| Date post: | 31-Mar-2015 |
| Category: |
Documents |
| Upload: | carmen-hairfield |
| View: | 212 times |
| Download: | 0 times |
1ASTM Workshop on Life Cycle AssessmentAtlanta, GeorgiaOctober 2009
Life Cycle Assessment: Application to Standards, Tools and Rating Systems
John Carmody Center for Sustainable Building ResearchUniversity of Minnesotawww.csbr.umn.edu
2ASTM Workshop on Life Cycle AssessmentAtlanta, GeorgiaOctober 2009
www.csbr.umn.edu
3ASTM Workshop on Life Cycle AssessmentAtlanta, GeorgiaOctober 2009
• A diverse set guidelines and rating systems are continually evolving in response to the scale of development, building type and regional issues
• Guidelines are being adopted by states and cities as the basis for codes, standards and incentives
• There is a trend to supplement simple point-based checklists with more requirements and a focus on performance outcomes such as carbon emissions and energy consumption
• Life cycle assessment of materials is beginning to be included in guidelines and ratings
• There is increased focus on actual performance during operation and the need for a feedback loop and continuous improvement
Recent North American Trends
4ASTM Workshop on Life Cycle AssessmentAtlanta, GeorgiaOctober 2009
5ASTM Workshop on Life Cycle AssessmentAtlanta, GeorgiaOctober 2009
6ASTM Workshop on Life Cycle AssessmentAtlanta, GeorgiaOctober 2009
Draft Policy Option
RCI-3 Green Building Guidelines and Standards Based on Architecture 2030
Policy Description
Promote, incentivize, or adopt green building guidelines and standards for the reduction of carbon emissions for all commercial and residential buildings consistent with Architecture 2030 targets. Clearly communicate the fact that reducing energy use does not always proportionally reduce emissions. Consider developing disincentives to technologies that do not reduce emissions.
Require state and local government agencies including school districts to adopt required building guidelines and standards for the reduction of carbon emissions for all buildings consistent with Architecture 2030 targets. New buildings must require the following reductions in carbon emissions: 2010 60% reduction2015 70% reduction2020 80% reduction2025 90% reduction2030 100% reduction
All guidelines and standards for major renovations of existing buildings must require reductions in carbon emissions consistent with the Architecture 2030 target of 50% reduction. Provide a variance process when meeting criteria is not appropriate or financially unfeasible.
7ASTM Workshop on Life Cycle AssessmentAtlanta, GeorgiaOctober 2009
8ASTM Workshop on Life Cycle AssessmentAtlanta, GeorgiaOctober 2009
9ASTM Workshop on Life Cycle AssessmentAtlanta, GeorgiaOctober 2009
10ASTM Workshop on Life Cycle AssessmentAtlanta, GeorgiaOctober 2009
• Athena EcoCalculator used as a basis for LCA Credit in LEED
• Athena EcoCalculator used as a basis for LCA Points in Green Globes
• Athena EcoCalculator used as a basis for LCA Requirement in Minnesota Sustainable Building Guidelines
• Athena EcoCalculator used to calculate embodied energy and greenhouse gases from materials in various case study projects including USGBC Case Study Database
Application of LCA in Guidelines and Standards
11ASTM Workshop on Life Cycle AssessmentAtlanta, GeorgiaOctober 2009
• Life Cycle Assessment approach applied to determining the value of historic preservation
• Ford Plant Site Sustainable District135 acresSt. Paul, Minnesota
• UMore Park Sustainable Community~ 5000 acresRosemount, Minnesota
Other Applications of Performance Metrics Approach including Life Cycle Assessment
12ASTM Workshop on Life Cycle AssessmentAtlanta, GeorgiaOctober 2009
A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 A-5INFRASTRUCTURE Conventional Conventional Conventional Conventional ConventionalHOUSING TYPE SFD–large lot SFD–small lot Townhouse MFD-3 story MFD-urban
LAND USE
Number of units 19 38 76 80 160Density units/acre 1.9 3.8 7.6 8 16Total land area square feet 435,600 435,600 435,600 435,600 435,600 Total built area (roof) square feet 39,900 52,250 57,000 88,000 96,000 Total built area (roof) percent 9% 12% 13% 20% 22%Total public R.O.W. square feet 79,200 105,600 79,200 79,200 79,200 Total public R.O.W. percent 18% 24% 18% 18% 18%Public open space square feet - - - - - Public open space percent 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%Above grade garage spaces number 38 76 152 160 - Below grade garage spaces number - - - - 320 Visitor parking spaces in lots number - - - - 48 Off site parking spaces number - - - - -
ENERGY
