Description and aim: “Domotics” stands for systems that automate buildings and improve energy performance while increasing comfort and security (Fundación San Valero, 2014b).
User-related applications, like lighting or heating and climatisation, are the primary focus of domotics – but also further devices and appliances could be concerned when a smarter building automatization is planned and/or installed. According to Fundación San Valero (2014b), the investigations during the four-year-LIFE-project DOMOTIC12 at three different (public) buildings in Spain has shown an annual improvement of the energy efficiency in the order of 64% and, combined with a higher use of renewable energy sources, to a reduction of the CO2 emissions by 680 tons per year. A recent study from Singapore comes to a less optimistic and positive result. Bhati and colleagues examined the influence of
“smart homes in a smart city” (i.e. Singapore) on the energy (electricity) consumption (Bhati et al., 2017) and they conclude that the behaviour patterns of the user could lead to the opposite of energy savings, as current “smart” technology is not in all aspects really
‘smart’ and may not always lead the user to a more sustainable behaviour.
In the framework of the BoP appliances, Scenario 12 is thought to be a kind of an outlook towards possible consequences of more fundamental changes in the way how different types of these household appliances may be used in the future.
Area of intervention: Lighting and room air conditioner are at the core of Scenario 11, as these two devices have the use phase closely modulated with the actual occupancy of a room, i.e. usually if there is nobody in a room, you do not need to illuminate the room. All the other devices do not depend only on the presence of a person in a room / in a building, but also on its actual behaviour (e.g. a person that prefers to eat salads will use much less the electric oven than a person that is keen on soups, etc.). For the Scenario 11, it is assumed that all these further appliances are in a first step only in the following sense part of such a smart home solution: modern, energy-efficient devices will be installed/used.
Policy relevance: Ecodesign Directive (EC, 2009a), Energy Efficiency Directive (EU, 2012b), Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe (EC, 2011b).
Rationale for building the scenario: Starting points for this scenario are the various scenarios from the LIFE-project DOMOTIC that are described in details (i.e. including their saving potential within the context of the public buildings examined in this project) in the
“best practices” report of the project (i.e. in Fundación San Valero, 2014a), the study from Fraunhofer in the US about the technical (saving) potential behind home automation systems (Urban et al., 2016) and the ECO scenarios in the 2015 preparatory study for lighting (VITO, 2015b). Hence, in order to evaluate the potential that may be in such an
“intelligent” house automatization, the following key assumptions are used as starting point for Scenario 11:
● lighting: starting point is the baseline 2015 (Scenario 13, described below);
12 LIFE project “DOMOTIC” (2010-2014) – Coordination by Fundación San Valero (ES) – funded by the European Commission to 50% under the project reference LIFE+ 09 ENV/ES/000493
● all lighting is based on LED technology, no use of CFLi anymore by 2030;
● the active “burning” time of the lighting is assumed to be reduced by 30% due to the automatic system installed (assumption by author – equal to the highest reduction in the scenarios of the 2015 preparatory study, i.e. scenario
“ECO120+LBL” reported in VITO 2015b for the year 2030 – and confirmed by the developed “lighting” scenario in the study from Fraunhofer USA, i.e. in Urban et al., 2016);
● the installed capacity (in kW) is reduced by 40% (based on the same scenario from VITO, 2015b that reports an overall reduction of the installed capacity – in residential sector as well as the non-residential of 67% assuming that the reduction in the latter one will be more important) – assuming both technologies in the 2015 scenario (CFLi, LED) having the same W/lighting source, this equals to a reduction of 10% of the 2015 LED amount;
● the saving potential by various automatisation systems for climatisation lays in the order of 10-15% (Urban et al., 2016) – here the upper value of 15% is assumed (in relation to the annual consumption of the baseline scenario);
● the RAC are assumed to have the lower leakage rate (reported in Scenario 5) and being filled with the alternative refrigerant (reported in Scenario 6);
● no changes in the number of RAC installations per household or person are taken into account here – the calculation is made with the number of devices according to the baseline scenario;
● no other devices are changed – i.e. the remaining product groups are integrated as in the baseline scenario modelled.
Parameters modified in the model: Table 90 summarizes the modifications that have been made in baseline model, for each product affected by this scenario.
Table 90. Summary of the new datasets necessary for the modelling of Scenario 12 “domotics – a first estimation of its potential”
Life Cycle Stage Made modifications to
LED Room Air Conditioner (RAC) BoP Household
Appliances 13 Manufacturing of
components No modification
Replacing the amount of “Refrigerant R134a” by the same amount of “Alternative Refrigerant R600a” (isobutane)
the product No modification No modification Packaging No modification No modification Distribution and
retail No modification No modification
Use phase 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoro-, HFC-134a emitted to air” by the same amount of “isobutane emitted to air” and correction of the amount from 0.60 kg to 0.18 kg
Maintenance and
repair No modification
Replacement of the amount of “Refrigerant R134a”
by the same amount of “Alternative Refrigerant R600a” for filling and correction of amount from 0.49*1.2 kg to 0.14*1.2 kg (representing decrease of losses from 50% to 15%);
For the input of the replaced parts, the modified dataset for the manufacturing of components (see row above) is used.
