0-impact goes one step further than

0-energy.

It addresses building and design

issues from a n environmental ly neutral perspective. It obviously includes

energy neutral building, but adds the

challenge of water use, use and

producing of materials, and use of

land.

0-impact should result in a built

environment that is in balance with

its environment in all senses, and

truly sustainable in the long run.

This book is a compilation of key

notes and papers of the SB 2010,

initiated by iiSBE, CIB and UNEP,

organised by RiBuilT Research

institute Built environment of

Tomorrow.

Towards 0-Im

pact B

uild

ings & Built E

nviro

nments

Towards 0-Impact Buildings & Built Environments

Techne Press, Amsterdam

Editors:

Ronald Rovers

Jacques Kimman

Christoph Ravesloot

Toward 0-Impact Buildings and Built Environments

Towards 0-Impact Buildings and Built Environments

Edited by Ronald Rovers, Jacques Kimman and Christoph Ravesloot

Techne Press Amsterdam

Towards 0-Impact Buildings and the Built Environments edited by Ronald Rovers, Jacques Kimman and Christoph Ravesloot 2010, Amsterdam, 220 pages ISBN: 978-90-8594-031-9 This publication has become possible with the financial support of the RiBuilt Institute Published and distributed by Techne Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands www.technepress.nl

2010 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or stored by any electronic or mechanical means (including copying, photocopying, recording, data storage, and retrieval) or in any other form or language without the written permission from the publisher.

Table of Contents

Introduction The concept of O 11 Ronald Rovers The 0-impact transition approach 27 Jacques Kimman Bringing science to practice 31 Christoph Maria Ravesloot Pa r t I I Realism and illusion 39 Hermann Scheer Gssing, a model for other regions 43 Peter Vadasz The goal is PlusEnergy! 51 Rolf Disch Architecture of conglomerates 57 Lucien Kroll A life cycle tower for a better future 65 Hubert Rhomberg Rapid GHG reductions in the built environment under extreme conditions 73 Nils Larsson The energy transition model 85 John Kerkhoven Pa r t I I I From space habitats to zero emission buildings 95 Julien S. Bourrelle, Arild Gustavsen, Bjrn Petter Jelle Towards a definition of zero impact buildings 105 Shady Attia and Andr De Herde

Field study of retrofit solutions for residential housing 113 Davide Cal, Tanja Osterhage and Dirk Mueller Applications of appropriate renewable energy technologies in Chinese rural houses in Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau 125 Wang Yan, Zhang Peng, Ju Xiaolei, Zhang Yabin ) Planning 0-energy cities using local energy sources 137 Wouter Leduc Towards 0-impact industrial sites 155 Katleen De Flander Urban morphology and the quest for zero carbon cities 165 Serge Salat and Caroline Nowacki The Urban Harvest Plus approach to 0-impact on built environments case study Kerkrade West 173 Ronald Rovers, Herwin Sap, Wouter Leduc, Vera Rovers, LEO Gommans, Ferry van Kann Prefabricated timber as a means of achieving zero carbon 183 Gavin White Photo catalytic degradation as a tool for the reduction of ambient air pollution 191 Cyriel Mentink, Toon Peters, Paul Donners, Jan Theelen, Wouter Snippe, Martijn Janssen, Jacob Pijnenburg, Paul Borm Zero-impact water use in the built environment 199 M.M. Nederlof and J. Frijns Tilburg: a road map for becoming a zero-carbon city in 2045 209 Erik Alsema, Jappe Goud, Geurt Donze, Martin Roders

Part IIntroduction

Introduction

This book has been produced as part of the SB10 Sustainable Building Western Europe Conference, one of nine SB10s that have been held worldwide. These have been organised under the umbrella of the iiSBE, CIB and UNEP, as part of a world series in preparation for the 2011 Sustainable Building World Conference in Helsinki.

A challenging theme was chosen: towards 0-impact buildings and built environments. This is the challenge that lies ahead of us - making the transition from resource depletion and impacts to balanced management of our resources, with an acceptable standard of living for all.

We are happy to have received numerous papers focusing on the 0 target, which we believe will be at the top of agendas in the near future (if not before). A more detailed analysis of this issue is given in the introductory chapters.

The keynote speakers during the Western Europe Conference have all been involved to a greater or lesser extent in bringing about 0-impact situations in their own fields of business.

Herman Scheer set off a change in Germany with his Renewable Energy Policies, and is now active in broadening this approach to a change for a fully renewable energy-based market. He is a determined and successful fighter for this transition.

Many cities claim to be pursuing the 0-energy or climate-neutral target, but few succeed. One such is the town of Gssing in Austria. Under Mayor Peter Vadasz, the city turned a negative spiral with high energy costs, unemployment, and CO2 emissions, into a lively region with ample jobs that is operating entirely on renewable energy: proof that the 0-energy city is possible. And soon the region is to follow.

Nils Larsson, however, fears that most will not succeed. He advocates designing a plan for rapid reduction of greenhouse gases. It often takes a disaster to open peoples eyes, and when that happens we will all be looking for a good plan to enact immediately. Such a plan has yet to be devised.

A good plan requires adequate figures and understanding of consequences and assumptions. John Kerkhoven has developed a computer model that shows the consequences of policies and practical measures, which he uses to show workshop participants the outcomes of their choices. Although this generates much discussion, it also enables mutual understanding and ultimately agreement on 90% of measures. That helps!

Rolf Disch is an outstanding architect when it comes to changing our building approach. Disch has a long history in energy-efficient buildings and integration of renewable energy devices including his masterpiece in Freiburg, Germany: Sonnenschiff - an energy-producing building with retail premises, offices and housing which was enabled through the creation of a revolving fund.

So is Thomas Rau who follows the One Planet principle advocated by the World Wildlife Fund and akin to the 0 or 0-approach concept we at RiBuilT pursue, of which 0-

9

energy, 0-waste and 0-water are a part. He has created a range of buildings not only with outstanding energy performance, but which are also exemplary from the materials point of view. His latest work is a 0-CO2-neutral school in Eindhoven, the Netherlands. No articles by Rau are to be found in this book as he prefers to let the actual work speak for itself. We can, however, refer you to the websites on his buildings to review his work and principles.

Kroll takes the position that it is not architecture but the context that dictates form, primarily the inhabitants, emotions, and environment. His long life experience has taught him that a design process should not start from the technologically possible but from context needs. In fact, architects do not design anymore: they guide the process that automatically leads to the right form and materialisation for the owners, users or inhabitant. They are no longer the solitary genius but merely one among others, mainly non-architects. This results in interesting and very well received sustainable living environments.

These chapters by keynote speakers are followed by a selection of papers from the conference, selected for their scientific quality and relevance, or for practical relevance in implementing research findings and results. We were happy to include a few descriptive and analytical practical cases since this is not about researching for our future but about applying it, today and tomorrow. Some explore the possibilities at the building level, both new and restored. Others look into urban approaches or a resource-oriented approach such as 0-water neighbourhoods, and even 0-air (avoiding polluted air).

Together they provide an overview of the challenge that lies ahead of us, for which this book hopes to stimulate more research and in particular results and insights on how to establish and implement this. The transition must be made, whether we like it or not. It is up to us to choose.

Happy reading and be inspired,

The editors

10

The Concept of O Towards 0-impact Building and Built Environments

Ronald Rovers 1) For the past 150 years or so, we have enjoyed an abundance of resources. In fact, we have so many resources that we have lost sight of how we actually depend on these resources, as we used to. We have created such a complex system that its hard to see how we could change it and start the transition to a renewable resource-based society. But there is a way. We need to look back and see where we came from.

We are all familiar with Robinson Crusoe, a castaway on an uninhabited island. Imagine if you were to end up like him after a shipwreck with some basic survival geara fishing rod, axe, hammer, and so on, but nothing else. Suppose the island is fairly small, say the size of a soccer field, around 0.5 hectare. Most of the island is forested with maybe 170 trees. The remaining 1000 m2 land is agricultural and includes a small water well and a white beach. The island is a vacationers dreamexcept for one thing: you cant leave.

