1. 1
Towards zero emission buildings:
learning and professional development
in energy operation of large buildings
•Background & research focus
•Findings from work in progress
•Presentation of cases & further research
Helen Jøsok Gansmo
STS
Norwegian University of Science and Technology
Helen.gansmo@ntnu.no
.

2. N Research Centre on Zero Emission Buildings, ZEB
• Vision: eliminate GHG emissions caused by buildings
• Main objective of ZEB: develop competitive products and
solutions for existing and new residential and
commercial/public buildings that will lead to market
penetration of buildings with zero emissions of GHG
related to their production, operation and demolition
• ZEB activities divided in five work packages:
o WP1: Advanced materials technologies
o WP2: Climate‐adapted low‐energy envelope technologies
o WP3: Energy supply systems and services
o WP4: Energy efficient use and operation (T. Berker, R. Bye, H. Gansmo et al.)
o WP5: Concepts and strategies for zero emission buildings
www.zeb.no/
helen.gansmo@ntnu.no www.zeb.no

3. ZEB: zero emission buildings
• Inter‐/nationally no clear and agreed definition
– Balance between energy export and import over a
period of time must be zero (or positive)
• ZEBs intrinsically connected to the energy
infrastructure (el, district heating, gas, bio, etc.)
the buildings are part of
#1 Reduce energy demand
#2 Generate renewable energy
– The best form of clean and renewable energy is the
energy not used
Sartori, Graabak & Dokka (2010)
helen.gansmo@ntnu.no www.zeb.no

4. Energy efficiency
• Building industry: “the 40 % sector” in an environmental context.
– 40 % of all use of materials and products are related to buildings
– Buildings account for about 40 % of all primary energy use (contribute
to significant GHG emissions)
• Reducing the demand for energy may be more cost‐efficient than
extending the capacity in the energy supply system.
– A combination of making buildings more energy‐efficient and using a
larger fraction of renewable energy is therefore a key issue to meet
the global challenges related to climate change and resource
shortages.
– Reducing the energy consumption related to both existing and future
building stock complements the broad international research on new
renewable energy sources.
• Energy efficiency is the simplest and cheapest climate initiative
• Few property owners actually make their buildings more energy efficient
helen.gansmo@ntnu.no www.zeb.no

5. Existing buildings towards ZEBs
• In developed economies, at least half of the buildings
that will be in use in 2050 have already been built.
Marnay, C. & M. Stadler et al. (2008): “A Buildings Module for the Stochastic Energy Deployment System.” Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory. Report LBNL‐291.
Mahadev Raman (2009): “Mitigating Climate Change: What America’s Building Industry Must Do.” Design Intelligence.
http://www.institutebe.com/Existing‐Building‐Retrofits/Why‐Focus‐On‐Existing‐Buildings.aspx
• Energy consumption in the building sector (residential,
industrial and commercial buildings) constitute a total of 80
TWh in Norway.
– Goal: saving 10 TWh of energy use in buildings over 10
years
• Minimum 8 TWh must be saved in existing buildings
through rehabilitation and implementation of energy
efficiency measures.
• Energy efficiency measures in existing buildings are
essential for achieving the goal.
helen.gansmo@ntnu.no www.zeb.no

6. Energy dichotomies
• Production vs consumption
– Architects/industry vs inhabitants
• Attitude vs action
– Information deficit vs weak regulations
• Technology fixes – behavior changes
– Technologies to save energy do not travel well from laboratories to a building’s
everyday life (Berker 2006)
– Mismatch between design of smart systems and use of the systems ‐> potential for
energy saving not realized (Jeltsma et al. 2003)
– Sustainability will not be reached by technology alone, but by deep learning by
individuals, society and institutions (Brown & Vergragt 2008)
• Dichotomies overlook dynamic, ongoing processes as well as other relevant actors “in
between”
– Building operators have a special position in making buildings work; they negotiate
between users, technologies and the building. Their understanding is vital for
reaching energy efficiency goals (Aune, Berker & Bye 2008)
helen.gansmo@ntnu.no www.zeb.no

7. Research focus
• Towards ZEB through learning from
– (energy efficiency) operation of
– existing buildings
• What and who promotes energy saving
behavior in large buildings, and how?
– What kind of “in between” actors exist/are missing
– What stimulates energy efficiency
– What energy management processes are developed
– How do the “in betweens” learn and share
knowledge
helen.gansmo@ntnu.no www.zeb.no

8. Initial cases of large buildings
Case Description Users Energy mg.ment
The Co‐operative Resource for housing Board members of “Guidance and
Housing Federation of cooperative (board housing cooperatives, lobbying”
Norway (NBBL) members) researchers, policy
Røros Rehabilitation Health institution, Guests: 3 days to 5 Involves “in between
short term rehab stays weeks actors” internally and
(heart, lung, cancer, externally. Visual
obesity) control + central
operation system
NTNU Large university, Faculty, students, =
several campuses researchers: Daytime
SiT: Student Welfare Provides student Students: 0,5 – 5 years Techno fixes.
organisation housing, cafeterias, (average 1,5 years) Excludes “in between
day care, sports and actors” , relies on
health facilities users
helen.gansmo@ntnu.no www.zeb.no

9. Preliminary findings:
Sum of case initiatives as measurements towards ZEB?
• Case study buildings operated internally without professional FM
• Low degree of end‐user involvement
• Energy efficiency management characterized by
– internal resources
– “personal” drive from (single) beacons
– local knowledge
– centralized operation systems combined with observations
• Driven by CSR and environmental goals rather than economy
• Argue that project design/development and operation must be
regarded together involving “in between” actors all the way
• Different socio‐technical systems “in between” to enhance
energy efficiency
helen.gansmo@ntnu.no www.zeb.no

