• Energy Research
• 11. Sustainability close
• DE close
• EU close
• Energy Procedia close

Underground Pumped Storage Hydropower (UPSH) is an alternative to manage the electricity production in flat regions. UPSH plants consist of two reservoirs of which at least one is underground. For this last reservoir, abandoned mines could be considered. UPSH related activities may induce hydrochemical variations, such as the increase of the oxygen (O2) partial pressure (pO2), which may entail negative consequences in terms of environment and efficiency, especially in coal mined areas where the presence of sulfide minerals is common. This work assesses the main expected environmental impacts that UPSH using abandoned coal mines may induce. © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. E. Pujades and A. Jurado gratefully acknowledge the financial support from the University of Liège and the EU through the Marie Curie BeIPD-COFUND postdoctoral fellowship programme (2014/16 and 2015/17 fellows from “FP7-MSCA-COFUND, 600405”). This research has been supported by the Public Service of Wallonia – Department of Energy and Sustainable Building. Peer reviewed

Underground Pumped Storage Hydropower (UPSH) is an alternative to manage the electricity production in flat regions. UPSH plants consist of two reservoirs of which at least one is underground. For this last reservoir, abandoned mines could be considered. UPSH related activities may induce hydrochemical variations, such as the increase of the oxygen (O2) partial pressure (pO2), which may entail negative consequences in terms of environment and efficiency, especially in coal mined areas where the presence of sulfide minerals is common. This work assesses the main expected environmental impacts that UPSH using abandoned coal mines may induce. © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. E. Pujades and A. Jurado gratefully acknowledge the financial support from the University of Liège and the EU through the Marie Curie BeIPD-COFUND postdoctoral fellowship programme (2014/16 and 2015/17 fellows from “FP7-MSCA-COFUND, 600405”). This research has been supported by the Public Service of Wallonia – Department of Energy and Sustainable Building. Peer reviewed

AbstractIn 2008 the German Ministry of Economic Affairs and Energy launched an initiative for new or retrofitted energy-efficient school buildings as focus area within their research programme “EnOB” (Energy Optimised Buildings). The initiative (www.eneff-schule.de) comprises three different energy levels:•Best practice schools with energy-efficient renovations above the requirements in the energy-saving ordinance•Three-liter-house schools with energy needs for heating, hot water and auxiliary below 34 kWh/m2year•Plus energy schools that produce more energy than they use in the annual balanceCurrently three different plus energy school buildings have been planned, realized and monitored within the initiative, two of them being renovations (Stuttgart and Rostock), the last one being a new school building (Hohen Neuendorf). The three energy concepts include rather different technologies to generate heat and to reduce the energy consumption of ventilation and lighting systems. This is partly due to the research initiative approach of “EnEff:Schule” that asks for testing innovative technologies. There is however a general tendency to:•Low U-values of the building envelope with about 0.11–0.15W/m2K at the walls and roof, 0.10W/m2K for new base plates and 0.20–0.34W/m2K for renovated ground slabs and basement ceilings and 0.80W/m2K for windows•Large PV areas to compensate for the remaining energy use, sometimes in combination with other technologies or systems that generate electricity•Mechanical ventilation systems with high heat recovery rates but in combination with natural ventilation•User-dependent control strategies for ventilation and heating•Use of daylight at both the window/solar shading side and the electrical lighting controlThe paper compares the different technologies used at the building envelope, the heating, ventilation and lighting systems, the calculated and measured energy consumptions and the building costs.

AbstractIn 2008 the German Ministry of Economic Affairs and Energy launched an initiative for new or retrofitted energy-efficient school buildings as focus area within their research programme “EnOB” (Energy Optimised Buildings). The initiative (www.eneff-schule.de) comprises three different energy levels:•Best practice schools with energy-efficient renovations above the requirements in the energy-saving ordinance•Three-liter-house schools with energy needs for heating, hot water and auxiliary below 34 kWh/m2year•Plus energy schools that produce more energy than they use in the annual balanceCurrently three different plus energy school buildings have been planned, realized and monitored within the initiative, two of them being renovations (Stuttgart and Rostock), the last one being a new school building (Hohen Neuendorf). The three energy concepts include rather different technologies to generate heat and to reduce the energy consumption of ventilation and lighting systems. This is partly due to the research initiative approach of “EnEff:Schule” that asks for testing innovative technologies. There is however a general tendency to:•Low U-values of the building envelope with about 0.11–0.15W/m2K at the walls and roof, 0.10W/m2K for new base plates and 0.20–0.34W/m2K for renovated ground slabs and basement ceilings and 0.80W/m2K for windows•Large PV areas to compensate for the remaining energy use, sometimes in combination with other technologies or systems that generate electricity•Mechanical ventilation systems with high heat recovery rates but in combination with natural ventilation•User-dependent control strategies for ventilation and heating•Use of daylight at both the window/solar shading side and the electrical lighting controlThe paper compares the different technologies used at the building envelope, the heating, ventilation and lighting systems, the calculated and measured energy consumptions and the building costs.

AbstractThis paper presents a new methodology for characterising the energy performance of buildings suitable for city-scale, top-down energy modelling. Building properties that have the greatest impact on simulated energy performance were identified via a review of sensitivity analysis studies. The methodology greatly simplifies the description of a building to decrease labour and simulation processing overheads. The methodology will be used in the EU FP7 INDICATE project which aims to create a master-planning tool that uses dynamic simulation to facilitate the design of sustainable, energy efficient smart cities.

AbstractThis paper presents a new methodology for characterising the energy performance of buildings suitable for city-scale, top-down energy modelling. Building properties that have the greatest impact on simulated energy performance were identified via a review of sensitivity analysis studies. The methodology greatly simplifies the description of a building to decrease labour and simulation processing overheads. The methodology will be used in the EU FP7 INDICATE project which aims to create a master-planning tool that uses dynamic simulation to facilitate the design of sustainable, energy efficient smart cities.

AbstractTo which extent do potential users of construction products take sustainability into account during their decision-making process? How well could they align themselves in all the legislation frameworks and calculation tools for the sustainable construction products? In accordance with the Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) [1], determining of ecological properties of construction products could be accomplished with applying life cycle assessment (LCA). There is a number of tools and frameworks for evaluating the sustainability of construction products for the European experts, which may be used in such a decision-making process. However, for a non-expert user, this could be quite complex. Therefor, the assumption here is that environmental and human health safety are prior in contrast to the market prices when it comes to choosing a decorative paint or coating. In the framework of herein research, an Analytic Hierarchy/Network Process model was designed involving four major merits of the Analytic Hierarchy Process: Benefits, Opportunities, Costs, and Risks [2]. The model which is based on the major characteristics of a decorative wall paint helps emphasising the best alternative with respect to given priorities: low risk of environmental and human health damage, quality, market price, repairability. The model shows values for all the criteria and alternatives with respect to pairwise comparisons. In a future research step, this model will be validated with a questionnaire survey targeting non-expert users, i.e. average consumers, on the construction market in Germany.