Energy Flexibility in

a future
neighbourhood

De Scheg
An exploration of a future
neighbourhood, enjoying clean and
flexible energy, integrated electric
vehicles and an optimal grid
infrastructure.

AUGUST 23 2018
Authored by: H. Niesing

1
Summary
This document reflects an Energy (and e-mobility) analysis of ‘de Scheg’, a new
neighbourhood to be realised within the municipality of Amstelveen during the period
2019-2024. In this neighbourhood, about 1100 houses will be built for an approximate
number of 3000 inhabitants and a school.

The objective is to contribute to an optimised energy design of the

neighbourhood. That means concretely to maximise self-consumption of
clean energy with an optimised electricity grid. The aim is to reduce as
much as possible the neighbourhood’s carbon footprint and avoid
excessive electricity grid investments.

In this study, the focus has been on the western part of De Scheg with around 700
houses planned. The Energy & Mobility Dashboard developed by Resourcefully is the
tool used to analyse and visualise the energy flows. Amstelveen works on the city
transition towards a more sustainable, low CO2 emitting model. ln this neighbourhood
this results in more solar energy and the electrification of mobility and household’s
energy use. Flexible electricity consumption can have a remarkable impact on the
neighbourhoods of the near future. With limited data, limited EVs and no specific
storage incorporation, we demonstrated that the utilisation of direct solar energy can
increase from 27 to 38 % over the whole year. However, this number can be
significantly higher when introducing better data, more flexibility, a more significant
share of EVs and possibly neighbourhood storage.

2
Table of Content
Summary 2
Introduction and Objectives 4
Housing & Parking information 6
General household electricity utilisation 7
The solar capacity 9
The EV charging potential in De Scheg 10
The grid connection 11
De Scheg Energy EV flexibility results and visualisation 12
 Results and visualization explanation 13
 Scenario I minimum solar installed, limited EVs and without flexibility 14
 Scenario II maximum solar installed, middle amount EVs without flexibility 16
 Scenario III minimum solar installed, limited EVs with flexibility 18
 Scenario IV maximum solar installed, middle amount EVs with flexibility 20
 Comparison table of the four modelled scenarios 22
General conclusions and recommendations 23

3
Introduction and Objectives
The objective of this exploration is to contribute to an optimised design of the energy
profile of ‘De Scheg’ neighbourhood. That means to maximise self-consumption while
optimising the electricity grid. The aim is to reduce the carbon footprint of ‘De Scheg’
significantly and avoid excessive electricity grid investments.

The municipality of Amstelveen wants to supervise the construction of new houses, to

ensure compliance with the Paris climate goals and the energy-agreements in The
Netherlands (covered in BENG legislation). To comply with those goals, it is essential
that there is a defined minimum of clean energy production and a maximum of energy
consumption (both determined per square meter surface) in the built environment.
Besides that, it is crucial to prepare cities for large-scale electrification without building
an extensive electricity grid which is only used during peak moments.

The municipality works in close cooperation with different stakeholders on new city
development, such as:
 City developers;
 Grid operators (DSO);
 Architects;
 Installers.

The Energy & Mobility Dashboard developed by Resourcefully supports the

municipality in showing how construction decisions will influence the energy objectives
and the electricity grid costs. All these stakeholders have their role and interest in
developing the new city neighbourhood. This study aims to support the development
of an optimised and flexible design of this neighbourhood. This means the design of a
maximised self-consumption with an optimised electricity grid utilisation. The aim is to
reduce as much as possible the neighbourhood’s carbon footprint and avoid excessive
electricity grid investments.

4
The main components taken into account in this neighbourhood without gas-
connection are:

 the self-generated energy (through solar electricity, solar heat is excluded from
this assignment, but can be included in a follow up stage),
 the electricity consumption from the households, divided into three categories:
o The household energy consumption,
o The energy required for heating, cooling and ventilation (BENG
legislation), and
o The charging of electric vehicles (EVs).
In a next phase, the study could include the incorporation of storage (electricity and
heat).

The first part of the document briefly introduces the parameters included in this study,
while the second part explains the technology, visualises and quantifies the results and
ends with conclusions and recommendations.

This report reflects an exercise with limited information and limited time-
dedication and shows the potential of the Energy & Mobility Dashboard to
achieve the above-mentioned objectives.

