Next Article in Journal
The Rich Picture Method: A Simple Tool for Reflective Teaching and Learning about Sustainable Food Systems
Next Article in Special Issue
A Multistage Design Procedure for Planning and Implementing Public Charging Infrastructures for Electric Vehicles
Previous Article in Journal
Roles of Psychological Resistance to Change Factors and Heterogeneity in Car Stickiness and Transit Loyalty in Mode Shift Behavior: A Hybrid Choice Approach
Previous Article in Special Issue
Life Cycle Assessment of a Lithium Iron Phosphate (LFP) Electric Vehicle Battery in Second Life Application Scenarios
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Zero-Energy Idea in Districts: Application of a Methodological Approach to a Case Study of Epinlieu (Mons)

1
Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, University of Mons, ERA Chair Net-Zero Energy Efficiency on City Districts, NZED Unit, Research Institute for Energy, University of Mons, Rue de l’Epargne, 567000 Mons, Belgium
2
Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, University of Mons, Rue de l’Epargne, 567000 Mons, Belgium
3
University of Mons, ERA Chair (*Holder) Net-Zero Energy Efficiency on City Districts, NZED Unit, Research Institute for Energy, University of Mons, Rue de l’Epargne, 567000 Mons, Belgium
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2019, 11(17), 4814; https://doi.org/10.3390/su11174814
Submission received: 29 June 2019 / Revised: 21 August 2019 / Accepted: 22 August 2019 / Published: 3 September 2019
(This article belongs to the Collection Urban Energy Management and Sustainable Transportation)

Abstract

:
Rapidly increasing global energy demand has raised concerns about the exhaustion of energy resources and the consequent heavy environmental impact. Improving energy efficiency in cities comprises an initial measure for addressing these phenomena. Within the current context of globalization, EU initiatives and policy targets have been proposed in order to revise urban development strategies and motivate its member states (MSes) toward “zero-energy objectives”. Providing a methodological approach with a simulation district analysis, the present article summarizes how this challenge was analyzed in an existing district in Belgium. This study contributes to the scientific discussion by analyzing the applicability of a holistic approach to zero-energy objectives on a larger scale.

1. Introduction

In the aftermath of the first two energy crises in 1973 and 1978, Europe intensified the effort to become gradually independent of fossil fuels [1]. During the last two decades, primary energy has grown by over 40% and CO2 emissions by 43% [2]. Over 60% of global energy demand is consumed in contemporary cities [3]. Lhendup et al. [4] have explained the importance of this demand as a critical factor for the economic and sustainable development of modern cities [5].
A major part of the world’s population lives in cities, where economic, social, and environmental processes affect human societies with a significant impact. The implications of this urbanization, both in terms of resources and living conditions, are numerous. Cities, as living organisms with dynamic and continuously changing processes in their systems, increase their demand in energy progressively, which constitutes a threat of resource exhaustion [6,7].
Transformations of modern cities in order to “mitigate” the disastrous consequences of climate change require a combination of initiatives and policy targets in existing environments and create numerous challenges [3]. Through a static interpretation of modern phenomena in urban development, planning “smartly” demands allocative decisions to ensure the livability of modern cities.
To this end, European directives and initiatives have pertained to the energy performance of buildings and targets to identify the characteristics of their corresponding demand ([8,9]). Already in 2008, policy targets regarding the 2020 climate energy objectives had been introduced (20 20 20): a 20% reduction in Greenhouse Gases (GHG) emissions compared to 90s levels by increasing the share of EU energy performance derived from renewable resources at 20% with a parallel improvement of 20% in the EU’s overall energy efficiency [10].

1.1. Objectives of the Research

In particular, the objectives of this research were the following:
  • To expand the zero-energy concept from buildings and investigate its applicability to larger territorial scales;
  • To simulate the analysis and modeling of Net-Zero Energy District(s) (NZED) models, testing various indicators and interconnections between them;
  • To introduce and apply a methodological approach in a real case study and consider the perspectives for its future transition within the zero-energy objectives.

1.2. Structure of the Paper

The paper is structured as follows: Section 1 introduces and describes the problem as well as the objectives of the research. Section 2 highlights the importance of the urban structure for the reduction of the energy demand/consumption of its users. Section 3 presents the main issues of the methodological approach (Urban – Zero Energy District) (U-ZED). Section 4 provides the main findings and results of the U-ZED methodology application in the district of Epinlieu in Belgium. Section 5 summarizes the main conclusions of the work.

2. Energy and Urban Structure: A State-of-the-Art Analysis

2.1. Literature Review and Previous Works

Girarbet [1] highlighted “energy management” as a priority in future urban development. Große et al. [2] cited the interrelation between urban structure and energy as a key perception in climate policies. Owens [3], Salat [4], and Ewing and Rong [5] analyzed the influence of density, architecture, and urban structure in energy consumption. One of the first in-depth studies in this field was conducted by S. Owens [3], with an identification of the energy-efficient attributes in a spatial structure (Figure 1). Owens argued that factors of the energy inventory (resources) and the geometry determine requirements and final energy consumption.
Owens [11] further attempted to quantify the magnitude of the KPIs of the urban structure (Figure 2) and their potential and implications for energy consumption.
Newman and Kenworthy [10], in their work “Gasoline Consumption and Cities: A Comparison of U.S. Cities with a Global Survey” (1989), explained how geographical factors influence energy consumption. In this work, the authors suggested that in world cities, the index of per capita fuel use is inversely related to GDP, expressed by an exponential function. Urquizo et al. [6] explained the reasons why we search for energy use, considering cities as a significant proportion of the world’s energy consumption. Baker and Steemers [7] considered the overall impacts of the urban form on building energy. Miller [8], referring to “building morphology”, reflected the geometry of a building related to its consumption [9].
On the other hand, the relation of “building density” and “energy consumption” is represented in various illustrations across academic manuscripts. Steemers [10] stated a potential of 50% reduction in heating requirements by increasing building density. Ewing and Rong [5] concluded that households living in low-density areas consume more than 50% of their energy for space heating and more than 20% for cooling compared to multifamily households in high-density zones. Generally speaking, their literature review investigated energy issues at a district scale by focusing on the impacts of urban structure on energy consumption in buildings [7].

3. Methodological Approach

3.1. The “Zero-Energy” Concept

In literature and academic manuscripts, the “zero-energy” objective has mostly been considered on a building scale. Broadly, the Zero Energy Building (“ZEB”) is presented as “a general concept including autonomous buildings not connected to energy grids” [11]. The term Net Zero Energy Building (NZEB) underlines “the fact that there is a balance between the energy taken from and supplied back to the grids over a period of time (nominally a year)” [11].
The deployment of the concept has attracted the attention of scholars and the research community because of its mandatory performance from 2020 onwards [12]. Significant work has been done on providing a definition [11,13,14]. The concept assesses the application of the zero-energy concept on larger scales essentially related to the reduction of the energy demand to almost “zero” coupled to the energy supply from renewable resources [12].
A first proposal to define the zero-energy concept in communities, found in Carlislie et. al. [15] argued that “an NZED reduces the requirements in energy through efficiency gains, such as the balance of energy for vehicles, thermal and electrical energy within the renewable local resources”. Marique et al. [16] adapted this definition to consider the energy produced in a district as the sum of the needs for every single building and mobility. An Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) [17] assumed that a “Nearly Zero Energy District is a delimited part of a city having high energy performance with the zero or very low amount of energy covered to a great extent by local production”. Amaral et al. [18] considered that NZEDs are not a sum of Net Zero Energy Buildings NZEBs but a group of buildings with different consumptions whose overall balance reach almost zero.