EoL of the product No modification
Replacement of the amount of “treatment of used R134a” by the same amount of “treatment of spent solvent mixture, hazardous waste incineration”
(used here as a proxy for the treatment of R600a)
Results: In Figure 43 and Figure 44 the results of Scenario 12 are compared with the respective results from the baseline scenario. In Figure 43 they are split into the contributions from the different product groups, in Figure 44 they are split into the shares of the different life cycle stages distinguished here. Each of the two figures is going along with a table, showing the relative changes (in %) in the different product groups and the different life cycle stages, respectively (Table 91 and Table 92).
13(i.e. to datasets covering total of all examined devices)
Figure 43. Scenario 12 in comparison with the baseline scenario (with total from the baseline set as 100%) – split into the contributions of the various product groups.
(For the abbreviations see table note of Table 42)
Figure 44. Scenario 12 in comparison with the baseline scenario (with the total impacts of the baseline set as 100%) – split into the contributions of the various life cycle stages. (For the
abbreviations see table note of Table 42)
Table 91. Relative changes of the various product groups when comparing Scenario 12 with the baseline scenario (relative to the result in the baseline scenario)
Impact
Category(1) Total
Dish-washer Washing
Machine Tumble
Dryer
Refrige-rator Room Air
Cond. Electric
Oven Lighting Laptops LCD TV Screen
GWP -16.7% - - - - -32.9% - -85.9% - -
ODP -60.1% - - - - -97.3% - -87.6% - -
HTP nc -7.8% - - - - -8.1% - -72.9% - -
HTP c -6.7% - - - - -9.1% - -82.6% - -
PMFP -10.6% - - - - -11.3% - -78.4% - -
IRP -19.1% - - - - -14.2% - -88.9% - -
POFP -12.1% - - - - -10.6% - -81.5% - -
AP -14.4% - - - - -12.0% - -84.6% - -
TEP -13.0% - - - - -11.8% - -83.5% - -
FEP -7.1% - - - - -6.8% - -67.0% - -
MEP -9.5% - - - - -11.8% - -83.8% - -
FETP -5.3% - - - - -7.1% - -64.3% - -
LUC -13.2% - - - - -10.8% - -85.6% - -
WRD -17.8% - - - - -14.3% - -87.6% - -
RD -6.2% - - - - -11.5% - -72.4% - -
FRD -17.1% - - - - -13.4% - -87.3% - -
MRD -0.6% - - - - -1.1% - -11.5% - -
(1) Abbreviations, see table note at Table 42
Table 92. Relative changes of the various life stages when comparing Scenario 12 with the baseline scenario (relative to the result in the baseline scenario) Impact
Category(1) Total Materials Packaging Production
Distribu-tion Use
Main-tenance End-of-Life
GWP -16.7% 1.8% -51.8% -1.9% -2.5% -21.3% -24.1% -0.01%
ODP -60.1% -71.8% -1.5% -3.8% -2.4% -19.8% -99.1% -0.01%
HTP nc -7.8% 0.5% -3.1% -2.5% -2.2% -13.9% -1.5% -5.62%
HTP c -6.7% 0.7% -6.8% -2.6% -2.4% -15.6% -0.8% -1.93%
PMFP -10.6% 2.1% 4.5% -1.4% -2.6% -18.9% -3.8% -0.04%
IRP -19.1% 2.6% -5.2% -4.8% -2.4% -21.0% -1.9% -0.01%
POFP -12.1% 2.3% -35.3% -1.8% -2.7% -19.1% -2.8% -0.03%
AP -14.4% 1.8% -9.6% -1.9% -2.9% -19.9% -3.8% -0.01%
TEP -13.0% 1.6% -102.1% -1.8% -2.7% -18.9% -3.0% -0.02%
FEP -7.1% 0.6% -0.8% -3.5% -2.5% -18.2% -0.3% 0.01%
MEP -9.5% 1.6% -18.1% -1.8% -2.7% -12.5% -3.0% -0.13%
FETP -5.3% 0.8% -34.0% -2.6% -2.1% -13.8% -0.9% 431.8%
LUC -13.2% 1.4% 1.3% -2.4% -2.3% -18.1% -1.7% 0.01%
WRD -17.8% 3.2% -57.5% -3.7% -2.6% -20.6% -2.0% 0.47%
RD -6.2% 0.0% -111.4% -4.7% -2.2% -14.5% -7.0% 3.08%
FRD -17.1% 2.3% -26.7% -2.4% -2.4% -20.7% -2.8% -0.09%
MRD -0.6% 0.4% -4.4% -4.1% -2.2% -15.1% -0.3% 0.20%
(1) Abbreviations, see table note at Table 42
This simplified scenario – giving a first hint towards the potential that lays in a more automated control of household appliances in dwellings – shows already a saving potential in the order to 10 to 20% across almost all impact categories. Due to assumption for the RAC, the impact on ODP shows even a potential of 60% reduction (based however on issues that are already described in earlier scenarios and that are not directly linked to this scenario). Compared to the baseline scenario, such a 100% LED-based lighting scenario could reduce the impacts on the environment by 70 to 85%.
A more detailed investigation of the issue of domotics would make sense in a future study – taking into account also that for such a controlling necessary infrastructure (sensors, control unit, etc.) and related energy consumption; as well as further issues (e.g. heating) that could be integrated into such a system.