Energy & Buildings 211 (2020) 109816

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy & Buildings

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enbuild

Sustainable energy efficiency retrofits as residenial buildings move

towards nearly zero energy building (NZEB) standards
Paul Moran a,b, John O’Connell a,c, Jamie Goggins a,b,∗
a
School of Engineering, National University of Ireland Galway, Ireland
b
MaREI Centre, Ryan Institute, National University of Ireland Galway, Ireland
c
OOC Construction, Galway, Ireland

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: 1.9 million housing units in Ireland are required to be retrofitted for the existing Irish national housing
Received 25 July 2019 stock to be considered nearly zero energy building (nZEB). This paper assesses optimum retrofit packages
Revised 19 January 2020
aimed at improving the building material thermal efficiencies and energy demand of gas-heated semi-
Accepted 23 January 2020
detached and end-terraced houses in Ireland. The cost-optimal methodology framework for calculating
Available online 24 January 2020
cost optimal levels of minimum energy performance requirements for buildings and building elements
Keywords: is used to determine the optimum retrofit packages from both a householder perspective and a societal
Energy retrofit perspective. The results of the cost-optimal approach are compared to the results from a weighted frame-
Residential buildings work approach which incorporates life cycle environmental and cost indicators from both a householder
Nearly zero energy building perspective and a societal perspective.
Life cycle analysis The results found that the ranking of energy efficiency retrofit designs based on multiple life cycle en-
Cost-optimal
vironmental and cost indicators differ compared to cost optimum designs based on only life cycle energy
and cost indicators. The cost-optimal approach was found to be effective for identifying retrofit packages
that are among the best packages even without accounting for multiple environmental indicators. How-
ever, once multiple indicators were considered, the hierarchy of the optimal retrofit packages changed.
In the Irish context, the environmental impact of the Irish electricity grid was found to play a significant
role in the hierarchy of the retrofit packages examined.
While the cost-optimal method should not be relied on solely for identifying the optimum retrofit
package solution, it could be employed as part of the multistage assessment methodology for narrowing
down design solution sample sizes. Using the remaining array of retrofit packages solutions, the optimum
retrofit package could be identified using multiple indicators.
© 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction To combat their energy demand and GHG production, build-

With the world’s energy consumption and population increas-
ing, climate change is linked to humankind’s heavy reliance on
fossil fuels to meet energy demand and the resultant production
of greenhouse gases (GHGs) [1]. The Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) report strong evidence that suggests the in-
crease in GHGs in the atmosphere is changing the world’s climate
[1–4]. Climate change is predicted to have a negative effect on the
world unless proper mitigation measures are implemented [1–4].
Various international agreements have been made to help address
climate change including the United Nations Framework Conven-
tion on Climate Change Treaty [5], the Kyoto Protocol [6] and the
Paris Agreement [7].
∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Jamie.Goggins@nuigalway.ie (J. Goggins).
ings in the European Union (EU) are now being designed and con-
structed to tighter building standards and codes. The Energy Per-
formance Building Directive (EPBD) introduced a new revised di-
rective in 2013 [8] requiring the mandatory introduction of nearly
zero energy buildings (nZEBs) in all member states. A nZEB is a
building with a very high energy performance. The nearly zero or
very low amount of energy required by a nZEB should be pro-
duced, to a very significant extent, from renewable sources, includ-
ing those on-site or nearby. Starting from the end of 2020, all new
buildings or those receiving significant retrofit must show a very
high energy performance [8]. Similarly, this is a requirement for
all public buildings from the end of 2018 [8].
To determine building energy performance requirements for
nZEBs, EU countries had to use a cost-optimal methodology frame-
work to assess cost-optimal levels of minimum energy perfor-
mance requirements for buildings/building elements/building ma-

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.109816
0378-7788/© 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
2 P. Moran, J. O’Connell and J. Goggins / Energy & Buildings 211 (2020) 109816

terials [9]. This methodology framework assesses the global costs bodied energy and carbon emissions did not affect the ranking of
(or life cycle costs) for buildings/building elements/building ma- renovation packages from a cost-optimal perspective.
terials and their respective impact on primary operational energy
demand for space heating, cooling, ventilation, domestic hot water
and lighting systems.
1.2. Aim of the study
Numerous studies have applied a cost-optimal approach to min-
imum energy performance methodology to assess cost-optimal
In Ireland, major retrofit works are classified as energy effi-
retrofit solutions for the building stock of several countries. Studies
ciency retrofit works where more than 25% of the surface area of
on single family houses [10,11] and multi-family/apartment build-
the building envelope undergoes renovation [43]. To be considered
ings [10,12–15] have been conducted on Italian [10,11], Portuguese
a nZEB retrofit in Ireland, a residential building must achieve a
[12,13], Swedish [15] and Turkish [14] building stock. Several sen-
minimum energy performance of 125 kWh/m2 /yr. [43]. However,
sitivity parameters effecting the cost-optimal results have been ex-
if an energy performance of 125 kWh/m2 /yr. is found to be cost-
amined including discount rates [12,13,15], energy prices [12], in-
optimally unfeasible, a cost-optimal retrofit solution, which does
sulation thicknesses [15], building orientation [13], building age
not achieve an energy performance of 125 kwh/m2 /yr., may be
[10] and building lifespan [10].
used instead [43].
There are currently ca. 2 million housing units (detached
1.1. Life cycle analysis in building design
houses, semi-detached houses, terraced houses and apartment
units) built within Ireland [44]. 800,059 have received an Energy
Achieving more energy efficient buildings comes at an addi-
Performance Certificate (EPC) known as a Building Energy Rating
tional cost. In many instances, the design solutions involve ad-
(BER) label in Ireland, with 730,641 (i.e. 91%) currently not achiev-
ditional material in constructing the building. Buildings and con-
ing cost optimal energy efficiency standard of 125 kWh/m2 /yr. [45].
struction in the EU accounts for 50% of all extracted materials,
Assuming the remaining housing with no BER label were built be-
30% of water consumption and 33% of total generated waste [16].
fore the mandatory BER labelling of new buildings in the 20 0 0s,
Tighter building standards and codes are resulting in lower energy
1.9 million housing units (i.e. ca 95% of the building stock) in Ire-
demand during a building’s operation. However, this only repre-
land are required to be retrofitted for the Irish national housing
sents one stage of a building’s life cycle energy demand. Building
stock to be considered nZEB standard. 46,106 occupied Irish hous-
life cycle analysis (LCA) assesses the impact of building production,
ing units are gas heated semi-detached buildings built between
construction, use and end of life during the building’s life span.
1991 and 20 0 0 [44].
Because of the importance of selecting sustainable materials
This paper assesses the optimum building energy efficiency
and the use of LCA in building design, France, the Netherlands and
retrofit packages aimed at improving the material efficiencies and
Finland have committed for LCA to be mandatory in building de-
energy demand of gas-heated semi-detached and end-terraced
sign [17]. Germany and Austria have introduced semi-mandatory
houses built in Ireland between 1991 and 20 0 0. The optimum
requirements for building LCA.
retrofit design packages based on evaluated environmental and
The standards for building LCA calculation define the bound-
economic life cycle indicators are compared to the optimum de-
ary for refurbishment/retrofit (Module B5) to include (i) the pro-
sign strategies based on the cost-optimal methodology framework
duction of new building components, (ii) transportation of new
which is used for determining the nZEB retrofit energy perfor-
building components, (iii) construction as part of the refurbish-
mance building regulations [9]. From the reviewed retrofit stud-
ment process, (iv) waste management and (v) end of life of the
ies [19,20,29–31,21–28], it was found that energy and GWP (also
replaced components [18]. The production of new building compo-
referred to as greenhouse gas emissions and climate change)
nents and their impact on the operation energy use of the build-
are the most common environmental indicators in LCA stud-
ing are the most common boundaries assessed in LCA retrofit
ies. Eutrophication potential (EP), acidification potential (AP) and
studies [19]. Several studies have used LCA indicators to evalu-
ozone depletion potential (ODP) are also often used. The anal-
ate retrofitting/refurbishing case studies [19,20,29–31,21–28]. Oregi
ysis in this paper uses energy, GWP, ODP, AP, EP and photo-
et al. [32] examined the relevance of each life cycle stage in rela-
chemical ozone creation potential (POCP) as environmental in-
tion to building retrofit and found the transportation and end of
dicators which are recommended by the recently published EU
life stages to be minor [32]. Famuyibo et al. [28] found that the
guidelines on sustainability indicators for office and residential
maintenance and disassembly stages for retrofitting a residential
buildings [46].
building in Ireland to passive standards accounted for at most 3.7%
and 0.9% of the building’s environmental LCA, respectively [28].
Famuyibo et al. [28] also found that Irish semi-detached housing
units retrofitted to the same energy performance levels had differ- 2. Methodology
ent life cycle global warming potential (GWP) impacts.
Thiers & Peuportier [29] examined the environmental life cycle In the analysis presented, the production of new building com-
impact of retrofitting passive house and multi-family social hous- ponents (Module A1–A3) and their impact on the building oper-
ing building to net-zero source energy building using 12 environ- ational energy use (Module B6) are assessed. Section 2.1 presents
mental indicators. The authors discovered no heating system so- the method for determining the environmental embodied impact
lution was the optimum choice for each of the 12 environmental of producing the various retrofit components, while the method
indicators evaluated. for assessing the building operational environmental impact from
Other studies incorporated environmental life cycle assessment the retrofit components is detailed in Section 2.2. The approach to
in their assessment methodology, along with the cost-optimal ap- assessing the construction cost and operational cost of the retrofit
proach [33–42]. Almeida et al. [42] extended the methodology designs is presented in Sections 2.3 and 2.4, respectively.
for comparing cost-optimality in building renovations, developed The method in which the evaluated environmental and eco-
in the International Energy Agency (IEA)–Energy in Buildings and nomic life cycle indicators are used in the cost-optimal method-
Communities (EBC) Annex 56 project [41], with a life cycle assess- ology framework and a weighted framework approach (Sustain-
ment by including embodied primary energy and carbon emissions able Index Factor) to compare the retrofit designs is given in
in the calculations. Almeida et al. [42] found that including em- Sections 2.5 and 2.6, respectively.
 P. Moran, J. O’Connell and J. Goggins / Energy & Buildings 211 (2020) 109816
2.1. Material production stage (Module A1–A3)
The embodied environmental impact caused by extracting, pro-
cessing and manufacturing of materials can be expressed mathe-
matically as by any of the Eqs. (1)–(4) depending on the data avail-
able:

h
Em,n = Vi ρi EK Gm,i
1 Peat

h
Em,n = Vi EVm,i
1 Hydro-Pumped Storage

h
Em,n = Ai E Am,i
1

h
Em,n = Li E Lm,i
1
where Em,n is the embodied environmental impact of indicator m
for case study n. The embodied intensity for material i of indicator
m can be given in terms per kg (EKGm,i ), per m3 (EVm,i ), per m2
(EAm,i ) or per m (ELm,i ). ρ i is the density (kg/m3 ), Vi is the volume
(m3 ), Ai is the area (m2 ) and Li is length (m) of material i.
Environmental intensities of materials/products are sourced
from environmental product declarations (EPDs) or Ecoinvent
(v3.4) [47]. EPDs are sourced from the multiple available online
databases [48–50]. The Irish EPD platform is the default online EPD
database used in this study [48]. If an EPD is unavailable on the
Irish EPD platform, other online databases are used [49,50]. If EPDs
are unable to be sourced for a material/product, environmental in-
tensities are sourced from Ecoinvent (v3.4) [47].
This analysis uses energy (EN), GWP, ODP, AP, EP and POCP as
environmental indicators. The EU guidelines on sustainability in-
dictors for office and residential buildings also recommend using
abiotic depletion potential of elements (ADPE) and abiotic deple-
tion potential fossil fuels (ADPF) [46]. However, as part of this
paper, how the environmental impact of the Irish electricity grid
changes as the electricity grid decarbonises in the future is con-
sidered. ADPE and ADPF are measures of the scarcity of a sub-
stance, which depends on the amount of resources and extraction
rate [51]. As it is not possible to predict how the amount of re-
sources and extraction rates change due to grid decarbonisation,
ADPE and ADPF are not included in this analysis.
2.2. Use stage: building operation (Module B6)
Annual operational primary energy and the energy savings from
the examined retrofit packages are estimated using Dwelling En-
ergy Assessment Procedure (DEAP) [52]. DEAP is the standard as-
sessment procedure for calculating and rating the energy perfor-
mance of Irish housing units. DEAP accounts for the energy re-
quired for (i) lighting, (ii) ventilation, (iii) space heating and (iv)
domestic water heating. The operational environmental impact
from the case study buildings can be expressed mathematically as:
 

y
 rates of the indicators per MJdel in electricity generation from 2014
Om,n = OIm, j,x DE j
x=1 j=1
where OIm,j,x (indicator m/MJdel ) is the conversion factor of fuel
type j for environmental indicator m in year x of the building lifes-
pan y and DEj (MJdel /m2 /yr.) is the delivered energy per heated
floor area per year of fuel type j. Using the total values of Em,n and
Om,n , the life cycle environmental impact of indicator m for case
study n is evaluated.
3
Table 1
GWP per MJ of fossil fuels and renewable
energy sources used in electricity gener-
ation in Ireland (Source: Ecoinvent (v3.4)
[47]).
Energy source GWP/MJdel
Coal 0.301
Oil 0.255
(1) Gas 0.105
0.285
Wind <1 MW 0.003
Wind >3 MW 0.006
(2) Wind 1-3 MW 0.004
0.234
Hydro-Run of River 0.001
(3)
The environmental impacts per MJdel of electricity, gas and coal
(4) are taken from Ecoinvent (v3.4) [47]. The environmental impact
of the building’s operational energy use is determined using Eq.
(5), where the estimated operational secondary energy use is esti-
mated from DEAP and the fuel environmental impacts from Ecoin-
vent (v3.4) [47].
Decarbonising electricity generation in Ireland is seen as one of
the key measures to transitioning to a low carbon, climate resilient
and environmentally sustainable economy by 2050 [53]. The Sus-
tainable Energy Authority of Ireland (SEAI) have projected Ireland’s
energy demand across multiple sectors including electricity gener-
ation until 2035 [54]. Using the data [55], the conversion efficiency
and primary energy factor for each of the energy sources used
in electricity generation are calculated. Ecoinvent (v3.4) [47] pro-
vides the energy, GWP, ODP, AP, EP, and POCP intensities per MJdel
of electricity generated in Ireland during 2017. Ecoinvent (v3.4)
[47] also provides the energy, GWP, ODP, AP, EP and POCP intensi-
ties per MJdel of electricity generated for fossil fuel and renewable
energy sources used in the generation of electricity in Ireland. The
data from Ecoinvent (v3.4) on the environmental impact of fossil
fuel and renewable energy source electricity generation is based
on power plants in Ireland in 2012 which has been extrapolated to
2017. An example of the GWP per MJ of different energy sources
used for electricity generation in Ireland is given in Table 1.
To estimate the annual GWP intensity of the electricity grid
up 2035, the annual secondary energy contribution of fossil fu-
els and renewable energy sources for electricity generation sourced
from SEAI are multiplied by the energy source intensities of Ecoin-
vent (v3.4) [47] to calculate the total primary GWP emissions for
electricity generation. As shown in Table 2 for the calculated pri-
mary energy factor of peat, the conversion efficiency is found to
change over time. Any change in conversion efficiency for the en-
ergy sources is assumed to occur for the GWP MJdel values given
in Table 1.
Using the calculated total primary GWP emissions from elec-
tricity generation divided by the total secondary energy for elec-
tricity generation, annual GWP/MJdel of electricity generated inten-
sities for the Irish electricity grid up to 2035 are estimated. This
process is repeated for the energy, ODP, AP, EP and POCP indica-
tors to estimate the change in the impact of each indicator as the
grid becomes decarbonised. The calculated average annual growth
(5)
to 2035 and from 2028 to 2035 are shown in Table 3.
As can be seen in Table 3, the environmental impact of the Irish
electricity grid is expected to reduce across all environmental in-
dicators between 2017 and 2035. Demand for electricity in Ireland
is expected to grow up to 2035. Even though renewable energy is
expected to contribute to the growth in electricity demand, gas is
expected to be the main energy source for electricity generation
in Ireland by 2035. Peat’s contribution to electricity generation is
4 P. Moran, J. O’Connell and J. Goggins / Energy & Buildings 211 (2020) 109816
Table 2
Calculated primary energy factor (MJprim /MJdel ) of peat for electricity generation in Ireland.
Year 2014 2015
Primary energy factor (MJprim /MJdel ) 2.70 2.63
Table 3
Average annual growth rates of the indicators impact per MJ of
electricity generated from 2014 to 2035 and 2028 to 2035.
Average Annual Growth Rate (%)
Environmental Indicator 2017–2035 2028–2035
EN −1.07 −0.11
GWP −1.21 −0.10
ODP −0.07 −0.07
AP −1.26 0.07
EP −0.94 0.02
POCP −0.63 0.02
expected to drastically reduce from 2020 and is predicted to be
phased out of electricity generation by 2026. Coal’s contribution
to electricity generation has grown the last number of years but
is expected to start reducing from 2024 onwards before having a
marginal contribution from 2028 onwards.
GWP, ODP, AP, EP, POCP are all related to the emission of sub-
stances to the earth’s atmosphere. This analysis does not account
for any additional processes that may be installed to mitigate the
emission of substances to the earth’s atmosphere in the future.
Beyond 2035, the average annual growth rates of the indicators’
impact per MJ of electricity generated from 2028 to 2035 are used
to estimate the change in the impact of the indicator (Table 3).
Peat and coal are predicted to have been phased out or their con-
tribution marginalised in electricity generation by 2028. AP, EP and
POCP are expected to grow marginally from 2028 to 2035 as the
contribution of oil to the electricity generation fuel mix is pro-
jected to increase marginally in this period.
In the case studies which export electricity to the grid, the GWP
savings are assumed to have the same GWP intensity of the elec-
tricity grid for that given year. Other studies have suggested us-
ing the same GWP intensity as the electricity grid initially, be-
fore plateauing due to the GWP intensity of the marginal power
plant supplier. Eventually the GWP intensity of the electricity sup-
ply would start declining again due to the increasing decarbonisa-
tion of the electricity fuel supply [56]. This would have minimal
impact on the total GWP results of the case studies as the GWP in-
tensity would reach the same intensity at some point in the future
in these scenarios. Therefore, the exported electricity is assumed
to have the same GWP intensity as the electricity grid. The same
assumption is made with regards to all the electricity generation
environmental indicators.
2.3. Net construction costs
The external wall expanded polystyrene (EPS) insulation and
cavity wall beaded EPS insulation material and labour costs are
sourced from an insulation supplier [57]. The Tabula project as-
sessed basic and advanced retrofit steps to improve the energy effi-
ciency of Irish residential buildings [58]. The costs of material and
labour for the roof insulation energy efficiency retrofit measures
are taken from the Tabula project. For the price of rock wool in-
sulation, the material costs are sourced from an insulation price
guide [59]. For the cost of labour for installing the rock wool insu-
lation, the cost of labour for installing the mineral wool insulation
is used. The cost of labour for installing the mineral wool insula-
tion is assumed to be the difference in the material cost of mineral
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
2.63 2.66 2.66 2.66 2.63 2.63 2.63 2.63 2.63 2.63
wool insulation from the insulation price guide [59] and the cost
of material and labour from the Tabula project [58].
For the window and door costs, Tabula only provides a cost/m2
for different window and door U-values. However, a price for win-
dows and doors with a U-value of 0.7 W/m2 K is not included in
the Tabula document [58]. In addition, the cost of a window and
door depends on multiple factors including frame design, frame
size, and material. As such, costs for the manufacturing and in-
stallation of windows and doors are instead sourced from Munster
Joinery [60]. Costs for the materials and labour of upgrading the
heating system and the installation of renewable technology are
sourced from an architect firm [61], a building contractor [62], a
heat pump supplier [63], a solar PV supplier [64] and the Tabula
project [58].
2.4. Operational economic costs
Annual operational secondary energy and the energy savings
from the examined retrofit packages are estimated using DEAP
[52]. A life span of 30 years is assumed in this analysis. 2015 en-
ergy prices for electricity, gas and coal [65] are used with the op-
erational energy demand estimated from DEAP to determine the
operational economic costs and savings for the retrofit solutions.
As required in the cost-optimal methodology [8], the operational
costs account for future energy price scenarios. The price of elec-
tricity, gas and coal in Ireland is sourced every year dating back
to 1990 [65]. The Irish energy market experienced price increases
and decreases over the past three decades with the increases out-
weighing the decreases. Residential electricity prices grew by an
annual average growth rate of 3.0% between 1990 and 2018. Res-
idential gas and coal prices grew by annual average growth rates
of 2.7% and 3.3%, respectively. It is assumed that Irish fuel energy
prices will experience the same annual growth rates into the fu-
ture in this analysis.
2.5. Cost-optimal methodology framework
The cost-optimal methodology framework for calculating cost
optimal levels of minimum energy performance requirements for
buildings and building elements [8,9] is used in this analysis to
determine the cost-optimal solution from both a householder per-
spective and a societal perspective. However, the embodied en-
ergy of the materials invested into a building is accounted for in
the current study despite not being required as part of the cost-
optimal methodology framework set out by the EPBD. The life cy-
cle cost (LCC) part of the cost-optimal methodology framework for
case study n can be expressed mathematically as:
 
 
y
 
LCCn = NCC + OEC j,x Rdx + C c j,x − V f j,y (6)
j x=1
where NCC is the net construction cost or initial investment costs
(€), OECj,x is the operational economic cost during year x for heat-
ing system j, Ccj,x is the carbon cost during year x for heating sys-
tem j based on the sum of the annual GWP emissions, Vfj,y is the
residual value of heating system j at the end of the building lifes-
pan y and Rdx which is the discount factor for year x based on
 P. Moran, J. O’Connell and J. Goggins / Energy & Buildings 211 (2020) 109816 5

