Environmental impact of building-related and user-related energy consumption in dwellings

Blom, Inge; Itard, Laure; Meijer, A.

doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2011.02.002

Cited by 77 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…All the common services are fed with electric power that is partially produced through the polycrystalline silicon photovoltaic panels installed on the roof and on the other structures built in the northern garden. The photovoltaic installations are able to provide the total energy requirement of the heating plant and about 50 % of the energy needs for the domestic hot water production that are higher than the heating requirement, as reported also by Blom et al (2011) about other low-energy buildings. Although the use of methane is standard in Italian residential buildings, this complex has no connection to the municipal gas pipeline and all devices are powered electrically only.…”

Section: The Case Study: Residential Buildings In Milanmentioning

confidence: 85%

“…In the literature, we can identify a few studies that take into account the relationship between the consumed energy during use and the embodied energy (Sartori and Hestnes 2007;Verbeeck and Hens 2010;Berggren et al 2013) in low-and zero-energy buildings; in some other studies (Blengini and Di Carlo 2010;Citherlet and Defaux 2007;Blom et al 2011;Peuportier et al 2013), the evaluation affects the environmental profile and not just the energy consumptions. Sartori and Hestnes (2007) conducted a comparative analysis of 60 case studies evaluated in a life cycle perspective.…”

Section: Life Cycle Assessment Of Zero-energy Buildingsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Of the embodied energy, 60 % is due to building elements and 40 % to thermal plants and solar systems. Blom et al (2011) found that in low-energy buildings, due to the reduction of gas demand for heating, the production of domestic hot water and the electricity consumptions of household' appliances are more impacting. In spite of the increasing efficiency of the latter, the energy consumptions related to inhabitants keep on growing because of the increasing number of devices per user.…”

Section: Life Cycle Assessment Of Zero-energy Buildingsmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The assessment of the relevance of building components and life phases for the environmental profile of nearly zero-energy buildings: life cycle assessment of a multifamily building in Italy

Paleari

Lavagna

Campioli

2016

Int J Life Cycle Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: Since the construction sector is a considerable energy consumer and greenhouse gas (GHG) producer, the EU rules strive to build nearly zero-energy buildings, by reducing the operative energy and yearning for on-site energy production. This article underlines the necessity to go beyond the energy evaluations and move towards the environmental assessment in a life cycle perspective, by comparing the impacts due to building materials and energy production devices. Methods: We compared the operational energy impacts and those of technologies and materials carrying out a life cycle assessment (LCA; ISO 14040, ISO 14044, EN 15643–2, EN 15978) on a nearly zero-energy building (ZEB), a residential complex with 61 apartments in four buildings, situated near Milan (Italy). We consider all life cycle phases, including production, transport, building site activities, use and maintenance; the materials inventory was filled out collecting data from invoices paid, building site reports, construction drawings and product data sheets. To make the assessment results comparable, we set a functional unit of 1 m2 of net floor area in 1 year (1 m2y), upon a lifespan of 100 years. The environmental data were acquired from Ecoinvent 2.2. Results and discussion: The results highlight the important role of the pre-use and maintenance phases in building life so that in a nearly ZEB, the environmental impacts linked to the use are no longer the major proportion: the pre-use phase accounts for 56 %, while the operative energy is only 31 % of the total. For this reason, if the environmental assessment of the case study was shrunk to the operational consumption, only one third of the impacts would be considered. The consumption of non-renewable resources after 100 years are 193,950 GJ (133.5 kWh/m2y); the GHG emissions are 15,300 t (37.8 kg of CO2 eq/m2y). In the pre-use phase, structures have the major impacts (50 %) and the load of system components is unexpectedly high (12 %) due to the ambition of on-site energy production. Conclusions: Paying attention to the operative energy consumption seems to address to only one third of the environmental impacts of buildings: the adoption of LCA as a tool to guide the design choices could help to identify the solution which ensures the lowest overall impact on the whole life, balancing the options of reducing the energy requirements, the on-site production from renewable sources and the limitation of the impacts due to building components (simpler and more durable)

show abstract

Section: The Case Study: Residential Buildings In Milanmentioning

confidence: 85%

Section: Life Cycle Assessment Of Zero-energy Buildingsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Life Cycle Assessment Of Zero-energy Buildingsmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The assessment of the relevance of building components and life phases for the environmental profile of nearly zero-energy buildings: life cycle assessment of a multifamily building in Italy

Paleari

Lavagna

Campioli

2016

Int J Life Cycle Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In order to focus on the impacts of materials replacement, repair, and maintenance over time, operational energy differences were removed (see the Supporting Information available on the Journal's website) by modifying wall and roof insulation thicknesses such that each envelope alternative had the same simulated operational energy performance. In other words, because operational energy impacts have been established to be the most influential factor in the LCA of buildings (Blom et al ), using envelopes with uniform operational energy performance reveals the impacts of materials maintenance, replacement, and repair.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Life Cycle Assessment and Service Life Prediction

Grant¹,

Ries²,

Kibert³

2014

J of Industrial Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Models of buildings in life cycle assessment (LCA) often use simple descriptions of operational energy, maintenance, and material replacement. The scope of many building LCAs is often limited and uses assumptions such as building lifetimes of 30 to 50 years. In actuality, building lifetimes vary considerably, and scenarios using standard assumptions may have incorrect results. Assumptions concerning material replacement, repair, and maintenance should be deliberate and as realistic as possible. This research was initiated to demonstrate the importance of service life assumptions on building life cycle assessment results. Three roof types (built-up, thermoplastic membrane, and vegetated) and three wall forms (brick, aluminum, and wood siding) were analyzed. These materials were combined and modeled as nine distinct building envelopes. Five service life models were used to determine the service life of materials and systems. The analysis considered impacts related to material manufacturing, construction, operation, and maintenance. The Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and other environmental Impacts global warming potential, atmospheric eco-toxicity, and atmospheric acidification impact assessment indicators were used. The analysis of the cumulative life cycle impact and life cycle impact per year found that life cycle impact was primarily dependent on the predicted frequency of major material replacement as well as differences in the frequency and intensity of prescribed maintenance. In some scenarios, the relative differences in the life cycle impact of the alternatives were dependent on the environmental indicator used.Volume 18, Number 2 of the building components. Some have employed protracted study periods of 30 years, based on the rationale that most trends are established at an early juncture, longer building life cycles become increasingly less relevant as time progresses, and results will not change regardless of the study period duration. Such generic assumptions belie the unique characteristics of building materials and assemblies. Whereas maintenance and repair impacts constitute a relatively smaller proportion of a building's or material's cumulative system impact, requirements vary and their omission or inaccurate assumption in the modeling of systems can obscure the results. If indeed the selection of materials

show abstract

“…Their identification might be based on stakeholders' experiences or on sensitivity analyses during earlier studies. Examples are user behavior influencing the effectiveness of energy measures [41] and building components' service life being crucial for their reuse potential [42]. These conceptual blocks are the 'unknown unknowns'.…”

Section: Identify Predetermined Elements and Critical Uncertaintiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrating Scenarios into Life Cycle Assessment: Understanding the Value and Financial Feasibility of a Demountable Building

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Although life cycle assessment offers insight into the long-term value of our building stock, it has become impossible to model with certainty the service life of a building. What if new lifestyles make reality diverge from the expected service life? What if the building is decommissioned very early or forced to accommodate new functions? Would the same design decisions have been made or would an alternative have been preferred? In reaction to this challenge, the present paper proposes to integrate scenario planning and life cycle assessment. Therefore, it discusses from where scenario planning originates and how it appeared hitherto in architectural design and life cycle assessment. Thereafter, it explores how assessors can profit from scenarios when raising awareness and co-creating alternatives. Subsequently, a methodological framework for effective scenario development is proposed. To illustrate the added value of scenario integrated life cycle assessments, four divergent scenarios are developed for evaluating the financial feasibility of demountable building element reuse. With this simple case study is shown how more relevant and nuanced assessment outcomes are obtained when divergent scenarios are adopted.

show abstract

Environmental impact of building-related and user-related energy consumption in dwellings

Cited by 77 publications

References 12 publications

The assessment of the relevance of building components and life phases for the environmental profile of nearly zero-energy buildings: life cycle assessment of a multifamily building in Italy

The assessment of the relevance of building components and life phases for the environmental profile of nearly zero-energy buildings: life cycle assessment of a multifamily building in Italy

Life Cycle Assessment and Service Life Prediction

Integrating Scenarios into Life Cycle Assessment: Understanding the Value and Financial Feasibility of a Demountable Building

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About