Search

Strict energy performance requirements have reduced the building's operational energy use and related environmental impact in the past decades. Consequently, the embodied impacts of buildings gained importance, and hence focussing on the life cycle impacts has become essential to further reduce the environmental impact of buildings. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is an internationally accepted method used for this purpose. Current LCA studies of buildings typically look at their whole life cycle but ignore potential changes in operational energy use due to climate change. However, the latter is expected to influence the operational energy use of buildings to a significant extent. This paper aims to improve the assessment of the operational phase by including variations in the yearly operational energy use caused by climate change and expected changes in the electricity mix as a strategy for climate change mitigation. This adapted dynamic assessment method is used to assess a Belgian office building. The results indicate that a Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 climate change scenario causes a decrease of 18 % for the end use of gas for heating and an increase of 32.4 % for the electricity use for cooling and ventilation. For the case study, the reduction of the environmental impact due to the decrease in gas use compensates the impact increase due to the higher electricity use. An increase in environmental impact in future would however occur if both heating and cooling are provided by electricity. Furthermore, depending on the changes that will occur in the electricity mix, the global warming potential of the office building will change by −13 % for an electricity mix dominated by renewables and by + 10 % for one with mainly production by gas compared to the situation with the current mix. However, the inclusion of a more extended list of environmental indicators shows that the overall environmental impact will only reduce by 4 % or even increase by 7 % compared to the situation with the current mix. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• A retrofit selection strategy employing economic and environmental decision criteria was proposed. • Building energy retrofits were evaluated through a life cycle thinking approach. • Retrofits with operational emissions savings may not be beneficial when considering life cycle impacts. • Energy mix and the heating system of the house greatly impact the effectiveness. • Retrofit selection changes with stakeholder priorities on environment and economics. Improving the energy performance of buildings has been a much-discussed topic over the past few decades. With the current focus on climate change mitigation, emissions reduction has also come to the forefront of this discussion. Retrofitting is an option to improve the energy and emissions performance of buildings. However, in the residential building stock, retrofit planning for existing buildings faces many complexities due to variations in climatic conditions and macro-environment as well as the presence of multiple stakeholder groups. Thus, in identifying solutions, it is necessary to take a holistic perspective that covers these different dimensions. In this paper, commonly used building energy retrofits were evaluated through a life cycle thinking approach. The performance of various retrofit options applicable for single family detached housing were evaluated using the HOT2000 energy simulation software package under the varying climatic conditions and energy supply scenarios across Canada. The retrofits were evaluated in terms of the additional investment, energy use and cost reduction achieved over the life cycle, and life cycle emissions reduction. The findings indicate that the provincial energy mix and the heating system of the house (i.e. electric or natural gas) play a major role in determining the effectiveness of a retrofit, and this "effectiveness" changes at different stakeholder levels. However, not all retrofits that reduce emissions make economic sense and vice versa when life cycle thinking comes into play. The findings will be useful for building owners and occupants as well as for policy developers and other decision makers interested in demand side management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]