Table 4 a building and recycling/selling/disposing of materials/systems are

Retrofit energy efficiency grants available to
not considered in the life cycle cost analysis, as they are excluded
householders in Ireland from SEAI [66].
from the life cycle environmental analysis. The standing charges
SEAI Better Energy Grants for energy companies are excluded from the analysis in both the
Thermal Fabric Grant
householder and societal scenarios.
Attic €400
Cavity Wall €400 2.6. Sustainability Index Factor (SIF)
Semi-Detached Internal Dry lining €2200
Semi-Detached External Insulation €4500
This study examines the impact of the residential retrofit pack-
Heating System Grant ages using six life cycle environmental indicators and one life cy-
Air to Water Heat Pump €3500 cle cost indicator, as shown in Table 6. To be able to examine the
Heating Controls €700 trade-offs between multiple indicators from a householder and so-
cietal perspective, this analysis uses the Sustainable Index Factor
Renewable Technologies Grant
(SIF) previously used to assess the sustainability of new build nZEB
Solar Thermal €1200 residential buildings [69], which can be expressed mathematically
PV (per kWp installed) €700
for case study n as:
aEC On + bSOCn + cENVn
SIFn = (8)
discount rate r which is determined using: k
 1
x where a, b and c are weighting factors for each of the respective
Rdx = (7) categories; k is  (a,b,c); ECOn is the economic impact of case study
1 + r/100 n; SOCn is the social impact of case study n; and ENVn is the en-
where x is the number of years from the starting period and r vironmental impact of case study n and can be expressed mathe-
means the real discount rate. matically as:
The LCC can be used from a customer/householder perspec- ⎡⎛ ⎞ ⎤
tive and from a macroeconomic/societal perspective. From a cus- 
q
EC On = ⎣⎝  ec om,n
 ⎠wm ⎦ (9)
tomer/householder perspective, all grant subsidies and applicable p
ecom,n
n=1
m=1
taxes including Value Added Tax (VAT) and charges should be p
taken into account, but the cost of carbon should be excluded [9]. ⎡⎛ ⎞ ⎤
When examining the LCC of a retrofit package from a macroeco- 
q

nomic/societal perspective, all grant subsidies and applicable taxes SOCn = ⎣⎝  so

p
cm,n
 ⎠wm ⎦ (10)
n=1
socm,n
including VAT and charges should be excluded and a new cost cat- m=1 p
egory cost of carbon should be included [9]. Ireland is facing fines ⎡⎛ ⎞ ⎤
from the EU if it does not meet energy efficiency and carbon re-

q
envm,n
duction targets by 2020 and beyond to 2030 [54]. Instead of pay- ENVn = ⎣⎝  p  ⎠w m ⎦ (11)
envm,n
ing fines, the Irish government are investing in building energy m=1 n=1
p
efficiency retrofit measures to achieve energy and carbon reduc-
tion targets by offering grants to householders. Multiple grant pro- where ecom,n is the impact of economic indicator m for case study
grammes are offered by SEAI to householders to encourage invest- n, socm,n is the impact of social indicator m for case study n, envm,n
ment in energy efficiency retrofit measures [66], as for example in is the impact of environmental indicator m for case study n, wm
Tables 4 and 5, respectively. In this analysis, grant subsidies are is the weighting applied for each indicator depending on the cat-
taken into account from both the householder and societal per- egories importance, q is the number of indicators evaluated in
spective, as the government will have to pay fines if energy effi- each of the economic, social and environmental categories and p
ciency and carbon reduction targets are not met. is the number of case studies evaluated. The sum of the weight-
The cost per tonne of carbon produced by a building is assumed ings ( (wm )) applied to indicators in each category must add up
to be that used in the study carried out to determine the cost- to one. As can be seen from Eq. (8), each of the three categories
optimal nZEB energy performance standards for residential build- for the SIF can be given a different weighting depending on the
ings in Ireland [68]. As the analysis in the study for determining importance each of the three categories. Furthermore, the indica-
the nZEB energy performance standards is for 30 years, the cost tors in each of the categories can be given a different weighting
per tonne of carbon in the final year of their analysis is assumed depending on their importance.
to remain constant for the remaining 30 years of this analysis. This LCC is used as the economic indicator in the SIF. The LCC cal-
cost per tonne of carbon is also applied in the householder per- culated from the householder’s perspective as part of the cost-
spective scenario, as Irish energy customers pay a carbon tax de- optimal methodology is used in the SIF householder’s perspective
pending on their energy usage. scenario. The LCC calculated from a societal perspective as part of
A discount rate of 4% is applied for both the householder and the cost-optimal methodology is used in the SIF societal perspec-
societal scenarios. The costs associated with maintaining/repairing tive scenario.

Table 5
Maximum funding levels available to homes as part of the Better Energy Communities
Scheme [67].

Home Type Funding levels for each component

Private Energy Poor Up to 80%

Private Non-Energy Poor Up to 35%
Local Authority Homes Up to 35%
Housing Association Homes Up to 50% (Maximum 25% of homes may be fuel poor)
Deep Retrofit (BER A3) Additional 15%
6 P. Moran, J. O’Connell and J. Goggins / Energy & Buildings 211 (2020) 109816

Table 6
Category and indicator weightings for the householder and societal scenarios assessed using the SIF.

Category Economic’ Environmental Social

Householder 1 1 0
Societal 1 1 0

Indicator LCC EN GWP ODP AP EP POCP N/A

Householder 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Societal 1 0.25 0.25 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0

Abbreviations: AP, Acidification Potential; EN, Energy; EP, Eutrophication Potential; GWP, Global
Warming Potential; LCC, Life Cycle Cost; ODP, Ozone Depletion Potential; POCP, Photochemical
Ozone Creation Potential.

Table 7 ical typical 3-bed semi-detached residential house in Ireland. The

U-values (W/m2 K) of existing building elements and
theoretical case study building employed has been used in other
target U-values for basic and advanced retrofit pack-
ages. studies [69,70].
To examine the cost-optimal methodology for retrofitting cav-
Pre- Post-Retrofit
ity wall construction in Ireland against the results of the SIF, ba-
Building Element Retrofit Basic Advanced
sic and advanced thermal fabric and heating systems retrofit en-
Roof 0.36 0.10 0.10 ergy efficiency solutions were examined. The theoretical case study
Windows 2.8 1.5 0.7
building was assumed to have thermal fabric efficiencies which
Doors 3.1 1.5 0.7
Wall 0.46 0.33 0.15 meet the 1991 and 1997 Irish building element thermal fabric ef-
Floor 0.43 Existing Existing ficiency standards pre-retrofit [71,72]. The U-values of the building
elements before the retrofit and target U-values for basic and ad-
Table 8 vanced thermal fabric retrofit packages are shown in Table 7. The
Retrofit steps applied to building. retrofit process was split into steps, as summarised in Table 8. Each
step builds upon the previous. The steps were laid out to allow
Step Action
the retrofit to be completed over an extended period. The order of
0 Existing Building retrofit steps was similar to the Irish Tabula retrofit guide [73].
1 Roof Insulation
The impact of each step on the energy demand in the case
2 Window & Door Replacement
3 Wall Insulation study building was calculated using the DEAP software. Retrofitting
4 Heating System of floors is often omitted due to the financial cost of removing
5 Renewable Energy Technology and replacing the existing floors [35,74,75]. Therefore, energy sav-
ing measures for the floor of the house were not considered in
this analysis. The final step involved the addition of renewable en-
From a householder perspective, a householder is likely to place ergy technology to achieve the new nZEB building regulations for
the most importance on the energy demand of the house, as this is new residential buildings in Ireland. The regulations require new
what their energy bills are primarily based on. In the householder buildings to achieve a maximum energy performance coefficient
scenario, energy is given a weighting of one and the other environ- (EPC) of 0.3 and a maximum carbon performance coefficient (CPC)
mental indicators are ignored. The environmental category is given of 0.35 [43].
the same weighting as the economic category. The basic and advanced thermal fabric and heating system so-
From a societal perspective, many building retrofit environmen- lutions employed are summarised in Table 9. Typical fabric insu-
tal policy targets are related to energy and/or carbon. In this study, lation products such as expanded polystyrene (EPS), polyethylene
both energy and GWP are given a weighting of 0.25. The remain- and fibreglass have varying environmental impacts [23]. ‘Greener’
ing four environmental indicators are given an equal weighting of measures for the external wall and attic insulation were also as-
0.125. The environmental category is given the same weighting as sessed in the analysis. A matrix of the retrofit packages assessed
the economic category. is shown in Table 10. 35 different retrofit packages across five case
study building are assessed. A more detailed description of the ex-
3. Case study building and retrofit packages isting building elements and heating system and the energy effi-
ciency retrofit measures for each case study building is given in
The cost-optimal methodology and SIF framework are both used Table 11.
to assess the optimum retrofit solutions for retrofitting a theoret-

Table 9
Basic and advanced thermal fabric and heating system retrofit measures.

Fabric Basic ADV

Heating System Basic ADV Basic ADV

Roof JO JO JO JO JO JO JO JO JO JO JO JO
Windows & Door DG DG DG DG TG TG TG TG TG TG TG TG
Wall CW CW CW CW CW/EWI CW/IWI CW/EWI CW/IWI CW/EWI CW/IWI CW/EWI CW/IWI
Heating System∗ GB HP GB HP GB GB HP HP GB GB HP HP
Renewable SC/PV PV SC/PV SC/PV PV PV

Abbreviations: ADV, Advanced Retrofit Measure; CW, Pumped Cavity Wall Insulation; DG, uPVC double glazed windows and uPVC doors; EWI, Exter-
nal Wall Insulation; GB, Gas boiler; HP, Air Source Heat Pump; IWI, Internal Wall Insulation; JO, Insulation on Joists of Roof; PV, Multi-Crystalline
Photovoltaic; SC, Evacuated Tube Solar Collector; TG, uPVC Triple Glazed Windows and uPVC Doors.
∗
Includes Hot Water Tank and Heating Controls.
 P. Moran, J. O’Connell and J. Goggins / Energy & Buildings 211 (2020) 109816 7

Table 10
Matrix of retrofit packages applied to the theoretical case study building. Refer to Table 8, Table 9 and Table 11 for the
retrofit steps and measures applied.

