Potential-analysis of grey energy limits for residential buildings in Germany

Abstract European building regulations currently focus on the reduction of carbon emissions by reducing the primary energy demand for building operation. The embodied energy in construction materials is not limited by building regulations. In this study the potential for carbon savings by optimizing the grey energy, embodied in residential buildings in Germany, was analyzed. Therefore, representative sample buildings for the German building market were analyzed. Based on detailed statistical data about the German construction industry, results were transferred to the current building activity. An enormous saving potential was determined. The global warming potential (GWP) of shell constructions could be reduced by up to 77% with existing technologies and without additional investment costs. Environmental cost savings of more than 1 billion €/yr could be realized for the German economy. With additional investments the saving potential could be increased to 95%. Though, such cost-intensive improvements would not be cost-efficient. Compared to further tightening of requirements on the energy efficiency the potential of reducing grey energy is much easier to tap. Thus, it is a reasonable next step to introduce requirements on the maximum GWP by grey energy in building regulations. Suggestions for such policy implementations were made.

[1]  W. Moll.  Vorschläge für eine Neufassung von Anforderungen in DIN 4109 "Schallschutz im Hochbau" , 2001 .

[2]  Duc Khuong Nguyen,et al.  Nonlinearities in carbon spot-futures price relationships during Phase II of the EU ETS , 2012 .

[3]  René Oly,et al.  Air infiltration assessment for industrial buildings , 2015 .

[4]  Oliver Kornadt,et al.  Development of concepts for cost-optimal nearly zero-energy buildings for the industrial steel building sector , 2016 .

[5]  Ottmar Edenhofer,et al.  Causes of the EU ETS price drop: Recession, CDM, renewable policies or a bit of everything? - New evidence , 2014 .

[6]  Umberto Desideri,et al.  Carbon footprint of a reflective foil and comparison with other solutions for thermal insulation in building envelope , 2013 .

[7]  Ray Galvin,et al.  Economic viability in thermal retrofit policies: Learning from ten years of experience in Germany , 2013 .

[8]  Yi-Ming Wei,et al.  An overview of current research on EU ETS: Evidence from its operating mechanism and economic effect , 2010 .

[9]  Mark Richard Wilby,et al.  Dedicated tax/subsidy scheme for reducing emissions by promoting innovation in buildings: The EcoTax , 2012 .

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

[11]  Ali Akbarnezhad,et al.  Effects of structural system on the life cycle carbon footprint of buildings , 2015 .

[12]  Raphaël Trotignon,et al.  Governance of CO2 markets: lessons from the EU ETS , 2014 .

[13]  Moshe Schwartz,et al.  Cost-benefit analysis of green buildings: An Israeli office buildings case study , 2014 .

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

[15]  Yuming Liu,et al.  Cost-benefit analysis on green building energy efficiency technology application: A case in China , 2014 .

[16]  S. Supino,et al.  Sustainability in the EU cement industry: the Italian and German experiences , 2016 .

[17]  M. Sanin,et al.  Understanding volatility dynamics in the EU-ETS market , 2009 .