KPIs for Smart Energy Systems in Sustainable Universities: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Catherine Yang and Version 1 by Alexandru Olteanu.

Sustainable campus management includes energy-saving measures and waste reduction and has become an important objective to many universities, being part of the institution’s societal responsibility. Smart energy systems (SESs), as part of campus energy management, can bring many benefits, including increased efficiency, reduced energy consumption, reduced emissions, increased reliability, and real-time control, and facilitate the integration of the renewable energy systems (RES). Despite the growing interest in energy efficiency and for the initiatives and projects to implement SESs, there are no universally accepted standards for assessing the performance of SESs, with most techniques being dedicated to subsystems. A KPI (key performance indicator) framework for evaluating the SESs’ performance from university campuses is proposed, starting from the current findings and priorities from the scientific literature, energy standards, legislation, and university rankings. The framework can support the implementation, operation, and evaluation of the SESs from university campuses, based on SES requirements and the stakeholders’ goals. Unlike previously developed solutions, the framework is focused not only on the technical side of SESs but also on the role that education, research, and innovation should have in sustainable development, making universities key contributors to achieving these goals.

  • smart energy system (SES)
  • key performance indicators (KPI)
  • sustainable university

1. Resources

Previous studies approaching SESs suggested that such systems should be based 100% on RESs: solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, hydro, hydrogen, waves, and tides [12,14,15][1][2][3].
However, of these types of energy, the solar energy [46,47,48][4][5][6] and wind energy [49,50,51,52][7][8][9][10] are mentioned most frequently in the category of the so-called fluctuating RESs.
Particular attention is given to the use of hydrogen [21,53[11][12][13][14],54,55], the integration of geothermal energy [56][15], or hybrid systems that use solar and geothermal energy [11,57][16][17].
Other studies suggested the need for power-to-gas to reduce the use of biomass to a sustainable level, using electrofuels [58,59,60,61][18][19][20][21]. Electrofuels are defined as fuels produced from electricity, water, and carbon or nitrogen, and are considered a useful option in all energy sectors to replace fossil fuels [16,62][22][23]. In 2014, Lund et al. described the process of obtaining electrofuels starting from the conversion of electricity through electrolysis into hydrogen. Subsequently, the produced hydrogen is used in two possible ways [13][24]:
  • in a process called hydrogenation which represents the stimulation of gasified or fermented biomass;
  • merged with CO2 emissions from such sources as energy or industrial facilities.
Depending on the chosen method of obtaining electrofuels, they are called bio-electrofuels or CO2-electrofuels [13][24].

2. Conversion

The flexibility of the SESs depends primarily on the conversion system, thus making the transition from simple approaches used today in energy systems, to interconnected approaches [8,14][2][25].
The main conversion systems found in the literature are as follows: photovoltaics [14,63,64,65][2][26][27][28]; solar panels [14,66,67,68][2][29][30][31]; solar plants [66,69][29][32]; wind turbine [70,71,72][33][34][35]; combined heat and power (CHP) [22,73,74,75][36][37][38][39]; heat pumps [66,76,77,78][29][40][41][42]; boilers [66,79,80][29][43][44]; and power plants [67][30].
There is a focus of the authors on fluctuating energy conversion systems, and almost every design of a SES involves photovoltaics [14,66][2][29] and wind turbines [64,81,82][27][45][46]. Less popular than photovoltaics, wind turbines are preferred in Nordic European countries such as Denmark (the leader in the implementation of these conversion systems). In 2020, wind turbines in Denmark supplied 50% of the final demand for electricity [83][47].
Lund et al. (2012) considered that heat pumps as well as additional heat storage capacities should be combined in SES together with cogeneration plants and operated in such a way that RES can be efficiently integrated, without losing the overall efficiency of the system [18][48].
Several studies showed that heat pumps represent the key conversion solution, connecting electrical and thermal sectors [14,84,85][2][49][50]. Buffa et al. (2018) considered that heat pumps should be integrated in low-temperature excess heat recovery installations [86][51]. Dincer and Acarac, (2017) emphasized that increasing the number of products from the same energy source will lead to a decrease in emissions per product unit and an increase in efficiency, referring to multigeneration systems such as the following [11][16]: cogeneration—heat and electricity production (CHP); trigeneration—heat, cooling, and electricity production (CCHP); and quadgeneration—heat, cooling, hydrogen, and electricity production (CCHP-H2).