1) Chairman SB10 Western Europe Conference; Professor Built Environment, Research Institute Built environment of Tomorrow, RiBuilT/Zuyd University

11

As luck would have it, the 1000 m2 of land is just enough to grow vegetables so you can survive as a vegetarian. And each year the 170 trees grow an additional 2.5 m3 meters of wood for you to harvest, enough to cook your meals since this happens to be approximately the amount Africans need to cook their meals each year. So no worriesassuming the climate is nice.

If your island happens to be in Northern Europe, you wont have enough wood to build a house (10-15 m3). Or if your island has cold winters, you wont have enough wood to heat your house (3 m3 a year for one stove). You definitely wont have enough wood to build a boat for fishing. Anyway, lets not complicate the picture too much.

The next island has 100 times the land and 100 times the people. The islanders there do things efficiently. By dividing the labour and saving some wood by cooking together, they have managed to construct a fishing boat and appoint a fisherman. He sails out each day and returns with fish in return for some cooked vegetables. And each year, the islanders are able to reserve some wood to construct houses, repair the fishing boat, and so on. Everybody is happy, everything is in balance.

Is this second island imaginary? Not entirely. A few years ago I heard about the Uros people. They withdrew to artificial islands in Lake Titicaca on the border between Peru and Bolivia to protect themselves from the Incas. For thousands of years now they have been constructing floating islands from dried and bundled reeds that they replenish every three months. Reeds are also used to build houses and fishing boats, and even to make medicines. The Uros have maintained equilibrium by replenishing their resources for a thousand years. They are reasonably content and now also have some (imported) modern resources such as solar cells for telephones, the Internet, and televisions. The Uros are probably the first society that operates fully on sustainable energy and sustainable resources! Smart cookies, those Uros.

12

Now lets look at the way most of us live. We are far from living in a resource-balanced environment.

Using bricks for building construction is forbidden in Chinas northern region. The quantity of bricks required is great, and the cost in fertile land and soil to produce these is too much. Do you know why the Chinese started building with bricks in the first place, some 150 years ago? They ran out of wood and forests; wood was cut in such huge quantities for construction and other purposes that it became scarce

The climate in China is so dry, the river that used to flow through Beijing no longer has any water; all the river water is used upstream. A huge aqueduct has been constructed to transport water thousands of kilometres from the wetter south to the north. At the same time the Gobi Desert is growing. An attempt is being made to halt its growth with a green wall, a band of trees planted on the borders of the desert. This project will be ongoing for the next 50 years...

The Gobi Desert is just one of many examples of desertification. The Sahara Desert in Africa is growing too, and a similar greenbelt of trees over thousands of kilometres is planned. The Colorado River in North America barely reaches the ocean now and will cease doing so at all if construction and water demands in the desert continue to increase.

Currently more then 50 % of people live in cities, all depending on resources from far away. We depend on products from China and other parts of the world. We are part of an urban organism, a parasitic orbanism.

Take oranges, for example. . Oranges dont grow in Northern Europe, but we ship them in from such faraway places as Israel. Israel grows oranges by tapping irrigation water from beneath Palestinian land, from an old aquifer under the West Bank. The water table in the aquifer drops, and Palestinians, who are only allowed to use wells, see their wells running dry. Palestinians lack water because we eat oranges.

The chain of resource use has become very complex. And we are in an extremely vulnerable position. If the chain breaks somewhere, we are trapped. We have nowhere to go for more supplies.

We are all familiar with the problems associated with energy consumption. What will happen if China matches the number of cars per capita that we currently have in the industrialised world? Add the oil needed to fuel those cars to Chinas current oil demands, and all the oil in the world will need to go to China. We already fight wars for oil in the Middle East. Within three months after Afghanistans invasion, contracts had been signed for gas and oil pipelines there.

The fight over oil in the Middle East leads to another fight, that against climate change. As a result of climate change, a new wine industry is growing in Sweden, but in most cases the effects are more troublesome. A problem with climate change is we dont know where it will hit and how hard it will hit. How did we end up here? Lets return to our imaginary island and the parable of the fisherman.

One day a yacht arrives at the island. The yachtsman, a rich man, looks around and takes a seat next to the fisherman, who had gone out fishing in the morning and is now taking an afternoon nap on the beach.

13

Hi, there, says the yachtsman. What you doing for a living? I am a fisherman, replies the fisherman. Then whatre you doing on the beach? asks the yachtsman. I finished fishing this morning, the fisherman answers. Ah, our yachtsman says. Why dont you go out in the afternoon and catch more fish? Why should I? the fisherman asks. Well, you can catch twice as much and can sell to another island. So what? the fisherman says. Well, if you do that every day, you can buy a second boat. Oh? says the fisherman. More fish means more profit. Yes? You can become a millionaire just like me. And then? the fisherman asks, bored. Well, then you can have people do the work for you while you lie on the beach. But I am lying on the beach, the fisherman replies.

The parable ends here, but in the real world the fisherman probably would have been persuaded to go out fishing again. It happens all the time: although we understand the problem, we become trapped between the dream and the deed. We dream of a paradise, a safe haven with clean water and clean air and happy people, an oasis like a holiday camp or our fishermans island.

In real life we focus on immediate gratification of materialistic needs. Take, for instance, a road. Everybody agrees it shouldnt be built and in turn shouts objections: It creates too much noise, it stinks, it violates nature. At the same time we cry for more roads, tired of getting stuck in traffic jams. Then the minister shows up, proclaiming, Mobility is a right! Figures show only seven percent of the country is covered in asphalt (as is the case in the Netherlands). Then someone mentions that roads create problems that arent limited to the road but extend for kilometres around. The minister answers, Technology development!

14

Well build silent asphalt and clean cars! When someone else points out that producing the asphalt and cars depletes resources and causes climate change, the minister responds, Cleaner production!

This is collectively running forward, away from the problem, thereby causing other problems. And we follow and let him, since we want to drive and since there is a difference between the dream and the deed.

So we have a huge problem, and we react the wrong way. How can we get out of this loop? For an answer, let us visit another island, that of Japan 150 years ago.

Like a number of other countries, Japan has a long history of constructing wood houses. But unlike the Chinese, they still build with wood. This change has its origins around 1600. The Tokugawa came to power at this time, and the period that followed is mainly known as Edo Japan (based on the name of the capital, the city that is now Tokyo). In an attempt to retain control over the various population groups, the country was sealed off from the outside world, and a 200-year period of isolationism followed. This literally creates an island situation. Edo Japan is the only large-scale historic example of a society that operated in a closed cycle (Edo City alone had approximately 1 million inhabitants at the time), its supplies limited to those within its own borders.

The traditional Japanese house was further perfected since everything for living had to be based on very efficient use of renewable and reusable resources. The Japanese even standardised building panels, and stocked wood building supplies to ensure they could quickly repair and reconstruct buildings after city fires. In fact, 99% of resource and energy needs were met with direct and indirect solar energy, particularly from wood. While deforestation was taking place everywhere else in the world, the Japanese developed a highly innovative forestry plan that is managed to perfection even today. Japan is still famous for its lush forests.

15

This period was forced to an end around 1860 when Western countries began searching for raw materials that were already becoming scarce. A small US fleet forced Edo Japan (which was essentially unarmed, since no resources for a military were available) to open its borders for trade.

Until then, growth was generally minimal, due to the limited availability of resources, and the need to access them locally, since only local transport was available. For the most part, an equilibrium was maintained, with too fast growth corrected by disappointing harvests or depleted stocks: Communities faced ups and downs proportionate to population size, food availability, and distances to other resources.

At this same time, again around 1860, a big party got under way around the world. Humanity bought itself time with new technologies driven by fossil fuels, and materials and fossil fuels could be deployed in an accelerated manner. Raw materials could be obtained from places that were further and further away. If an undeveloped country in a distant place still tried to manage its resources, its efforts were completely thrown into disarray in the 20th century.