3.2. The Role of the District

Through the constructive elements of a city [19] the district identifies patterns of energy consumption and seeks concrete “planning” solutions. The district is regarded as an appropriate scale incorporating the components that facilitate the application of optimization tools, thereby improving the energy performance and the local energy production (by Renewable Energy Sources (RES) by minimizing the requirements and the cost for infrastructure [20]
Jenks and Dempsey [21] defined the “district” as an “element of geographical boundaries and cultural attributes”. Barton et al. [22] focused on spatial aspects, considering a “district” to be the area of distinctive identity of a city. Amaral et al. [18] referred to the “district” as “a representation of new interests and an intermediate scale in urban strategies towards the ‘smart cities’.
Another advantage of a district level is the diversity in load in supplementary energy savings by creating opportunities for heat recovery. The district is a more advantageous scale than individual buildings for managing aggregate loads and interactions with the power grid [23].
For this study, the district is understood as an “urban block” and a complicated system with diverse key parameters of its “internal” and “external” environment, including mobility, human factors, exchanges of services between other districts in a city, etc. (Figure 3). Figure 3 introduces the “definition” and the understanding of a district for the application of the U-ZED methodology. In particular, the district is defined as in a ‘systemic approach’, in which the interrelations between its diverse elements exist in a dynamic process as a continuous process of energy consumption and CO2 emissions. Each district is a “micrograph” and an “individual” component of a city and a complex system with interchanges in services, infrastructure, etc., with the other districts of the same city (× 2, × 3, etc.). A representation of this process is depicted in Figure 3. The systemic approach facilitates the comprehension of the idea in terms of “inputs” and “outputs” and the balance between them (annually).

3.3. Description of the Methodology and Steps

3.3.1. Development of a Theoretical Model

U-ZED is introduced as a decision-making supporting approach toward the strategies of a city for zero-energy planning in its districts. The methodology was deployed in several phases. Each phase ensured an effective dialogue among all of the city stakeholders and planners to strengthen confidence toward this direction (Figure 4).
The general idea of the methodology proposed is illustrated in Figure 5.
The objective of the U-ZED approach is to develop a comprehensive local planning process in which the challenge of a zero-energy balance (energy demand ≤ energy offer/supply) is shifted from “individual buildings” to larger scales. U-ZED considers the districts as a system in which opportunities for the use of alternative resources are used in local production to balance the demand of its users. The methodology adopted to develop the theoretical and practical frame of the approach consisted of two phases (Figure 6):
A.
Theoretical approach. This was a diagnostic phase of the current situation in the studied district (description of the parameters of the built and the urban environment, estimation and prognosis for the energy requirements of the users; etc.). For the U-ZED approach, the “problem” has been the outline of the “optimal typo-morphological definition of the district with zero-energy attributes”;
B.
Experimental approach. This was a validation of the criteria on-site and experimentation of the approach in real case studies. Assessing the current situation of the district was the initial phase of the experimentation approach of the case study application. Thus, we analyzed the potentialities with regard to energy, enhancement of mild mobility, etc., and the connection of the existing urban tissue of the city in accordance with the objectives of city planning as a whole.
The U-ZED approach focuses on a conception of the district from the early beginning within the zero-energy attributes. A territorial diagnosis, constraints and potentialities, the current situation at the geographical site, and also an analysis of energy requirements are the preliminary steps of the U-ZED approach (Figure 7).
The approach was developed in a theoretical frame. Table 1 presents a comparative screening of international scientific reviews, aiming to identify the originality and innovative actions that our approach provides.
Three concepts analyze the U-ZED approach in districts: “location”, “typology”, and “morphology” of the built stock (existing). Figure 8 recapitulates the main problems with the feasibility of zero-energy concepts in districts. Another important question is the identification of the building “types” and the land uses of an NZED, as well as other criteria (density, mixing, population, etc.) that will define the energy requirements of users.
In this context, the U-ZED approach studies the possibility of developing a strategic future planning and targets the following:
1
The realization of a “state of place”/description of the actual situation in terms of energy requirements in districts (kWh) by its buildings and users. The first step is the determination of the energy requirements “on-site”. To this end, diverse methods are developed with the intention of obtaining an approximation that is more realistic: for instance, real data use considering the real quantities of energy consumption or approximation methods;
2
The policy targets and measurements for urbanization strategies for zero-energy concepts in districts. The second step of the U-ZED approach is the development of scenarios to estimate the future energy requirements of the studied districts and assess the future needs of users related to the existing sources and supplies (Figure 9).

3.4. Key Performance Indicators

KPIs are a concept originating from business administration with the aim to provide tools for measurement in business fields. In reality, they are quantifiable metrics reflecting the performance of achieving wider goals and help in the implementation of different strategies (in our case, the zero-energy planning in districts) [32].

3.4.1. Key Performance Indicators in the U-ZED Approach

Mitchell [9] underlined eight (8) KPIs for building energy consumption, including building consumption, users’ activities, urban structure, etc., comparing them to the works of Salat et al. [33] and Ratti et al. [19] (Table 2). Sanaieian et al. [20] highlighted the difficulties in studying the impacts of surroundings on the performance of urban blocks, as they emphasized the complexity of including all conflicting aspects simultaneously.
For this study, we considered, as key aspects of the energy performance of NZEDs, site opportunities and attributes, the typo-morphology of the built environment, and the amenities and parameters of the eco-cycle (energy, water, waste). Table 3 lists the KPIs defined in the current study.

3.5. Methods and Tools

In Figure 10, we schematize the general concept of the U-ZED approach. As analyzed above, at the second phase of the U-ZED method, we developed a roadmap toward zero-energy transition in districts with the use of tools and methods, as we will describe in this section.

3.5.1. Quantum Geographic Information System (QGIS) Tool

Chuvieco [42] argued that the association of the spatial optimization models with the use of GIS formulates and develops planning options. GIS is indispensable in a multicriteria decision analysis in providing technical inputs in the selection of planning options among diverse scenarios [43]. As a toolbox, GIS allow planners and architects to perform a spatial analysis with the use of different actions and the integration of diverse factors (Figure 11).

3.5.2. Hybrid Optimization Model for Electric Renewables (HOMER)

Bahramara et al. [44] claimed that HOMER is a powerful tool for energy planning in cities to determine the optimal size of its elements through a techno-economic analysis considering the components as grid-connected. HOMER requires six (6) types of data as input for simulations and optimizations, including meteorological data, load profiles, component attributes included in the design, spatial requirements, and economic and other technical data.