5
Housing & Parking information
Information on the houses & parking outside (for both energy production and
consumption estimations) for a total of 700 homes at the Westside of ‘De Scheg”,
the first area to be built:

General information on the houses

Area A Area B
‘Freestanding’ houses: 12 ‘Freestanding’ houses: 38
Two under one roof: 18 Two under one roof: 34
Row houses: 118 Row houses: 98
Total parking places: 231-235 Total parking places: 214-218
Area C Area D
‘Free standing’ houses: 13 ‘Free standing’ houses: 9
Two under one roof: 42 Two under one roof: 22
Row houses: 131 Row houses: 141
Total parking places: 256-260 Total parking places: 300
Totals:
‘Free standing’ houses: 72
Two under one roof: 116
Row houses: 488
Apartments: 24
Total houses considered: 700
Total parking places: 1001-1013

6
General household electricity
utilisation
A distinction is made between the general electricity domestic usage (washing,
cooking, lighting and other electro-domestic devices) and the house connected devices
(where the BENG legislation is applicable) such as heating, cooling and ventilation (see
paragraph below).
The electricity consumed by the 700 houses for purposes other than heating, cooling
and ventilation has been calculated based upon existing hourly demand profiles from
Amsterdam.

This version of the tool has not included variations in the total energy
consumption of the household. Each household consists of approximately
2,5 to 3 persons. The assumptions made were varying among the types of
houses according to the table on the next page.

INFORMATION ON HEATING IN ‘DE SCHEG’

The households in ‘de Scheg’ do not have a gas connection, so all heating is either
done by electricity or pellets (not considered in this study because of the local air-
pollution). The houses are heated through heat pumps.
The annual energy consumption for heating, cooling and ventilation has been derived
from the RVO data set as provided by Amstelveen (Resultaten verkennende studie
voor eisen aan Bijna EnergieNeutrale Gebouwen 2015). This can be further refined in a
future study.
The hourly demand profiles for heating, cooling and ventilation are derived from data
on unregulated indoor temperatures for the Amsterdam region, obtained from the
EnergyPlus tool developed by the U.S. Department of Energy. The hourly
heating/cooling demand is set proportional to the difference between the unregulated
indoor temperatures and the target temperature range of 18-24 degrees. The
ventilation demand is constant throughout all hours of the year.

7
House type Freestanding 2 in 1 Row Apptmnt Totals
Number of houses 72 116 488 24 700
Area per house (sqm) 150 120 100 70
Inhabitants per house 2.5-3 2.5-3 2.5-3 2.5-3
Estimate of actual BENG
consumption in kWh/sqm 25 20 15 15
Estimate of non-BENG
consumption in kWh 3500 3000 2500 2000
Actual BENG consumption
per household (kWh) 3750 2400 1500 1050
BENG consumption TOTAL
(kWh) 270000 278400 732000 25200 1305600
Actual BENG and non-
BENG consumption TOTAL
(kWh) 522000 626400 1952000 73200 3173600
BENG requires (>50% )
renewable (kWh) 261000 313200 976000 36600 1586800
NON BENG Domestic
consumption total (kWh) 252000 348000 1220000 48000 1868000

THE BENG ENERGY ANALYSIS

Two (BENG) demand profiles are made which differentiate between a scenario in
which heating and cooling is done at the moment it is required (inflexible), and a
scenario where the heating/cooling demand can be shifted throughout the day
(flexible).

The flexible profile shifts the daily heating/cooling demand to maximise the use of the
solar production during the mid-day hours: Assuming a solar installation of 2000 kWp
in the neighbourhood, the total heating/cooling demand over each 24-hour period is
shifted to match the solar surplus. If the heating/cooling demand exceeds the solar
surplus, the remainder is spread evenly over the day.
8
This method depends on the amount of solar peak capacity installed (2000 kWp was
chosen in this case) to match the solar surplus and can in the future be replaced by
more generic and optimal methods.
For the flexibility analysis two different scenarios are chosen. With a more detailed
data analysis on the flexibility this analysis could be executed for multiple solar energy
installations in the neighbourhood.

The solar capacity

All houses are equipped with solar installation, of about 5 and 8 panels per house. This
means about 1500 to 2800 Watt-peak (Wp), assuming that the solar panels have a
potential between 300 and 350 Wp max. For the implementation of BENG at least 6
panels on each roof are necessary, those who want to be energy-neutral (or in Dutch
NOM) will need up to 16-20 panels.

In the calculations, we have introduced the possibility to calculate different scenarios,

from a minimum of 700 kWp installed to a maximum of 2.240 kWp installed for the
whole neighbourhood. The calculated scenarios have now been executed for the
minimum and maximum; this results in a minimum of 663 MWh production and a
maximum of 2121 MWh production. We show a considerable difference and
demonstrate the importance of installing far more than the minimum, which is
legally required for the BENG implementation (1600 MWh).