The entire world became the hunting ground of the industrialised world. Every time a short-lived crisis loomed in developed countries, we could avert disaster by obtaining resources from other regions. Hunting and gathering had again risen in all its glory. So our fisherman on his imaginary island is persuaded to enter the market and go into what is euphemistically called business. He soon encounters his first problem: where to take the fish, and how to construct a second boat. The solution involves importing woodin other words, placing his burden on someone else. To increase his wood use beyond his own system limits, he needs something to negotiate with. This has to be the fish, one of the main resources within his island system. So he catches more fish than he needs to eat to compensate for an increased need for wood. Clearly, in order to use more wood than is available on his island, the fisherman has to create a surplus of both wood and fish. So long as others have forests and the fisherman has fish, the system works. In building and construction, we do our share of over-consumption. Up to 40% of resources are transported around the world for construction. Architects and developers build skyscrapers, which progressively waste more resources per m2 floor the higher they grow. And architects can squander resources creating wasteful architecture. (For example, Calatrava buildings require two to four times more tonnes of material per m2 than the average building.) All stakeholders use steel and cement wherever they can, further depleting resources. Cement production alone is already responsible for 7% of all CO2 emissions.

Now 150 years following the Edo Japan period, earths human population is nearly 7 billion, and all available land has been subdivided and is being developed or is occupied. No virgin territories remain to be claimed except, perhaps, Antarctica, which is, for the time being, still under ice. Fossil energy resources are running out, and humanity is bumping up against a new limit on resources. The days of an open-cycle system are numbered: the hunter can only secure resources by force of arms (as in Afghanistan). The gatherer is stripping the last

16

available areas using beads and mirrors (as the Chinese are currently doing in Africa, offering roads in exchange for raw materials). You might say that hunting and gathering has turned into stealing and plundering.

After 150 years, the physical and political limits of the system have been reached. The 150-year interim, bought with depleting fossil fuels, has come to an end. Again we must search for balance, but now with almost 7 billion people and with an unprecedented consumption pattern. We frantically continue to search for fossil fuels that are becoming scarcer by the day, and we are plundering the entire world. When fossil fuels are found, they are more and more difficult to extract. Continuing to rely on fossil fuels is an assault on financial and energy resources, resulting in further price increases and economic crises.

How will this play out if we dont change anything? In researching the operation of financial markets, Barclays Bank arrived at the following conclusion: Major risk is business-as-usual, which equates to a degeneration into widespread resource conflict and ecosystem collapse.

Perhaps we can stretch things a little by developing technologies, but the hunting grounds of yesterday are no more. The hunting grounds have been subdivided, they are in use and there is no way out. The only hunting grounds are those of our own species: The world itself has become an island.

We are all now in the same situation as the fisherman, the Uros, and the Edo-Japanese. We must reduce our resource consumption to the limits of the island. A surplus of resources is impossible. Given the earths finite limits, the only possibility is a closed-cycle approach. The only resource that reaches our island is solar radiation on our island, thats it.

So we have to get back to basics. If the whole world is an island, we have to start living like islanders. We have to realize there is no one else with whom we can do business outside our globisland. We cant run away from problems anymore; there is nowhere to go. We must face our limits.

We are running out of oil and many other resources that could have made life a bit easier (and have done so, for the happy few). We have to learn to manage our resources again in

17

a different way, a way that involves reusing everything and depleting nothing. From now on, we must maintain a closed-cycle system.

How do we do this? How do we manage our globisland (Island Earth) in a balanced way? How do we design new buildings and districts with optimised energy and water systems, and with materials that do not deplete resources and do not create CO2 emissions? How do we re-develop our neighbourhoods and districts using 0-impact approaches? How do we plan cities that are immune to system crashes?

Most important, our strategy must clearly define where we want to go, the desired state, instead of improving on where we came from. We dont have time to gradually improve on the past. We need to evaluate how far we are from achieving a balanced resource-based management system, in this case in our building stock.

To move forward, we must understand where we went wrong. Two decades ago we began exploring a more rational approach to resource management, especially energy. This has led to a holistic approach, in which everyone should be happy: the planet, the people and the profit We could calls this the PPP syndrome, trying to save the old and combine it with the new. Everything is included, and glory is where the three will meet. But as history teaches, when youre on an island, its resources establish the basis for society: food, energy, water, and raw materials. If they are not available or if they are not managed properly, a society cannot exist and certainly cannot grow.

And these basic resources are used to create peoples affluence and wellbeing. If there is abundance, society and culture can thrive, freeing people (the non-producers) to invest in other interests. Without resources, we have to adapt. That covers the first two Ps: planet and people.

The next P is profit, consisting of economy and policy. We should realize that these exist simply to facilitate and give direction to the other two Ps, to create our desired state. Economy and policy can be adjusted, since they are not natural phenomena. We invented them ourselves sometime in the Early Middle Ages. And it is only logical: when you manage resources based on an economic profit principle that aims for the opposite of sustainability, then sustainability will remain a farce. Remember our fisherman, who is already lying on the beach However, its a typical behaviour in times of change: Facing the threat to business as usual, change is denied In this case, a smart strategy was found: instead of addressing the energy threats of the nineties, stakeholders developed an ever-growing list of so-called sustainable ambitions, thereby diminishing and hiding the real problem. In all sectors, but especially in the building sector. Tools have been developed which result in a high score without even having saved a single Joule (except some minimal improvement for countries with mandatory energy standards) and results are compared with failed buildings from the past. Because both people and profit should score well, its more like People making profit depleting Planet.

For examples of this type of thinking we have only to look at the Netherlands. We preach reducing energy use by 20% and increasing renewable energy by a modest 20% by 2020. But oil extraction is again being pursued in the north of the country, with huge investments in efficiently produced steam to make this oil fluid. Energy efficiency drops

18

considerably with this technology. Gas exploration has begun again, and we have five new coal-fired power plants planned under the guise that we will be able to store the CO2. In 20 years time. Perhaps. Maybe.

Nevertheless, we are seeing the first signs of an alternate approach to energy use. The cause of impending climate change, CO2 emissions are at the heart of new strategies and directly related to pure energy consumption. The increased interest and discussion about 0-energy buildings popping up in almost every country are a visible sign of a new approach. Each building is an island with balanced energy use.

In the Netherlands, stakeholders agreed with the government to gradually increase the building of new 0-energy houses. The UK has already adopted a policy stipulating all houses should be CO2 neutral by 2016. In Belgium, industrial areas have developed 0-CO2 strategies, and in Germany we find the first energy-producing buildings and houses. In June 2010 the EU adopted the new EPBD (Energy Performance of Buildings Directive) policy specifying that by 2020 all new buildings should be near 0-energy. The notion is growing that we should no longer improve bad concepts from the past. Instead we should look to the future and ask how far we are from our idealin this case, buildings that run on renewable energy from sources that do not deplete faster than regenerated, in balance with reduced need. However, there is more at stake, as we will see later.

More and more often even cities are introducing and exploring policies to become energy neutral or climate neutral. And were still talking only about energy. With water, food, and raw materials, we need to take a similar approach. These resources are becoming scarcer and requiring more energy to harness or produce. Strategies for 0-water districts have been tested, and a few pilot projects have been conducted. Food supply will become more critical as more people move to the cities. Urban farming is gaining ground and is being integrated in new town planning.

With the G20 in July 2009 agreeing on 80 % CO2 reduction by 2050 (although this was not realized in Copenhagen), its obvious there is no option but to explore designs for buildings and built environments that meet 0- or near 0-energy strategies.

19

Such strategies simplify things. In the case of 0-energy buildings (defined as buildings that on site provide the renewable energy to meet the buildings energy demands), measuring CO2 is no longer an issue. By converting to renewable energy, we have both tackled the depletion of fossil fuels and by definition have eliminated the side effect of CO2 emissions.

The same holds true for materials in buildings. They should be constructed with renewable materials using renewable energy sources. Lets be clear: the future will depend on closing cycles, on maintaining an acceptable level of living while using a circular management of resourcescircular as O in a circle, or 0 as in zero impact (emissions, depletion, dilution, pollution) for ages to come.

A closed-cycle resource management system can be maintained over a long period. There are, however, limits to this system. The use of renewable resources requires that we renew them, and the potential for renewable resources worldwide is limited. For this system to work, most likely we will not only need to:

1. make a shift to renewables, but also 2. reduce the volume of resources cycling through the system, and 3. slow down the time it takes for renewables to cycle, as well as 4. limit the energy driving the cycle.

