Abstract: Focus on reducing energy consumption in existing
buildings at large scale, e.g. in cities or countries, has been
increasing in recent years. In order to reduce energy consumption
in existing buildings, political incentive schemes are put in place and
large scale investments are made by utility companies. Prioritising
these investments requires a comprehensive overview of the energy
consumption in the existing building stock, as well as potential
energy-savings. However, a building stock comprises thousands
of buildings with different characteristics making it difficult to
model energy consumption accurately. Moreover, the complexity of
the building stock makes it difficult to convey model results to
policymakers and other stakeholders. In order to manage the complexity of the building stock, building
archetypes are often employed in building stock energy models
(BSEMs). Building archetypes are formed by segmenting the building
stock according to specific characteristics. Segmenting the building
stock according to building type and building age is common, among
other things because this information is often easily available. This
segmentation makes it easy to convey results to non-experts. However, using a single archetypical building to represent all
buildings in a segment of the building stock is associated with
loss of detail. Thermal characteristics are aggregated while other
characteristics, which could affect the energy efficiency of a building,
are disregarded. Thus, using a simplified representation of the
building stock could come at the expense of the accuracy of the
model. The present study evaluates the accuracy of a conventional
archetype-based BSEM that segments the building stock according
to building type- and age. The accuracy is evaluated in terms of the
archetypes’ ability to accurately emulate the average energy demands
of the corresponding buildings they were meant to represent. This is
done for the buildings’ energy demands as a whole as well as for
relevant sub-demands. Both are evaluated in relation to the type- and
the age of the building. This should provide researchers, who use
archetypes in BSEMs, with an indication of the expected accuracy
of the conventional archetype model, as well as the accuracy lost in
specific parts of the calculation, due to use of the archetype method.
Abstract: Governments are playing an increasingly active role in reducing carbon emissions, and a key strategy has been the introduction of mandatory energy disclosure policies. These policies have resulted in a significant amount of publicly available data, providing researchers with a unique opportunity to develop location-specific energy and carbon emission benchmarks from this data set, which can then be used to develop building archetypes and used to inform urban energy models. This study presents the development of such a benchmark using the public reporting data. The data from Ontario’s Ministry of Energy for Post-Secondary Educational Institutions are being used to develop a series of building archetype dynamic building loads and energy benchmarks to fill a gap in the currently available building database. This paper presents the development of a benchmark for college and university residences within ASHRAE climate zone 6 areas in Ontario using the mandatory disclosure energy and greenhouse gas emissions data. The methodology presented includes data cleaning, statistical analysis, and benchmark development, and lessons learned from this investigation are presented and discussed to inform the development of future energy benchmarks from this larger data set. The key findings from this initial benchmarking study are: (1) the importance of careful data screening and outlier identification to develop a valid dataset; (2) the key features used to develop a model of the data are building age, size, and occupancy schedules and these can be used to estimate energy consumption; and (3) policy changes affecting the primary energy generation significantly affected greenhouse gas emissions, and consideration of these factors was critical to evaluate the validity of the reported data.