Embodied energy on refurbishment vs. demolition: A southern Europe case study

Abstract Embodied energy on building materials is a concept that allows the measurement of environmental impact, considering energy expenditure associated to the extraction, transport, processing, on-site assembly and performance of materials, during their expected life cycle. Longer service life periods of given materials and derived assemblies correspond to more sustainable practices, as they reduce the impact of energy and resource consumption and the corresponding level of emissions. In this paper, an assessment is made of the cost/benefit ratio associated to two different strategies for intervention on a 40 year old detached single house in Portugal: total demolition vs. refurbishment. Since the building cost of both strategies of intervention was estimated to be similar, environmental impact was considered as a decision criteria. Therefore, an analysis was made of the initial embodied energy, new materials and materials sent to landfill, for two different scenarios: (a) integral substitution of the existing structure by a new house, and (b) partial demolition and refurbishment of existing house. The original house was characterized to provide a benchmark for the comparison of both intervention strategies. In the end, data related to energy and mass were used to sustain a decision regarding the recommended type of intervention.

[1]  Manfred Hegger,et al.  Energy Manual: Sustainable Architecture , 2008 .

[2]  Geoffrey P. Hammond,et al.  Embodied energy and carbon in construction materials , 2008 .

[3]  Fausto Freire,et al.  Life-cycle assessment of a house with alternative exterior walls: Comparison of three impact assessment methods , 2012 .

[4]  Stewart Brand,et al.  How Buildings Learn: What Happens After They're Built , 1997 .

[5]  Justo Garcia Navarro,et al.  Assessment of the decrease of CO2 emissions in the construction field through the selection of materials: Practical case study of three houses of low environmental impact , 2006 .

[6]  Grecia R. Matos,et al.  Consumption of materials in the United States, 1900-1995 , 1998 .

[7]  W. Ruddiman,et al.  Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum , 2010 .

[8]  Samuel Niza,et al.  A transitional economy's metabolism: The case of Portugal , 2006 .

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

[10]  Andrius Keizikas,et al.  The relationship between the shape of a building and its energy performance , 2012 .

[11]  John Holmberg,et al.  Direct and indirect energy use and carbon emissions in the production phase of buildings: An input-output analysis , 2007 .

[12]  M. Huijbregts,et al.  Is cumulative fossil energy demand a useful indicator for the environmental performance of products? , 2006, Environmental science & technology.

[13]  José Manuel Cejudo López,et al.  A decision-making LCA for energy refurbishment of buildings: Conditions of comfort , 2014 .

[14]  Sarel Lavy,et al.  Identification of parameters for embodied energy measurement: A literature review , 2010 .

[15]  Sarah J. Wakes,et al.  The relationship between total embodied energy and cost of commercial buildings , 2012 .

[16]  Luis Pérez-Lombard,et al.  A review on buildings energy consumption information , 2008 .

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

[18]  Aie.  World Energy Outlook 2011 , 2011 .

[19]  François Maréchal,et al.  Energy in the perspective of the sustainable development: The 2000 W society challenge , 2005 .

[20]  Ardeshir Mahdavi,et al.  A performance comparison of passive and low-energy buildings , 2010 .