In other words, we will have to balance growth of renewable resources with human consumption. For energy this doesnt pose a great problem (the solar route provides an easy way out); for materials, its another story. We will need to develop a highly efficient system to manage resources and maintain building stocks.

The same holds for any other resource. Use should balance with regeneration of the resource. Balance is at the heart of a closed-cycle approach, at the heart of operating an island, which the Easter Islanders didnt manage, and the Japanese did, and the Uros still do. But the same applies for any system, whether an island, a city, a building, or a country. Balance needs to be established, and if it cannot be maintained, demand for the resource must be reduced. We already know from research, as well as from the Japanese Edo period, that in the end everything runs on solar radiation. Solar energy is our only source outside our island that continues flowing and can never be depletedat least not for the next 5 billion years or so.

Solar energy is the driving force behind our well being. Solar energy was also the driving force behind the formation of oil, via biomass. We now know converting biomass is a very inefficient way to create energy. A rough calculation suggests that only 14,000 litres of oil were produced per day on average via the biomass route (using solar energy to grow plants which were later compressed in sediments), and if we divide this over time and the earths surface, we get only 0.0006 kWh electric output per hectare per year. Compare this to solar PV panels for producing energy: these produce 1,000,000 kWh electric output per hectare per year.

As the example shows, land and solar radiation are essential elements for creating closed cycles and establishing a balance. Clearly our present economic system does not favour the best solution.

20

There is, however, another threat we need to think about. Looking only at energy will result in a system that is less than optimal. Food and (renewable) materials depend on available land and solar radiation as well. Our fisherman knows that. He is able to use the wood from the forest only once for cooking, and he can grow crops on the agricultural land. No land is left over for growing wood for a house. The only things of real value on the island are the m2 and the solar energy. (Though the situation is somewhat different, the same applies to the sea surface.)

A strategy of closing cycles and 0-impacts can be regarded as a technocratic approach, typical of Western and industrialised countries. But we are not alone. If we look at the Asian countries, traditionally coming from a more spiritual point of view, we see similar approaches. In Japan, Wa, the principle of harmony, is at the basis of society. Wa is actually an old name for Japan, and its symbol is a circle. In China the Yin and Yang has been a guiding principle for thousands of years. Balance is important, especially in relation to nature. The principle has somehow lost its appeal lately, but it is still around and embedded in Chinese culture.

A central message from Lao Tse expresses the principle: let nature do its work. These words point to another cultural principle in China: Wu Wei, or let things flow, freely translated. Compare these Eastern expressions to Western thought in general and to the teachings of Heraclites in particular, who said, "You cannot step in the same river twice. This leads to the famous notion that everything flows, panta rei. This last is a clinical, technocratic conclusion: it flows. The Eastern approach gives guidance: let it flow. Its interesting to realize that by living within our limits, we will also have to add a direction to the flow that, so far, we have only interrupted. We will have to make the cycle flow again, in a circular way.

The closing cycles, the 0-impacts, natures work, the flows and harmonic balances: all of them together give us guidance for the future. All can be summed up in the Concept of O.

21

The Concept of O

As it relates to building and construction, the concept of O can be described as follows:

O-energy No life without energy But only life with 0-energy: the use of energy without impact on the climate or depletion of resources. 0- fuel degradation, or 100 % renewable. With buildings and built environments that manage their energy needs within their system borders.

O-materials Energy and mass are two parts of the same thing, and materials, as the earthly form of mass, are diluted and depleted, unless they are based on a renewable source. Indeed, here comes the sun, again. 0-materials, therefore, is similar to 0-energy: the use of renewable sources, and renewing them in a similar time-space frame, to compose and maintain buildings and built environments.

O-water Water is at the heart of life, and there is enough for everyone, in principle. Like energy, water is never lost as well, only degraded, by dilution, contamination and poisoning. No problem using it, but it needs to be cleaned up for re-use, and remain available in the area: Leading to a 0-water approach and eco-sanitation concepts for built environments.

O-land Land is where it all comes together: to collect and convert solar radiation into food, biomass and energy. And with 7 billion people and counting, land is the most scarce resource. How can we create buildings and built environments that place the least demand on land? Productive buildings instead of consumptive built environments, housing 7 billion with an acceptable level of welfare.

O-air The air carries rain, lets sun rays pass, distributes seeds and lets us breathe. If we change the balance, everything else changes. To live, without unbalancing the air around us, is about designing built environments that are free of smog, fine dust and other nasty elements. Leading to the concept of 0-air (pollution).

22

Change

We are slowly starting to learn, and are seeing some signs of change in that direction, though the changes are not always recognised or well guided within an overall approach. Think of FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) wood. An attempt to manage wood in a controlled, closed-cycle manner. We see similar trends in fish (fish-farming) and food in general (slow food movements). We see the trend even in biofuels (fuels that can be grown and are renewable); though this is a faulty strategy due to the scarcity of land, it is nevertheless an example of an effort to manage resources.

The landscape is already slowly changing, as can be observed in Germany, with its windmills, rapeseed fields, solar plants and solar roofs, and fuel stations with biofuel, hydrogen, and even PV (photovoltaic) power for cars. What we dont understand very well are the consequences of using different conversion technologies for different renewable sources.

Now lets return to the island. Success depends on our working with the resources at hand and converting them to useful forms. Whether were talking about food, materials for boats, houses, and equipment, or fuel to lighten the workload, it all comes down to a decision on what to spend on what. And the what turns out to be the m2s available. Research on exergy principles and analyses shows that in the end, solar energy drives all processes on earth, and solar radiation hitting a m2 is the main requirement for production and conversion. Thats how oil got its start (via biomass, sediments and pressure over millions of years), and the requirement holds for renewable energy, for food and for renewable materials.

Managing the island

Non-renewable sources can be used without employing solar energy directly. But in the end this will cause problems, since like oil they run out. Take the island, the Netherlands. Everyone thinks the Dutch claimed land from the sea. In fact a main part of Holland that is now below sea level was above sea level 1000 years ago. Centuries of digging the land to

23

harvest peat for heating houses sank the land lower and lower, until it flooded and we started dredging. And then, when it was too deep to dredge, we built dykes to dry out the land and inhabit it. Now we face flooding due to climate change. Ironically, we exploited the land not for a non-renewable resource, but for peat, a renewable energy source.

A question for the islanders is what has priority. The solar radiation falling on the land can only be intercepted once for conversion to food, materials or energy. Growing biomass for energy consumes a great deal of land, which then cannot be used for growing food. Using wind turbines or PV panels requires less solar radiation access and leaves more land for food.

The islanders soon realize that what they need first is water (and for that, they need to secure land). Second they require food. Third are raw materials, and last is extra energy (aside from labour energy). In our research, we use two principles to evaluate the maximum value in a built environment. First, the m2 (space access to solar radiation) is an overall indicator of the value of a closed-cycle-based society (and of its productivity). Second, the importance of each resource is relative to the other resources (and the ways humans know to convert one resource into another) in making decisions about land (space, surface) use.

The principles are part of the Concept of O, of closing cycles, and of 0-impacts, meaning capable of running forever.

In our recently established Research Institute Built environment of Tomorrow, RiBuilT, we strive for these 0-options and are trying to develop an integrated approach to projects and urban areas. One of our main areas of research involves trying to develop an m2 indicator to evaluate the space needed to produce the resources for all areas in the least space-consuming way. Urban Harvest+ looks at existing urban areas and asks to what extent they can be re-developed as 0-impact or closed-cycle managed areas. The M-exergy project aims to develop a space-time indicator for the evaluation of new construction. In addition, there is technology research, for instance, on improving the harvest from a m2 by developing new types of solar panels. One study involves developing an organic solar panel which can be used in window areas. Other studies investigate new (nano) materials as well as (building) process innovations.

Our "District of Tomorrow" project: trying to treat it as an island

24

To start by measuring the amount of m2 solar access that that can be made productive overcomes the disadvantages of systems like carbon credits or LCA (Life Cycle Analysis). These are no longer relevant: the value is directly related to the capability of generating permanent quality in the system itself, ( a building site, a district, a region). Only the surplus can be exchanged with other areas, not the shortages

During the SB10 Western Europe Conference, we will introduce the initial results for an existing area pilot with what we call the Urban Harvest+ approach, and for new buildings, with what we call the MExergy approach.

