Carbon Assessment of a Wooden Single-Family Building—Focusing on Re-Used Building Products
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Building Materials
1.2. Circularity in Building Construction
1.3. EOL Carbon Emissions, Waste Treatments, and D Module External Benefits
1.4. Building Materials End-of-Life Properties
1.5. Aim of this Study and Research Questions
- How does the use of re-usable products, as opposed to new ones, affect the released (positive) and negative embodied GHG emissions and other environmental impacts across various life cycle stages within different building components?
- How does the calculation of biogenic carbon and external benefits (A5 and D module) influence the negative embodied GHG impacts when analysing new vs. re-used building products?
2. Methodology and Case Study
2.1. System Boundaries and Data Sources
2.2. Case Study Building
2.3. Scenarios
- Reference scenario encompassed all newly produced building materials and installations used as original materials for the building. It consisted of new products (building materials and installations) where the main raw material was wood, while other parts of the building utilised metals, plastics, and concrete in the foundation only (Table A1);
- Scenario I encompassed re-used wooden-based materials (wooden framework, facade, wood fibre insulation, cellulose insulation, doors, and windows) instead of using new ones, while other building products, (roof, foundation, pipes, cables, installations, energy systems, etc.), remained unchanged (newly produced) (Table A2);
- Scenario II encompassed all re-used building materials except for installations and energy systems that remained unchanged (newly produced) (Table A3);
- Scenario III encompassed all re-used building materials and installations (Table A4).
3. Results
3.1. Released (Positive) and Negative Embodied GHG Impacts of Building Products
3.2. GHG Emissions across Different Building Parts
3.3. Analysis of Other Impact Categories
4. Discussion
4.1. The Results in Relation to Previous Findings
4.2. Benefits of Re-Using Building Components
4.3. Limitations, Barriers, Policy Measures and Future Development
4.4. Recommendations for Circular Logistics
4.5. Re-Use as a Key Driver towards Carbon Reduction
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
CO2e | Carbon-dioxide equivalents |
CE | Circular economy |
CLT | Cross-laminated timber |
EOL | End-of-life |
EPD | Environmental product declaration |
GHG | Greenhouse gas |
GWP | Global warming potential |
LCA | Life cycle assessment |
Appendix A
Reference Scenario | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Process | Building Products | EOL Treatment | A1–A3 | A4 | C2 | C3 | C4 | A5 | D | Biogenic Carbon |
New | Concrete foundation | Crushed to aggregate | 5841 | 129.2 | 153.1 | 18.1 | 0.0 | −66.4 | −1660.7 | 0 |
New | Wood framework | Incineration | 48 | 15.9 | 1.5 | 4.9 | 0.0 | −10.2 | −57.2 | −602 |
New | Wood panel | Incineration | 39 | 13.0 | 1.2 | 4.0 | 0.0 | −8.4 | −46.9 | −494 |
New | CLT | Incineration | 211 | 96.1 | 8.9 | 29.9 | 0.0 | −57.8 | −346.2 | −3877 |
New | Thermo-wood | Incineration | 2026 | 63.3 | 5.9 | 19.7 | 0.0 | −38.3 | −213.7 | −2669 |
