/Department of the Built Environment

/Unit Building Physics and Services

7LY3M0 – Building performance and energy systems simulation

Week [Link] 1
Action: Describe the difference between 'delivered energy' and 'energy consumed by
building technical systems', and discuss why a building that is designed for net-zero
energy demand might not lead to the same performance (CO2 emission reduction) as a
net-zero delivered energy building. What is the role of local energy storage and why is
self-consumption of onsite renewable energy so important?
Use a combination of the sources below, complemented with your own literature review.
Student A considers the questions from a macro perspective (e.g. macro-economics,
electricity grid planning, national greenhouse gas emissions). Student B considers the
questions from a micro perspective (e.g. payback time, occupant comfort and investment
costs).
In part C, both viewpoints come together, while discussing overlaps and possible
inconsistencies.

Student A:
In order to evaluate the potential difference in performance between budlings designed
for net-zero energy demand end net-zero delivered energy buildings it is first necessary
to describe the difference between ‘delivered energy’ and ‘energy consumed by building
technical systems’. Delivered energy is higher than consumed energy, as transport and
conversion losses need to be accounted for. Second, it is of interest to explain the concept
of net-zero energy buildings (ZEB) and nearly zero energy buildings (nZEB). Hirvonen et
al. (2016) describe ZEBs as buildings where the annual primary energy demand is equal
to the annual energy generation on site, a definition that can be broadened to include a
community of buildings. They further describe nZEBs as buildings where renewable
production is not equal to demand, potentially causing energy disbalances in the grid.
This led to the introduction of the zero energy level (ZEL) concept, whereby a comparison
is drawn between the energy demand and renewable energy generation an individual
building or a community has. Hereby it is of interest to mention that we are looking at
very regional localized levels as of now (Hirvonen et al., 2016).

All of the papers analyzed considered photo voltaics (PV), as they are an easy to
implement on-site renewable energy source. Taking a further look at the ZEL in
particular, one can recognize that especially in geographical regions where there are
large differences in solar radiation throughout the year due to different seasons, creating
the potential for demand and production mismatch. Network operators may select a
maximum monthly capacity that they allow to be fed-back into the grid to avoid
unbalancing the grid and the market. Oftentimes homeowner will make losses, as they
receive less money for the energy they feed-in compared to the price the end user pays,

1
or, during certain peak hours of the day, they may even have to pay to be able to feed into
the grid. Hirvonen et al. (2016) state, for the case of Finland, that an economic advantage
can only achieved when using the energy on-site. Self-consumption is indeed the most
efficient way of energy usage, in particular if network operators limit the excess power
they purchase monthly. In theory there are two potential storage options, namely
batteries or thermal energy storage. Fares et al. (2017) state that while storage is not
necessary for the integration of PVs with the grid they recognize that they are useful tool
for the management of peak power demand and reduction of peak power injections.
Battery storage is probably the most straight forward answer that comes to mind when
considering the storage of excess energy. Telsa, with the introduction of the Powerwall,
is an example of a company that offers such a storage system (TESLA, n.d.) that can be
effectively used for small scale peak shaving. Further, they introduce two battery modes,
the ‘target zero’ and ‘minimize power’, where the former prioritizes instantaneous
independence and the latter average independence from the grid, highlighting an
advantage of battery storage. However, they also consider disadvantages, such as
increased energy consumption over time, as batteries are subjected to (self-)discharge
energy being consumed during the (dis-)charge cycle. Additionally, there is additional
grid emission of greenhouse gasses such as CO2, NOx and SO2, which differs between the
two battery operation modes presented, due to additional energy being consumed in the
storage process and the time shift it causes in the demand, which influences generator
usage on a grid level. Here it is important to mention that this is also taking into
consideration the local energy mix and not solely the on-site energy production with PVs.
Regardless, storage offers economic benefits if the feed-in tariff is lower than what is
charged for consumption, even if it results in a higher overall consumption (Fares &
Webber, 2017). Another alternative is that of thermal storage by i.e. district heating (DH),
heat pump heating (HP) and direct electric heating (EH), which can be solutions on a
district or individual level. The different systems offer different economic benefits
depending on the installed PV capacity (Hirvonen et al., 2016).

Overall, greenhouse gas emissions may be increased by storage. However, there is a

heavy dependence on the electricity mix. Emissions in general can be expressed in terms
of CO2 emissions and intensities and primary energy which allow for a geographically
dependent conversion factor to be developed which was found to be crucial for the
creation of net-zero emission neighborhoods (Hamels et al., 2021). Storage is important,
because it reliefs the national grid and oftentimes offers economic benefits for
homeowners. A shift towards more localized storage and grid solutions can be identified,
where city districts and small communities collaborate to create (n)ZEBs and
communities, in the form of i.e., district heating. In conclusion, it can be said that, based
on the aforementioned information, a building designed for net-zero energy demand may
have a better performance (i.e., less CO2 emissions) than one designed for net-zero
delivered energy as it can match it's demand.

Student B:
Net Zero Energy Building (NZEB) are defined as buildings with very high energy
performance, with very low amount of energy still required, fully covered by energy from
renewable sources and without on-site carbon emissions from fossil fuels (European
Comission, 2020). There are several ways to consider NZEB, and this assignment will
discuss the different outcomes these considerations may have.

