assessment of the solution impact on environmental … · main author tamás csoknyai sent on the...

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 649621

D6.3

ASSESSMENT OF THE SOLUTION IMPACT ON

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND ENERGY

SAVINGS

BUDAPEST UNIVERSITY OF

TECHNOLOGY AND ECONOMICS

TAMAS CSOKNYAI

MIKLÓS HORVÁTH

DATE OF PUBLICATION:

15/08/2018

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 649621 Page | 1

GAME TO PROMOTE ENERGY

EFFICIENCY ACTIONS

Project funded by the European Commission within the Horizon 2020 programme (2014-2020)

Deliverable 6.3

Work-package n°6

Revision table

V0.1 Initial version of the deliverable Tamás CSOKNYAI 15/08/2018

V1 Version validated by WP leader Miklós HORVÁTH 21/08/2018

V2 Version validated by the PC Jérémy Legardeur 29/08/2018

Quality check

Main Author Tamás CSOKNYAI Sent on the 05/08/2018

WP leader Miklós HORVÁTH Review and validated on the 15/08/2018

Coordinator Jérémy Legardeur Review and validated on the 29/08/2018

Nature of the deliverable

R Report X

Dec Websites, patents, filling etc.

Dem Demonstrator

O Other

Dissemination Level

PU Public

CO Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services) X


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This report forms part of the deliverables from a project called "GreenPlay" which has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 649621. The Community is not responsible for any use that might be made of the content of this publication. GreenPlay aims at raising awareness among citizens through the implementation of a real time monitoring energy consumption platform and the development of a serious game. The project runs from March 2015 to August 2018, it involves seven partners and is coordinated by ESTIA (École Supérieure Des Technologies Industrielles Avancées, France). More information on the project can be found at http://www.greenplay-project.eu/

http://www.greenplay-project.eu/


TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. TARTALOM Acknowledgement ................................................................................................................................... 2

List of figures............................................................................................................................................ 4

List of tables ............................................................................................................................................. 7

I. PUBLISHABLE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 8

II. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 11

III. METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................................... 11

IV. DATA COLLECTION ..................................................................................................................... 12

V. THE HOMES SUBJECT TO ANALYSIS AND DATA FILTERING ............................................................ 13

VI. ACTIVITY OF TENANTS IN THE PILOT PERIOD ............................................................................. 16

VII. OUTDOOR TEMPERATURE DATA ............................................................................................... 18

VIII. ANALYSIS OF HEATING CONSUMPTION DATA ........................................................................... 20

IX. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF HEATING FOR INDIVIDUAL TENANTS ........................................... 29

X. DOMESTIC HOT WATER (DHW) CONSUMPTION SAVINGS............................................................. 32

XI. ANALYSIS OF DHW CONSUMPTION PROFILES ........................................................................... 33

XII. GENERAL AND OTHER ELECTRIC CONSUMPTION SAVINGS ....................................................... 41

XIII. ANALYSIS OF GENERAL AND OTHER ELECTRIC CONSUMPTION PROFILES ................................. 43

XIV. PERFORMANCE OF MOST ACTIVE USERS ................................................................................... 48

XV. ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS SURVEYS .................................................................................. 51

XVI. CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................ 65

XVII. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES ................................................................................................. 67

XVIII. ANNEX I: MEASUREMENT TYPES FOR THE MOST RELEVANT USERS ...................................... 69

XIX. ANNEX II: HEATED FLOOR AREA AND NUMBER OF TENANTS IN THE MONITORED HOMES ...... 72

XX. ANNEX III: FURTHER DIAGRAMS FOR HEATING ENERGY CONSUMPTION ANALYSIS ................. 79

XXI. ANNEX IV: ENERGY SIGNATURES OF INDIVIDUAL HOMES ......................................................... 85

XXII. ANNEX V: ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE (FRENCH VERSION) ........ 95

XXIII. ANNEX VI: ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE (SPAINISH VERSION).. 99

XXIV. ANNEX VII: FURTHER DIAGRAMS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS SURVEY............. 103


LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Map of participant homes in two different climate areas in France ........................................ 15

Figure 2 Map of participating homes in Vigo and its surrounding areas (Spain) .................................... 15

Figure 3 Distribution of participating homes per number of occupants ................................................ 16

Figure 4 Activity of homes and milestones of support actions in during the first 22 weeks of 2018 ..... 17

Figure 5 Activity of core team members during first half year of 2018 ................................................. 17

Figure 6 Monthly activity of individual core team members during first half year of 2018 ................... 18

Figure 7 Weekly average external temperatures during the monitoring period for the three pilot areas

............................................................................................................................................................... 20

Figure 8 Energy signature for users with zero heating consumption in summer (12 user – LE COL): .... 21

Figure 9 Energy signature for users with heating consumption in summer (8 user – LE COL):.............. 21

Figure 10 Difference of average weekly energy consumption between 2017 and 2018 in function of

indoor temperature difference between 2017 and 2018 (LE COL) ........................................................ 24


indoor temperature difference between 2017 and 2018 (OPAC) ......................................................... 24


indoor temperature difference between 2017 and 2018 (VIGO) .......................................................... 25


indoor temperature difference between 2017 and 2018 (LE COL) – HDD correction with 17 oC indoor

temperature .......................................................................................................................................... 25


indoor temperature difference between 2017 and 2018 (OPAC) – HDD correction with 17 oC indoor

temperature .......................................................................................................................................... 26


indoor temperature difference between 2017 and 2018 (LE COL) – HDD correction with 17 oC indoor

temperature .......................................................................................................................................... 26

Figure 16 Average indoor temperatures in the heating seasons of 2017 and 2018 for different homes

............................................................................................................................................................... 27

Figure 17 Daily average trend of hourly indoor temperatures in February 2017 and 2018 in the analysed

homes .................................................................................................................................................... 28

Figure 18 Comparison of daily heating energy consumption for 2017 and 2018 for user 46 in function of

outdoor temperature (example for decrease in energy consumption) ................................................. 30


outdoor temperature (example for low correlation) ............................................................................. 30


outdoor temperature (example for no change in energy consumption) ............................................... 31


outdoor temperature (example for increase in energy consumption) .................................................. 31

Figure 22 Average DHW heat consumption in 2017 and in 2018 for different homes .......................... 32

Figure 23 Annual specific DHW heat consumption related to floor area (entire year 2017) for different

homes .................................................................................................................................................... 34

Figure 24 Annual DHW heat consumption per number of occupants (entire year 2017) for different

homes (incl. all three pilot areas) .......................................................................................................... 35


Figure 25 Annual DHW heat consumption per m2 floor area and number of occupants (entire year 2017)

for different homes (incl. all three pilot areas) ...................................................................................... 35

Figure 26 Annual DHW heat consumption per m2 floor area in function of occupants’ number (entire

year 2017) for different homes (incl. all three pilot areas) .................................................................... 36

Figure 27 Average daily specific DHW heat consumptions per month during 2017 for different homes

(incl. all three pilot areas) ...................................................................................................................... 36


(related to floor area unit - incl. all three pilot areas) ............................................................................ 37

Figure 29 Daily DHW heat consumptions of the average home in LE COL area in function of external

temperature .......................................................................................................................................... 37

Figure 30 Daily DHW heat consumptions of the average home in OPAC area in function of external

temperature .......................................................................................................................................... 38

Figure 31 Daily DHW heat consumptions of the average home in VIGO area in function of external

temperature .......................................................................................................................................... 38

Figure 32 Average daily specific DHW heat consumptions per month related to number of occupants

during 2017 for different homes (incl. all three pilot areas) .................................................................. 39

Figure 33 Average daily DHW heat consumptions per month related to annual average of daily DHW

heat consumption for different homes (incl. all three pilot areas) ........................................................ 40

Figure 34 Average daily DHW heat consumptions (for different days of the week) per month related to

annual average of daily DHW heat consumption for different homes (incl. all three pilot areas) ......... 40


annual average of daily DHW heat consumption for different homes (incl. all three pilot areas, Monday

is No. 1) .................................................................................................................................................. 41

Figure 36 Average other electric consumption in 2017 and in 2018 for different homes ..................... 42

Figure 37 Annual specific total energy consumption of all evaluated homes in function of heated floor

area ........................................................................................................................................................ 43

Figure 38 Annual specific other electric energy consumption of all evaluated homes in function of heated

floor area ............................................................................................................................................... 44

Figure 39 Share of heating/DHW/other electric consumption from the total (general) consumption (LE

COL) ....................................................................................................................................................... 45

Figure 40 Share of heating/DHW/other electric consumption from the total (general) consumption

(OPAC) ................................................................................................................................................... 45


(VIGO) .................................................................................................................................................... 45

Figure 42 Share of heating/DHW/other electric consumption from the total (general) consumption (incl.

all evaluated homes) .............................................................................................................................. 46

Figure 43 Other annual electric consumption per occupant in function of number of occupants in the

home (incl. all evaluated homes) ........................................................................................................... 47

Figure 44 Other annual electric consumption per floor area in function of occupants’ number in the

homes .................................................................................................................................................... 47

Figure 45 Other annual electric consumption per occupant and floor area in function of number of

occupants in the home (incl. all evaluated homes) ............................................................................... 47