New | Parquet | Incineration | 531 | 16.3 | 7.6 | 25.4 | 0.0 | −52.7 | −294.2 | −3611 |
New | Cellulose insulation | Landfilling | 357 | 26.0 | 9.4 | 0.0 | 8.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | −4407 |
New | Wood fibre insulation | Landfilling | 438 | 2.6 | 0.9 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | −445 |
New | EPS insulation | Incineration | 1090 | 6.3 | 1.7 | 900.5 | 0.0 | −5.8 | −144.2 | 0 |
New | Gypsum | Recycling | 2859 | 166.8 | 250.3 | 8.1 | 0.0 | −3.2 | −25.9 | 0 |
New | Windows | Recycling | 2886 | 25.8 | 64.5 | 0.4 | 0.9 | 0.0 | −17.6 | −777 |
New | Doors | Incineration | 1335 | 17.0 | 10.8 | 7.6 | 0.5 | 0.0 | −2.2 | −1248 |
New | Roof−steel | Recycling | 1736 | 9.6 | 23.3 | 1.3 | 0.0 | −78.5 | −1046.2 | 0 |
New | Plastics | Incineration | 701 | 1.7 | 0.9 | 455.0 | 0.0 | −7.9 | −79.2 | 0 |
New | Solar PV system | Recycling metal | 5766 | 1.1 | 14.7 | 1.3 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 86.7 | 0 |
New | Heat pump | Recycling metal | 604 | 6.0 | 4.9 | 0.4 | 0.0 | −2.6 | −256.0 | 0 |
New | Ventilation system | Recycling metal | 622 | 1.1 | 22.0 | 2.0 | 0.2 | −11.4 | −1141.1 | 0 |
New | Water supply piping system | Landfilling | 2784 | 3.6 | 5.6 | 0.0 | 5.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0 |
New | Underfloor heating pipes | Landfilling | 1211 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0 |
New | Electricity cables | Recycling metal | 471 | 0.6 | 13.0 | 1.2 | 0.1 | −6.7 | −672.6 | 0 |
Total: | 31,556 | 602.3 | 600.9 | 1479.8 | 16.6 | −349.9 | −5917.1 | −18,130 |
Scenario I | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Process | Building Products | EOL Treatment | A1–A3 | A4 | C2 | C3 | C4 | A5 | D | Biogenic Carbon |
New | Concrete foundation | Crushed to aggregate | 5841 | 129.2 | 153.1 | 18.1 | 0.0 | −66.4 | −1660.7 | 0 |
Re-used | Wood framework | Incineration | 0 | 15.9 | 1.5 | 4.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | −57.2 | 0 |
Re-used | Wood panel | Incineration | 0 | 13.0 | 1.2 | 4.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | −46.9 | 0 |
Re-used | CLT | Incineration | 0 | 96.1 | 8.9 | 29.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | −346.2 | 0 |
Re-used | Thermo−wood | Incineration | 0 | 63.3 | 5.9 | 19.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | −213.7 | 0 |
Re-used | Parquet | Incineration | 0 | 16.3 | 7.6 | 25.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | −294.2 | 0 |
Re-used | Cellulose insulation | Landfilling | 0 | 26.0 | 9.4 | 0.0 | 8.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0 |
Re-used | Wood fibre insulation | Landfilling | 0 | 2.6 | 0.9 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0 |
New | EPS insulation | Incineration | 1090 | 6.3 | 1.7 | 900.5 | 0.0 | −5.8 | −144.2 | 0 |
New | Gypsum | Recycling | 2859 | 166.8 | 250.3 | 8.1 | 0.0 | −3.2 | −25.9 | 0 |
Re-used | Windows | Recycling | 0 | 25.8 | 64.5 | 0.4 | 0.9 | 0.0 | −17.6 | 0 |
Re-used | Doors | Incineration | 0 | 17.0 | 10.8 | 7.6 | 0.5 | 0.0 | −2.2 | 0 |
New | Roof−steel | Recycling | 1736 | 9.6 | 23.3 | 1.3 | 0.0 | −78.5 | −1046.2 | 0 |
New | Plastics | Incineration | 701 | 1.7 | 0.9 | 455.0 | 0.0 | −7.9 | −79.2 | 0 |
