Sap 2000

Short study into the performance of green building
projects in Russia – Measures taken and the

technical, socioeconomic and environmental
achievements
Kondic A, Eames G, Madaminov S, Ali M, Burganova E
February 2014 Skolkovo Institute of Science & Technology
In Conjunction with Green Building Council Russia

Short study into the performance of green building projects in Russia – Measures taken and the technical,
socioeconomic and environmental achievements
Short study into the performance of green building

projects in Russia – Measures taken and the
technical, socioeconomic and environmental
achievements
1. Abstract
Green Building presumes that completed projects incorporate various features,
essentially technological or design solutions which influence the performance of the
building in terms of natural resources consumed (energy or water), positive socio-
economic effects or a reduced burden to the environment. This short study examines
several projects in Russia’s emerging green building market, identifying these features
and achieved results. The aim being to identify “cause-effect” and encourage future in-
depth studies of this relatively un-researched topic area.
Through interviews with stakeholders and site visits, the team of MSc students
successfully manage to identify features in buildings of different types as well as attributed
results. These include energy savings ranging from 40-80% and a return on investment of
additional resources in one case of 250%. Certification to LEED & BREEAM has had a
positive effect in terms of encouraging extra measures to be taken.
The importance of collecting primary data in order to prove the correlation between
causes and effect appears to be an opportunity for study to not only prove the case for
individual technologies but also a wider economic case for green buildings in Russia.
This joint study by Master students at Skoltech and staff at Green Building Council
Russia, aims to stimulate further research in this field.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the following individuals for their contribution to this
publication and the organizations they represent for agreeing to share data, without which the
case for green building in the Russian Federation would be difficult if not impossible to
prove:
Steve Macey – Buro Happold; Ksenia Agapova – Jones Lang Lasalle

Philippa Garnett – Buro Happold; Ilya Zavaleev – Ernst & Young
Dmitry Berezutsky – GreenStroy; Sergey Tsytsin – Tsytsin Architects
Dmitry Kulikov – SKF; Alla – Tsytsin Architects
Artem Sedov – MGSU; Julia Zhaleeva – Mirland Development
Alexei Morokhovets – i-Freedom; Elena Valueva – Mirland Development
Cem Yener – Enka TC
16/2/14 2
Contents
1. Abstract .............................................................................................................................. 2
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... 2
2. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 6
3. Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 7
3.1. Stage one - preparation ................................................................................................ 7
3.1.1 Desktop Study ........................................................................................................... 7
3.1.2 Identification of suitable buildings - which are certified to green building standards
or otherwise considered to be “Green”............................................................................... 8
3.1.1 Designing Questions & plan time ............................................................................. 8
3.2 Stage two – engaging stakeholders .................................................................................. 8
3.2.1 List of Projects identified to be examined. Stakeholders to be contacted. ................ 8
3.2.2 Contacting building owners or representatives to ask them to participate in the
study; .................................................................................................................................. 9
3.2.3 Send out of pre-questionnaire to stakeholders; ......................................................... 9
3.2.4 Send technical questionnaire to stakeholders; ......................................................... 10
3.2.5 Dividing tasks between group members ................................................................. 10
3.2.6 Arranging site visits and meetings with representative or their professional contact;
.......................................................................................................................................... 10
3.2. Stage three – Site visits and interviews ..................................................................... 10
3.3.1 Interviews in RuGBC office with stakeholders....................................................... 10
3.3.2 Site visits; ................................................................................................................ 10
3.3.3 Meeting schedule with stakeholders ....................................................................... 11
3.3. Stage four - Analysis ................................................................................................. 11
3.4.1 Data processing and analysis; ................................................................................. 11
3.4.2 Write up draft; ......................................................................................................... 11
3.4.3 Comments from stakeholders – stakeholder dialogue; ........................................... 12
3.4.4 Final Report Submission ......................................................................................... 12
3.4.5 Promotion of report – publication through journals; ............................................... 12
3.4.6 Acknowledgement letters to stakeholders. .............................................................. 12
16/2/14 3
3.5 Schematic view of the Project process ........................................................................... 13

4. Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 13
4.1 Reduced Energy Use of Green Buildings ...................................................................... 13
4.1.1 Freedom vs neighboring dwelling ........................................................................... 13
4.1.2 Energy Savings in multi-unit residential buildings ................................................. 14
4.1.3 Energy Saving in Industrial Buildings .................................................................... 15
4.2 Reduced Water use of Green Buildings ......................................................................... 15
4.3 Socio-Economic Achievements of Green Buildings ...................................................... 16
4.3.1 Waste reduction ....................................................................................................... 16
4.3.2 Economic Benefits .................................................................................................. 17
4.3.3 Comfort for building occupants .............................................................................. 17
5. Findings ............................................................................................................................ 18
Appendix .................................................................................................................................. 19
6.1 About the authors .......................................................................................................... 19
6.2 Addresses of buildings / projects .................................................................................. 20
6.3 Pre-questionnaire ........................................................................................................... 21
6.4 Technical Questionnaire ................................................................................................ 26
6.4.1 Energy Related ....................................................................................................... 26
6.4.2 Water Related measures .......................................................................................... 26
6.4.3 Heating, cooling and ventilation related (HVAC) measures ................................... 26
6.4.4 Waste related measures ........................................................................................... 27
6.4.5 Social factors ........................................................................................................... 27
6.4.5 Datasheet Template ................................................................................................. 27
6.4.6 Group Task / Workflow spreadsheet ....................................................................... 28
6.5 Building Datasheets 6.5.1 Data Sheet – Freedom Straw Bale House (P01) ...... 29
6.5.2 Datasheet for SKF Tver ........................................................................................... 30
6.5.3 Datasheet for Triumph Park .................................................................................... 32
6.5.4 Datasheet for House of Hope .................................................................................. 34
6.5.5 Datasheet for FSK EES ........................................................................................... 35
6.5.6 Datasheet for Capitol Retail Complex - Vernadskogo ............................................ 36
6.5.7 Datasheet for Capitol Retail Compex - Pravoberezhnaya (P12) ............................ 37
6.5.8 Datasheet for EcoDolie “Kama” House type .......................................................... 38
6.5.9 Datasheet showing energy saving results from Eco-Dole ....................................... 39
16/2/14 4
6.6 Acknowledgement letters .............................................................................................. 40

