Diverse scholarly background

The UNESCO forged the expression “sustainable city” in the 1970s under the Man and Biosphere programme (see Albert Levy and Cyria Emelianoff, Espaces et sociétés n°147). This concept is partly based on publications by Abel Wolman on urban metabolism (“The Metabolism of Cities, Scientific American, Vol 3, 1965). Other works on political and urban ecology contributed to defining the so-called sustainable cities; for instance, Murray Bookchin stresses the ability of small urban entities referred to as “sustainable communities” to rely on a circular and autonomous ecosystem (« Libertarian Municipalism : An Overview », A Social Ecology Publication, Oct 1991). Earlier in the XXth century, Patrick Geddes depicted an ideal, sustainable city carefully managing natural resources and energy (Cities in Evolution. An Introduction to the Town Planning Movement and the Study of the Civics, 1915, London Wiliams & Northgate). These various takes on sustainable urban planning underpin the current conception of sustainable cities as intelligent ecosystems reconciling the well-being of their inhabitants with social, economic and environmental issues.

Sustainable European cities: common goals, specific solutions

The 1992 Earth Summit in Rio and its adoption of Agenda 21 provided the impetus to policies fostering sustainable cities. The action agenda suggests means to be implemented by local governments (chapter 28). Following a proposal from the International Council for Local and Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), a number of municipalities are implementing local Agendas 21. European towns and cities signatory to the Aalborg Charter (May 17^th 1994) endorsed the concept of “sustainable environment” as a priority for their future development and committed themselves to establishing a European network of sustainable cities. The 27 states party to the Leipzig Charter (May 24^th 2007) approved roadmaps towards sustainable urban environment; the EU Commission Reference Framework for European Sustainable Cities offers guidelines on the practical implementation of this charter. However, a reference framework and common goals do not entail a one-size-fits-all model: each town or city must carry out measures adapted to its characteristics (historical, political, social, economic, etc.). The point of local Agendas 21 is to reconcile global norms with local specificities (see Nicole Mathieu and Yves Guermond).

From sustainable to smart cities through intelligent energy systems

In 2009 the EU climate and energy package set the “3 x 20” targets of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions by 20% and increase energy efficiency as well as the use of sustainable energy sources by 20% by 2020. The following Energy 2020 roadmap describes municipalities as a major player in meeting these targets through the emergence of “smart cities”. Recently the European Commission published a European Initiative on Smart Cities, putting special emphasis on energy systems as the key to sustainable cities. According to head of Committee 21 Anne-Marie Sacquet, towns and cities can use a “smart energy supply system” to increase their economic and social attractiveness. A publication by the University of Lausanne on sustainable neighbourhoods emphasizes the need to consider urban energy management as a global issue and advocates “integrated strategies including issues such as transport, construction, urban landscape and energy supply”. The “smart city” concept derives from this global perspective on urban issues, that is an in-depth rethinking of the use of urban infrastructure (buildings, facilities, vehicles) including energy-efficient systems and adequate monitoring technologies (for instance smart grids)

See also :

• French Senate report on cities of the future, by Jean-Pierre Sueur (2010-2011)
• Report on Energy and Urban Innovation, World Energy Council, 2010

Russia

Strategy launched by the Soviet regime

Investments in research and development and industrial policy must secure Russia’s energy independence. As of today, identified fossil fuel reserves represent several decades of future exploitation, according to a report by BP (Statistical Review World Energy 2012). However, energy transition is a long-term policy which requires a massive investment of financial and human capital. A 2009 report on Russia’s energy policy commissioned by the committee on economic affairs of the French Senate reminds that “the Soviet Union was leading the way on wind power” and that the state-owned consortium Rosatom-Atomenergoprom controls the whole of the nuclear energy sector. Nevertheless, World Bank estimates of R&D figures published that same year show that in spite of government commitment to enter the “knowledge-based economy”, Russia ranks below the OECD average (2.4% of GDP) with only 1.3%.

Russia’s commitment to renewable energy sources is reflected in the KPMG Global Energy Competitiveness Index, which points out “increasing efforts with regard to renewables”. This notwithstanding, the study also stresses “poor performance in terms of environmental compatibility” due to CO2-related pollution. Finally, the French audit firm mentions Russia’s competitive advantages and acknowledges its “growing influence on the international stage”. Admittedly, World Bank figures reflect an upward trend in R&D investments between 1992 and 2009, but it remains to be seen whether this strategy will be pursued in the years to come.

Energy efficiency to foster Franco-Russian relations

Alongside the development of renewables, other instruments can be used to transform Russia’s carbon-intensive economy. For instance, a 2011 OECD study on Russia indicates that “the potential for profitable investment in energy efficiency is tremendous and, as a matter of fact, significant efforts are being made in this field, although it seems that several hurdles and market failures slow down the process” and that “despite the concerns of Russian company managers over energy efficiency issues, the reduction of energy consumption falls short of expectations”.

It is to be noted, however, that France and Russia closely cooperate on the issue, as evidenced by the foundation of the Franco-Russian centre for energy efficiency (CFREE) on December 20^th 2012 during the fifteenth intergovernmental seminar held by both countries. According to Thierry Méraud from the French Environment and Energy Management Agency (ADEME), a number of joint projects are underway: “investments such as the Greater Moscow project will be subject to calls for tenders and the CFREE will actively strive to place French companies in a position to win contracts”. Besides, the French agency stresses that both countries have complementary fields of expertise: “We encourage various kinds of cooperation, for instance in technical and scientific fields”.

Overall, in spite of existing strategies on renewables and energy efficiency, Russia will keep tapping into its reserves to remain a major oil and gas producer and exporter. However, there are a number of reasons why it should diversify its energy-supply range. First, its energy-intensive economy represents significant potential energy savings; second, climate change is a clear incentive to put an emphasis on less polluting energy sources.

See also:

• British Petroleum, Statistical Review World Energy 2012
• French Senate 2009 report on Russia’s energy policy
• Les Echos, R&D spendings in Russia
• KPMG Global Energy Competitiveness Index (2012)
• OECD economic survey on the Russian Federation (2011)
• ADEME, Kick-starting Franco-Russian partnership (2012)

How can you improve a building’s energy efficiency? In February 2011,

Did you know that 43% of energy consumption in France is related to buildings? At the same time, the yearly renewal rate of French real estate is 1%, which means that most potential energy savings consist in optimizing existing buildings. Whereas there is some public awareness of so-called “passive” energy efficiency (building insulation, for instance), the new tool focuses on “active” management, that is to say energy use directly related to equipment, i.e. not to the building’s structure itself.

Three levels of action

This new tool establishes three categories of solutions toward active energy efficiency: measurement (EE1), measurement combined with action on systems (EE2) and finally measurement combined with action on systems and building shells (EE3). A measuring scale was defined according to initial investments and long-term energy savings.

Source : Gimélec

• The EE1 level enables to assess and define the means of optimizing the energy consumption of a building. It also allows to ensure that it is in compliance with prevailing norms, especially environmental norms ISO 14001 and EN 16001. With this first level of analysis, it is already possible to make 10 to 15% energy savings in a very short time (1 year).
• The EE2 level is about energy management. Specific energy consumptions will be measured and optimized (heating, air-conditioning, lighting, home appliances). This level of action relies on the norm NF EN 15232, which rates buildings from A (high – energy efficiency buildings) down to D (energy-inefficient buildings). Refining equipment consumption of a building, energy saving could reach 30 to 35% over 10 years.
• The EE3 level includes the norms of the EE2 level and pays extra attention to building shells. It also deals with active energy efficiency since it takes into account equipment outside the building’s structure itself, such as optimizing shutters, blinds and curtains. This action would allow long-term savings up to 40% over 25 years.

To sum up, this measurement tool sorts the various steps that can be taken to save energy according to the energy efficiency of the existing buildings. Besides, it is suggested that building contractors should take it into account when working on a new project, thus making energy efficiency a core concern for the design of the places where people live and work.

Read more :

• Energy efficiency of buildings: six innovative constructions show the way forward
• What you need to know to improve the energy efficiency of your home thanks to insulation
• What’s the most energy-consuming household appliance?

In spite of structural differences, manufacturing sectors in both France and Germany are facing the same challenge, namely the need for optimizing their energy consumption, mainly because of steadily rising energy prices. Both situations were compared during a conference that took place at the German embassy in Paris on October 24. Here are key analyses and conclusions by the

Electricity accounts for 30% of overall energy consumption in French manufacturing sector

In France, businesses are responsible for 55% of final energy consumption; achieving energy efficiency is therefore a means of improving their competitiveness as well as managing their environmental impact. There is an initial observation to be made: 30% of energy used by businesses goes to electricity and 70% to fuels. The largest energy users are chemicals (27%), steel (15%), construction materials (14%) and food processing (14%). According to a study by the Ceren (French Centre for Economic Studies and Research on Energy), the heavy industry, which accounts for 58% of energy use by businesses, could save 19% energy by resorting to pre-existing technical solutions.

Similar situation in Germany

Unsurprisingly enough, the most energy-intensive sectors are similar to those in France: mining (22.1%), chemicals (15.2%), papermaking (9.6%), construction materials (8.1%) and food processing (8.1%) are the sectors with the largest energy consumption. So-called “technical” sources of energy savings are also around 20%. German businessmen seem to be well aware of the issue of energy savings, with nearly 38% of them considering future investments in energy efficiency schemes to be very likely.

What are sources of electricity savings?

According to the French Ministry of Sustainable Development, a source of electricity savings can be measured by comparing a production unit’s overall power use with what it could be if “emphasis were put on energy performance”. Such sources actually include a wide range of solutions for manufacturers. They can achieve energy savings by improving combustion control, reducing heat losses, optimizing water flows and internal power distribution networks. Going beyond these general solutions, participants to the conference stressed the fact that the only way to take into account the specific requirements of each company is to conduct personalized and detailed audits.

For more information:

• Consumption reduction and energy recycling schemes in the industrial sector, CETIAT (French Technical Centre of Aeraulic and Thermal Industries)
• Promoting “profitable” energy saving schemes in industrial heating systems and networks, CREE/CEREN

Did you know that by turning your thermostat one degree down, you can save no less than 10% off your power bill? Energy efficiency does not only depend on national and European energy policies, but also on public awareness and household consumption patterns. A recent

Unsurprisingly, cold countries are the first energy consumers in Europe

Household energy consumption widely depends on European countries. Inhabitants of Luxemburg are by far the biggest consumers, with 9.2 tonnes of oil equivalent (toe) per year per inhabitant. Scandinavian countries come next with 5.1 toe in Finland and 3.6 in Sweden. France (2.5 toe) is close to the European average, along with the UK (2.5 toe) and Germany (2.7 toe).

According to the French national institute of statistics and economic studies (INSEE), “energy expenses related to housing and transportation make up 8.4% of overall household consumption”. The share of energy in household expenses has been relatively stable in the last twenty years. In 2010, the average household spent an estimated 2,900€ on utilities and petrol. The share of energy is therefore equivalent to that of clothing or leisure and cultural activities.  The situation is more or less similar in the UK with an average energetic expenditure of 8,6% of annual wages (8,3% for culture expenditures). In the US, an average household spends 7% of its annual salary for energy and heating.

A growing concern about and awareness of individual energy consumption

The international review conducted by Rexel in October 2011 reveals that « a large majority of Europeans and Americans grant special importance to energy efficiency”. From one country to the next, 86 to 95% of respondents consider it an “important” issue, among whom almost two thirds deem it “very important”.

Fuel poverty, that is a situation where a household spends more than 10% of its income on energy, is a growing concern to citizens and consumers, according to the same Rexel study. Philippe Pelletier, head of the Strategic Committee on Building and Housing of the Grenelle Environnement (a multi-party debate in France on environmental issues), estimates that fuel poverty affects almost 4 million French households. According to a YouGov survey (April 2011), 6,3 million of Brits live in a situation of fuel poverty.

Besides public policies aiming at cutting energy losses by renovating buildings, private efforts to achieve improvements on one’s house’s energy efficiency make perfect sense. A thermal study can be carried out by certified professionals in order to assess the necessary works most suited to your house. Although the general public may not be familiar with them, government assistance schemes exist, such as the interest-free eco-loan created in 2009.

In the UK, the government launched in 2001 the « UK fuel poverty strategy », aiming at coping the fuel poverty issue. This policy was a relative success between 1996 & 2007 – with 1.7 million households leaving the fuel poverty status. Nevertheless, with a rough increase of fuel prices, 2012 is the sixth year in a row where the number of “fuel poor” households increases.  The D. Cameron government wants to erase the fuel poverty issue by November 2016 in the Kingdom. Through its ambitious “Green deal” policy, improving the energy efficiency of housing has become a national goal. In the US, fuel poverty encompasses more than 16 million homes. This topic depends mostly on state governments which are leading independently their own energy saving policy, in which Massachusetts and California are on top.

Read more about the household energy consumption:

• New energy efficiency measurement tools for buildings
• What you need to know to improve the energy efficiency of your home thanks to insulation
• France reforms energy performance contracting to improve building efficiency

All buildings aren’t equal in terms of energy use: the most recent buildings fitted with reinforced insulation only use up 50kWh/m² a year, whereas older constructions take up 200kWh/m². New buildings must abide by increasingly strict regulations; however, most of our homes and workplaces haven’t drawn too much attention on insulation issues. That’s why it is advisable to get an insight into the strengths and weaknesses of your home’s insulation.

The construction of new buildings (whether homes or office space) has abided by thermal regulations[1] since 1975. The current RT 2005 will soon give place to the RT 2012, which targets more thoroughly the energy efficiency of buildings. The reason is that insulation is not only a matter of comfort anymore. Energy bills are a crippling financial burden to almost 4 million French households subject to fuel poverty, spending over 10% of their income on heating, as said Philippe Pelletier during the Rexel symposium on energy efficiency.

What is an “insulator”?

A thermal insulator is a material whose physical properties block thermal exchange between the inside and the outside. Thermal exchange is channelled through “thermal bridges” conveying the air. They are located at wall intersections, room angles, but also around window and door frames, electrical outlets as well as between roof tiles. According to the ADEME[2], 25% to 30% of heat losses occur through the roof, 20% to 25% through air renewal and air leaks, 20% to 25% through walls and 10 to 15% through windows. These four building components have their own characteristics, which key rules are presented below.

Some principles on building insulation methods

There are two ways to insulate a roof: the conventional way consists in unrolling insulation blankets against the roof structure and fixing them onto rafters. This insulating layer is then generally covered with plaster plates. Outside roof insulation is also possible, although more difficult. Rigid battened panels are fixed onto rafters and then covered with insulating material and with an outer layer attached to the battens. This technique sometimes requires raising walls, and, at any rate, erecting a scaffolding.

As for walls, the most common solutions are blanket insulations and rigid-board insulations. The more modern and efficient overpressure technique uses “loose-fill” insulation. Little pieces of insulating material (cellulose wadding, glass-wool, stone-wool…) are injected into the wall thanks to a specific machine. This way, overpressure injection fills the free space between the outside wall and the inside wall with the necessary amount of closely packed material to provide adequate protection. This method leaves you free to choose the thickness of the insulation layer and can also deal with uneven walls.

Finally, for windows and doors, the major difficulty lies in the frames. Low-quality or poorly installed frames entail significant thermal losses. Double-glazed windows (4/16/4 mm) have now become the norm for new buildings or renovation. More advanced triple-glazed windows will cost you an extra 150€ per square-meter.

Inside or outside insulation?

Inside insulation is the cheapest way but has a number of limitations: it makes dealing with thermal bridging more difficult, it shrinks room volume and, more importantly, it damages the thermal inertia of walls, as it is tantamount to heating up (or cooling down) the insulator, whereas the very role of insulation is not to store heat or cool, but, quite on the contrary, to block them. Laying out insulation panels on the outside is an adequate solution to this problem. However, this technique is expensive, particularly because it requires covering bigger surfaces.