3. Storage

Energy storage is another important element in assuring the flexibility of the SESs [12,87][1][52] permitting to integrate a higher share of fluctuating RES [12[1][48][53],18,19], and it facilitates the transition to 100% RES [14][2]. Several authors emphasized the need to use storage solutions for system reliability and flexibility [88,89][54][55]. Three main types of storage in the SES framework can be identified in the literature: electricity [21[10][11][29],52,66], thermal [10[35][56],72], and fuel [10,64,72][27][35][56].
Regarding electricity storage, the main storage systems identified in the literature are as follows: batteries [14,63,66,72][2][26][29][35] and electric vehicles (Evs) [4,79,90][43][57][58]. Some studies have shown that the electricity surplus should not be directly stored in the battery (off grid) [91][59], with other solutions being recommended: thermal storage by transforming electrical energy into thermal energy, storage in the heating networks, or chemical storage (hydrogen and methane) [92][60].
Electric energy storage systems are very expensive, especially because fluctuating RES require numerous conversion systems. The losses are very high, for example, electrical energy storage is approximately 100 times more expensive than thermal storage [14][2]. Thus, except for powering heat pumps, electric storage is not feasible to meet the flexible demands of consumers. Electricity storage systems should facilitate power saving or securing grid stability [76][40]. However, some authors indicated that electric vehicles offer the possibility of sources of electrical energy that can be programmed on demand, but also of storing the electrical energy itself that can later be reintroduced into the grid [93,94][61][62]. The solution of electric energy storage through EVs due to the flexibility advantages of the system they offer has become a topic increasingly researched by authors in recent years, and integrated in their models and scenarios [95,96,97,98][63][64][65][66].
Thermal storage is a much more efficient method of storage that involves lower costs compared to electrical storage [14,92][2][60]. The main thermal energy storage systems identified in the literature are as follows: water tank [21,64,67,90][11][27][30][58] and pit thermal energy storage [99,100,101][67][68][69].

4. Demand

In the case of a city, or, at a smaller scale, a university campus, there are three main types of useful energy demand [14,102][2][70]: electricity, thermal (heating and cooling), and fuel.
Lund et al. (2014) considered that the energy supply can be facilitated by using systems such as heat pumps and electric boilers [76][40]. Some authors believed that due to their high consumption and thermal inertia, buildings can ensure flexible demand [103][71].
Bačeković and Østergaard proposed a balance between demand, production, and storage [64][27], that should be updated, including the energy losses.
Regarding energy consumption in the building sector, one of the main concerns was related to the energy performance difference between the designed energy consumption of buildings and their actual operation consumption [25,27,28,104][72][73][74][75]. This difference is influenced by three factors: the performance of energy systems, the user behavior, and the insulation performance, especially in the case of buildings [105,106][76][77]. Numerous studies conducted in recent years have shown that one of the most influential factors affecting the energy consumption of buildings is the behavior of the occupants [31,107][78][79]. The difference between the estimated consumption when designing the building and the actual final consumption can be 200% higher [35][80], or even 300% higher [36][81], depending on user behavior. Electricity demand should be the main concern for energy conservation in universities, according to some authors who considered that the key factor involved in energy consumption is the cooling system [108][82]. Other authors emphasized the consumption of electricity for lighting; in this case, the estimated percentage of energy consumption varies between 20% [109][83] and 45% [110][84] of the building’s total energy consumption. In what concerns the educational institutions, classrooms are the biggest consumers of energy in terms of lighting, reaching up to 50% of the total building’s energy consumption [111][85].

5. SESs and Sustainable Universities

Sustainable campus management includes energy-saving measures, resource efficiency, and waste reduction, and has become important to many universities, and considered part of the institution’s societal responsibility [112][86]. The role of higher education in sustainable development has not always been very clear, because many institutions have not realized that integrating the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [42][87] in their teaching and research programs could provide the opportunity to expand education for sustainable development [113][88], and, at the same time, it could serve as an important catalyst for student involvement [114][89]. Velazquez, Munguia, Platt, and Taddei (2006) proposed a model to assist universities to improve the effectiveness of their potential or current sustainability initiatives through the identification of strategies and opportunities for sustainability within universities. The model is based on four strategies delivered through a set of tailored initiatives: developing a sustainability vision for the university; the mission; a sustainability committee creating policies, targets, and objectives; and sustainability strategies [115][90]. Grecu (2012) showed also that a sustainable university should be based on six fundamental principles: leadership and vision, social network, participation, education and learning, research integration, and performance management [116][91]. Universities need to more closely assess the operation and management of the campus as well as the energy performance of buildings and their systems and facilities [117][92]. A university campus is very similar to a city, facing similar problems in general [118][93], from the problem of parking spaces to the energetics’ administrative problems such as electricity, hot water, or the gas grid. Most studies have focused on the concept of a smart city and less on smart universities [118][93]. However, both problems and solutions can be similar. Thus, thorough research should consider the SES whether it is a university building, an office building, or even a smart city.

