Hu, M (2023) An evaluation of the retrofit net zero building performances: Life cycle energy, emissions and cost. Building Research & Information, 51(2), pp. 179-191. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
This study aims to assess the comprehensive energy, environmental and economic performance of a retrofit zero energy building (ZEB). Three life cycle assessments were conducted: life cycle energy (LCE), life cycle carbon emissions (LCCE) and life cycle cost (LCC). Actual building construction cost data and energy use data were used in the assessments. The analysis results indicated that during the whole building life span, the operational life stage (B6) was a major contributor to LCE (82%) and LCCE (77%), but not to LCC (18%). Within the life cycle embodied carbon (LCEC), A3 was the life stage with the highest contribution (56%), which is mainly related to the manufacturing of building assemblies. This case study provides new empirical evidence of ZEB performance in the United States. The findings suggest that to achieve the carbon neutrality goal, current ZEB certifications or designations are not adequate to measure actual building performance. A further reduction of operational energy, in addition to reducing the embodied carbon released during manufacturing, should be the focus.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | climate change mitigation; LEED building; life cycle cost; life cycle emission; life cycle energy; retrofit |
| Index terms: | life cycle, case study, carbon emission, neutrality, cost data, energy use, net zero, building performance, building construction, life cycle assessment, life cycle cost, United States, embodied carbon, certification, life cycle energy, climate change, zero-energy building, mitigation, evidence |
| Subjects: | evaluation and assessment methods, data collection methods, climate science, value management, environmental impact, sustainability and energy, ethical practice, energy systems, research methods, accounting and finance, financial risk, Geography, building construction, quality assurance, administrative processes |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Quality Management, Contract Administration, Cost Management, Geographical Context, Project Management, Research Practice, Construction Technology, Sustainability |
| 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