Abstract
Purpose
The use of high levels of thermal insulation is a common practice towards reducing the energy consumption of the existing building stock; however, the embodied burdens associated with the additional insulation material are usually not taken into account and questions regarding the risks of over-specifying the insulation levels have been emerging, particularly for mild climate regions. This article addresses the issue presenting an integrated approach that combines life cycle assessment and thermal dynamic simulation to assess alternative retrofit strategies for the roof and exterior walls of two dwellings (from the beginning of the twentieth century), in the historic city center of Coimbra, Portugal. A comprehensive analysis of alternative insulation thicknesses (no insulation, 40, 80, and 120 mm of expanded polystyrene) was made to identify optimal thickness levels minimizing life cycle (LC) environmental impacts for a single-family house and an apartment.
Methods
Embodied and operational impact trade-offs were calculated for six impact categories: climate change, ozone depletion, terrestrial acidification, freshwater eutrophication, marine eutrophication, and non-renewable primary energy. The operational energy was calculated using a dynamic thermal modeling software (EnergyPlus). The functional unit selected for this study was 1 m2 of living area over a period of 50 years.
Results and discussion
The single-family house embodied impacts account for 26–57 % of total LC impacts. For insulation thicknesses larger than 80 mm, the embodied impacts are greater than operational impacts. For the apartment, embodied impacts account for 25–49 % of total LC impacts. The environmental benefits of additional insulation are very low (<3 %) for thicknesses of more than 80 mm for both roof and exterior walls. For thicknesses above the tipping point (where total LC impacts are minimized), the marginal impacts of additional insulation are higher than the benefits. The results for the apartment show that optimal insulation thicknesses (LC tipping point) range from 30 to 40 mm for the roof and from 60 to 80 mm for the exterior walls. The LC tipping point for the single-family house is achieved by combining 80–100 mm of roof insulation with 60–80 mm of exterior wall insulation.
Conclusions
Extra insulation levels in temperate climates can lead to higher embodied impacts, without significant reduction in operational impacts, which can result in higher total LC impacts. The results show that a tipping point can be identified, and recommendations are provided for the roof and exterior wall retrofits of buildings from the beginning of the twentieth century.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Asdrubali F, Baldassarri C, Fthenakis V (2013) Life cycle analysis in the construction sector: guiding the optimization of conventional Italian buildings. Energy Build 64:73–89
Beccali M, Cellura M, Fontana M et al (2013) Energy retrofit of a single-family house: life cycle net energy saving and environmental benefits. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 27:283–293
Bin G, Parker P (2012) Measuring buildings for sustainability: comparing the initial and retrofit ecological footprint of a century home—the REEP House. Appl Energy 93:24–32
Blom I, Itard L, Meijer A (2011) Environmental impact of building-related and user-related energy consumption in dwellings. Build Environ 46:1657–1669
Cuéllar-Franca RM, Azapagic A (2012) Environmental impacts of the UK residential sector: life cycle assessment of houses. Build Environ 54:86–99
Dodoo A, Gustavsson L, Sathre R (2010) Life cycle primary energy implication of retrofitting a wood-framed apartment building to passive house standard. Resour Conserv Recycl 54:1152–1160
Dodoo A, Gustavsson L, Sathre R (2014) Lifecycle primary energy analysis of low-energy timber building systems for multi-storey residential buildings. Energy Build 81:84–97
European Comission (2011) A Roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee to the Regions, Brussels, Belgium
European Comission (2012) EU Energy Roadmap 2050 (COM(2011) 885 final of 15 December 2011). Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg
Goedkoop M, Huijbregts, Mark, De Schryver A et al. (2012) ReCiPe 2008, a life cycle assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. Available at: http://www.lcia-recipe.net. doi: http://www.lcia-recipe.net. Accessed April 2015
Gustavsson L, Joelsson A (2010) Life cycle primary energy analysis of residential buildings. Energy Build 42:210–220
Hacker JN, De Saulles TP, Minson AJ, Holmes MJ (2008) Embodied and operational carbon dioxide emissions from housing: a case study on the effects of thermal mass and climate change. Energy Build 40:375–384
Hernandez P, Kenny P (2010) Integrating occupant preference and life cycle energy evaluation: a simplified method. Build Res Inf 38:625–637
Ibn-Mohammed T, Greenough R, Taylor S et al (2013) Operational vs. embodied emissions in buildings—a review of current trends. Energy Build 66:232–245
IPCC (2013) IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: the physical science basis. Contribution of working Group I to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Iyer-Raniga U, Wong JPC (2012) Evaluation of whole life cycle assessment for heritage buildings in Australia. Build Environ 47:138–149
Liu L, Moshfegh B, Akander J, Cehlin M (2014) Comprehensive investigation on energy retrofits in eleven multi-family buildings in Sweden. Energy Build 84:704–715
Lützkendorf T, Foliente G, Balouktsi M, Wiberg AH (2014) Net-zero buildings: incorporating embodied impacts. Build Res Inf 43:62–81
Marques P, Garcia R, Freire F (2015) Primary Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emission Factors for Electricity in Portugal. In: Energy for Sustainability Initiative (ed) Proceedings of the Energy for Sustainability Multidisciplinary Conference 2015, Sustainable Cities: Designing for People and the Planet. Coimbra, Portugal, pp 1–8
Mazzarella L (2014) Energy retrofit of historic and existing buildings. The legislative and regulatory point of view. Energy Build 95:23–31
Monteiro H, Freire F (2012) Life-cycle assessment of a house with alternative exterior walls: comparison of three impact assessment methods. Energy Build 47:572–583
Nemry F, Uihlein A, Colodel CM et al. (2008) Environmental Improvement Potentials of Residential Buildings (IMPRO-Building). (Institute for Prospective Technological Studies Joint Research Centre European Comission, Ed.). Luxembourg. doi:10.2791/38942
Nemry F, Uihlein A, Colodel CM et al (2010) Options to reduce the environmental impacts of residential buildings in the European Union—potential and costs. Energy Build 42:976–984
Ortiz O, Castells F, Sonnemann G (2010) Operational energy in the life cycle of residential dwellings: the experience of Spain and Colombia. Appl Energy 87:673–680
Peel MC, Finlayson BL, Mcmahon TA (2007) Updated world map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 11:1633–1644
Ramesh T, Prakash R, Shukla KK (2010) Life cycle energy analysis of buildings: an overview. Energy Build 42:1592–1600
REH and RECS (2013) DL 118/2013 - Regulamento de Desempenho Energético dos Edifícios de Habitação, Comércio e Serviços, Code of the energy performance of buildings (residential and commercial). In: Diário da República (eds). Ministry of Economy and Employment, Lisbon, Portugal, pp 4988–5005
Rodrigues C, Freire F (2014a) Integrated life-cycle assessment and thermal dynamic simulation of alternative scenarios for the roof retrofit of a house. Build Environ 81:204–215
Rodrigues C, Freire F (2014b) Cost and greenhouse gas life-cycle analysis of building retrofit. In: Proceedings of the 40th IAHS Conference, Sustainable Housing Construction, December 2014, Funchal, Portugal, pp 1–10
Rodrigues C, Freire F (2014c) Does type of use and occupancy influence the performance of building retrofit strategies? In: Proceedings of the 40th IAHS Conference, Sustainable Housing Construction, December 2014, Funchal, Portugal, pp 1–11
Sartori I, Hestnes AG (2007) Energy use in the life cycle of conventional and low-energy buildings: a review article. Energy Build 39:249–257
Statistics Portugal (2011) Estatísticas da Construção e Habitação 2010. Lisbon, Portugal
Stephan A, Crawford RH, de Myttenaere K (2013) A comprehensive assessment of the life cycle energy demand of passive houses. Appl Energy 112:23–34
Tadeu S, Simões N, Gonçalves M, Ribeiro J (2013) Energy efficiency measures in portuguese residential buildings constructed before 1960: a cost-optimal assessment. In: Proceedings of the Energy for Sustainability Multidisciplinary Conference 2013, Sustainable Cities: Designing for People and the Planet, September 2013, Coimbra, Portugal
Tadeu S, Rodrigues C, Tadeu A et al (2015) Energy retrofit of historic buildings: environmental assessment of cost-optimal solutions. J Build Eng 4:167–176
Thiers S, Peuportier B (2012) Energy and environmental assessment of two high energy performance residential buildings. Build Environ 51:276–284
U.S. Department of Energy (2015) EnergyPlus v.8.4. https://energyplus.net/. Accessed September 2015
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Sustainable Buildings and Construction Initiative – SBC (2007) Buildings and climate change: Status, challenges and opportunities. UNEP, Paris, France
Verbeeck G, Hens H (2010) Life cycle inventory of buildings: a contribution analysis. Build Environ 45:964–967
Acknowledgments
The first author (Carla Rodrigues) is grateful for the financial support provided by Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT), under the MIT Portugal Program—Sustainable Energy Systems, through the doctoral degree grant SFRH/BD/51951/2012. The authors are also grateful to the Institute for Research and Technological Development in Construction Sciences (ITeCons) and the municipality of Coimbra as well as Professors Luís Almeida and Cláudia Cavadas for providing data for the buildings assessed in this article. The contribution of David Wimhurst to the English language revision is also gratefully acknowledged. This work has been framed under the Energy for Sustainability Initiative of the University of Coimbra.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Responsible editor: Ramzy Kahhat
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rodrigues, C., Freire, F. Environmental impact trade-offs in building envelope retrofit strategies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22, 557–570 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1064-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1064-2