Retrofit Package Retrofit Step

S0 S1 S2 S3 S4(a) S4(b) S5(a) S5(b)

A EXT BAS BAS BAS BAS-Gas BAS-ASHP ADV-Gas ADV-ASHP

B EXT BAS ADV-PVC ADV-EWI BAS-Gas BAS-ASHP ADV-Gas ADV-ASHP
C EXT BAS ADV-ALU ADV-IWI BAS-Gas BAS-ASHP ADV-Gas ADV-ASHP
D EXT BAS-G ADV-PVC ADV-EWI-G BAS-Gas BAS-ASHP ADV-Gas ADV-ASHP
E EXT BAS-G ADV-ALU ADV-IWI BAS-Gas BAS-ASHP ADV-Gas ADV-ASHP

Abbreviations: ADV, Advanced Retrofit Measure; ALU, Aluclad Window and Door Measure; ASHP, Air Source Heat Pump
; BAS, Basic Retrofit Measure; EWI, External Wall Insulation; EXT, Existing Building; G, Green Insulation Measure ; IWT,
Internal Wall Insulation; PVC, PVC Window and Door Measure.

Table 11
Detailed description of the retrofit solutions and their associated U-values (W/m2 K) for each of the five case study buildings.

Description Retrofit Package U-Value

S1: Roof Insulation

Existing: Domestic 30° pitched tiled roof, 2 mm breathable felt, batons (35 × 35 mm), rafters (44 × 175 mm), joists 0.356
(44 × 225 mm), 100 mm fibreglass insulation (λ = 0.04 W/mK) and 13 mm plasterboard ceiling.
Retrofit Measures:
300 mm mineral wool insulation (λ = 0.04 W/mK) applied in between and above joists of roof A-C 0.103
300 mm rockwool insulation (λ = 0.04 W/mK) applied in between and above joists of roof D, E 0.103
S2: Window and Door Replacement
Existing: Double glazed uPVC windows (U-value: 3 W/m2 k) and uPVC doors (U-value: 3.1 W/m2 k)
Retrofit Measures:
Double glazed uPVC windows & uPVC doors A 1.5
Triple glazed passive uPVC windows & uPVC doors B, D 0.7
Triple glazed passive Aluclad windows & Aluclad doors C, E 0.7
S3: Wall Insulation
Existing: Cavity block wall,19 mm external plaster, 100 mm concrete block, 35 mm Air Cavity, 65 mm cavity rigid board insulation 0.459
(λ = 0.04 W/mK), 100 mm concrete block, 12.5 mm scratch coat, 5 mm gypsum coat and 3 layers of water-based paint either
side.
Retrofit Measures:
35 mm polystyrene bead cavity fill insulation (λ = 0.035 W/mK) A 0.343
9mm external render (λ = 0.57 W/mK), 170 mm external EPS insulation (λ = 0.037 W/mK) and 35 mm polystyrene bead cavity fill B 0.150
insulation (λ = 0.035 W/mK)
35 mm polystyrene bead cavity fill insulation (λ = 0.035 W/mK), 90 mm internal wall phenolic insulation (λ = 0.021 W/mK), C, E 0.153
12.5 mm plasterboard (λ = 0.19 W/mK) and 3 mm gypsum coat (λ = 0.05 W/mK)
9 mm external render (λ = 0.57 W/mK), 180 mm external wood fibre insulation (λ = 0.04 W/mK) and 35 mm polystyrene bead D 0.151
cavity fill insulation (λ = 0.035 W/mK)
S4: Heating System
Existing: Gas fired boiler with an efficiency of 77%. Solid fuel open fire with an efficiency of 30%. Natural ventilation used
throughout.
Retrofit Measures – Option (a):
Main Space and Water Heating – Gas boiler with efficiency of 92.1% and hot water tank, Secondary Space Heating- Electric fire A-E
heater with 100% efficiency and chimney sealed
Retrofit Measures – Option (b):
Main Space and Water Heating – Air to water (ATW) heat pump with efficiency of 397% and hot water tank, Secondary Space A-E
Heating- Electric fire heater with 100% efficiency and chimney sealed
S5: Renewable Energy Technology
Retrofit Measures – Option (a):
3.2 m2 evacuated solar tube collector (0.727 zero loss collector efficiency) & 20.4 m2 of photovoltaic panels (3.6 kWp) A
3.2m2 evacuated solar tube collector & 13.6 m2 of photovoltaic panels (2.4 kWp) B-E
Retrofit Measures – Option (b):
15.3 m2 of photovoltaic panels (2.7 kWp) A
10.2 m2 of photovoltaic panels. (1.8 kWp) B-E

Table 12
Energy demand (kWh/m2 ) of the theoretical case study building without any retrofit
measures (0) and the applied retrofit packages (1–5(b)).

Retrofit Package Retrofit Step

S0 S1 S2 S3 S4(a) S4(b) S5(a) S5(b)

A 189 180 164 152 126 97 42 45

B 189 180 151 122 101 79 41 43
C 189 180 151 122 101 78 41 43
D 189 180 151 122 101 78 41 43
E 189 180 151 122 101 78 41 43
8 P. Moran, J. O’Connell and J. Goggins / Energy & Buildings 211 (2020) 109816

The existing original theoretical case study building was as- Table 13
The impact a range of EPGs pre- and post-retrofit has on the number of
sumed to have an air permeability of 10 m3 /(h.m2 ). Houses that
retrofit packages which reduced the LCCs of the theoretical case study
were classified to have (i) received grant support on the SEAI Na- building without any retrofit measures (grant aid not accounted for).
tional BER Research Tool database [76], (ii) had an air-tightness test
EPG Post-Retrofit (%) EPG Pre-Retrofit (%)
complete and (iii) achieved a BER rating of B1 or B2 achieved an
50 25 10 0 −10 −25 −50
average air permeability of 3.9 m3 /(h.m2 ). Houses that achieved
a BER rating of B3 or C1 achieved an average air permeability of 50 12 0 0 0 0 0 0
25 18 9 0 0 0 0 0
8.6 m3 /(h.m2 ).
10 20 12 6 0 0 0 0
In this analysis after completing step 3 for the basic retrofit 0 21 15 10 5 0 0 0
of the thermal fabric (Retrofit Package A), the building achieved −10 23 17 12 10 5 0 0
a C1 BER rating and was assumed to have an air permeability of −25 25 18 14 12 10 3 0
−50 27 21 18 16 13 12 3
7 m3 /(h.m2 ). After completing step 3 for the more advanced up-
grade of the thermal fabric (Retrofit Packages B–E), the building Note: Bold indicates that the life cycle cost estimates using DEAP results in
achieved a B1 BER rating and was assumed to have an air perme- zero energy performance gap and five retrofit measures result in reduced
LCC compared to original building.
ability of 5 m3 /(h.m2 ).

4. Results
4.1. Cost-optimal
Table 12 shows the energy demand of the theoretical case study
building without any retrofit measures (0) and the applied retrofit
packages (1–5(b)). Fig. 1 shows the cost-optimal results of the the-
oretical case study building without any retrofit measures (0) and
the applied retrofit packages (1–5(b)) from a householder perspec-
tive. The operational cost savings achieved from the energy effi-
ciency retrofit measures did not outweigh the initial investment
costs for most of the retrofit packages for the semi-detached house.
Apart from applying mineral wool or rock wool insulation to the
joists of the attic, all other retrofit packages were found to have
larger LCCs than the original building.
Current SEAI grants available to householders, given in Table 4,
were accounted for in the results of Fig. 1 (b). Due to the grants,
the LCC gap between the existing original case study building and
the retrofit packages reduced. However, only two additional retrofit
packages (Retrofit Package A-S3 and A-S4(a)) result in lower LCC
compared to the original building without any retrofit measures.
VAT for construction materials and labour is currently at 13.5%.
When both grants available were included and the VAT for materi-
als and labour excluded, two additional retrofit packages (Retrofit
Package A-S5(a)/(b)) reduced the LCC of the existing building
(Fig. 1 (c)). The two additional retrofit packages were deep retrofits
with basic thermal fabric measures and advanced heating system
measures.
For houses involved in the SEAI Better Energy Communities
Scheme, grants covering up to 80% of the energy efficiency retrofit
costs are available (Table 5). Assuming there was a grant available
covering 50% of the retrofit costs, 22 of the 35 retrofit packages re-
duced the LCC of the building (Fig. 1 (d)). A 50% grant is available
to housing association homes and private households in fuel poor
homes. However, private households in non-fuel poor homes and
local authority homes can avail of a 50% grant if they undergo a
deep retrofit and achieve a BER of A3. Retrofit Package A-S5(a) had
the lowest LCC of the 35 retrofit packages. 10 of the 35 retrofit
packages analysed achieved an A2 BER rating (A–E S5(a)/S5(b)).
The 10 retrofit packages include advanced heating system mea-
sures in addition to either basic or advanced retrofit packages anal-
ysed achieved an A2 rating (A–E S5(a)/S5(b)). The 10 retrofit pack-
ages include advanced heating system measures in addition to ei-
ther basic or advanced thermal fabric measures. Six of these 10
retrofit packages lowered the LCC of the existing building when
50% of the costs were assumed to be covered through a grant. The
four retrofit packages designed to achieve an A2 rating that did not
lower the LCC of the existing building, when 50% of the costs were
assumed to be covered through a grant, were based on using exter-
nal insulation. Furthermore, the internal insulation-based packages
that achieved an A2 rating while lowering the LCC of the original
semi-detached building did not account for the cost of removing
and reinstalling kitchen cabinets etc. to add the internal insulation
to the walls.
The cost-optimal results of the theoretical building and the ap-
plied retrofit packages from a societal perspective showed that five
shallow retrofit packages which installed mineral wool and rock
wool insulation on the joists of the attic reduced the LCC of the
theoretical case study building. Once the grants available to house-
holders were considered, eight of the 35 retrofit packages had
lower LCC compared to the existing theoretical building. 22 of the
retrofit packages reduced the LCC of the existing building when
assuming 50% of the costs are covered by a grant. Retrofit Package
A-S5(a) had the lowest LCC from a societal perspective.
4.1.1. Sensitivity analysis
The results of the previous section were based on the pre-
and post-retrofit energy demand estimated by the DEAP software.
DEAP is based on quasi-steady state formulae for estimating the
energy demand of residential buildings. However, studies have
shown there to be a difference between the actual energy con-
sumption of a building in comparison to the estimated energy de-
mand using quasi-steady state formulae. The energy performance
gap (EPG) is a metric used to assess the actual energy consump-
tion as a proportion of theoretical energy demand [77]. Using in-
formation provided in published studies on building retrofits which
estimated energy demand using steady state formulae [78–85], the
EPGs of the studies ranged from -44% to 64% pre-retrofit and -66%
to 55% post-retrofit.
A sensitivity analysis was carried out for a range of EPGs pre-
and post-retrofit for the retrofit packages examined in the previ-
ous section. Table 13 gives the impact a range of EPGs pre- and
post-retrofit has on the number of retrofit packages which re-
duced the LCCs of the theoretical case study building without any
retrofit measures. An EPG with a negative percentage means that
the case study building has a lower energy demand in compari-
son to the theoretical estimates. For example, an EPG of -50% pre-
retrofit means that the case study building uses half of the esti-
mated energy demand pre-retrofit.
The estimated energy demand results presented in the previous
section are applicable when there is no EPG pre- or post-retrofit.
In this instance, five retrofit packages would lead to a lower LCC
(Table 13). The results given in Table 13 do not account for any
grant aid available. As can be seen from the results of Table 13, if
the EPG pre-retrofit was less than the EPG post-retrofit, no retrofit
package lead to a reduction in LCC. For example, this occurred if
the EPG pre-retrofit was -10% and the EPG post-retrofit was 0%. If
the EPG pre-retrofit was equal to the EPG post-retrofit and the EPG
pre-retrofit was greater than 0%, then a greater number of retrofit
packages (more than 5) reduced the LCC of the original case study
 P. Moran, J. O’Connell and J. Goggins / Energy & Buildings 211 (2020) 109816 9

