03 920.242 Apr 1004.39 990.89 1076.55 942.807 1001.89 May 1127.56 1110.66 1207.07 1052.3 1124.35 Jun 1078.8 1061.09 1153.93 1000.4 1074.57 Jul 1080.3 1062.62 1155.57 1000.84 1076.69 Aug 1089.64 1074.62 1167.95 1012.01 1089.09


113

Sept 801.034 788.816 857.442 747.125 798.699 Oct 682.478 671.756 730.046 639.042 679.748 Nov 300.275 294.782 321.006 280.466 297.905 Dec 216.62 212.255 231.409 202.096 214.262

PV System 16 17 18 19 20

PV Module



Apollo Solar En ASEC-300G6M



Inverter (Sandia)


SunPower Corp SPR3801f UNI 208V

SUNNA TECH 3000TL-US 240V




Annual Energy kWh 9166.66 10979.2 10067.1 8078.01 10038.9 kWh/m2 floor area 1.50 1.80 1.65 1.33 1.65 kWh/m2 PV area 96.29 112.26 102.94 96.05 103.17 Monthly Energy/ kWh Jan 303.508 366.539 334.907 271.448 337.63 Feb 560.991 669.044 616.178 502.621 619.174 Mar 923.673 1100.43 1015.06 822.579 1013.72 Apr 1006.45 1201.16 1104.49 890.032 1101.69 May 1128.76 1350.77 1239.04 991.919 1232.88 Jun 1078.26 1294.06 1183.54 942.828 1176.72 Jul 1080.12 1296.36 1185.34 942.785 1177.6 Aug 1093.9 1306.64 1197.58 954.577 1189.27 Sept 800.731 959.684 879.455 703.812 875.779 Oct 681.91 816.809 749.925 601.825 747.043


114

Nov 296.156 359.071 326.993 263.674 329.402 Dec 212.23 258.67 234.662 189.898 237.924

PV System 21 22 23 24 25







Inverter (Sandia)


GE Energy GEPVe-2500-NA-240 V

Renesola Z Replus 4200MTLB-US 208V

Resonio EVSK4700WG 208V


No of modules 55 80 50 50 55 No of inverters 4 4 3 3 4 Modules per string 11 8 10 10 11 No of strings 5 10 5 5 5 Total module area/ m2 89.6 87.5 97 97 89.3



115

PV System 26 27 28 29 30

PV Module




BP Solar BP4190T

BP Solar BP3237T


Inverter (Sandia)









116

PV System 31 32 33 34 35

PV Module






Module material Multi-c-Si Multi-c-Si Mono-c-Si Multi-c-Si CIGS

Inverter (Sandia)





Xantrex Tech XW4024-120-240-60 120 V



PV System 36 37 38 39 40


117

PV Module

Enp Sonne Solar T ENP-M180MO






Inverter (Sandia)





INGETEAM ENERGY Ingecon Sun 5U 240V

No of modules 72 72 55 50 50 No of inverters 4 4 4 4 3 Modules per string 9 9 11 10 10 No of strings 8 8 5 5 5 Total module area/ m2 92.1 90.9 89.9 97.3 97


PV System 41 42 43 44 45 PV Exiom Exiom Fire Energy Fluitecnik GESOLAR


118

Module Solution EX-290PB

Solution EX-235P

FE5P-240M FTS280P GES-P270


Inverter (Sandia)






No of modules 50 55 50 54 50 No of inverters 3 4 2 5 4 Modules per string 10 11 10 9 10 No of strings 5 5 5 6 5 Total module area/ m2 97 90.3 85 99 96.9 Annual Energy kWh 9687.11 8502.33 7970.23 10172.2 9401.84 kWh/m2 floor area 1.59 1.40 1.31 1.67 1.54 kWh/m2 PV area 99.87 94.16 93.77 102.75 97.03 Monthly Energy/ kWh Jan 320.441 283.693 265.091 343.122 312.647 Feb 595.653 523.654 491.268 627.639 576.82 Mar 977.968 859.025 806.05 1031.02 949.587 Apr 1064.34 933.23 875.746 1118 1033.75 May 1193.48 1045.32 980.218 1249.63 1157.63 Jun 1139.63 997.131 934.692 1190.69 1104.81 Jul 1141.1 998.684 936.057 1190.52 1105.5 Aug 1152.88 1010.94 948.607 1199.59 1117.44 Sept 845.932 742.307 695.847 887.114 820.528 Oct 718.615 632.539 592.869 759.197 699.535 Nov 313.456 276.816 258.584 334.203 304.944 Dec 223.609 198.985 185.23 241.459 218.688

PV System 46 47 48 49 50

PV Module

Global Solar Energy FG-1BTN-






119

300 Module material CIGS Mono-c-Si Mono-c-Si Multi-c-Si Mono-c-Si

Inverter (Sandia)