9
The EV charging potential in
De Scheg
Different scenarios have been developed to take into account the growth in EV
expected in the coming years.

Because the neighbourhood will be under development until 2025, we are proposing
very flexible numbers of EVs to be considered. Not a certain % of all public space
parking places but a total number of EVs that can be adopted. In Resourcefully’s
opinion, EVs increase will go fast, and we should assume that we will find the highest
amount of EVs at freestanding houses and 2^1roof as these have their own parking
place. For the public parking area, the percentage of EVs will be less but also going up,
as we know that in 2030 all new sold cars in The Netherlands should be free of
emissions. This means that for ’de Scheg’ area different numbers of public charging
points in the energy assessment can be included. Each public charging station is
providing a max of 22 kW.

For the EVs’ energy consumption and their availability for flexible charging, we
received input from E-Laad. This input is valid for general hourly charging figures in a
residential area. The general daily consumption per EVs is about 6.75 kWh. As De
Scheg is a residential area, the potential for flexible charging is limited, as a large
number of EVs is not present between 8am and 6pm during the week.

As in the case of heating/cooling demand, we distinguish between a non-flexible and a

flexible hourly profile: In the non-flexible profile, each EV starts charging right away
when arriving home in the evening hours and finishes charging within 2 hours. This
leads to an EV demand peak in the evening hours. In the flexible profile, the charging
process is spread out over a 10-hour time window, in order to lower the consumption
peak during the evening hours.

10
The total impact of EVs has been established flexibly through a range of
EVs which can be introduced in the Dashboard between 0 and 200 in the
Scheg area.
In the calculation scenarios executed a minimum of 20 EVs and a
maximum of 50 EVs have been incorporated.

The grid connection

Liander needs to provide more information regarding grid connection as they have a
specific policy for new areas without gas connection, but with high isolation standards.
In general, the houses will have a three times 32-ampere electricity connection,
grouped into the different building blocks. The public chargers for EVs will be directly
connected to the electricity grid from Liander. However, this is not taken into account
in this study.

The primary focus of this study is to calculate in advance what will be the peaks in
energy import during the winter months and the expected energy exports during the
summer months. We provide two scenarios demonstrating this: a ‘doing business as
usual’ and a ‘flexible’ scenario optimising the generation and the demand co-existence.

The aim is to demonstrate what energy flux impact a modern

neighbourhood has on the electricity grid without and with active steering
of heating, EV charging, washing etcetera. In De Scheg now an area of 700
households is studied, this can be extrapolated to larger areas in the
Netherlands to prepare the grid for a massive trend to go ‘off gas heating’
in the near future. To a large extend this means electrified heating.

11
De Scheg Energy EV flexibility
results and visualisation
A couple of scenarios are defined to check what the energy results are of different
amounts of solar installed, the use of different amounts of EVs and a flexible or static
usage of the energy consumption profiles focussed on BENG components (heat-pump,
cooling & ventilating).
Initial results for 4 different scenarios:
I. Minimum Solar installed, limited EVs without flexibility;
II. Maximum Solar installed, medium amount EVs without flexibility;
III. Minimum Solar installed, limited EVs with flexibility;
IV. Maximum Solar installed, medium amount EVs with flexibility;

These scenarios are chosen to demonstrate the value of using the Energy EV flexibility
dashboard and to see the impact of different choices to:
A. Fulfilling the BENG criteria regarding energy and CO2 emission objectives;
B. Optimising the grid infrastructure required in a neighbourhood now and in the
future;
C. Optimising the energy autonomy and self-consumption (regarding the
cancellation of net metering, in Dutch ‘Salderen’ a relevant Dutch policy actually
operational);
D. Demonstrate the importance of energy flexibility for the 3 above mentioned
objectives.

12
RESULTS & VISUALIZATION EXPLANATION

The Scheg Energy – Mobility Flexibility Dashboard has both a graphical and
quantitative interface. See the brief explanation below:

The Key Performance Indicators are displayed below and self-explaining:

The direct self sufficiency is the solar energy production directly consumed in De
Scheg, without injecting in and extraction of the electricity grid.

13
SCENARIO I MINIMUM SOLAR INSTALLED, LIMITED EVS AND
WITHOUT FLEXIBILITY

The graph below is the annual visualisation of the first Scheg scenario. Here a
minimum of solar panels is installed (700 kWp), this is combined with a total of 20
Electric Vehicles and no flexibility in the consumption of the BENG household
consumption. It results in:

Year-round energy self-sufficiency 21 %

Direct energy self-sufficiency 17 %
Total energy consumed year-round 3224 MWh
Total energy produced year-round 663 MWh
Maximum extraction from the grid 946 KW
Maximum injection into the grid 300 KW

It can be concluded here that the BENG goal, to generate 50% is not achieved. The
goal would be to generate 1600 MWh, while only 663 MWh is achieved. The
dependence from the electricity grid remains very high throughout all the year.

