This study addresses the life cycle costs (LCC) of energy renovation, and the demolition and construction of a new building. A comparison is made between LCC optimal energy renovations of four different building types with thermal performance, representing Swedish constructions from the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, as well as the demolition of the building and construction of a new building that complies with the Swedish building code. A Swedish multi-family building from the 1960s is used as a reference building. LCC optimal energy renovations are identified with energy saving targets ranging between 10% and 70%, in addition to the lowest possible life cycle cost. The analyses show that an ambitious energy renovation is not cost-optimal in any of the studied buildings, if achieving the lowest LCC is the objective function. The cost of the demolition and construction of a new building is higher compared to energy renovation to the same energy performance. The higher rent in new buildings does not compensate for the higher cost of new construction. A more ambitious renovation is required in buildings that have a shape factor with a high internal volume to heated floor area ratio.

Improved energy efficiency in the building sector is a central goal in the European Union and renovation of buildings can significantly improve both energy efficiency and indoor environment. This paper studies the perception of indoor environment, modelled indoor climate and heat demand in a building before and after major renovation. The building was constructed in 1961 and renovated in 2014. Insulation of the façade and attic and new windows reduced average U-value from 0.54 to 0.29 W/m²·K. A supply and exhaust ventilation system with heat recovery replaced the old exhaust ventilation. Heat demand was reduced by 44% and maximum supplied heating power was reduced by 38.5%. An on-site questionnaire indicates that perceived thermal comfort improved after the renovation, and the predicted percentage dissatisfied is reduced from 23% to 14% during the heating season. Overall experience with indoor environment is improved. A sensitivity analysis indicates that there is a compromise between thermal comfort and energy use in relation to window solar heat gain, internal heat generation and indoor temperature set point. Higher heat gains, although reducing energy use, can cause problems with high indoor temperatures, and higher indoor temperature might increase thermal comfort during heating season but significantly increases energy use.

In Sweden, 90% of multifamily buildings utilize district heat and a large portion is in need of renovation. The aim is to analyze the impact of renovating a multifamily building stock in a district heating and cooling system, in terms of primary energy savings, peak power demands, electricity demand and production, and greenhouse gas emissions on local and global levels. The study analyzes scenarios regarding measures on the building envelope, ventilation, and substitution from district heat to ground source heat pump. The results indicate improved energy performance for all scenarios, ranging from 11% to 56%. Moreover, the scenarios present a reduction of fossil fuel use and reduced peak power demand in the district heating and cooling system ranging from 1 MW to 13 MW, corresponding to 4–48 W/m² heated building area. However, the study concludes that scenarios including a ground source heat pump generate significantly higher global greenhouse gas emissions relative to scenarios including district heating. Furthermore, in a future fossil-free district heating and cooling system, a reduction in primary energy use will lead to a local reduction of emissions along with a positive effect on global greenhouse gas emissions, outperforming measures with a ground source heat pump.

To generate performance predictions of borehole thermal energy storage (BTES) systems for both seasonal and short-term storage of industrial excess heat, e.g., from high to low production hours, models are needed that can handle the short-term effects. In this study, the first and largest industrial BTES in Sweden, applying intermittent heat injection and extraction down to half-day intervals, was modelled in the IDA ICE 4.8 environment and compared to three years of measured storage performance. The model was then used in a parametric study to investigate the change in performance of the storage from e.g., borehole spacing and storage supply flow characteristics at heat injection. For the three-year comparison, predicted and measured values for total injected and extracted energy differed by less than 1% and 3%, respectively and the mean relative difference for the storage temperatures was 4%, showing that the performance of large-scale BTES with intermittent heat injection and extraction can be predicted with high accuracy. At the actual temperature of the supply flow during heat injection, 40 °C, heat extraction would not exceed approximately 100 MWh/year for any investigated borehole spacing, 1–8 m. However, when the temperature of the supply flow was increased to 60–80 °C, 1400–3100 MWh/year, also dependent on the flow rate, could be extracted at the spacing yielding the highest heat extraction, which in all cases was 3–4 m.

A hydronic pavement system (HPS) is an alternative method to clear snow and ice, which avoids the use of salt, sand, and fossil fuel in conventional snow clearance, and minimizes the risk of accidents. The aim is to analyze the performance of different control strategies for a 35,000 m² HPS utilizing heat from a district heating and cooling (DHC) system. The key performance indicators are (1) energy performance of the HPS, and (2) primary energy use, (3) electricity production and (4) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the DHC system. The methodology uses a simulation model of the HPS and an optimization model of the DHC system. Three operational strategies are analyzed: A reference scenario based on the current control strategy, and scenarios where the HPS is shut down at temperatures below −10 °C and −5 °C. The study shows that the DHC return temperature is suitable for use. By operational strategies, use during peak demand in the DHC system can be avoided, resulting in reduced use of fossil fuel. Moreover, the energy use of the HPS could be reduced by 10% and the local GHG emissions by 25%. The study emphasizes that the HPS may have positive effects on global GHG emissions, as it enables electricity production from renewable resources.

The Energy Efficiency First (EE1st) principle has become an important element of European Union energy and climate policy, requiring energy efficiency to be considered and prioritised where it is more cost-effective or socially beneficial than supply-side alternatives. However, EE1st is primarily a top-down policy, planning and investment principle, not simply a measure of public support for energy efficiency. This article therefore examines a more focused question: how do households perceive, prioritise and evaluate residential energy measures that are relevant to the implementation context of EE1st? Drawing on a structured cross-national survey of 1,014 respondents in Germany, the United Kingdom, Poland, Italy, Denmark and Estonia, the article explores household attitudes toward selected building-related energy efficiency and decarbonisation measures, including insulation, energy-efficient windows, heating systems, heat pumps and renewable energy options. The six countries represent different institutional, welfare and energy-policy contexts, allowing for an exploratory comparison of public perceptions across diverse European settings. Findings show broad support for several residential energy measures, but also reveal important constraints. High upfront costs emerge as the most consistent barrier, while willingness to invest or tolerate disruption varies across measures and countries. Rather than demonstrating that EE1st has become embedded as a shared European norm, the results indicate that household acceptance of EE1st-relevant policy choices depends on how citizens perceive the differentiated costs, disruption, technology options and the balance between efficiency and supply-side solutions. The article contributes to the EE1st literature by clarifying the conditions of household-level acceptance that enable or impede the practical implementation of energy efficiency-oriented residential policy.