Potential of Energy Savings in the Public Housing Stock of Comunitat Valenciana Region by Applying the MedZEB Cost-Optimal Methodology

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. The work is well presented and interesting and this was an engaging paper to read. The paper is well written but some improvement in the level of the English language is still required. Some indicative examples are provided below:

• In Lines 60 – 61: Energy simulations supported by a cost-optimal methodology have been used to design the renovation of historic buildings with a cost-optimal methodology. There is repetition here that needs to be avoided.
• In lines 64 – 66: however, the present paper is focused on non-historic buildings, juts in residential buildings, given that some of the renovation measures, such as external insulation on the façade could not be applied. Consider revising since as it is currently stated it delivers the opposite message than intended. External insulation can be applied in non-historic buildings.
• Line 56: however, it is assessed
• Line 69: It is considered

 

2. The introduction should include a more thorough literature review of methodologies using the cost-optimal methodology. Indicatively the following publications and references therein:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.11.143

https://doi.org/10.3390/app11115108

 

3. In addition, the MedZEB methodology should be explained/included more in the main body of the paper. MedZEB is mentioned in the title, abstract and the introduction section but not anywhere else in the main body of the paper. However, in Section 2. ‘Materials and Methods’ and Section 3 only the HAPPEN project is mentioned and this creates confusion. The MedZEB approach should mentioned more frequently in the main body of the paper and it should clearly be stated that the MedZEB approach was applied in the HAPPEN project.

 

4. Description of the climate and the number of blocks and flats appears to need revising (lines 223 – 230). Firstly, in line 224 it is mentioned that W1S2 is the coastal area whilst in line 197 it is mentioned that W2S2 is the coastal area. In addition, the percentages of blocks and flats in the two areas do not agree with table 3. In table 3, the vast majority of both blocks and flats are in W1S2.

 

5. In section 4.1 there is repetition. Lines 275 to 288 present the same information as lines 165 – 177. In fact, lines 275 – 288 present the information much clearer so I suggest that they replace the two paragraphs in 165-177.

 

6. In lines 290 and 304, the numbering should change to 4.2 and 4.3 respectively

 

7. A section should be added to describe the limitations of the methodology. For example, the fact that the online tool used does not take into account other orientations than N-S and E-W (the authors could comment on the effect on accuracy), the fact that the analysis is based on reference buildings with predefined U-values etc. What is the average U-value of each building type (SFH1, SFH2 and SFH3) and how does that compare to the fixed U-values of the Strovolos building that was used as reference building as shown in Figure 2?

 

8. In this respect, the authors should weigh the aforementioned limitations and the compromises in accuracy against the advantages offered and comment on the replicability of the method. Is it considered an appropriate method for such analysis?

 

9. A lot of work seems to have taken place to classify the housing stock in blocks which is not reflected in the paper. The description of this work should be added in the body of the paper to acknowledge it.

 

10. The methodology section should elaborate on the concepts of the Preselected Optimal Scenarios and the difference of these POSs with the solutions. For example, POS4 is mentioned in the appendix considering Solution 4 (Table A2) and POS4s considering Solution 1 (Table A3). When reading the paper, it was expected that a certain POS would be fixed and not being further parametrised to specific solutions. It is not clear how these solutions were derived and how are they affecting the POSs. For example, could there be a POS4 considering solution 2? And how is this determined? This is not clear.

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1

Comments and Suggestions for Authors:

1. The work is well presented and interesting and this was an engaging paper to read. The paper is well written but some improvement in the level of the English language is still required. Some indicative examples are provided below:

• • In Lines 60 – 61: Energy simulations supported by a cost-optimal methodologyhave been used to design the renovation of historic buildings with a cost-optimal methodology. There is repetition here that needs to be avoided.

Response: It has been avoided by removing “with a cost-optimal methodology”. The whole text has been checked and some corrections have been done.

