In 1943, an anti-aircraft bunker was constructed by the Nazis in Hamburg, Germany. Some 70 years later, the structure is supplying power to more than 4,000 homes in the area.
Utility company Hamburg Energie partnered with IBA Hamburg to transform the building. The new "Energy Bunker" is already producing energy for the local community and will eventually provide heating to 3,000 homes and electricity to 1,000 others.
The anti-aircraft bunker had gun turrets to fend off Allied attacks, but also sheltered local people inside during air raids. At the end of WWII, the British wanted to destroy the building entirely, but demolishing the thick concrete walls likely would have damaged surrounding buildings. Instead, the British did away with most of the interior and left the exterior alone. The building remained this way for over 60 years, according to gizmag.
The original planning for the plant began in 2006, with actual renovation beginning in 2011. Funded by the European Regional Development Fund and the Hamburg Climate Protection Concept, the project came to approximately $36 million.
A 2 million-liter water reservoir plugs into the existing Reiherstieg heating network and will serve as a heat store for the plant. The plant features multiple heat sources: a biomass power plant; woodchip burning unit, which feeds into a large boiler; a solar thermal array located on the roof of the bunker; and waste heat from a nearby industrial plant.
To produce electricity, a photovoltaic system is installed on the building's southern facade; the wood burning unit that heats the reservoir doubles as an electricity-producing unit. The energy output is kept steady by a peak-load boiler and battery array.
In addition to the power plant, the building also includes a war memorial, cafe, and visitor's center.
Related Stories
| Mar 8, 2011
Building, energy performance rating site launched
The Institute for Market Transformation and the Natural Resources Defense Council announced the launch of BuildingRating.org, the world’s first comprehensive resource on energy performance rating and disclosure policies for commercial buildings and homes.
| Mar 2, 2011
New ASHRAE standard may be too broad for the Canadian market
New Standard 189.1 from the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), which goes beyond energy efficiency to include provisions that affect construction, post-occupancy monitoring, and site control, may be too much for the Canadian market—at least for now.
| Mar 1, 2011
Honeywell to implement China’s first smart grid project for managing energy use in commercial buildings
Honeywell announced it was selected to develop and implement China’s first smart grid pilot project and feasibility study for managing energy use in commercial buildings, also known as demand-side management. The project is part of a grant agreement signed today between the U.S. Trade and Development Agency (USTDA) and State Grid Electric Power Research Institute (SGEPRI), sponsor of the project and a subsidiary of State Grid Corp. of China.
| Feb 22, 2011
Military tests show copper increases HVAC efficiency, reduces odors
Recent testing, which is being funded by the Department of Defense, is taking place in military barracks at Fort Jackson, South Carolina. Side-by-side comparisons demonstrate that air conditioning units made with copper suppress the growth of bacteria, mold, and mildew that cause odors and reduce system energy efficiency.
| Feb 10, 2011
Zero Energy Buildings: When Do They Pay Off in a Hot and Humid Climate?
There’s lots of talk about zero energy as the next big milestone in green building. Realistically, how close are we to this ambitious goal? At this point, the strategies required to get to zero energy are relatively expensive. Only a few buildings, most of them 6,000 sf or less, mostly located in California and similar moderate climates, have hit the mark. What about larger buildings, commercial buildings, more problematic climates? Given the constraints of current technology and the comfort demands of building users, is zero energy a worthwhile investment for buildings in, for example, a warm, humid climate?