What holds true for an island holds true for the earth. Earth is just a slightly larger island. And you know what? Remember the fisherman on the island with 170 trees? At this moment a rough calculation from FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) data indicates that the total number of trees on earth divided by world population is around 170 trees each

25

The 0-Impact Transition Approach

Jacques Kimman 2) It is now apparent that we must change society in terms of how we manage health, energy, food and material resources. With respect to energy, fossil energy sources are not sustainable, stocks are decreasing rapidly and needs are increasing. As such, prices are certain to increase dramatically. Based on this kind of trend, as early as 2008 the IEA predicted an energy crisis in 2015 (Annual World Energy Outlook 2008: www.worldnenergyoutlook.org) due to stagnated fossil fuel production, a decrease in resources and increasing energy needs, especially in rapidly developing countries like India and China.

In fact, we will be facing new crises very soon: Food prices will increase due to high transport costs; food prices will increase due to competition with bio-energy;uUranium prices will rocket; and resources such as silver, manganese and others will be depleted.

Some problems will be solved very smoothly and automatically by means of market mechanisms. For instance, there will be a rise in home farming movements and local food markets. However, resource depletion requires dramatic system changes and the solutions need long-term R&D and change management. Therefore, we need to properly organise and coordinate actions along a timeline (road map) to achieve an ultimate, defined goal.

This ultimate goal is to organise society in such a way that our behaviour has zero-impact on our surroundings both now and in the future. But how can this be achieved? What are the steps needed to reach this goal and what order do they come in? Furthermore, who has the overview; who is responsible for coordinating all of this? In order to reach this ultimate goal, we must first come up with a road map and secondly, analyse the actions set out therein and put them in a logical order. This approach is known as transition management. Such a process should also factor in as many best practices as possible (forecasting). 2) RiBuilT / Zuyd University, Heerlen, the Netherlands

27

Some of the best local solutions regarding energy supply are solar energy and geothermal energy, as described in Leducs paper on planning 0-energy cities using local energy sources. Solar energy needs about six times less space than wind energy and 35 times less than bio-energy. Furthermore, solar energy can be integrated into the built environment which allows for the principle of avoided costs by faade, window and roof integration, in addition to minimising energy transport. Besides space requirements, another drawback to bio-energy is that biomass and the land involved are needed for construction materials. The cycle management of materials and energy should be tightly coordinated so as to avoid competition with other chains such as the food chain. Taking this to the larger scale, we need energy potential mapping, and we must not overlook aspects like materials (Rovers et al.) and water (Nederlof et al.).

At RiBuilT we perform road map analyses by making an inventory of all of the bottlenecks that stakeholders face when trying to bring about change in their sector. As soon as these have been identified, the search for solutions commences. For this we build on the experiences of frontrunners (forecasting). This is knowledge exchange at its optimum: somebody else has already solved your problem! Moreover, this type of solution generally works far better than a textbook result since it leads to a tailor-made response.

However, having pinpointed the bottlenecks and found some answers from frontrunners, the question of how to organise the process remains:

Which players should be involved and who will take the lead? What products must be developed and what R&D is necessary? Who is going to initiate and who is going to support the R&D?

28

Searching for knowledge on solutions and distributing this knowledge by bringing the relevant regime and niche players into contact with each other is an important task. A Task Force to coordinate the transition to a renewable energy supply is currently being set up at the level of the Province of Limburg. However, it is also important for municipalities to take on this new role of coordinating and creating the right boundary conditions for the transition. RiBuilT (Research Institute for the Built Environment of Tomorrow) is supporting this knowledge generation and information exchange for the transition (see www.ribuilt.eu).

In the case of energy, the city of Tilburg in the Netherlands is a perfect example of such a frontrunner (TRANSEP-DGO project, see www.duurzamegebiedsontwikkeling.nl). This city plans to be energy-neutral by 2040, for which some 10 PJ of renewable energy production is required. Solar energy will provide 2.25 PJ, geothermal energy 3 PJ, and the rest will come from energy savings. Applying the backcasting method leads to the conclusion that every new house that is built should be zero-energy. If we then apply the forecasting method - using the results of the frontrunners in the field - it transpires that local renewable energy companies are a basic need to achieve the ultimate goal.

A further important step is retrofitting existing buildings, which account for the lions share of our building-related demand (see paper by Cali) since the existing building stock is dominant. Research shows that in rental schemes, the benefits of zero-energy and zero-impact retrofitting will directly compensate for higher rents (see results of IEA Annex 51, Energy Efficient Communities: www.annex51.org). For home owners, retrofitting costs should be included in their mortgage. Financial schemes such as these are a necessary boundary condition for the transition to a renewable energy supply.

29

Two pilot projects entitled The Existing District of Tomorrow and District of Tomorrow have been jointly set up by Zuyd University and RiBuilt to create an environment in which these findings can be tested and demonstrated (see www.dewijkvanmorgen.nl). The projects engage students, with knowledge and support from teachers and cooperating frontrunners, to (re-)design and construct houses. All of the applied techniques used for the houses and buildings are available now for future implementation. Most of the effort in the design phase entails making all existing knowledge of best practices available and coming up with a balanced, all-encompassing concept. The installations include heat pumps, cold and heat storage, LED, domotics, smart grids, solar modules, passive house techniques, and so forth. When the house is finished it provides a real-life laboratory for students to use and try out. New innovations such as electricity-producing windows and new functional faade coatings (see the Interreg-project ORGANEXT and the Pieken in de Delta Chematerials project) will also be tested in this laboratory.

Educating architects and other professionals in the building industry is an essential boundary condition for the road map to a zero-impact society and, as such, is arguably one of the most important steps we can take. This has already been recognised by the EU, which has created a scheme for fifteen universities across Europe to teach students and professionals how to develop 0-energy buildings as part of the updated EPBD directive (Intelligent Europe; IDES-EDU 2010 project).

If education is the first step, the next is to create environments in which changes will be applied. Stakeholders must agree on what needs to be done first without envisaging or creating too many hindrances (see paper by Kerkhoven et al.). To do this an atmosphere must be created that fosters consensus among stakeholders. One example of how this can be brought about was demonstrated during the conference: the Caf Concept, which is described in the following chapter.

30

Bringing Science to Practice The Concept of Cafeterias - Implementing zero-concept

options and using a roadmap

Christoph Maria Ravesloot 3)

1 Introduction: the roadmap

The Zuyd University Ribuilt Institute envisions the zero concept. The main activity is to perform applied research with partners from society who are willing and able to practically change products, services and processes towards the more sustainable zero impact. During the SB10 scientific conference in October 2010, a further step was taken: a roadmap was drawn up. This roadmap makes it possible for motivated partners from the international region of Maastricht, Aachen and Liege to absorb and transform knowledge from the scientific presentation directly into practical use for short term operational execution, medium term tactical project planning and long term strategic organization. The SB10 conference was organized around sixteen themes with each receiving several contributions from the scientific research field. The authors of the papers were asked to bring their knowledge to one of six climate cafeterias. These were set up according to six phases of the design and construction process in the building industry, from a large-scale city and town planning to the smallest scale of building maintenance and building services.

Research at the Ribuilt Institute has found that design and construction processes need to be changed because we cannot expect to solve the sustainability problem using the same method that caused it (Huovila and Ravesloot, 2010). Changes in design and construction processes must be made and methods must be evaluated and re-established.

Figure 1 . The ten phases of the design and construction process (Huovila, Portious, Ravesloot 2010).

3) RiBuilT / Zuyd University, Heerlen, the Netherlands; Avans University, Tilburg, the Netherlands

31

2 Framework and goal of the SB10 roadmap

The aim of the SB10 roadmap is to transfer knowledge from scientists to the partners in society who perform the actual changes to design and construction processes and who actually produce sustainable products and services. The goal of Ribuilt and SB10 is to show zero-concept potential, which social partners are kindly invited to exploit. The method to achieve a roadmap for practical use is by means of the climate cafeteria, as shall be explained later. The climate cafeteria provides a safe social platform to reflect upon the knowledge offered by scientists to partners in the building industry, and shows the need and potential of changes in that industry. Likewise, the building industry partners offer food for thought on how to continue scientific research to accelerate the development of zero-impact products and services.

