Sustainability, Infrastructure and Communities
- Focus on Opportunities - Arpad Horvath
Associate ProfessorDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of California, [email protected]
February 14, 2007
Outline of Presentation
Where is sustainability research today? Sustainability research at UC Berkeley Players, networks, timing, trends Joint opportunities Involvement of industry
The Grand Vision: Sustainable Development
Definition: Meeting the needs of the current generation without sacrificing the ability of the future generations to meet their needs. (Brundtland Commission, 1987)
• Maintain societal progress while improving environmental quality and quality of life
• Environmental goals- reduce non-renewable resource use- manage renewable resource use for sustainability- reduce toxic substance emissions (heavy metals, solvents,)- reduce greenhouse gas and ozone depleting substance emissions
• Educate the stakeholders• Do good by doing well
• profit = revenue - cost
The Triple Bottom Line of Sustainability
Environment Economy
Social issues
Courtesy: B. Boughton, DTSC
Urban Communities of the Third Millennium
SustainableLivable
EngagingTransit oriented
WiredRenewable
ENR, March 12, 2001, Cover Story
Characterizing Sustainability Research
~ 30 years of publications and projects 1st phase: “we have a global problem”
» Mostly descriptive, qualitative» Stated problem, categories of effects (e.g., air emissions), but few numbers
2nd phase: “let’s analyze/blame someone” – low hanging fruit» Industries: automobile, chemical, petroleum, electric power, cement» Advent of industrial ecology, life-cycle assessment (LCA)» Mostly incomplete assessments (e.g., not all life cycle phases, inventory but no
impact assessment)» Initial savings by companies
3rd phase: more specific assessments» Data collection for specific studies» Services and network analysis, not just manufacturing processes and products» Supply-chain informed LCA» Advances in impact assessment
Observations about Sustainability Research
1. Need to incorporate triple bottom line: environment, economy, equity
- need a unified theory and implementation to link them
2. Sustainability solutions are integrated solutions - Need to learn from successful businesses
3. Need to assess a broad range of environmental effects – sustainability is not just about energy!
4. Need international networks for research and projects5. Need quantitative studies 6. Need to analyze services, not just products and
processes
Integrated Facilities Engineering Companies in
the U.S.
Bechtel
Percentage of Waste Recycled in the U.S., Late 1990s
0
20
40
60
80
100%
Lead Asphalt SteelAluminum Cans Concrete Rebars PaperPlastic Bottles Copper
LCA Framework
Raw Materials Acquisition
Manufacturing
Use/Reuse/Maintenance
Recycle/Waste Management
Inputs Outputs
Raw Materials
Energy
System Boundary
Atmospheric Emissions
Waterborne Wastes
Solid Wastes
Coproducts
Other Releases
Source: U.S. EPA
A concept and methodology to evaluate the environmental effects of a product or activity holistically, by analyzing the whole life cycle of a particular product, process, or activity (U.S. EPA, 1993).
LCA Methodology – ISO 14040
LCA – Life-Cycle Assessment (ISO 14040)
Inventory analysis
Direct applications:
* Product development * Product/process improvement * Strategic planning * Policy making * Marketing * Other
Goal and scope
definition
Impact assessment
Interpretation
Plastics
Aluminum
Cobalt
Copper
Stainless Steel
Chromium
Iron
Monitor
Motherboard
Housing
Hard Drive
Cooling Fan
Keyboard
Video Card
Screws
Wires
Computer
Iron Ore Mining
Petrochemicals production
Quartz Mining
Casserite Mining
Copper Ore Mining
Chemical Reduction
Oil DrillingInjection Molding
Rolling and Shot Peening
Extrusion
Silicon
Bauxite Ore Mining or recycled aluminum
collection
Electrolysis
Stage 1: Materials Extraction
Stage 2: Materials Processing
Stage 3: Component Manufacturing
Stage 4: Assembly Stages 5 & 6: Use and Disposal
Purification and polishing
Ore Mining
Wire drawing
Electricity*Coal Mining Coal burning in
power plant
*This flowchart disregards all the forms of energy required for each stage of the supply chain (transportation fuel, electricity, etc)
Separation
Refinement Glass
Figure 1: Life Cycle of a Computer C. Reich-Weiser, UCB
“The 1.7 Kilogram Microchip”
Williams, E. (2002) “The 1.7 Kilogram Microchip: Energy and Material Use in the Production of Semiconductor Devices.” ES&T, 36:5504-5510.
