LEED v4: Where Are We Now? Critical Assessment through the LCA of an Office Building Using a Low Impact Energy Consumption Mix

Abstract

Various green building rating systems (GBRSs) have been proposed to reduce the environmental impact of buildings. However, these GBRSs, such as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) v4, are primarily oriented toward a building's use stage energy consumption. Their application in contexts involving a high share of renewable energy, and hence a low-impact electricity mix, can result in undesirable side effects. This paper aims to investigate such effects, based on an existing office building in Quebec (Canada), where more than 95% of the electricity consumption mix is renewable. This paper compares the material impacts from a low-energy context building to material considerations in LEED v4. In addition to their contributions to the building impacts, material impacts are also defined by their potential to change impacts with different material configurations. Life cycle assessment (LCA) impacts were evaluated using Simapro 8.2, the ecoinvent 3.1 database, and the IMPACT 2002+ method. The building LCA results indicated higher environmental impact contributions from materials (>50%) compared to those from energy consumption. This is in contrast with the LEED v4 rating system, as it did not seem to be as effective in capturing such effects. The conclusions drawn from this work will help stakeholders from the buildings sector to have a better understanding of building environmental profiles, and the limitations of LEED v4 in contexts involving a low-impact energy mix. In addition, this critical assessment can be used to further improve the LEED certification system. Keywords:building certification industrial ecology leadership in energy and environmental design (LEED) life cycle assessment (LCA) structure and envelope materials Supporting information is linked to this article on the JIE website Conflict of interest statement: The authors have no conflict to declare.

A State of the Art of the Overall Energy Efficiency of Wood Buildings—An Overview and Future Possibilities

“…The results showed that embodied, operational, and transport energy represented 40%, 33% and 27%, respectively, of the total energy used. Lessard et al [ 26 ] showed that building life cycle analysis (LCA) results indicated the contribution of materials to environmental impact was >50% for the Quebec region in Canada, where more than 95% of the electricity is renewable. In addition, for the Ontario region (Canada), the contribution of energy consumption energy was 90% due to electricity generated from nuclear power.…”

Assessing the Climate Change Impacts of Biogenic Carbon in Buildings: A Critical Review of Two Main Dynamic Approaches

“…Embodied energy can reach up to 46% of a building's total energy consumption [13]. In contexts where the operational energy is produced from low-carbon sources, the embodied energy of construction materials is of greater importance, and can represent more than 50% of total impacts in some cases [14]. This impact shift highlights the importance of building materials, which must be addressed to maximize the climate change mitigation potential of the building sector [15].…”

Comparison between two genetic algorithms minimizing carbon footprint of energy and materials in a residential building

“…Sartori and Hestnes (2007) showed that design of low-energy buildings is beneficial for life cycle energy demand but increases the embodied energy. In contexts involving high share of renewable energy, Lessard et al (2017) have concluded via an exhaustive LCA that contributions from materials can account for more than 50% for the environmental impact, the other part coming from the energy consumption (Lessard et al 2017). Therefore, there is a great need to optimize building designs according to these two objectives (i.e.…”