Realizing, Modeling and Evaluating City’s Energy

Efficiency: the case of InSmartin the city of Trikala, Greece

Leonidas Anthopoulos, George Giannakidis, Sotirios Sakkas

Leonidas Anthopoulos, Associate Professor

University of Applied Science of Thessaly, Greece

Mayor’s special advisor of city of Trikala, Greece

Presentation’s structure

Introduction

Background

Research methodology – the project InSmart

Conclusions

Introduction

Smart cities: 6 main challenges

providing an economic base;

building efficient urban infrastructure;

improving the quality of life and place;

ensuring social integration;

conserving natural environmental qualities, and

guaranteeing good governance

The rise of the smart city industry

US $3 trillion (products among others smart buildings and smart grids etc.)

Standardization bodies: energy efficiency has not been standardized

Research questions:

RQ1: how can city’s energy efficiency be defined and measured?

RQ2: what is the role of government in ensuring city’s energy efficiency?

Questions’ importance:

city’s energy efficiency is not easy

Governments try to control consumption and emissions (i.e., Covenant of Mayors 2020)

Studies (i.e., Tsolakis & Anthopoulos, 2015) show that corresponding policies are estimated easy to fail

Background

Efficiency:

Oxford dictionary: the good use of time and energy in a way that does not waste any of them;

Efficiency ~ productivity: optimal energy use

Efficiency is related with sufficiency

Energy efficiency = energy use performance

City’s energy efficiency:

Consumers (demand side): industrial (service and industry), transport and buildings (residential and commercial)

Depends on physical characteristics (i.e., city size, population density etc.)

Total‐factor energy efficiency (TFEE):

interrelates energy efficiency and per‐capita income

Inputs: labor size, capital, farm area, energy use

Output: GDP

Energy efficiency and waste management: extreme and useless energy demands

Telecommunications: networks’ length increases energy consumption

Policies: different among countries

Energy and emission control;

Emissions trading economy and the city

Public lighting

Urban transportation

Background #2U.S.A. Japan

Year Policy Year Policy (Kawasaki city specialization)

1978‐ Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards 1951 (Threat to public safety recognized)

2006‐

2010

Federal Hybrid Vehicle Tax Credit 1959 (Finance program to treatment facility)

1980‐ Gas guzzler tax 1960 Pollution Prevention Ordinance

(the Old Ordinance)

1990‐ Federal appliance energy efficiency standards 1962 Soot and Smoke regulation (National designated

area for Soot and Smoke regulation (1963))

1978‐ Residential and commercial building codes 1967 Basic Pollution Prevention Law (Loan program for

treatment facility installation)

1978‐ Electricity Demand‐Side Management

programs

1968 Air Pollution Prevention Law (The K‐value

regulation)

1976‐ Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) 1969 Public Health Compensation Law

2009‐

2011

2009 Economic Stimulus

Additional WAP funding

Recovery Through Retrofit

State Energy Program

Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block

Grants

Home Energy Efficiency Tax Credits

Residential and Commercial Building

Initiative

Energy Efficient Appliance Rebate Program

1970

1998

1st Pollution Diet (Pollution control agreement)

Producer’s Pay Principle (Finance program for

Pollution prevention)

Global Warming Prevention Law

Amendment to Energy Conservation Law

i.e.: US and Japanese policies

Research methodology The InSmart Project (2014‐2017)

4 cities: Nottingham (UK), Cesena (Italy), Évora(Portugal) and Trikala (Greece)

Differences in size and smart city priorities

multiple objectives:

structure a model that can map local energy demand sources

calculate existing energy efficiency

estimate energy efficiency by 2030 with the simulation of several scenarios (policies)

usual local policies:

outcome of national policies

small‐scale projects that enhance energy efficiency (i.e., new facility development; public buildings’ upgrade; public lighting management systems etc.)

Research methodology (#2)

The InSmart Project (2014‐2017)

7 work packages:

a) the determination of the potentially different sources of energy supply and demand in the involved cities;

(b) the definition of a reference model (baseline) with energy demand size in the involved cities with the use of data from 2012;

(c) the selection of energy efficiency policies (scenarios) from all the involved cities;

(d) the development of a model that calculates and estimates energy demand by 2030, according the contributed scenarios;

(e) the involvement of city stakeholders in all the city partners in order to define and execute a multi‐criteria decision making (MCDM) process for the above scenarios’ prioritization;

(f) the calculation of scenarios’ effect on policy targets

Research methodology (#3)

The InSmart Project (2014‐2017)