Buildings and the Environment
Buildings integral part of infrastructure systems (or “civil systems”), and the boundaries between these terms are fuzzy
The built environment has a large impact on the natural environment, economy, health, and productivity
Buildings account for 17% of world’s fresh water withdrawals, 25% of world’s wood harvest, and 40% of world’s materials and energy flows
U.S. Buildings and the Environment
The construction industry accounts for ~8% of U.S. GDP» Similar in industrialized countries, even bigger economic share in industrializing
countries» U.S. construction industry larger than the GDP of 212 national economies
(CA’s: 150 economies) 54% of U.S. energy consumption is directly or indirectly related to
buildings and their construction In the U.S., buildings account for
» 65% of electricity consumption» 30% of GHG emissions» 30% of raw material use» 30% of waste output (136 M tons annually)» 12% of potable water consumption
Categories of Natural Resources
Energy Raw materials Land/Habitat Terrestrial Ecosystems Marine Ecosystems Biodiversity
etc.
Ecosystems and Biodiversity
Terrestrial and marine ecosystems greatly endangered» Loss of forest, oil spills, overfishing, etc.
Current rate of extinction is several orders of magnitude greater than the natural background» In the U.S.:
– over 500 known species are now extinct– 1,200 species listed as endangered
Consortium on Green Design and Manufacturing
Multidisciplinary campus group integrating engineering, policy, public health, and business in green engineering, management, and pollution prevention
Strategic areas: » Civil infrastructure systems» Electronics industry» Servicizing products
9 faculty from Civil and Environmental Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Haas School of Business, Energy and Resources Group, School of Public Health
10 current Ph.D. students 28 alumnihttp://cgdm.berkeley.edu
Since 1993
Green Engineering and Management Research Network at UC Berkeley
Consortium on Green Design and Manufacturing (CGDM)
Network for Energy and Environmentally Efficient Economy (N4E)
Center for Future Urban Transport, A Volvo Center of Excellence
Urban Sustainability Initiative (USI)
Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory (RAEL)
Project Production Systems Laboratory (P2SL)
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL)
Energy Biosciences Institute (EBI)
Green Engineering & Management: Some Recent Research Projects (1999-2006)
Infrastructure:» Buildings» Pavements» Electricity generation» Water treatment» Used oil» Shredder residue» Freight transportation
Electronics industry:» Computer plastics recycling
Services:» Telework/telecommuting» News delivery using wireless and wired telecommunications» Teleconferencing versus business travel
Green Engineering & Management: Selection of Current Research Projects
Infrastructure:» Passenger transportation modes» Green logistics» Building life cycle and indoor air quality
– Data centers Services:
» Digital media through wired and wireless telecommunications
Urban Sustainability Initiative
Joint effort of UC Berkeley, the U.S. National Academies, and non-governmental organizations (Urban Age, Healthy Communities Network)
Goal: combine cutting edge research and development with innovative capacity building programs and a global information & exchange network to foster the spread of effective urban sustainability practices and technologies in growing cities throughout the developing world.» Facilitate linkages between project partners, local scientific communities, civil society,
the private sector and the official leadership of rapidly growing cities; » Accelerate the application of existing technologies and practices, and the development
and demonstration of new technologies and practices that improve the environment;» Creating an extensive urban sustainability information network to share technologies
and best practices for the benefit of cities around the world. » Create “living laboratories” in cities in Asia, Latin America, and Africa, and to test new
approaches of environmentally sustainable urban development.
