Exploring the climate impact effects of increased use of bio-based materials in buildings

Abstract Whenever Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is used to assess the climate impact of buildings, those with high content of biobased materials result with the lowest impact. Traditional approaches to LCA fail to capture aspects such as biogenic carbon exchanges, their timing and the effects from carbon storage. This paper explores a prospective increase of biobased materials in Swedish buildings, using traditional and dynamic LCA to assess the climate impact effects of this increase. Three alternative designs are analysed; one without biobased material content, a CLT building and an alternative timber design with “increased bio”. Different scenario setups explore the sensitivity to key assumptions such as the building’s service life, end-of-life scenario, setting of forest sequestration before (growth) or after (regrowth) harvesting and time horizon of the dynamic LCA. Results show that increasing the biobased material content in a building reduces its climate impact when biogenic sequestration and emissions are accounted for using traditional or dynamic LCA in all the scenarios explored. The extent of these reductions is significantly sensitive to the end-of-life scenario assumed, the timing of the forest growth or regrowth and the time horizon of the integrated global warming impact in a dynamic LCA. A time horizon longer than one hundred years is necessary if biogenic flows from forest carbon sequestration and the building’s life cycle are accounted for. Further climate impact reductions can be obtained by keeping the biogenic carbon dioxide stored after end-of-life or by extending the building’s service life, but the time horizon and impact allocation among different life cycles must be properly addressed.

[1]  Werner Jensch,et al.  The convergence of life cycle assessment and nearly zero-energy buildings: The case of Germany , 2014 .

[2]  Sampo Soimakallio,et al.  Global warming potentials of stemwood used for energy and materials in Southern Finland: differentiation of impacts based on type of harvest and product lifetime , 2016 .

[3]  Luisa F. Cabeza,et al.  Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle energy analysis (LCEA) of buildings and the building sector: A review , 2014 .

[4]  L. Sokka,et al.  Approaches for inclusion of forest carbon cycle in life cycle assessment – a review , 2013 .

[5]  Annie Levasseur,et al.  Key issues and options in accounting for carbon sequestration and temporary storage in life cycle assessment and carbon footprinting , 2012, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[6]  Magdalena Svanström,et al.  Climate impact assessment in LCAs of forest products : Implications of method choice for results and decision-making , 2015 .

[7]  M. Margni,et al.  Considering time in LCA: dynamic LCA and its application to global warming impact assessments. , 2010, Environmental science & technology.

[8]  Patrik Magnusson,et al.  Urban timber - a resilient timber architecture in the city and a vision for mass customization , 2014 .

[9]  Giovanni Andrea Blengini,et al.  The changing role of life cycle phases, subsystems and materials in the LCA of low energy buildings , 2010 .

[10]  Matthew Brander,et al.  Response to “Attributional life cycle assessment: is a land-use baseline necessary?”—appreciation, renouncement, and further discussion , 2015, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[11]  Joost G. Vogtländer,et al.  Carbon sequestration in LCA, a proposal for a new approach based on the global carbon cycle; cases on wood and on bamboo , 2013, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[12]  Göran Finnveden,et al.  On the validity of natural regeneration in determination of land-use baseline , 2016, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[13]  Johan Braet,et al.  Life cycle assessment in the construction sector: A review , 2013 .

[14]  Birger Solberg,et al.  Greenhouse gas emission impacts of use of Norwegian wood pellets: a sensitivity analysis , 2011 .

[15]  Lukas H. Meyer,et al.  Summary for Policymakers , 2022, The Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate.

[16]  Magdalena Svanström,et al.  Life cycle assessment of construction materials: the influence of assumptions in end-of-life modelling , 2014, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[17]  Pascal Lesage,et al.  Biogenic Carbon and Temporary Storage Addressed with Dynamic Life Cycle Assessment , 2013 .

[18]  Frank Werner,et al.  Potential Roles of Swedish Forestry in the Context of Climate Change Mitigation , 2014 .

[19]  Seppo Kellomäki,et al.  Life cycle assessment tool for estimating net CO2 exchange of forest production , 2011 .

[20]  Göran Finnveden,et al.  Attributional life cycle assessment: is a land-use baseline necessary? , 2015, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[21]  Marine Fouquet,et al.  Methodological challenges and developments in LCA of low energy buildings: Application to biogenic carbon and global warming assessment , 2015 .

[22]  Francesco Cherubini,et al.  Global Warming Potential of Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Biomass Stored in the Anthroposphere and Used for Bioenergy at End of Life , 2013 .