Fig. 1. Cost-optimal results of the theoretical case study building and the applied retrofit packages from a householder perspective (a) excluding grants available, (b) including
grants available to householders to retrofit home, (c) excluding VAT for materials and labour and including grants available to householders to retrofit home and (d) assuming
a grant covering 50% of the costs is available.

building. For example, this occurred if the EPG pre-retrofit was 10%
and the EPG post-retrofit was 10%.
Applying mineral wool insulation to the joists of the attic are
found to be the most risk-free retrofit packages for achieving a de-
crease in LCC, as it is still cost effective even if minimum energy
savings occur (i.e. if the EPG pre-retrofit is -50% and the EPG post-
retrofit is -50%). Where both the EPG pre-retrofit and EPG post-
retrofit is 50%, the deep retrofit packages with basic thermal fabric
measures and advanced heating system measures are found to be
the cost optimal packages (A S5(a)/S5(b)).
Even when assuming householders can avail of a 50% grant
(Table 14), applying mineral wool insulation to the joists of the at-
tic was found to be the most risk-free retrofit package for achiev-
ing a decrease in LCC. If the post-retrofit EPG was greater than the
pre-retrofit EPG, Retrofit Packages A-E S1, A-S2-S4, B-S2 and D-S2
were more probable to decrease the LCC.
10 P. Moran, J. O’Connell and J. Goggins / Energy & Buildings 211 (2020) 109816

Fig. 2. Embodied (E) and operational (O) life cycle cost (LCC) and life cycle (LC) environmental impact for the various steps of Retrofit Package A.

Table 14 EPS external insulation, used in retrofit package B, was less ex-
The impact a range of EPGs pre- and post-retrofit has on the number of
pensive than wood fibre external insulation in terms of economic
retrofit packages which reduced the life cycle costs of the theoretical case
study building without any retrofit measures (assuming a grant covering cost, which was used in retrofit package D. From an environmen-
50% of the costs is available). tal standpoint, EPS was also the better option than wood fibre in
terms of its embodied energy, AP and EP impact. However, wood
EPG Post-Retrofit (%) EPG Pre-Retrofit (%)
50 25 10 0 −10 −25 −50 fibre board had less of a GWP, ODP and POCP environmental im-
pact. Aluclad triple glazed windows (employed in retrofit packages
50 33 13 6 2 1 0 0
C and E) were a more expensive option compared to uPVC triple
25 35 31 11 5 2 0 0
10 35 33 26 11 2 0 0 glazed windows (employed in retrofit package B and D), but were
0 35 35 32 22 3 1 0 more environmentally friendly in terms of GWP and POCP.
−10 35 35 32 26 19 1 0 As the buildings became more energy efficient, the embodied
−25 35 35 35 31 25 12 0
impact of the retrofit measures became the main contributor to the
−50 35 35 35 35 30 21 5
LCC, life cycle ODP, life cycle AP, life cycle EP and life cycle POCP
(Table 15). In some cases, the embodied impact of the materials
represented the whole life cycle indicator impact. The LCC results
4.2. Life cycle cost (LCC) and life cycle (LC) environmental shown in Table 15 do not account for any grant available or VAT
tax break.
Fig. 2 shows the LCC and life cycle environmental impact for Table 16 shows the retrofit package with the minimum and
the various steps of Retrofit Package A. The LCC results shown in maximum LC impact for each of the economic and environmen-
Fig. 2 do not account for any grant available or VAT tax break. The tal indicators. As can be seen from the results in Table 16, no one
original theoretical building reduced its life cycle EN and life cycle retrofit package is the optimum solution for every indicator eval-
GWP following each retrofit step. However, the LCC and other LC uated. The LCC results shown in Table 16 do not account for any
environmental indicators did not follow this trend as the building grant available or VAT tax break.
becomes more energy efficient. The same was found for Retrofit
Packages B, C, D and E. 4.3. Sustainable Index Factor (SIF)
Switching from a gas fuel heating system to an electric heat-
ing system (S4(a) to S4(b)) significantly reduced the life cycle EN The SIF was used to assess the optimum retrofit package for the
and life cycle GWP. However, the embodied impact of the ASHP theoretical case study building both from a householder’s perspec-
heating system and the environmental impact of the Irish electric- tive and societal perspective based on the weightings discussed in
ity grid resulted in increases in the life cycle ODP, life cycle AP, Section 2.6. Shown in Table 17 are the impacts of the retrofit pack-
life cycle EP and life cycle POCP. Moving to the nZEB new build ages from a householder’s perspective considering LCC and life cy-
standards for the gas fuelled buildings was achieved using ETSC cle EN.
and MCPV. Despite the operational ODP savings from the renew- Table 18 shows the impacts of the retrofit packages from a
able technology, the initial environmental investment in producing householder’s perspective but including available grants. The SIF
the renewable technology increased the LC impact of ODP when results of Table 19 account for available grants and exclude VAT for
moving from retrofit steps S4(a) to S5(a). materials and labour and Table 20 assumes that 50% of the retrofit
Environmentally friendly materials come at an additional cost. cost is covered through a grant.
For insulation on the joists of the roof, mineral wool insulation was Implementing the basic thermal fabric retrofit measures for all
used as a retrofit measure in retrofit packages A–C and rock wool the building elements and introducing a gas boiler or heat pump
insulation was used as a retrofit measure in retrofit packages D–E, with renewable energy technology were found to be the optimum
respectively. While rock wool was more environmentally friendly packages of energy efficiency measures in Tables 17–20. The ASHP
in each of the assessed environmental indicators, mineral wool was retrofit packages (S4(b) and S5(b)) outperformed most of their gas
financially the less expensive option. For example, rock wool had boiler retrofit package counterpart (S4(a) and S5(a)) apart from
an embodied impact 28% and 38% that of mineral wool in terms of package C and when a grant of 50% is available. Regardless of the
energy and GWP. However, mineral wool is €10/m2 (i.e. 51%) less retrofit package implemented on the case study building, all out-
expensive. performed the existing building.
 P. Moran, J. O’Connell and J. Goggins / Energy & Buildings 211 (2020) 109816 11

Table 15
Maximum embodied share of a building’s life cycle for each of the economic and environmental indica-
tors.

Case Study/Indicator Cost (%) GWP (%) EN (%) ODP (%) AP (%) EP (%) POCP (%)

A 89 32 23 89 100 100 100

B 91 36 28 87 100 100 95
C 89 32 26 87 100 100 91
D 91 26 36 86 100 100 90
E 90 30 24 87 100 100 90

Table 16
Retrofit package with the minimum and maximum LC impact for each of the economic and environmental
indicators.

Cost GWP EN ODP AP EP POCP

€ kgCO2 eq MJ kg CFC11 eq kg SO2 eq kg (PO4 )3− eq kg C2 H4 eq

Min A-C S1 D S5(b) E S5(b) D S4(a) A S5(a) B S3 A S5(a)

Max D S5(a) S0 S0 C S4(b) C S4(b) C S4(b) S0

Table 17
SIF impacts of the retrofit packages from a householder’s perspective.

Retrofit Package Retrofit Step

S0 S1 S2 S3 S4(a) S4(b) S5(a) S5(b)

A 1.160 1.112 1.082 1.019 0.906 0.883 0.753 0.677

B 1.160 1.112 1.021 1.070 0.987 1.005 0.949 0.863
C 1.160 1.113 1.063 0.992 0.909 1.036 0.870 0.784
D 1.160 1.119 1.028 1.134 1.051 1.059 1.013 0.926
E 1.160 1.119 1.068 0.993 0.910 0.917 0.871 0.785

Table 18
SIF impacts of the retrofit packages from a householder’s perspective accounting for available
grants.

Retrofit Package Retrofit Step

S0 S1 S2 S3 S4(a) S4(b) S5(a) S5(b)

A 1.205 1.151 1.125 1.055 0.934 0.875 0.686 0.629

B 1.205 1.151 1.062 1.070 0.980 0.963 0.861 0.801
C 1.205 1.152 1.108 1.010 0.920 1.018 0.802 0.741
D 1.205 1.158 1.070 1.138 1.048 1.020 0.930 0.869
E 1.205 1.158 1.115 1.012 0.922 0.894 0.804 0.743

Table 19
SIF impacts of the retrofit packages from a householder’s perspective accounting for available
grants and excluding VAT for materials and labour.