3.5.3. The Method of Degree Days

Karayiannis [45] explained in his work that the method of degree days is mainly used for estimating the heating energy demand in buildings over 70 years. It is expected that the method of degree days provides the smallest contribution of error, while it is important to quantify this contribution. Four main approaches are used for the calculation of degree days:
  • Mean daily degree hours, including the integration or summation of hourly records;
  • Mean daily temperature from daily maxima and minima;
  • Meteorological office equations;
  • Hitchin’s formula.
For this study, we used the website of the degree days methodology, providing as input the meteorological data of the Uccle Station. The findings of the calculations are provided in Section 4 and Appendix A of this paper.

4. Case Study Analysis

4.1. The Case Study of Epinlieu in Mons: Diagnosis

The district of Epinlieu is situated 2.5 km from the center of Mons with a good proximity to services and infrastructure in its surroundings. In Epinlieu, most of the population is between the ages of 39 and 69, and an important fraction of young people are in the age group of 0–19 years.

4.2. Analysis of the Urban and Built Environment of the District in its Current Situation

Urbanization in the district is being developed along the following axis:a combination of building typologies, including single-family households, terraced houses and apartment blocks with accompanying infrastructure and various services for its residents (Figure 12; Figure 13):
The majority of the buildings in the district of Epinlieu were constructed in 1967 for military requirements, with a redevelopment proposed by a “Master Plan” during the 80s in line with Walloon regional directives.

4.3. Transition toward the Zero-Energy Objectives: The Case Study of Epinlieu (A Focus on Energy Autonomy)

In this section, an estimation of the current space heating energy requirements per building typology in the district is performed based on the “degree days” method. Applying the method to a typical weather profile (meteorological data retrieved from the meteorological station of Uccle, Belgium), we estimated the “heating degree days” for the period 1 August 2017 to 1 August 2018 (Figure 14). For a standard weather profile attributed to the understudy region, a “heating degree days” demand was estimated on an upper and lower boundary. The defined interval accounted for variations of the U-value corresponding to the analyzed building typology, since U-values were imported from ‘Typology Approach for Building Stock Energy Assessment’ project (TABULA) and introduced to the calculations for the period 1 August 2017 to 1 August 2018. In this direction, it was possible to suggest interventions on the district level aiming to reduce the average heat consumption per dwelling.
Table 4 presents the calculations of the average energy requirements in the district of Epinlieu (kWh). In Appendix A, the authors present the analysis of the energy requirements per each building typology in Epinlieu. The typo-morphologies presented in the district are the following:
  • Type 1. Terraced houses with gabled roofs (74 dwellings);
  • Type 2. Terraced houses with flat roofs (70 dwellings);
  • Type 3. Terraced houses with gabled roofs and parking (40 dwellings);
  • Type 4. Terraced houses with mansard roofs (70 dwellings);
  • Type 5. Apartments (10 blocks).
Figure 15 presents the average calculated energy requirements in the diverse typo-morphologies studied in the district of Epinlieu.

4.4. Transition to the Zero-Energy Objectives

Following an analysis of the district’s heating energy demands, an annual electricity consumption model per dwelling was devised, providing complementary input for sizing future renewable generation solutions. Due to local constraints, large centralized Renewable Energy Sources (RES) unit installations were omitted from this study, since district free construction space would be allocated for functional mixing. As a result, a solution with PV arrays integrated on building rooftops was proposed. Nonetheless, opting to efficiently allocate generated energy, the proposed household system was coupled with an electrical storage component, which counterbalanced intermittent factors in renewable generation, such as discrepancies in solar irradiation forecasted profiles. Furthermore, a criterion of rooftop orientation was set in order to assure an efficient PV generation profile. Hence, only west-, east-, and south-facing rooftops were considered. In turn, garages with flat roof typo-morphologies (as already defined) were excluded due to rooftop installation restrictions.
In the scope of sizing (the solar panel installation per typology), the study included indicators such as the temperature and solar irradiance. Three types of annual loads were calculated per typology based on the average consumption. Energy flow data were provided on an hourly basis for an average year. Specifically, terraced houses with flat roofs and houses with double-pitched roofs were considered as a common typology with respective 5566 kWh/yr consumptions. For types 3 and 46,123 kWh/yr, and finally the large apartment blocks had 22,264 kWh/yr. Figure 16 shows the estimated distribution of annual power consumption per typology in the district of Epinlieu.
With the completion of the preprocessing of inputs, the corresponding systems per dwelling category were optimized in terms of net present cost and renewable generation components as well as storage capacity on a 10-year project lifetime. All system configurations considered a grid connectivity option in cases of unmet demand due to generation shortages, in the meantime permitting transactions with the grid operator (i.e., selling stored excess energy). The NPC (or value) of the system is the present value of all the costs it incurs over its lifetime minus the present value of all the revenue it earns over its lifetime. Discount and inflation rates were set at 2% and 1%, respectively, accounting for a 0.99% real discount rate over the project lifetime. Cost of Energy (CoE) represented the cost of the system per kWh over the project lifetime. Other costs considered were capital costs, replacement costs, and operation and maintenance costs, while cashflows included salvage value in the final year. The rates per kWh were set at 0.275 €/kWh and 0.0116 €/kWh according to the defined tariff policy of Belgium [46]. HOMER ranked all system configurations by the NPC in the optimization results with the PV production per typo-morphology detailed in Figure 17. Thus, it was decided that we should compare the annual nonrenewable electrical consumption per house to the annual generation profile of the proposed renewable generation system. Consequently, the energy saving per household alongside the necessary costs for retrofitting concluded the analysis.
The area size of a 16.7% efficiency PV module (325-W rated capacity) is equivalent to 1.951 m2 with a 42-g CO2/kWh carbon footprint attributed to upstream manufacturing processes [47]. It was observed that in the cases of small and average buildings (Table 5), the percentage of annual energy savings was lower than the expected percentage from the simulated PV output. This demonstrated the effect of enabling grid sales on the NPC optimization, which in turn oversized the investigated system as well as the effects of the load following strategies for serving electric loads. Moreover, renewable generation was not aligned with demand (peaks in generation were in the summer, contrary to demand peaks), and therefore the excess energy was either stored in the battery module, with certain losses present, or if a maximum SoC was reached, depleted. Nonetheless, these results yielded the lowest grid purchases in the meantime, maximizing the renewable fraction per system, while similar results occurred when the grid sales option was disabled and a storage module was used, which was in agreement with the relevant KPI defined. Importantly, the retrofitting costs per type of dwelling in terms of initial capital cost were recorded as follows: 9886 € for the small typology, 10,032 € for the medium typology, and 15,454 € for the apartment buildings.
Further improvements regarding the sizing of the installations and retrofitting costs can be introduced by disseminating the average annual consumptions according to precise consumption data from smart meters along with detailed occupancy information, extending market research on more efficient and lower cost PV modules and the consideration of switching to energy distributors that provide energy produced from renewable sources [48]. Last, the selection of an efficient electric storage component would raise annual savings and reduce grid dependency.
In Figure 18, the projected amenities of the U-ZED application in Epinlieu are presented. The diagnostic site analysis revealed a dysfunctional district without attractive equipment and with excessive energy requirements. In our proposal, the urban rearrangement of the agglomeration focuses on its functions with new facilities (for instance, an entertainment zone, etc.) with zero-energy standards.

