Inadequate documentation in published life cycle energy reports on buildings

Optis, Mike; Wild, Peter

doi:10.1007/s11367-010-0203-4

Cited by 62 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Embodied impacts vary from one building design specification to another based on the findings of this study and similar findings [16,27]. As represented in Figures 1 and 2, the ICF has highest GWP and health impacts compared to other building typologies.…”

Section: Design Specifications and Embodied Impactssupporting

confidence: 77%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Life cycle environmental performance of material specification: a BIM-enhanced comparative assessment

Ajayi

Oyedele

Ceranic

et al. 2015

International Journal of Sustainable Building Technology and Ur

129

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study aimed at evaluating the extent to which different building materials specifications affect building lifecycle environmental performance, using a Building Information Modelling (BIM) enhanced lifecycle assessment (LCA) methodology. A combination of Revit Architecture which is a BIM based design and analysis tool, an energy simulation tool known as Green Building Studio (GBS) and LCA tool known as ATHENA Impact Estimator were used for the assessment. The LCA was carried out on a life case study of a 2100m 2 one-storey school building as well as its variability analysis, by varying materials specifications in terms of whole building materials. The lifecycle performance of the buildings was primarily evaluated in terms of its Global Warming Potential (GWP) and Health Impacts.The findings of the study show that irrespective of materials used, buildings that are based on renewable energy perform better than those based on fossil fuels over its lifecycle. In terms of building materials, both environmental and health preference of buildings congruently range from timber, brick/block, steel, to Insulated Concrete Foams, in a descending order. The study suggests that as buildings become more energy-efficient during operational stages, serious attention needs to be given to their embodied impacts.The study lay out a methodological framework that could be adopted by industry practitioners in evaluating lifecycle environmental impacts of different BIM modelled materials options at building conception stage. This has the tendency of ensuring that most lifecycle environmentally beneficial materials combinations are selected during specification and construction.

show abstract

Section: Design Specifications and Embodied Impactssupporting

confidence: 77%

“…Nevertheless, all studies identify material and manufacturing, construction and operation stages as crucial stages of buildings LCA. Other stages covered or omitted in each study would therefore be determined by the goal and scope of the study [27].…”

Section: Existing Literature On Bim and Lcamentioning

confidence: 99%

Life cycle environmental performance of material specification: a BIM-enhanced comparative assessment

Ajayi

Oyedele

Ceranic

et al. 2015

International Journal of Sustainable Building Technology and Ur

129

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The significance of the ecological burden of energy generation is relevant both for facilities powered by energy, e.g. buildings (Blengini and Carlo 2010;Optis and Wild 2010;Lewandowska et al 2012), electrical and electronic equipment (Andrae and Andersen 2010;Hischier and Baudin 2010;Yung et al 2009) or vehicles (Jaramillo et al 2009;Lucas et al 2012, Hawkins et al 2013 as well as for all products and services. Due to the fact that consumption of energy is a significant element in the life cycles of products and differs depending on geographical conditions, the analysis of energy systems in individual countries is a basis for sustainable development.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Life cycle assessment of energy generation in Poland

Lelek

Kulczycka

Lewandowska

et al. 2015

Int J Life Cycle Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The paper presents, for the first time, a life cycle assessment (LCA) study of energy generation (i.e. electricity and heat production) in Poland. The aim is to determine and compare the potential impact of energy generation upon the environment in 2007, 2010 and 2012 based on countryspecific data bought from specialised government agencies. Methods LCA evaluations were made using the Impact2002+ method, which proposes a feasible implementation of a combined midpoint/damage approach. The method was chosen because it models risks and potential impacts per emission for several thousand chemicals, including greenhouse gas (GHG). The LCA method was used to monitor and assess the current energy system and introduced changes in energy structure at national level. Results and discussion From the environmental perspective, the main problem of the Polish energy sector is that it is mainly based on fossil energy carriers, i.e. hard and brown coal (over 80 %). As the share of renewables in primary energy has increased from 6.7 to 10.2 % (mainly biomass), a reduction in SO 2 , NO x and dust was noted in 2010 in comparison to 2007. Unfortunately, acid and CO 2 emissions increased significantly in 2012 as a result of higher consumption of brown coal as a fuel for energy production. The LCA study shows that the total environmental impact of the production and distribution of 1 TJ of energy increased by about 4 % in 2010 (compared to 2007) and by about 11 % in 2012 (compared to 2010). Conclusions Specific representative data of high quality can be delivered by agencies focused on energy issues and the national statistical office. They can help to considerably reduce the time and costs of life cycle inventory (LCI). These data, including a classification relating to electricity and heat generation and distribution in Poland, were converted to LCA results for the first time. It was noted that allocation between heat and power in the CHP system can be recognised as a source of uncertainty, and the results should be interpreted as sensitive to change in the allocation criteria.

show abstract

“…A common finding for low-rise residential buildings has been that energy requirements for building operations tend to dominate overall life-cycle energy consumption compared to the embodied energy required for construction [8][9][10][11]. Unfortunately, very little data are available in the literature on either the embodied or operational energy use of high-rise buildings, which limits many direct comparisons of high-rise and low-rise buildings [12].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Life-Cycle Energy Implications of Downtown High-Rise vs. Suburban Low-Rise Living: An Overview and Quantitative Case Study for Chicago

Wood

Stephens

et al. 2015

Buildings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:It is commonly accepted that the concentration of people in high-density urban city centers, which are typically dominated by medium-and high-rise buildings located close to public transit systems, offers greater overall energy efficiency and lower life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions than lower-density expanded suburbs, which are dominated by low-rise single-family buildings and larger per-person automobile travel requirements. However, few studies have combined quantitative analyses of the life-cycle energy use of both buildings and transportation in both urban and suburban areas, especially in American cities. This work uses a variety of data sources to provide a quantitative comparison of the life-cycle energy consumption associated with residential life (including buildings, transportation, and supporting infrastructure) in prototypical downtown high-rises and suburban low-rises in and around Chicago, IL. We estimate that downtown high-rise living in Chicago, IL accounts for approximately 25% more life-cycle energy per person per year than suburban low-rise living, on average, contrary to some common beliefs (best estimates were ~141 and ~113 GJ/person/year, respectively). Building operational energy use was found to be the largest contributor of the total life-cycle energy in both the OPEN ACCESSBuildings 2015, 5 1004 downtown high-rise and suburban low-rise cases, followed by vehicle operational energy.

show abstract

Inadequate documentation in published life cycle energy reports on buildings

Cited by 62 publications

References 21 publications

Life cycle environmental performance of material specification: a BIM-enhanced comparative assessment

Life cycle environmental performance of material specification: a BIM-enhanced comparative assessment

Life cycle assessment of energy generation in Poland

Life-Cycle Energy Implications of Downtown High-Rise vs. Suburban Low-Rise Living: An Overview and Quantitative Case Study for Chicago

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About