Environmental Impacts of Multi-Storey Buildings Using Different ...
Environmental Impacts of Multi-Storey Buildings Using Different ... Environmental Impacts of Multi-Storey Buildings Using Different ...
- 114 -products. For example, in the TimberPlus building, there is storage of 1,162 tonnes of CO 2(Table 6.2), whilst the total production of all of the timber in the building gives rise toemissions of only 202 tonnes of CO 2 (material in tonnes, Table 6.1 x GWP coefficient incolumn 2, Table 9.2).Table 9.3 Aggregated GWP (tonnes CO 2 equiv.) for groups of materials in the four buildingsConcrete Steel Timber TimberPlusConcrete 895 366 213 213Steel 132 665 26 26Aluminium 383 383 383 12Other 117 132 148 61Wood -28 -27 -688 -945Net total 1,499 1,519 82 -63318001600tonnes CO1400120010008006004002000-200-400-600-800-1000ConcreteSteelTimberTimberPlusWoodOtherAluminiumSteelConcreteFigure 9.1: GWP emissions for the materials in the four buildings, assuming permanent storage of carbonin wood products. Data from GWP coefficients used in Table 9.3 .tonnes CO2180016001400120010008006004002000-200-400-600-800ConcreteSteelTimberTimberPlusFigure 9.2. Net GWP emissions for the materials in the four buildings, assuming permanent storage ofcarbon in wood products. Data from GWP coefficients in Table 9.3 .
- 115 -Figure 9.2 shows that the net GWP emissions from the materials in the Timber building arejust 5% of those from the Concrete and Steel buildings. This is because the carbon stored inthe wood-based building materials balances out nearly all of the greenhouse gases emitted inthe manufacturing of all the other materials in the building.For the TimberPlus building, the net total CO 2 emissions for the materials in the TimberPlusbuilding are negative because the carbon stored in the wood-based building materials morethan cancels out all the greenhouse gases emitted in the manufacture of all the other materialsin the building. The net negative figure - or long-term carbon storage - is over 630 tonnes ofCO 2 equivalent.9.5.2 Materials only – using data from LCA assessment inChapter 6Another method of analysing the data in Chapter 6 is to take the results of the LCAassessment presented in Chapter 6. The top line in Table 9.4 is the initial embodied GWP(tonnes CO 2 equiv.) for all materials in each of the four buildings from Table 6.7. The secondline in Table 9.4 is the equivalent CO 2 sequestered in the wood materials, derived from thewood quantities in Table 6.2. The quantity of carbon in that table has been converted to CO 2equivalent by multiplying by 3.67 (the conversion factor for changing tonnes of carbon totonnes of CO 2 equivalent).Table 9.4: GWP (tonnes CO 2 equiv.) for all materials in each of the four buildingsConcrete Steel Timber TimberPlusEmbodied (CO 2 eq.) 1,576 1,615 971 566Sequestered (CO 2 eq.) -32 -31 -846 -1,162Total 1,544 1,584 125 -596The figures in Table 9.4 are plotted in Figure 9.3 (as separate figures) and Figure 9.4 (netfigures). These graphs show similar trends to Figure 9.1Figure 9.1Figure 9.1 and Figure 9.2.The actual numbers are a little different from the coefficients method - the reason for this isnot known precisely. The difference may be due to the unknown assumptions used to obtainthe coefficients presented in Table 9.1.However, the over-riding conclusion from using both methods, is that the carbon stored in thewood-based building materials of the TimberPlus building more than cancels out all of thegreenhouse gases emitted in the manufacture of all the other materials in the building.