5. Conclusions

Rapidly growing world energy use has already raised concerns over supply difficulties, the exhaustion of energy resources, and the heavy environmental impacts of climate change. Undoubtedly, reducing energy demand has proven to be more difficult than is commonly assumed. Complex systems require necessarily large flows. In this paper, we assumed a correlation between energy consumption and typo-morphological structure in the district of Epinlieu for its transition to a multifunctional and autonomous district.
Various effects and mechanisms of the urbanization process show substantial impacts on urban structures and energy consumption. The current research study investigated the opportunity to extend the “zero-energy” concept to larger territorial scales by proposing a theoretical approach with spatial dimensions for the “optimal” structure of a district. Although the idea can be conceptualized in a district with an approach similar to individual buildings by articulating the main energy uses, the concept remains complicated and challenging for contemporary cities. This implies innovative approaches to interdisciplinary planning that highlight the importance of the zero-energy concept and aid city stakeholders and planners to define these particular structures. Indeed, the interrelation between urban structure and energy is a key aspect of this path. Related to this, a “well-structured” area is a key point that increases sustainable transport and the share of renewable resources
In this study, we analyzed the district of Epinlieu (Mons, Belgium) as a demonstration of our methodological approach. We simulated the analysis and modeling of NZED models, testing various indicators and interconnections between them in the case study of Epinlieu and recommending a planning strategy for the transition to zero-energy objectives.
Addressing the U-ZED research questions, we developed different phases in our analysis: (1) a diagnostic study with an assessment of the actual situation with respect to the indicators and (2) a transition phase toward zero-energy application. The study can be summarized as three phases:
  • Phase 1. Diagnosis and assessment of the current (actual) situation: We defined the geographical location of the district (perimeter of the district/research limits, location with regard to its surroundings in the city of Mons and in other districts, etc.). At this phase, we defined the spatial organization of the existing district and studied the site opportunities with respect to the potential energy inventory, the weather conditions, the natural resources for its “transition” to the zero-energy objectives, etc.;
  • Phase 2. The problem of “geographical location”: Is Epinlieu “smartly” located or not? The district is situated 2.5 km from the center of Mons with a good proximity to services in its surroundings, and it is well connected by sustainable means of transport. The study of the district’s transition recommends improvements in bus frequency as well as the introduction of bicycles as a soft mobility measure by constructing cycle paths, which would also support electric bicycles and the installation of stations serving the district. The district was developed for military service requirements with limited functional mixing (residential), but its strategic location is a key factor for the enhancement of its future attractiveness;
  • Phase 3. This was the analysis of the three pillars of action via the U-ZED approach: the core of the U-ZED analysis with the study of the actual situation with respect to the current energy demand (users’ requirements), taking into account the site opportunities and the possibilities for energy storage. In the case of Epinlieu, the analysis revealed a lack of valid data, e.g., for the approximations of the energy produced on-site. To solve this, we developed methodological assumptions and scenarios with the use of existing tools to identify the energy demand (method of degree days; etc.). With regard to the district’s offerings and opportunities for energy inventory, we were limited only in solar energy: this is the main reason why we propose (at the phase of the district’s transition) technologies and systems around the exploitation of solar energy, e.g., photovoltaic panels.
The application of the U-ZED approach for an existing district, as in the case of Epinlieu, included an identification of the actual situation in a multicriteria context (with a focus on “smart typology”), as presented previously, in particular the following:
  • Building typology. This was a typo-morphological analysis of the existing building stock in the district of Epinlieu. As presented previously, five typologies are “met” in the district, with an interesting diversity in architectural and construction design and physical composition. The analysis also included the criterion of roof orientation to define the possibilities of the angles maximizing solar gain for the possibility of installing PVs. The criterion of compactness was not studied in an in-depth analysis, but only with respect to the diverse typologies in the district;
  • Functions. The criterion of functional mixing was part of the analysis of the current situation in the district of Epinlieu. The analysis revealed the problems of a residential district without diversity in complementary activities for its users, e.g., in commerce, offices, or other services or infrastructure;
  • Density. The criterion of density was not studied in the current analysis.
This study contributes to the scientific discussion on the linkage between energy and urban structure to increase the energy efficiency in districts. Notwithstanding this, limitations mainly concerning the lack of data and the complexity of the applicability of the zero-energy concept at larger scales were restrictions and weaknesses for this study. The human factor and public awareness as well as the participation process are significant for successful policies and for the zero-energy concept in districts. Further research and works are required in the future on this particular and major issue for the longevity of modern cities and the achievement of their sustainable objectives.

Author Contributions

S.K., C.P., N.-F.G., and A.B. conceived of the methodology on the transition of the district to the zero-energy objectives; C.P. performed the cartographical analysis of the district in its diagnostic and projected situation. T.W. provided explanations for the QGIS tool and its use for the study. V.B. and C.S.I. provided suggestions and supervised the study. S.K. and N.-F.G. wrote the paper.

Funding

This research was funded by the European Commission under the RESIZED (Research Excellence for Solutions and Implementation of Net Zero Energy City Districts) project, as part of Grant Agreement no 621408.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Nomenclature

EUEuropean Union
MSMember state
GHGs (emissions)Greenhouse gases (emissions)
NZEDNet-zero-energy district
U-ZEDUrban zero-energy district
KPIsKey performance indicators
GDPGross domestic product
CERTUCentre d’Etudes sur les Réseaux, les Transports, l’Urbanisme, et les Constructions Publiques
ZEBZero-energy building
NZEBNet-zero-energy building
EPBDEuropean Performance of Buildings Directive
GISGeographical information system
HOMERHybrid optimization model for electric renewables
NPCNet present cost
CoECost of energy

Appendix A. Analysis of Heating Energy Requirements in the District of Epinlieu

This study included calculations for five (5) building typologies of the district by month to define the annual profile of the energy demand in the district of Epinlieu. The figures below provide the generated data per building/typo-morphology and the heat loss through conductive elements for each of the categories defined previously. In this paper, the degree days method was used to calculate the conductive heat loss by assuming a constant indoor temperature of 20 °C in dwellings throughout the whole year [1]. In the rest of the paper, we use the term heat demand to describe the results for conductive heat loss calculations.