3 The climate cafeteria method

Concept cafeteria sessions will run in parallel to the scientific presentations. In these sessions representatives from science will meet companies and public authorities (social partners) to make a joint effort in putting the conference results to practical use. The climate cafeterias will generate a problem-solving capacity with unanimous decision making and the themes of the six concept cafeterias will follow the content of the scientific paper sessions and the usual design and construction process in the building industry. The zero-concept will be the foundation for all the transition ambitions.

The climate cafeteria involves collaborative data mining and data selection processes. In four rounds, participants from all fields of expertise mingle and sit at four-person tables, as in a cafeteria. One of the four people is the linking pin and table secretary. His/her job is to write down sentences, hypotheses and remarks as one-liners on blank playing cards, and to be the linking pin to the next round of four guests. As in a cafeteria there will be drinks, nibbles and background music. As in a real cafeteria, creativity will be boosted and ideas will flow. However, unlike in a real cafeteria, the ideas will not be lost. All ideas will be written down and discussed extensively with a view to making knowledge transfer possible and making it possible to combine all valuable ideas in a roadmap for future cooperation. Every round has its own specific assignment.

The first is always a brainstorming session. Playing cards containing hypotheses taken from scientific papers are handed out to give the discussion a direction. The aim of round one is to make a complete list of items on the theme of the climate cafeteria. This is the general data mining phase. On average, every table should be able to produce about twenty cards within twenty-five minutes. At the end of round one the linking pin stays at the table and is joined by three new guests. New refreshments might be welcome.

The second round is an elimination round to distinguish which cards are relevant to the theme in the short term and specifically to the zero concept. The table secretary goes over the cards on the table. During discussion, cards can be elaborated upon, changed, thrown away and substituted. At the end of the round each table keeps only the cards that could be executed by one person, without outside assistance, next Monday morning. Only cards that

32

Figure 2 A typical climate cafeteria setting, here with graduate students from Avans University and regional companies discussing sustainable procurement.

fit this criterion are put aside. Even if only one person has an objection to a card, that card is removed. At the end of the second round, a new secretary is assigned as the linking pin to a new group of table guests.

Round three is a specification round to ascertain which cards can significantly contribute to the general issue of zero concept in the medium term. Is there an existing project that supports such a significant contribution? If not, could such a project be set up? If the answer is no, the card will be left on the table for the next round, providing that nobody at the table has a justified objection. From the third round on, it is possible to analyze and select the cards more precisely.

During the fourth and last round, a selection is made between cards that fit in existing paradigms, strategies and policies, and those that do not. Cards in this last category form a stack of wild cards. The cards that do fit in, have been positively chosen because nobody at the cafeteria table has any argued objections to them. The remaining wild cards, which did cause objections, have to be scrutinized closely for unexpected valuable ideas.

Every round should follow the same rules:

A card is only selected for inclusion if all four table guests have given their consent. Consent means that no valid objection has been given.

One person is secretary and stays at the table for at least two rounds. If he wants to leave, the role of secretary is transferred to another person at the table.

During any round, it is permitted to make new cards, to split cards, to elaborate cards, etc. It is not allowed to eliminate cards other than with consent of all four table guests.

The climate cafe rounds are open space. If you need to get something to drink, if you want to answer the phone, if you need to use the bathroom, you just go where your feet take you.

No more than four people are permitted at a table; fewer is not recommended.

33

Because of expected language problems, English will be used; during the climate cafeteria, coaches will ensure that English is being used during the rounds.

Sponsors of a climate cafeteria can use the problem solving capacity of the people at the tables. The facilitator can formulate questions to make the process of data mining and data selection more efficient. During the climate cafeteria, concept coaches will circulate through the caf to guide the guests; preferably these will be representatives from local companies or planning authorities, or scientists involved in the conference. The climate cafeteria will produce stacks of sorted cards that contain directions how to implement knowledge from the scientific sessions into practice. They will point out obstructions, practical and legal questions, risks and chances. The questions that have to be answered during the playing rounds are tuned to the problem that has to be solved.

During the climate cafeteria, concept coaches walk around, managing the tables. During short breaks, when guests change tables, a concept coach can give a short presentation and a brief pep-talk with instruction for the participants to continue their work at the tables. The facilitator hands out the assignments, closes and opens the rounds and summarizes the results.

During the second round, the first stack of cards that has been put aside, is already being processed into a computer .xls database. Double cards can be counted and a brief validity check can be performed. If a card clearly does not fit the exclusion criteria, it can be put back on a playing table.

At the end of the fourth round, a brief presentation can be put on a screen to show the results of the climate cafeteria. A bigger presentation of all results of all four climate cafeterias can be shown at the end of the conference.

4 Input from scientific papers

To stimulate an integrated approach between scientists, entrepreneurs and authorities, and to encourage interdisciplinary collaboration, the themes were all used as input for one climate cafeteria. A division in scale was made to avoid scale adulteration as much as possible, since this would slow down decision making. The content of 16 scientific papers was used as input for six climate cafeterias, approaching the problem on six different levels:

1 regional development, 2 city planning and town planning, 3 area development, 4 building design, 5 product development, and 6 materials development.

At each level, both design products and process were considered. In addition, each climate cafeteria considered both the approach to new built objects and the renovation and refurbishment of existing built objects. This encourages a cross fertilization between platforms and actors, and speeds up the transfer of innovations from new built objects to the existing built environment. In other words, the content of the scientific papers is discussed and can be transferred into practical use.

34

The results of the six climate cafeterias were allocated to an individual or team who can bring the idea to execution. This is called the road map for the coming year. Ideas of scientists are matched with interested companies and authorities. Knowing that ideas can be applied in actual projects will speed up the overall process towards the zero-concept.

35

Part IIKeynotes

Realism and Illusion Realists and Idealists on the Energy Question -- The Order

of the Century

Hermann Scheer

Over 150 years ago, the German philosopher Schopenhauer wrote that any new idea is ridiculed at first. When it begins to make its mark, people fight it tooth and nail. This is followed by a third phase, in which everyone claims to have been in favour of it from the very beginning. Thats why the most important question is, In which phase do we currently find ourselves? I would answer that we are in all three phases at the same time! Of course, people continue to sneer, which can even be seen in the language used by advocates of the move towards renewable energies. I would like to give two examples of this, the first of which concerns passive buildings. I was due to give a speech in Bremen at the unveiling of Germanys first office building to be heated exclusively by solar energy. After arriving in Bremen by train, I got into a taxi and told the driver where I wanted to go. At this moment, it was announced on the radio that Germanys first passive office building was about to be inaugurated on that day. The taxi driver then asked, Whats a passive building then? I said that it is a building which is heated exclusively by solar energy. He then asked why it is called a passive building, as the word passive is not often used in advertising. He felt that it sounded off-putting and rather unattractive. I explained, It simply means that the building does not use any special technology to convert energy. As a matter of fact, the word passive house is not quite right. It is rather negative advertising. Of course, I gave the project all the praise that it deserved. But something else was not quite right. There was actually a brochure about the building, with House without Heating! printed in large letters on its title page, which I humorously described as a strange choice of words. The house is heated, but exclusively with solar energy. The word heating was therefore being unconsciously reserved for heating systems that use conventional energy, which had the effect of unintentionally playing down solar heating.

For several decades, the preconception has been nurtured that mineral oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear power were real energy, whereas renewable energy could not really be used for modern energy needs. It is therefore incredibly important that we pay close attention to the language that we use, which can reinforce or confirm mental barriers instead

39

of breaking them down. We have to break down these barriers, together with actual conflicts of interest, because the changeover to renewable energy will trigger all kinds of structural changes in the energy sector.

Nothing works without energy, and it is crucial what energy we use and how we use it for everything that we do. This means that this question is in no way restricted to specialists. It is a fundamentally important sociological and energy-related question!

The conscious or unconscious ridiculing and downplaying continue still. The same can be said for the fighting, which often takes place in the guise of ostensible endorsement. There is a great deal of greenwashing nowadays; in other words, pretending to be green. At the same time, growing numbers of players in the fields of technology, business, and politics are increasingly gaining the publics attention by recognising and opting for this way forward. Solar construction and urban planning represent a key area.