• • In lines 64 – 66: however, the present paper is focused on non-historic buildings, juts in residential buildings, given that some of the renovation measures, such as external insulation on the façade could not be applied. Consider revising since as it is currently stated it delivers the opposite message than intended. External insulation can be applied in non-historic buildings.

Response: The paragraph has been modified as follows: “however, the present paper is not focused on historic buildings. It is focused just on residential buildings, given that some of the renovation measures, such as external insulation on the façade, could be applied”.

• • Line 56: however, it is assessed

Response: The paragraph has been modified as follows: “however, it is assessed the total primary energy savings per year (MW/h) of the social dwelling stock for three scenarios according to three renovation rates are assessed,”.

• • Line 69: It is considered

Response: The paragraph has been modified as follows: “Passive and active measures have been considered for the refurbishment of residential buildings following the cost-optimal methodology of the European Directives”.

2. The introduction should include a more thorough literature review of methodologies using the cost-optimal methodology. Indicatively the following publications and references therein:

• https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.11.143
• https://doi.org/10.3390/app11115108

Response: We kindly thank you for the suggestion and the references provided. They have been included. Furthermore, references 2, 6, 7, 10, 11, 19.

3. In addition, the MedZEB methodology should be explained/included more in the main body of the paper. MedZEB is mentioned in the title, abstract and the introduction section but not anywhere else in the main body of the paper. However, in Section 2. ‘Materials and Methods’ and Section 3 only the HAPPEN project is mentioned and this creates confusion. The MedZEB approach should mentioned more frequently in the main body of the paper and it should clearly be stated that the MedZEB approach was applied in the HAPPEN project.

Response: After Table 1 and Table 2 (Section 2) some explanations have been added to better understand the methodology:

“It is important to clarify that each POS is defined as the whole set of solutions near to the optimal point with the minimum life cycle cost. To this end, the solutions with a LCC up to 5% higher than the minimum were determined. Then, the solutions with an increase of 5% of Primary Energy Consumption with regards to the optimal point were determined. Among these solutions, 12 were selected as the representative of the POS [5].

Therefore, although all the solutions in the POS minimize the life cycle cost, one is the absolute minimum, and the rest are close to it. Thus, it was possible not to limit the renovation of the building to a unique set of measures, and to increase the flexibility and the degree of freedom on behalf of the architect or engineer involved in the refurbishment process.

In order to increase the accuracy of these POS and increase their applicability, another set of 16 pre-evaluated POS have been obtained for the combination of the same climates and the buildings spinned 90º, to have their main façades oriented in E-W instead of N-S orientations. These POS solutions have been called POSX spinned. Where the number X corresponds to the same number that the one in the table 2 for the combination of a given building and climate.”

4. Description of the climate and the number of blocks and flats appears to need revising (lines 223 – 230). Firstly, in line 224 it is mentioned that W1S2 is the coastal area whilst in line 197 it is mentioned that W2S2 is the coastal area. In addition, the percentages of blocks and flats in the two areas do not agree with table 3. In table 3, the vast majority of both blocks and flats are in W1S2.

Response: These errors in the text have been corrected. Thanks for noticing.

5. In section 4.1 there is repetition. Lines 275 to 288 present the same information as lines 165 – 177. In fact, lines 275 – 288 present the information much clearer so I suggest that they replace the two paragraphs in 165-177.

Response: Section 4.1 has been moved after Table 3.

6. In lines 290 and 304, the numbering should change to 4.2 and 4.3 respectively

Response: As section 4.1 has been moved, the numbering has been changed accordingly. Thanks.

7. A section should be added to describe the limitations of the methodology. For example, the fact that the online tool used does not take into account other orientations than N-S and E-W (the authors could comment on the effect on accuracy), the fact that the analysis is based on reference buildings with predefined U-values etc. What is the average U-value of each building type (SFH1, SFH2 and SFH3) and how does that compare to the fixed U-values of the Strovolos building that was used as reference building as shown in Figure 2?