Appendix A.1. Typo-Morphology 1: Terraced Houses with Gabled Roofs (74 Units)

Table A1. Calculations of energy requirements for terraced unit(s) with gabled roofs.
Table A1. Calculations of energy requirements for terraced unit(s) with gabled roofs.
Month Degree DaysArea of Losses(m²)U (W/m²K)UAmin (W/K)Energy Demand for One Building (D1min) (KWh)Energy Demand for All Buildings (Dtmin) (KWh)UAmax (W/K)Energy Demand for One Building (D1max) (KWh)Energy Demand for All Buildings (Dtmax) (KWh)
January436262.60.4492.36966.3671510.49138.531449.54107265.73
February5441205.7389224.091808.60133836.14
March 4571012.9074954.801519.35112432.20
April228505.3437395.39758.0156093.09
May149330.2524438.22495.3736657.33
June96212.7815745.43319.1623618.14
July78172.8812793.16259.3219189.74
August85188.4013941.26282.5920911.90
September185410.0430342.75615.0645514.13
October214474.3135099.18711.4752648.78
November397879.9265113.911319.8897670.86
December4741050.5877743.051575.87116614.58
Total7409.48548301.74 11114.22822452.61
Explanations Sustainability 11 04814 i001
UAmin = 0.8 * U * S
UAmax = 1.2 * U *S
D1min = (UAmin * Degree Days * 24)/1000
D1tmin = Number of units * D1min
D1max = (UAmax * Degree Days * 24)/1000
D1tmax = Number of units * D1max
Figure A1. Energy demand of terraced houses with gabled roofs in Epinlieu per month (kWh).
Figure A1. Energy demand of terraced houses with gabled roofs in Epinlieu per month (kWh).
Sustainability 11 04814 g0a1

Appendix A.2. Typo-Morphology 2: Terraced Houses with Flat Roofs (70 Units)

Table A2. Calculations of energy requirements for terraced unit(s) with flat roofs.
Table A2. Calculations of energy requirements for terraced unit(s) with flat roofs.
MonthDegree DaysArea of Losses (m²)U (W/m²K)UAmin (W/K)Energy Demand for One Building (D1min) (KWh)Energy Demand for All Buildings (Dtmin) (KWh)UAmax (W/K)Energy Demand for One Building (D1max) (KWh)Energy Demand for All Buildings (Dtmax) (KWh)
January436233.380.4176.55801.0056070.35114.821201.5184105.52
February544999.4269959.331499.13104939.00
March 457839.5958770.981259.3888156.48
April228418.8729321.19628.3143981.79
May149273.7419161.66410.6128742.48
June96176.3712345.76264.5518518.65
July78143.3010030.93214.9515046.40
August85156.1610931.15234.2416396.72
September185339.8823791.32509.8135686.98
October214393.1527520.77589.7341281.15
November397729.3651054.881094.0376582.32
December474870.8260957.211306.2391435.82
Total6141.65429915.539212.48644873.30
Explanations Sustainability 11 04814 i002
UAmin = 0,8 * U * S
UAmax = 1,2 * U * S
D1min = (UAmin X Degree Days * 24)/1000
D1tmin = Number of units * D1min
D1max = (UAmax *Degree Days * 24)/1000
D1tmax = Number of units * D1max
Figure A2. Energy demand of terraced houses with a flat roof in Epinlieu per month (kWh).
Figure A2. Energy demand of terraced houses with a flat roof in Epinlieu per month (kWh).
Sustainability 11 04814 g0a2

Appendix A.3. Typo-Morphology 3: Terraced Houses with Gabled Roofs and Parking (40 Units)

Table A3. Calculations of energy requirements for terraced unit(s) with gabled roofs and parking.
Table A3. Calculations of energy requirements for terraced unit(s) with gabled roofs and parking.
MonthDegree DaysArea of Losses (m²)U (W/m²K)UAmin (W/K)Energy Demand for One Building (D1min) (KWh)Energy Demand for All Buildings (Dtmin) (KWh)UAmax (W/K)Energy Demand for One Building (D1max) (KWh)Energy Demand for One Building (Dtmax) (KWh)
January436266.20.77163,981715.8868635.13245.972573.82102952.70
February5442140.9185636.503211.37128454.75
March 4571798.5271940.952697.79107911.43
April228897.2935891.771345.9453837.65
May149586.3923455.58879.5835183.38
June96377.8115112.32566.7122668.48
July78306.9712278.76460.4518418.14
August85334.5213380.70501.7820071.05
September185728.0729122.711092.1043684.06
October214842.2033687.891263.3050531.83
November3971562.3962495.752343.5993743.63
December4741865.4374617.102798.14111925.64
Total13156.38526255.17 19734.57789382.75
Explanations Sustainability 11 04814 i003
UAmin = 0,8 * U * S
UAmax = 1,2 * U * S
D1min = (UAmin X Degree Days * 24)/1000
D1tmin = Number of units * D1min
D1max = (UAmax * Degree Days * 24)/1000
D1tmax = Number of units * D1max
Figure A3. Energy demand of terraced houses with gabled roofs and parking in Epinlieu per month (kWh).
Figure A3. Energy demand of terraced houses with gabled roofs and parking in Epinlieu per month (kWh).
Sustainability 11 04814 g0a3

Appendix A.4. Typo-Morphology 4: Terraced Houses with Mansard Roofs (70 Units)

Table A4. Calculations of energy requirements for terraced unit(s) with mansard roofs.
Table A4. Calculations of energy requirements for terraced unit(s) with mansard roofs.
MonthDegree DaysArea of Losses (m²)U (W/m²K)UAmin (W/K)Energy Demand for One Building (D1min) (KWh)Energy Demand for All Buildings (Dtmin) (KWh)UAmax (W/K)Energy Demand for 1 Building (D1max) (KWh)Energy Demand for All Buildings (Dtmax) (KWh)
January436213.561.33227.232377.71166439.85340.843566.57249659.77
February5442966.69207668.074450.03311502.10
March 4572492.23174456.453738.35261684.67
April2281243.3987037.351865.09130556.03
May149812.5756879.671218.8585319.51
June96523.5336647.31785.3054970.96
July78425.3729775.94638.0644,663.90
August85463.5432448.14695.3248672.20
September1851008.8970622.411513.34105933.62
October2141167.0481692.951750.56122539.43
November3972165.03151551.883247.54227327.82
December4742584.94180946.073877.42271419.11
Total18230.941276166.0827346.421914249.13
Explanations Sustainability 11 04814 i004
UAmin = 0,8 * U * S
UAmax = 1,2 * U * S
D1min = (UAmin * Degree Days * 24)/1000
D1tmin = Number of units X D1min
D1max = (UAmax * Degree Days * 24)/1000
D1tmax = Number of units * D1max
Figure A4. Energy demand of terraced houses with mansard roofs in Epinlieu per month (kWh).
Figure A4. Energy demand of terraced houses with mansard roofs in Epinlieu per month (kWh).
Sustainability 11 04814 g0a4

Appendix A.5. Typo-Morphology 5: Apartments (10 Units)

