IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i1p456-d1313189.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Novel Approach to Determine Multi-Tiered Nearly Zero-Energy Performance Benchmarks Using Probabilistic Reference Buildings and Risk Analysis Approaches

Author

Listed:
  • Damien Gatt

    (Institute for Sustainable Energy, University of Malta, MXK 1531 Marsaxlokk, Malta)

  • Charles Yousif

    (Institute for Sustainable Energy, University of Malta, MXK 1531 Marsaxlokk, Malta)

  • Maurizio Cellura

    (Department of Engineering, University of Palermo, 90128 Palermo, Italy)

  • Francesco Guarino

    (Department of Engineering, University of Palermo, 90128 Palermo, Italy)

  • Kenneth Scerri

    (Department of Systems and Control Engineering, University of Malta, MSD 2080 Msida, Malta)

  • Ilenia Tinnirello

    (Department of Engineering, University of Palermo, 90128 Palermo, Italy)

Abstract

The Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) mandates European Union Member States (MS) to conduct cost-optimal studies using the national calculation methodology (NCM), typically through non-calibrated asset-rating software. Nearly zero-energy building (NZEB) levels must be derived for each chosen Reference Building (RB), which are generally defined using deterministic parameters. Previous research proposed an innovative cost-optimal method that replaces ‘non-calibrated deterministic RBs’ with ‘probabilistically Bayesian calibrated reference building (RB)’ to better handle building stock uncertainties and diversities when deriving benchmarks. This paper aims to develop a framework to address two research gaps necessary for the successful application of the innovative cost optimal method: (1) providing objective criteria for defining NZEB benchmarks and (2) propagating uncertainties and financial risk for each defined benchmark. A robust approach for defining NZEB benchmarks according to four different ambition levels (low, medium, high, and highest) was developed by objectively considering distinct points from multiple cost-optimal plots employing different financial perspectives. Risk analysis is then performed for each defined benchmark by propagating risk from the posterior calibration parameter distributions to visualize and statistically quantify the financial risk, including robust risk, that the private investor could face for reaching each derived benchmark ambition level. The innovative cost-optimal methodology that incorporates the developed framework was applied to a hotel RB case study. The results showed that the developed framework is capable of deriving distinct benchmarks and quantitatively uncovering the full financial risk levels for the four different renovation ambition levels. The current cost-optimal method was also performed for the hotel case study with the RB defined determinitically and using the non-calibrated NCM software, SBEM-mt v4.2c. It was found that the financial feasibility and energy-saving results per benchmark are significantly more realistic and transparent for the proposed innovative cost-optimal method including a better match between the simulated and metered energy consumption with a difference of less than 1% in annual performance. Thus, the performance gap between calculated and actual energy performance that is synonymous with the EPBD methodology, as reported in the literature, is bridged. The case study also showed the importance of the risk analysis. Performing the cost-optimal analysis for a Bayesian calibrated RB using the mean value of the posterior calibrated parameter distributions without propagating uncertainty produced highly optimistic results that obscured the real financial risk for achieving the higher ambition levels of the NZEB benchmarks. Consequently, the developed framework demonstrated a time-bound tightening approach to achieve higher energy performance ambitions, improve risk transparency to private investors, and facilitate more targeted policies towards a net zero-carbon status. Thus, the proposed method considering parameter uncertainty and calibrated RBs is instrumental for devising robust policy measures for the EPBD, to achieve a realistic and long-lasting sustainable energy goal for European buildings.

Suggested Citation

  • Damien Gatt & Charles Yousif & Maurizio Cellura & Francesco Guarino & Kenneth Scerri & Ilenia Tinnirello, 2024. "A Novel Approach to Determine Multi-Tiered Nearly Zero-Energy Performance Benchmarks Using Probabilistic Reference Buildings and Risk Analysis Approaches," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(1), pages 1-33, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:1:p:456-:d:1313189
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/1/456/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/1/456/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Johan Lilliestam & Marc Melliger & Lana Ollier & Tobias S. Schmidt & Bjarne Steffen, 2020. "Understanding and accounting for the effect of exchange rate fluctuations on global learning rates," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 5(1), pages 71-78, January.
    2. Fertis, Apostolos & Baes, Michel & Lüthi, Hans-Jakob, 2012. "Robust risk management," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 222(3), pages 663-672.
    3. Leonidas Mantzos & Tobias Wiesenthal & Frederik Neuwahl & Mate Rozsai, 2019. "The POTEnCIA Central scenario: An EU energy outlook to 2050," JRC Research Reports JRC118353, Joint Research Centre.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Barrieu, Pauline & Scandolo, Giacomo, 2014. "Assessing financial model risk," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 60084, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    2. Wojciech Rabiega & Artur Gorzałczyński & Robert Jeszke & Paweł Mzyk & Krystian Szczepański, 2021. "How Long Will Combustion Vehicles Be Used? Polish Transport Sector on the Pathway to Climate Neutrality," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-19, November.
    3. Barbara Uliasz-Misiak & Joanna Lewandowska-Śmierzchalska & Rafał Matuła & Radosław Tarkowski, 2022. "Prospects for the Implementation of Underground Hydrogen Storage in the EU," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(24), pages 1-17, December.
    4. Melliger, Marc, 2023. "Quantifying technology skewness in European multi-technology auctions and the effect of design elements and other driving factors," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    5. Beuse, Martin & Dirksmeier, Mathias & Steffen, Bjarne & Schmidt, Tobias S., 2020. "Profitability of commercial and industrial photovoltaics and battery projects in South-East-Asia," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 271(C).
    6. Yulia Vertakova & Inga Vselenskaya & Vladimir Plotnikov, 2021. "Mergers and Acquisitions Risk Modeling," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-24, September.
    7. Barrieu, Pauline & Scandolo, Giacomo, 2015. "Assessing financial model risk," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 242(2), pages 546-556.
    8. Christa Cuchiero & Guido Gazzani & Irene Klein, 2022. "Risk measures under model uncertainty: a Bayesian viewpoint," Papers 2204.07115, arXiv.org.
    9. Schlund, David & Schönfisch, Max, 2021. "Analysing the Impact of a Renewable Hydrogen Quota on the European Electricity and Natural Gas Markets," EWI Working Papers 2021-3, Energiewirtschaftliches Institut an der Universitaet zu Koeln (EWI).
    10. Cassetti, Gabriele & Boitier, Baptiste & Elia, Alessia & Le Mouël, Pierre & Gargiulo, Maurizio & Zagamé, Paul & Nikas, Alexandros & Koasidis, Konstantinos & Doukas, Haris & Chiodi, Alessandro, 2023. "The interplay among COVID-19 economic recovery, behavioural changes, and the European Green Deal: An energy-economic modelling perspective," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 263(PC).
    11. Raúl Castaño-Rosa & Roberto Barrella & Carmen Sánchez-Guevara & Ricardo Barbosa & Ioanna Kyprianou & Eleftheria Paschalidou & Nikolaos S. Thomaidis & Dusana Dokupilova & João Pedro Gouveia & József Ká, 2021. "Cooling Degree Models and Future Energy Demand in the Residential Sector. A Seven-Country Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-25, March.
    12. Renaldi, Renaldi & Hall, Richard & Jamasb, Tooraj & Roskilly, Anthony P., 2021. "Experience rates of low-carbon domestic heating technologies in the United Kingdom," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    13. Postek, K.S. & den Hertog, D. & Melenberg, B., 2015. "Computationally Tractable Counterparts of Distributionally Robust Constraints on Risk Measures (revision of CentER DP 2014-031)," Discussion Paper 2015-047, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    14. Fattahi, Amirhossein & Reynès, Frédéric & van der Zwaan, Bob & Sijm, Jos & Faaij, André, 2023. "Soft-linking a national computable general equilibrium model (ThreeME) with a detailed energy system model (IESA-Opt)," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    15. Rong Wang & Sandra Hasanefendic & Elizabeth Von Hauff & Bart Bossink, 2023. "A System Dynamics Approach to Technological Learning Impact for the Cost Estimation of Solar Photovoltaics," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(24), pages 1-17, December.
    16. Mitra, Sovan & Karathanasopoulos, Andreas & Sermpinis, Georgios & Dunis, Christian & Hood, John, 2015. "Operational risk: Emerging markets, sectors and measurement," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 241(1), pages 122-132.
    17. Lagos, Guido & Espinoza, Daniel & Moreno, Eduardo & Vielma, Juan Pablo, 2015. "Restricted risk measures and robust optimization," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 241(3), pages 771-782.
    18. Schlund, David & Schönfisch, Max, 2021. "Analysing the impact of a renewable hydrogen quota on the European electricity and natural gas markets," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 304(C).
    19. Gabrel, Virginie & Murat, Cécile & Thiele, Aurélie, 2014. "Recent advances in robust optimization: An overview," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 235(3), pages 471-483.
    20. Gunther Glenk & Rebecca Meier & Stefan Reichelstein, 2021. "Cost Dynamics of Clean Energy Technologies," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 73(2), pages 179-206, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:1:p:456-:d:1313189. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.