An increasing number of buildings are being designed to meet ambitious energy efficiency indicators. Calculations carried out during the design phase indicate low consumption, yet the reality during operation often contradicts these estimates.

The discrepancy arises from the theoretical assumptions used in the calculations. Models assume ideal user behavior, constant operating schedules, and proper maintenance. In practice, space usage differs, equipment is heavily utilized, and initial settings are no longer adjusted over time.

Another factor is execution. Minor deviations from design details—thermal bridges, imperfect sealing, incorrect installation of systems—can have a major impact on actual consumption. The building remains “compliant,” but its energy performance declines.

In addition, the lack of post-commissioning monitoring means that problems are identified late. Without real data and without periodic energy audits, consumption increases without clear explanations.

Energy efficiency is not achieved solely through calculations and certifications. It depends on consistency between design, execution, and operation. Without this continuity, buildings that are efficient on paper become costly to use, and the difference is borne by the beneficiary.

(Photo: Freepik)