6. KPI Framework for SESs in Sustainable Universities

Although many universities adopted sustainability-oriented policies and implemented SESs, there is a little evidence on how such systems are assessed for their performance and the results of these assessments. Efkarpidis, et al. (2022) proposed a generic KPI framework for the evaluation of SESs installed in application areas of different scales. The framework is based on four main layers, which are required for the definition of the application area, the involved stakeholders, the SES requirements, and the stakeholders’ objectives, and the application area of each SES deployment is determined based on four levels of spatial aggregation varying from single buildings to communities, cities, or regions [45][94]. The only framework wthe cresearchers could identify for university campuses was proposed by Saleh et al. (2015) for Malaysian universities to ensure sustainability, and consists of five clusters: top management support, comprehensive energy management team, stakeholders’ involvement, awareness, and risk management [119][95]. The framework is based on the Talloires Declaration ten-point action plan for incorporating sustainability and environmental literacy in teaching, research, operations, and outreach at colleges and universities [120][96]. The most relevant assessments of universities from the sustainability point of view come from ranking institutions who created in the last years specific indexes (for instance, QS World University Rankings: Sustainability, Times Higher Education—Impact Ranking), to show how universities are developing towards the UN Sustainable Development Goals [121][97], or how universities are taking actions to tackle the world’s most pressing environmental and social issues [122][98]. There are also rankings (Green Metrics, for instance) providing an overview of the sustainability policies [123][99], assessing the universities based on the environmental protection and ethical issues (People & Planet University League) [124][100], or highlighting the schools that have launched the most important initiatives to reduce campus waste and energy consumption, promote alternative modes of transport, fund environmentally friendly proposals from students and faculties, and take other measures for the benefit of the environment (Best Colleges) [125][101]. The KPI framework proposed in ourthe study (Figure 31) is developed starting from the current findings and priorities from the scientific literature, energy standards, legislation, university rankings, and specialized websites.
Figure 31. KPI framework for SESs in sustainable universities.
The framework is based on a bottom-up approach and can support the implementation, operation, and evaluation of the SESs from university campuses, based on SES requirements and the stakeholders’ goals. Unlike previously developed solutions, ourthe framework is focused not only on the technical side of SESs but also on the role that education, research, and innovation should have in sustainable development, making universities key contributors to achieving the goals. Universities should adopt policies for clean energy and on separating investments from carbon-intensive energy industries, and the progress toward this goal needs to be continuously evaluated based on relevant KPIs. The KPIs were organized in 4 clusters (management and assessment, research and education, environmental impact and efficient operation, and SES components) and 10 categories, suggesting that the evaluation of the SES performance should be part of a holistic approach. The scoring for each indicator was adapted from the UI Green Metric and THE—impact ranking [121[97][99],123], and this can be adjusted based on the results of the evaluations and, respectively, on the new rankings (QS, for instance). The KPIs are discussed and presented below in Table 1, Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4. 
 