New | Solar PV system | Recycling metal | 5766 | 1.1 | 14.7 | 1.3 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 86.7 | 0 |
New | Heat pump | Recycling metal | 604 | 6.0 | 4.9 | 0.4 | 0.0 | −2.6 | −256.0 | 0 |
New | Ventilation system | Recycling metal | 622 | 1.1 | 22.0 | 2.0 | 0.2 | −11.4 | −1141.1 | 0 |
New | Water supply piping system | Landfilling | 2784 | 3.6 | 5.6 | 0.0 | 5.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0 |
New | Underfloor heating system | Landfilling | 1211 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0 |
New | Electricity cables | Recycling metal | 471 | 0.6 | 13.0 | 1.2 | 0.1 | −6.7 | −672.6 | 0 |
Total: | 23,685 | 602.3 | 600.9 | 1479.8 | 16.6 | −182.5 | −5917.1 | 0 |
Scenario II | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Process | Building Products | EOL Treatment | A1–A3 | A4 | C2 | C3 | C4 | A5 | D | Biogenic Carbon |
Re-used | Concrete foundation | Crushed to aggregate | 0 | 129.2 | 153.1 | 18.1 | 0.0 | 0 | −1660.7 | 0 |
Re-used | Wood framework | Incineration | 0 | 15.9 | 1.5 | 4.9 | 0.0 | 0 | −57.2 | 0 |
Re-used | Wood panel | Incineration | 0 | 13.0 | 1.2 | 4.0 | 0.0 | 0 | −46.9 | 0 |
Re-used | CLT | Incineration | 0 | 96.1 | 8.9 | 29.9 | 0.0 | 0 | −346.2 | 0 |
Re-used | Thermo-wood | Incineration | 0 | 63.3 | 5.9 | 19.7 | 0.0 | 0 | −213.7 | 0 |
Re-used | Parquet | Incineration | 0 | 16.3 | 7.6 | 25.4 | 0.0 | 0 | −294.2 | 0 |
Re-used | Cellulose insulation | Landfilling | 0 | 26.0 | 9.4 | 0.0 | 8.3 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |
Re-used | Wood fibre insulation | Landfilling | 0 | 2.6 | 0.9 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |
Re-used | EPS insulation | Incineration | 0 | 6.3 | 1.7 | 900.5 | 0.0 | 0 | −144.2 | 0 |
Re-used | Gypsum | Recycling | 0 | 166.8 | 250.3 | 8.1 | 0.0 | 0 | −25.9 | 0 |
Re-used | Windows | Recycling | 0 | 25.8 | 64.5 | 0.4 | 0.9 | 0 | −17.6 | 0 |
Re-used | Doors | Incineration | 0 | 17.0 | 10.8 | 7.6 | 0.5 | 0 | −2.2 | 0 |
Re-used | Roof−steel | Recycling | 0 | 9.6 | 23.3 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 0 | −1046.2 | 0 |
Re-used | Plastics | Incineration | 0 | 1.7 | 0.9 | 455.0 | 0.0 | 0 | −79.2 | 0 |
New | Solar PV system | Recycling metal | 5766 | 1.1 | 14.7 | 1.3 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 86.7 | 0 |
New | Heat pump | Recycling metal | 604 | 6.0 | 4.9 | 0.4 | 0.0 | −2.6 | −256.0 | 0 |
New | Ventilation system | Recycling metal | 622 | 1.1 | 22.0 | 2.0 | 0.2 | −11.4 | −1141.1 | 0 |
New | Water supply piping system | Landfilling | 2784 | 3.6 | 5.6 | 0.0 | 5.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0 |
New | Underfloor heating system | Landfilling | 1211 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0 |
New | Electricity cables | Recycling metal | 471 | 0.6 | 13.0 | 1.2 | 0.1 | −6.7 | −672.6 | 0 |
Total: | 11,458 | 602.3 | 600.9 | 1479.8 | 16.6 | −20.7 | −5917.1 | 0 |
Scenario III | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Process | Building Products | EOL Treatment | A1–A3 | A4 | C2 | C3 | C4 | A5 | D | Biogenic Carbon |
Re-used | Concrete foundation | Crushed to aggregate | 0 | 129.2 | 153.1 | 18.1 | 0.0 | 0 | −1660.7 | 0 |
Re-used | Wood framework | Incineration | 0 | 15.9 | 1.5 | 4.9 | 0.0 | 0 | −57.2 | 0 |