6.6 Photographs ........................................................................................................................ 41
6.6.1 Straw Bale Houses .................................................................................................. 41
6.6.2 RuGBC Office Presentations ................................................................................. 41
6.6.3 SKF.......................................................................................................................... 42
6.6.4 Tsytsin Studio .......................................................................................................... 42
6.6.4 Triumph Park.......................................................................................................... 42
6.6.5 MGSU – Moscow State Construction University ................................................... 43
7.0 Bibliography ....................................................................................................................... 44
16/2/14 5
2. Introduction
Green Building is a complex concept incorporating the design, construction and operation of
buildings aimed at minimizing resource-use and negative environmental impact whilst
maximizing the utility of a building. (RuGBC, 2013). Worldwide, Green Building is now a
trillion dollar industry worldwide (WGBC, 2013), this trend is now demonstrated in Russia by
the increasing volume of construction incorporating green building elements. A barometer for
this growth is the number of projects registered by Green Building Standards – LEEDi from
the USA, BREEAMii from the USA, DGNBiii from Germany or Russian Green Standardsiv.
Such projects in Russia now number over one hundred (RuGBC, 2013).
The importance of Green Building in Russia is apparent when examining real rising energy
costs, which for industrial clients are already higher than in the USA (Skolkovo, 2011).
McKinsey names residential real estate the biggest opportunity for improvements in energy
consumption in Russia (McKinsey, 2009).
Numerous companies are now engaged in Russia in the growing green building sector, the
leading industry body, the Green Building Council Russia announced its 300th Membership
application in 2013 (RuGBC, 2013).
This study examines measures taken to make projects sustainable – such as those aimed at
making a building more energy efficient, reduce water consumption, utilizing materials with
lower environmental impact or many others. It then goes on to examine the results of
implementing such measures, where possible using a baseline figure for comparison.
Desktop research has revealed that this topic has not been widely written about, possibly as a
result of the industry still being so new, possibly due to stakeholders not engaging with the
academic community to collect, analyze and publish such studies. However without such
studies demonstrating cause-effect as observed and where possible verified by third parties,
the speed of change to switch to green building is likely to be constrained by an unwillingness
to commit to “risky” increased investment with no demonstrated ROIv.
Researchers in this study are Masters Students at Skoltechvi majoring in Energy or Innovation.
They all have technical backgrounds and come from four different countries – Serbia, Russia,
Pakistan and Kazakhstan. The study was assisted by the CEO from the non-profit Green
Building Council Russia (RuGBC)vii. Further details of the researchers can be found in
section 6.1 “About the Authors”. Material was gathered as part of an ISPviii in January 2014
and submitted in February 2014 as coursework.
It is the intention of the group to disseminate the report as widely as possible to stimulate
further study in this area. To this end the RuGBC is ready to support involving its members
and including partners such as the MGSUix, and it is hoped with continued Skoltech support.
Several Industry journals have indicated willingness to publish the findings such as Skolkovo
16/2/14 6
Journalx, ABOK Pressxi, Green Evolutionxii and Zelenyi Gorodxiii. RuGBC is also looking for
a sponsor to allow the report to be printed and distributed amongst its members.
3. Methodology
3.1. Stage one - preparation
3.1.1 Desktop Study
A desktop study was carried out to determine available material in our subject area. We were
particularly interested in which data has been published showing actual energy and other
resource savings as well as showing socio-economic measures taken and ensuing results.
Very few Russian “case studies” were found by our group. These include projects from
“Ecodolie” and “WWF”. The tables in the Appendix show estimated energy numbers for
these projects (RWAY Analytical Agency, 2013), (WWF-Proma Estate, 2013). It is worth
noting that the WWF project was never completed, therefore its figures were not included.
The desktop study showed that the “green” building construction sector in Russia is very new.
For example, the first industrial building in Russia with the LEED assessment, SKF in Tver,
received its LEED Gold in 2010. The first residential complex, Triumph Park in Saint
Petersburg, received a design-stage BREEAM in 2012.
The number of LEED or BREEAM certified buildings in Russia is small but growing.
“Green Book Live” (BRE, 2013) shows that 14 buildings have been BREEAM certified in
Russia (source: Buro Happold, Russian GBC: BREEAM Presentation). So far there are 7
buildings that have been LEED certified in Russia (Agapova, 2013).
Sochi 2014 Olympics has resulted in various types of green buildings being constructed.
Reports documenting the measures taken and technologies can be found in reports issued by
the Sochi 2014 Organising committee (Sochi 2014 Organising Committee, 2012). Although
relevant, the team decided they did not contain details particularly on energy consumption
required.
As such, “green” building concepts only recently surfaced in Russia, notably those related to
from BREEAM and LEED certifications (from UK and USA respectively). It is very likely
that detailed research showing monitored and verified actual results actual – not those from
design calculations – showing the benefits of “green” buildings have not yet been carried out.
To summarise – only a few articles were found as well related to “green” buildings in Russia
which contained a few energy numbers for energy efficiency and energy saving. In general,
no similar research to ours appears to have been carried out in Russia.
See also Appendices for figures mentioned above.
16/2/14 7
3.1.2 Identification of suitable buildings - which are certified to green building

standards or otherwise considered to be “Green”
The desktop study and suggestions from the Green Building Council led to us drawing up a
list of possible buildings or projects to investigate. A list of these can be seen in 3.2 below.
The planning stage of the study was scheduled in the first week. Sources were to be found
through scientific journals and via the internet. Certification bodies and building owners are
gradually opening up increasing amounts of data as an open source regarding measures taken
and performance. A database of LEED projects showing “scorecards” for LEED registered
projects is published on the USGBC Project database (USGBC, 2013), BRE Green (BRE,
2013) and DGNB System website (DGNB, 2013). As Russian Green standards do not appear
to publish a database, RuGBC project database (RuGBC, 2013) was used xiv.
3.1.1 Designing Questions & plan time
Common brainstorming led to the creation of questionnaires including the type of data
required. Discussion with some presenters and background reading allowed the group to
familiarize themselves with types of green building measures, which could be recognized.
The questionnaires and a list of potential interview partners was prepared. Exact timing of
interviews and site visits would depend on the response and availability of stakeholders
(building owners, managers, specialists, architects). Due to the short timing of this project it
was decided to work on a first-come basis – whichever stakeholders responded first would be
those interviewed. We presume those who did not reply were not able to meet us within the
short timeframe (3 weeks).
3.2 Stage two – engaging stakeholders

Below is the list of stakeholders contacted and reason why (explanation).
3.2.1 List of Projects identified to be examined. Stakeholders to be contacted.

Reference Nr Project Name Location Explanation
P01 Freedom Straw Bale Moscow Region Highly promoted
Detached House residential green
building.1 *
P02 SKF Tver Factory Tver First LEED certified
building in RF. *
P03 EcoDolie Low Rise Orienburg, other Well known Energy
residential regions Efficient residential
projects.*
P04 Triumph Park St Petersburg Largest BREEAM
Apartments multi-unit residential
project in Europe*
1
* Indicates member company or partner of RuGBC
16/2/14 8
P05 Jones Lang Lasalle Moscow Well known office fit

Office out to LEED and
BREEAM*
P06 Japan House Office Moscow First retrofit certified
office in RF
(BREEAM in use)
P07 Ducat III Office Moscow First BREEAM
certified building in
RF. *
P08 Belaya Dacha Retail Retail First Retail Park to be
Park certified to
BREEAM.*
P09 Hypercube Innovation Skolkovo LEED registered,
Park where participating
students study!.*
P10 Olympic University Sochi First building to be
building certified to BREEAM
in Sochi as part of the
Sochi 2014 Olympics.
Assessor is RuGBC
member*
P11 Training centre St Petersburg LEED certified with
FSK/UES data available.*
P12 Capitol retail Centre - Moscow Region Low Energy Buildings
Pravoberezhnay offered by ENKA
P13 Capitol Retail Complex - Moscow Low Energy Buildings
Vernadskogo offered by ENKA
P14 Lighthouse Business Moscow BREEAM certified by
Centre RuGBC member*
P15 Dom Naderzhdy / House Tula Region Registered LEED
of Hope building, award
winning project*
P16 Kama residential house Orienburg Passive-house stlye
building*
3.2.2 Contacting building owners or representatives to ask them to participate in the

study;
Contact was made via the RuGBC who have an extensive list of stakeholders and in most
cases have had prior contact and built up a level of trust. Goodwill proved to be important to
persuade stakeholders to find time and release data. Responses were positive in nearly all
cases however most of those contacted said they are extremely busy and requested a written
meeting request and project explanation.
3.2.3 Send out of pre-questionnaire to stakeholders;

It was decided in order to manage the expectations of stakeholders, a pre-questionnaire would
be sent out, asking for information in advance. The questions asked can be seen in the
appendix nr 6.3
16/2/14 9
Unfortunately not one single recipient completed this questionnaire. In face to face meetings
we were told that it was decided better to meet than to release data over email or web apps.
3.2.4 Send technical questionnaire to stakeholders;