References

  1. Hansen, K.; Breyer, C.; Lund, H. Status and perspectives on 100% renewable energy systems. Energy 2019, 175, 471–480.
  2. Lund, H.; Østergaard, P.A.; Connolly, D.; Ridjan, I.; Mathiesen, B.V.; Hvelplund, F.; Thellufsen, J.Z.; Sorknæs, P. Energy Storage and Smart Energy Systems. Int. J. Sustain. Energy Plan. Manag. 2016, 11, 3–14.
  3. Lund, H.; Thellufsen, J.Z.; Aggerholm, S.; Wittchen, K.B.; Nielsen, S.; Mathiesen, B.V.; Möller, B. Heat saving strategies in sustainable smart energy systems. Int. J. Sustain. Energy Plan. Manag. 2014, 4, 3–16.
  4. Neupane, D.; Kafle, S.; Karki, K.R.; Kim, D.H.; Pradhan, P. Solar and wind energy potential assessment at provincial level in Nepal: Geospatial and economic analysis. Renew. Energy 2022, 181, 278–291.
  5. Fittrin, D.W. Determining Optimal Schedule and Load Capacity in the Utilization of Solar and Wind Energy in the Microgrid Scheme: A Case Study. Energy Procedia 2015, 65, 48–57.
  6. Askarzadeh, A. Optimisation of solar and wind energy systems: A survey. Int. J. Ambient. Energy 2017, 38, 653–662.
  7. Giordano, A.; Mastroianni, C.; Sorrentino, N.; Menniti, D.; Pinnarelli, A. An energy community implementation: The unical energy cloud. Electronics 2019, 8, 1517.
  8. Rynska, E.; Klimowicz, J.; Kowal, S.; Lyzwa, K.; Pierzchalski, M.; Rekosz, W. Smart energy solutions as an indispensable multi-criteria input for a coherent urban planning and building design process two case studies for smart office buildings in warsaw downtown area. Energies 2020, 13, 3757.
  9. Naji, N.; Abid, M.R.; Benhaddou, D.; Krami, N. Context-aware wireless sensor networks for smart building energy management system. Information 2020, 11, 530.
  10. Tucci, F.; Santucci, D.; Endres, E.; Hausladen, G. Smart urban districts: Dynamic energy systems for synergic interactions between building and city. Techne 2018, 1, 92–102.
  11. Dincer, I.; Acar, C. Smart energy solutions with hydrogen options. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2018, 43, 8579–8599.
  12. Nastasi, B.; Basso, G.L. Hydrogen to link heat and electricity in the transition towards future Smart Energy Systems. Energy 2016, 110, 5–22.
  13. You, C.; Kim, J. Optimal design and global sensitivity analysis of a 100% renewable energy sources based smart energy network for electrified and hydrogen cities. Energy Convers. Manag. 2020, 223, 113252.
  14. Gerboni, R.; Grosso, D. Testing future hydrogen penetration at local scale through an optimisation tool. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2016, 41, 22626–22634.
  15. Dumas, P. A European perspective of the development of deep geothermal in urban areas: Smart thermal grids, geothermal integration into smart cities. Geomech. Tunn. 2016, 9, 447–450.
  16. Dincer, I.; Acarac, C. Smart energy systems for a sustainable future. Appl. Energy 2017, 194, 225–235.
  17. Cao, Y.; Dhahad, H.A.; Togun, H.; El-Shafay, A.S.; Alamri, S.; Rajhi, A.A.; Anqi, A.E.; Ibrahim, B.F. Development and transient performance analysis of a decentralized grid-connected smart energy system based on hybrid solar-geothermal resources; Techno-economic evaluation. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 76, 103425.
  18. Ridjan, I. Integrated Electrofuels and Renewable Energy Systems; Department of Development and Planning, Aalborg University: Aalborg, Denmark, 2015.
  19. Lester, M.S.; Bramstoft, R.; Münster, M. Analysis on Electrofuels in Future Energy Systems: A 2050 Case Study. Energy 2020, 199, 117408.
  20. Rixhon, X.; Limpens, G.; Coppitters, D.; Jeanmart, H.; Contino, F. The Role of Electrofuels under Uncertainties for the Belgian Energy Transition. Energies 2021, 14, 4027.
  21. Conrado, R.J.; Haynes, C.A.; Haendler, B.E.; Toone, E.J. Electrofuels: A new paradigm for renewable fuels. In Advanced Biofuels and Bioproducts; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 1037–1064.
  22. Connolly, D.; Mathiesen, B.V.; Ridjan, I. A comparison between renewable transport fuels that can supplement or replace biofuels in a 100% renewable energy system. Energy 2014, 73, 110–125.
  23. Grahn, M.; Malmgren, E.; Korberg, A.D.; Taljegard, M.; Anderson, J.E.; Brynolf, S.; Hansson, J.; Skov, I.R.; Wallington, T. J Review of electrofuel feasibility—cost and environmental impact. Prog. Energy 2022, 4, 32010.