Table A5. Calculations of energy requirements for apartments.
Table A5. Calculations of energy requirements for apartments.
MonthDegree DaysArea of Losses (m2)U (W/m2K)UAmin (W/K)Energy Demand for One Building (D1min) (KWh)Energy Demand for One Building (Dtmin) (KWh)UAmax (W/K)Energy Demand for One Building (D1max) (KWh)Energy Demand for One Building (Dtmax) (KWh)
January436742.281.701009.510563.42105634.161514.2515845.12158451.25
February54413180.04131800.4219770.06197700.64
March45711072.20110722.0516608.31166083.07
April2285523.9955239.888285.9882859.83
May1493609.9736099.755414.9654149.62
June962325.8923258.903488.8334888.35
July781889.7918897.852834.6828346.78
August852059.3820593.823089.0730890.72
September1854482.1844821.846723.2867232.75
October2145184.8051847.967777.1977771.94
November3979618.5296185.2414427.79144277.85
December47411484.08114840.8117226.12172261.22
Total80994.27809942.68 121491.401214914.02
Explanations Sustainability 11 04814 i005
UAmin = 0,8 * U* S
UAmax = 1,2 * U* S
D1min = (UAmin * Degree Days * 24)/1000
D1tmin = Number of units * D1min
D1max = (UAmax * Degree Days * 24)/1000
D1tmax = Number of units * D1max
Figure A5. Energy demand of apartments block in Epinlieu per month (kWh).
Figure A5. Energy demand of apartments block in Epinlieu per month (kWh).
Sustainability 11 04814 g0a5

