4
Technology Gap and Potential Impact on Energy Efficiency
First Draft August 2015
1. Introduction
Transition towards energy efficient cities requires an effective upgrade of all the different areas of
urban energy production, distribution and use. A method was developed for collecting the information
required for analysing the variation of strengths and weakness in technical and infrastructure
capabilities in European medium-sized cities, as well as to help identify best practices and tools for
enhancing the energy performance of city energy systems.
In order to evaluate the impact of each technology and service, several energy efficiency
indicators have been developed and others have been selected from existing methods in the literature,
so that the cities can use them for developing monitoring and ranking tools to help them compare their
energy performance with similar cities.
Mobility and
transport
Technical
Infrastructure
Production &
Consumption
Key Fields
Renovation
Building Technology
Public transport
Motorized private transport
Pedestrian traffic and cycling
Transport of goods
Waste, water and sewage
management
Electric power grids
Heating and cooling grids
Public lighting
Industry and commerce
Private and public services
Consumers/Private Households
Renewable energy
3.2. Technologies
A list of 28 different projects for improving energy efficiency in the pilot cities, as well as other
similar ones in Europe were analysed, in order to extract the most successful and innovative
technologies used. A resulting number of 119 different technologies were extracted and associated
with the corresponding key field and domain where their impact on energy efficiency is the highest. A
list of all the enabling technologies evaluated under PLEEC is listed in Table 2.
Table 2 List of Energy Efficient Enabling Technologies (ET) evaluated under PLEEC
Domains
Key Fields
Renovation
Green buildings
and land use
Building
Technology
Technologies
Code
ET.01
ET.02
ET.03
SketchUp Modelling
ET.04
ET.05
Photographic Modelling
ET.06
Thermographic Modelling
ET.07
ET.08
ET.09
ET.10
ET.11
ET.12
Underfloor Heating
ET.13
ET.14
ET.15
ET.16
ET.17
LED lighting
ET.18
ET.19
ET.20
ET.21
ET.22
ET.23
Passive building
ET.24
ET.25
ET.26
ET.27
Smart thermostats
ET.28
Public transport
Mobility and
transport
Rooftop Solar PV
ET.29
ET.30
ET.31
Cooling Grids
ET.32
ET.15
Intermodality
ET.33
ET.34
PT priority
ET.35
ET.36
ET.37
ET.38
ET.39
ET.40
ET.41
ET.42
ET.43
ET.44
ET.45
ET.46
Electric busses
ET.47
ET.48
ET.49
LPG busses
ET.50
ET.41
ET.51
Hybrid Vehicles
ET.52
Electric Vehicles
ET.53
ET.54
Motorized private
Information system for decision support
transport
Sensor Based Traffic light regulation
ET.55
ET.56
ET.57
Intermodality
ET.33
ET.58
ET.59
ET.60
and cycling
Transport of
goods
ET.41
ET.61
Electric mopeds
ET.62
ET.63
ET.64
ET.65
ET.66
ET.67
ET.68
ET.69
Technical
Infrastructure
Electric power
grids
Heating and
cooling grids
Public lighting
Production &
Consumption
Industry and
commerce
ET.70
ET.71
ET.72
ET.73
ET.74
ET.75
ET.76
ET.77
Substation automation
ET.78
ET.79
ET.80
ET.81
ET.82
ET.83
ET.84
ET.86
ET.87
LED lighting
ET.18
Remote monitoring
ET.88
ET.89
ET.90
ET.91
ET.92
services
LED Lighting
ET.18
Building automation
ET.93
ET.94
ET.95
Home-automation equipment
ET.96
Smart thermostats
ET.97
ET.98
LED Lighting
ET.18
ET.99
ET.100
ET.103
ET.105
ET.106
ET.107
ET.108
Stirling engines
ET.109
Solar Cooling
ET.110
Solar Heating
ET.111
ET.112
ET.113
ET.114
ET.115
ET.116
Wind Turbines
ET.117
Waste combustion
ET.118
ET.119
Renewable energy
Key Fields
Renovation
Green buildings
and land use
Building Technology
Indicators
Share of annual thermal renovations
kWh/m2/yr
kWh/m2/yr
Unit
hab/km2
hab/km2
%
km/pass/year
MWh/year
Tons/Year
EUR
km/pass/year
MWh/year
Tons/Year
Mobility and
transport
Cost of petrol
EUR/Liter
Parking fee
EUR/Hour
Level of motorisation
Cars/Cap
km/pass/year
km/pass/year
Meters/Cap
Kms/Cap
MWh/year
Tons/Year
Waste generation
Tons/Year
Tons/Year
Recycling of waste
Waste collection fee
Technical
Infrastructure
Share of smart-meters
Electric power grids
EUR/kg
%
SAIFI
Outages/Cust
SAIDI
Hours/Cust
Public lighting
All Sectors
MWh/year
MWh/year
Tons/Year
Production and
Consumption
MWh/year
Tons/Year
MWh/year
Tons/Year
Consumers/Private
Households
Energy Supply
MWh/year
Energy Imports
MWh/year
MWh/year
MWh/year
MWh/year
MWh/year
EUR/kWh
MWh/year
MWh/year
MWh/year
MWh/year
MWh/year
MWh/year
Renewable energy
MWh/year
MWh/year
EUR/kWh
Criteria
LOW
MED
HIGH
3.1. Transportation
Enabling Technologies Impact on Energy Efficiency Indicators
The impact of each enabling technology impact on the transportation energy efficiency indicators
are listed in Table 5. Cities should start developing ETs that offer HIGH impact on energy efficiency
indicators, especially those, that impact several indicators within different key fields. For instance, in
transportation, the ET Intermodality offer very HIGH potential for improving the Transportation
Performance in Public Transport as well as Transport Performance in Bicycle Transport and
Transport Performance in Pedestrian Transport.