  24. Lund, H.; Østergaard, P.A.; Connolly, D.; Mathiesen, B.V. Smart Energy and Smart Energy Systems. Energy 2017, 137, 556–565.
  25. Connolly, D.; Lund, H.; Mathiesen, B. Smart Energy Europe: The technical and economic impact of one potential 100% renewable energy scenario for the European Union. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 60, 1634–1653.
  26. Hassan, N.U.; Yuen, C.; Niyato, D. Blockchain technologies for smart energy systems: Fundamentals, challenges, and solutions. IEEE Ind. Electron. Mag. 2019, 13, 106–118.
  27. Bačeković, I.; Østergaard, P.A. A smart energy system approach vs a non-integrated renewable energy system. Energy 2018, 155, 824–837.
  28. Mura, P.G.; Baccoli, R.; Innamorati, R.; Mariotti, S. Solar energy system in a small town constituted of a network of photovoltaic collectors to produce Electricity for homes and hydrogen for transport services of municipality. In Proceedings of the 6th International Building Physics Conference, IBPC 2015, Torino, Italy, 14–17 June 2015.
  29. Marczinkowski, H.M.; Østergaard, P.A. Residential versus communal combination of photovoltaic and battery in smart energy systems. Energy 2018, 152, 466–475.
  30. Blaauwbroek, N.; Nguyen, P.H.; Konsman, M.J.; Shi, H.; Kamphuis, R.I.G.; Kling, W.L. Decentralized resource allocation and load scheduling for multicommodity smart energy systems. IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 2015, 6, 1506–1514.
  31. Bao, Q.; Honda, T.; El Ferik, S.; Shaukat, M.M.; Yang, M.C. Understanding the role of visual appeal in consumer preference for residential solar panels. Renew. Energy 2017, 113, 1569–1579.
  32. Soydan, O. Solar power plants site selection for sustainable ecological development in Nigde, Turkey. SN Appl. Sci. 2021, 3, 41.
  33. Prieto-Araujo, E.; Gomis-Bellmunt, O. Wind turbine technologies. In HVDC Grids for Transmission of Electrical Energy: Offshore Grids and a Future Supergrid; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2016; pp. 97–108.
  34. Chen, J.; Chen, G.; Wang, Z.; Song, H.; Zhou, J. Simulator design of variable pitch wind turbine. In Proceedings of the 2011 7th International Conference on MEMS, NANO and Smart Systems, ICMENS 2011, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 4–6 November 2011. Code 87709, 2012.
  35. Dominković, D.F.; Dobravec, V.; Jiang, Y.; Nielsen, P.S.; Krajačić, G. Modelling smart energy systems in tropical regions. Energy 2018, 155, 592–609.
  36. Lund, H. Renewable Energy Systems—A Smart Energy Systems Approach to the Choice and Modeling of 100% Renewable Solutions, 2nd ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2014.
  37. Erixno, O.; Rahim, N.A.; Ramadhani, F.; Adzman, N.N. Energy management of renewable energy-based combined heat and power systems: A review. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2022, 51, 101944.
  38. De Rosa, M.; Carragher, M.; Finn, D.P. Flexibility assessment of a combined heat-power system (CHP) with energy storage under real-time energy price market framework. Therm. Sci. Eng. Prog. 2018, 8, 426–438.
  39. Yi, Z.; Li, Z. Combined Heat and Power Dispatching Strategy Considering Heat Storage Characteristics of Heating Network and Thermal Inertia in Heating Area. Dianwang Jishu/Power Syst. Technol. 2018, 42, 1378–1384.
  40. Lund, H.; Wernerb, S.; Wiltshirec, R.; Svendsend, S.; Thorsene, J.E.; Hvelplunda, F.; Mathiesenf, B.V. 4th Generation District Heating (4GDH): Integrating smart thermal grids into future sustainable energy systems. Energy 2014, 68, 1–11.
  41. Lundqvist, P. The role of heat pumps in the smart energy systems. In Proceedings of the 24th IIR International Congress of Refrigeration, ICR 2015, Yokohama, Japan, 16–22 August 2015.
  42. Barberis, S.; Rivarolo, M.; Bellotti, D.; Magistri, L. Heat pump integration in a real poly-generative energy district: A techno-economic analysis. Energy Convers. Manag. 2022, 10, 15.
  43. Bracco, S.; Delfino, F.; Laiolo, P.; Rossi, M. The Smart City Energy infrastructures at the Savona Campus of the University of Genoa. In Proceedings of the 2016 AEIT International Annual Conference (AEIT), Capri, Italy, 5–7 October 2016.
  44. Rey-Hernández, J.M.; González, S.L.; José-Al, J.F.S.; Tejero-González, A.; Velasco-Gómez, E.; Rey-Martínez, F.J. Smart energy management of combined ventilation systems in a nZEB. E3S Web Conf. 2019, 111, 01050.
