Environmental Impacts of Multi-Storey Buildings Using Different ...
Environmental Impacts of Multi-Storey Buildings Using Different ... Environmental Impacts of Multi-Storey Buildings Using Different ...
- 76 -means that transport distances for materials would be different depending on the location ofthe building. In the transport scenarios, the buildings were located in Christchurch,Wellington, and Auckland. Table 6.4 presents the material transport distances to supplymaterials to these locations. It was assumed that materials would be sourced from the closestpossible supplier.Changing the location of the building made significant difference to the primary energy useand GWP for the life cycle stage “transport” for each building type. A significant reduction inboth impact categories was seen when the building was relocated to Auckland. This isbecause many building materials are produced in Auckland therefore requiring less transport.Christchurch had the highest impact for all the building types because it was assumed that themajority of building materials were transported from Auckland. This might not reflect thereality – but for the purpose of the modelling a “short distance, medium distance and longdistance” scenario was required - Christchurch was therefore chosen to reflect the “longdistance” scenario. This meant that the “worst case” would be used in the base scenario – yettransport still only contributed around 0.5 %.There was an overall reduction in transport related energy consumption of 30% for theConcrete building between Christchurch and Auckland.Taking into account that transport contributed only around 0.5 % to the overall life cycleimpacts for the base scenario (the “long distance scenario”), the variation between locationscan be seen as insignificant even though it appears that there are significant impactdifferences between building locations. These changes can be seen graphically on the nextpage in Figure 6.16 and Figure 6.17Figure 6.17Figure 6.17.700000600000500000Energy (MJ)4000003000002000001000000ChristchurchWellingtonAucklandChristchurchWellingtonAucklandChristchurchWellingtonAucklandChristchurchWellingtonAucklandConcrete Steel Timber Timber+Location and building typeFigure 6.16: Comparison of total energy (GJ) consumed from transporting materials to sites inChristchurch, Wellington and Auckland, for all building types
- 77 -45000400003500030000GWP (kg CO2eq.)2500020000150001000050000ChristchurchWellingtonAucklandChristchurchWellingtonAucklandChristchurchWellingtonAucklandChristchurchWellingtonAucklandConcrete Steel Timber Timber+Location and building typeFigure 6.17: Comparison of total GWP (tonnes CO 2 equivalent) from transporting materials to sites inChristchurch, Wellington and Auckland, for all building types6.4 Green Star Assessment and Comparison6.4.1 ApproachThe Green Star environmental rating system was introduced in New Zealand in 2007.Although there are some conceptual difference between LCA methodology and Green Star,both tools aim to identify life cycle impacts and have the potential to minimise theenvironmental impacts of buildings. Both tools have in common that they take energy use andmaterials in to account. However, the approach of both tools is conceptually different.Whereas the LCA is based on quantified data of all materials and energy used over the lifetime of a building, Green Star is based on credits for a number of criteria.The aim of this section is to compare the results of both tools, based on the same assumptions.A brief introduction to the Green Star tool is provided as background information.The assumptions for the LCA study described in this report are the basis for the comparison.6.4.2 Introduction to Green StarThe Green Star environmental rating system was developed by the New Zealand GreenBuilding Council (NZGBC) with the aim to:• define green building by establishing a common language and standard ofmeasurement;• promote integrated, whole-building design;• identify building life-cycle impacts;• raise awareness of green building benefits;• recognise and reward environmental leadership; and• transform the built environment to reduce the environmental impact ofdevelopment.
- Page 25 and 26: - 25 -4 The Buildings4.1 Constructi
- Page 27 and 28: - 27 -the building. The basement le
- Page 29 and 30: - 29 -4.3.2 Common Design Principle
- Page 31 and 32: - 31 -Figure 4.5: South-west façad
- Page 33 and 34: - 33 -the three longitudinal frames
- Page 35 and 36: - 35 -4.3.5.2 Floor and RoofThe str
- Page 37 and 38: - 37 -4.4 Multi-Storey Timber Build
- Page 39 and 40: - 39 -Several different solutions h
- Page 41 and 42: - 41 -5 Operational Energy5.1 Gener
- Page 43 and 44: - 43 -Table 5.1: Simulation inputs
- Page 45 and 46: - 45 -Table 5.3: Areas of office en
- Page 47 and 48: - 47 -Modifying the design to achie
- Page 49 and 50: - 49 -• Standards New Zealand (NZ
- Page 51 and 52: - 51 -6 Life Cycle Assessment6.1 In
- Page 53 and 54: - 53 -6.2.3.3 Impact AssessmentThe
- Page 55 and 56: - 55 -6.3.2.2 System BoundariesThe
- Page 57 and 58: - 57 -For more information see:http
- Page 59 and 60: - 59 -6.3.3 Inventory Analysis6.3.3
- Page 61 and 62: - 61 -Table 6.2: Net tonnes CO 2 eq
- 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: - 75 -8,0007,0006,0005,000GWP (t CO
- 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 and 114: - 113 -Table 9.1. GWP coefficients
- Page 115 and 116: - 115 -Figure 9.2 shows that the ne
- 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
- 77 -45000400003500030000GWP (kg CO2eq.)2500020000150001000050000ChristchurchWellingtonAucklandChristchurchWellingtonAucklandChristchurchWellingtonAucklandChristchurchWellingtonAucklandConcrete Steel Timber Timber+Location and building typeFigure 6.17: Comparison <strong>of</strong> total GWP (tonnes CO 2 equivalent) from transporting materials to sites inChristchurch, Wellington and Auckland, for all building types6.4 Green Star Assessment and Comparison6.4.1 ApproachThe Green Star environmental rating system was introduced in New Zealand in 2007.Although there are some conceptual difference between LCA methodology and Green Star,both tools aim to identify life cycle impacts and have the potential to minimise theenvironmental impacts <strong>of</strong> buildings. Both tools have in common that they take energy use andmaterials in to account. However, the approach <strong>of</strong> both tools is conceptually different.Whereas the LCA is based on quantified data <strong>of</strong> all materials and energy used over the lifetime <strong>of</strong> a building, Green Star is based on credits for a number <strong>of</strong> criteria.The aim <strong>of</strong> this section is to compare the results <strong>of</strong> both tools, based on the same assumptions.A brief introduction to the Green Star tool is provided as background information.The assumptions for the LCA study described in this report are the basis for the comparison.6.4.2 Introduction to Green StarThe Green Star environmental rating system was developed by the New Zealand GreenBuilding Council (NZGBC) with the aim to:• define green building by establishing a common language and standard <strong>of</strong>measurement;• promote integrated, whole-building design;• identify building life-cycle impacts;• raise awareness <strong>of</strong> green building benefits;• recognise and reward environmental leadership; and• transform the built environment to reduce the environmental impact <strong>of</strong>development.
Change language