Emissions Sources (required and selected optional reporting)
CO2 equivalent (metric tons)
Percentage Contribution
Purchased Electricity 142,000 45.6%Steam (from co-generation and auxiliary boilers) 81,000 25.9%
Air Travel 50,000 16.1%Faculty and Staff Auto Commute 18,000 5.8%
Natural Gas 13,000 4.2%Student Commute 4,000 1.3%
Fugitive Emissions- Refrigeration 2,000 0.6%Solid Waste 2,000 0.6%
Campus Fleet 1,000 0.3%Total Emissions 310,000 100%
UCB Preliminary Inventory 2005
Required and Optional Reporting to California Climate Action Registry
6.4 metric tons/personSource: Fahmida Ahmed, CalCAP
Trends UC Berkeley GHG Emissions Trends
Transportation
Solid WasteNatural gas
Purchased Steam
Purchased Electricity
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020
In T
housands
Year
Carb
on
Dio
xid
e E
mis
sion
s E
qu
ivale
nt
(kg C
O2
e)
Transportation Solid Waste On-campus Stationary Purchased Steam and Chilled water Purchased Electricity
“Carbon Performance”
Institution Emissions in metric tons of
CO2 equivalent
Student population
Metric tons of CO2 equivalent
/ student
Year recorded
University of California, Santa Barbara 64,996 29,269 2.2 year 2006Tufts University 20,375 8,500 2.4 year 2003
University of California, San Diego 156,846 25,964 6.0 year 2004 University of California, Berkeley 309,692 33,558 9.2 year 2005
Harvard University 319,303 20,042 15.9 year 2005Oberlin College 50,417 2,857 17.6 year 2000 Yale University 284,663 11,250 25.3 year 2004
Each of these campuses looks at emissions sources comparable to the “required and selected optional reporting” package.
Source: Fahmida Ahmed, CalCAP
http://sustainable-engineering.berkeley.edu/
“Engineering for Sustainability and Environmental Management” Certificate
Program
Players, Networks in the U.S.
Universities» Carnegie Mellon, Michigan, Arizona State, Texas, Washington
Research labs (e.g., Lawrence Berkeley National Lab) The leaders are ICT companies LEED as a green scoring system
Exciting Times in the U.S….
The Economist, 4/29/04
AB 32, Global Warming Solutions
Act, by 2020, return GHG
emissions to 1990 levels (and
boost annual GSP by $60B and
create 17,000 jobs)
UC Berkeley’s $500M Energy
Biosciences Institute (BP-funded)
U.S. considering GHG reduction
legislation and industrial action
Greening Building Practices in China
Tasks:» Assess the current construction practices of commercial
buildings and high-rise residential buildings in China.» Recommend environmentally less burdensome building
materials and processes.– Short term: Focus on major materials (e.g., concrete, steel,
aluminum, flooring, with special focus on cement) and processes (e.g., construction equipment, temporary materials).
– Later: evaluate the engineering, economic and environmental feasibility of using waste materials and byproducts (such as fly ash, demolition material, waste tires) in construction.
Indoor Air Quality in China
Task:» Assess the effect of the indoor environments on building
occupants. – What are the indoor air quality (IAQ) implications of using
common building (e.g., carpet and paint) and maintenance materials (e.g., cleaners)?
– What are the IAQ implications from the introduction of pollution from outdoor air? China has severely polluted urban air and might consider IAQ control by means of filtering supply air in addition to controlling indoor emission sources.
Opportunities to Use Innovations in Practice
Need to get all the stakeholders networking and integrating (clients want intergated, packaged services, want to deal with one company)
Need to get problem focused» problems are global
GHG and other environmental studies of U.S., Chinese, Indian, etc. companies, industries, government entities
ICT industry: Data centers study, construction, operation Biofuels Lean and green
Purposes
DesignCriteria
DesignConcepts
ProcessDesign
ProductDesign
DetailedEngineering
Fabrication& Logistics
Installation
Commissioning
Operations & Maintenance
Alteration &Decommissioning
Project Definition Lean Design Lean Supply Lean Assembly Use
Production ControlWork Structuring
LearningLoops
Connecting Green and Lean: Project Production Systems Laboratory
Develop new project management theory based on understanding of production systems (esp. Toyota Production System)
Reform project management practice
http://p2sl.berkeley.edu
Opportunities in Research and Development
Location: U.S., Europe, China Transformational, interdisciplinary research and
development» Modeling of infrastructure» Sustainability metrics
– E.g., green building scoring system for the EU– LCA model for Finland, Nordic countries, EU
Data centers Computer-based decision-support tools Education
» Joint educational initiatives in, e.g., China
Opportunities for Industrial Involvement
GHG developments in California, U.S., China, India Scientific and management knowledge transfer, consulting
» service industries, and their supply chains have a tremendous opportunity to present a unified product (e.g., Bechtel, Xerox, Kodak)
» ICT industries
Biofuels Data centers ICT products/services helping urban communities (e.g.,
telework, mobile work) Green does not have to be synonimous with cheap Green can bring competitive advantages
Industrial Ecology
“The (deliberate and rational) concept requires that an industrial system be viewed not in isolation from its surrounding systems, but in concert with them.