The Ministry of Construction becomes the most important Ministry of Energy

In the context of these objectives, the ministry of construction really is the most important ministry of energy. But not everyone realises this yet. Energy policy debates frequently skirt around this question, although the bare figures highlight its importance. In Central Europe alone, 40% of all energy is used exclusively for heating buildings. If you add electricity, the amount of energy consumed in buildings clearly exceeds 40%. We can therefore see that half of the problem which we have to overcome lies within the field of construction, which also provides half of the answer to the problem. This will clearly require different structures from those used to generate power over the last 100 years.

This reminds me of a few past events, one of which took place in Berlin, when Emil Rathenau (founder of the AEG Group and Germanys first light bulb manufacturer) attempted to light a Berlin street with electrical light bulbs, instead of the gaslights that were then the norm. Electric lighting was installed along one street. As the street began to light up, Emil Rathenau said, In less than 20 years there will be electric lighting in every Berlin home, which led to him being seen as a nutcase. But this was about how long it took.

The second event was the argument between Edison and Westinghouse in America, both of whom were forefathers of the modern electricity industry. Edisons vision was that every house would independently generate its own direct current power. Westinghouse believed that external power stations would generate alternating current electricity. Westinghouses concept prevailed in the end, for very forward-looking reasons for the time, as there were not yet very many coal power stations during this period, but water energy was being converted into electricity. The hydroelectric power stations would have had to be abandoned in favour of a small coal power station in every home. But cities already very serious air pollution. Westinghouses plan was superior for urban-ecological reasons, while Edisons concept would have meant more coal being delivered to every household and more air pollution in cities.

We are now faced with a completely different situation when it comes to the use of solar energy. The possibility of generating electricity directly from solar radiation energy now gives us an even faster and unsurpassed primary energy source which is completely free

40

and does not require any complex technology. It is therefore now possible to harvest and convert primary energy into electricity in every house - sustainably and without any emissions or transport costs. The vision of generating electricity in your own home is becoming a reality and has already happened in many cases. Furthermore, this reality does not harm the environment in any way. In this sense we are, against the backdrop of modern possibilities for the use of solar energy and well over 100 years after the Westinghouse-Edison controversy, in a completely new situation, representing a completely new opportunity to truly put energy autonomy into practice.

The structural change has therefore been pre-programmed, which makes it very clear that it will also coincide with a cultural change. We will not therefore develop a copy of the conventional energy system using solar energy, but a new decentralised energy supply structure for energy consumption which is always decentralised. The conventional energy system requires the areas where energy is generated to be separate from the areas where it is consumed, as sources of coal, mineral oil, natural gas, and uranium only exist in very few places. With renewable energies, we have the opportunity together with the environmental benefits and provision of a sustainable power supply to re-connect the areas where energy is produced and consumed. This is the cultural process facing us.

Architecture as a mirror of the times

This process will, of course, also transform urban living and lifestyles in general. It is not a process that will take place overnight, but will take the form of a cultural shift. It will also make architecture develop in a more interesting way than has been the case over the last 100 years.

Architecture always reflects social and political conditions, contemporary thinking and contemporary challenges. If we consider the nature of the challenge currently facing society as a whole, there seem to be contradictory tendencies.

One of these tendencies is the increasing need for individual autonomy in modern societies, which is, however, frequently in an apparently irresolvable conflict with the greater shared social responsibility which at the same time is needed to prevent the consequences of individual actions becoming a burden on society. This can be seen very clearly in the case of fossil and nuclear energy consumption. The classic philosophical question is that of how we can reconcile individual freedom with the common good. This problem now seems more impossible to resolve than ever before. By switching over to renewable energies, particularly with the move towards solar energy in buildings and its impact on urban planning, we have a massive opportunity to make these two values compatible. The use of solar energy provides greater social, economic, regional-urban, and individual autonomy. It also represents a major benefit for society, which can thus be freed from the environmental burden of conventional energy and the damage that it causes. This unique process is so fundamental that it cannot be measured according to whether it currently costs a few cents more or less per kilowatt hour.

At the same time, todays open society calls for greater transparency in all our processes. Solar construction is a more transparent construction method and opens up the way for new designs. The first conference on solar energy in architecture was took place in Munich in 1987, and was purely technical and mainly an opportunity to present solar

41

collectors/systems and show how they could be installed on rooftops. This actually had little to do with architecture and only demonstrated possible applications of solar technologies. This was also the case at the second conference, which was held in Paris in 1989, when we sat down together and agreed that we must focus on architecture and new designs. This paved the way for the next conference, which was held in Florence in 1993 and was chaired by an architect and a politician - Sir Norman Foster and myself. A new model was developed, which led to the Charter for Solar Energy in Architecture and Urban Planning thus taking over the baton from the Athens Charter developed by Le Corbusier, who had advocated the division of functions in towns.

It has already made an impact, culminating in the 2002 International Architects Conference in Berlin, with the motto: Architecture as a Resource. In 1998, we christened the fifth conference, held in Bonn, under the motto Building a New Century! At this time, a wide range of projects was in progress, which have opened up new designs using solar energy and focused attention on urban development as a whole. This could also be seen at the 2000 conference in Bonn, which was entitled The City as a Solar Power Station!

At the moment we can see how much has been achieved since then in response to various stimuli, not least those created by this conference series. I hope that all of these stimuli will bear even more fruit as part of a snowball effect, as we do not actually have much more time. This is the main problem and I would like to conclude with a few remarks on this subject.

Everyone now knows that todays power supply system would not be in good shape, even if the climate problem did not exist. There are still many other energy problems, all of which can be overcome by switching to renewable energies, without any subsequent costs for society. We must be aware that we do not have much time. If, however, the other side repeatedly spreads the message that there are no alternatives to nuclear and fossil energies in the short and medium term, this leads to serious psychological tension. For what will people think if they believe both messages at the same time? They will reach the logical conclusion that the problem can no longer be resolved, which will lead to the spread of new future mentalities and new forms of nihilism.

People can only commit themselves to a new way forward if they can understand it and are convinced that it actually exists. This is precisely the problem facing us today that of contradicting the people who say that it really is not possible or would take a lot of time, although we no longer actually have this amount of time. Moreover, we can no longer avoid the most important issue we must broaden our idea of energy and the traditional view of energy policy to include the focus on Sun and Sense or Sense through Sun.

42

GSSING, a Model for Other Regions Self-sufficient energy supply based on regionally available

renewable resources and sustainable regional development

Peter Vadasz 4)

Introduction

Gssing is the capital of a district with approximately 27,000 inhabitants, in South East Austria, close to the Hungarian border. In 1988, this region was still one of the poorest in Austria according to statistics. Due to the geographically unfavourable location near the border, major trade or industrial businesses did not exist at that time and the whole district lacked any form of transportation infrastructure, having no railroad or highway. This resulted in a scarcity of jobs, 70 % weekly commuters, and a high rate of migration to other regions.

In addition, there was the problem of substantial capital outflow from the region caused by energy bought from outside (oil, power, fuels), while existing resources (e.g. 45 % forest land) remained largely unused.

In 1990, experts developed a plan for the area to abandon the use of fossil energy completely. The area considered was 45 km2 at the start, consisting of 45% woodland, 44% open land and 11% urban area.The objective was to supply at first the town of Gssing, and subsequently the whole district, with regionally available renewable energy sources, providing the region with new forms of added value. The plan comprised the aspects heat generation, fuels, and electric power.

First steps toward implementation consisted of targeted energy saving measures in Gssing. As a result of the energetic optimization of all buildings in the town center, expenditure on energy was reduced by almost 50%. Then, the realization of numerous demonstration energy plants in the town and the region helped to promote the implementation of the model step by step. Examples include the successful installation of a bio-diesel plant using rape oil, the realization of two small-scale biomass district heating systems for some parts of Gssing, and, finally, a district heating system based on wood fuel for the town of Gssing.

4) Mayor of Gssing, Austria

43

0-energy Gussing

Energy self-sufficiency was finally realized in 2001 when the biomass plant of Gssing was installed; it relies on a newly developed biomass-steam gasification technology. At present, Gssing produces more energy (heat, fuels, and electric power) from renewable resources than it consumes. This gave the region an added value of Euro 13 million (calculation based on 2005 figures) per year.

