Session 1 - Montefiore

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Life Cycle Assessment of Buildings – a review Sigrid Reiter, ArcelorMittal International Network in Steel Construction, Sustainability Workshop and Third Plenary Meeting, Bruxelles, Belgique (07/07/2010) In general, the input data include a description of the studied building (geometry, techniques…) and its context (e.g. electricity production mix). The output is a multi-indicator comparison of design alternatives, supporting decision-making. Regarding data quality, there are two approaches represented on how to collect data and how to handle data gaps. The data used in the tools is either generic data, in this case typical UK (Envest), or company specific (ATHENA) or variations on the theme like he BEAT 2000 and the Eco-quantum tools that use both types of data. (Erlandsson & Borg 2003). • LCA CAD tools These tools provide environmental impact and embodied energy information through CAD design and documentation tools. Refurbishment and end-of-life processes are not taken into account in these very simplified tools. The software EcoTect, released by Autodesk, is an example of this type of quick tools that are used from the first stage of buildings design. EcoTect is predominantly for operational modelling but has the ability to analyse materials at a limited – embodied energy – level. Other examples are : CSIRO, Ener-rate. There are four study levels for LCA of buildings: the material level, the element level, the building level and the services level. The services level integrating dynamics of retrofitting, function conversion, building extensions is never included in practical tools. To establish a flexible LCA methodology, the concept of sequential life-cycle thinking should be necessary. Scenario modeling can include one or more of the topics: replacement rate of various materials and products, service life definition and estimation, risk of substitution or changes in the demand for the provided service, estimation of sunk costs in renovation projects, etc. All parts of the scenario modeling have to be in relation to the goal of maintaining the services that the studied system provides and not only be related to the physical building. Inter-comparison exercises between LCA building tools had been first performed in the European project REGENER (Peuportier et al, 1997, Peuportier 1998) and in a working group (Annex 31) of the International Energy Agency (IEA 2005). Significant differences were found between the different LCA tools applications. But the hypotheses and results of the different tools had not been analysed in detail. In the IEA Annex 31 (2005) study, the environmental impacts of a single dwelling and an office building were compared with various LCA tools from participating countries, for examples: Eco- Quantum (Netherlands), BEE 1.0 (Finland), EQUER (France), BEES (USA), EcoEffect (Sweden), Ecopro (Germany), SBI tool (Denmark). Each tool was used to calculate the environmental impact of the reference buildings, using common input data. Differences in outputs occurred between the tools used. The source and quality of data, system boundaries, data allocation and weighting factors and environmental profiles had a significant impact on the results. Nevertheless, all of the tools produced similar results: they showed that energy consumption during the use phase was responsible for 75-95 per cent of the environmental impact of these two buildings during their life-cycle. So, reducing energy use produces the greatest environmental benefits; but for highly energy-efficient buildings, reducing the environmental impact of building materials assumes greater importance. A more precise protocol has been used in the frame of the European thematic network “PRESCO” (Practical Recommendations for Sustainable Construction) where 9 building LCA tools from 7 European countries were tested on 4 application cases. The tools considered in PRESCO were: ECO- QUANTUM (W/E Sustainable Building, The Netherlands), LEGEP (ASCONA, Germany), OGIP (EMPA, Switzerland), EQUER (ARMINES, France), ENVEST (BRE, United Kingdom), Eco-Soft Page 11