It is a systems view in which one seeks to optimize the total materials cycle from virgin material, to finished material, to component, to product, to obsolete product, to ultimate disposal.
Factors to be optimized include resources, energy, and capital.” – Graedel and Allenby
Future Work
Continued adaptation of the latest environmental science and management methods and results» hybrid LCA
Need to assess indirect as well as direct environmental effects, and reveal the supply chain implications
Takeback, recycling regulations Revisit past research questions, and redo some
analyses Quantify the benefits on society Focus on impact assessment, not just on inventory Embrace analysis of social effects
Future Plans
Campus research center in “Technology and Sustainability.”
Formalize “Technology and Sustainability” certificate program.
Accelerate research on green and lean project delivery.
Develop green modules for engineering courses.
Involve more faculty in teaching and research.
Buildings and the Environment
Buildings integral part of infrastructure systems (or “civil systems”), and the boundaries between these terms are fuzzy
The built environment has a large impact on the natural environment, economy, health, and productivity
Buildings account for 17% of world’s fresh water withdrawals, 25% of world’s wood harvest, and 40% of world’s materials and energy flows
U.S. Buildings and the Environment
The construction industry accounts for ~8% of U.S. GDP» Similar in industrialized countries, even bigger economic share in industrializing
countries» U.S. construction industry larger than the GDP of 212 national economies
(CA’s: 150 economies) 54% of U.S. energy consumption is directly or indirectly related to
buildings and their construction In the U.S., buildings account for
» 65% of electricity consumption» 30% of GHG emissions» 30% of raw material use» 30% of waste output (136 M tons annually)» 12% of potable water consumption
Composition of the U.S. GDP (2002)
Economic sector Percent of GDP Cumulative Percent
Services 20.4 20.4
Finance, insurance, real estate
19.4 39.8
Retail trade 8.8 48.6
Wholesale trade 6.9 55.5
Government 12.7 68.2
Communications 2.6 70.8
Transportation 3.2 74.0
Construction 4.1 78.1
Electric, gas, sanitary services
2.6 80.7
Manufacturing 17.0 97.7
Mining 1.5 99.2
Agriculture, forestry, fishing 1.6 ~100
U.S
. D
epar
tme
nt o
f C
om
mer
ce,
ww
w.c
ensu
s.go
v
The Economist, May 8, 2003
Cities of the Third Millennium
SustainableLivable
EngagingTransit oriented
WiredRenewable
ENR, March 12, 2001, Cover Story
Characteristics of Civil Systems
Products and processes Manufacturing and service Long service lifetimes Slower obsolescence (?) compared to industrial products Large, complicated, in the public eye Considered “underfunded”, “in bad shape” (ASCE Report
Card 1998, 2001, 2005) Decisions have significant economic, environmental and
social consequences
Current Issues - General• Visual and physical impacts of infrastructure• Reduction of materials use • End-of-life options: landfilling, reuse, recycling• Environmental discharges (to air, water, land and
underground wells) in all phases of construction• Hazardous and non-hazardous waste generation and
disposal• Environmental efficiency of construction equipment• Energy implications of constructionetc.
Current Issues - Specific• Toxic chemical emissions• Conventional pollutant emissions• Greenhouse gas and ozone-depleting chemicals use
and emissions• Embedded energy in construction materials• Energy consumption by construction machines• Nonrenewable and renewable resource use• Reuse and recycling of construction materials• Solid and nonsolid waste implications• etc.
Existing Solutions
•Rating tools
•EIA
•LCA
How Much Material Do We Use?