  45. Leire, G.-A. The benefits of local cross-sector consumer ownership models for the transition to a renewable smart energy system in Denmark. An exploratory study. Energies 2020, 13, 1508.
  46. Rizwan, M.; Hong, L.; Waseem, M.; Ahmad, S.; Sharaf, M.; Shafiq, M. A robust adaptive overcurrent relay coordination scheme for wind-farm-integrated power systems based on forecasting the wind dynamics for smart energy systems. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 6318.
  47. Energywatch. Danish Wind Turbines Curtailed Like Never Before. Available online: https://energywatch.com/EnergyNews/Policy___Trading/article12666098.ece (accessed on 12 November 2021).
  48. Lund, H.; Andersen, A.N.; Østergaard, P.; Mathiesen, B.; Connolly, D. From electricity smart grids to smart energy systems–A market operation based approach and understanding. Energy 2012, 42, 96–102.
  49. Hedegaard, K.; Münster, M. Influence of individual heat pumps on–Energy system investments and operation. Energy Convers Manag. 2013, 75, 673–684.
  50. Østergaard, P. Wind power integration in Aalborg Municipality using compression heat pumps and geothermal absorption heat pumps. Energy 2013, 49, 502–508.
  51. Buffa, S.; Marco, C.; Matteo, D.; Marco, B.; Roberto, F. 5th generation district heating and cooling systems: A review of existing. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 104, 504–522.
  52. Breyer, C.; Bogdanov, D.; Gulagi, A.; Aghahosseini, A.; Barbosa, I.; Koskinen, O.; Barasa, M.; Caldera, U.; Afanasyeva, S.; Child, M.; et al. On the role of solar photovoltaics in global energy. Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 2017, 25, 727–745.
  53. Mathiesen, B.V.; Lund, H.; Hansen, K.; Ridjan, I.; Djørup, S.R.; Nielsen, S.; Thellufsen, J.Z.; Grundahl, L.; Lund, R.S.; Drysdale, D.; et al. DA’s Energy Vision 2050: A Smart Energy System Strategy for 100% Renewable Denmark; Department of Development and Planning, Aalborg University: Aalborg, Denmark, 2015.
  54. Locatelli, G.; Invernizzi, D.; Mancini, M. Investment and risk. Energy 2016, 104, 114–131.
  55. Tan, X.; Li, Q.; Wang, H. Advances and trends of energy storage. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2013, 44, 179–191.
  56. Lund, H. Renewable Heating Strategies and their Consequences for Storage and Grid Infrastructures Comparing a Smart Grid to a Smart Energy Systems Approach. Energy 2018, 151, 94–102.
  57. Grimm, C.; Molina, J.M.; Mahlknecht, S.; Damm, M.; Lukasch, F. Infrastructures and Platforms. Int. J. Energy A Clean Environ. 2013, 14, 21–39.
  58. Gonzalez, R.M.; Van Goch, T.A.J.; Aslam, M.F.; Blanch, A.; Ribeiro, P.F. Microgrid design considerations for a smart-energy university campus. In Proceedings of the 2014 5th IEEE PES International Conference on Innovative Smart Grid Technologies (ISGT Europe), Istanbul, Turkey, 12–15 October 2014.
  59. Lund, P.D.; Lindgren, J.; Mikkola, J.; Salpakari, J. Review of energy system flexibility measures to enable high levels of variable renewable electricity. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Rev. 2015, 45, 785–807.
  60. Ajanovic, A.; Hiesl, A.; Haas, R. On the role of storage for electricity in smart energy systems. Energy 2020, 200, 117473.
  61. Lund, H.; Kempton, W. Integration of renewable energy into the transport and electricity sectors through V2G. Energy Policy 2008, 36, 3578–3587.
  62. Prebeg, P.; Gasparovic, G.; Krajacic, G.; Duic, N. Long-term energy planning of Croatian power system using multi-objective optimization with focus on renewable energy and integration of electric vehicles. Appl. Energy 2016, 184, 1493–1507.
  63. Bellocchi, S.; Manno, M.; Noussan, M.; Vellini, M. Impact of grid-scale electricity storage and electric vehicles on renewable energy penetration: A case study for Italy. Energies 2019, 12, 1303.
  64. Skarvelis-Kazakos, S.; Daniel, S.; Buckley, S. Distributed energy storage using second-life electric vehicle batteries. In Proceedings of the IET Power in Unity: A Whole System Approach, London, UK, 16–17 October 2013.
  65. Bellocchi, S.; Gambini, M.; Manno, M.; Stilo, T.; Vellini, M. Positive interactions between electric vehicles and renewable energy sources in CO2-reduced energy scenarios: The Italian case. Energy 2018, 161, 172–182.