In addition to the pre-questionnaire, a “technical questionnaire” was created using excel
spreadsheets, to collect important data about projects, green measures taken and results. The
technical questionnaire can be seen in appendix 6.4.
3.2.5 Dividing tasks between group members

As there were 4 students working together, supported by Guy Eames, tasks were divided up
and laid out in an excel spreadsheet which was regularly updated. Part of this task list is
reproduced in the appendix 6.4.6
3.2.6 Arranging site visits and meetings with representative or their professional
contact;
In order to ensure that site visits were worthwhile we analyzed data in advance. It was our aim
to filter in only buildings where it was expected data to be available. The group felt that
buildings which could not provide adequate data could not be part of research. If a particular
building appeared to provide sufficient indication that green measures had ben implemented,
data gathered and representatives were willing to share it, then we proceeded to stage three.
The following potential projects were identified with plans to contact the stakeholders to ask
if they are ready to engage in the study:
3.2. Stage three – Site visits and interviews

3.3.1 Interviews in RuGBC office with stakeholders;
Stakeholders were given the choice of meeting in the RuGBC office, at their offices or on site.
As stakeholders included consultants such as assessors and engineers, the actual visit schedule
was mixed evenly between the three options. A list of the actual meetings and locations can
be seen below in 3.3.3
3.3.2 Site visits;

For meetings which were to be held at the outside RuGBc offices a schedule was prepared.
Moscow meetings were held at the convenience of the person being met whereas those
outside Moscow were grouped together – to Tver then St Petersburg. Logistics were not
simple due to application for travel expenses from Skolkovo Institute and agreeing times and
passes to visit sites. Therefore the Tver and St Petersburg meetings and site visits were
grouped together – Tver in one today then onto St Petersburg for meetings the following day.
It was envisaged that there would be more site visits, however after contacting stakeholders it
was realized that at short notice these were very difficult to arrange. We managed a brief site
visit to JLL offices in Moscow, an in-depth one to Freedom and the rest were in St Petersburg
16/2/14 10
to Triumph Park and Tver SKF. A site visit following a meeting where data was provided
proved to be the ideal.
3.3.3 Meeting schedule with stakeholders

Project Stakeholder contact, Title, Date of Location and type
Reference Organisation Meeting of meeting
P01 Alexei Morokhovets, Owner, 17-18th Jan Site visit, interview
Freedom 2014
P02 Dmitry Kulikov, Engineer, SKF 27th January Site visit, interview
2014
P04 Elena Valueva, Head of Sales & 28tht Jan 2014 Site visit, interview
Marketing Dept, Mirland
Development Corporation
P15/P11 Sergey Tsytsin General Director, 28th Jan 2014 Interview only, St
Alla Potashinskaya LEED Specialist, Petersburg Office
Architectural Buro Tsytsin
P05/P06 Ksenia Agapova, Associate Director, 16th Jan 2014 Site visit (P05),
Jones Lang Lasalle Interview
Ilya Zavaleev, Manager, Project 17th Jan 2014 Interview, RuGBC
Management Advisory, Ernst & Office
Young
Steve Macey, Engineer, Buro 22nd Jan 2014 Interview, RuGBC
Happold. Philippa Garnett, Office
Sustainability Consultant, Buro
Happold
P15 Dmitry Berezutsky, President, 23rd January Interview at MGSU
GreenStroy. Artem Sedov, Dept of 2014
Automation for construction-
engineering technology at MGSU
P12/P13 Cem Yener, Engineer, Enka TC 21st Jan Interview at Enka
TC Offices
3.3. Stage four - Analysis
3.4.1 Data processing and analysis;
Collecting the data and processing it is an absolute priority for this report. By “data” we
refer to general information for each project as well as the green measures taken out and
consequent results. Data is collected into data sheets. These are shown in Appendix 6.
3.4.2 Write up draft;
The final draft would include all of the data analyzed and presented as “the results” and
“the findings”. These would provide evidence (or lack of evidence) that green building
16/2/14 11
measures have been implemented and examine the impact they have had on the buildings’
performance.
3.4.3 Comments from stakeholders – stakeholder dialogue;
The group attempted to keep an ongoing dialogue with those who provided information –
to ensure data was correct, had not been disclosed against their wishes and to ensure
maximum cooperation for this and future studies. Due to commercial sensitivities – both
relationships between for example consultants and their clients or competitivity issues we
understand that such research could potentially damage future abilities to continue or
expand this field. Conversely positive messages to the market could trigger willingness to
cooperate further.
3.4.4 Final Report Submission
The final submission deadline was 2nd February. The report was due by this date.
However, due to illness of two members of the group an extension was received.
3.4.5 Promotion of report – publication through journals;
Beyond submission to Skoltech it was envisaged that the report would be published in
various formats in a scientific and other specialized industry journals. Several industry
publications have agreed in principle to republish the report in Russia, once a translation is
provided.
3.4.6 Acknowledgement letters to stakeholders.
Finally an official recognition letter is to be sent to those who contributed to the ISP report, signed by
Skoltech and RuGBC. A proposed text can be found in Annex 6.7
16/2/14 12
3.5 Schematic view of the Project process
Desktop study Contact Building Site Visits

• Identify project Owners • Meetings to gather
owners for research: • Willingness to engage data
• Residential • Is Data Available? • Visiting the buildings Data Analysis
• Commercial • Technical
• Industrial Questionnaire
4. Conclusions
From the summary data table showing the most significant green measures applied in the
short-list of projects we can conclude that the buildings studied not only incorporate a wide
range of green solutions but that there is a strong correlation to their performance – from a
technical, socioeconomic and environmental viewpoint.
Please note that for this analysis all buildings for which data sheets were created may be used
(see Appendix 6.5)
The most vivid examples of this are shown below:
4.1 Reduced Energy Use of Green Buildings

An ideal comparison for energy use in buildings is when energy values measured in kWh / m2
/ pa (kilowatt hours per square meter of space per year) are compared – if the buildings are in
a similar geographic location and similar functionality. Our study was not always able to
make such comparisons due to the lack of data, different building types and lack of baseline
figures. However data we gathered from primary sources confirmed data from secondary
sources regarding actual energy and financial savings.
4.1.1 Freedom vs neighboring dwelling
According to secondary sources, space heating requirements for Freedom are around 40 kWh
/ year / m2 compared to 350-400 kWh / year / m2 used by brick houses (RWAY Analytical
Agency, 2013). These figures (8 – 10 times more energy required) are borne out by actual
costs from our research first hand. Freedom cost of heating is 20 roubles / meter / month.
Neighbor is 176 roubles / meter / month – 880% less expensive!xv
16/2/14 13
How was this achieved? Reducing demand for space heating and choice of heating method:
i) Passive measures – insulation of the building envelop

For example super-insulation of walls. Freedom exterior walls are constructed in a
timber-frame, filled with straw bales, rendered on the exterior by thermo-wooden
panelsxvi and inside rendered with clay plaster on fibre boarding.
Comparative insulation values – 1.3-1.9 U for straw (RIBA, 2013),0.28 U for
bricks and plaster (LABC, 2013)
This represents twice the thermal resistance. A similar approach to flooring, roof
and windows reduces the heating demand by at least half.
ii) Choice of green heating system – Freedom uses wooden pellets to heat the house.
These are from a renewable source (waste product locally produced).
In one winter month Freedom uses 1 tonne of pellets (priced at 6,000roubles)
compared to his neighbor who uses diesel (there is no gas in the village) costing
Around 33,000 / tonnexvii. The neighbour’s house is 170m2. So each building
consumes one tone of their respective fuels for the same winter month – although
the brick house is around half the size of Freedom.
Similar results for space heating are achieved by mass market developers such as Ecodolie
(RWAY Analytical Agency, 2013). Their “Kama” gas-heated house type similarly uses a
mere 31 – 38 kWh / m2 / year according to secondary sources (RWAY Analytical Agency,
2013). See figures in Appendix 6.5.8.
4.1.2 Energy Savings in multi-unit residential buildings