10. Røros Rehabilitation
• 8300 sq m. low, narrow and long building in the World Heritage Site Røros
• Dry climate. Challenging temperature range ‐40 to 30 C
• District heating. Electricity for lighting, pumps and other equipment
• Ventilation system rebuilt after 2 years because architects did not listen to
local knowledge
• Most important issues
– House keeping and receptionists (nurse) responsible for energy saving
(turn down, switch off, unplug)
– Local knowledge and daily observations crucial – feeling of ownership
– Rehab architecture bad for energy efficiency
– Energy saving lighting systems and bulbs not good enough
– Technical forum for operation managers in the organization
– “FM is a waste of money – but would like to be evaluated/updated by
their expertise” helen.gansmo@ntnu.no www.zeb.no

11. NTNU
• Norway's most popular student city. 20 000 students. 7 different
faculties/53 departments at 7 major campuses with more than 100
laboratory facilities. 550 000 sq m of heated area in buildings from 100 to
2 years old
• Most important issues
– Central operation system for surveillance and identification of potential
savings combined with hands on observation/local knowledge
– Includes everybody in operation/enhances their knowledge to build up a
better organization with devoted employees and better results
• Relies on beacons/tinkerers
• Building maintenance/ care takers are next group to be included
• NTNU recently established an energy efficiency group incl end users
– Participates with local knowledge in project planning/design and operation to
integrate solutions with other buildings
– Network of ”know‐hows” as ”in betweens”
– Energy efficiency profit “given” to faculty/research
• Potential
– Teach faculty/students how to work energy efficiently
– Disseminate their solutions to others
– Case for teaching/research
helen.gansmo@ntnu.no www.zeb.no

12. SiT Student Welfare organisation
• Non‐profit organization led by students – employs professionals
• Promotes a more environmentally friendly everyday life through information campaigns
– QUIZ – How environmentally friendly are you? http://www.sit.no/environment/quiz/ Too
cool for comfort?
• Mix of technology fixes and awareness rising/environmental attitudes as well as deficit
reports from users
– Operators/house keeping only present upon malfunction/students moving out
– Students are ”fresh” tenants with short stays (1,5 years)
– Technologies:
• From passive houses to old buildings
• Eco‐showers/faucets
• Automatic energy saving lighting
• Collective/dense environments, shared facilities (1 kitchen, 8 stoves for 116
students)
• Individual metering for shared units
• Comfort switch: activate comfort for 3 hours
• Challenge: more diff to finance rehab than new buildings
• Potential
– Give students incentives to save
– Utilize part time student reps as opinion leaders as well as maintenance people
– Teach students how to live energy efficiently for their later life (cf. Janda 2011)
helen.gansmo@ntnu.no www.zeb.no

13. •
How students are informed….
Passive and low energy houses
The passive houses have requirements for heating below 80 kWh per m2/year.
• low energy housing with a power requirement for heating below 100 kWh per m2/year.
• Eco‐friendly laundries
where the heat from the washing machines and dryers is used to preheat water for other washing machines and to warm
up buildings.
• Energy‐efficient lamps and lighting control
motion sensors, photocell control on all outside lights
• The student timer and night setback
energy saving control for heaters, "the student timer“, automatically lowers the room temperature to seven degrees if not
being served within three hours. Maximum comfort temperature in the flats is 24 degrees; maximum back temperature is
17 degrees.
• Most SiT apartments are fitted with equipment for night setback of the heat.
• Water‐related measures
eco‐showers in all apartments reducing water consumption about 50 %. If you shower five minutes a day, it costs about
1200 kWh p/y; with eco‐showers approx. 600 kWh p/y. Ordinary showers use 16‐20 gallons of water per minute; eco‐
showers use 8‐10.
SiT housing will also replace old toilets because they use much more water per flushing than new ones. An old toilet uses
about 9 liters flushing, a new approx. 6 liters.
• To put it all in perspective, here’s a little economy:
‐ 1m3 ‐ 1000 liters of water cost 21.80 (7.37 water and sewage from 14.42, 2010 price). A toilet running a little all the time
can easily consume 200,000 liters of water a year = 4360, ‐.
‐ Small leak from the hot water faucet (1 drop per second = 7000 liters per year) costs approx. 560 kWh per year (kWh
price kr.1) + kr.153, ‐ in the water fee = 713, ‐.
‐ The dripping from the hot water faucet (30,000 liters/year) costs approx. 2400 kWh (kWh price kr.1) per year + £. 654, ‐ in
the water fee = 3054, ‐
‐ Crane running (100,000 liters pr.year) costs 8000 kWh (kWh price kr.1) per year + £. 2180, ‐ in the water fee = 10,180,‐.
• Electric locks on all exterior doors to prevent cold air from intruding during winter,.
• Vegetarian food
In our canteens, there’s always possible to go vegetarian. The production of vegetarian food requires much less resources
than animal foods, and it also contributes to far less pollution. Cereals and plants are used for animal feeding, and in this
process lots of energy gets lost. Just like humans, animals consume energy for living, and thus give off heat and fertilizer.
On top of all, the energy comes from fossil fuels normally used to transport animals for slaughter and produce artificial
fertilizers. helen.gansmo@ntnu.no www.zeb.no

14. Paradox and further research
• Energy management driven by environmental
goals. Profit returned to end‐users (who do
not take part in the measures)
– What motivates energy management?
• To do a good job! Utilize and enhance local knowledge
– “We don’t need FM in the daily operation but would
occasionally like to learn from them.” (Rehab with small
operation org)
– “We work to keep FM out! We are better than most
consultants because we have local knowledge and connect
the buildings in an integrated system!” (NTNU with large
operation org)
– What would be the added value of FM?
• Helen.gansmo@ntnu.no helen.gansmo@ntnu.no www.zeb.no