References

  1. Girarbet, H. Creating Regenerative Cities, 1st ed.; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  2. Große, J.; Fertner, C.; Groth, N. Urban Structure, Energy and Planning: Findings from Three Cities in Sweden, Finland and Estonia. Urban Plan. 2016, 1, 24–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Owens, S. Energy, Planning and Urban Form; Pion Ltd: London, UK, 1986. [Google Scholar]
  4. Salat, S. Energy loads, CO2 emissions and building stocks: Morphologies, typologies, energy systems and behaviour. Build. Res. Inf. 2009, 37, 598–609. [Google Scholar]
  5. Ewing, F.; Rong, R. The Impact of Urban Form on U.S. Residential Energy Use. Hous. Policy Debate 2008, 19, 1–30. [Google Scholar]
  6. Urquizo, J.; Calderon, C.; James, P. Energy Research & Social Science Metrics of urban morphology and their impact on energy consumption: A case study in the United Kingdom. Chem. Phys. Lett. 2017, 32, 193–206. [Google Scholar]
  7. Baker, N.; Steemers, K. Energy and Environment in Architecture: A Technical Design Guide; Taylor & Francis: Abingdon, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  8. Miller, N. Urban Form and Building Energy: Quantifying Relationships Using a Multi-Scale Approach; University of British Columbia: Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  9. Mitchell, G. Urban Development, Form and Energy Use in Buildings: A Review for the Solutions Project; EPSRC: Swindon, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  10. Steemers, K. Energy and the city: Density, buildings and transport. Energy Build. 2003, 35, 3–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Sartori, I.; Napolitano, A.; Voss, K. Net zero energy buildings: A consistent definition framework. Energy Build. 2012, 48, 220–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. D’Agostino, D. Assessment of the progress towards the establishment of definitions of nearly zero energy buildings (nZEBs) in European member States. J. Build. Eng. 2015, 1, 20–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Sartori, I.; Napolitano, A.; Marszal, A.J.; Pless, S.; Torcellini, P. Criteria for Definition of Net Zero Energy Buildings. Renew. Energy 2012, 48, 1–22. [Google Scholar]
  14. Torcellini, P.; Pless, S.; Deru, M.; Crawley, D. Zero Energy Buildings: A Critical Look at the Definition. In ACEEE Summer Study Pacific Grove; National Renewable Energy Lab. (NREL): Golden, CO, USA, 2006; p. 15. [Google Scholar]
  15. Carlisle, N.; Geet, O.; Pless, S. Definition of a ‘Zero Net Energy’ Community; National Renewable Energy Lab.(NREL): Golden, CO, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  16. Reiter, A.; De Herde, S.; Marique, A. Projet SOLEN: SOlutions for Low Energy Neighborhoods. Un Cadre Pour la Définition du ‘Quartier Zéro Énergie’ (QZE). 2014. Available online: http://solen-energie.be (accessed on 10 January 2015).
  17. European Union. Concentrated Action: Energy Performance of Buildings (EPBD); European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2010; Available online: http://www.epbd-ca.eu/ (accessed on 5 January 2015).
  18. Amaral, A.; Rodrigues, A.; Gaspar, E.; Gomes, A. Review on performance aspects of nearly zero energy districts. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2018, 13, 406–420. [Google Scholar]
  19. Ratti, C.; Baker, N.; Steemers, K. Energy consumption and urban texture. Energy Build. 2005, 37, 762–776. [Google Scholar]
  20. Sanaieian, H.; Tenpierik, M.; van den Linden, K.; Mehdizadeh, S.; Mofidi, S. Review of the impact of urban block form on thermal performance, solar access and ventilation. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 38, 551–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Jenks, M.; Dempsey, N. Defining the neighbourhood: Challenges for empirical research. Town Plan. Rev. 2007, 78, 153–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Barton, H.; Grant, M.; Guise, R. Shaping Neighbourhoods: A Guide for Health, Sustainability and Vitality; Spon Press: London, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  23. Pless, S.; Polly, B.; Zaleski, S. Communities of the Future: Accelerating Zero Energy District Master Planning; National Renewable Energy Lab. (NREL): Golden, CO, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  24. Broaddus, A. Tale of Two Ecosuburbs in Freiburg, Germany: Encouraging Transit and Bicycle Use by Restricting Parking Provision. J. Transp. Res. Board 2010, 2187, 114–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Teller, J.; Marique, A.F.; Loiseau, V.; Godard, F.; Delbar, C. Référentiel Quartiers Durables; Université de Liège: Liège, Belgium, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  26. Becchio, P.; Corgnai, C.; Delmastro, S.; Fabi, C.; Lombardi, V. The role of nearly-zero energy buildings in the transition towards Post-Carbon Cities. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2016, 27, 324–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kilkis, S. A Rational Exergy Management Model to Curb CO2 Emissions in the Exergy-Aware Built Environments of the Future; KTH Royal Institute of Technology School of Architecture and the Built Environment: Stockholm, Sweden, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  28. Haapio, A. Towards sustainable urban communities. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2012, 32, 165–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Sun, Y.; Huang, P.; Huang, G. A multi-criteria system design optimization for net zero energy buildings under uncertainties. Energy Build. 2015, 97, 196–204. [Google Scholar]
  30. Ameen, R.; Mourshed, M.; Li, H. A critical review of environmental assessment tools for sustainable urban design. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2015, 55, 110–125. [Google Scholar]
  31. Koutra, S.; Becue, V.; Ioakimidis, C.S. A Simplified Methodological Approach towards the Net Zero Energy District; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2017; Volume 738. [Google Scholar]
  32. Bosch, A.; Jongeneel, P.; Rovers, S.; Neumann, V.; Airaksinen, H.; Huovila, M. CITYkeys Indicators for Smart City Projects and Smart Cities; European Commission, 2017; Available online: http://nws.eurocities.eu/MediaShell/media/CITYkeysD14Indicatorsforsmartcityprojectsandsmartcities.pdf (accessed on 10 February 2015).
  33. Salat, S.; Labbé, F.; Nowacki, C.; Walker, C. Cities and Forms: On Sustainable Urbanism; CSTB Urban Morphology Laboratory: Paris, France, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  34. Koutra, S.; Becue, V.; Griffon, J.-B.; Ioakeimidis, C.S. Towards a net-zero energy district transformation in a mono-criterion scenario analysis the case of Bo01, Malmö district. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Smart Cities and Green ICT Systems (SMARTGREENS 2017), Porto, Portugal, 22–24 April 2017. [Google Scholar]
  35. Marique, A.F. Les Quartiers Durables: Processus de Production et Reproductibilité; University of Liege: Liège, Belgium, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  36. Schulz, C. Urban Design for Sustainability: Learning from Helsinki. 2006. [Google Scholar]
  37. Pic-Au-Vent: Un Nouveau Quartier de 36 Maisons Passives à Tournai. 2010. Available online: https://energie.wallonie.be/servlet/Repository/cale3_8oct2010_4_temoignage-picauvent.pdf?ID=15901 (accessed on 10 February 2015).
  38. Reiter, T.; Marique, S.; de Herde, A.F.; de Meester, A. SOLEN (SOlutions for Low Energy Neighbourhoods): L’objectif Zéro Énergie: Un État de L’art; 2014. Available online: http://solen-energie.be (accessed on 15 February 2015).
  39. Ruelle, A.F.; Marique, C. La Durabilité à L’échelle du Quartier; Lepur: Centre de Recherche sur la Ville, le Territoire et le Milieu rural; LEMA: Namur, Belgium, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  40. ATESTOC: Stockage D’énergie Thermique en Aquifère Pour la Réalisation D’éco-Quartier; 2011. Available online: https://anr.fr/Projet-ANR-08-STKE-0002 (accessed on 15 February 2015).
  41. Rinne, H. Eco-Viikki (Helsinki-FI). In Guidebook of Sustainable Neighbourhoods in Europe; Energy Cities: Brussels, Belgium; ADEME: Montpellier, France, 2008; pp. 27–28. [Google Scholar]
  42. Chuvieco, E. Integration of Linear Programming and GIS for Land-Use Modelling. Geogr. Inf. Syst. 1993, 7, 71–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Yeh, A. Urban planning and GIS. 1990. Available online: https://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/~gisteac/gis_book_abridged/files/ch62.pdf (accessed on 15 February 2015).
  44. Bahramara, S.; Moghaddam, M.; Haghifam, M. Optimal planning of hybrid renewable energy systems using HOMER: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 62, 609–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Karayiannis, T. Degree-days: Comparison of calculation methods. Build. Serv. Eng. 1998, 19, 7–13. [Google Scholar]
  46. Eurostat. Electricity Prices for Household Consumers - bi-annual Data, 2018. Available online: https://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=nrg_pc_204&lang=en (accessed on 15 February 2015).
  47. Jones, C.; Gilbert, P. Determining the consequential life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of increased rooftop photovoltaic deployment. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 184, 211–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Huld, T.; Muller, R.; Gambardella, A. A new solar radiation database for estimating PV performance in Europe and Africa. Sol. Energy 2012, 1803–1815. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Urban form/spatial structure, functional relations, and policy context as interrelated dimensions.
Figure 1. Urban form/spatial structure, functional relations, and policy context as interrelated dimensions.
Sustainability 11 04814 g001
Figure 2. Urban structure variables affecting energy at diverse urban scales.
Figure 2. Urban structure variables affecting energy at diverse urban scales.
Sustainability 11 04814 g002