Figure 46 Energy savings in weekly average domestic hot water consumption in function of number of

connections (baseline period: January-March 2018; reporting period: 1 April – 17 June 2018) ........... 49


Figure 47 Energy savings in weekly average other electricity consumption in function of number of

connections (baseline period: January-March 2018; reporting period: 1 April – 17 June 2018) ........... 49


connections (baseline period: July - December 2017; reporting period: 1 January – 17 June 2018)..... 50


connections (baseline period: July - December 2017; reporting period: 1 January – 17 June 2018)..... 50

Figure 50 Milestones of the survey process .......................................................................................... 52

Figure 51 Milestones of the survey evaluation process ......................................................................... 52

Figure 52 Number of homes filling the environmental awareness questionnaire in 2017, in 2018 and in

both years (France) ................................................................................................................................ 53


both years (Spain) .................................................................................................................................. 53

Figure 54 Results of the questionnaire (France) .................................................................................... 54

Figure 55 Results of the questionnaire (Spain) ...................................................................................... 54



















Figure 74 Annual specific heating energy consumption of all analyzed homes in function of floor area –

no correlation recognized ...................................................................................................................... 79

Figure 75 Annual heating energy consumption per number of occupants for all analyzed homes ....... 79

Figure 76 Average weekly heating energy consumption in function of indoor air temperature (LE COL)

............................................................................................................................................................... 80

Figure 77 Average weekly heating energy consumption in function of indoor air temperature (OPAC)80

Figure 78 Average weekly heating energy consumption in function of indoor air temperature (VIGO) 81

Figure 79 Energy signature for users with neraly zero heating consumption in summer (OPAC) ......... 82

Figure 80 Energy signature for users with heating consumption in summer (OPAC) ............................ 82

Figure 81 Energy signature for users with neraly zero heating consumption in summer (VIGO) .......... 83

Figure 82 Energy signature for users with heating consumption in summer (VIGO) ............................. 83

Figure 83 Average daily heating energy consumption 01 January-15 April 2017 (2017) and 15 October

2017 - 15 April 2018 (2018) for different homes .................................................................... 84


Figure 84 Results of the questionnaire (France) .................................................................................. 103

Figure 85 Results of the questionnaire (Spain) .................................................................................... 103

Figure 86 Results of the questionnaire (France) .................................................................................. 104

Figure 87 Results of the questionnaire (Spain) .................................................................................... 104

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Number of monitored homes .................................................................................................. 14

Table 2 Changes of average temperatures for all homes between the analyzed period of the heating

seasons .................................................................................................................................................. 28

Table 3 Annual specific DHW heat consumption related to floor area (entire year 2017) – average for all

selected homes ...................................................................................................................................... 34


D6.3: ASSESSMENT OF THE SOLUTION IMPACT ON

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND ENERGY SAVINGS

I. PUBLISHABLE SUMMARY The H2020 GreenPlay project has been funded as a Research and Innovation project by the European

Commission. Within the frame of the project a serious game has been developed entitled “Apolis

Planeta” in order to stimulate residents to use their homes in a more energy efficient way. More than

150 homes have been actively involved into the pilot action. The occupants of these homes were

encouraged to play with Apolis Planeta, to use the E-Green platform (an online platform visualising their

energy consumption trends in diagrams) from end 2017 to June 2018 (pilot action period). These homes

were equipped with energy consumption monitoring sensors measuring the total electric, the heating,

the hot water consumption such as the indoor air temperature. Monitoring data was collected during

the period 2017 and first half of 2018.

The purpose of this document is to present the detailed results and findings of the scientific analysis of

the monitoring data. Although the targeted audience are professionals and scientists many of the results

are interesting for the general public as well. The analysis had two objectives:

1. to determine and compare energy consumption before and as a result of the pilot action

2. to profit from the large and detailed dataset of more than 150 homes finding new results on

consumption profiles and trends

The applied evaluation methodology is in accordance with the “ICT PSP Methodology for Energy Saving

Measurement” and with the “Methodology for energy—efficiency measurements applicable to ICT in

buildings (eeMeasure)”.

In addition to the monitoring of the energy use occupants were asked to fill an environmental awareness

survey before and after the pilot action. The first survey was carried out in 2017 and is not subject of

the current document. The second questionnaire has been circulated among occupants in mid-June

2018 to see changes in environmental awareness. Results of this second survey are presented in the

current document.

We can conclude that the project objective, to save energy using a serious games initiating behavioural

change could be achieved and justified only partly.

Although no energy saving could be justified in heating energy consumption in absolute term, it was

proven that users have decreased their indoor air temperature during heating season showing that they

made the necessary effort on behavioural side. The decreased temperatures correspond to theoretical

energy savings of 4.6% for LE COL, 1.9% for OPAC and 10.4% for Vigo in average. In spite of that, the

mean heating energy consumption did not decrease. It can be explained by the impact of factors other

than occupants’ behaviour (such as heat flow from/to neighbouring apartments or changes in


meteorological factors other than temperature like wind, solar yield, etc.) that could not be monitored

within the frame of the project.

In domestic hot water consumption no notable decreasing or increasing trend could be remarked, the

situation was similar before and after starting the pilot action. Certainly some of the users’ consumption

has decreased, others’ consumption has increased, but it would have probably been so without any

intervention. However, in the environmental awareness survey 22% of French homes and 54% of

Spanish homes claimed that they have changed their DHW using habits in a positive way and only 3% of

Spanish users thought that their consumption had increased. In most cases they take more often shower

than bath compared to the situation before pilot action. Furthermore, 15% of the Spanish homes

claimed that they had set lower hot water temperature than earlier.

With regards to other electric consumption no notable decreasing or increasing trend could be

remarked either, the situation was similar before and after starting the pilot action. However, the

environmental awareness survey showed up some important behavioural improvements particularly

for Spanish homes. One positive change to mention is the increased proportion of appliances with

energy class A or better for Spain. In 2017 it was 41% only, in 2018 it increased to 64%. When buying a

new appliance 97% would buy a class A or better unit in Spain, 4% more than in 2017. Many occupants

learned the importance of hidden consumption, because more occupants admitted to be aware of the

meaning of hidden consumption (Spain: 74% in 2017, 88% in 2018; France: 17% in 2017 and 44% in

2018). Majority of Spanish users claimed to make efforts to reduce hidden consumption (61% in 2018;

39% in 2017). There is a clear improvement in case of lighting systems. In 2017 only 60% of Spanish

homes had efficient lighting from that 30% was LED. In 2018 the numbers increased to 81% and 36%.

For France the situation is even better: here in 2017 only 67% had efficient lighting from that 20% was

LED. In 2018 the numbers increased to 100% and 33%. The survey results for France should be

considered carefully, because only low number of homes filled the survey, for Spain the results can be

considered reliable.

The mentioned positive impacts can only partly be explained by the use of Apolis Planeta as the number

of connections to the game was moderate and most of the connections were associated to a low

number of homes. Probably the use of E-Green platform, the regular communication with the dwellers

and the fact of being monitored also had certain influence on the consumption. It is not possible to

clearly separate the impact of these factors, but an attempt has been made. From the most active 17

homes a core team has been established and these homes became subject to a further analysis. It was

clearly proven that there is a notable energy saving for the majority of the core team homes in other

electric consumption. In domestic hot water consumption savings could not be justified because of the

too high influence of other influencing factors (it was not possible to monitor these factors within the

frame of the project).

The second objective of this document was to find new results on consumption profiles and trends of

residents profiting from the large and detailed dataset of more than 150 homes. In this aspect several

findings could be reported, the most important ones are as follows:

• Monitoring indoor temperature is a simpler, more cost effective and more reliable way to

analyse behavioural change with regards to the use of heating system than monitoring energy

consumption although it doesn’t reflect all behavioural aspects just the most important one.


• Annual domestic hot water energy consumption trends have been developed and it was

massively observed that consumption is nearly the double in January than during the summer

months.

• Annual and monthly specific average consumptions have been determined for DHW and other

electric consumption per floor area unit and per occupants’ number. These values can be used

for system design, energy calculations and consumption projections. Such values are available

from previous research works, but not for the project regions and not for 2017-18. As

consumption habits are quickly changing with the years up-to-date results have a significant

importance.

• The impact of occupants’ number on the DHW and other electric consumptions have been

analysed and numeric results have been defined.

• It has been justified that there is no significant difference between the daily DHW consumption

of the homes during the week even not between weekdays and weekends.

• Methods have been refined to analyse energy performance trends and savings.


II. INTRODUCTION Within the frame of the project a serious game has been developed entitled “Apolis Planeta” in order

to stimulate residents for using their homes in a more energy efficient way. More than 150 homes have

been actively involved into the pilot action. The occupants of these homes were encouraged to play

with Apolis Planeta, to use the E-Green platform (an online platform visualising their energy

consumption trends in diagrams) from end 2017 to June 2018 (pilot action period). These homes were

equipped with energy consumption monitoring sensors metering the total electric, the heating, the hot

water consumption such as the indoor air temperature. Monitoring data was collected during the period

of 2017 and first half of 2018.