Response: The authors would like to thank to the reviewer for this comment that has contributed to the better understanding of the paper. A new subsection (2.1) has been added to describe the limitations. Also, a new paragraph has been added in the "materials and method" section in order to improve the description of the pre-evaluated POS. The Average U-values of the reference buildings has been added in the table 1. The Strovolos building corresponds to the SFH17 which is one of the previous. The thermal and geometrical characteristics of the SFH1, 2, 3 and MFH1, 2, 3 was not added in the original manuscript for the sake of simplicity. Now they have been added in the Appendix B.

8. In this respect, the authors should weigh the aforementioned limitations and the compromises in accuracy against the advantages offered and comment on the replicability of the method. Is it considered an appropriate method for such analysis?

Response: This has been tackled in the new methodology 2.1 subsection, where an analysis of pros and cons of this methodology has been included.

9. A lot of work seems to have taken place to classify the housing stock in blocks which is not reflected in the paper. The description of this work should be added in the body of the paper to acknowledge it.

Response: Thanks for the appreciation, and the suggestion. The paragraph after Table 7, and the paragraph after Table 10 have been included.

1. 10. The methodology section should elaborate on the concepts of the Preselected Optimal Scenarios and the difference of these POSs with the solutions. For example, POS4 is mentioned in the appendix considering Solution 4 (Table A2) and POS4s considering Solution 1 (Table A3). When reading the paper, it was expected that a certain POS would be fixed and not being further parametrised to specific solutions. It is not clear how these solutions were derived and how are they affecting the POSs. For example, could there be a POS4 considering solution 2? And how is this determined? This is not clear.

Response: The authors want to express their grateful for this comment that has been especially useful to increase the quality of the paper. In fact, each pre-evaluated POS is composed not only by the best solution but for 12 solutions very near of the optimum. This has been decided in order to increase the flexibility when choosing a renovation solution. Therefore, all the solutions in the POS minimize the life cycle cost, one is the absolute minimum, and the rest are close to it. Thus, it was possible not to limit the renovation of the building to a unique set of measures, and to increase the flexibility and the degree of decision on behalf of the architect or engineer involved in the process. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, thank you for interesting and up to date paper. Before publication some major changes should be implemented:

Specific remarks

• „Collectively, buildings in the EU are responsible for 40% of our energy consumption 31 and 36% of greenhouse gas emissions, which mainly stem from construction, usage, ren-32 ovation, and demolition.” – lack of source
• Table 1 Reference buildings characteristics – It is not clear to what element the U-values are referring
• Figure 1. Full set of Packages of Optimal Solutions. – It is not clear what the colours are meaning
• Table 9 POS1: Renovation measures of solution 9 – why some measures were not implemented, there should be some explanation

General remarks:

• The results show in Table 8 should be better explained and commented. This is not clear what the No. is referring to? Why the variant with the highest primary energy saving was chosen when the cost optimal methodology is used?
• The paper should show the difference between cost optimal and NZEB renovation standard. There are not the same and some literature study should be conducted in this regard.
• The analysis of heat source exchange, renovation is missing. There is no information about the type of energy source, technical systems – ventilation, heating, DHW, PEF factors. The exchange of energy, heat source will have huge influence on primary energy consumption. Can be also more cost efficient that insulation of building envelope. The study should be supplemented by these aspects.
• There is no information about cooling energy consumption and type of cooling systems. The study should be supplemented by these aspects.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2

Specific remarks:

• Collectively, buildings in the EU are responsible for 40% of our energy consumption 31 and 36% of greenhouse gas emissions, which mainly stem from construction, usage, ren-32 ovation, and demolition.” – lack of source.

Response: In page 1 of the article, reference [1] has been added. It refers to an existing reference.

• Table 1 Reference buildings characteristics – It is not clear to what element the U-values are referring.

Response: It has been added on page 5 of the article, table 1, in the proper cell and as table footer, that it refers to the average Û-value: Average U-value is the sum weighted by area of the U-values of walls, windows, roof and slab-on-grade.