OPTI-Solar GT 4000 208V

SunPower Corp Original SPR380-1f-1 UNI 240V

SunPower Corp Original SPR3200 240V

SUNNA TECH SUNNA 3000TL-US-240 V




PV System 51 52 53 54 55



Isofoton ISF-235




120

Module material Multi-c-Si Mono-c-Si Mono-c-Si Mono-c-Si Mono-c-Si

Inverter (Sandia)








PV System 56 57 58 59 60

PV Module

Luxco LXP-2L285T



MAGE Solar 235-6 PR


Module material Multi-c-Si Multi-c-Si Multi-c-Si Multi-c-Si Mono-c-Si Inverter SolarEdge Topper Sun En HiQ Solar Topper Sun En Topper Sun En


121

(Sandia) Tech Inc SE5000-240V

Tech TS-S3000 208V

Mini3500-US 208V

Tech TS-S3000 208V

Tech TS-S3000 240V

No of modules 50 50 90 55 55 No of inverters 3 4 3 4 4 Modules per string 10 10 10 11 11 No of strings 5 5 9 5 5 Total module area/ m2 97 97 90.2 90.3 89.3


PV System 61 62 63 64 65

PV Module







Inverter (Sandia)







122

No of modules 55 50 50 50 55 No of inverters 4 4 4 4 4 Modules per string 11 10 10 10 11 No of strings 5 5 5 5 5 Total module area/ m2 82.3 97 97 97 91.5

Annual Energy kWh 8964.2 9964.4 9981.26 9612.72 8352.59 kWh/m2 floor area 1.47 1.64 1.64 1.58 1.37 kWh/m2 PV area 108.92 102.73 102.90 99.10 91.29 Monthly Energy/ kWh Jan 300.867 332.563 333.098 320.561 278.706 Feb 553.817 609.81 610.578 588.337 511.312 Mar 907.583 1001.63 1002.91 966.576 840.014 Apr 985.955 1092.89 1094.54 1054.49 916.449 May 1101.84 1226.11 1228.19 1182.97 1027.91 Jun 1050.07 1172.75 1175 1131.3 982.865 Jul 1050.09 1173.85 1176.16 1132.41 983.656 Aug 1061.12 1185 1187.25 1143.49 993.105 Sept 781.522 869.989 871.514 839.31 729.22 Oct 666.768 740.457 741.648 714.33 620.803 Nov 293.232 325.216 325.795 313.422 272.438 Dec 211.323 234.168 234.605 225.558 196.105

PV System 66 67 68 69 70

PV Module REC Solar REC260PE(BLK)

REC Solar REC245PE


Risen Energy SYP280P

Ritek MM185


Inverter (Sandia)






No of modules 56 56 50 50 70 No of inverters 5 5 4 4 6


123

Modules per string 8 8 10 10 10 No of strings 7 7 5 5 7 Total module area/ m2 88.9 88.9 97 97 93.9


PV System 71 72 73 74 75







Inverter (Sandia)








124

No of strings 5 5 5 5 5 Total module area/ m2 97.5 89.5 89.5 89.5 89.5


PV System 76 77 78 79 80

PV Module





SOLON Corvus 240


Inverter (Sandia)








125

Total module area/ m2 89.7 90.8 89.8 88.3 84.1


PV System 81 82 83 84 85

PV Module





SweModule 255x


Inverter (Sandia)



SunPower SPR-3000m-240V



No of modules 54 54 72 72 55 No of inverters 5 4 6 3 4 Modules per string 9 9 9 9 11 No of strings 6 6 8 8 5 Total module 97.5 97.5 85.1 89.6 89.9


126

area/ m2

Annual Energy kWh 10126.1 10101.7 12054 11257.8 9404.43 kWh/m2 floor area 1.66 1.66 1.98 1.85 1.54 kWh/m2 PV area 103.86 103.61 141.65 125.65 104.61 Monthly Energy/ kWh Jan 340.063 338.932 393.086 370.744 317.161 Feb 625.406 621.647 729.675 683.789 581.165 Mar 1025.84 1019.07 1201.57 1122.14 951.954 Apr 1114.35 1109.26 1317.16 1229.86 1034.39 May 1244.8 1241.78 1486.86 1387.39 1155.34 Jun 1186.2 1185.65 1427.13 1331.97 1101.48 Jul 1185.8 1186.13 1433.26 1336.69 1100.82 Aug 1197.34 1197.52 1455.77 1352.36 1110.26 Sept 882.628 881.158 1055.72 984.932 819.514 Oct 753.64 750.981 892.503 832.347 699.872 Nov 331.239 330.88 386.182 364.802 309.068 Dec 238.815 238.698 275.04 260.79 223.389


127

Dept of Architecture and Built Environment: Division of Energy and Building Design

Dept of Building and Environmental Technology: Divisions of Building Physics and Building Services

RENOVATING BUILDINGS THROUGH EN- ERGY ROOF AND …RENOVATING BUILDINGS THROUGH EN-ERGY ROOF AND...

Documents

Transcript of RENOVATING BUILDINGS THROUGH EN- ERGY ROOF AND …RENOVATING BUILDINGS THROUGH EN-ERGY ROOF AND...