Retrofit Package Retrofit Step

S0 S1 S2 S3 S4(a) S4(b) S5(a) S5(b)

A 1.224 1.168 1.143 1.071 0.945 0.872 0.653 0.608

B 1.224 1.168 1.080 1.065 0.969 0.938 0.812 0.765
C 1.224 1.169 1.128 1.017 0.922 1.008 0.765 0.717
D 1.224 1.175 1.087 1.160 1.065 1.023 0.908 0.860
E 1.224 1.175 1.134 1.019 0.924 0.881 0.766 0.719

Table 21 shows the impacts of the retrofit packages from a
societal perspective including all indicators. Unlike the results of
Tables 17 to 20, many of the retrofit packages involving switch-
ing to an electric ASHP were found to be worse than the exist-
ing building. Four of the top five retrofit packages included replac-
ing the existing gas boiler with a more efficient gas boiler. Unlike
Tables 17–19, the gas boiler retrofit packages (S4(a) and S5(a)) of-
ten outperformed their ASHP retrofit package counterpart (S4(b)
and S5(b)) in Table 21. Once grants were accounted for in the
analysis, all the gas boiler retrofit packages (S4(a) and S5(a)) often
outperformed their ASHP retrofit package counterpart (S4(b) and
S5(b)) (Tables 22 and 23). With grants, more of the retrofit pack-
ages including renewable technology became more viable options.
Assuming a grant covering up to 50% of the costs, Retrofit Package
A-5(a) was the best option both from a householder’s perspective
and societal perspective.
4.3.1. Sensitivity analysis
The results of the previous section were based on the pre- and
post-retrofit energy demand estimated by the DEAP software. A
sensitivity analysis was carried out for a range of EPGs pre- and
post-retrofit for the retrofit packages examined in the previous sec-
tion. Table 24 gives the impact a range of EPGs pre- and post-
retrofit has on the number of retrofit packages which reduced the
SIF impact of the theoretical case study building from a societal
perspective. The estimated energy demand results of the previous
section occur when there is no EPG pre- or post-retrofit. In this
instance, 31 retrofit packages would lead to a reduced SIF impact
(Table 24).
If minimum and maximum energy savings occurred for all the
retrofit packages, Retrofit Package A-S4(a) remained the optimum
package if no grants are accounted for, similar to the results of
Table 21. Following Retrofit Package A-S4(a), the shallow retrofit
12 P. Moran, J. O’Connell and J. Goggins / Energy & Buildings 211 (2020) 109816

Table 20
SIF impacts of the retrofit packages from a householder’s perspective assuming a grant of 50% is
available.

Retrofit Package Retrofit Step

S0 S1 S2 S3 S4(a) S4(b) S5(a) S5(b)

A 1.291 1.234 1.174 1.100 0.962 0.890 0.627 0.604

B 1.291 1.234 1.099 1.062 0.955 0.926 0.764 0.727
C 1.291 1.234 1.129 1.008 0.902 0.998 0.710 0.673
D 1.291 1.238 1.103 1.114 1.007 0.966 0.815 0.778
E 1.291 1.238 1.132 1.007 0.900 0.859 0.708 0.671

Table 21
SIF impacts of the retrofit packages from a societal perspective.

Retrofit Package Retrofit Step

S0 S1 S2 S3 S4(a) S4(b) S5(a) S5(b)

A 1.067 1.022 1.009 0.949 0.803 0.990 0.805 0.827

B 1.067 1.022 0.950 1.025 0.935 1.139 1.047 1.028
C 1.067 1.023 1.003 0.948 0.858 1.172 0.970 0.951
D 1.067 1.027 0.955 1.073 0.983 1.176 1.095 1.076
E 1.067 1.027 1.007 0.947 0.857 1.050 0.969 0.950

Table 22
SIF impacts of the retrofit packages from a societal perspective accounting for grants available.

Retrofit Package Retrofit Step

S0 S1 S2 S3 S4(a) S4(b) S5(a) S5(b)

A 1.116 1.064 1.056 0.988 0.834 0.981 0.730 0.773

B 1.116 1.064 0.996 1.023 0.926 1.090 0.949 0.958
C 1.116 1.065 1.054 0.969 0.871 1.152 0.894 0.903
D 1.116 1.070 1.002 1.080 0.983 1.135 1.005 1.015
E 1.116 1.070 1.059 0.969 0.871 1.023 0.894 0.903

Table 23
SIF impacts of the retrofit packages from a societal perspective assuming 50% of the costs are
covered by a grant.

Retrofit Package Retrofit Step

S0 S1 S2 S3 S4(a) S4(b) S5(a) S5(b)

A 1.198 1.144 1.100 1.029 0.859 0.997 0.684 0.756

B 1.198 1.144 1.027 1.018 0.905 1.062 0.868 0.896
C 1.198 1.145 1.067 0.963 0.850 1.135 0.813 0.841
D 1.198 1.147 1.030 1.045 0.932 1.077 0.895 0.923
E 1.198 1.147 1.069 0.960 0.847 0.992 0.810 0.838

