Rating Resource Efficiency of Building Materials Speakers: Becker, N.1 1 VDI Zentrum Ressourceneffizienz GmbH, Berlin, Germany Abstract: Aiming for sustainability resource efficiency plays a major role as the building industry is one of the world’s largest consumers of resources. This shows the example of Germany: its building industry is responsible for 85 % of the countries extraction of mineral raw material and produces more than 50 % of the countries waste accumulation [1]. Therefore the building sector is one of the focal points of the German Resource Efficiency Programme (ProgRess)[2]. It largely contributes to the central indicator for national resource efficiency, i. e. the raw material productivity. This is defined as the quotient of GDP in Euro and abiotic material in tons. The central aim is to double it until 2020 as compared to 1994[3]. Beside this very general indicator on a country wide scale it is useful to evaluate resource efficiency also on the material’s level in order to improve the situation from bottom up. Based on a complete life cycle analysis a set of four indicators has been derived. These indicators have been used to analyse the resource efficiency of insulation materials and supporting structures. Resource efficiency, life cycle analysis, insulation material, supporting structures Introduction So far the discussion on sustainability has very much focused on the reduction of the building’s energy consumption during use, i. e. on an increase of energy efficiency. However it is essential to also widen the view for the construction and demolition period and to gain thereby material efficiency. In the combination of energy and material efficiency resource efficiency can be achieved. To evaluate it the following set of indicators has been derived: • • • • type of raw material, embodied energy, greenhouse gas emission during production, options for disposal. Two groups of building materials have so far been analysed with these indicators: insulation materials and supporting structures. Insulation materials are essential for the reduction of the energy consumption during the use of a building and the actual retrofitting era. The supporting structure plays a major role as it accounts for a large proportion of the weight of a building. Resource Efficiency of Insulation Materials The set of indicators has been applied to analyse the resource efficiency of the wide variety of insulation materials. In order to compare the different materials it has been asumed that a poorly insulated construction shall be improved to a thermal transmission coefficient of U = 1 0.15 W/m²K. The necessary data on the embodied energy and the greenhouse gas emission has been extracted from the German database Ökobau.dat 2011 which lists nearly all in Germany available building materials [4].Additionally, Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) have been used [5].The results for the most common materials can be seen in figure 1. Insulating Material Production Embodied Energy, Greenhouse Gas End of Life Type of Raw non-renewable Emission Disposal Material [MJ/m²] [kg CO2-Eqv./m²] mineral glas wool mineral (recycling) 121,9 - 426,7 7,2 - 25,2 dump category 1/2 mineral wool mineral 61,6 - 144,6 3,6 - 9,1 dump category 1/2 porous concrete mineral 397,0 35,8 dump category 2 foam glass mineral 433,5 31,0 dump category 1/2 rock wool vacuum isolation panel mineral mineral (main comp.) 208,0 - 659,5 15,1 - 47,9 dump category 1/2 EPS fossil 345,3 - 497,7 11,8 - 17,3 thermal utilisation PUR fossil 437,9 - 517,3 22,0 - 25,1 thermal utilisation extruded PS fossil 642,5 28,9 thermal utilisation flax renewable 356,1 hemp renewable 357,0 wood fibre board renewable 223,0 - 1978,1 -63,3 - -3,9 therm. utilisation/composting cork renewable 280,1 -30,8 therm. utilisation/composting cellulose fibre renewable (recycl.) 189,6 9,4 mat./therm. utilisation synthetic renewable 36,9 cellulose fibre board renewable (recycl.) 528,3 Figure 1: Comparision of Resource Efficiency of Insulation Materials 5,7 therm. utilisation/composting 6,1 thermal utilisation -7,0 thermal utilisation 12,3 thermal utilisation To evaluate the results a large resource depletion has been marked in red, a medium in yellow and a low in green. For a number of materials a range of values is given for the embodied energy and the greenhouse gas emission. They have their origin in different applications of the insulation material: for example glas wool is available for the insulation of a roof as well as for the insulation of walls. The different applications influence the necessary compressive strength and hence the required density and material consumption. Therefore the values for the external insulation of a flat roof are clearly worse than the values for a common rafter insulation. Overall, cellulose fibres show the lowest resource depletion. However they only apply for a limited number of installation situations. The highest depletion comes from PUR and etruded PS. Nevertheless figure 2 shows that they might be an option for the external insulation of basement walls as for this special situation only a very limited number of insulations materials is available. All of them figure a comparatively hight resource depletion. 2 700,0 642,5 600,0 497,7 500,0 517,3 483,8 437,9 433,5 Embodied Energy, nonrenewable [MJ/m²] 400,0 300,0 Greenhouse Gas Emission [kg CO2-Eqv./m²] PUR (w/o lamination) 23,6 22,0 28,9 extruded PS 25,1 PUR (aluminium lamination) 17,3 PUR (mineral fibre lamination) 31,0 EPS (Perimeter) 100,0 foam glass 200,0 0,0 Figure 2: Embodied Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emission for External Insulation of Basement Wall With respect to the disposal all materials have been marked in red and yellow beside the vacuum isolation panels. This highlightens the need for improvements with regard to the circuitry. So far only vacuum isolation panels partily allow for material utilisation. Often insulation materials are attached to buildings in a manner which does not allow for a sorted demolition. This means that decisions allready taken during the planning and construction period hamper a reusage and recycling at the end of life of a building in a number of decades. In order to improve the resource efficiency of insulation materials it is necessary to develop concepts for a sorted demolition of buildings and for a material reusage and recycling. Resource Efficiency of Supporting Structures The resource efficiency of supporting structures has been analysed using the example of a 3 meter high column that is loaded with 100 kN. It has been designed in wood, reinforced concrete and steel. Figure 3 shows the results of a comparison for all four indicators. Wood type of raw material Production End of Life Reinforced Concrete Steel renewable mineral mineral/recycled embodied energy, nonrenewable [MJ] 185,0 118,4 835,4 greenhouse gas emission [kg CO₂-Eqv.] -52,4 17,2 60,6 material/thermal recycling/utilisation/ utilisation disposal recycling disposal Figure 3: Comparision of Resource Efficiency of Supporting Structures 3 Regarding the first indicator, i.e. the type of raw material, wood stands out as a renewable material whereas concrete and steel are of mineral origin. For steel the use of recycling material is positive. The options for disposal of wood and steel have to be evaluated positively as wood applies for material and thermal utilisation and steel can be fully recycled. The disposal of reinforced concrete is improvable as most of it is reutilised for lower-grade purposes and some of it is landfilled while only a small proportion is recycled. The establishment of a recycling for the same purpose i. e. the usage in new buildings offers great potentials for an increase in resource efficiency especially with regard to the large weight of concrete and its wide usage. It can be concluded that wood is clearly the most resource efficient material for supporting structures. Conclusions The used set of indicators show that the resource efficieny varies largely between the different building materials. In order to increase it two major points can be identified: the selection of special materials and the type of construction. The first determines the resource depletion due to the production of the building material whereas the second largely influences the possiblities for a sorted demolition. This is key to a reusage and recycling and central for a significant reduction of resource depletion by the building industry. References [1] Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit (2012) Deutsches Ressourceneffizienzprogramm (ProgRess), p. 74 [2] Federal Ministry for Enviroment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (2012) German Resource Efficiency Programme, URL: http://www.bmub.bund.de/en/topics/economy-products-resources/resourceefficiency/german-resource-efficiency-programme-progress/ [3] Die Bundesregierung (2002) Nationale Nachhaltigkeitsstrategie “Perspektiven für Deutschland“, URL: http://bfn.de/fileadmin/NBS/documents/Nachhaltigkeitsstrategielangfassung.pdf [4] Informationsportal Nachhaltiges Bauen Ökobau.dat 2011, URL: http://www.nachhaltigesbauen.de/oekobaudat/ [5] Institut Bauen und Umwelt e. V. Umwelt-Produktdeklarationen (EPDs), URL: http://bau-umwelt.de/hp6253/EPDs.htm 4
© Copyright 2024