The purpose of this deliverable D6.3 is to present the detailed results and findings of the scientific

analysis of the monitoring data. Although the targeted audience are professionals and scientists many

of the results are interesting for the general public as well. Therefore, most important results and

recommendations are summarized in another deliverable (D6.1 Final Report about the Project Results

and Recommendations). The analysis had two objectives:

1. to determine and compare energy consumption before and as a result of the pilot action

2. to profit from the large and detailed dataset of more than 150 homes finding new results on

consumption profiles and trends

In addition to the monitoring of the energy use occupants were asked to fill an environmental awareness

survey before and after the pilot action. Results of the survey before the pilot action is described in

another deliverable (D3.4 Environmental Awareness of the Selected Homes). A similar questionnaire

has been circulated among occupants in mid-June 2018 to see changes in environmental awareness.

Results of the second survey is presented in the current document.

III. METHODOLOGY The applied evaluation methodology is in accordance with the “ICT PSP Methodology for Energy Saving

Measurement” developed in 2012 and with the “Methodology for energy—efficiency measurements

applicable to ICT in buildings (eeMeasure)” developed in 2011. The two methodological documents

have been produced as part of the eeMeasure project in order to promote good practice and

consistency in the reporting of ICT-PSP project results. The original basis for savings calculations within

the ICT-PSP projects was a modified version of the EVO International Performance Measurement &

Verification Protocol (IPMVP). The IPMVP was originally developed by the U.S. Department of Energy,

was first published in 1996 under the name NEMVP and is now owned by an international not-for-profit

organisation EVO.

In addition to the above mentioned methodology own evaluation methods of BME Department of

Building Service Systems and Process Engineering have been applied as well.


IV. DATA COLLECTION In order to monitor the impact of the pilot concept of the project, consumption monitoring devices were

installed in the homes involved in the demonstration phase. This solution was based on the technology

developed by project partner eGreen: sensors and associated internet platform for monitoring

consumptions in order to raise awareness in energy efficiency.

The devices worked using ammeter clamps sensors, measuring current in the electric cables using

electromagnetic effect.


Three sensors were installed in the electric panel of the home to monitor the general, the heating and

the water-heating consumption. All homes participating in the project were equipped with electric

heating and electric hot water heating devices. A transmitter sent data of consumption to a wireless

gateway. This gateway transmitted the information in a secured way to the internet box of the

household. A temperature sensor was installed as well to measure thermal comfort of the home.

Consumption data were registered on a private internet platform, reachable through the eGreen

website (www.egreen.fr). Each home had an overview on its energy consumption, in real time. Diverse

functionalities were proposed to users to encourage sustainable behaviors, in a social and entertaining

way: monitoring of consumption, decrease objectives, comparison with friends or anonymous

neighbors results, advices or alerts in case of overconsumption. The GreenPlay solution was plugged

with this device as well offering the connected energy-focused serious game (Apolis Planeta).

V. THE HOMES SUBJECT TO ANALYSIS AND DATA FILTERING The monitoring was conducted in the participating homes. During the project there were homes who

backed out. As Table 1 shows there were altogether 157 homes were monitoring was carried out. All

homes were equipped with electric heating and electric domestic hot water heater. The monitoring was

continuously running during the measurement period from January 2017 till end June 2018. After

closure of the monitoring data collection the data was evaluated and where data quality did not fulfil

certain criteria those datasets were excluded from the analysis. The main criteria were as follows:

• General consumption: more than 85% of daily consumption data available for the period

01.01.2017-30.06.2018

http://www.egreen.fr/


• Heating consumption: more than 80% of weekly consumption data available for weeks 5-22 in

2017 and for the same period in 2018 (for some analysis we considered those homes where

more than 85% of daily consumption data was available for the periods 01.01.2017-15.04.2017

and 15.10.2017-15.04.2018)

• DHW (domestic hot water) consumption: more than 85% of daily consumption data available

for the period 01.01.2017-30.06.2018

Other criteria were taken into account as well such as too high heating consumption (more than realistic

LOPOMO consumption) in summer or the sum of heating and DHW consumption should be lower than

general consumption.

Chapter XVIII (Annex I) lists a more precise overview on what equipment was included in the

consumption measurements. There where homes where some appliances were connected to the

heating (or DHW) circuit so the heating measurements included the consumptions of them as well. It

was decided case by case if such datasets were included into the analysis or not.

The final number of homes taken into account in the evaluation is summarized in Table 1.

Table 1: Number of monitored homes

Geographical area

Homes

with

data

High data

quality

GENERAL

High data

quality

HEATING

High data

quality

DHW

Isère (LE COL)

SE France

58 19 20 19

Basque Country

and the southern

Landes (OPAC)

SW France

35 11 10 9

VIGO area

Spain

64 19 17 14

TOTAL 157 49 47 42

During the analysis specific consumption values (per m2 floor area and per user) have been calculated

in order to obtain comparable data. The floor areas and number of tenants are presented in chapter XIX


(Annex II). Where these data were not available there were problems with consumption data as well, so

they were excluded from the analysis anyway.

The homes are shown in their two different geographical areas in following figures.

Figure 1 Map of participant homes in two different climate areas in France

Figure 2 Map of participating homes in Vigo and its surrounding areas (Spain)

Figure 3 shows the distribution of participating homes per number of occupants for those homes where

more than 85% of daily consumption data was available for the period 01.01.2017-30.06.2018.

Moañ

a Canga

s Vigo

Pontearea

s

Soutomai

or


It shows that in Vigo there are rather families with more occupants, in LE COL there are rather couples

and OPAC there are mainly singles.

Figure 3 Distribution of participating homes per number of occupants

VI. ACTIVITY OF TENANTS IN THE PILOT PERIOD Although occupants could get access already to beta versions of Apolis Planeta, the real playing activities

started at the end of 2017. Until June 2018 users were stimulated several times in different ways, such

as three contests have been lunched, questionnaires were sent out to get their feedback and a phoning

campaign was carried out in the Vigo pilot area. Figure 4 presents the stimulating activities and the

number of user connections to Apolis Planeta. In spite of the more than 50 communication actions the

number of user connections remained rather low particularly in LE COL and OPAC and most of the

connections were related to a small number of homes, other homes were permanently inactive.

In order to analyse the energy consumption of the active users a core team has been formulated from

the 17 most active homes where monitoring data was available (see also Figure 5 and Figure 6). From

beginning of May regular stimulating e-mails were sent out to the core team members on a weekly basis

until the end of the measurements (end June). Trends of the weekly consumption for these users have

been regularly monitored in a more detailed way than other homes. Results of this action are described

in chapter XIV.


Figure 4 Activity of homes and milestones of support actions in during the first 22 weeks of 2018

Figure 5 Activity of core team members during first half year of 2018


Figure 6 Monthly activity of individual core team members during first half year of 2018

VII. OUTDOOR TEMPERATURE DATA Outdoor temperature data was downloaded from Ogimet Weather Information Service (Source:

http://ogimet.com/index.phtml.en) providing professional information (measured weather data from

nearest weather stations) about meteorological conditions in the world. Both daily and weekly average

data were used for different evaluation purposes.

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

CT1

CT2

CT3

CT4

CT5

CT6

CT7

CT8

CT9

CT10

CT11

CT12

CT13

CT14

CT15

CT16

CT17

January-March April May June

http://ogimet.com/index.phtml.en


shows weekly data for the three pilot areas from January 2017 to June 2018. Vigo and OPAC show very

similar evolution, due to the similar weather conditions (proximity of the Atlantic coast). LE COL is

located in a more continental area and therefore annual amplitude is higher (slightly colder winter,

slightly warmer summer). However, in all three areas moderate winter and summer conditions were

registered during the monitoring period with temperatures above zero (weekly average!) most of the

time.

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 20 40 60 80 100

Ex

tern

al t

emper

ature

[°C

]

Week of the measured period (1st week of 2017 = 1)

LE COL

OPAC

VIGO


Figure 7 Weekly average external temperatures during the monitoring period for the three pilot areas

VIII. ANALYSIS OF HEATING CONSUMPTION DATA Analysis of weekly heating consumption data was carried out for those users where more than 80% of

weekly consumption data was available for weeks 5-22 in 2017 and for the same period in 2018. There

were 47 homes fulfilling this criterion.

The heating energy consumption of apartments was in the range of 0-72 kWh/m2year. The low figures

can be explained by the moderate climate (average outdoor temperature of the heating seasons were

in the range of 6.84-10.52 oC).

Energy signatures for LE COL homes are presented in Figure 8 and in Figure 9. In case of some users it

was experienced that there was non-zero energy consumption in summer. These homes are

represented in Figure 9. In case of most of these homes the summer consumption is constant and very

low. It means that the electric heating system was working in low power mode. However in case of user

23 the summer consumption is significant and not constant. Probably appliances other than heating

system are connected to the heating circuit here. This home and another similar one from Vigo were

excluded from some of the analysis. The corresponding diagrams for the other two pilot areas are

presented in chapter XX (Annex III).

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 20 40 60 80 100

Ex

tern

al t

emper

ature

[°C

]

Week of the measured period (1st week of 2017 = 1)

LE COL

OPAC

VIGO


Figure 8 Energy signature for users with zero heating consumption in summer (12 user – LE COL):

Figure 9 Energy signature for users with heating consumption in summer (8 user – LE COL):

Another representation of the results is presented in Figure 10 - Figure 20. Here the figures of the

horizontal axis are as follows:

𝜗i,2017 − 𝜗i,2018 [℃]

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

-5,0 0,0 5,0 10,0 15,0 20,0 25,0 30,0

Hea

ting c

onsu

mpti

on [

kW

h/w

eek]

External temperature [°C]

User 6

User 14

User 15

User 18

User 20

User 24

User 28

User 28

User 37

User 39

User 46

User 47

User 50

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

-5,0 0,0 5,0 10,0 15,0 20,0 25,0 30,0

Hea

ting c

onsu

mpti

on [

kW

h/w

eek]


User 1

User 3

User 8

User 10

User 23

User 29

User 36

User 41


where

𝜗𝑖,2018 [℃] - average indoor air temperature of home i during the heating season 2018 (only for weeks

5-22)

𝜗𝑖,2017 [℃] - average indoor air temperature of home i during the heating season 2017 (only for weeks

5-22)

The figures of the vertical axis are as follows:

𝜙2017,𝑖 − 𝜙2018,𝑖′ [

𝑘𝑊ℎ

𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑘]

where

𝜙2018,𝑖′ [

𝑘𝑊ℎ

𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑘]- average weekly consumption of home i during the heating season 2018 (only for

weeks 5-22) corrected with heating degree days

𝜙2017,𝑖 [𝑘𝑊ℎ


weeks 5-22)

The 𝜙2018,𝑖′ was determined as follows:

𝜙2018,𝑖′ = 𝜙2018,𝑖 ∙

𝜗i,2017 − 𝜗e,2017

𝜗i,2018 − 𝜗e,2018 [

𝑘𝑊ℎ

𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑘]

where

𝜙2018,𝑖 [𝑘𝑊ℎ


weeks 5-22)

𝜗𝑒,2018 [℃] - average outdoor air temperature of home i during the heating season 2018 (only for

weeks 5-22)

𝜗𝑒,2017 [℃] - average outdoor air temperature of home i during the heating season 2017 (only for

weeks 5-22)

Weeks without data were excluded from the calculation.

Spots above the horizontal axis mean that consumption was lower in 2018 than in 2017. Regarding the

figures it can be remarked that for the majority of users the consumption has increased. However, spots

on the right side from the vertical axis mean that users kept higher temperatures in 2017 than in 2018.

It can be stated that the majority of the users decreased the indoor temperature. It means that users

made efforts to decrease their consumption, but the consumption have increased. The probable reason

for the increased consumption are external factors.


The conclusion of the decreased indoor temperature is well justified by Figure 16 as well. Spots in the

diagram show average indoor temperatures for heating seasons of 2017 and 2018 for individual homes.

If a spot is above the 45o line the temperature of the home was higher in 2018 than in 2017, otherwise

lower.

The heating degree days correction was implemented in another way on Figure 13 - Figure 15. Here,

the figures of the horizontal axis are as follows:

𝜙2017,𝑖 − 𝜙2018,𝑖" [

𝑘𝑊ℎ

𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑘]

where

𝜙2018,𝑖" [

𝑘𝑊ℎ


weeks 5-22) corrected with heating degree days using constant 17 oC indoor air temperature:

𝜙2018,𝑖" = 𝜙2018,𝑖 ∙

17 − 𝜗e,2017

17 − 𝜗e,2018 [

𝑘𝑊ℎ

𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑘]

With this approach the consumption values reflect the impact of the change in indoor air temperature.

If indoor air temperature decreases the presented consumption should decrease as well (certainly other

factors may have a more significant opposite effect). In the previous approach the presented

consumptions did not reflect the impact of indoor temperature change. For our purposes the second

approach is more appropriate, but the right selection of indoor temperature constant is important. The

applied 17 oC was selected because for most users the regression line of energy signatures hits the

horizontal axis at this point meaning that above this temperature the heating is not used (in average).

However, similar conclusions can be taken on the basis of the second approach as for the first one.


Figure 10 Difference of average weekly energy consumption between 2017 and 2018 in function of indoor

temperature difference between 2017 and 2018 (LE COL)


temperature difference between 2017 and 2018 (OPAC)



temperature difference between 2017 and 2018 (VIGO)


temperature difference between 2017 and 2018 (LE COL) – HDD correction with 17 oC indoor

temperature



temperature difference between 2017 and 2018 (OPAC) – HDD correction with 17 oC indoor temperature


temperature difference between 2017 and 2018 (LE COL) – HDD correction with 17 oC indoor

temperature


Figure 16 Average indoor temperatures in the heating seasons of 2017 and 2018 for different homes

Decreasing the indoor temperature is the most important action a user can take in order to lower its

heating consumption. To conclude in spite of the increased consumption we can observe that in average

users’ behaviour has improved after the pilot action. The average decrease in indoor air temperature

was 0.32 oC for LE COL, 0.18 oC for OPAC and 0.99 oC for Vigo (Table 2). If we exclude the impact other

independent variables it correspond to a theoretical energy saving of 4.6% for LE COL, 1.9% for OPAC

and 10.4% for Vigo (Table 2). These savings were calculated as follows:

∆𝜙∗

𝜙2017∗ =

(�̅�i,2017 − (�̅�e,2017 + �̅�e,2018

2 )) − (�̅�i,2018 − (�̅�e,2017 + �̅�e,2018

2 ))

(�̅�i,2017 − (�̅�e,2017 + �̅�e,2018

2 ))

∙ 100 [%]

The formula excludes the impact of change in external temperature and all other factors. These savings

are not reflected by the measured consumption, because of impact of other factors independent from

project actions is significant.

Further diagrams related to heating energy consumption are presented in chapter XX (Annex III).

Figure 17 compares the evolution of the hourly temperatures in an average day of all analysed homes

for the months February 2017 and February 2018. The night set-back is clearly remarkable such as the

decreased indoor air temperature after introducing the serious game.


Table 2 Changes of average temperatures for all homes between the analyzed period of the heating

seasons

Average indoor temperature Average external temperature Savings

2017 �̅�i,2017

oC

2018 �̅�i,2018

oC

Difference

oC

2017 �̅�e,2017

oC

2018 �̅�e,2018

oC

Difference

oC

∆𝜙∗

𝜙2017∗

%

LE

COL 19.81 19.49 -0.32 7.2 6.84 -0.34 4.6%

OPAC 21.34 21.15 -0.18 9.87 9.48 -0.39 1.9%

VIGO 19.97 18.98 -0.99 10.52 8.56 -1.95 10.4%

Figure 17 Daily average trend of hourly indoor temperatures in February 2017 and 2018 in the analysed

homes


IX. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF HEATING FOR INDIVIDUAL TENANTS To perform a deeper analysis of savings the performance of individual homes were compared for

identical periods in 2017 and 2018. Only those tenants’ performance is presented here (8 from LE COL,

6 from OPAC, 6 from VIGO) where more than 85% of daily consumption data was available for the

periods 01.01.2017-15.04.2017 and 15.10.2017-15.04.2018. The two periods have been compared in

the analysis.

The performance is presented with energy signature diagrams. The method of energy signature is very

practical to analyse savings related to occupant’s behaviour with the exclusion of the problem of the

impact of outdoor temperature on the consumption. The method of heating degree days (HDD)

correction was avoided, because of the moderate outdoor temperatures in the analysed period. In case

of the latter method the results would have been very much sensitive on the correct selection of the

heating limit temperature.

Daily heating energy consumptions in function of outdoor air temperature is presented for the two

periods (2017: before pilot, 2018: after pilot). Heating consumption is strongly influenced by outdoor

temperature as shown by Figure 18. Trend lines and correlation coefficients (R2) are also indicated on

the figure. In case of energy saving line 2018 (orange) should be under line 2017 (blue) with a lower

steepness as the selected example of user 46 shows.

For some cases (like in Figure 19) the correlation was very low. It can be explained by other independent

variables (other from external temperature) not monitored by the project. The measurements were

made in apartments and not in entire buildings. In apartments the influence of the neighbours’ heating

habits can be very high. The impact of other factors, such as periods of set-back in heating system use

or solar gains and wind should not be forgotten either. It is also possible that there were further

appliances connected to the monitored heating circuit other than heating equipment with a usage

profile independent from outdoor temperature not reported after installation. In case of these tenants

it is hard to prove neither energy savings nor its opposite based on the available data, unless the values

in 2018 are clearly lower than in 2017 which was not the case in any of the homes.

Figure 20 shows a case for no energy saving and Figure 21 shows an increase in consumption. Such an

increase can be explained by several reasons. The R2 is not very high (around 0.5) which makes the

conclusion of heating energy increase questionable. In 2018 there are very few days with cold

temperatures. In both years there are many days with moderate temperatures (above 10 degrees). In

such transition periods the impact of other independent variables such as solar radiation or neighbours’

heating habits increase.

Further diagrams are presented in Chapter XXI (Annex III). After the analysis of the diagrams one by one

it can be concluded that no energy saving can be justified in heating as a result of the pilot action

justifying the conclusion of chapter VIII. However as explained before it is not necessarily the result of

users’ behaviour.



outdoor temperature (example for decrease in energy consumption)


outdoor temperature (example for low correlation)



outdoor temperature (example for no change in energy consumption)


outdoor temperature (example for increase in energy consumption)


X. DOMESTIC HOT WATER (DHW) CONSUMPTION SAVINGS The analysis of DHW consumption data was carried out for those users where more than 85% of daily

consumption data was available for the period 01.01.2017-30.06.2018 (LE COL: 19 homes, OPAC: 9

homes, VIGO: 14 homes). Altogether 42 homes were analysed.

Figure 22 compares DHW consumptions of periods January 2017 – June 2017 and January 2018 – June

2018 for each home. If a spot is above the 45o line the consumption of the home was higher in 2018

than in 2017. In average no notable decreasing or increasing trend can be remarked, the situation is

similar before and after pilot action. Certainly some of the users’ consumption has decreased, others’

consumption has increased, but it would be so without any intervention.

Figure 22 Average DHW heat consumption in 2017 and in 2018 for different homes


XI. ANALYSIS OF DHW CONSUMPTION PROFILES Although no savings can be justified as a result of the pilot action it is worthwhile to analyse consumption

habits and trends in more detail, because scientific conclusions can contribute to general knowledge on

hot water using profiles in the residential sector.

Annual specific DHW heat consumption for the selected 42 homes are presented in Figure 23 in function

of floor area. The specific DHW consumptions of apartments were in the range of 0-40 kWh/m2year.

The trend is slightly decreasing as a larger apartment doesn’t necessary mean more tenants and DHW

consumption is strongly correlates with the number of tenants. Average figures for the three pilot areas

and for all 42 homes are in Table 3.

The annual consumption per occupant is presented in Figure 24. If all users would consume the same

amount of hot water it should be constant. If consumption would be independent from the number of

users it should follow a hyperbolic trend. The reality is between the two cases and above 4 users a slight

increase can be noted. It can be explained either by the low number of homes above 4 or by differences

in hot water using habits in large families (e.g. presence of babies in big families requiring more washing,

cleaning, etc.).

Figure 25 and Figure 26 also show that in homes with one or two occupants the specific consumption

for one occupant per floor area is slightly higher than in homes with 3-4 people. It means there is a basic

hot water consumption independent from the number of people. It can be explained by fix (or at least

not in linear correlation with occupants’ number) water consumption of regular cleaning cycles (incl.

use of washing machines and dishwashers). Average figures for the three pilot areas and for all homes

are in Table 3.

Monthly specific DHW heat consumption for the selected 42 homes are presented in Figure 27 for an

entire year. The specific consumption is varying in a wide range depending on the home. However, each

home shows similar annual variations: the highest consumptions are in the winter period, the lowest

ones in summer. A more illustrative representation of the result is given by Figure 28 and Figure 32 using

box plots. Red spots show average consumption of all selected homes. The lowest consumption in June

is nearly the half (53%) of that in January. Between winter and summer there is a monotonously

increasing trend and the opposite in autumn. The significant difference can be explained by a synergic

impact of several possible reasons:

• lower water consumption in summer due to shorter showers (for comfort reasons) and

vacations

• lower hot water temperature set in summer for comfort reasons (in winter people prefer higher

water temperatures)

• higher cold water temperature in summer than in winter due to annual variation of soil

temperature surrounding utility supply pipes

• lower distribution and storage heat losses in summer than in winter due to the lower

temperature difference between hot water temperature and environmental temperature

The higher consumption in colder weather is also illustrated by Figure 29- Figure 31. The correlation

coefficient is around 0.5 meaning a moderate, but evident relationship.


Table 3 Annual specific DHW heat consumption related to floor area (entire year 2017) – average for all

selected homes

Annual DHW consumption per floor area [kWh/m2year]

Annual DHW consumption per

occupant [kWh/occupant,year]

LE COL 20.69 835

OPAC 19.42 854

VIGO 16.53 552

All areas 19.41 718

Figure 23 Annual specific DHW heat consumption related to floor area (entire year 2017) for different

homes


Figure 24 Annual DHW heat consumption per number of occupants (entire year 2017) for different homes

(incl. all three pilot areas)

Figure 25 Annual DHW heat consumption per m2 floor area and number of occupants (entire year 2017)

for different homes (incl. all three pilot areas)


Figure 26 Annual DHW heat consumption per m2 floor area in function of occupants’ number (entire year

2017) for different homes (incl. all three pilot areas)


(incl. all three pilot areas)



(related to floor area unit - incl. all three pilot areas)

Figure 29 Daily DHW heat consumptions of the average home in LE COL area in function of external

temperature


Figure 30 Daily DHW heat consumptions of the average home in OPAC area in function of external

temperature

Figure 31 Daily DHW heat consumptions of the average home in VIGO area in function of external

temperature


Figure 32 Average daily specific DHW heat consumptions per month related to number of occupants

during 2017 for different homes (incl. all three pilot areas)

Variations of daily consumptions of a home during a year or a week or any time period can be

interpreted in an illustrative way by comparing its daily values to its annual average consumption. On

Figure 33 to Figure 31 daily consumptions are compared to annual average. Figures above 1 mean

higher, below 1 means lower consumption than annual average. As Figure 33 shows the monthly relative

consumptions of October, November, April and May are very close to 1. It means that annual

consumptions can be easily estimated from the consumptions of these months. As heating is usually

turned off in May the consumption of May can be a good calculation basis for annual DHW consumption

even if DHW and heating is not measured separately. With other words it is a more accurate approach

to use the consumption of May than using summer consumptions which is the current practice.

Figure 34 and Figure 35 presents the variations of daily consumptions during an average week of the

month for the different months. The consumption variations between different days of the week is not

significant and do not follow the same trend in the different months. No significant difference can be

reported between weekdays and weekends either.


Figure 33 Average daily DHW heat consumptions per month related to annual average of daily DHW heat

consumption for different homes (incl. all three pilot areas)


annual average of daily DHW heat consumption for different homes (incl. all three pilot areas)



annual average of daily DHW heat consumption for different homes (incl. all three pilot areas, Monday is

No. 1)

XII. GENERAL AND OTHER ELECTRIC CONSUMPTION SAVINGS Analysis of general (total) consumption data was carried out for those users where more than 85% of

daily consumption data was available for the period 01.01.2017-30.06.2018 (LE COL: 19 homes, OPAC:

11 homes, VIGO: 19 homes). Altogether 49 homes were analysed.

Periodic (annual) consumptions were calculated from the average of daily consumptions of days with

valid data. Other consumption means consumption of all electric devices used in the home excluding

heating and DHW production. It was determined as the difference of measured general consumption

and heating+DHW consumption.

Figure 36 compares other electric consumptions of periods January 2017 – June 2017 and January 2018

– June 2018 for each home (excluding outstanding values for a better representation). If a spot is above

the 45o line the consumption of the home was higher in 2018 than in 2017. In average no notable

decreasing or increasing trend can be remarked, the situation is similar before and after pilot action.

Certainly some of the users’ consumption has decreased, others’ consumption has increased, but it

would be like that without any intervention.


Figure 36 Average other electric consumption in 2017 and in 2018 for different homes


XIII. ANALYSIS OF GENERAL AND OTHER ELECTRIC CONSUMPTION PROFILES Although no savings can be justified as a result of the pilot action the collected data is worthwhile to

analyse consumption habits and trends in more detail, because scientific conclusions can improve

general knowledge about hot water using profiles in the residential sector.

The general consumption of apartments was in the range of 59-158 kWh/m2year with one outstanding

value of 268 kWh/m2year (Figure 37). No remarkable correlation can be recognised with floor area.

‘Other electric consumption’ means general consumption minus heating and DHW consumption. Its

values were in the range of 59-97 kWh/m2year with one outstanding value of 197 kWh/m2year (Figure

38). As expected a decreasing trend with slight correlation can be recognised with floor area.

Figure 37 Annual specific total energy consumption of all evaluated homes in function of heated floor area


Figure 38 Annual specific other electric energy consumption of all evaluated homes in function of heated

floor area

The share of heating, DHW and other consumption varies in a wide range. The average distributions are

presented in Figure 39-Figure 41. Although the distribution is rather balanced, the largest share belongs

to other electric consumption (particularly for LE COL and VIGO), whilst DHW and heating consumptions

are similar. Figure 42 shows the shares of heating, DHW and other electric from the general (total)

consumption in a more detailed manner. Blue column 1 shows that in case 19% of the homes heating

consumption is less than 10% of the total consumption.


Figure 39 Share of heating/DHW/other electric consumption from the total (general) consumption (LE

COL)


(OPAC)

Figure 41 Share of heating/DHW/other electric consumption from the total (general) consumption (VIGO)


Figure 42 Share of heating/DHW/other electric consumption from the total (general) consumption (incl.

all evaluated homes)

Figure 43 show the annual other electric consumption in function of the number of occupants in the

home. If all users would consume the same the amount of other electricity should follow a hyperbolic

trend which is remarkable.

Figure 44 and Figure 45 show that there is no remarkable increasing or decreasing trend of specific

energy consumption in function of occupant’s number which means that size of the apartment is

increasing with the number of occupants.


Figure 43 Other annual electric consumption per occupant in function of number of occupants in the

home (incl. all evaluated homes)

Figure 44 Other annual electric consumption per floor area in function of occupants’ number in the

homes

(incl. all evaluated homes)

Figure 45 Other annual electric consumption per occupant and floor area in function of number of

occupants in the home (incl. all evaluated homes)


XIV. PERFORMANCE OF MOST ACTIVE USERS

As described in chapter VI a core team has been set up from the 17 most active homes where monitoring

data was available in order to analyse the energy consumption of the active users (their activity is

presented in Figure 5 and Figure 6. From beginning of May a regular stimulating e-mail was sent out to

the core team members every week until the end of the measurements (end June). The trend of the

weekly consumptions for these users have been regularly monitored in a more detailed way than for

other homes. As the period in focus started in April (end of the heating period) we excluded heating

from the analysis and only DHW and other electric consumptions were compared.

