World caf\ue9 method to engage smart energy-district project partners in assessing urban co-benefits

Urban energy-district projects introduce outstanding technological innovation in buildings and energy systems increasing sustainability in city neighborhoods. Such projects generate additional co-benefits for the city beyond changes in physical elements and development of social and institutional relationships (e.g. local employment, environmental quality, public health, property values, innovation attitude, etc.). Since exceeding main declared goals or not always clearly foreseen in the early project phase, these co-benefits are often not properly understood and considered. However, only their explicit recognition will make possible their inclusion in the assessment of the whole project\u2019s performance. From these considerations, this study faces the issue of engaging project partners in assessing co-benefits in order to consider a broad spectrum of relevant, positive effects in the evaluation process. Group knowledge and group thinking of this complex topic are investigated through the world caf\ue9 method, providing an atmosphere of trust and open discussions among participants. This empirical work lays the foundations to go beyond the mere economic measure as the sole criterion for assessing project effects, also including changes in end-user behavior and intangible asset

Modelling the building-related photovoltaic power production potential in the light of the EU's Solar Rooftop Initiative

Decarbonizing the building sector is key to meet the EU climate goals by 2050. Although the recent policies recognized the importance of on-site solar energy production in the energy transition, there are only a few modelling studies analyzing how much the gap between the technically possible and policy-driven power generation of rooftop photovoltaic (PV) panels can be reduced. This study, therefore, uses geospatial techniques and the high-resolution Building Integrated Solar Energy (BISE) supply model to estimate the main spatial and temporal characteristics of the rooftop PV energy production potential. To support decision-making, important implications of the Solar Rooftop Initiative action plan of the European Commission on the future dimension of the PV electricity supply are also assessed in the context of the achievable potential. The modelling results indicate that the current rooftop PV technical potential could be about 2.7 PWh, being in similar extent with the EU power consumption. The largest country-level PV potentials can be found in Germany, France, Italy and Poland, with an increase of 30% by 2060. Our findings also underline that by following the latest policies, major improvement could be achieved in the EU's rooftop solar energy production by around 2040, depending greatly on the structure and energy efficiency niveau of the future building stock

Thermal performance of fly ash geopolymeric mortars containing phase change materials

This paper reports experimental results on the thermal performance of fly ash-based  geopolymeric mortars containing different percentages of phase change materials  (PCMs). These materials have a twofold eco-efficient positive impact. On one hand,  the geopolymeric mortar is based on industrial waste material. And on the other  hand, the mortars with PCM have the capacity to enhance the thermal performance  of the buildings. Several geopolymeric mortars with different PCM percentages  (10%, 20%, 30%) were studied for thermal conductivity and thermal energy storageinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Annex 2 - Metrics and methodology

This annex on methods and metrics provides background information on material used in the Working Group III Contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (WGIII AR5). The material presented in this annex documents metrics, methods, and common data sets that are typically used across multiple chapters of the report. The annex is composed of three parts: Part I introduces standards metrics and common definitions adopted in the report; Part II presents methods to derive or calculate certain quantities used in the report; and Part III provides more detailed background information about common data sources that go beyond what can be included in the chapters. While this structure may help readers to navigate through the annex, it is not possible in all cases to unambiguously assign a certain topic to one of these parts, naturally leading to some overlap between the parts

Chapter 9 - Buildings

This chapter aims to update the knowledge on the building sector since the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) from a mitigation perspective. Buildings and activities in buildings are responsible for a significant share of GHG emissions, but they are also the key to mitigation strategies. In 2010, the building sector accounted for approximately 117 Exajoules (EJ) or 32% of global final energy consumption and 19% of energy-related CO2 emissions; and 51% of global electricity consumption. Buildings contribute to a significant amount of F-gas emissions, with large differences in reported figures due to differing accounting conventions, ranging from around an eighth to a third of all such emissions. The chapter argues that beyond a large emission role, mitigation opportunities in this sector are also significant, often very cost-effective, and are in many times associated with significant co-benefits that can exceed the direct benefits by orders of magnitude. The sector has significant mitigation potentials at low or even negative costs. Nevertheless, without strong actions emissions are likely to grow considerably - and they may even double by mid-century - due to several drivers. The chapter points out that certain policies have proven to be very effective and several new ones are emerging. As a result, building energy use trends have been reversed to stagnation or even reduction in some jurisdictions in recent years, despite the increases in affluence and population. The chapter uses a novel conceptual framework, in line with the general analytical framework of the contribution of Working Group III (WGIII) to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), which focuses on identities as an organizing principle

