The effect of energy-saving options on environmental performance of a building: a combination of energy audit–life cycle assessment for a university building

被引:0
作者
Zerrin Günkaya
Aysun Özkan
Müfide Banar
机构
[1] Eskişehir Technical University,Department of Environmental Engineering
来源
Environmental Science and Pollution Research | 2021年 / 28卷
关键词
Building; Energy efficiency; Insulation; Life cycle assessment; Monetary weighting;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
An energy audit was realized for a building group located on a university campus to measure the environmental sustainability and efficient usage of natural resources. As a result of energy audit, exterior insulation and double-glazing application were came to the front for energy-saving options. Although energy audit provides energy-saving options as output, it is not enough to provide information about how environmental impacts will change if the defined options are used. To determine the improvements in terms of environmental indicators, these options were assessed with life cycle assessment (LCA). LCA was realized for 50 years life span for 1 m3 of the building. CML-IA method was used to conduct LCA analyses. Ecovalue08 was applied as a monetary weighting method since the used CML-IA method has no weighting function. Results show that there are significant improvements (> 5%) on ADPff (11–12.5%) and GWP100 (8.5–9.7%) impacts provided by both of the energy-saving options. Additionally, double glazing would provide a 10.5% improvement on ODP. On the other hand, the exterior insulation application would increase the ODP value of EB by 34%. The impact category of GWP100 is found as the most dominant impact according to Ecovalue08. The ranking of the other impact categories from higher to lower value is HTP, ADPff, and AP.
引用
收藏
页码:8822 / 8832
页数:10
相关论文
共 81 条
  • [1] Ahlroth S(2011)Ecovalue08—a new valuation set for environmental systems analysis tools J Clean Prod 19 1994-2003
  • [2] Finnveden G(2012)Energy audit of an educational building in a hot summer climate Energy Build 47 122-130
  • [3] Alajmi A(2010)Evaluating the environmental performance of a university J Clean Prod 18 1134-1141
  • [4] Baboulet O(2020)Decoupling or delusion? Mapping carbon emission per capita based on the human development index in Southwest China Sci Total Environ 741 138722-1964
  • [5] Lenzen M(2014)Life cycle assessment as a decision support tool for bridge procurement: environmental impact comparison among five bridge designs Int J Life Cycle Assess 19 1948-246
  • [6] Chen L(2018)Environmental footprint assessment of green campus from a food-water-energy nexus perspective Energy Procedia 152 240-159
  • [7] Cai W(2016)Environmental performance of electricity generation based on resources: a life cycle assessment case study in Turkey Sustainability 8 1097-271
  • [8] Ma M(2018)Life cycle assessment and life cycle cost of university dormitories in the southeast China: case study of the university town of Fuzhou J Clean Prod 173 151-239
  • [9] Du G(2018)Friends or foes? monetized life cycle assessment and cost-benefit analysis of the site remediation of a former gas plant Sci Total Environ 619 258-278
  • [10] Safi M(2019)Do energy audits help SMEs to realize energy-efficiency opportunities? Energy Econ 83 229-53