• Figure 1. Full set of Packages of Optimal Solutions. – It is not clear what the colours are meaning.

Response: All the same POS (with the same number) have the same colour. So, it has been added in the text before Figure 1, page 4 of the article, the following clarification: “Therefore, each POS has been assigned with a specific colour to differentiate at a glance in the matrix the different POSs.”

• Table 9 POS1: Renovation measures of solution 9 – why some measures were not implemented, there should be some explanation.

Response: Because in the context of the cost optimal solutions it was not required. The clarification has been added to the corresponding cells of the table 9, on page 10 of the article.

General remarks:

• The results show in Table 8 should be better explained and commented. This is not clear what the No. is referring to? Why the variant with the highest primary energy saving was chosen when the cost optimal methodology is used?

Response: In the text of the article, on page 9, after table 8, the following text has been added: “The package of optimal solutions (POS) is defined as the whole set of solutions near to the optimal point with the minimum life cycle cost. To this end, the solutions with a LCC up to 5% higher than the minimum were be determined. Then, the solutions with an increase of 5% of Primary Energy Consumption with regards to the optimal point were determined. Among these solutions, 12 were selected as the representative of the POS [5].

Therefore, all the solutions in the POS minimize the life cycle cost, one is the ab-solute minimum, and the rest are close to it. Thus, it was possible not to limit the renovation of the building to a unique set of measures, and to increase the flexibility and the degree of decision on behalf of the architect or engineer involved in the process”.

Anyway, we would like to clarify that, all the solutions of the Package of Optimal Solutions (POS) minimise the Life Cycle Cost, one of the solutions refers to absolute minimum and the rest of the solutions are very near. 12 solutions have been chosen so that the user of the POS can choose, giving this way a certain variety instead of providing rigidity by providing only one solution. For the purpose of this study, the solution with lower primary energy consumption has been chosen from all the range of solutions that are part of the Package of Optimal Solutions.

• The paper should show the difference between cost optimal and NZEB renovation standard. There are not the same and some literature study should be conducted in this regard.

Response: The focus of this paper is the LCC methodology applied to a building stock. Nevertheless, in the literature review, some papers referred to the nZEB renovation standard. The reference to this standard was done in these papers. Nevertheless, these references have been removed from the present article to avoid any misunderstanding. To be more precise it has been removed from page 2 of the article.

• The analysis of heat source exchange, renovation is missing. There is no information about the type of energy source, technical systems – ventilation, heating, DHW, PEF factors. The exchange of energy, heat source will have huge influence on primary energy consumption. Can be also more cost efficient that insulation of building envelope. The study should be supplemented by these aspects.

Response: The analysis of the influence of the thermal systems is out of the scope of this paper. It is stated on page 9 of the article, before table 8: “The thermal systems have not been considered for the renovation since EVha manages public housing stock where passive measures for improving the building envelope are prioritized to active measures. Therefore, further energy savings could be obtained if they are considered in the renovation”. Indeed, the papers referenced as [6, 7] have also the same scope (passive measures).

Furthermore, in the conclusion of the article, on page 12 it is stated: “The thermal systems have not been considered for the renovation (the default values were kept), so higher energy savings could be obtained if they are considered in the renovation. Therefore, further research including in the renovation measures the variability of the thermal systems should be carried out to get higher energy savings”. The proposed renovation in two steps (passive measures first and including active measures in a second phase) is because passive measures should be addressed first, if not there is the risk of oversizing the thermal systems.

To better understand the study, the following text has been added in the article on page 9:

“The aim of the paper is to analyse the potential for reducing global consumption. For the heating system a performance of 0.92 has been used as indicated in the Spanish regulations [18]. With this value the final energy consumption has been evaluated. The transition from final to primary energy has been made using a factor of 1.01 kWhp.e./kWhf.e. This value is the one reported for Spain in [19]. For the cooling system, the procedure is analogous, the energy source is electricity, and therefore the average efficiency is 2.60, and the transfer factor from final to primary energy is 2.61 kWhp.e./kWhf.e.”

