Himpe, E; Trappers, L; Debacker, W; Delghust, M; Laverge, J; Janssens, A; Moens, J and Van Holm, M (2013) Life cycle energy analysis of a zero-energy house. Building Research & Information, 41(4), pp. 435-449. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
Most zero-energy concepts focus on a reduction of the non-renewable operational energy use in buildings rather than taking the reduction of their life cycle energy use as a starting point. Nevertheless, the life cycle embodied and end-of-life energy will become more important, especially in buildings with low operational energy. Therefore, the life cycle energy use of a Belgian zero-energy reference house is examined by means of life cycle energy assessment. The influence of design decisions and regulations on the building construction type, the building services, and the performance of the building envelope are investigated. In terms of thermal performance of the building, the results show that the life cycle embodied energy in zero-energy houses with passive or standard thermal performance was not substantially different. From a life cycle energy perspective, passive house requirements are not essential criteria for zero-energy houses in Belgium. On the other hand, large life cycle energy savings were obtained through a proficient selection of all building construction materials and services. For the life cycle embodied energy in building constructions, the best timber frame and masonry houses were equally efficient. Wood pellets and photovoltaic panels were decisive factors in the life cycle embodied energy of building services.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building services; embodied energy; life cycle energy analysis; passive house; residential buildings; zero-energy |
| Index terms: | building service, passive house, energy use, life cycle energy, building construction, life cycle, thermal performance, regulation, residential building, wood, building envelope, design decision, embodied energy, savings, photovoltaic, Belgium |
| Subjects: | energy systems, architectural elements, health safety and environment, economic analysis, Geography, traditional and composite building materials, design practice, value management, building construction, engineering systems, political science, construction type |
| Topics: | Project Management, Construction Technology, Health and Safety, Governance, Business Strategy, Geographical Context, Construction Materials, Design Practice, Sustainability, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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