Energy savings have been determined so that average weekly consumptions of the reporting period was

compared to the average weekly consumptions of the baseline period. A main difficulty was the right

selection of the baseline and the reporting period. In a standard case it is recommended to compare

periods of 3 years to minimise the impact of other independent variables which was not possible in the

project. Analysing such short periods makes it difficult to take definitive conclusions. The selection of

baseline and reporting period has a strong impact on the result.

In case of Figure 46 and Figure 47 the baseline period was 1 January – 31 March 2018, the reporting

period was 1 April – 17 June 2018. In this case results are very positive, for the majority of the users

there is (up to 20%) energy savings in hot water energy use and even higher (up to 90%) energy savings

in other electricity consumption.

However if the baseline period is selected for 1 July – 31 December 2017 and the reporting period is 1

January – 17 June 2017 the result is rather different (Figure 48 and Figure 49) for the DHW energy

consumption. In case of most considered homes the DHW energy consumption has increased. The

explanation can be the impact of other independent variables, such as the impact of outdoor

temperature. As illustrated in Figure 27 - Figure 32 the DHW consumption gets higher with decreasing

temperature. This problem could have been minimised by comparing same periods of 2017 and 2018.

In this case it was unfortunately not possible, because monitoring data was not available for the first

half of 2017 for several core team members.

Regarding other electric consumption both approaches of selecting reporting periods gave positive

results proving that active usage of Apolis Planeta decreased other electric energy use.


Figure 46 Energy savings in weekly average domestic hot water consumption in function of number of

connections (baseline period: January-March 2018; reporting period: 1 April – 17 June 2018)


connections (baseline period: January-March 2018; reporting period: 1 April – 17 June 2018)



connections (baseline period: July - December 2017; reporting period: 1 January – 17 June 2018)


connections (baseline period: July - December 2017; reporting period: 1 January – 17 June 2018)


XV. ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS SURVEYS In 2017 before launching Apolis Planeta an environmental awareness survey has been sent out to the

homes to obtain a picture about occupants’ behaviour related to energy awareness. Results of the

questionnaire evaluation were described in detail in the report D3.4 Environmental Awareness of the

Selected Homes.

A similar questionnaire has been circulated among occupants in mid-June 2018 to see changes in

environmental awareness. In this chapter results of this second round survey are discussed.

As in case of the first survey round BME developed the online survey questionnaire in English language

in Google Forms. The survey was tested by EnergyLab and Estia and feedbacks were incorporated to the

final version.

The survey had to be distributed in the native languages of the tenants, therefore it was translated to

Spanish by EnergyLab and to French by Estia (see chapters XXII. ANNEX V and XXIII. ANNEX VI).

The occupants were notified with e-mail campaigns about the questionnaires by EnergyLab and ESTIA,

support was also provided by these partners when questions arose.

During the surveys, BME had a supervisory role to keep the progress on track and to control the quality

of the process. Once the surveys were ready, the responses were exported to a MS Excel database. The

evaluation of the surveys started after all surveys have been submitted. The survey process was closed

on 25 August 2018. The detailed workflow is specified in Figure 50.

All responses were exported to a common database. The environmental awareness surveys were filled

in local languages and first the database had to be translated to English. As the questionnaire used

predefined answers the translation could be implemented partly using automatic mechanisms.

Once all the information was in the database, a quality check of each data type was carried out and

minor corrections were made.

The next step was an analysis to obtain a picture about user habits of the homes separately in the two

participating countries. Where relevant survey 2018 and 2017 data such as monitoring data and survey

data were compared. The evaluation process is presented in Figure 51.

In 2017 we received 28 answers from France and 54 from Spain, however in 2018 only 9 valid

questionnaires were submitted by the occupants from France and 33 from Spain in spite of an intensive

campaign and the fact that the questionnaire was significantly shortened. Number of homes filling both

questionnaires are 5 for France and 32 for Spain. This should be considered when comparing the results

of the two rounds of questionnaires. For Spain such comparisons have more relevance than for France,

because of higher number and share of overlaps.


Figure 50 Milestones of the survey process

Figure 51 Milestones of the survey evaluation process

D3.4•Environmental Awareness of the Selected Homes (first round) 2017

BME•Development of second round draft survey questionnaire (English version)

ESTIA

EnergyLab

•Review of the draft survey questionnaire, feedback to BME

BME•Finalisation of survey questionnaire (English version)

ESTIA

EnergyLab

•Translation of questionnaire to French and Spanish

ESTIA

EnergyLab

•Coordination of survey (second round) 2018 in the articipating homes (campaigns and support)

BME•Close of survey (second round) 2018, export to database, evaluation

Data export

•Export to database

Translation correction

•Data translations (ES to EN, FR to EN)

Evaluation•Data analysis and result evaluation

Report•Evaluation report (current report)



both years (France)


both years (Spain)


Figure 54 Results of the questionnaire (France)

Figure 55 Results of the questionnaire (Spain)


Spanish and French homes have been analysed separately, because behavioural aspects can be

influenced by the national identity, mentality and other factors. Detailed results in form of diagrams are

presented in Figure 54 - Figure 73 for the French and Spanish homes. In some cases we refer to the first

round survey results in 2017 – the referred diagrams can be found in report D3.4 Environmental

Awareness of the Selected Homes.

Although in the French homes (median: 2) the number of occupants per home has changed significantly

it does not mean a real change in occupants’ structure. It can be rather explained by the differences

between homes filling the questionnaires (number of homes filling both questionnaires was only 5). In

2017 the median was 2, in 2018 it was only 1. For Spain the situation is similar as last year (median: 3 in

both years) because a high proportion of homes filled both surveys.

To handle the potential problem of not enough homes filling both questionnaires many questions in the

second survey were designed to focus on behavioural change since 2017, so in such cases there is no

need to compare the questionnaires.

In the first round of questionnaire (2017) occupants were asked about the indoor air temperature during

the heating season. The results showed a rather good energy awareness level in this issue, almost 70%

of tenants thought they keep the temperature below 20 degrees or even lower. 28% (Spain) and 43%

(France) said that the temperature was between 17 and 19 degrees. Now we can approve these

statements based on the monitoring data of indoor temperatures (see Figure 16).

Figure 56 and Figure 57 provide further information about heating habits. In France 67% in Spain 73%

of the homes have and regularly use a thermostat for heating setting different temperature for day and

night. These users are able to save energy by setting the temperature. As explained in chapter VIII some

temperature decrease was experienced as a result of the pilot action thanks to these occupants. 11%

and 18% do have a thermostat but do not use it. A small part of the occupants doesn’t have or does not

know if they have a thermostat or not (22% and 9%).

With regards to domestic hot water using habits significant changes can be reported: 22% of French

homes and 54% of Spanish homes claimed to have changed their habits in a positive way and only 3%

of Spanish users think that their consumption has increased. In most cases they rather take a shower

than a bath and 15% of the Spanish homes set lower hot water temperature than earlier (Figure 58 and

Figure 59).

In vacation periods the picture is just partly positive. In Spain 33%, in France 60% of the homes did not

do anything about the hot water system when going to vacation in 2017. Now the figures are 42% and

78%. On the other hand more people turn off the hot water system now than in 2017 in both countries.

The explanation of the negative result is that less homes claimed applying temperature set-back or use

adaptive self-learning system than in 2017. A possible reason can be that partly different users filled the

questionnaire in 2018 and 2017 (Figure 60 and Figure 61).

Only 15% (Spain) and 0% (France) have a cooling system, but 3% (Spain) did not have it 2 years ago and

3% (Spain) changed it for a new one. A part of the users (6% - Spain) use it less often than that time

which is a positive change (Figure 62 and Figure 63).




Another positive change is the increased proportion of appliances with energy class A or better for

Spain. In 2017 it was 41% only, in 2018 it increased to 64%. For France it decreased from 20% to 11%,

but it might be misleading because of low number of homes filling both questionnaires (Figure 64 and

Figure 65). When buying a new appliance 97% would buy a class A or better unit in Spain (93% in 2017)

and 67% in France (same figure in 2017; ee Figure 66 and Figure 67).


Many occupants learned the importance of hidden consumption because more occupants know what

hidden consumption means (Spain: 74% in 2017, 88% in 2018; France: 17% in 2017 and 44% in 2018;

Figure 68 and Figure 69). Majority of Spanish users make efforts to reduce hidden consumption (61% in

2018; 39% in 2017) which is not the case for France (11% in 2018, 19% in 2017).

There is a clear improvement in case of lighting systems. In 2017 only 60% of Spanish homes had

efficient lighting from that 30% was LED. In 2018 the numbers increased to 81% and 36%. For France

the situation is even better: here in 2017 only 67% had efficient lighting from that 20% was LED. In 2018

the numbers increased to 100% and 33%.

To conclude we can report a notable improvement in most areas based on the energy awareness

surveys with some exceptions.

XVI. OVERVIEW OF MAIN RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS The objective of current deliverable (D6.3) was to present the detailed results and findings of the

scientific analysis of the monitoring data to professionals and scientists. The results can be divided into

two parts:

1. Comparison of energy consumption before and as a result of the pilot action;

2. Finding new results on consumption profiles and trends of residents profiting from the large

and detailed dataset of more than 150 homes.

With regards to the first part we can conclude that the project objective, to save energy using a serious

games initiating behavioural change could be achieved and justified only partly.

During the data analysis we had to face several difficulties. First of all, the monitoring periods were

short. In order to minimise the impact of other disturbing independent variables it is recommended to

monitor the consumption for a 3 years period before and for another 3 years period after the energy

saving action (in this case energy saving action means playing with the game). In the project it would

not have been possible even without any delays to the original work plan. The monitored timeframe

was 1.5 years from that approximately 1 entire year could be considered as a reference period (before

starting playing with the game).

It is also to be noted that the pilot action cannot be associated to a definitive date, but rather to a period

with different stimulating activities. It excluded the possibility of defining a monitoring period after

finishing the pilot action as it ended up the same time as the monitoring period, so the pilot period and

the monitoring period were overlapping. It would have been no sense to stop the playing phase earlier

as the game was designed for a long term sustainable use. Nevertheless, this fact still makes it possible

to analyse savings comparing the period starting from launching the game to the reference period.

There were homes where it was not possible to measure heating and DHW consumption clearly

separated from other appliances. It means that there were other (usually one or two) appliances

connected to the heating circuit or to the DHW circuit of the electric network. A part of these


apartments were excluded from the analysis where the disturbing effect of these additional appliances

seemed to be significant, in other cases the homes were not excluded, particularly when the

consumption of the additional unit was low and constant. However, it decreased the number of homes

covered by the analysis.

Another problem was the gaps in the collected data. Many occupants disconnected their sensors or the

data registers during the monitoring period temporarily or permanently. Although these occupants

were notified about the problem in many cases the problem was not solved or took too much time to

solve. This was particularly the case for the French homes where subcontractors took the task of

communication with the occupants. In Spain the errors were handled in a more effective way as it was

the responsibility of a project partner (EnergyLab). To overcome the problem of data gaps and the

previously mentioned problem we decided to set strict quality requirements in the data filtering phase

and selected approximately 50 apartments for further analysis. Taken conclusions are based on the

assessment of these homes.

Although no energy saving could be justified in heating energy consumption in absolute term, it was

proven that users have decreased their indoor air temperature during heating season showing that they

made the necessary effort on behavioural side. The decreased temperatures correspond to a theoretical

energy savings 4.6% for LE COL, 1.9% for OPAC and 10.4% for Vigo in average. In spite of that, the mean

heating energy consumption did not decrease. It can be explained by the impact of independent

variables other than occupants’ behaviour (such as heat flow from/to neighbouring apartments or

changes in meteorological factors other than temperature like wind, solar yield, etc.) that could not be

monitored within the frame of the project.

In domestic hot water consumption no notable decreasing or increasing trend could be remarked, the

situation was similar before and after starting the pilot action. Certainly some of the users’ consumption

has decreased, others’ consumption has increased, but it would have been so without any intervention.

However, in the environmental awareness survey 22% of French homes and 54% of Spanish homes

claimed that they have changed their DHW using habits in a positive way and only 3% of Spanish users

thought that their consumption had increased. In most cases they take more often shower than bath

compared to the situation before pilot action. Furthermore, 15% of the Spanish homes claimed that

they had set lower hot water temperature than earlier.

With regards to other electric consumption no notable decreasing or increasing trend could be

remarked either, the situation was similar before and after starting the pilot action. However, the

environmental awareness survey showed up some important behavioural improvements particularly

for Spanish homes. One positive change to mention is the increased proportion of appliances with

energy class A or better for Spain. In 2017 it was 41% only, in 2018 it increased to 64%. When buying a

new appliance 97% would buy a class A or better unit in Spain, 4% more than in 2017.

Many occupants learned the importance of hidden consumption, because more occupants admitted to

be aware of the meaning of hidden consumption means (Spain: 74% in 2017, 88% in 2018; France: 17%

in 2017 and 44% in 2018). The majority of Spanish users claimed to make efforts in order to reduce

hidden consumption (61% in 2018; 39% in 2017). There is a clear improvement in case of lighting

systems. In 2017 only 60% of Spanish homes had efficient lighting from that 30% was LED. In 2018 the

numbers increased to 81% and 36%. For France the situation is even better: here in 2017 only 67% had


efficient lighting from that 20% was LED. In 2018 the numbers increased to 100% and 33%. It is to be

noted that the survey results for France should be considered carefully, because only low number of

homes filled the survey, for Spain the results can be considered reliable.

The mentioned positive impacts can only partly be explained by the use of Apolis Planeta as the number

of connections to the game was moderate and most of the connections were associated to a low

number of homes. Probably the use of E-Green platform, the regular communication with the dwellers

and the fact of being monitored also had certain influence on the consumption. It is not possible to

clearly separate the impact of these factors, but we made an attempt. From the most active 17 homes

a core team has been established and these homes became subject to a further analysis. Although in

this analysis some difficulties have appeared with selecting the reference and pilot periods and heating

had to be excluded from the assessment it was clearly proven that there is a notable energy saving for

the majority of the core team homes in other electric consumption. In domestic hot water consumption

savings could not be justified because of the too high influence of other independent factors.

The second objective of this document was to find new results on consumption profiles and trends of

residents profiting from the large and detailed dataset of more than 150 homes. In this aspect several

findings could be reported, the most important ones are as follows:

• Monitoring indoor temperature is a simpler, more cost effective and more reliable way to

analyse behavioural change with regards to the use of heating system than monitoring energy

consumption although it doesn’t reflect all behavioural aspects. Cooling was not widely used in

the pilot homes, but this finding could be considered for adaptation in case of cooling as well.

• Annual domestic hot water energy consumption trends have been developed and it was

massively proven that consumption is nearly the double in January than during the summer

months. In addition, it has been found that annual consumptions can be easily estimated from

the monthly consumptions of October, November, April or May.

• Annual specific average consumptions have been determined for DHW and other electric

consumption per floor area unit and per occupants’ number. These values can be used for

energy calculations and consumption projections. Such values are available from previous

research works, but not for these regions and not for 2017-18. As consumption habits are

quickly changing during the years up-to-date results have a significant importance.

• The impact of occupants’ number on the DHW and other electric consumptions have been

analysed and numeric results have been elaborated.

• It has been justified that there is no significant difference between the daily DHW consumption

of the homes during the week even not between weekdays and weekends.

• New methods have been introduced to analyse energy performance trends and savings.

XVII. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES The ICT PSP Methodology for Energy Saving Measurement - A Common Deliverable From Projects of ICT

for Sustainable Growth In The Residential Sector, Ina Renz, IWU, 2012


SMART 2011 / 0072: Methodology for energy—efficiency measurements applicable to ICT in buildings (eeMeasure), D1.2 Non-residential methodology, Gregg Woodall, Empirica Gesellschaft für Kommunikations- und Technologieforschung mbH, Bonn, Germany, 2011


XVIII. ANNEX I: MEASUREMENT TYPES FOR THE MOST RELEVANT USERS The listed information was reported by the building energy audits in WP3.

General Heating DHW

User 1 LE COL General consumption Heating DHW






















User 59 OPAC General consumption Heating DHW











User 94 VIGO General consumption Heating DHW




User 115 VIGO General consumption

Heating + some plug circuits + some light cicuits DHW

User 117 VIGO General consumption Heating DHW + washingmachine

User 120 VIGO General consumption Heating saloon DHW

User 121 VIGO General consumption DHW + Heating

User 123 VIGO General consumption Heating + TV + PC +other DHW + microwave


Heating livingroom + bedrooms + other sockets

DHW + Washing machine + Dishwasher + Dryer


User 132 VIGO General consumption Heating livingroom + lighting DHW


User 137 VIGO General consumption Heating + DHW DHW




User 140 VIGO General consumption Heating livingroom + other DHW


User 142 VIGO General consumption Heating DHW + cooker + oven


Heating livingroom + master bedroom

DHW + Washing machine + Lighting


Heating saloon + some other sockets DHW + some other sockets

User 149 VIGO General consumption Heating DHW + washingmachine

User 150 VIGO General consumption Heating + other consumptions DHW


XIX. ANNEX II: HEATED FLOOR AREA AND NUMBER OF TENANTS IN THE

MONITORED HOMES

Heated floor area

[m2]