Table 24 5. Discussion and conclusions

The impact a range of EPGs pre- and post-retrofit has on the num-
ber of retrofit packages which reduce the SIF impact of the theoret-
ical case study building from a societal perspective. The objective of the theoretical case study presented in this
study was not to provide an optimal retrofit design solution for all
EPG-POST (%) EPG-PRE (%)
semi-detached houses in Ireland, as the number of case studies ex-
50 25 10 0 −10 −25 −50
amined was not sufficient. The objective was to examine whether
50 35 17 9 2 1 0 0 the optimum energy efficiency retrofit design differs based on mul-
25 35 34 21 9 2 0 0
tiple indicators rather than relying on only energy consumption
10 35 35 32 17 5 0 0
0 35 35 34 31 14 1 0 and financial cost. 35 different energy efficiency retrofit packages
−10 35 35 35 32 26 5 0 for a theoretical gas-heated cavity wall semi-detached house were
−25 35 35 35 35 30 20 0 examined using both the cost-optimal methodology and the SIF us-
−50 35 35 35 35 35 28 9
ing multiple indicators from a householder and societal perspec-
tive.
Using the cost-optimal approach, it was found that without the
use of tax breaks and/or grants, only shallow retrofits (attic insula-
packages applying insulation to the joists of the attic were found
tion) were cost-effective for an energy efficiency retrofit. This may
to be the next best retrofit options.
be due to the retrofit packages examined as the difference in the
If both the EPG pre- and post-retrofit is 50%, Retrofit Packages
shallow and advanced building element U-values was large, and
A-S5(a) and A-S5(b) are the best options with Retrofit Package A-
window retrofits are also not recommended in terms of cost pay-
S4(a) being the 6th best option. In this instance, the gas boiler
back for houses constructed from the 1980s onwards [58]. How-
retrofit packages (S4(a) and S5(a)) outperformed each of their
ever, once government aided grants were considered, deeper en-
ASHP retrofit package counterparts (S4(b) and S5(b)). Where mini-
ergy efficiency retrofit packages became cost-optimal. This high-
mum and maximum energy savings occur, the ASHP retrofit pack-
lighted the need for government aid in encouraging deep energy
ages (S5(b)) outperformed each of their gas boiler retrofit package
efficiency retrofit of the residential housing stock.
counterparts (S5(a)).
 P. Moran, J. O’Connell and J. Goggins / Energy & Buildings 211 (2020) 109816
The cost-optimal methodology and the SIF householder’s per-
spective scenario both found that implementing the basic thermal
fabric retrofit measures for all the building elements and introduc-
ing a gas boiler or heat pump with renewable energy technology
to be the optimum packages (Retrofit Package A-S5(a)/(b)) once
grants were considered. Most of the retrofit packages including re-
newable technology that moved the case study building towards
nZEB new build energy standards were found to be the optimum
packages once grants were accounted for.
When examined from a societal perspective considering all the
evaluated indicators in the SIF, it was found that a gas boiler
heating system upgrade following upgrading the building elements
was among the lowest SIF impacts. For designing energy efficiency
retrofits, the results have shown the importance of considering life
cycle environmental indicators and including more indicators other
energy and cost when evaluating the sustainability of a building
retrofit design. When only considering cost and energy, the ASHP
retrofit packages (S4(b) and S5(b)) outperformed many of their gas
retrofit package counterpart (S4(a) and S5(a)) in many instances.
Conversely, once all the indicators were considered, the gas retrofit
packages (S4(a) and S5(a)) outperformed their ASHP retrofit pack-
age counterparts in most instances (S4(b) and S5(b)).
The life cycle EN and life cycle GWP results supported having
grants available to householders to install an ASHP and/or renew-
able technology. However, for other environmental indicators eval-
uated, heat pumps and adding renewable technology were found
to be worse in many instances due to the environmental embod-
ied impact of the systems and the environmental impact of the
electricity grid. For retrofit steps S-4(b), S-5(a) or S-5(b), the intro-
duction of an ASHP heating system and/or renewable technology
resulted in larger life cycle ODP, life cycle EP, life cycle AP and life
cycle POCP impacts. In some energy efficiency retrofit packages,
the embodied environmental impact from the introduction of an
ASHP and/or renewable technology accounted for the total life cy-
cle ODP, life cycle EP, life cycle AP and life cycle POCP impact. The
environmental impacts can be mitigated by developing more en-
vironmentally friendly production processes or recycling the tech-
nology at the end of their life span, which was not considered in
the analysis.
Due to the ASHP having an efficiency of approximately four
times that of the gas boiler, an ASHP was better environmentally
in terms of operational EN, GWP, ODP and POCP. However, for AP
and EP, a gas boiler was found to be less impactful. The analysis
found that if Ireland is to continue moving toward a more electri-
fied economy which will increase the demand for electricity, the
environmental impact of electricity generation for multiple indica-
tors needs to be continuously monitored and mitigated to ensure
Ireland achieves its goal of a sustainable economy by 2050.
In the SIF analysis, a limited number of indicators were as-
sessed, and indicator weightings assumed for the householder
and societal evaluations. Further research is needed into selecting
appropriate indicators, indicator weightings and an optimization
methodology for assessing the sustainability of a building retrofit
design. The cost-optimal approach was found to be effective for
identifying retrofit packages that are among the best packages even
without accounting for multiple environmental indicators. How-
ever, once multiple indicators were considered the hierarchy of the
optimal retrofit packages changed. While the cost-optimal method
should not be relied on solely for identifying the optimum retrofit
package solution, it could be employed as part of the multistage
assessment methodology for narrowing down design solution sam-
ple sizes such as that employed by Tadeu et al [35]. Using the re-
maining array of retrofit packages solutions, the optimum retrofit
package could be identified using multiple indicators.
While partially government funded building energy efficiency
retrofit packages may be cost-effective in theory, the actual en-
13
ergy consumption of houses may result in different optimum en-
ergy efficiency retrofit packages or retrofit packages not being cost-
effective for a householder. A sensitivity analysis on the impact of
pre- and post-retrofit EPGs revealed the optimum retrofit packages
to be impacted on the accuracy of the quasi-steady state formulae.
With EPGs common in retrofit studies [78–85], more research is
required to understand the factors driving EPGs for existing and
retrofitted residential buildings as energy use in buildings is af-
fected by the interrelationships between the physical performance
of the fabric, building systems, the occupants’ understanding of the
building systems, expectations and perception of comfort and oc-
cupants habitual behaviours [86,87].
In summary, the results of this study find that:
• Deep energy efficiency retrofits are economically feasible in Ire-
land with aid from government grants and tax breaks for semi-
detached gas heated houses in Ireland constructed between
1991 and 2002. Without these incentives, only shallow retrofits
are economically feasible.
• The ranking of energy efficiency retrofit designs based on mul-
tiple life cycle environmental, and cost indicators differ com-
pared to cost optimum designs based on only life cycle energy
and cost indicators.
• Savings in terms of energy and GWP support the availability of
grants for householders to retrofit with an ASHP and/or renew-
able technology. However, the embodied environmental impact
of an ASHP and renewable technology in terms of ODP, EP, AP
and POCP need to be mitigated using cleaner production pro-
cesses or recycling.
• If Ireland is to continue moving to a more electrified economy
which will increase the demand for electricity, the environmen-
tal impact of electricity generation for multiple indicators needs
to be continuously monitored and mitigated to ensure Ireland
achieves its goal of a sustainable economy by 2050.
Authors’ contribution
Dr Jamie Goggins developed the initial conceptualization for the
study, which was refined by Drs Jamie Goggins and Paul Moran.
The aforementioned authors also developed the methodology. Data
curation and formal analysis was primarily conducted by Dr Paul
Moran and John O’Connell, but with input from Dr Jamie Goggins.
All three authors contributed to the writing -orginal draft of the
article with writing - review & editing being conducted by Drs Paul
Moran and Jamie Goggins. Drs Paul Moran and Jamie Goggins are
joint lead authors on the paper.
Declaration of Competing Interest
None.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the support of Science
Foundation Ireland through the Career Development Award pro-
gramme (grant no. 13/CDA/2200). The authors would like to ac-
knowledge the support of the European Union’s FP7 ERA-NET Sum-
forest grant programme (grant agreement no. 606803) and the Eu-
ropean Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme
under grant agreement no 839134.
Supplementary materials
Supplementary material associated with this article can be
found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.109816.
14 P. Moran, J. O’Connell and J. Goggins / Energy & Buildings 211 (2020) 109816
References
[1] IPCC, Climate Change 2014, Mitigation of Climate Change, The Intergovernmen-
tal Panel on Climate Change, 2014, doi:10.1017/CBO9781107415416.
[2] IPCC, Climate Change 1995-Impacts, Adaptations, and Mitigation of Climate
Change: Scientific - Technical Analyses, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, 1996, doi:10.1080/00139159709604767.
[3] IPCC, Climate Change 2001, The Scientific Basis, Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, 2001, doi:10.1256/004316502320517344.
[4] IPCC, Climate Change 2007, Mitigation of Climate Change, Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, 2007.
[5] UN, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change,
FCC/INFORMAL/84/Rev. 1, GE. 14-20481 (E), United Nations, 1992.
[6] UN, Kyoto Protocol To the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change, United Nations, 1998. 10.1111/1467-9388.00150.
[7] UNFCCC, Conference of the Parties (COP), Adoption of the Paris Agree-
ment. Proposal by the President, United Nations, Paris, 2015 December 2015,
https://doi.org/FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1.
[8] European Commission, Directive 20/31/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings (recast),
Off. J. Eur. Commun. (2010) 13–35.
[9] European Commission, Commission delegated regulation (EU) No of 16.1.2012
supplementing Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the
Council on the energy performance of buildings (recast) by establishing a com-
parative methodology framework for calculating cost-, Brussels, 2012.
[10] I. Ballarini, V. Corrado, F. Madonna, S. Paduos, F. Ravasio, Energy refurbishment
of the Italian residential building stock: energy and cost analysis through the
application of the building typology, Energy Policy 105 (2017) 148–160, doi:10.
1016/j.enpol.2017.02.026.
[11] C. Becchio, P. Dabbene, E. Fabrizio, V. Monetti, M. Filippi, Cost optimality as-
sessment of a single family house: building and technical systems solutions for
the nZEB target, Energy Build. 90 (2015) 173–187, doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.
12.050.
[12] M. Ferreira, M. Almeida, A. Rodrigues, S.M. Silva, Comparing cost-optimal and
net-zero energy targets in building retrofit, Build. Res. Inf. 44 (2016) 188–201,
doi:10.1080/09613218.2014.975412.
[13] A. Brandão de Vasconcelos, A. Cabaço, M.D. Pinheiro, A. Manso, The impact
of building orientation and discount rates on a Portuguese reference building
refurbishment decision, Energy Policy 91 (2016) 329–340, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.
2016.01.021.
[14] N.G. Sağlam, A.Z. Yılmaz, C. Becchio, S.P. Corgnati, A comprehensive cost-
optimal approach for energy retrofit of existing multi-family buildings: ap-
plication to apartment blocks in Turkey, Energy Build. 150 (2017) 224–238,
doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.06.026.
[15] F. Bonakdar, A. Sasic Kalagasidis, K. Mahapatra, The implications of climate
zones on the cost-optimal level and cost-effectiveness of building envelope
energy renovation and space heat demand reduction, Buildings 7 (2017) 39,
doi:10.3390/buildings7020039.
[16] EURIMA, Life Cycle Assessment of Buildings- A Future-proofed Solution in the
Digitalised World of Tomorrow, European Insulation Manufacturers Associa-
tion, 2017.
[17] EURIMA, Life Cycle Assessment of Buildings- A Future-proofed Solution in the
Digitalised World of Tomorrow. The Use of LCA for Environmental Building As-
sessment: A Vision of the Future White Paper, European Insulation Manufac-
turers Association, 2017.
[18] NSAI, I.S EN 15978, 2011 Sustainability of construction work-
s-Assessment of environmental performance of buildings-Calcu-
lation method, National Standards Authority of Ireland, 2011
https://doi.org/10.1520/E2019-03R13.Copyright.
[19] A. Vilches, A. Garcia-Martinez, B. Sanchez-Montañes, Life cycle assessment
(LCA) of building refurbishment: a literature review, Energy Build. 135 (2017)
286–301, doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.11.042.
[20] S.D. Mangan, G.K. Oral, A study on life cycle assessment of energy retrofit