• There is no information about cooling energy consumption and type of cooling systems. The study should be supplemented by these aspects.

Response: As explained in the previous response this is out of the scope of the paper. The goal of the present article is to analyse the overall consumption reduction potential. For this reason, no consumption results have been provided broken down by use: heating, cooling, DHW production, etc. System improvements have not been considered because the objective of the paper is a first stage of renovation based on measures on the envelope, thermal bridges, airtightness, ventilation, and shading elements. The improvement of the systems would be carried out in a second stage once the previous one has been optimally undertaken. The above measures are prioritised because it has been identified that a bad practice in building renovation is to improve the thermal systems without having previously improved the envelope, thermal bridges, airtightness, ventilation, and shading elements. Measures that are much more economical, durable and that once optimised allow a better dimensioning of the air conditioning systems.

PS: all the references to the pages, refer to the pages of the initial article.

Reviewer 3 Report

 

• 1. The first sentence in “Introduction” needs a reference.
• EVha is first mentioned in the Abstract, but the explanation/definition was in p. 3 under Materials and Methods section, and repeated in p. 4 “EVha stands for Entitat Valenciana d’Habitatge i Sòl that means the “Valencian entity for dwelling and 146 ground”.
• “this paper describes a cost-optimal analysis of a residential building of Catalonia, Spain”, such sentence, or similar one, is necessary to be included in the Abstract.
• p. 4. Case study: social housing stock managed by EVha. Maybe there is a need for a map showing the location.
• Some sections (5. Block orientation, 3.6. Block height, 3.7. Block typology) can be better and visually understood easier if they were supported by illustrations/graphs.
• Depending on the journal guidelines and format, I am not sure if Appendix A should be before or after the list of references.
• The paper is rich with information, but in some parts the language needs to be simplified with more focus on the main line of the paper.
• There is a need for more references. Only half of references are from scientific journals.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors:

• The first sentence in “Introduction” needs a reference.

Response: In page 1 of the article, reference [1] has been added. It refers to an existing reference.

• EVhais first mentioned in the Abstract, but the explanation/definition was in p. 3 under Materials and Methods section, and repeated in p. 4 “EVha stands for Entitat Valenciana d’Habitatge i Sòl that means the “Valencian entity for dwelling and 146 ground”.

Response: The clarification has been added to the abstract, page 1, where it is first mentioned EVha. Therefore, it has been removed from the rest of sections of the article to avoid repetitions. That is, it has been removed from page 4, section 3.1.

• “this paper describes a cost-optimal analysis of a residential building of Catalonia, Spain”, such sentence, or similar one, is necessary to be included in the Abstract.

Response: It has been added in the abstract the sentence: “This paper describes a cost-optimal analysis of residential buildings of Valencian Community, Spain.”

• 4. Case study: social housing stock managed by EVha. Maybe there is a need for a map showing the location.

Response: On page 4 of the article, section 3.1 Introduction, two figures have been added, one referring to the location of the Valencian Community in Spain, and another one referring the location of the social dwellings in the Valencian Community. Consequently, the following figures and their references have been renumbered accordingly.

• Some sections (5. Block orientation, 3.6. Block height, 3.7. Block typology) can be better and visually understood easier if they were supported by illustrations/graphs.

Response: All the building stock of Valencian Community has been resembled to the reference buildings according to table 1, page 3, where the images of the buildings contain the symbol indicating north and the building morphology.

• Depending on the journal guidelines and format, I am not sure if Appendix A should be before or after the list of references.

Response: According to the template “applsci-template.dot” it is indicated to be placed before the references section. Therefore, it has been placed there in the present paper.

• The paper is rich with information, but in some parts the language needs to be simplified with more focus on the main line of the paper.