• A total of 2.8 billion metric tons of different materials used in the U.S. in 1995 (USGS)
• ~3.5 billion metric tons in 2000• 81% by volume were construction materials, mostly
stone, and sand and gravel
Use of Construction Mineral and Material Commodities in the U.S. [ton]
cementcrushed
stonedimension
stone
coalcombustion
productsiron andsteel slag
constructionsand andgravel
1950 40,891,000 228,000,000 1,890,000 22,600,000 321,000,000
1960 55,526,000 557,000,000 2,250,000 26,100,000 628,000,000
1970 67,476,000 788,000,000 1,830,000 4,630,000 30,600,000 830,000,000
1980 70,173,000 893,000,000 1,830,000 11,300,000 22,900,000 692,000,000
1990 80,964,000 1,110,000,000 3,680,000 19,300,000 22,100,000 831,000,000
2000 110,470,000 1,569,000,000 5,850,000 28,600,000 17,500,000 1,120,000,000
Ewell ME (2001), Mining and quarrying trends. Minerals Yearbook, Vol I–Metals and Minerals. U.S. Geological Survey
Current Design Method
Current building design decisions are made based on: Safety Functionality Cost
Environmental issues are often only addressed qualitatively or simplistically (e.g., using recycled-content flooring or lead-free paint)
Objectives of Horvath’s Research Group
Material and energy resource consumption Environmental impacts of onsite construction
processes Overall life-cycle impacts of construction Decision support tool for the building industry
Our Comprehensive Framework
ConstructionDesign Operation Maintenance End-of-life
Air Emissions Water Emissions Waste Emissions
Water Materials Energy Labor Equipment Finance
Direct Impacts
Indirect Impacts
Generic Impact Category
Generic Impact Category
Generic Impact Category
Generic Impact Category
MaterialsProduction
Scope and detail of our analysis
Generic Impact Category
Generic Impact Category
Generic Impact Category
Generic Impact Category
Indirect Impacts
Direct Impacts
Exists
Missing
Legend:
(Guggemos, 2003)
(Literature on Buildings)
ConstructionDesign Operation Maintenance End-of-lifeMaterials
Production
Detail
Scope
Our Research
MaterialsExtraction &
Manufacturing
(EIO-LCA)
Building Use
(EIO-LCA)
BuildingMaintenance
(Process data)
Building End-of-Life
(Process data)
Environmental Emissions
Energy and Resources Consumed
BuildingConstruction
(CEDST)
European – U.S. Office Building Comparison
Located in Southern Finland / Midwest U.S. Typical 4-story / 5-story building; 4,400 m2 area;
17,300 m3 / 16,400 m3 volume Structural frame:
» pre-fabricated concrete elements, sandwich-panels » steel-reinforced concrete beam-column system, shear walls at core
Exterior envelope: brick veneer on concrete / aluminum curtain wall Interior finishes: typical commercial office space Construction materials: 1,190 kg/m2 / 1,290 kg/m2
Maintenance materials: 240 kg/m2 / 70 kg/m2
Heat: 36 kWh/m3/yr (~average) / Natural gas: 17.5 m3/m2/yr Electricity: 70 kWh/m2/yr (30% below average) / 184+56 kWh/m2/yr 54 different building elements consisting of 23 different building materials Service life: 50 years
EU Case Study Results
Energy [GJ] CO2 [Mg] SO2 [kg] NOx [kg] PM10 [kg]
Materials (Total) 15,000 1,300 2,300 4,000 2,100
Landscaping (gravel, etc.) 2 0 0 1 0 Concrete 4,200 450 280 1,600 760 Steel reinforcing 1,000 47 64 110 35 Steel, cast iron 3,900 440 530 540 440 Nonferrous metals 1,300 82 340 310 190 Masonry 230 25 82 87 NA Timber 80 0 0 14 3 Plastic, rubber, etc. 390 21 120 120 36 Building boards, paper 890 56 360 350 110 Insulation 1,500 76 310 260 360 Waterproofing 22 1 4 7 1 Glass 850 58 84 410 10 Finishing (flooring, glues, etc.) 320 18 40 89 150 Paints 300 12 82 45 13 Others NA 2 NA 24 NA Construction (Total) 4,800 200 500 1,800 400
