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

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

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

Marginalization of end-use technologies in energy innovation for climate protection

Mitigating climate change requires directed innovation efforts to develop and deploy energy technologies. Innovation activities are directed towards the outcome of climate protection by public institutions, policies and resources that in turn shape market behaviour. We analyse diverse indicators of activity throughout the innovation system to assess these efforts. We find efficient end-use technologies contribute large potential emission reductions and provide higher social returns on investment than energy-supply technologies. Yet public institutions, policies and financial resources pervasively privilege energy-supply technologies. Directed innovation efforts are strikingly misaligned with the needs of an emissions-constrained world. Significantly greater effort is needed to develop the full potential of efficient end-use technologies