Life Cycle Assessment of Buildings – a review Sigrid Reiter, ArcelorMittal International Network in Steel Construction, Sustainability Workshop and Third Plenary Meeting, Bruxelles, Belgique (07/07/2010) (IBO, Austria), BeCost (VTT, Finland), SIMA-PRO (BDA Milieu, The Netherlands), ESCALE (CSTB, France). This exercise allowed to clarify the main assumptions in each tool and to identify good LCA Practices. The general conclusion of PRESCO exercise is that building LCA applications are feasible, useful as design support tools, but supplementary work is still needed in order to harmonize the methods and to facilitate the interpretation of the results by the building practitioners. LCA is at the moment more appropriate to study the impacts related to fluxes (energy, water, waste) which have a major influence on environmental performance than for comparing materials. Further improvement of data bases and environmental indicators are thus needed in order to provide designers with more precise advice. 4. LCA of buildings – a case studies review Cole assessed the impacts of different structural materials, and the relative impacts of embodied and recurring energy (Cole & Kernan 1996; Cole 1999). Various studies worked on the LCA of a whole residential building (Adalberth et al., 2001; Gerilla et al. 2007; Peuportier, 2001; Thomark 2002; Schreuer et al 2003; Huberman and Pearlmutter, 2008; Blengini 2009; Ortiz et al., 2009a,b; Marique & Reiter 2010; Verbeeck & Hens 2010). Some LCA studies working on office buildings are also found in the literature (Scheuer et al 2003; Xing et al. 2008). These studies are conducted on existing buildings but no studies were found on the use of the LCA method to improve the performance of a building at the design stage. Only one study analyses a retrofit scenario (Erlandsson & Levin 2004). Calculations are performed to compare the previous environmental performance of an existing multi-family house with the performance after the rebuilding has occurred. This study concludes that rebuilding is an environmentally better choice than the construction of a new building, if the same essential environmentally related functional performance is reached. This review reflects the important developments of LCA studies applied to buildings in the last ten years. However, a lot of modeling challenges remain. Currently LCA gives benefits to design retroactively but has limited use during the design stage. In order for life cycle modeling to fulfill its potential in assisting design decisions, there is a need for detailed data on specific building systems and components (Scheuer et al 2003). Some work has already done in this direction but much more work remains. Note that a great deal of a building’s environmental impact comes from the use of the building, primarily water and energy use. Issues such as orientation, insulation, building operation, lighting and appliance use, and so forth are therefore very important. Indeed, the in-use building phase is by far the longest one of the building life cycle. By comprehensively reviewing existing literature from a whole building life cycle perspective, the phase with the highest environmental impact is the operation phase with approximately 80–98% of the life cycle’s total, while the construction phase accounted for a total of 1–20% and the dismantling phase represented less than about 0.2–5% (Adalberth et al., 2001; Peuportier, 2001; Schreuer et al 2003; Huberman and Pearlmutter, 2008; Blengini 2009; Ortiz et al., 2009a,b; Marique & Reiter 2010). So, trying to reduce fluxes (energy, water and waste) in the utilisation phase seems to be the first action to achieve. Nevertheless, the recycling potential is important when compared to the shell embodied materials: it accounts for 29%-40% of the energy used for manufacturing and transporting the building materials (Blengini 2009; Thomark 2002). Moreover, recycling portential has been estimated to save other environmental impacts : 18% and 35% for GWP and Eco-Indicator 99 (Blengini 2009). Comparing two dwellings during the full building life cycle: one in Spain and one in Colombia, Page 12
Page 1 and 2:
Session 1 - Supervisors : Pierre De
Page 3 and 4:
Session 3 - Supervisors : Damien Er
Page 5 and 6:
Session 5 - Supervisors : Nathalie
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Session 11 - Supervisors : Damien E
Page 13 and 14:
Session 13 - Supervisors : Nathalie
Page 15 and 16:
Session 15 - Supervisors : Sigrid R
Page 17 and 18:
Appendix A : Sigrid Reiter Appendix
Page 20 and 21:
EEA Report No 10/2006 Urban sprawl
Page 22 and 23:
Contents Contents Acknowledgements
Page 24 and 25:
Urban sprawl — a European challen
Page 26 and 27:
from city centres, while retaining
Page 28 and 29:
growth as mentioned in Chapter 1. R
Page 30 and 31:
The extent of urban sprawl in Europ
Page 32 and 33:
esidential density, sprawl is equal
Page 34 and 35:
The extent of urban sprawl in Europ
Page 36 and 37:
3 The drivers of urban sprawl 3.1 C
Page 38 and 39:
The drivers of urban sprawl Figure
Page 40 and 41:
also clearly demonstrate city spraw
Page 42 and 43:
Box 4 Portugal and Spain: threats t
Page 44 and 45:
Box 5 (cont.) Map Development scena
Page 46 and 47:
Box 6 (cont.) The drivers of urban
Page 48 and 49:
emote locations and requiring trans
Page 50 and 51:
4.1.2 Natural and protected areas T
Page 52 and 53:
Box 7 (cont.) The impacts of urban
Page 54 and 55:
the societal cost of asthma has bee
Page 56 and 57:
Box 8 Effects of residential areas
Page 58 and 59:
5.2 The European spatial developmen
Page 60 and 61:
European regional forces generating
Page 62 and 63:
Box 9 (cont.) Responses to urban sp
Page 64 and 65:
urban development plan and focused
Page 66 and 67:
Box 10 (cont.) Responses to urban s
Page 68 and 69:
Annex: Data and methodological appr
Page 70 and 71:
C Assessing urban sprawl at the Eur
Page 72 and 73:
References and further reading Ambi
Page 74 and 75:
European Commission, 1990. Green Pa
Page 76 and 77:
European Environment Agency Urban s
Page 78 and 79:
Appendix A.2 78
Page 80 and 81:
Section 2 presents a brief review o
Page 82 and 83:
intervention in these specific type
Page 84 and 85:
electricity as trains in Belgium ar
Page 86 and 87:
The majority of those districts are
Page 88 and 89:
which were calculated with the same
Page 90 and 91:
The last type of sensitivity analys
Page 92 and 93:
(INSEE) in France, the Office for N
Page 94 and 95:
Kints C. La rénovation énergétiq
Page 96 and 97:
A Method to Evaluate the Energy Con
Page 98 and 99:
application in many other suburban
Page 100 and 101:
Our classification of buildings cur
Page 102 and 103:
to work and the mode of transportat
Page 104 and 105:
energy consumption of a neighborhoo
Page 106 and 107:
transportation represents 11.8% to
Page 108 and 109:
most important. Insulating only the
Page 110 and 111:
savings highlighted in the first an
Page 112 and 113:
measurements because of high variat
Page 114 and 115:
Hilderson, W., E. Mlecnik and J. Cr
Page 116 and 117:
FIGURE CAPTIONS AND TABLE TITLES Fi
Page 118 and 119:
PLEA2012 - 28th Conference, Opportu
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND SOLAR AVAIL
Page 128 and 129:
year are 34.9 °C and -9,1°C. The
Page 130 and 131:
The new built density of the neighb
Page 132 and 133:
Appendix A.6 132
Page 134 and 135:
uilding” approach. A large amount
Page 136 and 137:
C. Comparison of our classification
Page 138:
In fact, as cavity walls became wid
Page 141 and 142:
METHODS, TOOLS, AND SOFTWARE Keywor
Page 143 and 144:
approaches. These methodologies hav
Page 145 and 146:
travel through the urban area of Li
Page 147 and 148:
METHODS, TOOLS, AND SOFTWARE Figure
Page 149 and 150: as well as the ability to test fore
Page 151 and 152: Appendix A.8 151
Page 153 and 154: consumption is rarely taken into ac
Page 155 and 156: interdependences between urban stru
Page 157 and 158: These data were also used by Boussa
Page 159 and 160: and energy consumption in the resid
Page 161 and 162: Mean modal share (train) 14,0% 12,7
Page 163 and 164: Figure 4: Annual transport energy c
Page 165 and 166: 23,0%, even if the annual energy co
Page 167 and 168: or commercial purposes. “Type-pro
Page 169 and 170: Beevers SD and Carslaw DC (2005) Th
Page 171 and 172: Lavadinho S and Lensel B (2010) Imp
Page 175 and 176: NOTICE The submitted manuscript has
Page 177 and 178: Using ZEB design goals takes us out
Page 179 and 180: Boulder, Colorado has a solar acces
Page 181 and 182: (Mermoud 1996) to calculate the exp
Page 183 and 184: energy is used. TDVs have been deve
Page 185 and 186: Net Zero Energy Emissions Building
Page 187 and 188: combined with selecting a favorable
Page 191 and 192: Life Cycle Assessment of Buildings
Page 199: Life Cycle Assessment of Buildings
Page 207 and 208: PRe, SimaPro., 2000. Life Cycle Ass
Page 211 and 212: 396 buildings [17,26]. This review
Page 213 and 214: 398 2.2. Embodied energy and carbon
Page 215 and 216: 400 using photovoltaic panels will
Page 219 and 220: assumptions, the indicators (Embodi
Page 221 and 222: Table 3 Distribution of the steel w
Page 223 and 224: the three case studies exhibit a st
Page 225 and 226: PLEA 2011 - 27 th Conference on Pas
Page 231 and 232: Appendix B : Pierre Dewallef Append
Page 233 and 234: When writing your presentation, you
Page 235 and 236: Status of Solar Tower Power Plant t
Page 237 and 238: Appendix B.3 237
Page 241 and 242: Status of biomass combustion power
Page 247 and 248: Status of ocean thermal energy conv
Page 251 and 252:
When writing your presentation, you
Page 253 and 254:
Status of Natural Gas Combined Cycl
Page 255 and 256:
Appendix B.9 255
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
Status of Integrated coal Gazeifica
Page 261 and 262:
Appendix B.11 261
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Status of Carbon Capture and Storag
Page 267 and 268:
Appendix B.13 267
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272:
Status of Carbon Capture and Storag
show all

Session 1 - Montefiore

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?