We visited and studied award-winning Triumph Park in St Petersburg (Mirland Development
– Project Reference P04, Datasheet 6.5.3). The first stages of the project are complete. The
developers estimate savings of 20% in overall power use compared to building regulationsxviii.
This is achieved via a variety of solutions, partially by

reduced demand for space heating by innovative
technologies such as ventilated facades (Mirland
Development, 2013) but also through use of non-heating
related energy use. These include energy saving liftsxix -
According to manufacturers’ figures lifts use 2-10% of
energy in a multi-floor building. The model of lift
selected reduces consumption by 80% compared to
similar lifts produced before 2008.
Lighting in fitted out units included LED spotlight

fittings. Use of natural lighting further reduced lighting
demand due to stylish architecture.
The other (not yet completed) multi-unit residential building examined was the House of
Hope – a pilot project for mass-market use of green technology and materials in the Tula
16/2/14 14
Region. Dom Naderzhdy is a LEED registered project and according to documentation will
reduce energy use by upto 60% compared to building regulations.xxThis is due to super-
insulation measures taken in the building envelope including windows and heat recovery
ventilation system. (RuGBC, 2013 - Russia enters the age of Green Technology, 2013).
4.1.3 Energy Saving in Industrial Buildings

SKF demonstrated how energy is
saved during the operation of their
facility. In their case around 40% -
using the strategy seen to the left –
energy efficient chillers, heat
recovery ventilation, variable speed
fans, smart control systems to
name but a fewxxi.
SKF is motivated by its corporate

strategy to use energy efficiently
not only in production but to
produce energy efficient products.
4.2 Reduced Water use of Green Buildings

Among the buildings examined, most of them had water saving measures included. These
ranged from a “zero discharge” policy from SKF’s Tver factory to leakage monitors at
Triumph Park to water efficient fittings at Jones Lang Lasalle’s offices. Similar features at
FSK training centre in St Petersburg measured 38% reduction in water use. See datasheet
6.5.5
The zero discharge measures at SKF were a radical move for factories of that kind in Russia.
All industrial process water used in the phosphating process is then treated for reuse in an
almost closed cycle. Estimated savings are 100 m3 / monthxxii.
Triumph Park’s leak detectors in the technical premises allow instant detection by dispatcher
and could save tonnes of water at high pressure being leaked. Furthermore at the complex in
St Petersburg all water for supply to the apartments is centrally filtered and hot water is
provided by heat transfer from the district heating system during the heating season. This
means that the quality of hot water received is to drinking standard and avoids deterioration of
domestic white goods (washing machines and dish-washing machines) as well as piping.
Due to the scale of Triumph park (total space of 1million m2) water saving fixtures, where
fitted, with 35-40% water savings have a huge potential for water saving in addition to
qualitative effects mentioned. An example of the volumes involved can be demonstrated by
Enka’s shopping mall – Vernadskogo in Moscow where 2011 figures showed use of cold
water at (figure withheld) m3 and at a cost of (figure withheld) roubles (datasheet 6.5.6).
16/2/14 15
Similar facilities in UK using waterless urinals save upto 98% of water currently used in male
washrooms, none of the projects reviewed used such technology howeverxxiii.
Rainwater harvesting is an important means of reducing water consumption. SKF’s factory

not only collects water (for use in washing cars and irrigating the territory) but also has
chosen local species of plants which do not require extensive watering as they are used to the
local climatexxiv.
4.3 Socio-Economic Achievements of Green Buildings
Green Buildings can have numerous advantages as well as energy and water saving green
standards categorize these into areas such as management, transport, pollution as well the
most apparent “greenest” area of biodiversity. In the projects where presentations were
available using the LEED or BREEAM reports these measures were made available
(confidentially) to our group and were numerous.
However it is beyond the scope of this short study to examine how many of these apply to the
Russian Green Buildings examined.
Therefore three areas have been focused on:
 Waste reduction
 Economic Benefits
 Comfort for building occupants
4.3.1 Waste reduction

Waste from constructing buildings represents a large proportion of total waste sent to landfill
sites. In the UK this is 32% of all solid waste (Environment Agency, 2013). Green Building
offers many opportunities to reduce this “waste” and even to turn it into a positive resource.
Depending on how buildings are designed and managed, they may also produce less waste
and segregate this waste so that it can be recycled or reused. BREEAM and LEED reward
projects for avoiding waste, re-using and recycling.
Of the projects we examined, all those which were registered to be certified, or had already
been certified had some apparent waste strategy. The others did not.
Measures taken included:
- Site waste management plan at Triumph Park. On our site visit this appeared to be the
cleanest and best organized construction site any of us had visited in Russia. As well as saving
money on spoilt construction materials such a clean site certainly acted as an advertisement to
potential homebuyers of the strong management skills to be expected in the complex. From
construction waste, 95% has been reused or recycled according to the assessors for BREEAM
(Mott Macdonald, 2012). Household waste is also segregated and innovatively disposed of in
underground containers (see photos).
16/2/14 16
- SKF likewise had treated site waste very seriously, construction waste had been used as
aggregate to construct roads on the site, which saved purchasing such aggregates and the
removal to landfill. On the plant all waste is segregated and disposed of separately.
- FSK training center similarly reused 68% of construction waste, according to their LEED
scorecard (see datasheet 6.5.5)
As Energy Efficiency is the central focus in Russia, waste is often ignored and unreported.
This demonstrates the importance of certification to LEED or BREEAM.
4.3.2 Economic Benefits

Green Building is often misunderstood as involving the use of expensive technologies such as
photovoltaic cells, which have a long pay-back period. Although the motivation of the
majority of the projects examined was to “do the right thing” – ie the developers have a
corporate commitments to sustainability globally (eg SKF), the profit motive is pretty
important for all those surveyed.
- Direct return on investment. Mirland estimate additional “green costs” to amount to 3.5% of
total costs. The sales uplift (additional price related to being “eco”) are around 10%. In
addition to this the Triumph Park project scores highly from a marketing point of view – with
most units sold. The BREEAM certification and numerous consumer-oriented measures such
as lower monthly utility costs, bicycle racks, non-smoking policy, filtered water, sunny
apartments with non-toxic environments are well received on today’s mass real estate
marketxxv;
- Freedom costs around 25,000 roubles a meter to construct, include engineering systems. The
monthly overhead (pellets during heating system) is upto 8 times cheaper than the
neighboring house, which was not cheaper to construct from brick;
- Dom Naderzhy is estimated to have utilities on average 50% cheaper than comparable
buildings of its type and cost;
- The energy savings listed above contribute directly not only to monthly utility bills but also
to the cost of installation of electricity, which in the Russian capital can amount to 100,000
roubles a kW installed capacity. Hence a 40% energy saving equates not only to a 40%
monthly saving but a 40% saving in connection charges;
4.3.3 Comfort for building occupants

Occupants’ comfort is difficult to measure. If studied to its natural lengths it can equate to
savings and a “return on investment”. For example in a commercial (office) building,
productivity, sick leave and staff turnover maybe directly influenced by a pleasant and
comfortable working environment (WGBC, 2013).
We did not manage to find specific studies or figures relating to the productivity of staff,
however SKF admitted that staff comfort and indoor air quality score highly on corporate
priority scales. Examples of comfort include:
16/2/14 17
- Social infrastructure - a gym and canteen in the facility;