2
One approach is a NZEB on site, meaning that the building produces at least as much
energy as it uses in a year when accounted for at the site. This consideration does not
account for the energy used to transport renewable fuels like bio-waste to the site.

Then, a NZEB source stands for the same definition, only it takes into account the
transportation of renewable fuels. This is the mean reason why net zero energy demand
do not get the same CO2 emissions reduction, because the NZEB site doesn’t account for
energy used in producing and transmitting grid-supplied electricity from source to the
site. This produces a different output when evaluating the CO2 emissions of each building,
rendering site NZEBs easier to implement because energy supply targets to reach
neutrality are low. Since evaluating CO2 emissions of each building may become a
difficult task, conversion factors help track progress towards the policy goals, and they
enable comparisons between different technologies and measures that can play a role in
reaching them (Hamels et al., 2021).
Regarding the role of local energy storage strategies, Fares & Webber (2017) studied energy
matching and cost of a residential PV panel system using three different heating systems for
a single house and for a small community of ten buildings located in Texas, US. It was found
the price of electricity produced by PV over a 25-year period (3% real interest rate) was more
expensive than grid electricity in the single building case.
Hirvonen et al., (2016) studied the economics and energy matching of PV systems for single-
family houses in Finland. Researchers argued that an energy storage system would have two
main advantages, being: reducing the capacity of electric delivery equipment (substations and
transformers). Still, it will increase net energy generation due to storage inefficiencies and
power losses, showing that a large storage system would actually increase the demand of grid
energy for heating during winter (Hirvonen et al., 2016).
Study concluded that when selling the surplus would only economically benefit the user when
tariff charges more consumption than retro feeding, even accounting for the fact that the
building would consume more.
It can be understood that conceptually, an energy storage system would increase the
efficiency of a PV on-site energy system acting as a backup to compensate for solar
intermittence. However, there are some considerations that must be assessed. From a micro-
economic perspective, it was found in Hirvonen et al., (2016) that larger annual savings would
be gained from upgrading to a heat pump instead of buying solar panels.
It was also found by Hirvonen et al., (2016) that even achieving economic benefit, the storage
system would result in an increased net generation due to power loses, causing a detrimental
effect on the grid capacity.
It is also important to address the energy context of each country. Scandinavian countries
such as Norway or Sweden have lower electricity bills when compared to US. From a
Scandinavian average user’s perspective, investing in an energy storage system is not
considered since in the first place, solar panels have a considerably longer payback time. The
intrinsic lack of sun of those countries impedes making significant profit out of selling surplus
PV-generated electricity. As for Texas, 2017 utility tariffs are unable to provide economic
benefit (Fares & Webber, 2017).

Student A and B:

3
Some inconsistencies were found in the micro- and macroeconomic impact of storage
systems. Student B found that the pay back times for energy storage systems coupled
with PVs are long. This is particularly evident in Scandinavian countries, as illustrated by
Hirvonen et al. (2016) with the example of Finland, which makes sense as these are
countries that generally experience less solar radiation as i.e., Spain.
Student A found that there is an economic advantage to the installation of storage as it
allows to effectively lower electricity bills even if the consumption is higher due to
storage inefficiencies (i.e., self-discharge). Regardless, there is agreement that storage
systems are nonetheless necessary to be able to continue with the energy transition. The
increase of on-site consumption and storage lowers the strain on the grid and enables
periodic independence thereof. Furthermore, this lowers emissions because energy is
increasingly received from a renewable source, namely the sun. There is a geographical
dependence observed, that influences the energy mix of the electricity grid, potentially
leading to higher grid emissions. Both students agree that the amount of emissions also
depends on the scope that one considers. Storage systems like Li-ion batteries come with
their own set of emissions that must, potentially, be accounted for. Overall, there was
difficulty in understanding the meaning of the terminology and the difference between a
building designed for net-zero demand and a net-zero delivered energy building. It was
unclear whether the demand designed building neglects the source of electricity, if it
comes from the grid, or if it is designed such that it can fully generate its own energy
demand. There was an agreement that the net-zero delivered building accounts for the
grid emissions related to energy delivery. Regardless of the definition of the former term
it can be concluded that the letter will have higher emissions, and thus a worse
performance, associated with it. This is because grid emissions need to be accounted for.

References:
European Comission. (2020, May 22). Nearly zero-energy buildings.
Fares, R. L., & Webber, M. E. (2017). Reduce reliance on the utility. Nature Energy,
2(January), 1.
Hamels, S., Himpe, E., Laverge, J., Delghust, M., Van den Brande, K., Janssens, A., &
Albrecht, J. (2021). The use of primary energy factors and CO2 intensities for
electricity in the European context - A systematic methodological review and
critical evaluation of the contemporary literature. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, 146(May), 111182. [Link]
Hirvonen, J., Kayo, G., Hasan, A., & Sirén, K. (2016). Zero energy level and economic
potential of small-scale building-integrated PV with different heating systems in
Nordic conditions. Applied Energy, 167, 255–269.
[Link]
TESLA. (n.d.). Powerwall. Retrieved October 13, 2022, from
[Link]