Embodied carbon 1 Whole lifecycle Weighing it all up
Embodied carbon is fast being recognised by the industry. Here, Carina Bailey investigates what ‘embodied’ means – and how one property developer is measuring it. On the following pages, in our cover feature, we look at design issues for making buildings last longer
E
mbodied carbon is the next nemesis facing the construction industry – no ifs, buts or maybes. That’s the firm view of Guy Battle, a partner at consultancy dcarbon8, part of the Deloitte
group. He insists that now is the time to stop shying away from the topic, because embodied carbon can be responsible for as much as 50% of a building’s lifetime emissions, which are locked into a project from the very beginning. Embodied carbon is becoming increasingly
important when considering the overall ‘lifecycle carbon footprint’ of a building, which encompasses both embodied and operational carbon, according to Battle. Using this lifecycle approach should enable engineers in the future to factor in the carbon – or energy consumed – in producing the raw materials, plus their extraction, transportation to site, manufacture, assembly, installation, disassembly, deconstruction and/or decomposition – the ‘cradle to grave’ carbon definition. The problem, argues Battle, is that until now the
focus has largely been on reducing operational energy once a building is occupied. One of the major barriers to including embodied
carbon in designs is that, at present, there is no universally applied modelling tool to convert embodied- energy data to produce a carbon footprint. Moreover, the answer will be different depending on which database you use, Battle insists. Despite drawbacks, Battle says, we must focus on
www.cibsejournal.com
embodied carbon and not just on the operational carbon footprint: ‘It’s no longer a matter of agreeing that embodied carbon is an issue. The carbon is embodied now – next year, last year, this year – it’s in the building construction process. So does it really matter how much carbon you’re emitting operationally in 60 years’ time? The damage has already been done.’ Battle addressed a recent UK Green Building Council
seminar on embodied carbon. Another speaker there, Peter Mayer, research and development manager of BLP Insurance, says the highest-impact components, such as concrete and steel, account for anything up to 60% of the building’s embodied carbon – and it is here where you can make real savings. But the problem, he says, lies in measuring it. There is plenty of guidance available, but this provides only frameworks. Both Mayer and Alice Moncaster, a researcher
at Cambridge University’s Centre for Sustainable Development, agree that what the industry needs is to ‘have a measure for embodied carbon, dealing with the complexity and variety of data that gets some sort of best value out of a building, trading off a number of issues over a lifecycle – a lifecycle-cost energy and carbon modelling tool,’ – something that Mayer says BLP is already working to create. However, this will be no easy task, says Moncaster,
due to the sheer range of data that embodied carbon can incorporate. In fact, European data shows embodied energy in housing can account for anything between
Does it
matter how much carbon you’re emitting operationally in 60 years’ time? The damage has already been done > – Guy Battle
July 2010 CIBSE Journal 31
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68