CIV300 Report Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, University of Sheffield, 2010-2011

SUSTAINABLE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION EMBODIED ENERGY AND EMBODIED CARBON

Joshua Sykes

The University of Sheffield Department of Civil and Structural Engineering CIV300 Report Submitted: 05/05/2011

Candidate: MEng Architectural Engineering Design Supervisor: Dr. Maria Romero-Gonzlez

Declaration statement
Joshua Sykes certifies that all material contained within this report is his own work except where it is clearly referenced to others.

Signed: Date:

ii

Abstract Current building regulations focus upon operational energy when assessing the energy efficiency and environmental impact of a building, however there is very little regulation or assessment of a buildings embodied energy or embodied carbon. As design improves and buildings consume less energy during operation; embodied energy will become a much higher percentage of a buildings energy consumption over its lifespan. This report aims to highlight the key issues relating to embodied energy and embodied carbon and attempt to develop a tool to estimate both the embodied energy and embodied carbon of a prospective building during the initial design stage.

iii

CONTENTS CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................. iv List of Figures.............................................................................................................................. v List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. vi List of Symbols ...........................................................................................................................vii 1. 2. 3. 4. Introduction...................................................................................................................1 Research objectives and scope......................................................................................3 Discussion: What are embodied energy and embodied carbon?..................................3 Discussion: Detailed breakdown of what can be considered to contribute towards embodied energy and embodied carbon.......................................................................6 Material manufacture....................................................................................................6 Material transportation.................................................................................................8 Transportation of labour................................................................................................8 Construction...................................................................................................................9 Maintenance................................................................................................................10 End-of-life....................................................................................................................12 Discussion: existing data .............................................................................................17 Discussion: existing data, embodied carbon equvialents............................................17 Discussion: Interpreting values....................................................................................18 Literature Study Conclusions.......................................................................................20 Calculator design..........................................................................................................21 Calculator features.......................................................................................................23 Testing..........................................................................................................................35 Understanding the output...........................................................................................39 Conclusions..................................................................................................................42 Suggested further work...............................................................................................43 References...................................................................................................................44 Appendix A...................................................................................................................47 Appendix B...................................................................................................................49 Appendix C...................................................................................................................55

5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

iv

List of Figures Fig. 1. Energy consumption of the U.S. building sector as a percentage of total consumption (United States Department of Energy (2008)). P1 Fig. 2. Possible definition of contributing factors to embodied energy (Vukotic et al. (2010)) P4 Fig. 3. Graph showing how maintenance can drastically increase the total embodied energy of a building. (Yohanis and Norton (2002)). P11 Fig. 4.The manufacturing cycle can be compared with the nutrient cycle which occurs in nature (McDonough and Braungart (2002)).P13 Fig. 5. Results from a study of steel and timber design, showing potential for energy recovery (Vukotic et al. (2010)). P15 Fig. 6. Screenshot of MY2050 program, showing interactive user display (Department of Energy and Climate Change (2011)). P22 Fig. 7. This is how the calculator looks when first opened. For all further screenshots the excel interface is not shown but would still be present. P23 Fig. 8. Screen 2, instrutions on how to use the tool. P24 Fig. 9. Screen 3, project information. P25 Fig. 10. Close-up of calendar feature. P25 Fig. 11. This figure shows the warning which appears when Excel is opened, to warn users that the file contains macros. P26 Fig. 12. View of the top portion of the material manufacture screen. P27 Fig. 13. This figure shows how input cells are revealed based upon user input. P27 Fig. 14. Features to help the user such as comments which appear when the user selects a cell, and more detailed information about materials on the right of the page. P28 Fig. 15. Cells are coloured red to indicate an error. P28 Fig. 16. Labour transportation. P29 Fig. 17. Construction. P31 Fig.18. Maintenance P32

Fig. 19. End-of-life P33 Fig. 20. Results of question 7. P36 Fig. 21. Results of question 5.P37 Fig. 22. Summary of results.P39 Fig. 23. Differing embodied energy values in commercial buildings. P40 Fig. 24. Differing embodied energy values in residential buildings.P40

List of Tables Table 1 An example of how embodied energy figures can be used to mislead the reader (The Concrete Centre (2007)). P19

vi

List of Symbols Symbol Clt Cm Cmt Cp ELClt ELCO2 ELCp ELCwt ELee ELElt ELEp ELEwt Elt Em Emt Ep MClt MCm MCmt MCO2 MCp Mee MElt MEm MEmt MEp PCCO2 PCee Rpot(CO2) Rpot(EE) description labour transportation CO2 emissions material CO2 emissions material transportation CO2 emissions CO2 emissions during the building erection phase labour transportation emissions for end-of-life stage end-of-life embodied CO2 emissions CO2 emitted during the building demolition phase waste transportation CO2 emissions end-of-life embodied energy end-of-life labour transportation energy energy used during the building demolition phase end-of-life waste transportation energy labour transportation energy material embodied energy material transportation embodied energy energy used during the building erection phase recurring labour transportation CO2 emissions recurring material CO2 emissions recurring material transportation CO2 emissions maintenance embodied CO2 emissions recurring CO2 emitted during the building erection stage maintenance embodied energy recurring labour transportation energy recurring material embodied energy recurring material transportation embodied energy recurring energy used during the erection phase product and construction embodied CO2 emissions product and construction embodied energy end-of-life CO2 saving potential end-of-life energy recovery potential

vii

1. Introduction

The construction industry and its subsidiaries are a major consumer of energy and require vast resources, the extraction and processing of which results in the release of pollution to the atmosphere. Construction depletes 40% of global raw stone, sand and gravel; 25% of virgin wood; and consumes vast amounts of energy and water (Dixit et al. (2010)).

Fig. 1 shows the energy consumption in the building sector in the US as a percentage of the total consumption over eight years and predicts the consumption trends by the end of 2030 (United States Department of Energy (2008)). The figure shows that currently construction accounts for between 35-40% of the U.S. energy consumption, this is a huge amount and is predicted to grow.

Fig. 1. Energy consumption of the U.S. building sector as a percentage of total consumption (United States Department of Energy (2008)).

Reducing energy consumption and carbon emissions has become a growing priority both nationally and globally over the past decades. A lot of the drivers behind reducing energy consumption and carbon emissions have been politically motivated rather than scientific.

This has resulted in legislation which only takes into account a limited number of factors which contribute towards a buildings total energy use.

Current legislation aims to cut energy consumption and amongst other goals, aims for all domestic houses to be zero-carbon by 2016. Well the actual target is that all domestic buildings should have a 70% cut in regulated emissions by 2016 (Building Regulations 2000, Part L); this is what the government has termed zero-carbon. Embodied energy and carbon is not considered when considering if a home meets with these regulations. Therefore materials which are energy intensive in their manufacturing process could be utilised to reduce energy consumption during operation to meet with legislation but could actually have a negative overall impact.

As buildings come closer to achieving zero carbon status, the embodied energy will become a bigger percentage of the total over the buildings lifespan, making its exclusion from regulations even more glaring. In a study on low energy buildings in Sweden (Thormak (2002)) it was found that embodied energy accounted for 45% of the whole-life energy requirements over a 50year life-span.

For far too long, eco building has focussed on energy efficiency in use, with super insulated structures, renewable energy and rainwater collection. This is all very well, but such structures have continued to be built from materials with high embodied energy or toxic production processes such as concrete, steel and plastic. (Suhr (2008)) Reducing the embodied energy and embodied carbon of a building has an immediate effect on its life-time energy consumption which is independent of how the buildings occupants use the building. This is an important point to note that despite continually improving and more energy efficient design, on average the energy consumption of the majority of building types has remained pretty much constant over recent decades. This is despite better insulation, double glazing, better design practices etc. The reason for this is the way in which people use buildings. Embodied energy is not affected by such factors.

