This paper analyses the environmental, energy, and economic performances of the External Thermal Insulation Composite System (ETICS) using agglomerated insulation cork board (ICB) or expanded polystyrene (EPS) as insulation material applied in the energetic renovation of the building envelope during a 50-year study period. A comparison between ETICS using ICB and EPS, for the same time horizon, is also presented. The environmental balance is based on “Cradle to Cradle” (C2C) Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), focusing on the carbon footprint and consumption of nonrenewable primary energy (PE-NRe). The characteristics of these products in terms of thermal insulation, the increased energy performance provided by their installation for retrofit of the buildings’ envelope, and the resulting energy savings are considered in the energy balance. The estimation of the C2C carbon and PE-NRe saved is considered in the final balance between the energy and environmental performances. ETICS with ICB is environmentally advantageous both in terms of carbon footprint and of PE-NRe. In fact, the production stage of ICB is less polluting, while EPS requires lower energy consumption to fulfil the heating and cooling needs of a flat, due to its lower U-Value, and its lower acquisition cost results in a lower C2C cost. Comparing both ETICS’ alternatives with reference solutions, it was found that the latter only perform better in the economic dimension, and only for an energy consumption to fulfil less than 25% of the heating and cooling needs. This paper represents an advance to the current state-of-the-art by including all the life-cycle stages and dimensions of the LCA in the analysis of solutions for energy renovation of building envelopes.

This paper presents an environmental, economic and energy (3E) assessment of an energy retrofitting of the external walls of a flat of an average building with the most current characteristics used in Portugal. For this intervention, a cork-based (as recycled lightweight aggregate) TIRM (Thermal Insulating Rendering Mortar) was considered. The declared unit was 1 m2 of an external wall for a 50-year study period and the energy and economic costs and savings, as well as the environmental impacts, were analytically modelled and compared for two main alternatives: the reference wall without any intervention and the energetically rehabilitated solution with the application of TIRM. Walls with improved energy performance (with TIRM) show lower economic and environmental impacts: reductions from 6% to 32% in carbon emissions, non-renewable energy consumption and costs during the use stage, which depends on the thickness and relative place where TIRM layers are applied. A worse energy performance is shown by reference walls (without TIRM) during the use stage (corresponding to energy used for heating and cooling), while the improved walls present economic and environmental impacts due to the application of TIRM (including the production, transport and application into the building) that do not exist in the reference walls. The comparison between reference walls and energy-retrofitted ones revealed that reference wall become be more expensive when more demanding operational energy requirements are analysed over a 50-year period, even if renewable materials are more expensive.