Re-used | Wood panel | Incineration | 0 | 13.0 | 1.2 | 4.0 | 0.0 | 0 | −46.9 | 0 |
Re-used | CLT | Incineration | 0 | 96.1 | 8.9 | 29.9 | 0.0 | 0 | −346.2 | 0 |
Re-used | Thermo−wood | Incineration | 0 | 63.3 | 5.9 | 19.7 | 0.0 | 0 | −213.7 | 0 |
Re-used | Parquet | Incineration | 0 | 16.3 | 7.6 | 25.4 | 0.0 | 0 | −294.2 | 0 |
Re-used | Cellulose insulation | Landfilling | 0 | 26.0 | 9.4 | 0.0 | 8.3 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |
Re-used | Wood fibre insulation | Landfilling | 0 | 2.6 | 0.9 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |
Re-used | EPS insulation | Incineration | 0 | 6.3 | 1.7 | 900.5 | 0.0 | 0 | −144.2 | 0 |
Re-used | Gypsum | Recycling | 0 | 166.8 | 250.3 | 8.1 | 0.0 | 0 | −25.9 | 0 |
Re-used | Windows | Recycling | 0 | 25.8 | 64.5 | 0.4 | 0.9 | 0 | −17.6 | 0 |
Re-used | Doors | Incineration | 0 | 17.0 | 10.8 | 7.6 | 0.5 | 0 | −2.2 | 0 |
Re-used | Roof−steel | Recycling | 0 | 9.6 | 23.3 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 0 | −1046.2 | 0 |
Re-used | Plastics | Incineration | 0 | 1.7 | 0.9 | 455.0 | 0.0 | 0 | −79.2 | 0 |
Re-used | Solar PV system | Recycling metal | 0 | 1.1 | 14.7 | 1.3 | 0.1 | 0 | 86.7 | 0 |
Re-used | Heat pump | Recycling metal | 0 | 6.0 | 4.9 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0 | −256.0 | 0 |
Re-used | Ventilation system | Recycling metal | 0 | 1.1 | 22.0 | 2.0 | 0.2 | 0 | −1141.1 | 0 |
Re-used | Water supply piping system | Landfilling | 0 | 3.6 | 5.6 | 0.0 | 5.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |
Re-used | Underfloor heating system | Landfilling | 0 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.7 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |
Re-used | Electricity cables | Recycling metal | 0 | 0.6 | 13.0 | 1.2 | 0.1 | 0 | −672.6 | 0 |
Total: | 0 | 602.3 | 600.9 | 1479.8 | 16.6 | 0 | −5917.1 | 0 |
References
- Zimmermann, R.K.; Kanafani, K.; Rasmussen, F.N.; Andersen, C.; Birgisdóttir, H. LCA-Framework to Evaluate Circular Economy Strategies in Existing Buildings. BEYOND 2020—World Sustainable Built Environment Conference. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 588, 42044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Norouzi, M.; Chàfer, M.; Cabeza, L.F.; Jiménez, L.; Boer, D. Circular economy in the building and construction sector: A scientific evolution analysis. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 44, 102704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giorgi, S.; Lavagna, M.; Wang, K.; Osmani, M.; Liu, G.; Campioli, A. Drivers and barriers towards circular economy in the building sector: Stakeholder interviews and analysis of five European countries policies and practices. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 336, 130395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Obaidy, M.; Courard, L.; Attia, S. A Parametric Approach to Optimizing Building Construction Systems and Carbon Footprint: A Case Study Inspired by Circularity Principles. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eurostat. Construction Producer Price and Construction Cost Indices Overview. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Construction_producer_price_and_construction_cost_indices_overview (accessed on 5 May 2023).