Response: On page 4: it has been added “Guardigli et al. performed …”, it has been corrected the words “juts” to “just”; “operate” to “operates”; “the three main types”; “until 2 floors or over 3 floors” to “(until 2 floors, or, over 3 floors)”. On page 5: it has been corrected “a second group of it after 2000” to “a second group of them after 2000”, “they three correspond” to “the three correspond”. On page 6: “near to 70% as shown further in depth” to “near to 70%”, “ The Valencian territory is divided in two sections, the coolest of them in a very small area in NW of Valencia and Western Castellón into the W1S2 area, characterised by near continental weather with cold winters and hot summers.” To “. The Valencian territory is divided in two sections. The coolest of them is in a very small area in NW of Valencia and Western Castellón, corresponding to the W1S2 area, and characterised by near continental weather with cold winters and hot summers.”; “They really compose every promotion considering them not only as the isolated construction in the city space but, specifically for the study, the different staircases in a block when different heights in the building define different blocks considered.” to “The different buildings have been considered taking into account the physical location in the city, the height of the building and the orientation. For instance, when a building was composed of different heights (number of floors), for the purpose of this study, they have been considered as different building blocks.”; “This point must be considered because the analysis finally deals inner flat conditions, such comfort matters to be implemented.” has been deleted to simplify; “As told” to “As previously indicated”. On page 7: “for ventilation and sunlight maters.” to “for ventilation and sunlight topics.”; “the almost the 37% of the blocks” to “almost the 37% of the blocks”; “into that 37%” to “within that 37%”; “where this single-family house typology was very often implemented,” to “where this single-family house typology was very often constructed,”; “This case extends” to “This case can be extended”; “As a detail of the citation numerals” to “As a summary of the figures mentioned previously”. Page 8: “Therefor” to “Therefore”; “3.2” to “4.2”; “and,” to “and”; “3.3” to “4.3”; “different” to “differently”. On page 12: the reference [17] has been introduced. On page 12: The Acknowledgments paragraph has been removed since it was empty.

• There is a need for more references. Only half of references are from scientific journals.

Response: According to new numbering, references 2, 6, 7, 10, 11, 18 and 19 have been added and referred in the appropriate sections in the text of the article. Most of the added references belong to scientific journals (Energy and Buildings).

PS: all the references to the pages, refer to the pages of the initial article.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The review comments have been adequately addressed and the work is now clearer to the reader that has no previous knowledge of the methodology. 

However, there seems to be a figure missing . In the new section 2.1, Figure 2 is mentioned where the primary energy savings of each POS are reported. This is not the case as Figure 2 is the location of the Valencian Community. Please add the relevant figure.    

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors

Please show the energy balance of buildings before the renovation and for chosen “POS1: Renovation measures of solution 9”. Please indicate what was the energy consumption for heating, DHW and cooling in regard to energy need, final energy and primary energy. It is hard to explain how the reduction of 63% was reached in regard to primary energy consumption in situation were no charges were implemented in case of windows, slab, ventilation and airtightness.

There is information that “For the cooling system, the procedure is analogous, the energy source is electricity, and therefore the average efficiency is 2.60, and the transfer factor from final to primary energy is 2.61 kWhp.e./kWhf.e” at the same time “Air conditioning system SEER is 1.6”. The average efficiency can to be higher than SEER. The same refers to heating system “Boiler η=0.85” in contradiction to “For heating system a performance of 0.92 has been used”

 

   

 

 

Author Response

Q1: Please show the energy balance of buildings before the renovation and for chosen “POS1: Renovation measures of solution 9”. Please indicate what was the energy consumption for heating, DHW and cooling in regard to energy need, final energy and primary energy. It is hard to explain how the reduction of 63% was reached in regard to primary energy consumption in situation were no charges were implemented in case of windows, slab, ventilation and airtightness.

Answer

The authors would like to thanks the reviewer for this comment. The answer highlight some interesting aspects for the rehabilitation of dwellings in the Mediterranean region.