Horizontal roof area square feet 39,900 52,250 57,000 88,000 96,000 Solar collector area-roof square feet 23,940 31,350 34,200 52,800 57,600 Solar collector area-public site square feetSolar generation potential kWh/year 478,800 627,000 684,000 1,056,000 1,152,000 Solar potential per unit kWh/year 25,200 16,500 9,000 13,200 7,200 Biomass area square feetExposed surface area/unit square feet 4,280 3,260 2,660 1,540 1,348 Volume of unit cubic feet 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 Surface-to-volume ratio 0.36 0.27 0.22 0.13 0.11
District energy suitability high
moderate
low
POTABLE WATER
From city system percent 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%From individual site wells percentFrom district site wells percentFrom rainwater collection percentRoof collection area square feet 39,900 52,250 57,000 88,000 96,000 Potential rainwater harvest gallons/year 498,750 653,125 712,500 1,100,000 1,200,000 Potential harvest/unit gallons/year 26,250 17,188 9,375 13,750 7,500 Irrigated landscape (turf) square feet 314,175 285,925 271,095 242,975 257,375 Irrigation required gallons/year 3,927,188 3,574,063 3,388,688 3,037,188 3,217,188 Distribution piping feetSource piping feet
WASTEWATER
On-site tank area square feetOn-site wetland area square feetOn-site drainfield area square feetOn-site system total area square feetOn-site treatment area/unit square feetReturned to groundwater percent 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%Sanitary sewer piping feet
STORMWATER
Total hard surface area square feet 103,200 131,450 146,280 174,400 160,000 Hard surface area/unit square feet 5,432 3,459 1,925 2,180 1,000 Retention pond area square feet 18,225 18,225 18,225 18,225 18,225 Rain garden area square feet - - - - - Green roof area square feet - - - - - Returned to groundwater percentStorm sewer piping feetCurb and gutter feet
SOLID WASTE
Construction waste to landfill percent 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%Operational waste to landfill percent 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%Organic waste composted percent 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
TRANSPORT
Mass transit suitability > 35 du/acre(LRT)> 16 du/acre(bus)< 16 du/acre
A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 A-5INFRASTRUCTURE Conventional Conventional Conventional Conventional ConventionalHOUSING TYPE SFD–large lot SFD–small lot Townhouse MFD-3 story MFD-urban
LAND USE
Number of units 19 38 76 80 160Density units/acre 1.9 3.8 7.6 8 16Total land area square feet 435,600 435,600 435,600 435,600 435,600 Total built area (roof) square feet 39,900 52,250 57,000 88,000 96,000 Total built area (roof) percent 9% 12% 13% 20% 22%Total public R.O.W. square feet 79,200 105,600 79,200 79,200 79,200 Total public R.O.W. percent 18% 24% 18% 18% 18%Public open space square feet - - - - - Public open space percent 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%Above grade garage spaces number 38 76 152 160 - Below grade garage spaces number - - - - 320 Visitor parking spaces in lots number - - - - 48 Off site parking spaces number - - - - -
ENERGY
Horizontal roof area square feet 39,900 52,250 57,000 88,000 96,000 Solar collector area-roof square feet 23,940 31,350 34,200 52,800 57,600 Solar collector area-public site square feetSolar generation potential kW h/year 478,800 627,000 684,000 1,056,000 1,152,000 Solar potential per unit kW h/year 25,200 16,500 9,000 13,200 7,200 Biomass area square feetExposed surface area/unit square feet 4,280 3,260 2,660 1,540 1,348 Volume of unit cubic feet 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 Surface-to-volume ratio 0.36 0.27 0.22 0.13 0.11
District energy suitability high
moderate
low
POTABLE WATER
From city system percent 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%From individual site wells percentFrom distr ict site wells percentFrom rainwater collection percentRoof collection area square feet 39,900 52,250 57,000 88,000 96,000 Potential rainwater harvest gallons/year 498,750 653,125 712,500 1,100,000 1,200,000 Potential harvest/unit gallons/year 26,250 17,188 9,375 13,750 7,500 Irr igated landscape (turf) square feet 314,175 285,925 271,095 242,975 257,375 Irr igation required gallons/year 3,927,188 3,574,063 3,388,688 3,037,188 3,217,188 D istr ibution piping feetSource piping feet
WASTEWATER
On-site tank area square feetOn-site wetland area square feetOn-site drainfield area square feetOn-site system total area square feetOn-site treatment area/unit square feetReturned to groundwater percent 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%Sanitary sewer piping feet
STORMWATER
Total hard surface area square feet 103,200 131,450 146,280 174,400 160,000 Hard surface area/unit square feet 5,432 3,459 1,925 2,180 1,000 Retention pond area square feet 18,225 18,225 18,225 18,225 18,225 Rain garden area square feet - - - - - Green roof area square feet - - - - - Returned to groundwater percentStorm sewer piping feetCurb and gutter feet
SOLID WASTE
Construction waste to landfill percent 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%Operational waste to landfill percent 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%Organic waste composted percent 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
TRANSPORT
Mass transit suitability > 35 du/acre(LRT)> 16 du/acre(bus)< 16 du/acre
B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 B-5INFRASTRUCTURE Autonomous Autonomous Autonomous Autonomous AutonomousHOUSING TYPE SFD–large lot SFD–small lot Townhouse MFD-3 story MFD-urban
LAND USE
Number of units 20 40 40 40 80Density units/acre 2 4 4 4 8Total land area square feet 435,600 435,600 435,600 435,600 435,600 Total built area (roof) square feet 42,000 55,000 30,000 44,000 48,000 Total built area (roof) percent 10% 13% 7% 10% 11%Total public R.O.W. square feet 79,200 105,600 39,600 39,600 39,600 Total public R.O.W. percent 18% 24% 9% 9% 9%Public open space square feet - - - - - Public open space percent 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%Above grade garage spaces number 40 80 80 80 - Below grade garage spaces number - - - - 160 Visitor parking spaces in lots number - - - - 24 Off site parking spaces number - - - - -
ENERGY
Horizontal roof area square feet 42,000 55,000 30,000 44,000 48,000 Solar collector area-roof square feet 25,200 33,000 18,000 26,400 28,800 Solar collector area-public site square feetSolar generation potential kWh/year 504,000 660,000 360,000 528,000 576,000 Solar potential per unit kWh/year 25,200 16,500 9,000 13,200 7,200 Biomass area square feetExposed surface area/unit square feet 4,280 3,260 2,660 1,540 1,348 Volume of unit cubic feet 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 Surface-to-volume ratio 0.36 0.27 0.22 0.13 0.11
District energy suitability high
moderate
low
POTABLE WATER
From city system percentFrom individual site wells percent 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%From district site wells percentFrom rainwater collection percent ? ? ? ? ?Roof collection area square feet 42,000 55,000 30,000 44,000 48,000 Potential rainwater harvest gallons/year 525,000 687,500 375,000 550,000 600,000 Potential harvest/unit gallons/year 26,250 17,188 9,375 13,750 7,500 Irrigated landscape (turf) square feet 253,680 151,960 210,400 215,600 90,640 Irrigation required gallons/year 3,171,000 1,899,500 2,630,000 2,695,000 1,133,000 Distribution piping feetSource piping feet
WASTEWATER
On-site tank area square feet 720 1,440 800 800 960 On-site wetland area square feet 45,000 90,000 72,000 72,000 144,000 On-site drainfield area square feet 30,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 120,000 On-site system total area square feet 75,720 151,440 132,800 132,800 264,960 On-site treatment area/unit square feet 3,786 3,786 3,320 3,320 3,312 Returned to groundwater percent 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%Sanitary sewer piping feet
STORMWATER
Total hard surface area square feet 106,200 132,200 92,400 87,200 80,000 Hard surface area/unit square feet 5,310 3,305 2,310 2,180 1,000 Retention pond area square feet - - - - - Rain garden area square feet 10,620 13,220 9,240 8,720 8,000 Green roof area square feet - - - - - Returned to groundwater percent 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%Storm sewer piping feetCurb and gutter feet
SOLID WASTE
Construction waste to landfill percent 25% 25% 25% 25% 25%Operational waste to landfill percent 25% 25% 25% 25% 25%Organic waste composted percent 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
TRANSPORT
Mass transit suitability > 35 du/acre(LRT)> 16 du/acre(bus)< 16 du/acre
UMore Development Scenarios
CONVENTIONAL AUTONOMOUS DISTRICT
13ASTM Workshop on Life Cycle AssessmentAtlanta, GeorgiaOctober 2009
• The US Life Cycle Database needs funding to form the basis for all LCA work
• LCA tools must continue to evolve to be more comprehensive
• LCA tools and data must be expanded to address infrastructure and community scale systems
• More regional information needs to be developed for LCA tools
• More product specific information needs to be developed for side-by-side comparisons
Summary of Research Needs Related to Life Cycle Assessment of Materials