If we are going to take energy consumption and the release of carbon dioxide seriously we cannot continue to neglect embodied energy and carbon while claiming sustainable and zero-carbon status.

This report aims to highlight the range of different factors which can be considered to contribute towards embodied energy and carbon and create a tool to calculate a structures embodied impacts and energy consumption.

2. Research objectives and scope

The purpose of this report is to study embodied energy and carbon emissions associated with buildings and structures in general. The main objectives are: (1) to obtain a thorough understanding of what factors can contribute towards embodied energy and carbon and how they can be calculated; (2) to evaluate the existing data and use this to develop a computer based tool to calculate the embodied energy and carbon of a structure; and (3) to consider the effectiveness and accuracy of the calculation tool and identify any areas which need further research.

The method utilised in this report is a literature review which draws conclusions from various sources including published books, papers, journal articles etc. The validity of data and contrasting methods is questioned and then the most appropriate data/method is adopted to be used in the calculation tool. Wherever possible equally valid yet conflicting methods for calculating the same value are both included and the choice is left down to the end user to decide which method is most applicable for an individual scenario.

3. Discussion: what are embodied energy and embodied carbon?

One of the main reasons why there is little government regulation relating to embodied energy and embodied carbon is that there is no clear consensus as to how to define these terms. In simple terms the embodied energy could be defined as the energy required to

initially produce the building. However such a simplified definition has inherent problems; what should be included in this value? Energy used to extract the raw materials, processing, transportation, site equipment etc....

Calculating the embodied energy gets even more complex if a more detailed life-cycle approach is taken. This approach takes into account factors such as maintenance and demolition; both of which would have sub-categories such as transportation and labour (as seen in Fig. 2). There are numerous different methodologies for what should be included. Fig. 2 shows one interpretation of what factors play a role in the embodied energy of a building, it should be clear to see that what may seem like a simple property of a given building can be incredibly complex to calculate and involves a large number of variables and uncertainty. For example how should we account for the energy and carbon used in demolition when we have no certainty what methods and technology may be used in 50 100years time?

Fig. 2. Possible definition of contributing factors to embodied energy (Vukotic et al. (2010))

After only a cursory glance at the material it is easy to understand why there is such a large discrepancy between the values for embodied energy given for the same

building/component by different studies. The value for embodied energy is entirely reliant upon how we define the system boundary and which stages we choose to include. The quote below illustrates just how much variation exists for embodied energy in major studies around the world.

discrepancies in values quoted in other studies may arise because researchers use different embodied energy and carbon dioxide values for the same materials in their calculations. For example, in five studies reviewed, the embodied energy of virgin structural steel varied from 28 MJ/kg in the USA (Scheuer et al., 2003), 32 MJ/kg in Hong Kong (Chen et al., 2001), 35 MJ/kg in the UK (Hammond and Jones, 2006), 42 MJ/kg in India (Venkatarama, Reddy and Jagadish, 2003) to 59 MJ/kg in New Zealand (Buchanan and Honey, 1994). (Vukotic et al. (2010)).

The fact that these five studies have such a large range of values for such an important and commonly used material like virgin steel (i.e. completely new material or predominantly new with little or no recycled content) highlights the need for a universal methodology for calculating embodied energy. However some variation is to be expected as a number of factors will be different around the world, for example the method of electricity generation or distance for transportation.

The calculation and definition of embodied carbon is just as fraught with contradicting techniques and methods and similar ranges of values can be found for even the most common materials. Simply put, embodied carbon is the amount of carbon dioxide released during the building of a structure; however defining what factors contribute towards this is complex. Different system boundaries and criteria lead to large inconsistencies in figures. Again highlighting steel a significant range of values for embodied carbon can be found from 1.15kg carbon dioxide/kg (Worth et al., 2007) to 3.92kg carbon dioxide/kg (Buchanan and Honey, 1994).

4. Discussion: detailed breakdown of what can be considered to contribute towards embodied energy and embodied carbon Although there are numerous opinions on what should be taken into account when calculating embodied energy and carbon it is worthwhile to have an understanding of all of the factors which could be considered to affect the total for a given structure.

4.1. Discussion: material manufacture

Probably the most obvious contributing factor is the energy and carbon which is used to manufacture the actual material. It is also likely to have the biggest affect upon the total. It includes the energy and carbon released during the extraction and transportation of raw materials; their processing and manufacture.

If we just consider processing and manufacture, negating transport and extraction, we find that there is a wealth of information available for this stage in the life-cycle. As most processing occurs in controlled factories obtaining accurate figures should not be difficult; however as shown in the previous section figures for material embodied energy can still vary greatly. One reason for this is that even if we know exactly how many kW of electricity are used to process a material, the method in which that electricity was generated may not be clear. This often results in typical values being used and thus a reduction in accuracy. Location obviously plays a major role as countries have different fuel splits for their energy production, even different localities in the same country may utilise a different fuel source.

In some cases it is not even appropriate to assume a typical fuel split and embodied carbon, a good example of this is the manufacture of steel. Apportioning energy and carbon values to the manufacture of steel is complicated due to a number of reasons. Firstly the steel industry produces a number of by products which could be attributed energy and/or carbon. Secondly it is often the case that some of the electricity used is generated on site using process heat. Finally the production process releases emissions from sources other than fuel used for energy generation during the calcination of lime (Hammond and Jones (2008)).

The level of complexity involved means that the most common method is to use average values from the industry. Without doing a detailed analysis of manufacturing procedures at each individual plant this is the only feasible method.

The calculation of timbers embodied energy and carbon is also worth highlighting. Some studies take into account the carbon sequestered from the atmosphere during the trees life and assign timber a credit. The argument in favour of treating timber in this manner is that it is a renewable resource and its positive effect upon the environment during its life should be taken into account. However the argument against assigning credits is compelling and suggests that not only do we not have a detailed enough understanding of the carbon cycle to fully understand the amount of carbon sequestered but also that although timber is a renewable source that does not automatically give it the attribute of sustainability (Hammond and Jones (2008)).

In measuring embodied CO2, what is being sought is the CO2 burden to society which consequent upon societys use of a particular material. The deduction of a CO2 value sequestered by the material during its manufacture from the total embodied CO2 burden is not appropriate just because a material is deemed renewable and is surely only appropriate when a worldwide steady state has been achieved between consumption and production. (Amato (1996))

The argument presented by Amato is that the use of a material from a renewable source is not enough to be considered sustainable as there is a finite amount of renewable material and hence other projects will have to use material which is not from a renewable source.

Recycled content can also have a significant effect on the total embodied energy and carbon of a structure. As the recycled content of materials increases the material contribution towards total embodied energy and carbon decreases; for an office building using recycled steel can reduce the material embodied energy from 91% of the total embodied energy to 81% (Chen et al. (2001)).

4.2 Discussion: material transportation Some studies take the energy and carbon associated with material transportation into account when calculating a materials embodied energy and carbon (cradle to site). However there seems to be a growing trend to deal with material transportation separately (cradle to gate). The argument in favour of doing this is that transportation can sometimes be a very high percentage of a materials embodied energy and carbon dioxide, in addition it allows for personalising the carbon depending on the distance materials have to be transported to each individual site.

Transportation energy becomes a more important factor as the material embodied energy decreases. For example for aggregate which has a very low embodied energy (around 0.1MJ/kg (Hammond and Jones (2008))) transportation energy is much more important; according to some sources it can be between 400-800% higher than manufacturing energy alone for crushed aggregate (Vukotic et al. (2010)). Similarly when a materials recycled content increases the affect of transportation upon its total embodied energy is more pronounced.

Clearly reducing the distance which materials have to be transported is in the interest of sustainable design and thus designs which source locally available materials are taking advantage of a simple method to reduce the embodied energy of the building.

4.3. Discussion: transportation of labour The transport of labour is often overlooked in studies investigating embodied energy and carbon. This is often justified when the workforce live within a short distance of the site as the embodied energy and carbon associated with them travelling to and from site would be negligible as a percentage of the buildings total embodied energy.

In a detailed study of two building structures, one steel and one timber, (Vukotic et al. (2010)) found that in labour transportation burdens for both options represent less than 1% of both total embodied energy and carbon dioxide emissions, making this life cycle stage the

least significant. Although this study was fairly limited it seems safe to assume that labour transport is not going to be a large contributor towards total embodied energy and carbon. However during the design stage it is easy to ensure that wherever possible construction can be undertaken by a local workforce; this is more of an issue in countries where there is not such a developed range of industries as in the UK. Labour transportation is an area where the construction industry as a whole could make a significant impact on reducing energy consumption and carbon emissions, for example by the implementation of car share schemes. On an individual project basis however it is highly unlikely to have a large impact upon the buildings total embodied energy and carbon emissions. Unless there are special circumstances, for example having to fly in a team of specialists for a particular job, it does not seem worthwhile to spend time calculating a value which will have such a little effect upon the total.

4.4 Discussion: construction

The definition of construction embodied energy and carbon is one area in which there is relatively little debate and conflicting opinions. It is simply the energy used and CO2 released by processes and equipment on-site. The one notable difference between studies is how it is accounted for. Most studies assume that embodied energy associated with construction is a fixed percentage of the material embodied energy for all designs, figures around 10% (Worth et al. (2007)). This would be appropriate if all materials and all designs used a similar amount of energy on-site to construct however this has been proved not to be the case. Energy used during construction can vary greatly depending on the design and material rough figures (as a percentage of the total embodied energy) are as follows: for steel structures 2-5%, for timber 6-16% and for concrete 11-25% (Cole (1998)).

Simplifying construction embodied energy and carbon by allocating a fixed percentage of the total seems inappropriate. Not only is it inaccurate but it can skew figures in favour of materials which require a large amount of on-site fabrication such as cast concrete. It is however the easiest method of including construction in a life-cycle assessment. The specific

information required to generate a more accurate value is currently unavailable for a vast number of materials and even then irregularities will occur due to site-specific conditions.

As attempting to develop a large amount of data for the energy used during the multitude of different construction techniques currently used is beyond the scope of this report the use of the percentage values calculated by Cole (1998) is the best technique for the calculation tool.

4.5. Discussion: maintenance

Maintenance embodied energy and carbon dioxide emissions are defined as energy and carbon dioxide emissions associated with maintenance building activities. (L. Vukotic et al (2010))

The definition of maintenance embodied energy is fairly simple and logical, however in calculation it involves all of the complexities associated with calculating material embodied energy, material transport, labour transport and construction. It also has the added complexity of predicting not only how regularly a given building will require maintenance but also what the practices will be at the time when the work is to be undertaken. It follows that as the expected lifespan increases so will the uncertainty in predicting the energy and carbon associated with maintenance. We have trouble predicting what energy generation and building practices will be like in 10years so for 50-100years there is a large margin for error. In our favour is the thought that as time passes energy production should become more efficient so using current production methods as standard should if anything overestimate the amount of energy consumed and carbon released.

10

A number of studies (for example Adalberth (1997) and Chen et al. (2001)) do not take maintenance into account, i.e. assume that a building is permanent and will not need maintenance during its life. This assumption drastically reduces the complexity of calculating the embodied energy and carbon of a structure and is possibly justifiable if it can be shown that maintenance embodied energy and carbon will be small and have only a minor effect upon the total. This may be the case for some designs, however for the majority of structures there will be a significant amount of energy and carbon associated with maintenance. One, albeit specific example is seen in Fig. 3, this shows that the maintenance energy required for a timber office structure can increase the overall embodied energy by

Fig. 3. Graph showing how maintenance can drastically increase the total embodied energy of a building. (Yohanis and Norton (2002)).

59%, 148% and 339%, over a period of 25, 50 and 100years respectively (Yohanis and Norton (2002)). This shows that maintenance can have a massive effect upon the total embodied energy; however these values should be taken for what they are, predictions based upon best possible assumptions for a very specific structure.

11

The lack of accuracy and difficulties in calculating maintenance embodied energy and carbon are likely reasons for why it is not taken into account in such a large number of studies. To disregard it completely seems inappropriate, however to include values which have a high degree of uncertainty and a large effect upon the total embodied energy and carbon may also not be the best solution. As has already been stated the user of the calculator will be able to define the parameters which they wish to include in the calculation of embodied energy and carbon. For this reason maintenance will be included despite the lack of accuracy; to show how it is possible for maintenance to make a big impact upon the total embodied energy and carbon.

4.6. Discussion: end-of-life energy and recycling Estimating end-of-life energy can be one of the least accurate areas in embodied energy research. The main reason for this is that there is a great deal of uncertainty when predicting what the demolition and waste handling procedures will be like in the future.

Recycling is a very important aspect and the use of materials which can be recycled can significantly reduce the embodied energy and carbon associated with a structure. Before recycling can be discussed in detail it is necessary first to have an understanding of some of the associated terminology. Technical Metabolism is a term coined by MDBC

(McDonough Braungart Design Chemistry) it is analogous with natural processes that circulate materials and nutrients. In technical metabolism, materials or products are treated the same as nutrients, the materials will go back into the system to allow for the manufacturing of other products (McDonough and Braungart (2002)). Fig. 4 shows this comparison between materials and nutrients and their life-cycles, albeit in a rather cheesy fashion it is a rather effective analogy.

12

Fig. 4.The manufacturing cycle can be compared with the nutrient cycle which occurs in nature (McDonough and Braungart (2002)).

The vast majority of materials can be recycled (Chong and Hermreck (2010)). However the technical metabolism is dependent on more than just a materials capacity to be recycled. A number of factors are taken into account, such as the existence of a market for the recycled materials, the amount of energy used to recycle the material, the ability to recycle the material locally, and the level of understanding and knowledge of both the workers and designers who use the material (Chong and Hermreck (2010)).

Warren et al. (2007) found that the maturity of a recycling market, availability of facilities, availability of education and information, green-oriented legislatures, and comprehensiveness of the recycling supply chain affect the recycling rate of the cities in the United States. The ease of recycling, as a result, depicts the energy required to recycle, and the technical metabolism of the recycled materials in different regions. The easier it is to recycle, the less energy intensive to recycle, and thus the more sustainable the recycling system. (Chong and Hermreck (2010))

The key point made by Chong and Hermreck is that to achieve sustainability there must be a number of systems in place to facilitate easy recycling. They found that in some cases materials were being transported large distances to be recycled and in some cases materials were being transported as far as 1800km just to be put into landfill. In certain situations it

13

can use more energy to recycle materials than it would to manufacture new materials, often due to transportation or high intensity processing.

There are a number of ways in which construction materials can be dealt with after a building has reached the end of it usable life. Often the most environmentally friendly option is to reuse the building structure for another purpose. To be able to do this the structure has to be designed to be able to dismantle the facade and finishings while retaining the structural components. This option generally has minimal to no energy use (Chong and Hermreck (2010)).

Reuse of components in the same form is often seen as the next best option (Vukotic et al. (2010)), reuse of components accounts for approximately 20% of all construction waste in the U.S. (Chong and Hermreck (2010)). Again the initial design is very important, if structures are designed for ease of dismantling and component reuse less energy will be consumed during the demolition/dismantling phase. Designers with a more comprehensive understanding of technical metabolism will also understand that not only should components be designed so that they can be dismantled with the minimum amount of energy use but there also needs to be market for the material. This requires knowledge of both regional and national market for construction wastes and components and an understanding of how embodied energy can be affected by having to transport material for long distances.

When it is not possible for components to be reused in their original form recycling is usually an option. It is hard to comment on the energy consumed recycling construction material as it can vary greatly depending on a number of factors. Transportation can often be a large contributor as facilities to recycle certain types of material are not always available locally. Often recycled construction materials have to be sent to a range of locations, sorted and then sent elsewhere (Chong and Hermreck (2010)). This repeated handling and transportation is not efficient. The amount of energy used in the actual process of recycling is very dependent on the individual material concerned. It is intuitive that sorting, cleaning, melting and reforming aluminium will consume more energy than say crushing concrete for use as aggregate.

14

Some material will end up in landfills, currently about 40% of construction wastes are dealt with in this manner (Chong and Hermreck (2010)). In the EU the estimated amount of construction waste generated each year is 200-300 million tons and the average amount sent to landfill during the 1990s was approximately 70%; most EU members have set targets to reduce this figure, with goals ranging from 50% to 10% of construction waste being disposed of in landfills (Lauritzen (2004)). The amount of embodied energy associated with disposing of materials in landfill can be small; however in some case where landfills have run out and materials have to be transported large distances the energy associated with disposal can be significant (Chong and Hermreck (2010)).

Given that there is such a range of outcomes for how a structure will be dismantled and what market there will be in 50-100years it is hard to know how to deal with end-of-life embodied energy and carbon. The best we can achieve is to make predictions based upon current markets and recycling technology.

Fig. 5. Results from a study of steel and timber design, showing potential for energy recovery (Vukotic et al. (2010)).

The general consensus in this area is that impacts associated with the actual demolition process are an insignificant part in the buildings life cycle, but end of life recovery potential

15

is crucial (Vukotic et al. (2010)). This is illustrated by Fig. 5 which shows that there is an opportunity to reduce a buildings environmental impact through recycling and reuse of materials. Fig. 5 is from a study of two buildings of a similar size, one constructed from timber and one from steel. The actual values for embodied energy and carbon are not all that important, but it is clear to see that there is a potential to recover energy and carbon and that deconstruction is not all that significant by comparison. This study essentially argues that material embodied energy and carbon can be reduced because of their ability to offset energy and carbon dioxide emissions in the future (Vukotic et al (2010)).

The best way to maximise the recovery potential is to design so that wherever possible components could be reused in their original form. This can be achieved through fairly minor changes in the original design. The use of bolts instead of welding to join steel members makes it possible for complete sections to be easily dismantled and reused without further processing. If this method of taking into account reuse and recycling potential is used materials which have a high material embodied energy could be considered to have a low overall impact if they have high recycling or reuse potential. This method of analysing a material through its entire life span, not just the life of an individual structure is termed cradle-to-grave.

The main question is how to apportion the recovered energy and carbon; should the possibility to reuse components reduce the current buildings total embodied energy and carbon (as we have already seen in Fig. 5) or should the use of recycled components reduce a future buildings embodied energy and carbon? For example if a steel beam has a usable life of 100 years and is used in a building which has a life of 50 years its embodied energy could be split between the current building and a future building. Alternatively all of the energy and carbon used for the material manufacture could be allocated to the first structure and any future structures could class the material embodied energy of the beam to be zero.

As there is no definitive answer as to which method should be employed for dealing with possible recovery potential the calculation tool allows the user to choose which method

16

they wish to use for each project. Until there is a national/international consensus this was seen as the best option.

5.1. Discussion: existing data

As there is such a large number of variables and different methodologies for calculating embodied energy and carbon there is a vast range of data available. One of the most commonly used sources is the Inventory of Carbon and Energy (ICE), put together by Hammond and Jones at the University of Bath. The ICE database was put together from a range of literature sourced data; it is essentially a best fit value (Vukotic et al (2010)) however it includes a very detailed breakdown for a large range of materials and is readily available. While there is a lack of agreement on which method is most appropriate, the use of values which are essentially an average seems sensible. The ICE database provides material embodied energy using a cradle to gate methodology, i.e. it encompasses material extraction, processing and manufacture. This is ideal as it allows material transportation to site to be added on for each individual case rather than taking a typical distance between factory gate and construction site.

Although there is quite a large amount of readily available information for material embodied energy there is less research in other areas of the life-cycle analysis such as transportation, maintenance and demolition/recycling. As these are important aspects to be considered they cannot be excluded from the calculator, however the accuracy of the final output may be considerably reduced by their inclusion.

5.2. Discussion: existing data, embodied carbon equivalents While this report was being written Version 2 of the ICE Database was released. In addition to providing embodied energy and embodied carbon values this most recent version includes embodied carbon equivalents. Carbon dioxide equivalents or CO2e take into account more than just carbon dioxide it also includes other green house gas emissions such

17

as methane, PFCs etc (Hammond and Jones (2011)). These values give a more accurate account of the environmental impact of material manufacture than carbon dioxide figures.

The availability of this additional information complicates matters. Although the new version of the ICE has included carbon dioxide equivalents in their study of material embodied energy and carbon the majority of studies relating to other areas of the life-cycle do not include this information. Therefore if the calculator is to include carbon dioxide equivalents for material manufacture there needs to be a method to convert embodied CO 2 into CO2e for other stages in the life-cycle. The ICE V2.0 suggests that CO2e is approximately 6% higher than the CO2 only value of embodied carbon for material manufacture, this is based upon the average fuel mixture used in the UK manufacturing industry and does not take into account any process related emissions (Hammond and Jones (2011)). As there is a lack of information relating to other areas in the life-cycle adopting this conversion factor may be the best option.

6. Discussion: interpreting values

Once a method for determining embodied energy and embodied carbon has been formalised and values calculated for a given material or building it is necessary to have a clear understanding of how to compare different results. To purely choose the material or design with the lowest embodied energy/carbon and assume that this is the most environmentally sound solution would be greatly simplifying and misunderstanding the factors involved.

Firstly materials should not only be compared on a kilogram basis. Materials should ideally be compared taking into account the quantity of material required to perform a certain task. For example one kilogram of general concrete has an embodied energy of 0.95MJ/kg and an embodied carbon of 0.130kgCO2/kg compared with a typical steel section which has an embodied energy of 25.4MJ/kg and embodied carbon of 1.78kgCO2/kg (Hammond and Jones (2008)). By comparing the values on a per kilogram basis one might assume that concrete is the more environmentally friendly solution as steel has a much more energy

18

intensive manufacturing process, however the mass of concrete required for say a load bearing column is likely to be much greater than the mass of steel required for the same element.

Comparisons based on the mass of material are commonly used to

misinterpret data in favour of a given material. Table 1 is from an ICE briefing written by Costas Georgopoulos on behalf of The Concrete Centre and is used to illustrate the point that If sustainability is simply measured in terms of embodied carbon dioxide emissions, concrete is ahead on points. (Georgopoulos (2007))
Table 1 An example of how embodied energy figures can be used to mislead the reader from the concrete centre.

Another key point to consider is if additional initial energy and carbon associated with a material will help to achieve operational energy savings during the buildings lifespan. This is often the argument in favour of using large amounts of concrete as although the embodied energy can be quite high the buildings thermal mass can store energy helping to cool the building in the summer and reduce heating costs in the winter. Sometimes using materials with high embodied energy with the intention of reducing operational energy is not worthwhile.

Szalay (2007) showed that operational energy savings achieved through the use of material with better insulation properties could be lower than the premium energy spent for the material manufacturing. (Vukotic et al. (2010))

This shows that material selection can often be a fine balance between initial embodied energy and prospective operational savings and is often one of the deciding factors when selecting insulation materials or using concrete to increase thermal mass.

19

To fully understand and interpret results a wide range of engineering knowledge and understanding is required. For any values to have meaning they must be accompanied by an explanation of the system boundaries which have been used in their calculation. For this reason the calculator not only produces numerical results but wherever possible includes a brief explanation of how they should be interpreted and what if any limitations they have. This helps to make both the topic of embodied energy and carbon and the results more comprehensible to the inexpert user.

7. Literature study conclusions There is much indecision and contradicting opinions on the best method to calculate embodied energy and carbon; because of this it is hard to accurately compare different studies and more importantly to compare buildings (both existing and proposed). Until a consensus is reached it is possible to skew values and sway opinion in favour of individual materials and designs.

In addition to the need for an accurate method for calculating embodied energy and embodied carbon there needs to be an understanding of how to put values into the context of an overall energy plan for the life time of the building. Simply choosing the design with the lowest embodied energy is not likely to give the best overall energy performance. This will require further research on the link between a materials embodied energy and its in use performance, this is beyond the scope of this report. It is expected that engineers who would ultimately be using the tool would use it alongside some knowledge or values for inuse energy consumption.

Until both academics and industry have come to a consensus on which method is best to accurately calculate embodied energy and carbon a transparent calculator should be created using the most appropriate methodology available; so that different designs and buildings can be compared using a single method.

20

8.1. Calculator design: software choice

There are a number of applications which would have been suitable to develop the calculator tool; such as MATLAB and Microsoft Office Excel. Both would be suitable for the tool however Excel is the favoured choice as it is more widely used and makes distribution of the tool easier, additionally most of the raw data relating to embodied energy and carbon is currently stored and shared in Excel spreadsheets. According to recent research some version of Microsoft Office is used in over 80% of enterprises (Montalbano (2009)); although figures are not available for alternative software it is likely that there is no other software which is used as universally.

8.2. Calculator design: intended user The calculator is primarily aimed at academics and professionals within the engineering community and related disciplines. However it is also envisioned that the calculator should be accessible to the general public and that people outside of the construction industry may wish to use it.

The calculation tool is not intended to be used in schools as an educational tool, especially not by younger children. There is no reason why older pupils with some scientific background and understanding could not make use of the calculator; however it was not desirable to overly dumb down the material. Although it was advantageous to contain explanation of values and instructions on how to use the tool, including enough information to make it accessible to younger children would have resulted in a more cumbersome program.

There are already a number of tools which simplify issues related to energy consumption which are ideal for use within the classroom, for example My2050 (Department of Energy and Climate Change (2011)). This interactive program seen in Fig. 6 makes use of a lot of graphics and interactive features and would be ideal to use as an educational tool. This is

21

however not a suitable style for the calculator. The calculator needs to be as simple as possible to use and not over-complicated by interactive features.

Fig. 6. Screenshot of MY2050 program, showing interactive user display (Department of Energy and Climate Change (2011)).

22

9.1. Calculator features

The calculator has a number of different pages which fall into three main categories: user input, output and data. Only user input and output pages are visible, with all the data and calculations being hidden (the data used can be found in Appendix B). The main reason for this was to give the calculator an uncluttered appearance but it also prevents confusion or miss-interpretation of values.

9.2. Calculator features: welcome screen

Fig. 7. This is how the calculator looks when first opened. For all further screenshots the excel interface is not shown but would still be present.

23

Fig. 2 shows the welcome screen as it appears when the calculator is first opened. All of the usual features in Excel are visible at the top of the screen; however the majority are greyedout. This is because the tool is protected to prevent the user from accidentally modifying or erasing any information. This protection also means that only cells which require user input or are used for navigation are selectable.

9.3. Calculator features: instructions screen

Fig. 8. Screen 2, instrutions on how to use the tool.

The next screen gives some brief instructions on the use of the calculator and can be seen in Fig. 8. Although the use of the calculator is fairly intuitive instructions were included to

24

make it as clear as possible. The most important information to be conveyed to the user is a basic understanding of system boundaries as this can have a large impact upon the results. 9.4. Calculator features: project information

Fig. 9. Screen 3, project information.

This is the first page which requires any user input, all of which is self-explanatory.

The project start and completion dates are selected from a drop down calender which appears when the user clicks upon the cell. These dates are used in calculations relating to worker transportation and construction energy. The calender was used to ensure that the user enters the date in the correct format, i.e.

dd/mm/yyyy. This could have been achieved by using conditional cell

formatting and prompting the user to enter the

Fig. 10. Close-up of calendar feature.

25

information in the required manner; however this could have been tedious for the user. If they entered the information even slighly differently, say with a space instead of a backslash, an error would result.

The only downside to using the calender is that it uses a brief VBA code and runs a macro. A macro is a series of commands which are grouped together. Whenever a file is opened which contains macros, Excel disables them and warns the user that they may be harmful. This
Fig. 11. This figure shows the warning which appears when Excel is opened, to warn users that the file contains macros.

action is taken because macros can be used to embed malicious and

harmful code. To enable macros the user has to click on options and enable the content. If the user does not enable this content the calendar features will not function. This in itself is not complex; however top Excel developers state that a large percentage of people forget to do this when opening files, additionally when files are distributed over the internet people can be very suspicious of enabling macros (Bovey et al. (2009)). It is for this reason that the use of macros throughout the calculator was kept to a minimum.

9.5. Calculator features: material manufacture and transportation The Material Manufacture and Transportation page is the only user input screen which requires scrolling to view the entire page. It was initially intended that no pages would make use of scrolling. In the case of material manufacture an exception was made. Splitting up the materials was one option however this made the calculator feel more disjointed. Additionally keeping all of the information related to one area of the life-cycle on one page makes it easier to navigate.

26

Fig. 12. View of the top portion of the material manufacture screen.

The drop down box at the top of the screen gives the user the option to include material transportation (Fig. 12). If yes is selected then additional user input cells appear (Fig. 13). Keeping information hidden if it is not going to be included in the life-cycle is utilised throughout the calculator. This makes it clear which information is required for given calculation parameters.

Fig. 13. This figure shows how input cells are revealed based upon user input.

The calculator makes use of a number of features to make it as easy as possible to input information accurately and in the right place. Comments appear when an input cell is selected and give a brief description of what the user needs to enter, this can be seen in Fig. 13.

27

Fig. 14. Features to help the user such as comments which appear when the user selects a cell, and more detailed information about materials on the right of the page.

As there are quite a large number of materials in the database (over 250) they are split into sub-categories; the user first selects the general material and then the specific type from a drop down menu, which is populated based upon the general material type selected. The comments box on the right hand-side of the screen is used to give the user additional information about the material or the accuracy of the values used in the calculation; it also in some cases makes recommendations to select alternative materials which may be more accurate. Fig. 14 shows how the comments box can be used for multiple purposes. First it warns the user that selecting General Concrete will not give an accurate result. It also gives additional information, in this case it tells the user the assumed cement content. This information allows the user to decide if they have selected the correct/most accurate material.

Another feature to enhance the calculators usability is shown in Fig. 15. If the user selects a material and a material sub-category which dont match both cells turn red to indicate an error (this can only happen if the user selects a material category and subcategory and then changes the first category and not the sub-category).
Fig. 15. Cells are coloured red to indicate an error.

28

The data for material embodied energy and carbon is taken from the ICE database (Hammond and Jones (2008)). It was necessary to manipulate some of this information to enable the calculator to be able to process it, the table containing the data for material manufacture can be seen in Appendix B page. This information is stored in a hidden workbook which the user cannot access. The actual calculation process is very simple as the data for embodied energy and carbon is all given per unit mass, therefore it is only necessary to multiply the material values by the mass of material entered by the user.

9.6. Calculator features: labour transportation

The labour transportation screen (shown in Fig. 16) also first asks the user if they wish to include this stage in their life-cycle. Once yes is selected from the drop down box at the top of the screen the fields which require data entry are revealed. The fields which require user input are mostly self-explanatory. It was anticipated that the average distance travelled to site would be estimated by most users, to survey a large number of workers and average their results would be tedious.

Fig. 16. Labour transportation.

29

There are programs which have been written in Excel which can calculate distance based upon two postcodes. These proved unreliable but with further development they may allow for a more accurate and easily calculated value for labour transportation. The user would still have to enter all of the workers postcodes; however it is a fairly good assumption that most companies have a computerised database containing this information and it would only be a matter of copying the required information.

Calculations are based upon average values for fuel consumption and CO2 emissions per kilometre (numerous sources, including http://www.car-emissions.com and European Energy Portal Information). The calculations do not take into account the manufacture of the car, maintenance etc.

When the user clicks upon the cell next to car share scheme a drop down box appears with a simple yes or no. If the user selects yes then both the embodied energy and embodied carbon are reduced by a factor of 2.5. This value has been assumed for the purpose of this calculator as there is no reliable information into the effectiveness of car share schemes in the construction industry. It seems a fairly reasonable assumption given that it is unlikely that all vehicles will be full to capacity or may be unable to seat more than two or three people (if vans are being driven).

9.7. Calculator features: construction

The construction screen can be seen in Fig. 17, again the first question asks the user if they wish to include this stage in the assessment. The materials which the user has selected appear at the bottom of the screen and the user has to select what intensity best describes the construction method for each material. Guidelines are given to inform the user of the typical intensity associated with the three main structural materials. Rather than allocating intensities based upon the material selection this allows the user to make allowances for the conditions on-site, for example concrete structures typically have high values for construction energy but in some rare cases the concrete could be mixed by hand. This would drastically reduce the construction embodied energy and carbon.

30

Based on the intensity selected by the user a value for construction is calculated. The figures used are based upon the findings of Cole (1998). Allocating a percentage of the material embodied energy was the only feasible way to include construction in the calculator as entering values for tools used, plant, amount of fuel consumed etc would have made this stage incredibly complicated and probably resulted in mistakes. Additionally this information is simply not always available.

Fig. 17. Construction.

31

9.8. Calculator features: maintenance

Finding reliable data for maintenance embodied energy and carbon was very difficult. There are many variables which can occur over long periods of time, this results in data which is unreliable and can often drastically increase the total embodied energy (Yohanis and Norton (2002)). For this reason maintenance was almost not included in the calculator. However instead of disregarding maintenance completely it was included to illustrate the possible impacts of maintenance. The text at the top of the screen (shown in Fig. 18) warns the user of the lack of certainty and asks them if they still wish to include maintenance.

Fig.18. Maintenance.

32

If the user does include maintenance they only have to input two pieces of information. The structures anticipated life span is selected from options in a drop down box and the user has the choice of basic, medium and top grade. These terms are defined in the comments box at the bottom of the screen when the user selects the menu. The fit-out grade is used to adjust the maintenance energy based upon the anticipated life-span, the higher the grade the more energy is assumed to be consumed.

9.9. Calculator features: end-of-life

Fig. 19. End-of-life

33

Fig. 19 shows the screen for the end-of-life stage in the assessment. After the user has selected yes to include end-of-life two sections are revealed below. Energy and carbon associated with deconstruction is calculated as a percentage of material embodied energy and carbon based upon values calculated by Vukotic et al. (2010). The user has the option of selecting dismantling or demolition, this selection determines what percentage is used.

The reuse and recycling section of the calculator is the only part of the calculator which requires the user to decide upon how they wish to calculate the embodied energy and carbon. In all other areas the user can choose to include a stage in the assessment but for reuse the user also gets to select the methodology used in the calculation. The user can choose between the following options: to split material energy equally determined by the number of structures which it can be used in; to allocate the initial structure a credit for designing for reuse or to indicate that any energy savings will be credited to future structures.

Once the method has been selected the user can select the number of times the material can be reused (if at all) or if it can be recycled using the drop down menus next to the materials.

34

10.1. Testing: objectives

Product testing was carried out upon the calculation tool, in the form of a short exercise and questionnaire (Appendix C). The exercise contains information relating to a small project and asks the participants to calculate the total embodied energy and embodied carbon taking into account certain criteria. The type of information given is typical of what would be available to someone who had purchased or was in the process of purchasing materials from a supplier. This information is not detailed enough to calculate values with a high degree of accuracy, although it is realistic of the level of information which would be readily available because of this assumptions have to be made.

There were 21 participants, 15 of whom have studied/are currently studying structural engineering or a related subject and 6 were from unrelated fields with little or no experience of embodied energy or carbon.

Testing was carried out on the calculator for a number of reasons. The main reason for product testing was to evaluate how user-friendly the calculator is. Ease of use was a very important criterion and wherever possible concise instructions were included in the tool. Another objective was to discover how easy the material was to understand for someone who was using the calculator for the first time and had little or no previous knowledge of embodied energy and carbon. The final objective was to discover how much, if any, variation there would be in results when participants had the same information and the same tool.

10.2. Testing: questionnaire feedback

Overall the feedback relating to how user-friendly the calculator is was very positive. When asked if the style and layout of the calculator make it clear where information needs to be inputted 76% of participants described the calculator as being either clear or very clear. The remaining 24% responded with neutral. This suggests that the simple formatting was

35

effective, however two respondents commented that the calculator could have benefited

Q. 7 How easy did you find using the calculator?

Difficult 5% Very Difficult 5%

Neutral 24%

Very Easy 47%

Easy 19%
Fig. 20. Results of question 7.

from the use of more colour.

One of the most important questions in terms of usability testing was question 7 How easy did you find using the calculator? the results of which can be seen in Fig. 20. One participant answered very difficult and another difficult, in the comments section it was seen that they both had the same problem with the calculator. Both of the participants who encountered difficulties were using notebooks with very small screens, this caused a number of problems including some text being hard to read and some formats would have been adversely affected. This can be easily solved by using the zoom function within Excel however on very small screens it will necessitate more scrolling to view the entire page. The calculator was optimised for use on computers with a screen resolution of 1024x768 or higher. According to internet studies 99% of users are using this resolution or higher (http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_display.asp (accessed Feb 2011)). This information was compiled by logging the screen resolution of visitors to a site which is mainly used to discuss web technologies, this undoubtedly skews the data however it is not a bad estimate to say that the majority of people use this resolution or better. This does

36

mean that users with smaller screens do have more trouble using the calculator however this was seen as better than reducing the performance for the majority of users.

Q. 5 How would you describe your level of knowledge of embodied energy and embodied carbon before using the calculator?
No Prior Knowledge 9% Very Knowledgeable 24%

Some Knowledge 19%

Average 48%
Fig. 21. Results of question 5.

The testing results showed that all 21 participants knowledge of embodied carbon and energy improved with a third of respondents saying it at had improved a lot and the other two thirds saying it had improved a little. Given the level of prior knowledge which is shown in Fig. 1000927837 this is very positive; a high percentage of people who described themselves as very knowledgeable or average it was not expected that all would report some improvement in their knowledge or understanding.

10.3. Testing: variation in results

Before the calculation tool was distributed an ideal solution was generated (the results of which can be seen in Appendix C). These results were generated using exactly the same information as that given to the people who took part in the testing. Although these results

37

are referred to as being ideal results they are almost certainly not the actual values of embodied energy and carbon relating to the scenario. They represent what are likely the best values which can be obtained with a limited amount of information. It was expected that there would be some variation in results due to a lack of familiarity with the calculator and incorrectly entered data; however there were also results which suggested different interpretations of the information supplied.

The ideal results gave a total embodied energy value of 7.37 GJ. The average value calculated by the testing participants was 7.6 GJ (see table Appendix C). Four of the participants calculated a value of 7.37 GJ, the same result as the ideal case. All of the participants used the correct system boundaries, i.e. excluded maintenance and end-of-life from the analysis.

Some of the participants made mistakes such as entering the quantities of materials incorrectly; there was a direct correlation between respondents making small mistakes and their occupation. Participants from outside of scientific disciplines made significantly more errors in data entry which required basic calculations than those within engineering or a related discipline.

One participant from an unrelated field obtained a total value for embodied energy of 20.4 GJ, almost three times the value from the ideal results. At first this suggested a large mistake or a total lack of understanding of the calculator. However upon further investigation of the results it became clear that the participant had actually entered information which could be argued give a far more accurate indication of the environmental impact for this test case. In the ideal case material transportation distances of 7.5km were used, this being the distance between the place of purchase and the site; this does not take into account transportation between the point of extraction and the point of sale. When the materials were purchased enquiries were made into the source of the materials, however this information was not readily available. The participant upon reading in the material list Indian sandstone (this is how the material was described by the supplier) used an approximation of the distance between India and the UK to calculate material transportation energy. This resulted in the drastic increase in the total embodied energy.

38

It is apparent that before embodied energy and embodied carbon can be easily calculated it would be necessary for suppliers of building materials to make available more information about where their materials are sourced. This information is rarely given when materials are sold but it is critical to calculate accurate results and obtain a true representation of the environmental impact of material transportation.

11. Understanding the output The total embodied energy, carbon and carbon equivalents are the first results displayed on the results page. To try to make it easier to compare different buildings, values are also given per unit area, as seen in Fig. 22. The calculation tool is not limited to buildings but could be used to asses any structure, bridges, roads, dams etc. This is one of the reasons why there is no comment on the relative merit of the output. It would be inappropriate to give boundaries for what is a good value of embodied energy or carbon as it would be almost impossible to account for the number of different types of structure which the calculator could be used to asses.

Fig. 22. Summary of results.

Additionally assigning boundaries for what is a good value inherently implies that a lower value is better, i.e. that the structure has a smaller environmental impact. This will often not be the case. Increases in embodied energy and embodied carbon can often mean reductions in the total life-cycle energy due to reduced in-use energy consumption. A common example

39

of this is when the thermal mass of a building is increased beyond what is structurally necessary to provide passive heating and cooling and thus reduce energy consumption, for example use of heavy-weight concrete floor slabs.

The calculation tool also allows the user to define the system boundaries. This means that there can be a large variation in results depending on the users choice of system boundaries; hence results can only be compared when the system is the same.

Fig. 23. Differing embodied energy values in commercial buildings. Fig. 24. Differing embodied energy values in residential buildings.

The amount of variation in values for embodied energy is demonstrated in Fig. 23 and Fig. 24 (Dixit et al. (2010)). Fig. 24 shows a graphical representation, in the form of a radar diagram, of how embodied energy values differ in residential buildings while Fig. 23 shows the variation in commercial buildings. The mean of residential units embodied energy is 5.506 GJ/m2 and standard deviation is found to be 1.56 GJ/m2, while commercial buildings embodied energy figures demonstrate a mean of 9.19 GJ/m2 and a standard deviation of 5.4 GJ/m2. (Dixit et al. (2010))

This information can be interpreted in a number of ways. Firstly it shows that there is a greater variation in embodied energy values for commercial buildings than there is for

40

residential. However more importantly in this case, it also suggests dissimilarity in methodology for calculating the embodied energy of buildings.

It is for these reasons that there is no comment on the merit of results produced by the calculation tool. In the future it may be possible to incorporate this feature after a standard methodology has been developed and a database of values has been generated for a variety of structures and building types. When using the current calculation tool it is necessary for the user to have a basic understanding of how to interpret values and also an understanding of the limitations and accuracy of the results. This is why, wherever possible notes have been included in the output to explain results.

41

12. Conclusions

The objective of this report was to develop a tool to calculate the embodied energy and embodied carbon of a structure. This has been achieved. The calculator performed very well in testing and met the required criteria for usability. However there are a number of areas where it was not possible to include features which had been envisioned at the outset, such as commenting on the relative merit of results and giving the user a range of accuracy for the results. There are a number of reasons for this. The most critical is the lack of existing research and available data relating to some stages in the life-cycle. Maintenance is a prime example of an area where there is simply not enough research to be able to accurately calculate its contribution towards the total embodied energy and carbon.

It was also necessary to simplify methods of calculating values in order to maintain a usable calculator. To obtain a more accurate result it would be necessary for the user to input a much larger amount of information. Not only would this be time consuming, but often the information is not readily available. This was highlighted in the testing scenario when it was not possible to obtain information about where the material was actually sourced from. If embodied energy and embodied carbon are to be included in regulations it will require suppliers and manufactures to be much more open about where their materials are being sourced, how they are being manufacture and actually providing this information to the public.

Although there are areas where it was not possible to include features which were desired, there were also additional features which were included during the calculators development. One example of this is the ability to define the parameters to include in the life-cycle assessment. Originally it was intended to simply define the ideal life-cycle, however it became clear that due to the variation in structures and materials which can be analysed using the calculator there are situations where it is appropriate to use different system boundaries. This feature also allows the user to compare their results with existing studies by adopting the same boundaries as those used in previous research.

42

Overall the calculator functions well, producing usable output and results. With additional research and development it could become an excellent tool for life-cycle analysis of embodied energy and embodied carbon and could be used as the primary method of assessing a buildings embodied environmental impacts.

13. Suggestions for future work

There are a number of areas relating to embodied energy and embodied carbon which are in need of further research, particularly the maintenance stage. At present there is a great deal of uncertainty relating to this area which needs to be resolved before more accurate values can be obtained. This could be achieved by a detailed study of a number of current buildings and investigate what maintenance has taken place over their life-span.

After further research has been undertaken, it would be possible to develop the calculation tool to produce more accurate results and include more useful features. Once an improved tool has been developed detailed studies of existing structures would prove invaluable. If a detailed database of results could be developed it would be possible to comment on the merit of the results obtained from the calculator by comparing the results to existing structures of the same type.

43

References

Adalberth, K (1997) Energy use during the life cycle of buildings: a method. Building and Environment, 32(4), p317-320. Amato, A (1996) A comparative environmental appraisal of alternative framing systems for offices. PhD thesis, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford. Bovey, R, Wallentin, D, Bullen, S and Green, J (2009) Professional Excel Development Second Edition, The Definitive Guide to Developing Applications Using Microsoft Excel, VBA, and .NET. Addison-Wesley. Buchanan, A H and Honey, B G (1994) Energy and carbon dioxide implications of building construction. Energy and Buildings, 20(3), p323-340. Chen, T Y, Burnet, J and Chau, C K (2001) Analysis of embodied energy use in the residential building of Hong Kong. Energy 26(4), p323-340. Chong, W K and Hermreck, C (2010) Understanding transportation energy and technical metabolism of construction waste recycling. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54, p579-590. Cole, R J (1998) Energy and greenhouse gas emissions associated with the construction of alternative structural systems. Building and Environment, 34(3), p224-237. Cole, R J and Kernan, P C (1996) Life-cycle energy use in office buildings. Building and Environment 31(4), p307-317. CIBSE (Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers) (2004) CIBSE Guide F: Energy Efficiency in Buildings. CIBSE, London. Defra (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) (2008) UK Climate Change Programme: Annual Report to Parliament. Crown, London.

44

Department for Energy and Climate Change (2011) MY2050 http://my2050.decc.gov.uk/ [accessed March 2011] Dixit, K M, Fernandez-Solis, J L, Lavy, S and Culp, C H (2010) Identification of parameters for embodied energy measurement: A literature review. Energy and Buildings 42, p1238-1247. Europes Energy Portal http://www.energy.eu/ [accessed Jan 2011] Hammond, G and Jones, C (2008) Embodied energy and carbon in construction materials. Energy 161, Issue EN2, p87-98. Hammond, G and Jones, C (2006) Inventory of carbon and energy (ICE). Version 1.5 Beta, University of Bath, Bath. Hammond, G and Jones, C (2008) Inventory of carbon and energy (ICE). Version 1.6a, University of Bath, Bath. Hammond, G and Jones, C (2011) Inventory of carbon and energy (ICE). Version 2.0 Beta, University of Bath, Bath Georgopoulos, C (2007) Concrete takes the lead in sustainable construction. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, 160, CE2, p53. McDonough, W and Braungart, M (2002) Cradle to cradle: remaking the way we make thinks. 1st edition North Point Press. Montalbano, E (2009) Microsoft Office in No Danger from Competitors

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/166123/forrester_microsoft_office_in_no_danger _from_competitors.html. [accessed Jan 2011]

Scheuer, C, Keoleian, G A and Reppe, P (2003) Life cycle energy and environmental performance of a new university building: modelling challenges and design implications. Energy and Buildings 35(10), p1049-1064. Suhr, M (2008) Foreword, Hemp Line Construction, BRE Press, Watford, p10.

45

Szalay, A Z (2007) What is missing from the concept of the new European Building Directive? Building and Environment 42(4), p1761-1769. Thormak, C (2002) A low energy building in a life cycle its embodied energy, energy need for operation and recycling potential. Building and Environment, 37(4), p429-435. United States Department of Energy (2008) Buildings Energy Data Book, United States Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., USA. Venkatarama Reddy, B V and Jagadish, K S (2003) Embodied energy of common and alternative building materials and technologies. Energy and Buildings 35(2), p129-137. Vukotic, L, Fenner, R A and Symons, K (2010) Assessing embodied energy of building structural elements. Engineering Sustainability 163, Issue ES3, p147-158. Worth, Z, Boyle, C and Norton, B (2007) Combined life-cycle cost assessment of roof construction. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Engineering Sustainability, 160(4), p189-198. Yohanis, Y G and Norton B (200) Life-cycle operational and embodied energy for a generic single-storey office building in the UK. Energy 27, p77-92.

46

Appendix A: Formulae used for energy and carbon calculations

47

source Vukotic et al. (2010)

48

Appendix B: Table containing material data

49

50

51

52

53

54

Appendix C: Testing

This appendix contains information related to the testing carried out upon the calculator.

Appendix Contents:

Scenario used to test calculator.56 Ideal scenario output..57 Breakdown of results generated by testing participants.62 Questionaire which was distributed to testing participants.64 Results of questionaire...68

55

Embodied Carbon and Energy Calculator Version 1 Test Below are the plans and bill of quantities for a patio I have recently built in my back garden; additionally the system boundaries are specified. This should be sufficient information to calculate both the embodied energy and carbon associated with my diy activities. System boundaries Include material manufacture, material transportation, labour transportation and construction energy and carbon. Do not include maintenance or end-of-life energy. Plans
4550mm PLAN

2560mm

FRONT ELEVATION

Bill of Quantities Material Quantity 560x560mm Indian sandstone slabs (average weight 36 30kgs) Facing bricks (weight 2.4kgs per brick) 452 Coarse sand 1 ton Aggregate 2 tons 25kg Cement Bags 20

Additional Information The majority of the work was carried out by me over the course of a week; however I had help from a couple of friends for two days who had to drive 30km roundtrip each day to help. Materials were purchased from a builders merchant 7.5km from the site, it is unclear how far they have been transported from their point of origin or manufacture. Concrete was mixed by hand, stone was cut using cut-off saw.

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

Embodied Carbon and Energy Calculator Survey Thank you for taking the time to complete this brief questionnaire.

Step 1 Please use the attached sheet to calculate the embodied carbon and energy for the information provided. There are no further detailed instructions as the purpose of this survey is to test the accuracy, reliability and usability of the calculator. Step 2 When you have finished and have obtained your results please save the results using: File - Save As - Excel Workbook. Step 3 Now e-mail the workbook to cia08jss@shef.ac.uk. Step 4 Please take the time to take a few minutes to play with the calculator, change materials, quantities, include additional criteria and see how this affects the results. Step 5 Please complete the following questionnaire trying to give precise examples where ever possible. For multiple choice questions please circle the answer which is most appropriate.

Question 1 Do you work in/study engineering or a related discipline? Yes No Please describe your occupation.................................................................................................

Question 2 Are you familiar with Microsoft Excel? Very Familiar Familiar Average Little Experience No Experience

64

Question 3 Where do you have access to Microsoft Excel? (if applicable please circle multiple answers) Home Desktop Computer Work Desktop Computer Personal Laptop Work Laptop Library Computer If you know what version or versions of Microsoft Excel you have access to please list them in the space below. (e.g. Excel Office Excel 2007) .................................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................................................

Question 4 Have you heard of embodied energy and embodied carbon before today? Yes No If you answered Yes, please state where you heard the terms in the space below. .................................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................................................

Question 5 How would you describe your level of knowledge of embodied energy and embodied carbon before using the calculator? Expert Very Knowledgeable Average Some Knowledge No Prior Knowledge Please describe where your prior knowledge of embodied energy and embodied carbon was acquired in the space below. .................................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................................................

65

Question 6 After completing the exercise and using the calculation tool do you feel that your understanding of embodied energy and embodied carbon has improved? Improved a Lot Improved a Little Not Improved

If there are any areas which you found particularly useful or though were lacking in explanation please give a brief description below. .................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................................................

Question 7 How easy did you find using the calculator? Very Easy Easy Neutral Difficult Very Difficult If you have any comments or encountered difficulties please give a brief description of the problems you encountered in the space below. .................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................................................

Question 8 Do you think that the layout and style of the calculator make it clear where information has to be entered? Very Clear Clear Neutral

66

Unclear Very Unclear If you have any suggestions for improvement please write them in the space below. .................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................................................

Question 9 Do you think that the output was useful? Yes No Please write any suggestions for either improving the results or any further output you would like in the space below. .................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................................................

Comments Please use this space for any comments you may have about the calculator which have not being covered in previous questions. .................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................................................

67

Survey Responses

Question Number

Response

Frequency Percentage

Question 1

Yes No

15 6

71.4 28.6

Question 2

Very Familiar Familiar Average Little Experience No Experience

3 4 9 4 1

14.3 19.0 42.9 19.0 4.8

Question 3

Home Desktop Computer Work Desktop Computer Personal Laptop Work Laptop Library Computer

5 4 8 1 3

23.8 19.0 38.1 4.8 14.3

Question 4

Yes No

19 2

90.5 9.5

Question 5

Expert Very Knowledgeable Average Some Knowledge No Prior Knowledge

0 5 10 4 2

0.0 23.8 47.6 19.0 9.5

Question 6

Improved a Lot Improved a Little Not Improved

7 14 0

33.3 66.7 0.0

Question 7

Very Easy Easy Neutral Difficult Very Difficult

10 4 5 1 1

47.6 19.0 23.8 4.8 4.8

68

Question 8

Very Clear Clear Neutral Unclear Very Unclear

7 9 5 0 0

33.3 42.9 23.8 0.0 0.0

Question 9

Yes No

18 3

85.7 14.3

69