  66. Chitsuphaphan, T.; Yang, X.; Dai, H. Stochastic Programming for Residential Energy Management with Electric Vehicle under Photovoltaic Power Generation Uncertainty. In Proceedings of the 2020 International Conference on Probabilistic Methods Applied to Power Systems, Liege, Belgium, 18–21 August 2020.
  67. Dominković, D. Zero carbon energy system of South East Europe in 2050. Appl. Energy 2016, 184, 1517–1528.
  68. Schmid, T.; Pauschinger, T.; Sørensen, P.; Snijders, A.; Djebbar, R.; Boulter, R.; Thornton, J. Design Aspects for Large-scale Pit and Aquifer Thermal Energy Storage for District Heating and Cooling. Energy Procedia 2018, 149, 585–594.
  69. Sifnaios, I.; Jensen, A.; Furbo, S.; Fan, J. Performance comparison of two water pit thermal energy storage (PTES) systems using energy, exergy, and stratification indicators. J. Energy Storage 2022, 52, 104947.
  70. Grahn, M.; Anderson, J.E.; Wallington, T.J. Chapter Four–Cost-Effective Vehicle and Fuel Technology Choices in a Carbon-Constrained World: Insights from Global Energy Systems Modeling. In Electric and Hybrid Vehicles; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2010; pp. 91–111.
  71. Hanif, S.; Massier, T.; Gooi, H.B.; Hamacher, T.; Reindl, T. Cost Optimal Integration of Flexible Buildings. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2017, 32, 2254–2266.
  72. Turner, C.; Frankel, M. Energy Performance of LEED for New Construction Buildings; U.S. Green Building Council: Washington, DC, USA, 2008.
  73. Meneze, A.C.; Cripps, A.; Bouchlaghem, D.; Buswell, R. Predicted vs. actual energy performance of non-domestic buildings: Using post-occupancy evaluation data to reduce the performance gap. Appl. Energy 2012, 97, 355–364.
  74. Korjenic, A.; Bednar, T. Validation and evaluation of total energy use in office buildings: A case study. Autom. Constr. 2012, 23, 64–70.
  75. Carbon Trust. Closing the Gap: Lessons Learned on Realising the Potential of Low Carbon Building Design; Carbon Trust: London, UK, 2011.
  76. Uriarte, I.; Erkoreka, A.; Giraldo-Soto, C.; Martin, K.; Uriarte, A.; Eguia, P. Mathematical development of an average method for estimating the reduction of the Heat Loss Coefficient of an energetically retrofitted occupied office building. Energy Build. 2019, 192, 101–122.
  77. Wilde, P. The gap between predicted and measured energy performance of buildings: A framework for investigation. Autom. Constr. 2014, 41, 40–49.
  78. Pozas, B.M.; Gamero, I.A.; Domínguez, A.S.; De Castro, P.B.G. A methodology to improve energy efficiency and comfort conditions with low-cost ICTs in rural public buildings. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 60, 102156.
  79. Van der Werff, E.; Steg, L. The psychology of participation and interest in smart energy systems. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2016, 22, 107–114.
  80. Tam, V.W.Y.; Almeida, L.; Le, K. Energy-Related Occupant Behaviour and Its Implications in Energy Use: A Chronological Review. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2635.
  81. Delzendeh, E.; Wu, S.; Lee, A.; Zhou, Y. The impact of occupants’ behaviours on building energy analysis: A research review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 80, 1061–1071.
  82. Wang, J.C. A study on the energy performance of school buildings in Taiwan. Energy Build. 2016, 133, 810–822.
  83. Doulos, L.; Kontadakis, A.; Madias, E.; Sinou, M.; Tsangrassoulis, A. Minimizing energy consumption for artificial lighting in a typical classroom of a Hellenic public school aiming for near Zero Energy Building using LED DC luminaires and daylight harvesting systems. Energy Build. 2019, 194, 201–217.
  84. Dubois, M.C.; Blomsterberg, Å. Energy saving potential and strategies for electric lighting in future North European, low energy office buildings: A literature review. Energy Build. 2011, 43, 2572–2582.
  85. Bernardo, H.; Antunes, C.H.; Gaspar, A.; Pereira, L.D.; Silva, M.G. An approach for energy performance and indoor climate assessment in a Portuguese school building. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2017, 30, 184–194.
  86. European University Association. Universities and Sustainable Development Towards the Global Goals; European University Association: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018.
  87. ONU. Agenda 2030 Pentru Dezvoltare Durabilă. 2015. Available online: https://www.mae.ro/node/35919 (accessed on 7 October 2022).