- Page 63 and 64: - 63 -Growing timber takes up CO 2
- Page 65 and 66: - 65 -6.3.4 Impact AssessmentTotal
- Page 67 and 68: - 67 -8000700060005000GWP (t CO2 eq
- Page 69 and 70: - 69 -As explained above, carbon st
- Page 71 and 72: - 71 -Figure 6.10: Total embodied e
- Page 73 and 74: - 73 -Table 6.9: Total GWP of each
- Page 75 and 76: - 75 -8,0007,0006,0005,000GWP (t CO
- Page 77 and 78: - 77 -45000400003500030000GWP (kg C
- Page 79 and 80: - 79 -assumed to be identical for t
- Page 81 and 82: - 81 -6.4.3.2 Green Star Recycling
- Page 83 and 84: - 83 -Table 6.16: Green Star result
- Page 85 and 86: - 85 -The contribution of initial e
- Page 87 and 88: - 87 -results, the reutilisation sc
- Page 89 and 90: - 89 -7.1.1 Platform and Balloon Co
- Page 91 and 92: - 91 -buildings has been analysed a
- Page 93 and 94: - 93 -Figure 7.5: Construction sche
- Page 95 and 96: - 95 -8.2 Source and Availability o
- Page 97 and 98: - 97 -It would be incorrect, howeve
- Page 99 and 100: - 99 -8.5 Additional Opportunities
- Page 101 and 102: - 101 -example, removal of CCA trea
- Page 103 and 104: - 103 -The Waste Minimisation Bill
- Page 105 and 106: - 105 -9 Discussion9.1 The Building
- Page 107 and 108: - 107 -• The buildings tend to be
- Page 109 and 110: - 109 -9.4.3 Data Sets9.4.3.1 Gener
- Page 111 and 112: - 111 -The following assessment wil
- Page 113: - 113 -Table 9.1. GWP coefficients
- Page 117 and 118: - 117 -placing and retaining materi
- Page 119 and 120: - 119 -Net CO 2 emissions - that is
- Page 121 and 122: - 121 -The LVL specified for the st
- Page 123 and 124: - 123 -10 ConclusionsThe following
- Page 125 and 126: - 125 -building types, instead subs
- Page 127 and 128: - 127 -In summary, reutilisation sh
- Page 129 and 130: - 129 -• What is the ranking of t
- Page 131 and 132: - 131 -• What is the comparison i
- Page 133 and 134: - 133 -Connell Wagner (2007): Combu
- Page 135 and 136: - 135 -Suzuki, Michiya, and Tatsuo
- Page 137 and 138: - 137 -C O N C R E T E B U I L D I
- Page 139 and 140: - 139 -S T E E L B U I L D I N Gm m
- Page 141 and 142: - 141 -T I M B E R B U I L D I N Gm
- Page 143 and 144: - 143 -T I M B E R B U I L D I N G
- Page 145 and 146: - 145 -T Exterior Wall Cladding 581
- Page 147 and 148: - 147 -Appendix B. Life times of bu
- Page 149 and 150: - 149 -Appendix D: Transport scenar
- Page 154 and 155: - 151 -Appendix F: Warren and Mahon
- Page 156 and 157: Timber Plus ProjectSummary of the T
- Page 158 and 159: Timber Plus ProjectGreen Star Ratin
- Page 160 and 161: Timber Plus ProjectVolatile Organic
- Page 162 and 163: Timber Plus ProjectThe Forest Stewa
- 115 -Figure 9.2 shows that the net GWP emissions from the materials in the Timber building arejust 5% <strong>of</strong> those from the Concrete and Steel buildings. This is because the carbon stored inthe wood-based building materials balances out nearly all <strong>of</strong> the greenhouse gases emitted inthe manufacturing <strong>of</strong> all the other materials in the building.For the TimberPlus building, the net total CO 2 emissions for the materials in the TimberPlusbuilding are negative because the carbon stored in the wood-based building materials morethan cancels out all the greenhouse gases emitted in the manufacture <strong>of</strong> all the other materialsin the building. The net negative figure - or long-term carbon storage - is over 630 tonnes <strong>of</strong>CO 2 equivalent.9.5.2 Materials only – using data from LCA assessment inChapter 6Another method <strong>of</strong> analysing the data in Chapter 6 is to take the results <strong>of</strong> the LCAassessment presented in Chapter 6. The top line in Table 9.4 is the initial embodied GWP(tonnes CO 2 equiv.) for all materials in each <strong>of</strong> the four buildings from Table 6.7. The secondline in Table 9.4 is the equivalent CO 2 sequestered in the wood materials, derived from thewood quantities in Table 6.2. The quantity <strong>of</strong> carbon in that table has been converted to CO 2equivalent by multiplying by 3.67 (the conversion factor for changing tonnes <strong>of</strong> carbon totonnes <strong>of</strong> CO 2 equivalent).Table 9.4: GWP (tonnes CO 2 equiv.) for all materials in each <strong>of</strong> the four buildingsConcrete Steel Timber TimberPlusEmbodied (CO 2 eq.) 1,576 1,615 971 566Sequestered (CO 2 eq.) -32 -31 -846 -1,162Total 1,544 1,584 125 -596The figures in Table 9.4 are plotted in Figure 9.3 (as separate figures) and Figure 9.4 (netfigures). These graphs show similar trends to Figure 9.1Figure 9.1Figure 9.1 and Figure 9.2.The actual numbers are a little different from the coefficients method - the reason for this isnot known precisely. The difference may be due to the unknown assumptions used to obtainthe coefficients presented in Table 9.1.However, the over-riding conclusion from using both methods, is that the carbon stored in thewood-based building materials <strong>of</strong> the TimberPlus building more than cancels out all <strong>of</strong> thegreenhouse gases emitted in the manufacture <strong>of</strong> all the other materials in the building.