Comparison of Building Materials for Low-Rise Buildings Based on Environmental Footprint

Abstract

The aim of SEEP2017 is to bring together the researches within the field of sustainable energy and environmental protection from all over the world.The contributed papers are grouped in 18 sessions in order to provide access to readers out of 300 contributions prepared by authors from 52 countries.We thank the distinguished plenary and keynote speakers and chairs who have kindly consented to participate at this conference. We are also grateful to all the authors for their papers and to all committee members.We believe that scientific results and professional debates shall not only be an incentive for development, but also for making new friendships and possible future scientific development projects. The footprint assessment techniques has provided a set of tools enabling the evaluation of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) -including CO2, emissions and the corresponding effective flows on the world scale. From all such indicators, the energy footprint represents the area of forest that would be required to absorb the GHG emissions resulting from the energy consumption required for a certain activity, excluding the proportion absorbed by the oceans, and the area occupied by hydroelectric dams and reservoirs for hydropower.An overview of the virtual GHG flow trends in the international trade, associating the GHG and water footprints with the consumption of goods and services is performed. Several important indications have been obtained: (a) There are significant GHG gaps between producer's and consumer's emissions -US and EU have high absolute net imports GHG budget. (b) China is an exporting country and increasingly carries a load of GHG emission and virtual water export associated with consumption in the relevant importing countries. (c) International trade can reduce global environmental pressure by redirecting import to products produced with lower intensity of GHG emissions and lower water footprints, or producing them domestically.To develop self-sufficient regions based on more efficient processes by combining neighbouring countries can be a promising development. A future direction should be focused on two main areas: (1) To provide the self-sufficient regions based on more efficient processes by combining production of surrounding countries. (2) To develop the shared mechanism and market share of virtual carbon between trading partners regionally and internationally. HAKAN SERHAD SOYHAN 4 Development in energy sector, technological advancements, production and consumption amounts in the countries and environmental awareness give shape to industry of energy. When the dependency is taken into account in terms of natural resources and energy, there are many risks for countries having no fossil energy sources. Renewable and clean sources of energy and optimal use of these resources minimize environmental impacts, produce minimum secondary wastes and are sustainable based on current and future economic and social societal needs. Sun is one of the main energy sources in recent years. Light and heat of sun are used in...

Environmental impact of cool roof paint: case-study of house retrofit in two hot islands

“…The midpoint environmental impact indicators of the cool paint from this study were compared with the results reported in the literature that investigated the midpoint environmental impact of insulation materials. The average values of the study of [38] were reported in Table 7 because different U-values of insulation construction were assessed. From the comparison presented in Tables 7 and 8, it can be seen that the CTGA/CTSI/CTGR environmental impacts of the cool paint are lower than insulation materials.…”

“…presents the CTGA GWP and TAP of the cool paint compared with the CTGA of the RockWool (RW), Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) and Wood Fibre (WF) for wall and/or roof of low-rise buildings in Central Europe[38]. It also compares CTGA GWP, ODP, POFP, TEP, FEP, MEP and WDP of the cool paint compared with the CTGA of EPS, Mineral Wool (MW) and Phenolic Foam (PF)[39].…”

“…It also compares CTGA GWP, ODP, POFP, TEP, FEP, MEP and WDP of the cool paint compared with the CTGA of EPS, Mineral Wool (MW) and Phenolic Foam (PF)[39]. Table8presents the CTSI GWP, ODP and TAP of the cool paint compared with the CTSI of the Extruded Polystyrene (XPS), Expanded Polystyrene (EPS), Polyurethane (PU), Stone Wool (SW) and Spray Foam (GW) in Spain[40].Žigart et al[38] studied different external wall elements (structural materials, thermal insulation materials and surface finishing) for different types of constructions. Therefore, the average GWP and TAP contribution by the studied thermal insulations were calculated according to the stated percentage share stated for thermal insulations.…”