Analysis of embodied carbon in the building life cycle considering the temporal perspectives of emissions: A case study in China

Zhang, Xiaocun; Wang, Fenglai

doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.09.049

Cited by 61 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 62 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For the greenhouse gas impacts, where there are robust national targets for the decarbonisation of national energy, future impacts from both replacement of components and end of life activities (as well as operational impacts) should allow for a reduced carbon:energy intensity (Zhang and Wang, 2017). While the treatment of waste many years in the future is one of many uncertainties in Life Cycle Assessment, it is important for designers and modelers not to neglect it and in so doing leave a legacy of a difficult and environmentally costly process at the end of life of our modern buildings.…”

Section: End-of-life (Modules C3-c4)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Widening understanding of low embodied impact buildings: Results and recommendations from 80 multi-national quantitative and qualitative case studies

Moncaster

Rasmussen

Malmqvist

et al. 2019

Journal of Cleaner Production

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: End-of-life (Modules C3-c4)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Widening understanding of low embodied impact buildings: Results and recommendations from 80 multi-national quantitative and qualitative case studies

Moncaster

Rasmussen

Malmqvist

et al. 2019

Journal of Cleaner Production

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Having thoroughly and broadly reviewed building carbon emissions and the tools available, the case study approach was used to study an example of embodied carbon assessment of a typical building element. This approach is widely acceptable in construction sustainability and carbon studies (Moncaster and Symons, 2013;Zhang and Wang, 2017;Fernando, Victoria and Ekundayo, 2018).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is due to tighter Part L Building Regulations and local planning policies which require energy efficient design and measures to regulate operational carbon (RICS, 2012). In other words, embodied carbon is been spent upfront through the use of carbon-intensive solutions to achieve efficiency in operational energy and carbon benchmark (Sturgis and Roberts, 2010;Zhang and Wang, 2017). Yet, embodied carbon measurement has not received sufficient regulatory focus and currently has no standard assessment methodology (BIS, 2010; Sturgis and Roberts, 2010;RICS, 2012).…”

Section: Embodied Carbonmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Life cycle carbon emissions and comparative evaluation of selected open source UK embodied carbon counting tools

Ekundayo

Babatunde

Ekundayo³

et al. 2019

CEB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Life cycle carbon emissions (LCO2), made up of operational and embodied carbon, have become a major metric of building environmental performance and energy efficiency. Whilst there are now standard methods for operational carbon assessment due to its significance in LCO2, there is still less emphasis on embodied carbon counting. However, the relative contribution of embodied carbon is on the rise as buildings become increasingly energy efficient. Following the rule that only something which is measurable is manageable, it is essential that we are able to accurately count embodied carbon. This study therefore reviews the concept of LCO2 in buildings and further investigates the open source UK tools for embodied carbon counting. A comparative evaluation case study, which validates an earlier review, showed that there is no logic and consistency in the carbon figures produced by embodied carbon counting tools. This is mainly due to different system boundaries, varying underlying assumptions and methodological differences in calculation. The findings suggest that an industry-agreed data structure and common methodology is needed for embodied carbon counting. Generally, the study provides insights into the use and capabilities of the identified open source UK embodied carbon counting tools, and is relevant to the on-going debate about carbon regulation.

show abstract

“…More focus is applied to operational performance through the myriad energy rating tools and calculators available in the marketplace. Yet, many studies have shown that the embodied component can be significant e.g., Reference [4][5][6][7][8]. Hence, using materials for construction that possess low embodied carbon intensity can help to mitigate some of the damaging effects of climate change, all of which can be slated back to human-induced carbon emissions into the atmosphere [9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hybrid Input-Output Analysis of Embodied Carbon and Construction Cost Differences between New-Build and Refurbished Projects

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Refurbishing buildings helps reduce waste, and limiting the amount of embodied carbon in buildings helps minimize the damaging impacts of climate change through lower CO2 emissions. The analysis of embodied carbon is based on the concept of life cycle assessment (LCA). LCA is a systematic tool to evaluate the environmental impacts of a product, technology, or service through all stages of its life cycle. This study investigates the embodied carbon footprint of both new-build and refurbished buildings to determine the embodied carbon profile and its relationship to both embodied energy and construction cost. It recognizes that changes in the fuel mix for electricity generation play an important role in embodied carbon impacts in different countries. The empirical findings for Hong Kong suggest that mean embodied carbon for refurbished buildings is 33–39% lower than new-build projects, and the cost for refurbished buildings is 22–50% lower than new-build projects (per square meter of floor area). Embodied carbon ranges from 645–1059 kgCO2e/m2 for new-build and 294–655 kgCO2e/m2 for refurbished projects, which is in keeping with other studies outside Hong Kong. However, values of embodied carbon and cost for refurbished projects in this study have a higher coefficient of variation than their new-build counterparts. It is argued that it is preferable to estimate embodied energy and then convert to embodied carbon (rather than estimate embodied carbon directly), as carbon is both time and location specific. A very strong linear relationship is also observed between embodied energy and construction cost that can be used to predict the former, given the latter. This study provides a framework whereby comparisons can be made between new-build and refurbished projects on the basis of embodied carbon and related construction cost differentials into the future, helping to make informed decisions about which strategy to pursue.

show abstract

Analysis of embodied carbon in the building life cycle considering the temporal perspectives of emissions: A case study in China

Cited by 61 publications

References 62 publications

Widening understanding of low embodied impact buildings: Results and recommendations from 80 multi-national quantitative and qualitative case studies

Widening understanding of low embodied impact buildings: Results and recommendations from 80 multi-national quantitative and qualitative case studies

Life cycle carbon emissions and comparative evaluation of selected open source UK embodied carbon counting tools

Hybrid Input-Output Analysis of Embodied Carbon and Construction Cost Differences between New-Build and Refurbished Projects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About