Materials in construction 1,300 45 220 310 75 Electricity 1,700 46 87 100 140 Heat 320 22 29 41 66 Machinery 1,200 92 110 1,100 140 Steam NA 4 0 8 0 Transp. of building materials 310 22 5 270 10 Use Phase (Total) 204,000 11,000 9,900 20,000 3,700
Electricity, others (e.g., outlets, HVAC) 74,000 3,300 3,300 6,200 2,000 Electricity, lighting 30,000 1,400 1,400 2,500 830 Heating 100,000 6,200 5,200 11,000 820 Maintenance (Total) 9,500 700 2,300 2,500 1,100
Landscaping (gravel, etc.) 2 0 0 1 0 Concrete 360 32 26 110 25 Steel reinforcing 1 0 0 0 0 Steel, cast iron 1,300 230 290 290 240 Nonferrous metals 930 52 210 110 93 Masonry 240 25 82 87 NA Timber 76 0 0 14 3 Plastic, rubber, etc. 160 8 52 50 14 Building boards, paper 890 56 360 350 110 Insulation 1,000 60 260 190 290 Waterproofing 22 1 4 7 1 Glass 850 58 84 410 10 Finishing (flooring, glues, etc.) 320 18 40 89 150 Paints 3,000 120 820 450 130 Constr.& transportation of materials 350 29 23 338 31 End-of-life (Total) 800 60 50 700 90
Equipment 510 37 45 430 80 Transportation of materials 300 22 4 270 5
TOTAL 234,100 13,260 15,050 29,000 7,390
U.S. Case Study
Results
Energy [GJ] CO2 [Mg] SO2 [kg] NOx [kg] PM10 [kg]Materials (Total) 31,100 2,000 9,300 8,000 2,700Aluminum 79 4 63 25 7Bitumen 69 4 15 19 5Carpet 1,303 80 308 295 136Ceramic tile 1,122 79 130 224 39Concrete 3,084 213 1,308 1,593 309Elevator 502 32 140 118 23Mineral fiber board ceiling tile 942 65 324 257 107Glass 3,432 236 647 1,196 185Gypsum board 892 62 104 148 63Insulation - Extruded polystyrene 90 5 18 18 3Insulation - Fiberglass 3,118 216 631 705 827Paint 99 6 20 25 6Steel - Metal stairs 856 54 239 161 43Steel - studs, doors, frames, grid 2,302 146 642 432 115Steel - Reinforcement bar 3,916 248 1,092 736 196Water heater 12 1 3 3 1HVAC multizone units 1,842 120 579 543 109Switchgear 67 4 21 18 3Emergency generator 50 3 15 13 3Copper - tubing and wire 1,083 76 1,298 303 204Steel - piping, ductwork 6,218 394 1,734 1,168 311Polypropylene - piping 1 0 0 0 0Construction (Total) 5,500 400 800 8,300 700Materials 1,005 64 224 420 166Transportation 253 19 9 114 26Equipment 4,199 293 526 7,787 552Use Phase (Total) 297,600 22,200 82,700 48,500 3,400Lighting 46,567 4,487 25,137 12,862 886Electricity 106,628 10,274 57,560 29,451 2,030Natural gas 144,375 7,401 37 6,167 469Maintenance (Total) 21,600 1,300 5,200 5,000 2,100Bitumen 137 8 30 37 11Carpet 15,637 955 3,693 3,535 1,633Elevator 502 32 140 118 23Mineral fiber board ceiling tile 1,885 129 648 513 214Gypsum board 621 43 73 103 44Paint 989 58 199 249 56Steel - studs, doors, frames, grid 1,620 103 452 304 81Transportation 116 9 4 52 12Equipment 47 3 6 89 6End-of-life (Total) 3,300 200 400 5,800 400Equipment 3,065 212 378 5,717 406Transportation of materials 188 14 7 85 19
TOTAL 359,100 26,100 98,400 75,600 9,300
Comparison of Contribution of Life-cycle Phases
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
PM-10 [Mg]
NOx [Mg]
SO2 [Mg]
CO2 [Gg]
Energy [10*TJ]
Materials
Construction
Use Phase
Maintenance
End-of-Life
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
PM-10 [Mg]
NOx [Mg]
SO2 [Mg]
CO2 [Gg]
Energy [10*TJ]
Materials
Construction
Use Phase
Maintenance
End-of-Life
Finland
U.S.
DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT
Data Quality* Table
Acquisition method
Independence of data supplier
Representa-tiveness Data Age
Geographical correlation
Technological correlation
Building materials 2 1 2 2 2 2 Construction 3 1 2 2 3 4 Use 2 2 1 1 1 1 Maintenance 2 1 1 2 2 2 End-of-life 2 1 2 1 2 3 *Maximum quality = 1 *Minimum quality = 5
Data Quality* TableAcquisition method
Independence of data supplier
Representa-tiveness Data Age
Geographical correlation
Technological correlation
Building materials 1 1 2 2 2 2
Construction 3 1 2 3 2 3
Use 1 1 2 1 1 1
Maintenance 3 1 2 2 2 3
End-of-life 2 1 2 1 2 2
Finland
U.S.
U.S. Case Study Results
Use phase dominates all categories except PM10
Materials and maintenance phases each have a proportion of 22% or more in a single emission category
Construction and end-of-life phases have relatively insignificant impacts overall
U.S. Case Study Data Quality
Data Quality* TableAcquisition
methodIndependence of
data supplierRepresenta-
tiveness Data AgeGeographical
correlationTechnological
correlation
Building materials 1 1 2 2 2 2
Construction 3 1 2 3 2 3
Use 1 1 2 1 1 1
Maintenance 3 1 2 2 2 3
End-of-life 2 1 2 1 2 2
*Maximum quality = 1
*Minimum quality = 5
U.S. Case Study Results
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
PM-10 [Mg]
NOx [Mg]
SO2 [Mg]
CO2 [Gg]
Energy [10*TJ]
Materials
Construction
Use Phase
Maintenance
End-of-Life
Case Study: Steel v. Concrete Frame Buildings
47,360 ft2, five-story building located in Minnesota 50 year use phase aluminum-framed, glass panel curtain wall built-up roofing interior finishes include painted partition walls,
acoustical drop ceilings, and carpet or ceramic tile flooring
mechanical system provides both heating and cooling
Steel v. Concrete Frame: Construction Phase (Frame Only)
Energy Consumption
Comparison of Construction Phase Energy Impacts
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350T
empo
rary
Mat
eria
ls
Tra
nspo
rtM
ater
ials
Tra
nspo
rtE
quip
men
t
Equ
ipm
ent
Use Oth
erIm
pact
s
En
erg
y [1
0*G
J]
Steel Frame
Concrete Frame
Steel v. Concrete Frame Building: Whole Building Life-cycle Energy
Consumption
Comparison of Energy Impacts
0
1
2
3
4
5
Materials Construction End-of-Life Mat'ls + Const.+ EOL
Life Cycle Phases
En
erg
y [1
0*T
J]
Building withSteel Frame
Building withConcrete Frame
Case Study: University of California, Santa Barbara - Bren School of Environmental
Science & Management
Source: Zimmer Gunsul Frasca Partnership
UCSB Bren School
Completed April 2002 for $24 million
7,900 m2 administrative and laboratory space
Combination steel and concrete frame
U.S. Green Building Council LEED Platinum Rating
“Green” changes include recycled content materials,
increased HVAC efficiency, building orientation to
optimize use of natural lighting and ocean breezes
Bren School Life-cycle Assessment
50-year service life assumed Used 90% construction document cost estimate with quantities
and installed costs » material costs determined using R.S. Means guides
Estimated equipment types and duration of use with R.S. Means guides
Transportation of materials and equipment estimated based on material weight and truck capacity
Building use phase electricity and natural gas based on mechanical engineer’s energy analysis
Maintenance based on typical material replacement ages
Bren School Life-cycle Assessment
MaterialsExtraction &
Manufacturing
AggregateAluminumBitumenCarpet
Ceramic TileConcrete
Cooling TowerCopper
Elec. Equip.Elevator
Emerg. Gen.Insulation
FireproofingGlass
GypsumLab Fixtures
LightsCeiling TileHVAC Unit
PaintPipeSteel
Vinyl TileWood
Building Use
ElectricityNatural Gas
BuildingMaintenance
BitumenCaulkingGypsum
Metal StudsCeiling GridInsulation
Ceiling TileDoorsPaint
CarpetVinyl TileElevator
Wheelchair Lift
Building End-of-Life
Dump TruckLoaderCrane
Environmental Emissions
Energy and Resources Consumed
BuildingConstruction
FormworkWater
OilRollerCrane
Tar KettleTruck
Mixer TruckPump
VibratorAir Compr.
ForkliftBackhoeLoader
Vib. PlateGrinder
Paint SprayerPower Saw
Rebar BenderRebar CutterSteel PunchSteel Torch
Welder
Proportions of Bren School Building LCA
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Energy CO NOX PM10 SO2 CO2
End-of-LifeMaintenanceUse PhaseConstructionMaterials
Bren School Emissions Analysis
Use phase dominates energy, CO2, SO2, and NOX emissions
Materials production dominates CO emissions PM emissions are similar in the materials and use phases Overall, construction is a small part of life-cycle environmental
impacts, but as use phase becomes more efficient, the materials and construction phases are expected to increase in significance
The end-of-life phase is also small, but more research, more detailed assessment is needed
Maintenance phase emissions are similar in significance to the construction phase
Bren School Emissions from Major Phases
Energy CO NOX PM10 SO2 CO2
% of
Phase% of
Phase% of
Phase% of
Phase% of
Phase% of
Phase
Materials Phase
Steel - structure, pipe 29% 35% 21% 21% 25% 28%
Concrete 15% 8% 29% 21% 19% 15%
Steel - sheet products 14% 17% 10% 10% 12% 13%
Construction Phase
Equipment 65% 60% 89% 62% 57% 66%
Building Use Phase
Electricity 72% 64% 94% 94% 99.98% 83%
Maintenance Phase
Elevator 31% 47% 31% 23% 38% 33%
Paint 19% 11% 20% 17% 16% 18%
Carpet 15% 7% 14% 25% 15% 15%
End-of-Life Phase
Equipment 73% 56% 92% 78% 90% 71%
Purposes
DesignCriteria
DesignConcepts
ProcessDesign
ProductDesign
DetailedEngineering
Fabrication& Logistics
Installation
Commissioning
Operations & Maintenance
Alteration &Decommissioning
Project Definition Lean Design Lean Supply Lean Assembly Use
Production ControlWork Structuring
LearningLoops
Connecting Green and Lean: Project Production Systems Laboratory
Develop new project management theory based on understanding of production systems (esp. Toyota Production System)
Reform project management practice
http://p2sl.berkeley.edu
Conclusions
LCA necessary for better decision-making throughout the life cycle of a building
Control electricity and natural gas use with efficient design
Control materials and maintenance impacts by material choices
LCA should permeate green building scoring systems (e.g., LEED)
We are creating a decision-support tool for total building LCA (BuiLCA)
Percentage of Waste Recycled in the U.S., Late 1990s
0
20
40
60
80
100%
Lead Asphalt SteelAluminum Cans Concrete Rebars PaperPlastic Bottles Copper
Annual Waste Stream of Different Materials Recycled, Late 1990s
0
20,000,000
40,000,000
60,000,000
80,000,000
100,000,000
120,000,000 Metric Tons
Asphalt Concrete Steel Paper Aluminum Plastics Lead Copper
Asphalt Pavement Milling Machine
Milling Machine
Direct and Indirect Energy Use (electricity plus fuels) by the Major
Sectors of the U.S. Economy
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Manufacturing Services Utilities Other
En
erg
y U
se
pe
r $M
(101
2 M
J)
direct indirect
120
Rosenblum, J., Horvath, A., and Hendrickson, C. (2000), “Environmental Implications of Service Industries.” Environmental Science & Technology, ACS, 34(22), November 15, pp. 4669-4676.
Direct and Indirect Generation of RCRA Hazardous Wastes by the Major Sectors of the
U.S. Economy
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Manufacturing Services Utilities OtherRC
RA
Hazard
ou
s W
as
tes
Ge
ne
rate
d
(106
me
tric
to
ns
)
direct indirect
Rosenblum, J., Horvath, A., and Hendrickson, C. (2000), “Environmental Implications of Service Industries.” Environmental Science & Technology, ACS, 34(22), November 15, pp. 4669-4676.
Characterizing ICT & Environment Research
One of the first three industries to lead design for environment and pollution prevention research and practice (with automobiles and chemicals)
~12 years of publications 1st phase: “we want to be a clean industry”
» Efforts of a rapidly growing industry to establish environmental credibility» Prominence of ICT industries grew parallel to prominence of environmental management» Early adopter of industrial ecology, design for disassembly, green materials selection, life-cycle
assessment (LCA)– But largely incomplete assessments (e.g., not all life cycle phases, inventory but no impact assessment)
» Mostly energy and toxic emissions related» Initially focused on components, then trying to assess entire systems
2nd phase: more specific assessments, including the supply chain and recyclers» Involving the supply chain, but also the waste management industry/recyclers» Data collection for specific studies» Supply-chain informed LCA
3rd phase: “we bring environmental benefits to society”» Services and network analysis, not just manufacturing processes and products
– Internet, telework» Servicizing products
Critical mass still missing in many areas