A comparative review of existing data and methodologies for calculating embodied energy and carbon of buildings

International Journal of Sustainable Building Technology and Urban Development

Volumn 3, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 26-36

  Moncastera, A M ^a   Songb, J Y ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRIGHTON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Building energy assessment; Embodied carbon; Embodied energy; Life cycle assessment; Sustainable building; Sustainable construction

Indexed keywords

EID: 85007835741     PISSN: 2093761X     EISSN: 20937628     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/2093761X.2012.673915     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate change: Synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC Secretariat, Geneva, Switzerland, 2007.
2. Climate Change Act 2008 (c. 27), The Stationery Office Limited, London.
3. N. Raynsford, The UK’s approach to sustainable development in construction, Build. Res. Inf. 27 (1999), pp. 419–423.
4. Z.S. Zold and A. Szalay, What is missing from the concept of the new European Building Directive? Build. Environ. 42 (2007), pp. 1761–1769.
5. Department of Communities and Local Government DCLG, Building a greener future: Policy statement fortarget of zero carbon homes by 2016, Communities and Local Government Publications, Wetherby (2007).
6. UK Government, Budget 2008, 13 March 2008.
7. HM Government, Low carbon and construction innovation and growth team final report, 2010.
8. HM Government, Low carbon construction action plan: Government response to the low carbon construction innovation & growth team report, June 2011.
9. J.A. Fava, Will the next 10 years be as productive in advancing life cycle approaches as the last 15 years? Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 11 (2006), pp. 6–8.
10. M.M. Khasreen, P.F.G. Banfill, and G.F. Menzies, Life-cycle assessment and the environmental impact of buildings: A review, Sustainability, 1 (2009), pp. 674–701.
11. J. Fairclough, Rethinking Construction Innovation and Research: A Review of Government R&D Policies and Practices, DTLR 2002.
12. G.J. Treloar, A comprehensive embodied energy analysis framework, PhD Thesis, Faculty of Science and Technology, Deakin University, Australia, June 1998.
13. R.E. Miller and P. Blair, Input-Output Analysis: Foundations and Extensions, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1985.
14. HM Government and Strategic Forum for Construction, Strategy for sustainable construction, London, June 2008.
15. Strategic Forum for Construction & Carbon Trust, Construction carbon 15% target by 2012: Scoping paper, Ove Arup and Ptnrs, London, March 2010.
16. R.H. Crawford, Validation of a hybrid life cycle inventory analysis method, J. Environ. Manage. 88 (2008), pp. 496–506.
17. CAP’EM (Cycle Assessment Procedure for Eco Materials), a European Regional Development Interreg IV B project, see http://www.capem.eu/capem/.
18. G.P. Hammond and C.I. Jones, Embodied energy and carbon in construction materials, Engineering Sustainability: Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. 161 (2008), pp. 87–98.
19. J.A. Alcorn and G. Baird, Use of a hybrid energy analysis method for evaluating the embodied energy of building materials, Renewable Energy 8 (1996), pp. 319–322.
20. R.H. Crawford, Validation of the use of input-output data for embodied energy analysis of the Australian construction industry, J. Construct. Res. 6 (2005), pp. 71–90.
21. M.K. Dixit, J.L. Fernández Solís, S. Lavy, and C.H. Culp, Identification of parameters for embodied energy measurement: A literature review, Energy Build. 42 (2010), pp. 1238–1247.
22. R. Fay, G. Treloar, and U. Iyer-Raniga, Life cycle energy analysis of buildings: A case study, Build. Res. Inf. 28 (2000), pp. 31–41.
23. 2 emissions in the construction field through the selection of materials: Practical case study of three houses of low environmental impact, Build. Environ. 41 (2006), pp. 902–909.
24. L. Gustavsson and A. Joelsson, Life cycle primary energy analysis of residential buildings, Energy Build. 42 (2010), pp. 210–220.
25. S. Citherlet and T. Defaux, Energy and environmental comparison of three variants of a family house during its whole life span, Building Environ. 42 (2007), pp. 591–598.
26. Sartori, and A.G. Hestnes, Energy use in the life cycle of conventional and low-energy buildings: A review article, Energy Build. 39 (2007), pp. 249–257.
27. G. Ding, The development of a multi-criteria approach for the measurement of sustainable performance for built projects and facilities, Ph.D. thesis, University of technology, Sydney, Australia, 2004. Quoted in
28. G.J. Treloar, P.E.D. Love, and G.D. Holt, Using national input output data for embodied energy analysis of individual residential buildings, Construction Management and Economics 19 (2001), pp. 49–61, Quoted in
29. G.J. Treloar, A comprehensive embodied energy analysis framework, Ph.D. thesis, Deakin University, Victoria, Australia, 1998. Quoted in
30. B.N. Winther and A.G. Hestnes, Solar versus green: The analysis of a Norwegian row house, Sol. Energy 66 (1999), pp. 387–393, Quoted in
31. K. Adalberth, A. Almgren, and E.H. Petersen, Life cycle assessment of four multi-family buildings, Int. J. Low Energy Sust. Build. 2 (2001), pp. 1–21, [web page] Quoted in 25].