- Natural lighting via windows and skylights
- High levels of ventilation (exceeding building regulations)
- A clean working environment
Similarly at Triumph Park the overall impression is very positive with the occupants’ comfort
prioritized. Items include:
- Dedicated smoking areas outside the entranceways
- Bicycle racks
- Thermostatic radiator controls
- Pleasant and quiet lifts
- Step-free access
- Attractive play areas for children
- Easy access to shops
- Filtered drinking water piped to all flats (not common in Russia)
- Many other measures for client comfort
House of Hope is an extraordinary building in Bolohovo, Tula Region. It offers affordable

social housing with the infrastructure of a high-tech business class environment. Features
include:
- Attractive award-wining design
- Low monthly costs
- Bicycle storage
- Heat recovery ventilation (ventilation is rare in such flats)
- Heated floors
- Filtered water from “third tap”
Freedom offers a pleasant environment in which to live, with low running costs, toxin free
atmosphere, pleasant aspiration design, at a cost less than an economy style detached house.
In addition for self-builders it is one of the fastest construction-types of buildings available (2-
3 month construction period).
5. Findings
The key findings from this study are:
- Green Buildings in Russia are successful from an economic, social and technical
viewpoint, just as in other countries;
- Data is available and is becoming more so. Datasheets from LEED are a good source
of information. However building owners are still reluctant to publicize details of the
economic consequences (cost / benefits) of their green measures – maybe regarding it
as their Intellectual Property;
- There is a growing opportunity for students to cooperate in gathering primary data for
green buildings – monitoring consumption of electricity, heat energy and water. Such
studies could not only act as promotional material for building owners but would also
help further reduce costs as behavior becomes more apparent;
16/2/14 18
- There is still a widespread lack of awareness about the potential for green building in
Russia, which if rectified could lead to Russia growing a trillion dollar industry like
the USA or EU;
- The study area attempted was too broad and timeframe too short (3 weeks) to allow
for sufficient in-depth analysis, however it identifies key trends and sufficient data was
gathered to support the hypothesis that green buildings in Russia is a positive trend
with real measures which reduces negative environmental impact, improves building
performance and have a positive economic impact.
- Many technologies used in other countries, have not yet been implemented in the
buildings examined - such as green roofs, waterless urinals or a goal of becoming self-
sufficient or “zero-net”. The approach at present is realistic and effective.
Appendix
6.1 About the authors
Name Qualifications Description Email

Adela MSc Master student at adela.kondic@skolkovotech.ru
Kondic Environmental Skolkovo Institute
Engineering & of Science &
Eco-Management Engineering
Sergey MSc Mathematics MSc IT Skoltech sergey.madaminov@skolkovote

Madaminov from Moscow State student ch.ru
University participating in
Green Buildings
ISP
Mazhar Ali Mechanical MSc IT Skoltech mazhar.ali@skolkovotech.ru
Engineer from student
Pakistan participating in
Green Buildings
ISP
Elvira Process Engineer MSc IT Skoltech elvira.burganova@skolkovotech.
Burganova from Almaty, student ru
Kazakhstan participating in
Green Buildings
ISP
Guy Eames MSc Sustainable Works for the guy.eames@rugbc.org
Development & RuGBC.
Climate Change, Specialist in the
BA European Green Building
Business Sector.
Administration,
Diplombetriebswirt
(FH)
16/2/14 19
6.2 Addresses of buildings / projects
Project Building Name Building address

Reference
P01 FREEDOM Freedom, Moscow Region, Pavlovskoe Village,
Plot number 53, Istra District
http://i-freedom.ru/
P02 SKF 170546, Tver region., Kalinin district, Burasheva
District, Sadikovo village, industrial zone
«Borovlevo-2
P04 Triumph park Under construction - Saint Petersburg,
Pulkovskoe highway and Dunaisky Prospect
http://www.triumph-park.ru/
P15 House of Hope Tula region, Bolokhovo, Kireyevski region
- Jones Lang Lasalle Office Centre Vivaldi Plaza, Letnikovskaya

ulitsa, 2 Building 1, Moscow
16/2/14 20
6.3 Pre-questionnaire
This form was prepared as an interactive web-based form using google documents. The “live”
form can be viewed by clicking herexxvi. A screen-shot of the first page is reproduced below –
asking for contact details:
The second page asked for details of the building to be studied:
16/2/14 21
The third page asked for data availability of energy data:
The next section asked about data availability for Water:
16/2/14 22
Section three asks about socio-economic data available:
Section four asks whether an assessment report for BREEAM or LEED is available. Such a
report would show the measures taken (if post-completion report) or planned (if the report
was an interim one) as well as asking about site visit opportunities:
16/2/14 23
Finally we ask about their willingness to publish data and support the publication of a report
including marketing measures (PR etc):
Results were then gathered in an excel spreadsheet – an example below shows a test (filled in
by the students) and an entry by Mirland Development. For reasons of confidentiality the
responses received are not reproduced in this study.
16/2/14 24
16/2/14 25
6.4 Technical Questionnaire
A “wish-list” of data which we would like to collect regarding measures taken and results was
drawn up in the form of an excel spreadsheet. The group correctly forecasted that only part of
the data would be available for each project. The information from here was gathered in the
form of a data-sheet. The type of data required was based on issues commonly found in rating
systems for green buildings.
This was divided into several sections:
6.4.1 Energy Related

Energy saving y n quantitative data qualitative data
Energy saving light bulbs
Building openings South oriented
Photo sensors (daylight sensor)
Photo sensors of movement
Lighting orientation and direction control
Sustainable material usage in construction
Energy saving procedures (every-day)
Auto-off system (computer etc.)
Reflective areas
Additional eg lifts?
6.4.2 Water Related measures

Water saving y n quantitative data
Water saving toilets - type?
Water saving sink installation
Reuse of water
Using of technical water - type?
Other water saving measures?
6.4.3 Heating, cooling and ventilation related (HVAC) measures

Heating y n quantitative data
Type of system for heating
Type of system for cooling
Geothermal heating system
Sensors for h&c
Special insulation - type
Water heating system
Extra covering on North side
Other measures?
16/2/14 26
6.4.4 Waste related measures

Waste management y n quantitative data
Waste separation
Construction stage related
Waste minimisation measures?
Other waste related?
6.4.5 Social factors

Possible social indicators y n
Studies showing higher productivity
Shower for cyclists
Sound Insulated walls
Sound Insulated floors
Other indicators?
6.4.5 Datasheet Template

From this technical questionnaire a datasheet including all gathered data from each project
was created. This is shown below:
Building name:
Building address:
Contact person name:
Phone:
Mail:
Building visited on date:
Building type:
Area:
Floors number:
Electricity consumption / Month:
Water consumption / Month:
Heating & Cooling system:
Water heating system:
Electricity source:
Implemented projects:
Project name:
How it works:
Saved amount:
Project name:
How it works:
Saved amount:
Project name:
How it works:
Saved amount:
16/2/14 27
6.4.6 Group Task / Workflow spreadsheet

The project plan was flexible depending on times that site visits could be arranged and after
filtering projects for their suitability. Tasks were then allocated using an excel spreadsheet
which was regularly updated. Part of this can be seen below in the screenshot. The file was
one page containing data for datasheets and other data:
Task Person Deadline
1 Contact Sawitzky Guy 17.01.
2 Form pre questionnaire Guy, Adela, Ilya 17.01.
3 Contact Beresutzky Guy 17.01.
4 Contact Gary in order to provide Hyper Cube info Adela 17.01.
5 Contact Snezana for Hyper Cube info Guy 17.01.
6 Contact Madina in order to regulate gas bill for Freedom Adela 17.01.
7 Research basic standard consumptions in commercial buildings for comparison Mazhar, Sergey 17.01.
8 Translate pre questionaire Elvira 17.01.
9 Research social BREAM indicators Elvira 17.01.
10 Organize stay overnight and barbeque Guy 17.01.
11 Call building representatives and send pre questionnaire Guy 17.01.
12 Finalize pre survey Guy 17.01.
13 Form social part of survey Guy 17.01.
14 Form economic part of survey Guy 17.01.
15 Form technical part of survey Guy 17.01.
16 Share technical part of survey Adela 18.01.
17 Research market – has anything similar been done Elvira 18.01.
18 Correct schedule of ISP Adela 18.01.
19 Send pre survey to potential clients Guy 17.01.
20 Outline of Final report-Publication Mazhar 18.01.
21 Organize presentation about Japanese culture Elvira 18.01.
22 Call Tver clients to ask about 27th visits Guy 18.01.
23 Call St. Pet. Clients to ask about visits on 28th Guy 18.01.
24 Note Madina about booking tickets for Tver and St. Pet. And back Adela 17.01.
25 Study hard for exam, we are going to overload you later Sergey 18.01.
26 Finish Draft version of Research-Publication Adela 24.01.
27 Format Draft version of Research-Publication Guy 24.01.
28 Send Draft version of Research-Publication to scientific magazine editor Guy 24.01.
29 Sent technical questionnaire to Adela Guy 25.01.
30 Send technical questionnaire to Alexei Adela 25.01.
31 Note Alexei to send neighbours energy data Adela 25.01.
32 Gather presentation from Philippa Elvira 25.01.
33 Gather presentation from Ilya Adela 25.01.
34 Summarize conclusions from visit brochure Sergey 25.01.
35 Gather data from Energy passport of Enka Elvira & Sergey 25.01.
36 Note everybody is printing of tickets for train needed Elvira 24.01.
37 Bring electronic version of all tickets if printing is not needed Elvira / Sergey 27.01.
38 Print all tickets if that is needed Guy / Sergey 27.01.
39 Arrange taxi to train station Adela/ Elvira / Mazhar 26.01.
40 Fulfil missing data in Contributors page of this file Guy 24.01.
41 Form new Tasks list and Contributors list Adela 24.01.
42 Update program for 22nd and 21st Mazhar 24.01.
43 Form some kind of draft for Thank you note (Russian& English) Guy 02.02.
16/2/14 28
6.5 Building Datasheets 6.5.1 Data Sheet – Freedom Straw Bale House (P01)
Building Name FREEDOM straw bale house
Type Residential
Area [m2] 300
Number of floors 2
Electricity sources Grid Connected, Photovoltaic panels
Water sources Private well
Heating system Pellet burning stove (Wirbel)
Cooling system None
Summer vacuum solar tubes

Water heating system Winter electricity powered boiler /
pellet boiler
Implemented measures
1 Wooden pellet stove for heating interior
Cost of installation [rur] 150.000,00
Operational cost [rur] 6.000,00 (cost of one tonne pellets for coldest month)
Comparison case Heating oil (diesel) – neighbor has 170m2 pays 30-32,000RR
/ month in winter months for water & space heating
2 Solar thermal water heating during summer
Cost of installation [rur] 165.000,00
Operational cost [rur] 0,00
Comparison case Diesel burning stove
3 Wooden pellet stove for heating the water during winter
Cost of installation [rur] Dual heating & hot water – see 1 above
Operational cost [rur] No breakdown available – heats water & space together
Comparison case Diesel burning stove
4 Saving light bulbs as lighting system (No info available)
16/2/14 29
6.5.2 Datasheet for SKF Tver
Building Name SKF Tver
Type Industrial and commercial
Area [m2] 100.000,00 Site 85000sq.m, Building area – 9500 sq.m.
Number of floors 2, + underground basement.
Electricity sources public electricity distribution company
Water sources Municipal Water Supply
Heating system Combination of radiator heating and ventilation.
Cooling system Special Chillers for Central Cooling System
Water heating system Fire Tube Boilers Inbuilt gas boilers.
Implemented projects
1 Water Efficiency
A vacuum distillation process that recycles 100% of water

used in the phosphating process
Vacuum Distillation Filtration Unit, it is used when the

boiling point of the compound (Water) is too high in order to
distill the compound (from impurities like chemicals etc.)
without significant decomposition.
Saving total Water consumption up to 100 m3/ Month.
Zero consumption of portable water for irrigation.
Efficient sanitary appliances with reduced water flow.
2 75% of occupied space has natural daylighting
• 90% of occupied space has quality views
- Regional materials 20%
- Recycled content materials 10%
16/2/14 30
3 Energy Efficiency
- 1- Efficient Pumps, 2- Central Cooling, 3- Efficient

Boilers, 4- Efficient Air Ventilation, 5- LED
Lighting 6. Cool-roofing material
• 31.5% improvement on baseline building performance rating
• 40% less energy than normal constructions
• 80 efficient Ventilation Fans in Comparison with

Conventional
Centralized heat recovery ventilation system
16/2/14 31
6.5.3 Datasheet for Triumph Park
Building Name Triumph park
Type Residential complex with social and commercial premises
Area [m2] over 1 mill (total)
Number of floors 1st complex - 9-23 floors (510 apts);
2nd complex - 19-23 floors (630 apts);
3rd complex - 8-23 floors (1350 apts)
Electricity sources Grid connected
Water sources Connected to mains water supply (cold)
Heating system District Heating
Cooling system
Water heating system District heating
1 direct-drive elevator
Cost of installation [rur] Kone EcoDom3000: high energy saving, low noise level, no
need to use oil, and, as a result, decrease of maintenance costs
Operational cost [rur] 95% electricity which elevator use reduction
Comparison case Regular elevator
2 stage filters for water treatment
Cost of installation [rur] No data
Operational cost [rur] No data
Comparison case No data
3 energy and heat saving
Cost of installation [rur] thermostatic valves for radiators; energy efficient structural
schemes of a building envelope and a roof; usage of materials
with lower thermal conductivity
16/2/14 32
Operational cost [rur]
Comparison case energy and heat saving up to 20%
4 water saving
Cost of installation [rur]
Operational cost [rur] installation of high-performance plumbing fixtures; system of

leak control and prevention from the water supply system
Comparison case water saving up to 40%
5 Waste
Measure 95% of site waste was recycled or diverted from landfill
16/2/14 33
6.5.4 Datasheet for House of Hope
Building Name House of Hope/ Dom Naderzhdy

Type residential (construction phase)
Area [m2] (1) built-up area - 440
(2) area of the building - 1097
(3) living area - 457.4
Number of floors 3 floors + basement + garret
Electricity sources Grid supplied
Water sources Private well. Expected 3426.3 L/person/month
Heating system Expected heat usage reduction up to 66%
Cooling system Natural only. No mechanical system.
2 Systems – from roof-mounted Solar Panels and from pellet
Water heating system
boiler.
1 Use of energy efficient light sources, installing motion sensors and lighting, automation
of lighting, coupled with increased glass area will reduce the cost of electricity for
lighting and 70%.
Comparison case
2 Exterior walls will be of high heat and sound insulating properties
Comparison case
3 Warmly circuit will be applied based on the assessment of the life cycle
Comparison case
4 The building has a partial power output of thin-film solar modules and lithium ion
batteries storage for communal lighting & alarm systems.
Comparison case
5 Plan to install a full supply and exhaust ventilation, energy conservation, water
purification system with membrane filters nano modification and installation of the
"third tap" with clean drinking water.
Comparison case
16/2/14 34
6.5.5 Datasheet for FSK EES
Building Name ФСК ЕЭС

Type Commercial
Area [m2] No data
Number of floors No data
Electricity sources No data
Water sources No data
Heating system No data
Cooling system No data
Water heating system No data
1 water efficiency
Operational cost [rur] installation of high-performance plumbing fixtures
Comparison case water consumption reduction by 38%
2 optimization of energy saving processes - lighting control
Cost of installation [rur] LED lighting, motion and daylight sensors
Comparison case
3 optimization of energy efficiency - equipment and appliances
Cost of installation [rur] 86,5% of equipment is energy efficient and has a trademark
"Energy Star"
Comparison case
4 wastes usage for construction
Cost of installation [rur] 68% of construction wastes were saved for further usage at
other fields
Comparison case
5 usage of recycled materials for construction and finishing materials
Cost of installation [rur] more than 16% of recycled materials are used for construction
and finishing materials and furniture
Comparison case
6 usage of regional (local) materials for construction
Cost of installation [rur] more than 34% of all construction and finishing materials for
the project are made in the radius no more than 800 km from
Saint-Petersburg
Comparison case
7 usage of materials with low VOC emissions
Cost of installation [rur] glue and sealant, carpets
Comparison case
16/2/14 35
6.5.6 Datasheet for Capitol Retail Complex - Vernadskogo
Building Name Capitol Retail Complex - Prospect Vernadskogo, 6, Moscow
Type Commercial
Area [m2] 63,900
Number of floors 3
Heating system Central
Cooling system Chillers and coolers
Electricity consumption in (withheld)

2011
Money spent on electricity (withheld)

in 2011
Heat consumption in 2011 (withheld)
Money spent in heat in (withheld)

2011
Cold water consumption in (withheld)

2011
Money spent on cold water (withheld)

in 2011
Water discharging in 2011 (withheld)
Money spent on water (withheld)

discharging in 2011
Reset contaminate (withheld)

substance
The project owner requested figures not be disclosed
16/2/14 36
6.5.7 Datasheet for Capitol Retail Compex - Pravoberezhnaya (P12)
Building Name TC “Capitol” Pravoberezhnaya street, 1b, Moscow
Type Commercial
Area [m2] 66757,2
Number of floors 3
Heating system Central
Cooling system Chillers and coolers
Electricity consumption in (withheld)

2011
Money spent on electricity (withheld)

in 2011
Municipal Heat They have own boiler room

consumption in 2011
Money spent reset (withheld)

contaminate substance due
to heating in 2011
Water consumption in 2011 (withheld)
Money spent on water in (withheld)

2011
Water discharging in 2011 (withheld)
Money spent on water (withheld)

discharging in 2011
16/2/14 37
6.5.8 Datasheet for EcoDolie “Kama” House type
Saving, %
Model of a Saving, % (from Model Savings, % (from Model (from Model
Similar Standard Model of a "KAMA Model of a "KAMA of a Similar
Building per Model Similar Building Economy- Similar Building Business- Building per
Parameters SNiP "KAMA" per SNiP) Class" per SNiP) Class" SNiP)
Heat energy consumption per

year for heating, ventilation,
and hot water supply, kWh 43.84 38.29 12.7 31.32 28.6 31.32 28.6
Electricity consumption per
year, MWh 3.28 3.28 0.0 2.92 11.0 4.84 47.6
Natural gas consumption per

year, Km3 26.88 23.48 12.6 14.64 45.5 "-" "-"
CO2 emissions due to heat
and energy supply for a
building, t 33.59 29.34 12.7 18.278 45.6 "-" "-"
Specific heat consumption,

W/m2 120 102.6 14.5 78.42 34.7 78.42 34.7
Cost of utility bills per year,
RUR 71082.56 62796.76 11.7 40641.68 42.8 5759.6 91.9
Cost of utility bills per year
in 2015, RUR 176877 156259 11.7 101130 42.8 14333 91.9
2576 + 2576 +
5000 + 530000 +
CapEx for energy saving Neopor Neopor
equipment, RUR "-" "-" "-" material "-" material "-"
Consumption per year, kg of

fuel equivalent 6953.38 6072.82 12.7 4246.88 38.9 594.51 91.5
Note:
Stakeholders: "Ecodole" – Developer and "Mosstroy 31
(Moscow Construction)"
"KAMA" – is a residential building using a "Passive House" technology with zero energy consumption.
Where: Orenburg, Russia
Constructed: Date unknown
Description:
(a) windows rarely need to be opened for ventilation; (b) dual or three-chambered double-glazed windows,
filled with a low thermal conductive argon or crypton; (c) more hermetical construction of windows to walls;
(d) winterization of window apertures; (e) glass for windows has a special composition, and is polished and
covered with a film, reflecting thermal radiation; (f) sometimes for additional heat-insulation shades, louvers
or curtains are installed.
16/2/14 38
6.5.9 Datasheet showing energy saving results from Eco-Dole
Saving, % (from a Residential

Energy Saving Residential Building w/o Building w/o
Building "Ecodole Energy Saving Energy Saving
Housing and public utilities Orenburg" Technologies) Technologies
Helium system + Thermal Power

heat boilers "-" Plant
Cost for
person/month
(standard
consumption, 4.5
m3/month) 73.65 77.2 322.43
Hot water
supply Cost for m2/month 4.21 77.1 18.42
Heat pump w/o
heat boilers (tariff -
1.31 RUR per Thermal Power
kWh) Plant
Cost for
Heating (per person/month 12.43 38.2 20.1
season, 202
days a year) Cost for m2/month 217.45 38.2 351.81
Heat pump, passive
cooling (tariff -
1.31 RUR per
kWh) "-" Split-system
Air Cost for
conditioning person/month 1.41 84.1 8.88
(60 days a
year) Cost for m2/month 24.7 84.1 155.35
PV system, solar
batteries (tariff -
1.31 RUR per
Public kWh) "-" "-"
lighting for a Saving a month per
building person (-)1.56 "-" "-"
Notes:
Financed by "Fond ZhKH (Housing and Utilities Infrastructure)" and the Orenburg Region Government
Type: "Ecodole Orenburg" - an energy saving residential building (class "A") with 12 apartments.
Location: Orenburg, Russia
Construction date: unknown
Measures:
(a) under apartment double-loop gas boilers with 95% efficiency; (b) supply and exhaust ventilation with
recuperation of outgoing heat; (c) heat pump as an alternative energy sosurce; (d) modern system of floor heating
connected to the heat pump; (e) hot water supply system from vaccum solar collector for the whole year water
heating; (f) fan coils connected to the heat pump system for air cooling during summer; (g) solar PV batteries as
an alternative source for electricity generation; (h) photodiodes for riser blocks of apartments and stair wells
(15% less of energy consumption); (i) every apartment is equipped with thermo regulators; (j) individual
counters for gas, electricity and water.
16/2/14 39
6.6 Acknowledgement letters
Suggested message:
Dear (stakeholder)
On behalf of Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology, we would like to thank you for
your contribution to an Independent Study Project - Short study into the performance of
green building projects in Russia – Measures taken and the technical, socioeconomic
and environmental achievements, which was submitted in February 2014.
The study is particularly important due to the subject area being so new in the Russian
Federation – it is a pleasure that Skoltech Students can study and analyse first hand such
pioneering market players.
Your name will be acknowledged in the report itself and we hope very much that you will
agree to participate and provide vital data for future studies in this area with students from our
institute.
Yours Sincerely
16/2/14 40
Skoltech ISP Study in conjunction with the RuGBC
6.6 Photographs
6.6.1 Straw Bale Houses
6.6.2 RuGBC Office Presentations
February 7, 2014 41
Short study into the performance of green building projects in Russia
6.6.3 SKF
6.6.4 Tsytsin Studio
6.6.4 Triumph Park
16/2/14 42
6.6.5 MGSU – Moscow State Construction University
16/2/14 43
7.0 Bibliography
Agapova, K. (2013, Summer 2013). Building Certification to LEED and BREEAM in Russia.
Zdaniya Visokix Technologiya (Susainable Construction Technologies), Electronic
Journal without page numbers. Retrieved from
http://zvt.abok.ru/articles/79/Sertifikatsiya_zdanii_po_standartam_LEED_i_BREEAM
_v_Rossii
BRE. (2013). Green Book Live Project Database. Retrieved from Green Book Live:
http://www.greenbooklive.com/search/scheme.jsp?id=202
DGNB. (2013). DGNB angemeldete und zertifizierte Projekte. Retrieved from DGNB
System: http://www.dgnb-system.de/de/projekte/
McKinsey. (2009). Energy Efficient Russia. Moscow: McKinsey.
RuGBC. (2013). Green Project Directory. Retrieved from Green Building Council Russia:
http://www.rugbc.org/en/resources/green-building-database
RuGBC. (2013, Feb 2nd). Introduction to Green Building. Retrieved from Green Building
Council Russia: www.rugbc.org
RuGBC. (2013, March 15). RuGBC at Mosbuild 2013. Retrieved from Green Building
Council Russia: http://www.rugbc.org/en/news/krupneyshaya-vystavka-i-konferentsii-
po-ekologicheskomu-stroitelstvu-v-rossii-na-etoy-nedele-2-4-aprelya
RWAY Analytical Agency. (2013, August 12). Эко-будущее в строительной отрасли