As a rule of thumb, each city should select which indicators are most relevant for achieving its
energy efficiency goals, and then select which technologies offer the highest impact on these
indicators.
Key Fields
Public
transport
Mobility
and
transport
Motorized
private
transport
Pedestrian
traffic and
cycling
Transport
of goods
Indicators
Indicator
Code
ET Impact on the
indicator
Intermodality
high frequency simple PT lines
PT priority
High Quality Buses
Integrated travel information system
Demand oriented PT plan
DER for electric transportation
Hybrid & CNG busses
Electric busses
Revamped power electronics
Electric busses
Biofuels for Public Transportation
DER for electric transportation
Hybrid & CNG busses
Integrated multi-modal e-ticketing
system
Hybrid & CNG busses
Biofuels for Public Transportation
Superblock integrated mobility
network
Sensor Based Traffic light regulation
Carpooling (small scale)
Hybrid Vehicles
Electric Vehicles
Carpooling (small scale)
Sensor Based Traffic light regulation
Electric Vehicles
Low Emmisions Zone
Electric car sharing service
Carpooling (small scale)
High quality park & ride
Hybrid Vehicles
Electric Vehicles
Electric car sharing service
Carpooling (small scale)
High quality park & ride
High quality park & ride
Carpooling (small scale)
High quality park & ride
Intermodality
Public bike sharing
Superblock integrated mobility
network
Intermodality
Superblock integrated mobility
network
Demand oriented PT plan
HIGH
HIGH
MED
LOW
HIGH
HIGH
MED
HIGH
MED
MED
HIGH
MED
HIGH
HIGH
MT.13
HIGH
MT.14
HIGH
MT.15
HIGH
MT.16
LOW
HIGH
Transport
performance in
public transport
MT.01
Energy demand in
public transport
MT.02
CO2 emmisions in
public transport
MT.03
Cost of a monthly
ticket for transport
MT.04
Transport
performance in
motorized private
transport
MT.05
Energy demand in
motorized private
transport
MT.06
CO2 emmisions in
motorized private
transport
MT.07
Cost of a petrol
MT.08
Parking fee
Level of
motorisation
MT.09
MT.10
Transport
performance in
bicycle transport
MT.11
Transport
performance in
pedestrian transport
MT.12
Length of bicycle
network per
inhabitant
Transport
performance in
transport of goods
Energy demand in
transport of goods
CO2 emmisions in
transport of goods
Enabling Technology
HIGH
LOW
MED
HIGH
MED
LOW
HIGH
MED
LOW
HIGH
MED
MED
MED
LOW
MED
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
MED
LOW
LOW
MED
HIGH
HIGH
MED
HIGH
LOW
LOW
Figure 1.
The adoption level of each technology analysed in the transportation domain is presented in
Figure 1. The technology with the highest adoption was high quality buses. Other technologies, like
Dedicated bicycle lanes experienced an overall high adoption level, for Jyvskyla, Tartu and Stokeon-Trent, but low for Santiago de Compostela, Eskilstuna and Turku. Other technologies presented a
more mixed adoption level and similar analyses were obtained from different domains. When both
technology adoption level and impact on each indicator are looked at together, city planners can make
better decisions about which technologies development to focus on.
References
[1]
[2]
R. Giffinger and G. Haindlmaier, Smart cities ranking: an effective instrument for the
positioning of the cities?, ACE Archit. City Environ., vol. 4, no. 12, pp. 726, 2010.