lifetime energy consumption building€¦ · insulation in walls double glazed, low-e,...
TRANSCRIPT
1
2
Federal Research and Development Agenda for Net-Zero Energy,
High-Performance Green Buildings
Embodied Energy[Materials/Construction]
Operations Energy
Lifetime Energy Consumption Split of a Typical American Building
3
BA
SELI
NE
BU
ILD
ING
‘HIG
H P
ERFO
MA
NC
E’ B
UIL
DIN
G
4
BaselineMaterials/Construction
BA
SELI
NE
BU
ILD
ING
‘HIG
H P
ERFO
MA
NC
E’ B
UIL
DIN
G
5
BaselineMaterials/Construction
Material Investment
BA
SELI
NE
BU
ILD
ING
‘HIG
H P
ERFO
MA
NC
E’ B
UIL
DIN
G
6
Baseline Materials
Material Investment
Improved Operations
BA
SELI
NE
BU
ILD
ING
‘HIG
H P
ERFO
MA
NC
E’ B
UIL
DIN
G
7
Baseline Materials
Material Investment
Improved Operations
Net Savingsover lifespan of building
BA
SELI
NE
BU
ILD
ING
‘HIG
H P
ERFO
MA
NC
E’ B
UIL
DIN
G
8
BA
SELI
NE
BU
ILD
ING
‘HIG
H P
ERFO
MA
NC
E’ B
UIL
DIN
G
BUT WHAT IF...?
9
Baseline Materials
Material Investment
Improved Operations
Net Savingsover lifespan of building
BA
SELI
NE
BU
ILD
ING
‘HIG
H P
ERFO
MA
NC
E’ B
UIL
DIN
G
BUT WHAT IF...?
10
Baseline Materials
Material Investment
Improved Operations
Net Increase in Lifespan Energy Use
BA
SELI
NE
BU
ILD
ING
‘HIG
H P
ERFO
MA
NC
E’ B
UIL
DIN
G
OR EVEN...? [YIKES!]
11
Excessive Embodied Energy in PH Construction:A Worthwhile Environmental Investment?
Brook Waldman Peter Reppe
[Erin Moore, in spirit]
UO Dept of Architecture
PHnw Spring ConferenceMarch 28, 2014
12
Overview
-Lifecycle Energy-Use & GHG Emissions [Carbon Footprint] of Buildings
-LCA: A Tool for Whole Lifespan Thinking & Quantitative Comparison
-Stellar Apartments: The Case Study Buildings
-Findings
-Implications
13
Learning Objectives: AIA CE
-Understand how environmental lifecycle assessment is applied to buildings.
-Understand if the added embodied energy associated with highly-insulated buildings is offset by energy savings during the building’s operation, specifically related to an apartment building built to the Passive House standard vs Earth Advantage standard.
-Understand which life cycle phase contributes the most to embodied energy impacts of either building.
-Know how different scenarios in assumed baseline building energy efficiency and electric grid sources impact the results.
14
Life Cycle Assessment in a nutshell
http://www.sustainablesolutionscorporation.com/Corp_LCA_CaseStudy.html
LCA...
·looks at the whole lifespan of a product or system.
15
Life Cycle Assessment in a nutshell
http://www.sustainablesolutionscorporation.com/Corp_LCA_CaseStudy.html
LCA...
·looks at the whole lifespan of a product or system.
·quantifies environmental impacts so we can compare ‘apples to apples.’such as energy use,GHG emissionsand others.
16
Life Cycle Assessment in a nutshell
MJ [Energy Use];MT CO2e [GHG emissions];etc.
LCA
BF Lumberkg Steel
kWh electricity at meter
17
Case Study: The Stellar Apartments
Images from Bergsund DeLaney Architecture & Planning
18
Case Study: The Stellar Apartments
Images from Bergsund DeLaney Architecture & Planning
19
Twin Buildings: the case study
Earth Advantage Passive House
Strict Performance-Based Standard
• EUI = 14.1 kBtu/sf-yr
• Low Primary Energy Use ≤ 38.1 kBtu/sf-yr // 120 kWh/m2-yr
Hybrid Prescriptive- and Performance-Based Standard
• 10-15% increase in energy performance beyond code (by modeling)
-What/Where is the Project?
-Who Developed it? Designed it? Built it?
-How the PH building fits in
-How this particular study fits in
PUT PHOTO HERE OF Site
Images from Bergsund DeLaney Architecture & Planning
20
The Question
Is the Stellar Apartment Passive House Upgrade worth it from an environmental impact point of view?
21
The Question
Is the Stellar Apartment Passive House Upgrade worth it from an environmental impact point of view?
-Lifetime GHG (Carbon) Emissions
-Lifetime Energy Use (Embodied & Operations)
-A Suite of Other Environmental Impacts
22
Method
23
Method
LOOK AT THIS[What’s Different as a Result of the Upgrade]
EXCLUDE THIS[Identical Components Between 2 Buildings]EA PH
24
16“ Blown-in Fiberglass Insulation in Attic, R-49
“Intermediate Framing”Insulated window + door headers with EPS Type IX rigid foam2x6 wood stud framing, 16” o.c.
R-21 Fiberglass Batt Insulation in Walls
Double Glazed, Low-e, Argon-Filled, Vinyl-frame Windows
20” Mineral Wool Insulation in Attic, R-73.2
“Advanced Framing” 2x6 wood stud framing, 24” o.c.
SIGA Air-Sealing Tape at Plywood Sheathing Joints
5.5” Blown-in Fiberglass Insulation in Stud Wall Cavity
2.5” Exterior Polyisocyanurate Rigid Foam Insulation
Double Glazed, Low-e, Argon-Filled ‘Heat Mirror’ Windows
EA: parts removed
Envelope
PH: parts added
Dif. between study & as-built
WHAT’S DIFFERENT: Inventory of the Upgrade
⁎
⁎⁎
25
Trickle Vents to Supply Make-Up Ventilation Air
Electrical Resistance Wall Heaters
Heat Recovery Ventilators (HRV)
Duct work from HRVs to individual rooms
Electrical Resistance In-line Duct Heaters
WHAT’S DIFFERENT: Inventory of the Upgrade
Mechanical
EA: parts removed PH: parts added
⁎⁎
⁎
Dif. between study & as-built⁎
26
RESULTSEA PH
27
RESULTS: GHG EmissionsEA PH
Material Investment // Additional GHG Emissions
Material Investment
28
The additional materials will be responsible for emitting 50 MT CO2e as a result of the Passive House Upgrade.
Material Investment: GHG Emissions
roughly equivalent to: 1 year’s GHG emissions from 10 cars
[EPA]
50 MT CO2e
EA PH
29
Operations: Energy use
Earth Advantage Passive House Net Change
EUI: 40 kBtu/sf-yr
EUI:14.1 kBtu/sf-yr
EUI: 25.9 kBtu/sf-yr
30
The Comparison: Lifetime GHG Emissions
EA PH
Baseline Materials
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
GH
G E
mis
sion
s, M
T C
O2 e
[b
eyon
d ba
selin
e m
ater
ials
]
When we convert to an Apples-to-ApplesComparison...
31
The Comparison: Lifetime GHG Emissions
EA PH
Baseline Materials
Material Investment
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
GH
G E
mis
sion
s, M
T C
O2 e
[b
eyon
d ba
selin
e m
ater
ials
]
32
The Comparison: Lifetime GHG Emissions
EA PH
Baseline Materials
Material Investment
Improved Operations
Net Savingsover lifespan of building
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
GH
G E
mis
sion
s, M
T C
O2 e
[b
eyon
d ba
selin
e m
ater
ials
]
33
The Lifetime Savings: GHG EmissionsEA PH
NET SAVINGS over lifespan
of building
= 980 MT CO2e
34
Results: The Balance, all impacts
GH
G
ENER
GY
AC
IDIF
ICAT
ION
CA
RC
INO
GEN
S
NO
N-C
AR
CIN
OG
ENS
RES
PIR
ATO
RY
EFFE
CTS
EUTR
OPH
ICAT
ION
OZO
NE
DEP
LETI
ON
ECO
-TO
XIC
ITY
SMO
G
35
Conclusions
Is the Passive House upgrade worth it from an environmental impact point of view?
36
Conclusions
Yes.
Is the Passive House upgrade worth it from an environmental impact point of view?
37
Conclusions
Yes.
Is the Passive House upgrade worth it from an environmental impact point of view?
Key Issues
·Baseline EUI
·Grid Mix
·Insulation type
38
Baseline EUI and Grid MixPayback Time on Carbon “Investments”
33 kBtu/sf-yr
Range of Energy Use Intensity (EUI) values for Earth Advantage (baseline) Version
years to “Carbon payback”
NWPP coveragesource: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Elec
tric
ity G
rid M
ix k
g-CO
2-e/
kWh
40kBtu/sf-yr
50kBtu/sf-yr
75kBtu/sf-yr
US
Avg.
0.
7524
EWEB
0.
0687
NW
PP
0.45
33
2.4 1.8 1.3 0.7
1.22.12.94.0
26.3 19.2 13.9 8.2
Material Investment (kg CO2e)/ Annual Savings (kg CO2e/yr)
39
Implications: Insulation Type
PolyisoBlowing Agent: Pentane
Blowing Agent: HFC-245fa
Blowing Agent: HFC-134a
Closed Cell SPF XPS
Relative Lifetime GHG emissions per insulating unit of Foam Insulations
[Environmental Building News]
All Insulations Are NOT Created Equal
40
The Comparison: If it were XPS...[a back-of-the-envelope calculation]
EA PH w
ith X
PS
Baseline Materials
Material Investment
Improved Operations
Net BAD1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
GH
G E
mis
sion
s, M
T C
O2 e
[b
eyon
d ba
selin
e m
ater
ials
]
41
Brook [email protected]
Peter [email protected]
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Erin Moore, University of [email protected]
City of Eugene Green Building ProgramUniversity of Oregon AAASt Vincent dePaul of Lane CountyBergsund DeLaney Architecture & PlanningEWEBWin SwaffordJan FillingerJordan Palmeri
Excessive Embodied Energy in PH Construction:A Worthwhile Environmental Investment?
THANK YOU!
42
More Detail
43
Bill of Materials
44
Material Investment: all impact categories
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Electric Resistance Heaters, net change Framing Lumber, net change
Wall Cavity Insulation, net change Attic Insulation, net change
Windows, net change Exterior Wall Insulation
HRV Ducts
DuctsHRVExterior InsulationWindows
Attic InsulationWall Cavity InsulationFraming LumberElectric Heaters
GHG Emission
s
Non-R
enwab
le Ene
rgy Use
Acidific
ation
Carcino
genic
s
Non-C
arcino
genic
s
Respir
atory
Effects
Eutrop
hicati
on
Ozone
Deplet
ion
Ecotox
icity
Smog
45
Implications: Grid Mix
EL
EC
TR
IC
* Percentages are rounded to the nearest tenth.* * Source: EWEB and the Bonneville Power Administration.
EWEB’s Power Resources (by supplier) in 2008*
17
EWEB’s Power Resources (by type)**
1.8%Purchased from GrantCounty PUD
11.3%EWEB–ownedgeneration
36.6%Other purchasedpower
50.2%Purchased fromBPA
0.1%Purchased from Tieton
2%Natural gas
3%Wind
3%
7%
Coal
Nuclear
13%Efficiency
71%Hydro
1%Biomass
Percentages less than 1 include solar generation of .04 percent of EWEB's total resource mix.
46
Implications: Insulation Type
[Environmental Building News]
47
drawings from Bergsund DeLaneyArchitecture & Planning
Twin Buildings: the case study
48
Material added to building for Passive House upgrade
Material removed from building in Passive house upgrade
Environmental Impacts of Materials Added
Environmental Impacts of Materials Removed
+_
∆ Material Impacts
∆ Operations Impacts
Energy required for operations of Earth Advantage version
Energy required for operations of Passive
House version
Full Lifespan Environmental Impacts of EA Operations
Full Lifespan Environmental Impacts of PH Operations
+
_
LIFE
CYC
LE A
SSES
SMEN
T
Material removed from building for Passive House
upgrade
=
=
MAT
ERIA
LSO
PERA
TIO
NS
Total ∆ Impacts from Upgrade
∑
Methodology: Roadmap
49
Results: The Balance, GHG emissions
50Δ Materials
200
0
-200
-400
-600
-800
-1,000
-1,200Life
time
GH
G E
mis
sion
s, M
T C
O2 e
Overall, the building’s emissions will be reduced by980 MT CO2eas a result of the upgrade.
Δ Operations Σ Upgrade
-1,030 -980