Nr. of occupants

User 1 LE COL 132.7 4

User 2 LE COL 72 1

User 3 LE COL 99 2

User 4 LE COL 60 4


User 6 LE COL 145 6

User 7 LE COL Missing data 2

User 8 LE COL 80 2

User 9 LE COL 88 Missing data



User 12 LE COL 52 1

User 13 LE COL 63.59 Missing data



User 16 LE COL 103 3


User 18 LE COL 60 2

User 19 LE COL 60 1


User 21 LE COL 74 4





User 25 LE COL 71 2

User 26 LE COL Missing data Missing data


User 28 LE COL 64 2

User 29 LE COL 56 1




User 33 LE COL 80 2



User 36 LE COL 77 3

User 37 LE COL 65 1




User 41 LE COL 77 3

User 42 LE COL 91.2 Missing data


User 44 LE COL 80 1



User 47 LE COL 88 1

User 48 LE COL 55 1


User 49 LE COL 55 2




User 53 LE COL 72 2




User 57 LE COL Missing data Missing data


User 59 OPAC 48.75 1

User 60 OPAC 78 1

User 61 OPAC 45.8 Missing data

User 62 OPAC 71.87 1

User 63 OPAC 57.4 2

User 64 OPAC 67.7 1


User 66 OPAC 73.8 1

User 67 OPAC 72 2

User 68 OPAC 47 1

User 69 OPAC 89.5 2

User 70 OPAC 69 1

User 71 OPAC 92 5

User 72 OPAC 72.9 2

User 73 OPAC 72 4

User 74 OPAC 86.7 5



User 76 OPAC 83.8 3

User 77 OPAC 56 Missing data

User 78 OPAC 72.9 2


User 80 OPAC Missing data 3

User 81 OPAC 73.8 4


User 83 OPAC 69 2


User 85 OPAC Missing data 2

User 86 OPAC Missing data Missing data

User 87 OPAC 86.7 4

User 88 OPAC 56.4 5

User 89 OPAC 89.2 3

User 90 OPAC 67.7 1

User 91 OPAC 67 2

User 92 OPAC 67.7 3

User 93 OPAC 86.7 3

User 94 VIGO 104 4

User 95 VIGO 137 3

User 96 VIGO 60 3

User 97 VIGO 59 2

User 98 VIGO 111 4

User 99 VIGO 80 3

User 100 VIGO 86 4


User 101 VIGO 47 Missing data

User 102 VIGO 103 3

User 103 VIGO 167 3

User 104 VIGO 88 3

User 105 VIGO 71 3

User 106 VIGO 84.05 2

User 107 VIGO 52 2

User 108 VIGO 137 3

User 109 VIGO Missing data 1

User 110 VIGO 84 3


User 112 VIGO 95 5

User 113 VIGO 68 2

User 114 VIGO 86 3

User 115 VIGO 90 4

User 116 VIGO 94 3

User 117 VIGO 103 5

User 118 VIGO 44 1

User 119 VIGO 80 2

User 120 VIGO 59 2

User 121 VIGO 158 4


User 123 VIGO 58 1

User 124 VIGO 50 2


User 126 VIGO 98 5


User 127 VIGO 53 2

User 128 VIGO 37 1

User 129 VIGO 118 3


User 131 VIGO 41 1

User 132 VIGO 84 1

User 133 VIGO 113 3

User 134 VIGO 89 3

User 135 VIGO 57 3

User 136 VIGO 72 2

User 137 VIGO 94 2

User 138 VIGO 72 3

User 139 VIGO 117 2

User 140 VIGO 99 4

User 141 VIGO 96 3

User 142 VIGO 133 3


User 144 VIGO Missing data Missing data

User 145 VIGO 86 2

User 146 VIGO 89 4


User 148 VIGO 36 1

User 149 VIGO 92 3

User 150 VIGO 61 2

User 151 VIGO 80 3

User 152 VIGO 47 2



User 154 VIGO 68 3

User 155 VIGO 80 3

User 156 VIGO 90 4

User 157 VIGO Missing data Missing data


XX. ANNEX III: FURTHER DIAGRAMS FOR HEATING ENERGY CONSUMPTION

ANALYSIS

Figure 74 Annual specific heating energy consumption of all analyzed homes in function of floor area – no

correlation recognized

Figure 75 Annual heating energy consumption per number of occupants for all analyzed homes


Figure 76 Average weekly heating energy consumption in function of indoor air temperature (LE COL)

Figure 77 Average weekly heating energy consumption in function of indoor air temperature (OPAC)


Figure 78 Average weekly heating energy consumption in function of indoor air temperature (VIGO)


Figure 79 Energy signature for users with neraly zero heating consumption in summer (OPAC)

Figure 80 Energy signature for users with heating consumption in summer (OPAC)


Figure 81 Energy signature for users with neraly zero heating consumption in summer (VIGO)

Figure 82 Energy signature for users with heating consumption in summer (VIGO)


Figure 83 Average daily heating energy consumption 01 January-15 April 2017 (2017) and 15 October

2017 - 15 April 2018 (2018) for different homes


XXI. ANNEX IV: ENERGY SIGNATURES OF INDIVIDUAL HOMES

The figures show daily heating consumptions for periods 01.01.2017-15.04.2017 and 15.10.2017-

15.04.2018.

y = -1,1301x + 16,017

R² = 0,5309

y = -1,0274x + 17,123

R² = 0,2874

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20Hea

ting c

onsu

mpti

on [

kW

h/d

ay]


LE COL - User 1

2017 2018 Linéaire (2017) Linéaire (2018)

y = -0,6414x + 14,921

R² = 0,2979

y = -1,3712x + 21,304

R² = 0,5278

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20

Hea

ting c

onsu

mpti

on [

kW

h/d

ay]


LE COL - User 3



y = -0,9643x + 15,993

R² = 0,6024

y = -1,0191x + 18,53

R² = 0,4543

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20

Hea

ting c

onsu

mpti

on [

kW

h/d

ay]


LE COL - User 8


y = -0,5776x + 7,7694

R² = 0,4884

y = -0,858x + 11,866

R² = 0,5009

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20Hea

ting c

onsu

mpti

on [

kW

h/d

ay]


LE COL - User 10



y = -0,7992x + 13,148

R² = 0,6961

y = -0,7571x + 12,778

R² = 0,5299

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20Hea

ting c

onsu

mpti

on [

kW

h/d

ay]


LE COL - User 20


y = -1,3529x + 26,229

R² = 0,6058

y = -1,3251x + 25,593

R² = 0,41430

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20

Hea

ting c

onsu

mpti

on [

kW

h/d

ay]


LE COL - User 41



y = -1,623x + 33,823

R² = 0,7781

y = -1,2721x + 28,228

R² = 0,6667

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20

Hea

ting c

onsu

mpti

on [

kW

h/d

ay]


LE COL - User 46


y = -1,0363x + 23,087

R² = 0,5101

y = -0,9782x + 21,888

R² = 0,47130

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

-5 0 5 10 15 20 25

Hea

ting c

onsu

mpti

on [

kW

h/d

ay]


OPAC - User 60



y = -0,4088x + 5,9706

R² = 0,2814

y = -0,3517x + 5,8293

R² = 0,1674

-5

0

5

10

15

20

-5 0 5 10 15 20 25Hea

ting c

onsu

mpti

on [

kW

h/d

ay]


OPAC - User 64


y = 0,0014x + 0,656

R² = 0,0138

y = -0,0666x + 4,8719

R² = 0,0097

0

5

10

15

20

25

-5 0 5 10 15 20 25

Hea

ting c

onsu

mpti

on [

kW

h/d

ay]


OPAC - User 67



y = -1,0732x + 19,098

R² = 0,3702

y = -0,9427x + 21,243

R² = 0,3697

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

-5 0 5 10 15 20 25Hea

ting c

onsu

mpti

on [

kW

h/d

ay]


OPAC - User 68


y = -0,8466x + 18,73

R² = 0,4951

y = -0,4536x + 13,467

R² = 0,2318

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

-5 0 5 10 15 20 25

Hea

ting c

onsu

mpti

on [

kW

h/d

ay]


OPAC - User 70



y = -1,0732x + 19,098

R² = 0,3702

y = -0,9427x + 21,243

R² = 0,3697

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

-5 0 5 10 15 20 25Hea

ting c

onsu

mpti

on [

kW

h/d

ay]


OPAC - User 87


y = -1,1953x + 27,135

R² = 0,434

y = -0,5567x + 12,964

R² = 0,16380

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 5 10 15 20 25

Hea

ting c

onsu

mpti

on [

kW

h/d

ay]


VIGO - User 102



y = -1,1184x + 25,767

R² = 0,522

y = 0,0108x + 14,981

R² = 0,0002

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 5 10 15 20 25

Hea

ting c

onsu

mpti

on [

kW

h/d

ay]


VIGO - User 117


y = -3,8199x + 78,725

R² = 0,579

y = -2,3092x + 69,061

R² = 0,258

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 5 10 15 20 25

Hea

ting c

onsu

mpti

on [

kW

h/d

ay]


VIGO - User 133



y = -3,1838x + 53,273

R² = 0,6893

y = -3,0487x + 54,413

R² = 0,5025

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 5 10 15 20 25

Hea

ting c

onsu

mpti

on [

kW

h/d

ay]


VIGO - User 139


y = -2,6921x + 42,894

R² = 0,5968

y = -1,9461x + 36,784

R² = 0,2252

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 5 10 15 20 25

Hea

ting c

onsu

mpti

on [

kW

h/d

ay]


VIGO - User 145



y = -0,2034x + 3,8145

R² = 0,0992

y = -0,057x + 3,1402

R² = 0,011

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 5 10 15 20 25

Hea

ting c

onsu

mpti

on [

kW

h/d

ay]


VIGO - User 150



XXII. ANNEX V: ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE (FRENCH

VERSION)


XXIII. ANNEX VI: ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

(SPAINISH VERSION)


XXIV. ANNEX VII: FURTHER DIAGRAMS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS

SURVEY



assessment of the solution impact on environmental … · main author tamás csoknyai sent on the...

Documents