- Eberhardt, L.C.M.; Birgisdottir, H.; Birkved, M. Potential of Circular Economy in Sustainable Buildings. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2019, 471, 92051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kylili, A.; Fokaides, P.A. Policy trends for the sustainability assessment of construction materials: A review. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2017, 35, 280–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- WEF World Economic Forum. Can the Circular Economy Transform the World’s Number One Consumer of Raw Materials? 4 May 2016. Available online: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/05/can-the-circular-economy-transform-the-world-s-number-one-consumer-of-raw-materials/ (accessed on 16 August 2022).
- Honic, M.; Kovacic, I.; Aschenbrenner, P.; Ragossnig, A. Material Passports for the end-of-life stage of buildings: Challenges and potentials. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 319, 128702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silvestre, J.D.; Brito, J.D.; Pinheiro, M.D. Environmental impacts and benefits of the end-of-life of building materials e calculation rules, results and contribution to a “cradle to cradle” life cycle. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 66, 37–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Röck, M.; Saadeb, M.R.M.; Balouktsi, M.; Rasmussen, F.N.; Birgisdottir, H.; Frischknecht, R.; Habert, G.; Lützkendorf, T.; Passer, A. Embodied GHG emissions of buildings—The hidden challenge for effective climate change mitigation. Appl. Energy 2020, 258, 114107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rasmussen, F.N.; Ganassali, S.; Zimmermann, R.K.; Lavagna, M.; Campioli, A.; Birgisdóttir, H. LCA benchmarks for residential buildings in Northern Italy and Denmark—learnings from comparing two different contexts. Build. Res. Inf. 2019, 47, 833–849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eberhardt, L.C.M.; Birgisdottir, H.; Birkved, M. Comparing life cycle assessment modelling of linear vs. circular building components. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 225, 12039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Minunno, R.; O’Grady, T.; Morrison, G.M.; Gruner, R.L. Exploring environmental benefits of reuse and recycle practices: A circular economy case study of a modular building. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 160, 104855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, J.; Hipel, K.W. Exploring social dimensions of municipal solid waste management around the globe—A systematic literature review. Waste Manag. 2016, 56, 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gálvez-Martos, J.-L.; Styles, D.; Schoenberger, H.; Zeschmar-Lahl, B. Construction and demolition waste best management practice in Europe. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 136, 166–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Høibye, L.; Sand, H. Circular economy in the Nordic construction sector: Identification and assessment of potential policy instruments that can accelerate a transition toward a circular economy. Tema Nord. 2018, 2018, 517. [Google Scholar]
- Knoth, K.; Fufa, S.M.; Seilskjær, E. Barriers, success factors, and perspectives for the reuse of construction products in Norway. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 337, 130494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- CEN EN 15804; Sustainability of Construction Works—Environmental Product Declarations—Core Rules for the Product Category of Construction Products. Comite Europeen de Normalisation: Brussels, Belgium, 2012.
- Quéheille, E.; Ventura, A.; Saiyouri, N.; Taillandier, F. A Life Cycle Assessment model of End-of-life scenarios for building deconstruction and waste management. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 339, 130694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nußholz, J.L.; Rasmussen, F.N.; Whalen, K.; Plepys, A. Material reuse in buildings: Implications of a circular business model for sustainable value creation. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 245, 118546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ding, T.; Xiao, J.; Tam, V.W. A closed-loop life cycle assessment of recycled aggregate concrete utilization in China. Waste Manag. 2016, 56, 367–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Campbell, A. Mass timber in the circular economy: Paradigm in practice? Civ. Eng. Eng. Sustain. 2019, 172, 141–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rose, C.M.; Bergsagel, D.; Dufresne, T.; Unubreme, E.; Lyu, T.; Duffour, P.; Stegemann, J.A. Cross-Laminated Secondary Timber: Experimental Testing and Modelling the Effect of Defects and Reduced Feedstock Properties. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- One Click LCA. 2015. Available online: https://www.oneclicklca.com/ (accessed on 3 August 2023).
- Petrovic, B.; Myhren, J.A.; Zhang, X.; Wallhagen, M.; Eriksson, O. Life cycle assessment of a wooden single-family house in Sweden. Appl. Energy 2019, 251, 113253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- What Does Circular Building Look Like? 5 May 2022. Available online: https://healthymaterialslab.org/learning-hub/wipe-out-waste (accessed on 8 August 2023).
- Ruocco, G.D.; Melella, R.; Sabatano, L. Timber Buildings Deconstruction as a Design Solution toward Near Zero CO2e Emissions. Buildings 2023, 13, 157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petrovic, B.; Eriksson, O.; Zhang, X. Carbon assessment of a wooden single-family building—A novel deep green design and elaborating on assessment parameters. Build. Environ. 2023, 233, 110093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wolf, C.D.; Hoxha, E.; Fivet, C. Comparison of environmental assessment methods when reusing building components: A case study. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 61, 102322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rakhshan, K.; Morel, J.C.; Alaka, H.; Charef, R. Components reuse in the building sector—A systematic review. Waste Manag. Res. 2020, 38, 347–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andersen, C.E.; Rasmussen, F.N.; Habert, G.; Birgisdottir, H. Embodied GHG Emissions of Wooden Buildings—Challenges of Biogenic Carbon Accounting in Current LCA Methods. Front. Built Environ. 2021, 7, 729096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rahla, K.M.; Mateus, R.; Bragança, L. Implementing Circular Economy Strategies in Buildings—From Theory to Practice. Appl. Syst. Innov. 2021, 4, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
GWP Indicator | LCA | Description |
---|---|---|
Released (positive) GHG emissions | A | Material production stage (A1–A3). This stage covers impacts related to raw material extraction, transport, and manufacturing emissions. In the case of re-used materials, the emissions are calculated as zero. Transportation to site (A4). This module covers impacts from the manufacturing processing location to the building site. |
C | End-of-life stage (C2–C4). This stage covers emissions from transportation for waste-to-waste processing (C2); emissions from different waste management practices (C3); and impacts of landfilling for waste streams (C4). * (C1) module was excluded. | |
Negative GHG emissions | A5 | External impact benefits from construction site based on material wastage that can be used for energy recovery |
D | External impact benefits from recycled/re-used materials with additional uses for energy recovery |
Life Cycle Modules | GWP (kg CO2e/m2) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Reference | Scenario I | Scenario II | Scenario III | |
A1–A3—production phase | 175.3 | 131.6 | 63.7 | 0.0 |
A4—transportation to site | 3.3 | 3.3 | 3.3 | 3.3 |
C2—waste transport | 3.3 | 3.3 | 3.3 | 3.3 |
C3—waste process | 8.2 | 8.2 | 8.2 | 8.2 |
C4—disposal | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
Total released (positive) GHG emissions | 190.3 | 146.6 | 78.7 | 15.0 |
A5—construction external benefits | −1.9 | −1.0 | −0.1 | 0.0 |
D—secondary material external benefits | −32.9 | −32.9 | −32.9 | −32.9 |
* Biogenic carbon (A1–A3) | −100.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
Total negative GHG emissions | −135.5 | −33.9 | −33.0 | −32.9 |
Total positive + negative GHG emissions | 54.8 | 112.7 | 45.7 | −17.9 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Petrović, B.; Eriksson, O.; Zhang, X.; Wallhagen, M. Carbon Assessment of a Wooden Single-Family Building—Focusing on Re-Used Building Products. Buildings 2024, 14, 800. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14030800
Petrović B, Eriksson O, Zhang X, Wallhagen M. Carbon Assessment of a Wooden Single-Family Building—Focusing on Re-Used Building Products. Buildings. 2024; 14(3):800. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14030800
Chicago/Turabian StylePetrović, Bojana, Ola Eriksson, Xingxing Zhang, and Marita Wallhagen. 2024. "Carbon Assessment of a Wooden Single-Family Building—Focusing on Re-Used Building Products" Buildings 14, no. 3: 800. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14030800