Energy-saving policies and low-energy residential buildings: an LCA case study to support decision makers in Piedmont (Italy)

Background, aim and scopeA low-energy family house recently built in Northern Italy was selected by Regione Piemonte as an outstanding example of resource efficient building. An economic incentive was awarded to cover the extra costs of the thermal insulation, windows and equipment in order to decrease the yearly winter heat requirement from the legal standard of 109 to 10 kW h/m2, while existing buildings in the study area typically require 200 kW h/m2. As the building was claimed to be sustainable on the basis of its outstanding energy-saving performance, an ex post life cycle assessment (LCA) was set up to understand whether, and to what extent, the positive judgement could be confirmed in a life cycle perspective.Materials and methodsAfter an analysis of the literature on LCA of whole buildings, a detailed life cycle assessment has been conducted by encompassing all the life cycle phases. Emphasis was given on the end-of-life stage, too often disregarded due to lack of data or heavily simplified. Virtually all the materials used in the building structure, finishes and equipment were considered, paying attention to their expected service duration and the recycling potential. In order to increase transparency and therefore credibility and acceptance of LCA in the building sector, an uncertainty analysis was carried out.Results and discussionThe dramatic contribution of material-related impacts emerged. Structure and finishes materials represented the highest relative contribution, but maintenance operations also played a major role. The contributions of equipment, construction stage and transportation were minor. The important role of the recycling potential also emerged. Unlike standard buildings, where heating-related impacts overshadow the rest of the life cycle, there is no single dominating item or aspect. Rather, several of them play equally important roles.ConclusionsThe study confirmed that the initial goal of resource and environmental efficiency was reached, but to a much lower extent than previously thought. In comparison to a standard house, while the winter heat requirement was reduced from 109 to 10 kW h/m2 (10:1 ratio), the life cycle energy was only reduced by 2.1:1 and the carbon footprint by 2.2:1.Recommendations and perspectivesThe findings emphasise the need for incorporating the life cycle approach in energy-saving policies and economic incentives schemes in the building sector, in Italy and elsewhere, as single-step improvements might not be effective in a life cycle perspective and could even disappoint expectations.

[1]  Ignacio Zabalza Bribián,et al.  Life cycle assessment in buildings: State-of-the-art and simplified LCA methodology as a complement for building certification , 2009 .

[2]  R. Frischknecht,et al.  Implementation of Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methods. ecoinvent report No. 3, v2.2 , 2010 .

[3]  Shabbir H. Gheewala,et al.  Environmental life cycle assessment of a commercial office building in Thailand , 2008 .

[4]  Oscar Ortiz,et al.  Sustainability in the construction industry: A review of recent developments based on LCA , 2009 .

[5]  Seppo Junnila.  Life cycle assessment of environmentally significant aspects of an office building , 2004 .

[6]  Hans-Jörg Althaus,et al.  Post-consumer waste wood in attributive product LCA , 2006 .

[7]  Frank Werner,et al.  Wood & other renewable resources (subject editor: Jörg Schweinle) , 2007 .

[8]  Grace K C Ding,et al.  Sustainable construction--the role of environmental assessment tools. , 2008, Journal of environmental management.

[9]  Oscar Ortiz,et al.  Sustainability based on LCM of residential dwellings: A case study in Catalonia, Spain , 2009 .

[10]  Appu Haapio,et al.  A critical review of building environmental assessment tools , 2008 .

[11]  Hans-Jörg Althaus,et al.  Manufacturing and Disposal of Building Materials and Inventorying Infrastructure in ecoinvent (8 pp) , 2005 .

[12]  Hans-Jörg Althaus,et al.  Relevance of simplifications in LCA of building components , 2009 .

[13]  G. Psacharopoulos.  Overview and methodology , 1991 .

[14]  Catarina Thormark,et al.  A low energy building in a life cycle - its embodied energy, energy need for operation and recycling potential , 2002 .

[15]  Gloria P. Gerilla,et al.  An environmental assessment of wood and steel reinforced concrete housing construction , 2007 .

[16]  Cecilia Matasci.  Life Cycle Assessment of 21 Buildings: Analysis of the Different Life Phases and Highlighting of the Main Causes of Their Impact on the Environment , 2006 .

[17]  Arnold Janssens,et al.  Quantification of the impact of the end-of-life scenario on the overall resource consumption for a dwelling house , 2009 .

[18]  Catarina Thormark.  Environmental analysis of a building with reused building materials , 2000 .

[19]  Per Levin,et al.  Environmental assessment of rebuilding and possible performance improvements effect on a national scale , 2004 .

[20]  L. Brimacombe,et al.  Sustainability and Steel Recycling , 2001 .

[21]  Gregory A. Keoleian,et al.  Life cycle energy and environmental performance of a new university building: modeling challenges and design implications , 2003 .

[22]  Bruno Peuportier,et al.  How to account for CO2 emissions from biomass in an LCA , 2007 .

[23]  Andrew H. Buchanan,et al.  Wood-based building materials and atmospheric carbon emissions , 1999 .

[24]  E. Holleris Petersen,et al.  Life-cycle assessment of four multi-family buildings , 2001 .

[25]  A. P Arena,et al.  Life cycle assessment of energy and environmental implications of the implementation of conservation technologies in school buildings in Mendoza—Argentina , 2003 .

[26]  Brenda Vale,et al.  Life cycle analysis model for New Zealand houses , 2004 .

[27]  Guido Sonnemann,et al.  Uncertainty assessment by a Monte Carlo simulation in a life cycle inventory of electricity produced by a waste incinerator , 2003 .

[28]  David Pearlmutter,et al.  A life-cycle energy analysis of building materials in the Negev desert , 2008 .

[29]  S. Citherlet,et al.  Energy and environmental comparison of three variants of a family house during its whole life span , 2007 .

[30]  Van Straaten,et al.  Thermal Performance of Buildings , 1967 .

[31]  Sungho Tae,et al.  Development of a Life Cycle Assessment Program for building (SUSB-LCA) in South Korea , 2009 .

[32]  Hans-Jörg Althaus,et al.  Post-Consumer Waste Wood in Attributive Product LCA Context specific evaluation of allocation procedures in a functionalistic conception of LCA , 2007 .

[33]  Giovanni Andrea Blengini,et al.  Life cycle of buildings, demolition and recycling potential: A case study in Turin, Italy , 2009 .

[34]  J. Burnett,et al.  Analysis of embodied energy use in the residential building of Hong Kong , 2001 .

[35]  Elena Garbarino,et al.  Sustainable constructions: eco-profiles of primary and recycled building materials , 2006 .

[36]  Mathias Borg,et al.  Generic LCA-methodology applicable for buildings, constructions and operation services: today practice and development needs , 2003 .

[37]  Anna Forsberg,et al.  Tools for environmental assessment of the built environment , 2004 .

[38]  Jacques Chevalier,et al.  Inter-comparison and benchmarking of LCA-based environmental assessment and design tools , 2004 .

[39]  Anne Grete Hestnes,et al.  Energy use in the life cycle of conventional and low-energy buildings: A review article , 2007 .

[40]  Bruno Peuportier,et al.  Life cycle assessment applied to the comparative evaluation of single family houses in the French context , 2001 .

[41]  M. Huijbregts,et al.  Evaluating uncertainty in environmental life-cycle assessment. A case study comparing two insulation options for a Dutch one-family dwelling. , 2003, Environmental science & technology.