Energy-saving policies and low-energy residential buildings: an LCA case study to support decision makers in Piedmont (Italy)

Abstract

Background, aim and scope A low-energy family house recently built in Northern Italy was selected by Regione Piemonte as an outstanding example of resource efficient building. An economic incentive was awarded to cover the extra costs of the thermal insulation, windows and equipment in order to decrease the yearly winter heat requirement from the legal standard of 109 to 10 kW h/m 2 , while existing buildings in the study area typically require 200 kW h/m 2 . As the building was claimed to be sustainable on the basis of its outstanding energy-saving performance, an ex post life cycle assessment (LCA) was set up to understand whether, and to what extent, the positive judgement could be confirmed in a life cycle perspective. Materials and methods After an analysis of the literature on LCA of whole buildings, a detailed life cycle assessment has been conducted by encompassing all the life cycle phases. Emphasis was given on the end-of-life stage, too often disregarded due to lack of data or heavily simplified. Virtually all the materials used in the building structure, finishes and equipment were considered, paying attention to their expected service duration and the recycling potential. In order to increase transparency and therefore credibility and acceptance of LCA in the building sector, an uncertainty analysis was carried out. Results and discussion The dramatic contribution of material-related impacts emerged. Structure and finishes materials represented the highest relative contribution, but maintenance operations also played a major role. The contributions of equipment, construction stage and transportation were minor. The important role of the recycling potential also emerged. Unlike standard buildings, where heating-related impacts overshadow the rest of the life cycle, there is no single dominating item or aspect. Rather, several of them play equally important roles. Conclusions The study confirmed that the initial goal of resource and environmental efficiency was reached, but to a much lower extent than previously thought. In comparison to a standard house, while the winter heat requirement was reduced from 109 to 10 kW h/m 2 (10:1 ratio), the life cycle energy was only reduced by 2.1:1 and the carbon footprint by 2.2:1. Recommendations and perspectivesThe findings emphasise the need for incorporating the life cycle approach in energy-saving policies and economic incentives schemes in the building sector, in Italy and elsewhere, as single-step improvements might not be effective in a life cycle perspective and could even disappoint expectations.Keywords End of life . Energy policies . LCA of whole buildings . Low-energy buildings . Recycling potential . Uncertainty analysis Responsible editor: Walter KlöpfferElectronic supplementary material The online version of this article (

Embodied carbon mitigation and reduction in the built environment – What does the evidence say?

“…44,53,96]. In some studies [96] this strategy is mainly intended as a means to support other mitigation strategies, like a wider use of low EE/EC materials, whereas in others policy has a broader reach.…”

A Materials Life Cycle Assessment of a Net-Zero Energy Building

“…Yet despite this increase, the GWP for all of the CSL's materials is only 10% higher than Junnila's US-based commercial structure, and the embodied energy remains slightly less than Junnila's US structure. Due to previous literature, it was assumed the CSL's materials would have a higher embodied energy when compared to standard buildings [2,3,25]. The next step in this research is to conduct a full LCA of the CSL, which will include the construction, use, and end-of-life phases.…”

“…Recent research has found that lower energy houses typically have proportionally higher embodied energy compared to traditional houses, and that while environmental sustainability was improved through reduction in energy use, the embodied energy of the materials, particularly those materials comprising the shell of the structure, actually increases slightly in low-energy buildings [1,[19][20][21][22]25]. Some studies have concluded that embodied energy for conventional buildings accounts for 10%-38% of the total energy in a building's life cycle [2,18,23,26].…”

“…Net-Zero Energy certification is a partial certification program that focuses on the buildings ability to fulfill net-zero requirements, likewise, petal recognition is a partial certification program that is awarded to projects that satisfy three out of the six petal categories for the LBC [7]. There are very few life cycle based studies on the environmental effects of net-zero energy buildings or Living Buildings [9,18,25,29].…”

Comparative study of greenhouse gas emissions between off-site prefabrication and conventional construction methods: Two case studies of residential projects

“…Approximately 80% of energy use and GHG emissions are generated during the operation stage of buildings (such as heating and cooling, ventilation, lighting, and appliances), whereas only 10% to 20% are from material manufacturing, construction, and demolition [3]. Numerous studies primarily concentrated on developing advanced technologies, policies, and measures to cut down GHG emissions in the operation stage [4][5][6][7] rather than in the construction stage. Guggemos et al [8] pointed out that the environmental impact and GHG emissions from the construction phase cannot be ignored, even if this phase only accounts for 0.4% to 12% of the overwhelming impact from the operation stage.…”