14
Detailed overview scenario I period 27 March – 1st of April

During this week the renewable energy production is limited, but for a few hours
during the day a surplus of production versus consumption is observed. This surplus is
not used in the neighbourhood.

15
SCENARIO II MAXIMUM SOLAR INSTALLED, MIDDLE AMOUNT EVS
WITHOUT FLEXIBILITY

The graph below is the annual visualisation of the second Scheg scenario. Here the
maximum of solar panels is installed (2.240 kWp), this is combined with a total of 50
Electric Vehicles in the Scheg and no flexibility in the consumption of the BENG
household consumption. It results in:

Year-round energy self-sufficiency 64 %

Direct energy self-sufficiency 28 %
Total energy consumed year-round 3299 MWh
Total energy produced year-round 2121 MWh
Maximum extraction from the grid 969 KW
Maximum injection into the grid 1442 KW

It can be concluded here that the BENG goal, to generate 50% is achieved. The goal
would be to generate 1600 MWh, while 2121 MWh is achieved. The dependence
from the electricity grid however remains high. Especially during summer as solar
generation is peaking but EVs are very limited present. Almost 1.5 Megawatt is
injected into the grid produced by only 700 households.

16
Detailed overview scenario II period 27 March – 1st of April

During this week the amount of renewable energy production is significant,

approximately the same amount of energy which is required is produced. However,
during daytime when the solar installation generates an energy surplus, which is
injected in the grid while before and after the solar production hours, large quantities
of energy are imported from the electricity grid.

17
SCENARIO III MINIMUM SOLAR INSTALLED, LIMITED EVS WITH
FLEXIBILITY

The graph below is the annual visualisation of the second Scheg scenario. Here a
minimum of solar panels is installed (700 kWp), this is combined with a total of 20
Electric Vehicles in the Scheg including flexibility in the consumption of the BENG
household energy consumption. It results in:

Year-round energy self-sufficiency 21 %

Direct energy self-sufficiency 20 %
Total energy consumed year-round 3224 MWh
Total energy produced year-round 663 MWh
Maximum extraction from the grid 840 KW
Maximum injection into the grid 250 KW

It can be concluded here that the BENG goal, to generate 50% is not achieved. The
goal is to generate 1600 MWh, only 663 MWh is achieved. The dependence from the
electricity grid remains very high throughout all the year although injection from
solar is less mainly due to flexible heating.

18
Detailed overview scenario III period 27 March – 1st of April

During this week the renewable energy production is limited, but in contrary to the
scenario I the occurring surplus of production is not injected into the grid. This is
avoided through the moving of the BENG energy demand to these timeframes.

19
SCENARIO IV MAXIMUM SOLAR INSTALLED, MIDDLE AMOUNT
EVS WITH FLEXIBILITY

The graph below is the annual visualisation of the second Scheg scenario. Here the
maximum of solar panels are installed (2.240 kWp), this is combined with a total of 50
Electric Vehicles in the Scheg with flexibility in the consumption of the BENG household
consumption. It results in:

Year-round energy self - sufficiency 64 %

Direct energy self-sufficiency 38 %
Total energy consumed year-round 3299 MWh
Total energy produced year-round 2121 MWh
Maximum extraction from the grid 845 KW
Maximum injection into the grid 1385 KW

It can be concluded here that the BENG goal, to generate 50% is actually achieved. The
goal would be to generate 1600 MWh, while 2121 MWh is achieved. The dependence
from the electricity grid is significantly reduced. Almost 40% of the Scheg energy
demand is produced and directly consumed in the neighbourhood itself. During
summer the amount of energy injected remains very high due to the limited amount of
EVs present and the fact that flexibility for other domestic equipment has not yet been
included in the analysis. As a result, almost 1.4 Megawatt is injected into the grid
produced by only 700 households. It is worth highlighting that about 60 KW could be
avoided due to the systems flexibility.

20
Detailed overview scenario IV period 27 March – 1st of April

During this week the amount of renewable energy production is significant,

approximately the same amount of energy which is required is produced. The BENG
consumption energy is moved to the mid-day hours to use the solar production
directly. The surplus injected into the grid is very small compared to Scenario II, and in
turn, the amount of electricity required from the grid in the evening and night hours is
also much lower.

21
COMPARISON TABLE OF THE FOUR MODELLED SCENARIOS

SCENARIO I SCENARIO II SCENARIO III SCENARIO IV

Minimum solar Maximum solar Minimum solar Maximum solar
installed, installed, middle installed, limited installed, middle
limited EVs, no amount EVs, no EVs with amount EVs with
Flexibility flexibility flexibility Flexibility
Year-round energy 21% 64 % 21 % 64 %
self-sufficiency
Direct energy self- 17 % 28 % 20 % 38 %
sufficiency
Total energy 3224 MWh 3299 MWh 3224 MWh 3299 MWh
consumed year-round
Total energy 663 MWh 2121 MWh 663 MWh 2121 MWh
produced year-round
Maximum extraction 946 KW 969 KW 840 KW 845 KW
from the grid
Maximum injection 300 KW 1442 KW 250 KW 1385 KW
into the grid

22
General conclusions and
recommendations
This project was realised in close co-operation between Resourcefully and the
municipality of Amstelveen. Amstelveen has the interest to see how Resourcefully’s
advice can improve decision making process in designing the houses in this new
neighbourhood. Resourcefully aims to improve the accuracy and usefulness of its
Mobility & Energy Dashboard.

OUTCOME SOLAR INSTALLATION

The first outcome of the solar energy production calculations demonstrate clearly that
a serious amount of PV needs to be installed to reach the BENG criteria. We
recommend installing at least 2000 Wp given the impacts of local pollution and
production decrease. These panels need to be installed on the roof with a large part of
the surface turned in south direction, with a good inclination and avoiding shade. Then
a small part of the roof could be north directed. This needs to be incorporated by the
architect. Another option to consider is east-west oriented solar panels, coinciding
better with household and EV demand, but reducing the total generation.
The houses also need to be highly isolated to reach and maintain the BENG
consumption objectives for a significant part of the lifetime of the houses.

OUTCOME FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS

The two scenarios with the high share of solar production (scenario II and IV both 64%
of the energy on yearly basis is generated in the neighbourhood) are showing the
impact of flexibility in BENG consumption and (to a minor extend) smart EV charging.
The outcomes of these scenarios demonstrate clearly how the amount of local energy
both produced and consumed in the neighbourhood (energy autonomy) can be
upgraded from 28 to almost 40 per cent.

23
This share of energy autonomy can be improved significantly when better flexibility for
BENG is included, when more flexible household devices are introduced, when EVs
have a more significant percentage of the mobility fleet, and when (2nd Life battery?)
neighbourhood storage is introduced.

Regarding the grid impact one can observe that the amount of energy injected and
extracted from the grid is significantly higher in scenario II compared to scenario IV.
This means that over the year the time that the neighbourhood needs the grid is
significantly reduced in the flexible scenario.

The grid utilisation peaks are less prominent, the maximum electricity extraction rates
in winter are 969 MW (no flex) versus 845 MW (flex). Maximum electricity injection
rates in summer are 1422 MW (no flex) versus 1385 MW (flex). These limited
differences in winter are due to the limited flexibility in household devices taken into
account. For summer the lack of EVs available can reduce only a small amount of the
electricity injected in the grid.

These numbers can be improved when more BENG flexibility is added, the other
household devices become more flexible and a large EV fleet is available.

By using Resourcefully’s Energy & Mobility Dashboard we demonstrate the added

value of introducing flexibility:
 Minimum solar required for complying with BENG;
 Added value flexible consumption to make improved direct use of the generated
solar energy;
 Impact of the flexible utilisation of household (BENG) devices avoiding energy
peaks in demand (importing large amounts of electricity from the grid in
wintertime;
 Impact of flexible utilisation of household (BENG) devices avoiding electricity
generation peaks exporting large amounts of electricity into the grid in
Summertime;

24
LIMITED OR NOT INCLUDED IN THIS STUDY, RECOMMENDED FOR
FURTHER ANALYSIS:

 The impact of costs generated by the solar installation now and when the Dutch
feed-inn tariff (saldeer-regeling) changes (self-consumption becomes financially
more attractive);
 To a limited extent the role of EVs through smart-charging;
 Different and more detailed BENG scenarios, now only optimized for 2000 kWp
installation;
 More substantial amount of EVs to be investigated;
 Warm water boiler usage;
 Potential of neighbourhood storage (stationary battery);
 The flexibility of other devices (washing machine, dishwasher, dryer etc.);
 The inclusion of more and better data (numbers and usage of sliders).

25