Demand-side approaches for limiting global warming to 1.5 °C

The Paris Climate Agreement defined an ambition of limiting global warming to 1.5 °C above preindustrial levels. This has triggered research on stringent emission reduction targets and corresponding mitigation pathways across energy economy and societal systems. Driven by methodological considerations, supply side and carbon dioxide removal options feature prominently in the emerging pathway literature, while much less attention has been given to the role of demand-side approaches. This special issue addresses this gap, and aims to broaden and strengthen the knowledge base in this key research and policy area. This editorial paper synthesizes the special issue’s contributions horizontally through three shared themes we identify: policy interventions, demand-side measures, and methodological approaches. The review of articles is supplemented by insights from other relevant literature. Overall, our paper underlines that stringent demand-side policy portfolios are required to drive the pace and direction of deep decarbonization pathways and keep the 1.5 °C target within reach. It confirms that insufficient attention has been paid to demand-side measures, which are found to be inextricably linked to supply-side decarbonization and able to complement supply-side measures. The paper also shows that there is an abundance of demand-side measures to limit warming to 1.5 °C, but it warns that not all of these options are “seen” or captured by current quantitative tools or progress indicators, and some remain insufficiently represented in the current policy discourse. Based on the set of papers presented in the special issue, we conclude that demand-side mitigation in line with the 1.5 °C goal is possible; however, it remains enormously challenging and dependent on both innovative technologies and policies, and behavioral change. Limiting warming to 1.5 °C requires, more than ever, a plurality of methods and integrated behavioral and technology approaches to better support policymaking and resulting policy interventions

On the political feasibility of climate change mitigation pathways: Is it too late to keep warming below 1.5°C?

Keeping global warming below 1.5°C is technically possible but is it politically feasible? Understanding political feasibility requires answering three questions: (a) “Feasibility of what?,” (b) “Feasibility when and where?,” and (c) “Feasibility for whom?.” In relation to the 1.5°C target, these questions translate into (a) identifying specific actions comprising the 1.5°C pathways; (b) assessing the economic and political costs of these actions in different socioeconomic and political contexts; and (c) assessing the economic and institutional capacity of relevant social actors to bear these costs. This view of political feasibility stresses costs and capacities in contrast to the prevailing focus on benefits and motivations which mistakes desirability for feasibility. The evidence on the political feasibility of required climate actions is not systematic, but clearly indicates that the costs of required actions are too high in relation to capacities to bear these costs in relevant contexts. In the future, costs may decline and capacities may increase which would reduce political constraints for at least some solutions. However, this is unlikely to happen in time to avoid a temperature overshoot. Further research should focus on exploring the “dynamic political feasibility space” constrained by costs and capacities in order to find more feasible pathways to climate stabilization. This article is categorized under: The Carbon Economy and Climate Mitigation > Decarbonizing Energy and/or Reducing Demand

Pandemic, War, and Global Energy Transitions

The COVID-19 pandemic and Russia’s war on Ukraine have impacted the global economy, including the energy sector. The pandemic caused drastic fluctuations in energy demand, oil price shocks, disruptions in energy supply chains, and hampered energy investments, while the war left the world with energy price hikes and energy security challenges. The long-term impacts of these crises on low-carbon energy transitions and mitigation of climate change are still uncertain but are slowly emerging. This paper analyzes the impacts throughout the energy system, including upstream fuel supply, renewable energy investments, demand for energy services, and implications for energy equity, by reviewing recent studies and consulting experts in the field. We find that both crises initially appeared as opportunities for low-carbon energy transitions: the pandemic by showing the extent of lifestyle and behavioral change in a short period and the role of science-based policy advice, and the war by highlighting the need for greater energy diversification and reliance on local, renewable energy sources. However, the early evidence suggests that policymaking worldwide is focused on short-term, seemingly quicker solutions, such as supporting the incumbent energy industry in the post-pandemic era to save the economy and looking for new fossil fuel supply routes for enhancing energy security following the war. As such, the fossil fuel industry may emerge even stronger after these energy crises creating new lock-ins. This implies that the public sentiment against dependency on fossil fuels may end as a lost opportunity to translate into actions toward climate-friendly energy transitions, without ambitious plans for phasing out such fuels altogether. We propose policy recommendations to overcome these challenges toward achieving resilient and sustainable energy systems, mostly driven by energy services