России / Eco-future in the construction sector in Russia. RWAY Bulletin, 127-135.
Retrieved from www.rway.ru: http://rway.ru/russia/news/54941/
Skolkovo. (2011). Energy Efficiency in Russia. Moscow: Skolkovo Foundation.
Sochi 2014 Organising Committee. (2012). Implementation of Green Building Standards.

Sochi: Organising Committee Sochi 2014. Retrieved from
http://sochi2014.blob.core.windows.net/storage/legacy/ecology/5-
th_Green_Building_implementation_report.pdf
USGBC. (2013). http://www.usgbc.org/projects. Retrieved from LEED Project Database:

http://www.usgbc.org/projects
WGBC. (2013). The Business Case for Green Building: A review of the Costs and Benefits for
Developers, Investors and Occupants. Vancouver: World Green Business Council.
16/2/14 44
WWF-Proma Estate. (2013, June). Eco-House in Russia, project presentation, June, 2013.
Presentation. Moscow.
Endnotes
i
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design – United States Green Building Council www.usgbc.org
ii
Building Research Establishment’s Environmental Assessment Method – BRE Global, UK www.breeam.og
iii
DGNB - Deutsche Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges Bauen – German Sustainable Building Council – Stuttgart,
Germany, www.dgnb.de
iv
Russian GOST Р 54964-2012 www.greenstand.ru
v
ROI – return on investment
vi
Skoltech – Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology, Moscow, Russia www.skoltech.ru/
vii
RuGBC- Совет по экологическому строительству / Green Building Council, Moscow, Russia
www.rugbc.org
viii
Independent Study Period
ix
MGSU – Moscow State University for Civil Engineering www.mgsu.ru
x
Skolkovo Journal
xi
Abok Press – Publisher of numerous scientific publication on the theme of HVAC, Energy Saving Technology,
High Performance Building http://www.abok.ru/eng/forme.php?about_press
xii
Prominent website on green building www.greenevolution.ru
xiii
Printed Journal Green City / Zelenyi Gorod http://green-agency.ru/glavnaya/zhurnal/o-media-resurse-zelenyj-
gorod/
xiv
This database is updated with all registered projects but not real time
xv
From figures provided by the owner of Freedom
xvi
Thermo- siding - http://www.bohmans.ru/catalog/product/termo-sosna/
xvii
Online price check per 1 tonne of diesel heating fuel http://www.avangard.org.ru/ceny/
xviii
Interview on site visit
xix
Lift type - Kone EcoDom3000 http://www.kone.ru/about-us/environment/solutions/default.aspx
xx
Interview with Dmitry Berezutsky, Greenstroy
xxi
Interview during site visit and presentation by chief engineer
xxii
Figure provided in interview on the site visit
xxiii
Example http://waterlessurinalsystem.com/download/Desert+Small+e-brochure-1.pdf
xxiv
Information provided in presentation
xxv
Interview on site visit
xxvi
Web address
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1W1DWUo1SrQBogEHB8GDvEz2hQC6hKY4Z8ZWYfxWziUE/viewform
16/2/14 45

Sap 2000

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Sap 2000

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Short study into the performance of green building

projects in Russia – Measures taken and the

Kondic A, Eames G, Madaminov S, Ali M, Burganova E

February 2014 Skolkovo Institute of Science & Technology

In Conjunction with Green Building Council Russia

Short study into the performance of green building

Steve Macey – Buro Happold; Ksenia Agapova – Jones Lang Lasalle

3.5 Schematic view of the Project process ........................................................................... 13

6.6 Acknowledgement letters .............................................................................................. 40

3.1. Stage one - preparation

3.1.1 Desktop Study

See also Appendices for figures mentioned above.

3.1.2 Identification of suitable buildings - which are certified to green building

3.1.1 Designing Questions & plan time

3.2 Stage two – engaging stakeholders

3.2.1 List of Projects identified to be examined. Stakeholders to be contacted.

P05 Jones Lang Lasalle Moscow Well known office fit

3.2.2 Contacting building owners or representatives to ask them to participate in the

3.2.3 Send out of pre-questionnaire to stakeholders;

3.2.4 Send technical questionnaire to stakeholders;

3.2.5 Dividing tasks between group members

3.2. Stage three – Site visits and interviews

3.3.2 Site visits;

3.3.3 Meeting schedule with stakeholders

3.3. Stage four - Analysis

3.4.1 Data processing and analysis;

3.4.2 Write up draft;

3.4.3 Comments from stakeholders – stakeholder dialogue;

3.4.4 Final Report Submission

3.4.5 Promotion of report – publication through journals;

3.4.6 Acknowledgement letters to stakeholders.

3.5 Schematic view of the Project process

Desktop study Contact Building Site Visits

The most vivid examples of this are shown below:

4.1 Reduced Energy Use of Green Buildings

4.1.1 Freedom vs neighboring dwelling

i) Passive measures – insulation of the building envelop

4.1.2 Energy Savings in multi-unit residential buildings

This is achieved via a variety of solutions, partially by

Lighting in fitted out units included LED spotlight

4.1.3 Energy Saving in Industrial Buildings

SKF is motivated by its corporate

4.2 Reduced Water use of Green Buildings

Rainwater harvesting is an important means of reducing water consumption. SKF’s factory

4.3 Socio-Economic Achievements of Green Buildings

Therefore three areas have been focused on:

4.3.1 Waste reduction

Measures taken included:

4.3.2 Economic Benefits

4.3.3 Comfort for building occupants

- Social infrastructure - a gym and canteen in the facility;

House of Hope is an extraordinary building in Bolohovo, Tula Region. It offers affordable

Name Qualifications Description Email

Sergey MSc Mathematics MSc IT Skoltech sergey.madaminov@skolkovote

6.2 Addresses of buildings / projects

Project Building Name Building address

- Jones Lang Lasalle Office Centre Vivaldi Plaza, Letnikovskaya

The second page asked for details of the building to be studied:

The third page asked for data availability of energy data:

The next section asked about data availability for Water:

Section three asks about socio-economic data available:

6.4 Technical Questionnaire

This was divided into several sections: