Energy and Buildings 47 (2012) 151–158

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Energy and Buildings

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enbuild

Energy-efficient elevators and escalators in Europe: An analysis of energy

efficiency potentials and policy measures
Aníbal De Almeida a , Simon Hirzel b , Carlos Patrão a , João Fong a,∗ , Elisabeth Dütschke b
a
ISR – University of Coimbra, Dep. Electrical Engineering, Polo II, 3030 Coimbra, Portugal
b
Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI, Breslauer Strasse 48, 76139 Karlsruhe, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Elevators and escalators have received little attention from an energy efficiency perspective in the past.
Received 17 December 2010 To close this gap, this paper analyses energy efficiency potentials and suggests policy measures for the
Received in revised form 5 May 2011 European elevator and escalator market. As a precondition, the electrical energy demand of elevators
Accepted 26 November 2011
and escalators in the European market is analyzed, based on expert estimations and the results of a mon-
itoring campaign. The estimated current demand is compared to scenarios where the implementation
Keywords:
of best available technology for the relevant equipment is assumed and the savings potentials thereof
Lifts
are calculated. The results indicate that considerable technical efficiency potentials exist for elevators
Elevators
Escalators
(more than 60%) and escalators (around 30%). However, various specific barriers impede the diffusion
Energy efficiency of these energy-efficient technologies. They include issues like a lack of awareness and relevant infor-
Stand-by consumption mation as well as split-incentive problems. The technological analysis is therefore complemented by an
Barriers investigation of how to overcome these barriers, leading to a set of recommendations on how to improve
Policies for energy efficiency energy efficiency in the elevator and escalator market. Suitable measures could be implementing stan-
Policy recommendations dardized methods for electricity measurement, introducing a labeling system and including elevators
Elevator drives and escalators in the legislative framework.
© 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Elevators and escalators are the crucial elements that make it
practical and comfortable to live, work and shop several floors
above and below ground. Elevators typically account for about 3
to 8% of the overall electricity consumption of a building [1,2]. Fur-
ther urbanization in developing countries, growing awareness of
accessibility issues, an ageing population in many western coun-
tries as well as a rising demand for convenience will lead to the
installation of additional equipment. By improving the energy effi-
ciency in existing and new equipment, elevators and escalators can
contribute to current energy and climate targets in Europe. For
this purpose, a thorough analysis of the efficiency potentials and
suitable policy measures are required.
Until now little research has been carried out on the electricity
demand of elevators and escalators, especially with a focus on the
European market. Most prior studies have a limited focus, e.g. the
analyses remain at an aggregate level or are limited to a national
context: Sachs [2], for example, provides estimates and reflections
on the energy consumption of elevators by discussing opportuni-
ties for efficiency improvements of elevators, however, his study
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +351 239 796 325; fax: +351 239 406 672.
E-mail address: joaofong@isr.uc.pt (J. Fong).
focuses on the United States. Nipkow [3] conducted a more detailed
study, including a monitoring campaign of 33 elevators, and pro-
vided an estimation of energy efficiency potentials of elevators for
Switzerland, but he does not provide an in-depth analysis of barri-
ers and policy recommendations. Other studies subsume elevators
and escalators as one energy service among others and focus on
specific building types, not providing the coverage of this study:
Clausnitzer and Hoffmann [4] discuss, for example, the electricity
demand of elevators in the context of general electricity demand,
focusing on multi-family residential buildings. Another example is
Beier [5], who analyses the electricity demand of elevators as part
of an analysis of energy consumption in hospital buildings. Other
approaches focus on modeling aspects concerned with the energy
consumption of escalators, as for example found in Ma et al. [6] and
Al-Sharif [7].
For these reasons, knowledge about the impact of elevators
and escalators on energy consumption in Europe is limited, little
is known about specific saving potentials, and no policy recom-
mendations can be provided. This paper aims to fill this gap and
is structured as follows (Fig. 1): in Section 2, the current stock of
installations in Europe is estimated, based on an expert survey, also
including a short overview of the relevant drive technologies in
the elevator market. This data is then combined with the results
of a monitoring campaign which includes 81 installations in differ-
ent countries. The current energy consumption of elevators and

0378-7788/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.11.053
152 A. De Almeida et al. / Energy and Buildings 47 (2012) 151–158
Fig. 1. Methodological overview.
Table 1
Elevators by economic sector and drive technology in the EU-27.
Hydraulic Geared traction
Residential 743,979 2,254,112
Tertiary 333,248 946,208
Industry 49,312 126,397
Total 1,126,539 3,326,718
Share 23% 69%
escalators is estimated on this basis. Based on this data on the
current situation, an analysis of technical efficiency potentials is
carried out, by looking at currently best available technology (BAT)
and best not-yet available technology (BNAT) that will be available
in the near future. While this analysis indicates considerable effi-
ciency potentials, experience from other technologies has shown
that, even if efficient technology is available at a reasonable price,
it is still often not implemented. Section 3 therefore provides an
analysis of possible barriers to energy efficiency in the elevator
and escalator market and proposes policy measures to overcome
those barriers. The concluding Section 4 summarizes the results
and provides directions to further improve and extend the analy-
sis. Methodological details for each step will be described in the
corresponding sections.
2. Technological analysis
2.1. Data collection
2.1.1. European elevator and escalator market
In order to derive valid estimations of energy consumption
and energy efficiency potentials, knowledge about the currently
installed stock of installations is required. For this purpose, data
was collected in cooperation with the European Lift Association
(ELA) who approached their technical experts in the national mem-
ber associations to provide nationwide estimates of the number
of existing installations, classified by building type and including
a characterization of basic technological aspects such as motor
size, number of trips, average car size, etc. In order to standard-
ize data collection, an identical questionnaire was sent out to
experts in national ELA member associations. Detailed answers
were received from 16 out of 19 surveyed members associations,
including feedback from the most relevant countries such as Spain,
Italy, Germany, France, Greece and the United Kingdom. These
questionnaires were further analyzed in expert discussions, also
to provide estimates for the stock in the remaining countries in
the EU-27. Table 1 shows the summarized distribution of elevators
in these countries by economic sector and drive technology. The
results indicate that there are currently over 4.8 million elevators
Gearless traction Total Share
100,330 3,098,421 64%
270,344 1,549,801 32%
227 175,936 4%
370,901 4,824,157 100%
8% 100%
installed and operated in the European Union. Every year about
115,000 new elevators are put into service.1
Elevators can be differentiated in two types, according to the
motor system. Traction elevators are used in many different appli-
cations without many limitations regarding travel distance, speed
or load. In these systems the elevator car is suspended by ropes that
are moved via an electrically driven sheave. The opposite end of the
ropes is connected to a counterweight. Depending on whether the
sheave is driven directly by the electric motor or whether a gearbox
is used, these elevators are further differentiated into geared and
gearless traction systems. According to the survey results, geared
traction elevators are the most commonly used elevator type in
Europe, constituting more than two thirds of the European eleva-
tor stock. Gearless traction elevators are a comparatively young
technology and only constitute about 8% of the total elevator stock,
but they have a comparatively high share in tertiary sector build-
ings. The remaining elevators operate on hydraulics. This type of
elevator is often used in low-rise applications and is widely used
in some European countries due to low initial costs. It relies on a
hydraulic piston to move the car. Energy is usually provided to the
hydraulic fluid by an electrically driven hydraulic pump. These ele-
vators typically do not use a counterweight to compensate for the
weight of the car.
With regard to the location of these installations, elevators in
residential buildings represent by far the largest group with 3.1
million elevators in use. In the tertiary sector, there are about
1.5 million installed units. The industry sector only plays a minor
role, only about 175,000 units can be found there, according to the
results.
The number of installed escalators is considerably smaller than
the stock of elevators. According to the survey results, ELA statistics
and ELA expert input, there are approximately 75,000 escala-
tors and moving walkway units installed in the EU-27, of which
60,000 units (80%) are located in commercial buildings and the
remaining units in public transportation facilities (train stations,
1
Extrapolation of ELA elevator market statistics 2005 [8].
 A. De Almeida et al. / Energy and Buildings 47 (2012) 151–158
Fig. 2. Monitored installations by building type and technology.
airports, etc.). Every year, about 3500 new escalators are put into
service.
2.1.2. Monitoring campaign
In order to obtain an empirical basis for the energy consumption
data of elevators and escalators, a monitoring campaign was carried
out. Its aim was to provide the basis for an estimate of the electric
energy used by installations throughout Europe. In total, 74 eleva-
tors and 7 escalators, i.e. a total of 81 installations, were analyzed in
Germany, Italy, Poland and Portugal. In general, elevators are often
individually engineered systems instead of off-the-shelf products.
Therefore elevators with different characteristics and from differ-
ent buildings types were selected to obtain information about the
energy demand of a wide range of different elevator configura-
tions. Fig. 2 illustrates the segmentation of the monitored sample
by building type and drive technology.
To ensure the comparability of the measurements, a common
methodology was developed and used in all countries [9]. The
methodology considers power measurements relating to the nor-
mal operation of the elevator or escalator. Particularly, a distinction
was made between running and stand-by consumption of the equip-
ment analyzed.
To assess running consumption, the energy consumption of a ref-
erence cycle was measured, using power meters. This cycle includes
a complete round-trip from the bottom landing of the elevator to
the top landing and back to the original position again, including
three complete door cycles, two at the bottom landing (beginning,
end) and one at the top landing. The overall energy consump-
tion in the running mode for this reference cycle is influenced by
Fig. 3. Specific energy consumption (running mode) of tertiary and residential sector elevators for a reference cycle.
153
numerous factors, such as the consumption of the control system,
frequency converter, ancillary equipment and parameters such as
acceleration and deceleration or speed. Especially the length of
the hoist way renders a direct comparison of absolute running
consumption values for a reference cycle difficult, and thus this
information provides few insights for technological comparisons.
Thus, the specific energy consumption values according to the spec-
ifications of VDI 4707-1 [10] for the running mode were calculated
(Fig. 3), relating absolute energy consumption to rated load and
travel distance [mWh/(kg m)].
The results show that the specific running consumption of
hydraulic elevators is significantly higher than that of traction
elevators, mainly due to the fact that they do not possess a coun-
terweight and thus the entire cab plus the load has to be lifted.
Comparison of the geared and gearless traction elevators of the
sample shows that gearless elevators tend to have lower consump-
tion values than geared elevators.
The measured stand-by power varied widely as well. Stand-by
consumption is caused by various components, such as the control
systems, lighting, floor displays, frequency converters and oper-
ating consoles in each floor and inside the elevator cabin. In the
analyzed elevators, the stand-by power consumption ranges from
below 50 W to more than 700 W (Fig. 4).
In order to gain on the share of stand-by in the total energy
demand, running and stand-by consumption have to be comple-
mented by information on actual usage, i.e. the number of trips per
year. For the analysis, either the number of trips was collected from
trip counters or documentation or otherwise typical trip numbers
by building type were assumed, based on expert input. Using these
numbers, the share of elevator stand-by consumption shows a large
variance, ranging from 5% to 95% across the different installations.
These large differences originate especially from different usage
patterns (the higher the number of trips, the higher the running
consumption tends to be), on the one hand, and from the differ-
ent consumption values during running and stand-by, on the other
hand. Annual energy demand thus also reveals a large diversity,
ranging roughly between values of 500 and 20,000 kWh per year
and unit.
For escalators, the power consumption was determined in dif-
ferent states of operation. The running consumption is determined
by conducting measurements over a period of 5 min when the
escalator is running at nominal speed. Concerning stand-by, two
different modes were distinguished: a stop mode (when the escala-
tor is actually not running, however, prepared to start if passengers
enter it) and a low-speed mode. Low-speed modes are available on
escalators with variable speed drives: in this mode of operation, the
154 A. De Almeida et al. / Energy and Buildings 47 (2012) 151–158

Fig. 4. Stand-by power of tertiary and residential sector elevators.

speed and thus the energy consumption of the escalator is reduced
while waiting for the next passengers to board. Therefore it is also
considered to be a stand-by mode.
According to the developed methodology, the stand-by con-
sumption is considered to be the sum of the low-speed mode
consumption, if available, and the stop mode consumption. Mea-
surements were carried out for empty escalators only. To take
passenger load into account as found in real systems, annual
consumption values were calculated by multiplying running-
consumption with a typical load factor.
The results of the monitoring action on 7 escalators show that, in
this low-speed mode, the energy consumption is more or less half of
the consumption of the normal operation mode. Estimations of the
annual electricity consumption of the analyzed escalators indicate
energy demand values of roughly 4000–10,000 kWh per year and
installation, depending on the respective configuration and usage.
2.2. Energy demand and efficiency potentials
2.2.1. Energy demand of elevators and escalators
Combining stock estimates with the data from the monitor-
ing campaign, the annual electrical energy demand of elevator
and escalator installations in the EU-27 is estimated. For elevators,
average consumption values both for stand-by and running mode
were calculated for each drive technology and sub-sector, using
the results of the monitoring campaign. These values were then
combined with information from the survey on elevator stocks.
Concerning escalators, the average value for the electricity con-
sumed during running and stand-by modes were combined with
the average operating and stand-by hours per year, as detailed in
[11].
The results indicate that elevators in the EU-27 consume about
18.4 TWh of electrical energy per year, of which 6.7 TWh originate
from installations in the residential sector, 10.9 TWh from the ter-
tiary sector and only 0.8 TWh from the industrial sector (Fig. 5).
Although the number of installed elevators in the tertiary sector is
smaller than in the residential sector, their consumption is consid-
erably larger, due to their more intensive use. Stand-by electricity
consumption represents a very significant share of the overall
electricity consumption. Accounting for 68% (4.5 TWh) of overall
consumption in this sector, elevators installed in the residential
sector have a very high share in stand-by consumption. For the
tertiary sector, stand-by accounts for another 4.6 TWh. Escalators
(including moving walkways) are estimated to consume around
0.9 TWh of electricity each year and thus represent only a fraction
of the yearly energy consumption of elevators.
2.2.2. Estimation of savings potentials
For the calculation of savings potentials, it is assumed that
currently used equipment (CT) is replaced by best-available

Fig. 5. Estimation of total electricity savings in the different scenarios for elevators [11].
 A. De Almeida et al. / Energy and Buildings 47 (2012) 151–158 155

Table 2 Table 4
Scenario for elevators. Categories of stakeholders identified and number of interview participants.

Current Running Stand-by Stakeholder categories Number of

technologies
(CT)
Based on market data and
monitoring results
BAT Components with high
efficiency:
• Motor efficiency: 15%
lower losses than IE3 in
IEC60034-30 (Super
Premium or Permanent
Magnet Synchronous
Motors) [13].
• Efficiency of helical gear –
BNAT 96%.
• Friction losses (5%).
• Efficiency of VSD (95%)
[14]
Reduced stand-by:
• Led Lighting (varies from
12 W for elevator with load
320 kg to 18 W for 1000 kg
load elevator).
• Electronic controllers
(25 W).
• Inverter (20 W).
• Door operators (5 W)
In addition:
• Turning off all
non-essential components
which contribute to
stand-by energy
consumption when the
elevator is not in use.
• Put controller and
inverter into sleep-mode
(1 W each)
interviews
Manufacturers, installers, service & maintenance 11
Architects, construction engineers, elevator consultants 8
Construction companies 1
Building administrators and operators 1
Notified bodies 2
mode. Furthermore, it is assumed that when stopped, the controller
and inverter only consume 1 W each. These assumptions lead to
an overall reduction in the energy consumption of escalators of
approximately 0.25 TWh (28%).
Table 3 summarizes the consumption values and efficiency
potentials for the currently installed elevators and escalators in
Europe. With respect to the estimated savings, it is important to
note that some technologies may increase stand-by consumption,
while reducing consumption during the running phase. Therefore,
their application in a given installation should be carefully eval-
uated on a case-specific basis, especially taking the usage into
account.

technological solutions. The estimation of the potential savings

for elevators is made by assuming two technological scenarios
(Table 2):
• Best available technologies (BAT) are used,
• Best not-yet available technologies (BNAT) are used.
BAT are state-of-the-art components currently being commer-
cialized while BNAT are new and existing technologies that are
not commercially available yet. The assumptions used for both
scenarios are the result of a careful evaluation of the available tech-
nological solutions [12], the results of the monitoring campaign and
the specialist advice of several manufacturers and experts (Table 2).
The results for elevators show that considerable savings are pos-
sible. A reduction by 11.5 TWh (62%) is achieved using BAT and
13.6 TWh (74%) can be saved when BNAT are used. Savings in the
stand-by mode are particularly noticeable also, in both the BAT and
the BNAT scenarios (Fig. 5). For the BAT it is assumed that low power
equipment is used, which, however, constantly consumes energy
all the time. In particular, the use of LED lighting plays a major role in
this reduction, as it drastically reduces the energy consumption of
24/7 operated lighting in the car. If equipment is turned off and put
into a sleep-mode when not in use, corresponding to the BNAT sce-
nario, a reduction in stand-by power of more than 80% is considered
feasible.
For the estimation of possible energy savings in escalators, it
is assumed that currently 30% of all escalators are equipped with
a variable speed drive. To calculate the efficiency potentials, it is
assumed that all escalators could be equipped with a VSD and
would therefore be capable of operating in a “reduced speed”
3. Analysis of suitable policies
3.1. Barriers to energy efficiency
As outlined above, significant and extensive savings of energy
would be possible for elevators and escalators without decreasing
comfort or accessibility, if BAT or BNAT were applied. However,
although BAT are currently available on the market, they are neither
regularly a part of new installations nor of major retrofits of existing
installations. Thus this section aims to identify reasons that prevent
these technologies from spreading throughout the market as soon
as possible.
Reasons hindering the diffusion of energy-efficient technologies
are usually called barriers. Sorrell et al. [15] describe a barrier as “a
mechanism that inhibits a decision or behavior that appears to be
both energy efficient and economically efficient.”
Various expert interviews were conducted in order to identify
barriers for energy efficiency in the elevator and escalator market.
Experts are usually defined as individuals who have special knowl-
edge or experience of a topic of interest. For the purpose of this
study, a list of potential stakeholders was produced as a starting
point to identify relevant experts. Five categories of stakeholder
were identified (Table 4).
As a preliminary step for the interviews, barriers that have been
identified as relevant for other technologies were extracted from
the literature. On this basis, a standardized guideline was developed
and used in the interviews. After the 23 interviews, the results were
validated in discussions within the project team as well as relevant
stakeholder groups, e.g. members of industrial associations.

Table 3
Estimated energy consumption and savings potentials for elevators and escalators [11].

Consumption Savings

Running [GWh] Stand-by [GWh] Total [GWh] Absolute [GWh] Relative [%]

Elevators
CT 8674 9706 18,380
BAT 4233 2663 6896 −11,484 −62%
BNAT 552 4785 −13,595 −74%
Escalators
CT 822 82 904
BAT 413 236 649 −255 −28%
156 A. De Almeida et al. / Energy and Buildings 47 (2012) 151–158
Table 5
Barriers to energy efficiency for elevators and escalators.
Relevance Issue
Major barriers • Lack of monitoring of energy consumption
• Lack of awareness
• Lack of knowledge about energy efficient
technology
• Split incentives: installation not chosen by
the later operator/user
Not relevant as a barrier • Lack of time
• Lack of capital
• Reliability of technology
The experts taking part in the interviews represented several
European countries (e.g. Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Portugal and
Poland) and covered the different stakeholder categories. However,
it is also worth noting that several individuals from building admin-
istration and operation declined to take part in the interviews,
claiming little knowledge about the issue under study.
The results obtained in the study on barriers indicate that major
barriers to the penetration of energy-efficient technologies are due
to a lack of monitoring energy consumption of installations, from
a lack of awareness as well as a lack of knowledge about energy-
efficient technology. Split-incentive problems have also proved to
be very relevant (Table 5).
In general, it is not common for operators of elevators or
escalators to regularly monitor the energy consumption of their
equipment. In most cases, no technical devices are installed that
would allow for regular monitoring of installed equipment; thus
the energy consumption of elevators and escalators cannot be
separated from other equipment in the building, e.g. lighting or
ventilation.
This is seen as related to the fact that individuals choosing equip-
ment, as well as operators and users, do not consider the expected
energy consumption of the equipment: Due to a low degree of
awareness, no measurement devices are installed – as there is no
data available, individuals do not become aware of potentials to
increase the energy efficiency of existing installations or to think
of this issue if new installations are required.
Obtaining information on energy-efficient technology is not
judged difficult by the experts questioned. However, the main
sources for information that are regularly used in case of new instal-
lations, as well as in case of retrofitting, are the manufacturers
and their sales representatives. Neutral sources for information are
missing or hardly known. The experts emphasized that the knowl-
edge provided by sales representatives is usually restricted to the
technology used by their respective company, and that energy-
efficient technology is sometimes too new to be fully understood,
even by company representatives. The clients themselves usually
have little knowledge about this topic and are thus not able to
ask for relevant data. Thus, installations and components are usu-
ally chosen without a (comprehensive) assessment of their energy
consumption and without considering life-cycle approaches.
In addition to this, an installation is often chosen neither by the
future operator/user of an installation, nor the person/s paying for
the energy consumption – who may be, but is not always, identical
to the operator/user. Thus, a split-incentive problem occurs: Build-
ings including an elevator or escalator are often erected by a general
contractor for whom the energy consumption of the elevator or
escalator installed does not matter at all. Thus, life-cycle costs play
a minor role when an installation is chosen. This may also be the
case for retrofits of installations: Retrofits are often initiated by the
operator/administrator of an installation who does not necessarily
benefit from optimizing the energy costs of an installation. The
split-incentive problem is worsened due to low levels of awareness
for this issue on the part of operators/administrators/users. It is
further intensified by the fact that maintenance and energy costs
are often divided among several occupants of a building which
lowers the probability that these costs will provoke attention.
Other barriers known as being relevant for other technologies,
e.g. lack of time or capital, reliability of technology, or legislation,
play only minor roles. However, price may be crucial, although lack
of capital is not a major problem: This has to be seen in relation to
the split-incentive problem already addressed.
Moreover, the economic efficiency of energy-efficient technol-
ogy is a topic that is highly debated and which suffers from a lack of
reliable data. Few examples of technical measures were given dur-
ing the interviews and the group discussions for which economic
pay-off is not doubted. The best example of a unanimously accepted
measure is turning off the light when the car of the elevator is not
in use and equipping the car with energy-efficient lighting. As out-
lined above, this measure would already significantly contribute
toward reducing the energy consumption of elevators. However, it
is often not realized, due to the other barriers – lack of information
and awareness, as well as split incentives.
For other measures, e.g. investing in the drive system, opin-
ions on economic efficiency were diverse and heterogeneous, even
among experts from manufacturing and notified bodies. For exam-
ple, experts stated wide ranges of prices for certain measures, e.g.
regenerative drives, which, of course, lead to differing opinions
regarding economic efficiency. In general, some experts empha-
sized the long life-cycles of installations, pointing out that longer
payback periods could also be attractive. Moreover, economic effi-
ciency was perceived to be more easily realized for large-scale
installation than for small-scale ones.
3.2. Policy measures to promote energy efficiency
Based on these results, a set of recommendations for policy
measures can be developed that are likely to help in effectively
promoting energy efficiency in the elevator and escalator market.
3.2.1. Standardization of measurement methodologies
As shown in the barrier analysis, the energy consumption of a
single installation is usually unknown to its owner, as well as to the
maintenance company and the manufacturers. This is also reflected
by the fact that it was necessary to develop a measurement method-
ology to carry out the monitoring campaign which was part of the
work presented in this paper. Only recently, have some manufac-
turers started to put time and effort into obtaining measurement
data for their equipment and standardization processes concern-
ing energy efficiency. Measurements have been initiated (e.g. VDI
4707-1 [11], ISO/DIS 25745-1 [16]); however, no consistent and
broadly supported European or international standard exists yet.
Precise and standardized data is the necessary first step in identi-
fying potentials for energy efficiency. Otherwise it is not possible
to compare different installations or to make informed decisions
about equipment. Thus, this gap needs to be closed as soon as
possible. Building on the first concepts of how to measure energy
consumption of elevators should allow for a standard to be rapidly
developed.
3.2.2. Relevant legislative framework
Next, we recommend including elevators and escalators in
the relevant framework of regulation and legislation, in order
to speed up the process of developing measurement standards
as well as drawing attention to the energy efficiency of eleva-
tors and escalators. Up to now, elevators are neither included in
building directives, e.g. EPBD, nor in those on electric equipment,
e.g. EuP/ErP. Several countries use the EPBD as a basis for subsi-
dies. Thus including elevators and escalators would allow them
to become part of these programs too. This could also contribute
 A. De Almeida et al. / Energy and Buildings 47 (2012) 151–158
to filling in gaps with regard to energy efficiency at the interface
between the building itself and the elevator, e.g. insulation of the
elevator shaft. This topic is not further detailed in this paper, but it
was repeatedly mentioned in expert discussions during the work
process.
3.2.3. Raising awareness
Setting measurement standards and complementing legislation
will already contribute to raising awareness about energy efficiency
to some extent. However, as shown by the barrier analysis, higher
levels of awareness are necessary – especially for administrators,
operators and users – to ensure that the energy efficiency of eleva-
tors is optimized.
Main target groups for awareness-raising measures are the
stakeholders involved during the planning and construction of
buildings, i.e. those taking the decision on new equipment, as well
as those stakeholders who will later use and/or operate an instal-
lation, i.e. those paying for the energy consumption and taking the
decisions on retrofits.
One way to raise awareness in several target groups is by label-
ing equipment in a comparable and comprehensive way as it has
been done for other electrical equipment, e.g. freezers and refriger-
ators. For this reason, we recommend to develop a labeling system
on the energy efficiency of elevators and escalators. Labeling has
turned out to be an effective measure to enhance energy efficiency
[17]. The main advantage of labeling is that labels convey in a con-
densed and simplified form the most relevant information on the
energy efficiency of a system. Thus, buyers do not need to collect a
huge amount of information and data on a subject that is very dif-
ficult for them to understand. A major challenge for implementing
such a system lies in the heterogeneity of elevators and escalators
[18]. However, the VDI 4707-1 has provided a first example of how
to address this problem [10].
As outlined in the monitoring campaign, the overall energy
demand pattern and thereby effective means to influence the
energy efficiency of an elevator heavily depends on its usage pat-
tern: The higher the frequency of running, the more important the
energy efficiency of the running mode and vice versa for stand-by.
Thus, it would make sense if two labels were assigned to each eleva-
tor model, i.e. one label for running and one for stand-by. Thus, the
individual usage pattern could be taken into account when invest-
ing in a system. Other measures to raise awareness should yet be
implemented. This is important, as labeling only addresses new
equipment and does not include existing installations. Due to the
long life-time of elevators, it is necessary that measures for market
transformation address existing installations as well.
3.2.4. Minimum energy performance standards
Based on a methodology for standardized monitoring of the
electricity consumption as well as a labeling system, minimum
energy performance standards (MEPS) could be an option for
the future as well, e.g. including maximum stand-by consump-
tion values for all systems, and maximum specific consumption
for non-residential high traffic installations. Such standards could
significantly contribute to support the diffusion of more energy-
efficient technologies and especially address the high share in
stand-by as discussed above. However, due to the multitude of dif-
ferent types of elevators, the introduction of comprehensive and
balanced MEPS may take time.
3.2.5. Enhancing knowledge
It is one of the general experiences of elevator experts that most
clients have little knowledge about elevators. Furthermore, special-
ized consultants are only involved in a minority of projects. Thus,
relevant information needs to be accessible to customers, e.g. via
the internet or brochures. This includes, for example, checklists
157
about energy-efficient components which may be consulted for
retrofits (e.g. [19]). It is important to keep in mind that this infor-
mation has to be directed to different target groups: to general con-
tractors, individuals involved in the planning process of a building,
as well as to operators and administrators of buildings and build-
ing owners. Thus, several channels have to be used to communicate
and diffuse the information sources once they are established.
4. Conclusions
To sum up, this paper provides a full analysis of the elevator and
escalator market with regard to energy efficiency. As a basis for a
sound analysis, first of all, the stock of installations throughout the
EU-27 was analyzed. After developing a measurement methodol-
ogy, 81 different installations in five different countries using all
relevant technologies were monitored. Combining this data pro-
vided an estimation of the annual energy demand of elevator and
escalators installations in Europe. It turns out that elevators and
escalators consume about 19.3 TWh per year. This is equivalent
to a share of 0.7% in the electricity consumption in the EU-27 in
2008 (2.856 TWh). The impact of elevators is much higher than the
impact of escalators, due to the much lower number of escalators
installed.
From a sectoral point of view, elevators in the residential sector,
although they form the majority of elevators installed (64% of all
units), are responsible for only 36% (6.7 TWh) of the overall electric-
ity demand by elevators. This is due to their less intensive usage. On
the other hand, elevators installed in the tertiary sector usually have
a more intensive use and consume about 59% (10.9 TWh) of the total
elevator electricity consumption, which corresponds to almost 1.4%
of the electricity consumed in that sector in 2008 (753 TWh). In
terms of stand-by consumption, the elevators in the sample showed
a large range of values, ranging from below 50 W to 700 W. In terms
of running consumption, hydraulic elevators that are usually not
equipped with counterweights showed a significantly higher run-
ning consumption than traction elevators. The overall effect on the
energy consumption of an installation, however, depends on the
actual balance of stand-by and running consumption.
While it is informative to know how much energy is consumed
by elevators and escalators, it is more important to analyze whether
this consumption could be reduced without decreasing comfort and
accessibility. This was analyzed, drawing on data about BAT and
BNAT which, however, are expected to be on the market soon. The
use of BAT in all existing elevator installations could result in tech-
nical savings during stand-by consumption of more than 70%. In
particular, energy-efficient lighting and the use of electronic com-
ponents with low stand-by power (e.g. controllers and inverter)
were found to play a major role in this reduction. Turning off non-
essential equipment or putting it into a very low power or sleep
mode, whenever possible, would produce even higher electricity
savings (BNAT scenario).
The potential overall savings (running and stand-by) are esti-
mated to account for savings of 11.5 TWh (BAT) or 13.6 TWh (BNAT).
Compared to elevators, the estimated electricity consumption of
escalators in Europe is relatively modest (0.9 TWh), and a potential
reduction of around 0.25 TWh (30%) would be feasible if all the esca-
lators installed were to be equipped with automatic speed controls
and with low power stand-by modes.
However, these energy savings scenarios are far from becom-
ing reality. Elevators and escalators have long life cycles, which
imply a slow market penetration for new technologies. Addition-
ally, various barriers to energy-efficient technology are present in
the market as shown by the study of this topic presented above.
The main barriers identified are lack of information and awareness,
split-incentive problems and an unclear state of knowledge about
158 A. De Almeida et al. / Energy and Buildings 47 (2012) 151–158
the economic efficiency of the technological measures. In order to
address these barriers, the following measures are recommended
in order to effectively improve energy efficiency in the elevator and
escalator market:
• implementing a standard method of measurement for the elec-
tricity consumption of elevators and escalators,
• including elevators and escalators into the building energy certi-
fication (EPBD),
• raising awareness through labeling systems and additional mea-
sures,
• introducing minimum energy performance standards and
• providing easily accessible and understandable information to
buyers.
Our paper presents the first profound analyses on the topic of
energy efficiency on a European scale. Therefore, it turned out to
be necessary, as a first step, to collect data for estimating energy
demand and efficiency potentials. Also barriers to energy efficiency
have not been systematically analyzed before. Against this back-
ground, several limitations are important to note. First of all, the
analysis of efficiency potentials presented in this paper is restricted
to a technological point of view. The initial as well as maintenance
costs of the technologies used, while being an important issue
regarding their application, have not been considered; therefore,
no indications are provided about the cost-effectiveness of using
those technologies. Within the barrier analysis it became appar-
ent that cost issues might be a difficult topic, especially concerning
elevators. Elevators are a more individually engineered product
than off-the-shelf products. And, as pointed out above, their energy
demand and their potential efficiency depends on a multitude of
factors, most importantly the actual usage. On top of this, only
for some of the technologies considered as part of the BAT and
more importantly, the BNAT scenario, no valid data for expected
costs exists. Complementing the analyses of energy efficiency with
a cost perspective is therefore a topic that needs to be the subject
of further research. Secondly, due to the fact that the specific liter-
ature for elevators and escalators with regard to energy efficiency
is limited, our analysis is mainly a first step and could probably be
improved in several ways, e.g. by measuring additional equipment
or broadening the barrier analysis by studying valid market data,
e.g. on using sales figures for certain technologies. Thirdly, the inte-
gration, especially of elevators into the building and the analysis of
interfaces, e.g. elevator shaft, shaft ventilation, appropriate build-
ing design with regard to unnecessary elevator use, was outwith
the scope of our analysis. However, these topics might also signif-
icantly contribute to reducing overall energy consumption within
the building. And, last but not least, an analysis including the full
lifecycle from production to disposal would also enrich an analysis
of sustainability for the means of vertical transportation; however,
these topics were also clearly outwith the scope of this paper with
regard to the limited base of knowledge we started from. In sum,
while our paper provides a first basis for estimations about demand
and efficiency potentials, as well as providing recommendations for
measures, more research is needed in this area.
Acknowledgements
This paper is based on results of the E4 project. This project
was jointly carried out by the European Lift Association (ELA), the
Energy Agencies of Italy (ENEA) and Poland (KAPE), Fraunhofer
ISI (Germany) and ISR-University of Coimbra (Portugal) supported
by the European Commission, Executive Agency for Competitive-
ness and Innovation, EACI (contract EIE/07/111/SI2.466703). The
responsibility for this paper lies with the authors.
References
[1] E4 – Energy Efficient Elevators and Escalators, WP3 D3.2-Country Reports
with the Results of the Monitoring Campaign, 2009, Report elaborated for EC,
http://www.e4project.eu/articolo.asp?idarticolo=92, 04/21/2011.
[2] H.M. Sachs, Opportunities for Elevator Energy Efficiency Improvements,
ACEEE, 2011, http://www.aceee.org/white-paper/opportunities-elevator-
energy-efficiency-improvements, 04/21/2011.
[3] J. Nipkow, Elektrizitätsverbrauch und Einspar-Potenziale bei Aufzügen, 2005,
Report elaborated for the Swiss Federal Office of Energy SFOE, http://www.bfe.
admin.ch/php/modules/enet/streamfile.php?file=000000008982.pdf&name=
000000250057.pdf, 04/21/2011.
[4] K.-D. Clausnitzer, N. Hoffmann, Allgemeinstrom in Wohngebäuden. Dämpfung
der Wohn-Nebenkosten durch Innovationen zur Reduktion des Allgemein-
stromverbrauchs, Fraunhofer IRB, Stuttgart, 2009.
[5] C. Beier, Analyse des Energieverbrauchs und exemplarische Best-practice-
Lösungen für relevante Verbrauchssektoren in Krankenhäusern, 2009,
http://publica.fraunhofer.de/documents/N-117854.html, 04/21/2011.
[6] W. Ma, X. Liu, L. Li, X. Shi, C.Q. Zhou, Research on the waiting time of passen-
gers and escalator consumption at the railway station, Energy and Buildings 41
(2009) 1313–1318.
[7] L. Al-Sharif, Modelling of escalator energy consumption, Energy and Buildings,
in press.
[8] E. Gemici, European statistics on the lift industry, in: Presentation, 9th Inter-
national Lift Technology & by-industries Fair, 04/15/2005, 2005.
[9] E4 – Energy Efficient Elevators and Escalators, Methodology of Energy
Measurement and Estimation of Annual Energy Consumption of Lifts (Ele-
vators), Escalators and Moving Walks, 2008, Report elaborated for the EC,
http://www.e4project.eu/articolo.asp?idarticolo=58, 04/21/2011.
[10] VDI, VDI 4707 Part 1: Lifts. Energy Efficiency, VDI-Guideline, 2009.
[11] A.T. De Almeida, C. Patrão, J. Fong, U. Nunes, R. Araújo, E4 – Energy Efficient
Elevators and Escalators: Estimation of Savings, 2010, Report elaborated for
EC, http://www.e4project.eu/articolo.asp?idarticolo=105, 04/21/2011.
[12] A.T. de Almeida (Ed.), E4 – Energy Efficient Elevators and Escalators, s.l.:
Intelligent Energy Europe – European Commission, March 2010, ISBN 978-972-
8822-19-4.
[13] IEC, 60034-30, Rotating Electrical Machines: Efficiency Classes of Single-speed,
Three-phase, Cage-induction Motors, IEC Standard, 2008.
[14] A.T. De Almeida, F.J.T.E. Ferreira, D. Both, Technical and Economical con-
siderations to improve the penetration of variable speed drives for electric
motor systems, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications 41 (2005)
188–199.
[15] S. Sorrell, E. O’Malley, J. Schleich, S. Scott, The Economics of Energy Efficiency:
Barriers to Cost-effective Investment, Elgar, Cheltenham, 2004.
[16] ISO, ISO/DIS 25745-1 Energy Performance of Lifts and Escalators – Part
1: Energy Measurement and Conformance, Draft International Standard,
2008.
[17] Europe Economics and Fraunhofer-ISI with BSR Sustainability and FfE, Impact
Assessment Study on a Possible Extension, Tightening or Simplification of the
Framework Directive 92/75 EEC on Energy Labelling of Household Appliances,
Report, 2007.
[18] Europe Economics and Fraunhofer-ISI with BSR Sustainability and FfE, Impact
Assessment Study on a Possible Extension, Tightening or Simplification of the
Framework Directive 92/75 EEC on Energy Labelling of Household Appliances
– Appendix 2, Report, 2007.
[19] S. Hirzel, E. Dütschke, Guidelines for New Lift Installations and Retrofitting,
2010, Report elaborated for the EC, http://www.e4project.eu/articolo.asp?
idarticolo=94, 21/04/2011.