Striking a balance between air renewal and air-tightness

To achieve efficient insulation, the inside air must be renewed on a regular basis without creating thermal bridges (for instance by opening a window). Indeed, moisture makes your house colder. Two kinds of Controlled Mechanical Ventilation are available today: simple-flow CMV and double-flow CMV. The first type merely expels the old air outside, creating a vacuum which sucks in fresh air through different openings (beware of thermal bridging!). The second type discharges the old air and brings in fresh air thanks to a double ventilation circuit including a cross-flow heat exchanger. Fresh air is heated up or cooled down by the old air and has the right temperature as soon as it enters the house.

Today new buildings are perfectly air-tight; including a double-flow CMV brings airflow to the minimum, significantly reducing thermal bridging. Besides, the materials used, called vapour-barriers or steam regulators, allow steam to flow out with no air leak; this way insulation doesn’t get moist and remains efficient.

Read more :

• Rising fuel poverty in Europe: a growing source of concern
• Smart buildings to achieve electricity efficiency
• From the individual to the entire electric grid: how energy efficiency can help in reducing our energy consumption?

[1] In French, RT for Règlementations Thermiques
[2] The  French Agency for the Environment and Energy Management

* Centre of Geopolitics of Energy and Raw Materials

The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) revealed that Massachusetts had ousted the sunshine state as the nation’s most energy efficient, in its annual ranking publication.

ACEEE’s State Energy Efficiency Scorecard, now published for the fifth year, showed that behind Massachusetts (first) and California (second), New York (third) and Oregon, Washington, Vermont and Rhode Island (joint fourth) were leading the way in energy efficiency. North Dakota had the unenviable accolade of being ranked the least energy efficient state in the US.

ACEEE said that despite a stagnant US economy, tough state budgets and Congress’ inability to adopt a comprehensive energy strategy, US states had nevertheless displayed a trend towards increasing energy efficiency.

“Energy efficiency is America’s abundant, untapped energy resource and the states continue to press forward to reap its economic and environmental benefits,” lauded ACEEE’s executive director Steven Nadel. “The message here is that energy efficiency is a pragmatic, bipartisan solution that political leaders from both sides of the aisle can support. As they have over the past decades, states continue to provide the leadership needed to forge an energy-efficient economy, which reduces energy costs, spurs job growth, and benefits the environment,” he added.

Governor of top state Massachusetts, Deval Patrick, put the state’s top position down to investments in innovation and infrastructure.

“Through our Green Communities Act, we set aggressive goals and laid the foundation for greater investment in energy efficiency – and now we are proud to be a model for the nation and world,” Patrick said.

Top marks

In addition to North Dakota, in last place, ACEEE also listed (in ascending order) Wyoming, Mississippi, Kansas, Oklahoma, South Carolina, West Virginia, Missouri, Alabama and South Dakota as those states most in need of energy efficiency improvement.

Despite its placing in the bottom ten, Alabama was also, however, one of the six most improved states, which also included Michigan, Illinois, Nebraska, Maryland, and Tennessee.

The ACEEE scorecard ranks states according to metrics that capture best practices and leadership in energy efficiency policy and program implementation in the residential, commercial, industrial, and transportation sectors.

In addition to the rankings, the scorecard also made several insightful findings. ACEEE said that total electrical efficiency program budgets increased to $4.5 billion last year, up from $3.4 billion in 2009. Taking into account natural gas program budgets of $1 billion, this brings last year’s total energy efficiency budgets to around $5.5 billion. It also said that 29 states have either adopted, or made significant progress towards the adoption of, energy-saving home and commercial property building codes, up from 20 states last year and just 10 in 2009.

ACEEE said that while some leading states had significantly pursued the reduction of vehicle miles traveled and the promotion of efficient vehicle purchase and manufacture, there remained a “major gap,” with over half the states having little or no such policy.