Elsevier

Energy and Buildings

Volume 171, 15 July 2018, Pages 155-167
Energy and Buildings

A framework for the integrated optimisation of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions and cost of buildings

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.04.018Get rights and content

Abstract

Evaluating building design options with a focus on simultaneously minimising life cycle greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and life cycle cost (LCC) is difficult due to a lack of comprehensive and accessible tools. An integrated approach where life cycle GHG and LCC performance can be balanced is essential in order to optimise a building's overall life cycle performance. This paper describes the development of an integrated framework designed to assist building design professionals in optimising the life cycle GHG and cost of a building. This paper demonstrates the framework's potential by applying it to glazing design options for a residential building case study. The demonstration of this framework highlights the fact that options such as triple glazing, often heralded as a solution for reducing GHG, may not lead to as great a reduction in life cycle GHG as options such as double glazing (which also comes at a lower LCC for this case study building). This paper not only highlights the need to analyse and select building design options based on both their life cycle GHG and LCC performance but also emphasises the significant amount of uncertainty attached to decision-making in these areas.

Introduction

There is growing concern about the effect that buildings are having on the environment [1], [2] with construction being one of the most energy intensive sectors and contributors to greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), in developed countries [3]. Over the years there has been an increase in efforts to understand the energy and GHG associated with the built environment. This increasing awareness has led to the creation of several forms of building evaluation that aim to analyse a buildings’ environmental performance and suggest ways to reduce energy demand and GHG [4], [5], [6]. However, the focus has largely been on reducing the operational energy and GHG of buildings, leaving the embodied energy and GHG largely ignored [7] despite their demonstrated significance. For example, embodied GHG have been estimated to equate to between 10 to 97% of the total life cycle GHG associated with a building (depending on the building location, type, material use, assessment methods and assumptions) [8]. Thus, the need to consider a building's performance from a life cycle perspective has become increasingly evident. However, building design that considers the life cycle perspective has been slow to take hold due to a number of barriers [9]. These include lack of a commonly accepted assessment method, lack of reliable data, and lack of mandatory legislation [10], [11]. Another barrier is the uncertainty towards the financial cost of life cycle environmental optimisation. Building decision-makers are unsure of the full cost implications of this optimisation and building design professionals often don't have sufficient knowledge or appropriate tools to address these concerns. Limited consideration of costs from a life cycle perspective is also a key barrier to life cycle optimisation, as financial decisions are mainly based on the initial cost of building design options, often not taking into account future maintenance and operational costs [12]. The cost-effectiveness of solutions for reducing a building's GHG has become a critical issue for building owners and one of the main drivers behind their uptake [13]. It has become vital to provide environmental and financial building analyses not only from an early-design stage, to better inform design decisions [14], but also to integrate the results in order to better understand their respective trade-offs. Several studies have aimed to integrate these two forms of assessment, typically using life cycle assessment (LCA) (either from an energy or GHG perspective) and life cycle costing (LCC), and include those such as Petrillo, et al. [15] and Savino, et al. [16]. However, several barriers still plague their successful integration. This study aims to address these barriers and proposes an improved integrated life cycle GHG and LCC framework to aid early-stage building design decision-making.

The aim of this study was to develop and test a framework that integrates life cycle GHG and LCC assessment of buildings to aid early-stage building design decision-making. For this study, the environmental impact category of Global Warming Potential (GWP) has been used, which measures how much heat a GHG traps in the atmosphere and is expressed in carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e). The greenhouse gases considered include carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. The scope for the life cycle GHG assessment includes the initial and recurrent embodied GHG and operational GHG. The LCC system boundary includes the initial, replacement and operational costs. The end of life stages, such as demolition, disposal and recycling have not been considered in this analysis due to the limited amount of data available for these life cycle stages (Moncaster and Song, 2012) and as they have been shown to represent less than 1% of the life cycle GHG associated with a building [17], [18]. The scope of the study is illustrated in Fig. 1.

This paper is structured into five sections. The next section, Section 2, provides a brief overview of some of the previous studies that have aimed to integrate life cycle GHG and LCC analysis. This section concludes with the identification of the gaps and weaknesses of these previous studies and highlights how this study attempts to address them. Section 3 describes the process involved in developing the integrated life cycle GHG and LCC framework. The framework is then applied to a residential building case study in Section 4 in order to demonstrate and test its potential. This is followed by the discussion and conclusion in Section 5.

Section snippets

Previous studies attempting to integrate life cycle greenhouse gas emissions (or energy) and life cycle cost analysis

Environmental and financial assessment of buildings has been largely carried out in isolation of each other, but there has recently been increasing attempts to combine them. In most cases LCA is used to carry out the environmental assessment either from an energy and/or GHG perspective. For the financial analysis, LCC is predominantly used. Previous studies, such as Fouche and Crawford [19], have provided a detailed review of the previous attempts at integrating LCA and LCC. These can be

Developing an integrated life cycle greenhouse gas emissions and life cycle cost framework

In order to develop an integrated framework a series of steps had to take place. The first step, of identifying the gaps and weaknesses of previous studies, has been detailed in Section 2. The next step was to identify and select appropriate life cycle GHG and LCC quantification techniques (Section 3.1), followed by identifying the key parameters associated with these techniques and the approach for visualising the integrated results (Section 3.2). Next, a brief description of the integrated

Case study

The aim of this section is to demonstrate the potential of the integrated framework by applying it to a detached residential building case study located in Melbourne, Australia. A detached building has been selected as it represents over 80% of Australia's residential building stock [66]. Fig. 3 provides a plan of the 230 m2 4-bedroom building. The external brick veneer walls (with timber studs and internal plasterboard finish) have a U-Value of 0.35 W/m2 K, and roof (timber truss and concrete

Discussion and conclusion

Studies such as that by Bierer, et al. [27] confirm that there is an undisputed need to couple LCA and LCC in order to increase their uptake within the construction industry. This study sets about addressing this need and has provided a framework that integrates LCA (in the simplified form of a life cycle GHG analysis) and LCC. It is the first integrated approach, in the form of a framework, that aims to address some of the most critical gaps and weaknesses associated with previous attempts at

Acknowledgements

This research is funded by the CRC for Low Carbon Living Ltd supported by the Cooperative Research Centres program, an Australian Government initiative, under the Integrated Carbon Metrics Project (RP2007).

References (105)

  • Y. Schwartz et al.

    Implementing multi objective genetic algorithm for life cycle carbon footprint and life cycle cost minimisation: a building refurbishment case study

    Energy

    (2016)
  • A. Bierer et al.

    Integrating life cycle costing and life cycle assessment using extended material flow cost accounting

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2015)
  • M. Hamdy et al.

    A multi-stage optimization method for cost-optimal and nearly-zero-energy building solutions in line with the EPBD-recast 2010

    Energy Build.

    (2013)
  • D. Anastaselos et al.

    An assessment tool for the energy, economic and environmental evaluation of thermal insulation solutions

    Energy Build.

    (2009)
  • R. Hoogmartens et al.

    Bridging the gap between LCA, LCC and CBA as sustainability assessment tools

    Environ. Impact Assess. Rev.

    (2014)
  • M.D. Bovea et al.

    Increasing product value by integrating environmental impact, costs and customer valuation

    Resour. Conserv. Recycl.

    (2004)
  • J. Kneifel

    Life-cycle carbon and cost analysis of energy efficiency measures in new commercial buildings

    Energy Build.

    (2010)
  • J. Zuo et al.

    Achieving carbon neutrality in commercial building developments – perceptions of the construction industry

    Habitat Int.

    (2012)
  • A. Stephan et al.

    Quantifying and mapping embodied environmental requirements of urban building stocks

    Build. Environ.

    (2017)
  • R.H. Crawford et al.

    Evaluating the life cycle energy benefits of energy efficiency regulations for buildings

    Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.

    (2016)
  • R.H. Crawford

    Validation of a hybrid life-cycle inventory analysis method

    J. Environ. Manag.

    (2008)
  • A. Stephan et al.

    Towards a comprehensive life cycle energy analysis framework for residential buildings

    Energy Build.

    (2012)
  • S. Attia et al.

    Simulation-based decision support tool for early stages of zero- energy building design

    Energy Build.

    (2012)
  • F.H. Abanda et al.

    An investigation of the impact of building orientation on energy consumption in a domestic building using emerging BIM (building information modelling)

    Energy

    (2016)
  • Y. Schwartz et al.

    Variations in results of building energy simulation tools, and their impact on BREEAM and LEED ratings: a case study

    Energy Build.

    (2013)
  • N. Fumo

    A review on the basics of building energy estimation

    Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.

    (2014)
  • W. Kempton et al.

    Electric vehicles as a new power source for electric utilities

    Transport. Res. Part D Transport Environ.

    (1997)
  • K. Kusakana et al.

    Cost and Performance Evaluation of Hydrokinetic-diesel Hybrid Systems

    Energy Procedia

    (2014)
  • C. Budischak et al.

    Cost-minimized combinations of wind power, solar power and electrochemical storage, powering the grid up to 99.9% of the time

    J. Power Sour.

    (2013)
  • T. Ramesh et al.

    Life cycle energy analysis of buildings: an overview

    Energy Build.

    (2010)
  • H. Islam et al.

    Life cycle assessment and life cycle cost implication of residential buildings—a review

    Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.

    (2015)
  • W.J. Hee et al.

    The role of window glazing on daylighting and energy saving in buildings

    Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.

    (2015)
  • F. Aldawi et al.

    A new house wall system for residential buildings

    Energy Build.

    (2013)
  • S. Bambrook et al.

    Design optimisation for a low energy home in Sydney

    Energy Build.

    (2011)
  • S. Jaber et al.

    Thermal and economic windows design for different climate zones

    Energy Build.

    (2011)
  • A. Stephan et al.

    Life cycle energy and cost analysis of embodied, operational and user-transport energy reduction measures for residential buildings

    Appl. Energy

    (2016)
  • J. Morrissey et al.

    Life cycle cost implications of energy efficiency measures in new residential buildings

    Energy Build.

    (2011)
  • H. Islam et al.

    Life cycle assessment and life cycle cost implications for roofing and floor designs in residential buildings

    Energy Build.

    (2015)
  • E. Juodis et al.

    Inherent variability of heat consumption in residential buildings

    Energy Build.

    (2009)
  • Climate Change 2014Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

    (2014)
  • Low carbon, high performance: How buildings can make a major contribution to Australia's emissions and productivity goals

  • IEA, World energy outlook, in, International Energy Agency, Paris, 2012, pp....
  • C. De Wolf et al.

    Measuring embodied carbon dioxide equivalent of buildings: a review and critique of current industry practice

    Energy Build.

    (2017)
  • M. Fouche et al.

    The Australian construction industry's approach to embodied carbon assessment: a scoping study

  • ASBP, Embodied carbon industrytask force proposals, in: The Alliance for sustainable building products London,...
  • J. Jackson

    Making the financial case for sustainable design

    J. Archit. Eng.

    (2008)
  • R.C. Ellis

    Who Pays for Green the Economics of Sustainable Buildings

  • L. Braganca et al.

    Early stage design decisions: the way to achieve sustainable buildings at lower costs

    Sci. World J.

    (2014)
  • A. Rauf et al.

    The relationship between material service life and the life cycle energy of contemporary residential buildings in Australia

    Archit. Sci. Rev.

    (2013)
  • P. Crowther

    Design for disassembly to recover embodied energy

  • Cited by (0)

    View full text