Figure 3. The understanding of the “district” in the U-ZED methodological approach.
Figure 3. The understanding of the “district” in the U-ZED methodological approach.
Sustainability 11 04814 g003
Figure 4. The U-ZED approach in phases.
Figure 4. The U-ZED approach in phases.
Sustainability 11 04814 g004
Figure 5. General description of the methodology.
Figure 5. General description of the methodology.
Sustainability 11 04814 g005
Figure 6. U-ZED concept.
Figure 6. U-ZED concept.
Sustainability 11 04814 g006
Figure 7. Diagnosis of the U-ZED approach.
Figure 7. Diagnosis of the U-ZED approach.
Sustainability 11 04814 g007
Figure 8. Criteria identification for NZEDs along the axis of “location” and “typology”.
Figure 8. Criteria identification for NZEDs along the axis of “location” and “typology”.
Sustainability 11 04814 g008
Figure 9. Overall key parameters and criteria influencing the zero-energy concept in districts.
Figure 9. Overall key parameters and criteria influencing the zero-energy concept in districts.
Sustainability 11 04814 g009
Figure 10. General description of the U-ZED approach.
Figure 10. General description of the U-ZED approach.
Sustainability 11 04814 g010
Figure 11. Urban planning and GIS use.
Figure 11. Urban planning and GIS use.
Sustainability 11 04814 g011
Figure 12. Principal morphologies in the district of Epinlieu (Mons).
Figure 12. Principal morphologies in the district of Epinlieu (Mons).
Sustainability 11 04814 g012
Figure 13. Analysis of the construction age of the built environment.
Figure 13. Analysis of the construction age of the built environment.
Sustainability 11 04814 g013
Figure 14. Typical annual profile of heating degree days in Belgium (period: 1 August 2017 to 1 August 2018).
Figure 14. Typical annual profile of heating degree days in Belgium (period: 1 August 2017 to 1 August 2018).
Sustainability 11 04814 g014
Figure 15. Average energy requirements in the diverse typo-morphologies of the district of Epinlieu.
Figure 15. Average energy requirements in the diverse typo-morphologies of the district of Epinlieu.
Sustainability 11 04814 g015
Figure 16. Analysis of profile of the electricity requirements in Epinlieu.
Figure 16. Analysis of profile of the electricity requirements in Epinlieu.
Sustainability 11 04814 g016
Figure 17. Analysis of PV production per typo-morphology in the district of Epinlieu.
Figure 17. Analysis of PV production per typo-morphology in the district of Epinlieu.
Sustainability 11 04814 g017
Figure 18. Projected amenities and facilities for the transition of the district of Epinlieu into a zero-energy concept.
Figure 18. Projected amenities and facilities for the transition of the district of Epinlieu into a zero-energy concept.
Sustainability 11 04814 g018
Table 1. Methods and tools in the literature to support studies of districts and U-ZED novelty (adapted by [24]).
Table 1. Methods and tools in the literature to support studies of districts and U-ZED novelty (adapted by [24]).
Topic/FieldObjectivesMethods/ToolsScaleReference
NZED/
NZEB
Definition proposal for NZEDHierarchical and qualitative approachDistrict[15]
Assessment of extending NZEB concept to district scaleDynamic simulationsDistrict[25]
Assessment of alternative scenarios for NZED constructionMulticriteria decision analysisDistrict[26]
Optimization of energy systems design toward NZEDGenetic algorithmDistrict[27]
Sustainability assessment toolsAnalysis of existing sustainability assessment tools Comparative analysis and dataDistrict[28]
Analysis of existing sustainability assessment tools Comparative analysis and dataUrban[29]
Analysis of existing sustainability assessment tools Top-down and bottom-up modelsDistrict[30]
U-ZEDDevelopment of a holistic theoretical methodological approach at the conception phase with a zero-energy contextParametrical concept of the NZED with the use of a Geographical Information System (GIS) toolDistrict[31]
Table 2. Factors influencing building energy consumption.
Table 2. Factors influencing building energy consumption.
Mitchell [9]Salat et al. [33]Ratti et al. [19]
Urban geometryUrban structureUrban geometry
Building morphologyBuilding performanceBuilding design [7]
Thermal performance of materialsEquipment and system efficiencySystem efficiency
Efficiency of internal systemsUser/occupant behaviorOccupant behavior
Occupant activities and behaviorType of energy use
Internal and external temperatures
Table 3. Key performance indicators (KPIs) in NZEDs.
Table 3. Key performance indicators (KPIs) in NZEDs.
KPIsCriterion(a)DescriptionU-ZED ApproachReferences
Site opportunities Location Site topographyGeographical site with a potential for energy resource proximity and city center accessibility Climate conditions Distance from city center: 3–5 km Distance between the “stops”: 200–500 m[34]
Mobility Available public transport 1500 m from IC/IR or less than 1000 m from a local railway station[25]
Parking 0.2–0.5 places per dwelling, 500 places of parking in proximity to stations of means of transport[25]
ResourcesNatural resourcesProduction on-siteLocal production by local resources at least 20%[25]
Site attributesSurfaceNumber of ha -[35]
PopulationNumber of residents ≤5000 inhabitants[25]
DwellingsNumber of dwellings 500–2000[25]
Typology/morphologyCompactnessA dwelling is considered to be semidetached if at least 80% of the area of two of its walls is in contact with a heated area50% terraced, 30% terraced [25]
DensityDwellings/ha ≥30 dwellings dwel/ha (poles) ≥40 dwel/ha (suburban)[36]
Orientation (angle)Southeast and southwest orientation50% of the windows to the south, 20% of the windows to the east and west, 10% of the windows to north, forming “L”[37]
Functional and social mixingMixed-use land uses 15 different services/infrastructure in a perimeter of 1000 m 300 m in proximity to a commercial center 300 m in proximity to a primary school
500 m in proximity to an activity center
[38]
Social mixingNumber of social dwellings/surface (ha)15% in social dwellings, 10% of district’s dwellings accessible to “middle” revenues [38]
Mixing in DwellingsVariety of dwellings/land uses in NZEDs10% studios and/or dwellings of “one room”, 10% of dwellings “two rooms”, 10% of “three rooms” or more, 10% of public dwellings (Ground floor +1) to (Ground floor +5) (max)[25]
AmenitiesConnections to city center Distances of the NZED from city center Average distance between 2 and 3 km from the city center for the urban areas and 3 and 8 km from the city center for the suburban areas[25]
Green spacesExpressed in m2 spaces/number of inhabitants in NZEDs30% to 50% of the site surface and 30% to 40% in suburban areas[25]
Collective spacesNumber of collective (public) spaces in NZEDs700 m around the site’s limits[25]
Infrastructure/services for disable persons Number of services provided for disabled persons 10% of dwellings accessible to disabled persons[39]
EnergyConception of districts with low energy consumption-Average consumption: ≤60 kWh/m2/y (heating) Electricity: ≤20 kWh/m2/y[40]
Energy production by renewable energy resources Maximization of the use of natural resources Combination of the use of natural resources and the installation of various systems [40]
WaterRecuperation of storm waterValorization of storm water 100 lt/day/pers[40,41]
WasteWaste reuse Valorization of waste 60 m from residential dwellings, 100 kg/person/year[25,41]
Systems “Smart” installation of systems for the reduction of energy consumptionEnergy water waste Heating: solar panels/captures
Wind turbines
Thermal solar panels Electricity: photovoltaic panels
Cogeneration
[40]
Table 4. Calculations of average energy requirements in diverse typo-morphologies in Epinlieu.
Table 4. Calculations of average energy requirements in diverse typo-morphologies in Epinlieu.
MonthType 1Type 2Type 3Type 4Type 5
January8388.1170,087.9385,793.92208,049.81132,042.70
February111,530.1287,449.17107,045.62259,585.08164,750.53
March93,693.5073,463.7389,926.19218,070.56138,402.56
April46,744.2436,651.4944,864.71108,796.6969,049.85
May30,547.7723,952.0729,319.4871,099.5945,124.69
June19,681.7915,432.2118,890.4045,809.1329,073.62
July15,991.4512,538.6715,348.4537,219.9223,622.32
August17,426.5813,663.9316,725.8840,560.1725,742.27
Sep37,928.4429,739.1536,403.3888,278.0256,027.29
Oct43,873.9834,400.9642,109.86102,116.1964,809.95
Nov81,392.3863,818.6078,119.69189,439.85120,231.55
Dec97,178.8276,196.5293,271.37226,182.59143,551.01
Total685,377.17537,394.42657,818.961,595,207.611,012,428.35
Table 5. Summary of PV installation specifications per building typology.
Table 5. Summary of PV installation specifications per building typology.
Household TypeEstimated Annual Electricity Consumption (kWh/yr)Calculated PV Output (kWh/yr)PV Installation Surface Area (m2) Module Size (Peimar SG325P)Levelized Cost of Energy (€/kWh)Annual Energy Savings (%)
Small5566576335.118 (5.72 kW)0.29472.2%
Average6123547433.167 (5.42 kW)0.29067.3%
Large block22,26414,99989.746 (14 kW)0.23047.2%

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Koutra, S.; Pagnoule, C.; Galatoulas, N.-F.; Bagheri, A.; Waroux, T.; Becue, V.; Ioakimidis, C.S. The Zero-Energy Idea in Districts: Application of a Methodological Approach to a Case Study of Epinlieu (Mons). Sustainability 2019, 11, 4814. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11174814

AMA Style

Koutra S, Pagnoule C, Galatoulas N-F, Bagheri A, Waroux T, Becue V, Ioakimidis CS. The Zero-Energy Idea in Districts: Application of a Methodological Approach to a Case Study of Epinlieu (Mons). Sustainability. 2019; 11(17):4814. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11174814

Chicago/Turabian Style

Koutra, Sesil, Claire Pagnoule, Nikolaos-Fivos Galatoulas, Ali Bagheri, Thomas Waroux, Vincent Becue, and Christos S. Ioakimidis. 2019. "The Zero-Energy Idea in Districts: Application of a Methodological Approach to a Case Study of Epinlieu (Mons)" Sustainability 11, no. 17: 4814. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11174814

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop