Lifetime Energy Consumption Building€¦ · Insulation in Walls Double Glazed, Low-e,...

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


EA PH

Baseline Materials

Material Investment

Improved Operations


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.


37

Conclusions

Yes.


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

Lifetime Energy Consumption Building€¦ · Insulation in Walls Double Glazed, Low-e,...

Documents

Transcript of Lifetime Energy Consumption Building€¦ · Insulation in Walls Double Glazed, Low-e,...