strategies for residential buildings in Turkey, Energy Procedia 78 (2015) 842–
847, doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2015.11.005.
[21] C. Rodrigues, F. Freire, Integrated life-cycle assessment and thermal dynamic
simulation of alternative scenarios for the roof retrofit of a house, Build. Envi-
ron. 81 (2014) 204–215, doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2014.07.001.
[22] M. Beccali, M. Cellura, M. Fontana, S. Longo, M. Mistretta, Energy retrofit of a
single-family house : Life cycle net energy saving and environmental benefits,
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 27 (2013) 283–293, doi:10.1016/j.rser.2013.05.040.
[23] R. Holopainen, A. Milandru, H. Ahvenniemi, T. Häkkinen, Feasibility studies of
energy retrofits - case studies of nearly zero-energy building renovation, En-
ergy Procedia 96 (2016) 146–157, doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2016.09.116.
[24] B. Risholt, B. Time, A.G. Hestnes, Sustainability assessment of nearly zero en-
ergy renovation of dwellings based on energy, economy and home quality in-
dicators, Energy Build. 60 (2013) 217–224, doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.12.017.
[25] T.I. Neroutsou, B. Croxford, Lifecycle costing of low energy housing refurbish-
ment: a case study of a 7 year retrofit in Chester Road, London, Energy Build.
128 (2016) 178–189, doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.06.040.
[26] C. Rodrigues, F. Freire, Building retrofit addressing occupancy: an integrated
cost and environmental life-cycle analysis, Energy Build. 140 (2017) 388–398,
doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.01.084.
[27] T. McGrath, S. Nanukuttan, K. Owens, P. Basheer, P. Keig, Retrofit versus new-
build house using life-cycle assessment, Eng. Sustain. 166 (2013) 122–137,
doi:10.1680/ensu.11.0 0 026.
[28] A.A. Famuyibo, A. Duffy, P. Strachan, Achieving a holistic view of the life cycle
performance of existing dwellings, Build. Environ. 70 (2013) 90–101, doi:10.
1016/j.buildenv.2013.08.016.
[29] S. Thiers, B. Peuportier, Energy and environmental assessment of two high
energy performance residential buildings, Build. Environ. 51 (2012) 276–284,
doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2011.11.018.
[30] S. Lasvaux, D. Favre, B. Périsset, J. Bony, C. Hildbrand, S. Citherlet, Life cycle as-
sessment of energy related building renovation: methodology and case study,
Energy Procedia 78 (2015) 3496–3501, doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2016.10.132.
[31] Q. Wang, R. Laurenti, S. Holmberg, A novel hybrid methodology to evaluate
sustainable retrofitting inexisting Swedish residential buildings, Sustain. Cities
Soc. 16 (2015) 24–38, doi:10.1016/j.scs.2015.02.002.
[32] X. Oregi, P. Hernandez, R. Hernandez, Analysis of life-cycle boundaries for
environmental and economic assessment of building energy refurbishment
projects, Energy Build. 136 (2017) 12–25, doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.11.057.
[33] F.P. Chantrelle, H. Lahmidi, W. Keilholz, M. El Mankibi, P. Michel, Development
of a multicriteria tool for optimizing the renovation of buildings, Appl. Energy
88 (2011) 1386–1394, doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.10.002.
[34] E. Antipova, D. Boer, G. Guillén-Gosálbez, L.F. Cabeza, L. Jiménez, Multi-
objective optimization coupled with life cycle assessment for retrofitting build-
ings, Energy Build. 82 (2014) 92–99, doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.07.001.
[35] S. Tadeu, C. Rodrigues, A. Tadeu, F. Freire, N. Simões, Energy retrofit of historic
buildings: environmental assessment of cost-optimal solutions, J. Build. Eng. 4
(2015) 167–176, doi:10.1016/j.jobe.2015.09.009.
[36] M. Almeida, M. Ferreira, R. Barbosa, Relevance of embodied energy and carbon
emissions on assessing cost effectiveness in building renovation—contribution
from the analysis of case studies in Six European countries, Buildings 8 (2018)
103, doi:10.3390/buildings8080103.
[37] O. Pombo, B. Rivela, J. Neila, Life cycle thinking toward sustainable develop-
ment policy-making: the case of energy retrofits, J. Clean. Prod. 206 (2018)
267–281, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.173.
[38] K. Maréchal, Not irrational but habitual: the importance of “behavioural lock-
in” in energy consumption, Ecol. Econ. 69 (2010) 1104–1114, doi:10.1016/j.
ecolecon.20 09.12.0 04.
[39] T. Niemelä, R. Kosonen, J. Jokisalo, Energy performance and environmental im-
pact analysis of cost-optimal renovation solutions of large panel apartment
buildings in Finland, Sustain. Cities Soc. 32 (2017) 9–30, doi:10.1016/j.scs.2017.
02.017.
[40] F. Ascione, N. Bianco, R.F. De Masi, G.M. Mauro, G.P. Vanoli, Resilience of ro-
bust cost-optimal energy retrofit of buildings to global warming: a multi-
stage, multi-objective approach, Energy Build. 153 (2017) 150–167, doi:10.1016/
j.enbuild.2017.08.004.
[41] IEA, Co-benefits of Energy Related Building Renovation - Demonstration of
Their Impact on the Assessment of Energy Related Building Renovation
(Annex 56), International Energy Agency, 2017 http://www.iea-annex56.org/
Groups/GroupItemID6/Co-benefits of energy related building renovation (An-
nex 56).pdf.
[42] M. Almeida, M. Ferreira, R. Barbosa, Relevance of embodied energy and carbon
emissions on assessing cost effectiveness in building renovation—contribution
from the analysis of case studies in six European countries, Buildings (2018) 8,
doi:10.3390/buildings8080103.
[43] DoHPLG, Building regulations 2018- technical guidance document - Part L
amendment, department of housing, Planning Local Govern. (2018).
[44] CSO, Census 2016 Summary Results - Part 1, Central Statistics Office, Ire-
land, 2016 http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/
population/2017/Chapter_9_Housing.pdf.
[45] SEAI, SEAI National BER Research Tool, (2019). https://ndber.seai.ie/
BERResearchTool/Register/Register.aspx (accessed September 17, 2019).
[46] N. Dodd, M. Cordella, M. Traverso, S. Donatello, JRC Technical Reports: Level(s)
– a Common EU Framework of Core Sustainability Indicators for Office and
Residential Buildings Part 3, European Commission Joint Research Centre, 2017
https://ec.europa.eu/jr%0Ahttp://ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu.
[47] G. Wernet, C. Bauer, B. Steubing, J. Reinhard, E. Moreno-Ruiz, B. Weidema, The
ecoinvent database version 3 (part l): overview and methodology, Int. J. Life
Cycle Assess. 21 (9) (2016) 1218–1230 [online].
[48] Irish Green Building Council, EPD Ireland-The Environmental Product Decla-
ration Project, (2019). https://www.igbc.ie/epd-search/ (accessed February 1,
2019).
[49] Institut Bauen und Umwelt, EPD Online Tool-Institut Bauen und Umlet, (2019).
https://epd-online.com/Home/ (accessed February 1, 2019).
[50] The Norweigan EPD Foundation, epd-norge.no-The Norweigan EPD Foundation,
(2019). https://www.epd-norge.no/epder/ (accessed February 1, 2019).
[51] A.P. Acero, C. Rodríguez, A. Ciroth, LCIA Methods, Impact assessment methods
in Life Cycle Assessment and their impact categories, Greendelta (2016).
[52] SEAI, Dwelling Energy Assessment Procedure (DEAP) - Irish Official Method
for Calculating and Rating the Energy Performance of Dwellings, Sustainable
Energy Authority of Ireland, 2007 http://www.seai.ie/Your_Building/BER/BER_
Assessors/Technical/DEAP.
[53] DCCAE, National Mitigation Plan, Department of Communications Climate Ac-
tion & Environment, 2017.
[54] SEAI, Ireland’s Energy Projections - Progress to Targets, Challenges
and Impacts, Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, 2017 https:
//www.seai.ie/resources/publications/Irelands_Energy_Projections.pdf%0Ahttp:
//www.seai.ie/resources/publications/Irelands_Energy_Projections.pdf.
[55] SEAI, SEAI Energy Projections Data Received from SEAI via Excel on 17/09/2018,
Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, 2018.
 P. Moran, J. O’Connell and J. Goggins / Energy & Buildings 211 (2020) 109816
[56] A. Reeves, S. Taylor, P. Fleming, Modelling the potential to achieve deep carbon
emission cuts in existing UK social housing: the case of Peabody, Energy Policy
38 (2010) 4241–4251, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.03.054.
[57] KORE, KORE: Build Better, Together, (2019). https://www.kore-system.com/ (ac-
cessed May 24, 2019).
[58] M. Badurek, M. Hanratty, B. Sheldrick, D. Stewart, Building typology brochure
Ireland, TABULA (2014).
[59] U Value Insulation and Drywall, U Value Insulation & Drywall-Suppliers of In-
sulation & Associated Building Materials Price Guide, U Value Insulation and
Drywall, 2015.
[60] Munster Joinery, Munster Joinery, (2019). http://www.munsterjoinery.ie/ (ac-
cessed February 8, 2019).
[61] OBFA Architects, OBFA Architects, (2019). https://obfa.ie/ (accessed April 8,
2019).
[62] OCC Construction, OCC Construction, (2019). http://www.occo.ie/ (accessed
February 8, 2019).
[63] Mitsubishi Electric Ireland, Mitsubishi Electric Ireland, (2019). http://
mitsubishielectric.ie/products/ecodan-heating/ (accessed May 24, 2019).
[64] SolarCo, SolarCo, (2019). https://www.solarco.ie/ (accessed May 24, 2019).
[65] SEAI, Archived Domestic Fuel Costs - Average Price per Unit (€), Sustainable
Energy Authority of Ireland, 2018.
[66] Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, SEAI-Home Energy
Grants, (n.d.). https://www.seai.ie/grants/home- energy- grants/
#comp0 0 0 05b3cd2ca0 0 0 0 0 0b2ba5132, (accessed November 2, 2018).
[67] SEAI, Better Energy Communities Programme 2018, Delivering Energy Effi-
ciency to Communities, Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, 2018.
[68] M. Livingstone, D. Ross, Report on the Development of Cost Optimal Calcula-
tions and Gap Analysis for Buildings in Ireland under Directive 2010/31/EU on
the Energy Performance of Buildings (recast): Section 1-Residential Buildings,
AECOM, 2013 http://www.buildup.eu/publications/36202.
[69] P. Moran, J. Goggins, M. Hajdukiewicz, Super-insulate or use renewable tech-
nology? Life cycle cost, energy and global warming potential analysis of nearly
zero energy buildings (NZEB) in a temperate oceanic climate, Energy Build. 139
(2017) 590–607, doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.01.029.
[70] J. Goggins, P. Moran, A. Armstrong, M. Hadjukiewicz, Lifecycle environmental
and economic performance of Nearly Zero Energy Buildings (NZEB) in Ireland,
Energy Build. 116 (2016) 622–637, doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.01.016.
[71] D. of the Environment, Building Regulations 1991- Technical Guidance Docu-
ment L-Conservation of Fuel and Energy, 1991.
[72] D. of the E.H. ans L.G. DotEHLG, Building Regulations 1997 Technical Guidance
Document L, 1997.
[73] Episcope, Building Typology Brochure Ireland, 2014.
[74] A. Dodoo, L. Gustavsson, R. Sathre, Life cycle primary energy implication of
retrofitting a wood-framed apartment building to passive house standard, Re-
sour. Conserv. Recycl. 54 (2010) 1152–1160, doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.03.010.
15
[75] F. Tanuwijaya, Multi Objective Retrofitting Package Assessment for Multi-
Residential Social Housing by Woonbedrijf, University of Technology Eind-
hoven, 2016 http://www.janhensen.nl/team/past/master/Tanuwijaya_2016.pdf.
[76] SEAI, BER Statistics, (2016). http://www.seai.ie/Your_Building/BER/BER_FAQ/
FAQ_BER/General/BER_Statistics.html (accessed July 10, 2016).
[77] R. Galvin, Making the “rebound effect” more useful for performance evaluation
of thermal retrofits of existing homes: Defining the “energy savings deficit”
and the “energy performance gap,”, Energy Build. 69 (2014) 515–524, doi:10.
1016/j.enbuild.2013.11.004.
[78] G. Henderson, D. Staniaszek, B. Anderson, M. Phillipson, Energy sav-
ings from insulation improvements in electrically heated dwellings in
the UK, in: ECEEE 2003 Summer Study – Time To Turn Down En-
ergy Demand, 2003, pp. 325–334. http://www.eceee.org/library/conference_
proceedings/eceee_Summer_Studies/2003c/Panel_2/2033henderson.
[79] S.H. Hong, T. Oreszczyn, I. Ridley, The impact of energy efficient refurbishment
on the space heating fuel consumption in English dwellings, Energy Build. 38
(2006) 1171–1181, doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2006.01.007.
[80] H. Hens, Energy efficient retrofit of an end of the row house: Confronting pre-
dictions with long-term measurements, Energy Build. 42 (2010) 1939–1947,
doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.05.030.
[81] Energy Consulting Network and Tipperary Energy Agency, SERVE (Sustainable
Energy for the Rural Village Envrionment) Energy Analysis, 2013.
[82] H. Hens, W. Parijs, M. Deurinck, Energy consumption for heating and rebound
effects, Energy Build. 42 (2010) 105–110, doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2009.07.017.
[83] M.G. Bjørneboe, S. Svendsen, A. Heller, Evaluation of the renovation of a Dan-
ish single-family house based on measurements, Energy Build. 150 (2017) 189–
199, doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.04.050.
[84] R. Gupta, M. Gregg, Do deep low carbon domestic retrofits actually work? En-
ergy Build. 129 (2016) 330–343, doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.08.010.
[85] A. Wolff, I. Weber, B. Gill, J. Schubert, M. Schneider, Tackling the interplay
of occupants’ heating practices and building physics: insights from a German
mixed methods study, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 32 (2017) 65–75, doi:10.1016/j.erss.
2017.07.003.
[86] R. Gupta, M. Kapsali, A. Howard, Evaluating the influence of building fabric,
services and occupant related factors on the actual performance of low energy
social housing dwellings in UK, Energy Build. 174 (2018) 548–562, doi:10.1016/
j.enbuild.2018.06.057.
[87] H. Rau, P. Moran, R. Manton, J. Goggins, Changing energy cultures? Household
energy use before and after a building energy efficiency retrofit, Sustain. Cities
Soc. 54 (2020), doi:10.1016/j.scs.2019.101983.