  88. Shiel, C.; Smith, N.; Cantarello, E. Aligning Campus Strategy with the SDGs: An Institutional Case Study. In Universities as Living Labs for Sustainable Development; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 11–27.
  89. Filho, W.L. Sustainable Development Goals and sustainability teaching at universities: Falling behind or getting ahead of the pack? J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 232, 285–294.
  90. Velazquez, L.; Munguia, N.; Platt, A.; Taddei, J. Sustainable university: What can be the matter? J. Clean. Prod. 2006, 14, 810–819.
  91. Grecu, V. Contribuții Privind Sustenabilitatea în Universități; ULBS: Sibiu, Romania, 2012.
  92. Alsharif, M.A.; Peters, M.D.; Dixon, T.J. Designing and Implementing Effective Campus. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5096.
  93. Nagowah, S.; Sta, H.B.; Gobin, B.A. An Ontology for an IoT-enabled Smart Parking in a University Campus. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE International Smart Cities Conference (ISC2), Casablanca, Morocco, 14–17 October 2019.
  94. Efkarpidis, N.; Goranović, A.; Yang, C.-W.; Geidl, M.; Herbst, I.; Wilker, S.; Sauter, T. A Generic Framework for the Definition of Key Performance Indicators for Smart Energy Systems at Different Scales. Energies 2022, 15, 1289.
  95. Saleh, A.A.; Mohammed, A.H.; Abdullah, M.N. Critical success factors for sustainable university: A framework from the energy management view. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 172, 503–510.
  96. ULFS. ulsf.org. 2015. Available online: http://ulsf.org/talloires-declaration/ (accessed on 11 November 2022).
  97. THE World University Ranking. THE Impact Rankings 2020: Methodology. 2020. Available online: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/impact-rankings-2020-methodology (accessed on 12 November 2021).
  98. Craig, O. Introducing the QS World University Rankings: Sustainability 2023. 2022. Available online: https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings-articles/qs-sustainability-ranking/introducing-qs-world-university-rankings-sustainability-2023 (accessed on 10 November 2022).
  99. UI Green Metric. Criteria & Indicators. 2020. Available online: http://greenmetric.ui.ac.id/criteria-indicator/ (accessed on 12 January 2022).
  100. People & Planet University League. Methodology. 2019. Available online: https://peopleandplanet.org/university-league-methodology (accessed on 12 January 2022).
  101. Best Colleges. Greenest Universities. Bestcolleges 2020. Available online: https://www.bestcolleges.com/features/greenest-universities/ (accessed on 15 January 2022).
  102. European University Association. Universities and Sustainable Development Towards the Global Goals; European University Association: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018.
  103. Shiel, C.; Smith, N.; Cantarello, E. Aligning Campus Strategy with the SDGs: An Institutional Case Study. In Universities as Living Labs for Sustainable Development; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 11–27.
  104. Filho, W.L. Sustainable Development Goals and sustainability teaching at universities: Falling behind or getting ahead of the pack? J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 232, 285–294.
  105. Velazquez, L.; Munguia, N.; Platt, A.; Taddei, J. Sustainable university: What can be the matter? J. Clean. Prod. 2006, 14, 810–819.
  106. Grecu, V. Contribuții Privind Sustenabilitatea în Universități; ULBS: Sibiu, Romania, 2012.
  107. Alsharif, M.A.; Peters, M.D.; Dixon, T.J. Designing and Implementing Effective Campus. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5096.
  108. Nagowah, S.; Sta, H.B.; Gobin, B.A. An Ontology for an IoT-enabled Smart Parking in a University Campus. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE International Smart Cities Conference (ISC2), Casablanca, Morocco, 14–17 October 2019.
  109. Efkarpidis, N.; Goranović, A.; Yang, C.-W.; Geidl, M.; Herbst, I.; Wilker, S.; Sauter, T. A Generic Framework for the Definition of Key Performance Indicators for Smart Energy Systems at Different Scales. Energies 2022, 15, 1289.
  110. Saleh, A.A.; Mohammed, A.H.; Abdullah, M.N. Critical success factors for sustainable university: A framework from the energy management view. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 172, 503–510.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback