Net-zero buildings: When carbon and energy metrics diverge

Parkin, A; Herrera, M and Coley, D A (2020) Net-zero buildings: When carbon and energy metrics diverge. Buildings & Cities, 1(1), pp. 86-99. ISSN 2632-6655

Abstract

Many climate change-related building frameworks are designed to improve environmental performance by requiring reduced net energy demand, as it is widely assumed that energy demand (e.g. delivered/final, primary, primary non-renewable) is a good proxy for carbon emissions. However, energy grids are becoming less carbon intensive, meaning that the climate change mitigation value of renewably generated energy is not static, and is likely to decrease. In this research, a global integrated building carbon and energy model was created to explore how assessed building performance responded to stepwise variation in multiple building features. Operational and embodied metrics were measured concurrently on the basis of carbon emissions and delivered final energy demand, and included renewable energy generation (via roof-mounted photovoltaics), resulting in two 12.3 million-point data sets. Logistic regression was used to identify patterns in the data sets using binary building classifications (zero or non-zero energy or carbon). The results demonstrate that the profiles of the energy and carbon metric data sets do not mirror each other, indicating that a delivered energy demand assessment is not necessarily a good proxy for carbon emissions. The divergence of these metrics is likely to grow in future as energy grids are increasingly decarbonised. Policy relevance The energy metric is often relied upon as an indicator of climate-related building performance. However, policy-makers and designers should instead focus their attention on a carbon metric in order to achieve the drastic reduction in carbon emissions needed for the 1.5°C limit on rising global temperatures. Grid generated energy (particularly electricity) tends to be viewed as universally carbon intensive, so offsetting even a small amount with renewable energy is seen as beneficial. This research demonstrates that design philosophies underpinning zero-energy building (ZEB) assessment outcomes are likely to be driven by environmental factors (i.e. overcoming temperature and insolation challenges). However, the zero-carbon equivalent is likely to be more closely associated with the characteristics of the electricity grid servicing the building. This study highlights the fact that, to accrue real benefits, long-term policy and design decisions need to factor in the changing nature of the carbon implications of energy demand and generation.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: buildings; carbon emissions; carbon metrics; energy grids; net zero; performance; zero carbon
Index terms: energy model, meaning, building performance, philosophy, designer, environmental performance, becoming, carbon emission, energy demand, logistic regression, environmental factor, roof, servicing, renewable energy, climate change, design decision, zero-energy building, variation, net zero, photovoltaic, mitigation
Subjects: environmental science, energy systems, sustainability and energy, climate science, profession, statistical analysis, quality assurance, philosophical studies, philosophical process, sociology, financial risk, contractual condition, maintenance engineering, sustainability assessment, design practice
Topics: Sustainability, Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Cost Management, Business Strategy, Contract Administration, Quality Management, Design Practice
Descriptive scope: 4 PCTA

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