Energy demand sources (meet literature findings):

(a) public lighting (street and open space lighting, fountain operation);

(b) water and sewage treatment and distribution;

(c) waste chain operation (collection, delivery and processing);

(d) buildings (municipal, residential and commercial);

(e) transportation (fuel and emission)

Energy suppliers:

heating oil, natural gas, solar photovoltaics (PV), wind turbines, district heating (DH), combined heat and power (CHP), solar thermal, geothermal energy and biomass

open green spaces to city “natural cooling”

Research methodology (#4)

InSmart – Findings from Trikala (DEYAT as a partner)

Reference framework:

81,355 inhabitants

GDP: 5% increase/year

Transportation: 85,000 trips/day, facilities and city connections

Water supply: 13 pumps, 2 stations, 8.5m3 million, 325Km pipe network

Waste chain: 1 treatment station, serves 50% of population, 19 trucks, 27,557 tons, 40MWh for landfill operation

Energy profile:

440MWh of electric power/year (2011)

Buildings: the main consumer (15,500 buildings in 8 typologies)

Oil consumption: 76,000 tons (47% for heating, 53% for transportation)

Natural gas: 87.7 Km pipe network

Research methodology (#4)

InSmart – Findings from Trikala (DEYAT as a partner)

Reference framework:

81,355 inhabitants

GDP: 5% increase/year

Transportation: 85,000 trips/day, facilities and city connections

Water supply: 13 pumps, 2 stations, 8.5m3 million, 325Km pipe network

Waste chain: 1 treatment station, serves 50% of population, 19 trucks, 27,557 tons, 40MWh for landfill operation

Energy profile:

440MWh of electric power/year (2011)

Buildings: the main consumer (15,500 buildings in 8 typologies)

Oil consumption: 76,000 tons (47% for heating, 53% for transportation)

Natural gas: 87.7 Km pipe network

Research methodology (#5)

InSmart – Findings from Trikala (DEYAT as a partner)

Trikala has signed the Covenant of Mayors

Trikala 2025: a smart, sufficient and resilient city

15 alternative scenarios

Scenario Group Scenario

Buildings 1. Municipal building renovation (20% improved efficiency)

2. 80% of city buildings connected with the natural gas network

3. Renovation of all city buildings grounded before 1950

4. Energy efficiency upgrade of all city buildings

Public lighting 1. Public lighting upgrade to LED (6,000 units)

Renewable Energy 1. Renewable energy production by 10% of total demand

Green Spaces 1. Green Open Space creation (5% cooling demand reduction)

Transportation 1. Mobility Ring‐Road (8C) completion and Cycle Lane Network Expansion with 5‐10 Km (8R)

2. Replacement of 10 municipal vehicles with electrical ones

3. Encouraging hybrid and electrical vehicle use (i.e., with tolls in the city entrance)

Water and sewage 1. Biomass landfill (950KWh production capacity)

2. Sewage treatment with bacteria (25% decrease of energy demand)

3. Dam construction (200KWh energy supply and down to 0% energy demand for water pumping)

Systemic 1. Exploitation of all terraces for solar panels

2. 20% of CO2 production decrease

Research methodology (#6)

InSmart – Findings from Trikala (DEYAT as a partner)

Selection criteria definition

PROMETHEE MCDMCriteria

1. Implementation Cost 6. Ease of Implementation

2. Implementation Cost Efficiency 7. City’s Quality of Life

Improvement

3. Energy savings 8. City’s Economic Development

4. Operation and Maintenance

Cost

9. Social Acceptance

5. Revenue Production

Research methodology (#7)

InSmart – Findings from Trikala (DEYAT as a partner)

Scenarios calculation:

Scen01: Municipal building renovation

Scen04: Energy efficiency upgrade of all city buildings

Scen05. Public lighting upgrade to LED (6,000 units)

Scen06: Renewable energy production

Scen15: emission reduction 20% (totals)

Scen15: emission reduction 20% (transportation)

Research methodology (#8)

InSmart – Findings from Trikala (DEYAT as a partner)

Scenarios calculation:

the most significant contribution regarding energy efficiency is being performed by scenario 4 (Energy efficiency upgrade of all city buildings)

Too Expensive

Conclusions

Research questions

RQ1: city’s energy efficiency concerns city’s energy performance in terms of utilization and savings

RQ2: government plays a vital role in ensuring city’s energy efficiency

National government: long‐term planning

Local government: aligns to national planning; project planning (local policies).

InSmart: criteria and MCDM

Thank you

http://www.insmartenergy.com