Piroozfar, P; Pomponi, F and Farr, E R P (2016) Life cycle assessment of domestic hot water systems: A comparative analysis. International Journal of Construction Management, 16(2), pp. 109-125. ISSN 1562-3599
Abstract
On average, hot water is responsible for 18% of residential energy consumption and corresponding greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Several domestic hot water systems (DHWSs) are commonly used but their life cycle impacts are yet to be established comprehensively. This is due to those impacts varying significantly within the context and the system boundaries of the assessment. This article reports findings from a comparative cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment (LCA) of five DHWSs in the UK context. Primary data acquired from a case study contributed to achieving accurate life cycle inventories that were then modelled in SimaPro through the ecoinvent database. Global Warming Potential (GWP) is the impact assessment method used. Amongst the five types, solar heater with electric backup appears to be the least damaging alternative. The study also reinforces the importance of adopting a cradle-to-grave approach if LCA results are to accurately reflect environmental impacts holistically and lead to better, more informed decisions.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | domestic hot water systems; life cycle assessment; life cycle impact assessment; life cycle inventory; solar heater |
| Index terms: | residential energy, life cycle assessment, domestic hot water, comparative analysis, global warming, impact assessment, environmental impact, consumption, greenhouse gas, boundaries, life cycle impact assessment, inventory, case study, life cycle, database |
| Subjects: | data management, inventory management, data analysis and analytics, property law, energy systems, data collection methods, mechanical systems, environmental impact, consumer economics, climate science, value management |
| Topics: | Digital Applications, Legal Issues, Supply Chain Management, Stakeholder Management, Sustainability, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Project Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here