The implementation of this innovative energy concept induced a sustainable regional development process, which transformed the formerly dying region within 15 years into a region with a high standard of living and excellent quality of life. In recent years, Gssing has been awarded honors as the environmentally most friendly town and most innovative municipality in Austria. One of the first infrastructure improvements, i.e. the installation of the district heating system Gssing (1996), already made the town on the border an interesting location for the establishment of businesses. A special scheme promoting the establishment of enterprises in the area brought 50 new enterprises with more than 1,000 direct and indirect jobs in the renewable energy sector for the region. Gssing, since then, has developed into an important location for parquetry production, hardwood drying, and environmental technologies. The realization of the biomass plant Gssing and the establishment of the RENET Austria (Renewable Energy Network Austria) competence network gave rise to the launching of numerous national and international renewable energy research projects in Gssing.

44

Management

The European Center for Renewable Energy (Europisches Zentrum fr Erneuerbare Energie EEE) coordinates all demonstration plants, projects, research emphases as well as programs for training and further education in this field. The manifold research activities here have also contributed to the attractiveness of the region and to the creation of additional high-quality jobs.

Work within the Energy Systems of Tomorrow subprogram aims to further disseminate this successful model. The objective is to further develop the strategies and technologies tried out in the town of Gssing and to apply them in the whole district. By 2010, this area should also have attained a self-sufficient energy supply, and thus, numerous concomitant positive effects for the economy in the region.

Technology

The flagship and most important innovation of the Gssing model is the biomass plant, which uses a special fluidized bed steam gasification technology. The process developed at the Vienna University of Technology (Univ. Prof. Dr. Hofbauer) offers some advantages compared to conventional combustion processes, especially in combined heat and power applications.

For the realization of the project several partners cooperated within the competence network RENET: REPOTEC plant technology, Vienna University of Technology, EVN, and the Gssing district heating utility.

The plant, which became operational in 2001, has a rated fuel capacity of 8 MW and produces 2,000 kWh electric power as well as 4,500 kWh heat for district heating at a feed rate of 2,300 kg wood per hour. The plant currently operates for 8,000 hours per year. The vital component of the plant is the fluidized bed gasifier and consists of two fluidized bed systems that are connected with each other. Biomass is gasified, together with steam, at a temperature of approx. 850C in the gasifying zone. Using water vapour instead of air as gasifying medium results in a nitrogen-free, low-tar product gas with high calorific value.

Part of the residual char is conveyed by the circulating bed material (sand), which also serves as heat storing medium, to the combustion zone and is burned there. The heat transferred to the bed material is needed to maintain the gasification reactions. The flue gas is then separated and the heat contained therein is used in the district heating system. The product gas has to be cooled down and cleaned for use in the downstream gas engine. Heat recovered in the cooling process is, again, used for the district heating system. A special technology permits the recycling of all residuals, which means that the gas cleaning process generates neither waste nor effluent.

The gas engine converts chemical energy contained in the product gas into electricity. Again, waste heat from the engine is fed into the district heating system. This approach results in very high efficiencies: electric efficiency ranges between 25% and 28%, and overall efficiency (power and heat) is approx. 85%.

On account of the favorable properties of the product gas (no nitrogen, high hydrogen content), there is a broad range of possible uses, such as the generation of fuel gas, synthetic gas, gasoline and diesel, methanol as well as hydrogen.

45

Figure 2 The biomass plant

Research

The various research projects currently conducted in Gssing address topics such as the generation of hydrogen, fuel cells, the production of methane and fuels, cooling and district heating systems and aim to test and implement new technologies. The overall objective is to develop energy centers to meet the demand of the region and which are able to produce heat, electricity, gaseous and liquid energy carriers from a variety of energy-rich biogenic raw materials and residue matter using an approach called polygeneration. The quantities of the various resources produced will depend on the needs and the size of the respective region. Admittedly, the relative proportion of the various by-products cannot be changed infinitely, but modifications should be possible within certain limits.

The experience gained in the biomass plant Gssing gave rise to a number of research projects, in cooperation with various Austrian and international partners in the fields of science and industry (e.g., Volkswagen, Daimler Chrysler, Volvo, EDF, and BP). Some of the projects have already been realized in Guessing, others are in the planning stages or on the verge of implementation. The strategy for the period between 2007 and 2013 is to implement the concept of polygeneration.

46

Figure 3 The methane plant

Land use and need

An important factor in self-sufficient energy supply refers to the availability of the necessary land area for energy crops. Thus, the first part of the project aimed to ascertain, at the level of municipalities, whether the available land area is sufficient to cover energy demand. This provided for a quite accurate assessment of focal points of demand and an evaluation of potential sites. The sum of the land area balances at the level of individual municipalities will result in a land area balance for the whole region.

In a next step, researchers analyzed the energy demand in the region and ascertained the capacity of renewable energy sources actually used today. The analysis of the energy saving potential and existing resources has also been conducted at the level of municipalities or parts of villages. These findings served to identify suitable technologies and to develop energy supply scenarios for the district; researchers also calculated the potential for CO2 reduction. In order to ensure an efficient supply of biomass, a special logistics concept has been developed, in analogy to the one for the town of Gssing.

0-energy region

Research work done so far has shown that a self-sufficient energy supply for a region the size of the district of Gssing is actually feasible. At present, the overall energy demand of the district amounts to 564,777 MWh (2005); the plants existing today already cover as much as 34% (power), 49% (heat), and 47% (fuels), regardless of the demand for

47

renewable energy sources. Project participants modeled five different scenarios that permit 100% of the demand to be covered by energy from renewables alone.

A look at potential resources and suitable conversion technologies shows that full use of the forest land would offer the largest land reserves. Depending on the scenario, the remaining land reserves would range between 13,000 ha and 14,000 ha; this means that, even with self-sufficient energy supply implemented, some 30% of the districts surface area remains as reserve for additional demand in the future. A complete shift to renewable energy sources would reduce CO2 emissions in the region by some 85%, up to 15,530 tons per year. These findings were used in the follow-up project to identify potential sites and possible approaches toward implementation,to perform cost / benefit analyses, and to develop financing models. Implementation of the concept is expected to afford numerous synergies as was the case in the town of Gssing that can have a positive effect on the development of the region. Shifting energy supply from fossil to renewable energy sources could create added value on the order of Euro 39 million. Other objectives include an improvement of the situation on the job market, new opportunities for training and further education, and enhanced self-confidence of people in the region. New opportunities could arise in the fields of tourism, cultural activities and sports. These sustainable stimuli could create a model region and a role model for other areas, which might adopt such concepts as well.

Benefits and lessons learned:

Creating local jobs reduces commuting. Creating new jobs allows people to return to their villages. Local control of energy means more energy security. The project should be locally driven. leadership is important, with

a local person appointed to manage the transition. Local ownership is important (preferably 100%). In Gussing 49%

is owned by the municipal and 51% by local investors. This way everyone has an interest in the development.

The order of resource use is as follows: first use available natural resources, like forests, crop waste and by-products, before adding others like growing energy crops.

Liquid and gaseous fuels provide flexibility and create value. Everything needs to be measured. Plants need to be optimised, making them more affordable and

more efficient. Logistiscs are important: sources and users need to be near each

other. Another time, the district heating scheme could me much smaller:

first build a gas distribution net and use the heating byproduct for near byconsumers. This is much cheaper, more efficient, and flexible.

48

Related sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BCssing http://www.gussing.at/frame.asp?Bereich=Wirtschaft http://www.oekoenergieland.at/konzept/modell-guessing-details.html?start=1 http://www.eee-info.net/cms/EN/

49

The Goal is PlusEnergy!

Rolf Disch 5) An energy-generating house fulfils a threefold objective: it will be supported exclusively by 100% renewable energy. It will be CO2-neutral. And, it reduces energy consumption so extensively that it will generate more energy than it will use. In addition to these are the selection of healthy building materials and a feasible market price. In order to test the operability of PlusEnergy, a long-term study at Bergische University in Wuppertal was conducted. The results were published in January 2009 in the Deutsc