Forced home renovations and the huge costs facing Finland have recently made headlines due to the energy efficiency directive (EPBD) being prepared. However, the rumors are premature and probably cause unnecessary concern, as the directive is still seeking its final form.
The European Parliament approved the proposal of the European Parliament's Industry, Research and Energy Committee ITRE to update the EPBD last week. The work now continues in the tripartite negotiations, i.e. the trilogy, between the Commission, the Council and the Parliament in order to reach a compromise. Negotiations will start after Easter and will be completed by summer or early fall, when we will know the future requirements. Member States must then implement these requirements into national legislation, which would enter into force around the beginning of 2026.
In new construction, zero energy turns into zero emissions
The currently valid directive primarily guides new construction. The current definition of a nearly zero energy building (NZEB) comes from the records of this directive. In the future, new construction will still be governed by that directive, but the definition will change to ZEB: Zero Emission Building.
According to the new definition, the emphasis in the future will be clearly on the energy used, without forgetting energy efficiency. In terms of energy efficiency, however, the level of requirements is moderate: cost-optimal means must be implemented, but not exceeding that.
Regarding which forms of energy can be used in the building, we still have to wait for the outcome of the negotiations, as the proposals differ quite a bit. Those demands will probably affect the production of district heat in particular, which must continue to be low-carbon.
Extensive forced repairs are unlikely for residential buildings, but yes for others
In recent weeks, a big uproar in the public domain has particularly concerned existing residential buildings. Fortunately, when it comes to fixing these, the proposals of the three parties participating in the negotiations are quite far from each other, and the toughest of them are unlikely to end up in the final directive.
Instead, all three parties propose compulsory repairs for non-residential buildings. Roughly speaking, the worst third of schools, kindergartens, health centers, shops and offices must be repaired in the next ten years. Here, too, there is already a lot to do and big money holes for the public sector as well.
Some form of new requirements are also coming for the repair of residential buildings. Regarding existing residential buildings, two out of three, i.e. the parliament and the commission, have proposed forced repairs, the council, on the other hand, proposes to improve the energy efficiency of the residential building stock more broadly.
Promises about emission reductions must be redeemed in actions
Forced corrections are justified by the emission reduction targets of the EU's Fit for 55 program implementing the Paris climate agreement, to which Finland is also committed. And it is true that if the EU wants to cut more than 40 percent of CO2 emissions, it also requires actions like the Energy Efficiency Directive. Politicians' promises and speeches are now starting to turn into actions.
The proposal for a directive has presented a lot of other new things regarding, for example, solar electricity, electric car charging, data transmission and the smart readiness of buildings, as well as the automation of building technology. Finland is in a relatively good position with regard to these, however, and the effects are perhaps relatively minor. As a widely admired addition, the proposal presents the calculation of the building's carbon footprint and the mandatory notification of the results in connection with the energy certificate.
RT contributes to Finland's and the construction industry's message to the finalization of the directive, for example in cooperation with FIEC, the umbrella organization of the European construction industry. Otherwise, keep your hats on and pop the popcorn, it's worth following the tripartite negotiations in the summer calmly.
Jani Kemppainen
Expert, technical requirements
jani.kemppainen@rt.fi +358 40 541 8090Building Construction Industry Association
It is interesting how the energy form factors are changed. Electricity is now the worst of all. Coal and other fossils have a better coefficient. Even the entire production loss of cogeneration has been factored into the energy form factor of electricity, as if electricity were the thing and district heating just some random byproduct.
And of course, the primary energy factor of nuclear power has been driven. Fortunately, not everything. But still, the energy going into the sea should not be counted from nuclear power at all. Its meaning is exactly the same for anything like "wasted" light next to a solar cell. Or with the wind blowing past the wind farm.
The coefficient of the form of energy that we have in the legislation today is quite purely a political line that favors district heating to some extent in proportion to the actual amount of primary energy. With the update of the directive, the coefficient will certainly be reviewed again, and it is likely that the coefficients for electricity and district heating would be a little closer to each other in the future. Motiva has recently made a publication and calculations about this, which can be found here: https://www.motiva.fi/ratkaisut/ohjauskeinot/direktiivit/rakennusten_energiatehokkuusdirektiivi/selvitys_primaarienergiakertoimista
As you can see from the report, the primary energy coefficient of district heating is somewhat lower than that of electricity simply due to the degree of refinement of electricity; it takes more work to make electricity than to heat water. Another issue is, for example, defining nuclear power as emission-free or not and deciding how the emissions and outputs of cogeneration (district heating) are distributed in Finland.
In summary, I guess that in the future, the use of direct electricity and various heat pumps will only become more common in new construction, e.g. as the coefficients change, but also as the cost difference increases in favor of electricity.
Thanks for the link.
This is like cutting off a painful dog's tail one joint at a time so it doesn't hurt as much.
In the whole thing, 33% of nuclear power still goes wrong. Sometimes a factor of 3 is used instead of a factor of 1. That is also wrong. A category mistake is made in nuclear power. Fusion and fission belong to the same group as solar power. The core will also crack on the ground if not used. It is not limited because thorium is not yet utilized. Its reserves are in the category of thousands of years.
It doesn't change the matter at all that it is explained in slang. The expertise just shows in that. When a sufficiently complicated explanation is made, at least one politician falls off the wagon.
The heat that goes into the sea from nuclear power is not lost on anyone, and it does not really harm the environment, let alone cause a climate burden. That part is completely proportional to the wind passing the wind turbine and the power of the sun passing the solar panel. How many years do you have to look ahead to ensure that enough joints have been broken? A hundred years?
I tried to read between the lines when the narration is made to knock out up to a certain level. I would think that the unfavorable multiplier effect for electricity will still remain as it is now. For those experiencing pain, the matter is justified by the fact that the choice could be twice as bad in terms of electricity. And mediocre politicians are satisfied with the same trick. The drafters can show that they have reached some kind of compromise with their hard work.
Briefly, my opinion about the coefficient of nuclear power. It is objectively neither 3 nor 1. It is close to solar power and wind power. I decide it is 0,05. The issue of storing nuclear waste must be dealt with elsewhere. In addition, the stored waste will soon become a valuable energy material.