The energy needs of the building in its initial situation are the next:

Heating energy needs: 44,22 kWh/sq m

Cooling energy needs: 21,28 kWh/sq m

DHW needs are not relevant for the identification of the optimal as the renovation measures does not concern this energy need

Although some elements/systems are not modified in the solution number 9, the walls and the roof are renovated getting a much lower U-value. Thermal bridges are treated and the heat losses through them reduced drastically (globally 40-50% + till 0.05 W/mK in windows contour). Finally solar control devices are designed and installed in order to reduce the solar factor till 0,29. All of these measures are detailed described in the table#10 of the document.

The combination of the previous measures and the building geometry and typology (with a very low compactness and a very high roof and walls surface as can be seen in fig. #4) leads to a the next situation after the renovation: heating needs 7,85 kWh/sq m and cooling needs 6,6 kWh/sq m. These values were obtained using a software tool to simulate the thermal behavior of the building as described in the reference [5] Salmerón Lissen, J.M.; Jareño Escudero, C.I.; Sánchez de la Flor, F.J.; Escudero, M.N.; Karlessi, T.; Assimakopoulos, M.-N. Optimal Renovation Strategies through Life-Cycle Analysis in a Pilot Building Located in a Mild Mediterranean Cli-mate. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 1423. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11041423

This situation is not strange in mild climates. One of the contribution of the HAPPEN project among others is that the renovation of the existing buildings in the Mediterranean region should be carefully addressed and specifically design for this climates.

 

Q2: There is information that “For the cooling system, the procedure is analogous, the energy source is electricity, and therefore the average efficiency is 2.60, and the transfer factor from final to primary energy is 2.61 kWhp.e./kWhf.e” at the same time “Air conditioning system SEER is 1.6”. The average efficiency can to be higher than SEER. The same refers to heating system “Boiler η=0.85” in contradiction to “For heating system a performance of 0.92 has been used”

Thanks to this comment a transcription mistake has been identified. The correct values of the average efficiencies can be found in the table of the appendix B. These values change from one reference building to another.

The next text in the page 11 has been modified to refer the table of the appendix B:

The aim of the paper is to analyse the potential for reducing global consumption. For the reference heating system the different performances can be seen in the Appendix B table [22]. Using this value the final energy consumption has been evaluated. The transition from final to primary energy has been made using a factor of 1.01 kWhp.e./kWhf.e. This value is the one reported for Spain in [23]. For the reference cooling system, the procedure is analogous, the energy source is electricity, and its average efficiency or seasonal energy efficiency ratio is shown in appendix B, the transfer factor from final to primary energy is 2.61 kWhp.e./kWhf.e.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, please indicate what was the energy consumption for heating, DHW and cooling in regard to energy need, final energy and primary energy. Include this information in the paper.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thanks for the suggestion.

The information has been included in the paper by adding three new columns in Table 8: heating energy needs, cooling energy needs and final energy consumption. And after Table 8 the energy needs of the building, the primary and final energy consumption and the CO2 emissions have been included for the building in its initial situation.

 

With kind regards,

Sincerely,

Ms. Cristina Isabel Jareño Escudero

Architect. Senior researcher at R&D&I International Department

Instituto Valenciano de la Edificación (Eng. Valencia Institute of Building), Valencia, Spain

Co-author

Ms. Miriam Navarro Escudero

Industrial engineer. Top grade researcher at R&D&I International Department

Instituto Valenciano de la Edificación, Valencia, Spain

[email protected]

Co-author

Mr. César Damián Mifsut García

Architect. Entitat Valenciana d'Habitatge i Sòl, Valencia, Spain

[email protected]

Co-author

Ms. María Flores Fillol

Architect. Entitat Valenciana d'Habitatge i Sòl, Valencia, Spain

[email protected]

Co-author

José Manuel Salmerón Lissen

Assistant Professor at the Department of Energy Engineering of the

University of Seville

[email protected]

Round 4

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for changes.