carbon implications of construction materials · pdf filecarbon implications of construction...
TRANSCRIPT
Carbon Implications of Construction Materials
Selection
Jim Bowyer Dovetail Partners, Inc.
Minneapolis, MN
“The Wood Products Council” is a Registered Provider with The American Institute of Architects Continuing Education Systems (AIA/CES). Credit(s) earned on completion of this program will be reported to AIA/CES for AIA members. Certificates of Completion for both AIA members and non-AIA members are available upon request. This program is registered with AIA/CES for continuing professional education. As such, it does not include content that may be deemed or construed to be an approval or endorsement by the AIA of any material of construction or any method or manner of handling, using, distributing, or dealing in any material or product.
This presentation is protected by US and International Copyright
laws. Reproduction, distribution, display and use of the
presentation without written permission of the speaker is
prohibited.
© The Wood Products Council 2012
Copyright Materials
Learning Objectives • To understand what research reveals about carbon
emissions linked to various design choices.
• To recognize the need for informed determination and interpretation of carbon emissions values .
• To gain an understanding of research underlying the WoodWorks Carbon Calculator, and application of this tool to evaluation of specific projects.
• To gain a basic understanding of the carbon dynamics of forests, and how forest management and periodic harvesting impact the carbon cycle.
Tracking Carbon
TRACKING CARBON - What to analyze (individual component, wall section, entire structure) - Bill of materials. - Track life cycle environmental impacts of every component. ● Raw material inputs ● Energy consumption ● Emissions ● Effluents ● Solid wastes ● By-products
In determining environmental impacts, consider: ● Raw material extraction ● Transportation ● All steps in manufacturing
If the “product” is a component assembled on-site or an entire structure, also assess:
● Transport of mat’ls to const. site ● Building construction ● Operation (heating/cooling) ● Maintenance ● End-of-building-life
OTHER RELEASES
PRODUCTS
COPRODUCTS
EMISSIONS
EFFLUENTS
SOLID WASTES
RECOVERED STEEL
OTHER MATERIALS
ENERGY
Mining
Crushing/Separation (Transportation)
Refining (Transportation)
Smelting
Forming (Transportation)
Steel Products Mfg
(Transportation)
WATER
(Transportation)
Building Construction
Use/Maintenance
(Transportation)
Recycling/Waste Mgmt
● Raw material extraction ● Transportation ● Processing to final product ● Transport to building site ● Building construction ● Operation (heating/ cooling) ● Maintenance ● End-of-life
● Raw material inputs ● Energy consumption ● Emissions ● Effluents ● Solid wastes ● By-products
Tracking Carbon
● Raw material inputs ● Energy consumption ● Emissions ● Effluents ● Solid wastes ● By-products
Tracking Carbon
● Carbon Dioxide (CO2) ● Methane (CH4) ● Nitrous Oxide (N2O) ● HFCs ● CFCs ● Sulfur hexafluoride
Greenhouse Gases
The Heat Trapping Efficiency of Various Greenhouse Gases is Not Equal
Compound
Heat Trapping Efficiency Compared
to Carbon Dioxide Carbon dioxide (CO2) 1
Methane (CH4) 23X
Nitrous oxide (N2O) 296X
HFCs 120-12,000X
CFCs 5,700-11,900X
Sulfur hexafluoride 22,200X
Calculating CO2 Equivalency (CO2e)
CO2e
Compute a weighted average, multiplying the relative heat trapping potential of each gas by the emissions of that gas.
The result is a carbon dioxide equivalent value (CO2e).
A Few Notes About Carbon Tracking: Cannot be done casually. Follow international scientific protocols. Include all critical elements. When comparing products, compare functionally equivalent products. Use same scope of activity for all products.
1. Carbon accounting through a products life cycle should be done in compliance with ISO 14040, and involve independent third party
oversight and review.
Follow International Scientific Protocols
2. When comparing products using LCA, the scope of the life cycle considered is important.
All critical elements included
Same scope for all products compared
3. When comparing products, the comparison must be between functionally equivalent products.
Comparisons of Construction Alternatives
Wälludden Project, Växjo, Sweden
Department of Ecotechnology, Mid-Sweden University,
Östersund, Sweden (2000)
Wälludden Project, Växjo, Sweden
Four-story apartment buildings, each containing 16 apartments. Total usable floor area in each
building of 12,809 ft2.
Wälludden Project, Växjo, Sweden
Designed and built in wood. Life cycle analysis
(LCA) of environmental
impacts
LCA of identical building “built” of
concrete.
Wälludden Project, Växjo, Sweden
Material Wood Concrete Lumber 58 23 Particleboard 18 9 Plywood 21 0 Concrete 223 2014 Plasterboard 89 22
Materials Use in the Buildings (mt)
Wälludden Project, Växjo, Sweden Wood Concrete Difference
Energy Consumption in Building Materials Production Total energy consumed in producing construction materials (GJ)
2330 2972 -22%
CO2 Emissions (mt CO2e) Fossil fuel use in mat’l production 51.3 67.7 -24% Emission from cement reactions 1/ 4.0 21.0 -81%
1/ It was assumed that 8% of CO2 emissions from calcination reactions would be reabsorbed by the concrete over a 100-year building life.
Wälludden Project, Växjo, Sweden Wood Concrete Difference
Energy Consumption in Building Materials Production Total energy consumed in producing construction materials (GJ)
2330 2972 -22%
CO2 Emissions (mt CO2e) Fossil fuel use in mat’l production 51.3 67.7 -24% Emission from cement reactions 1/ 4.0 21.0 -81%
Long-Term Carbon Storage in Building Materials (mt) Carbon stock in building materials 40.3 28.2 +43% Avoided Carbon Emissions Due to Displacement of Fossil Fuels Includes biofuel use in building materials production and biofuel recovery at end of life. 101.2 66.0 +53%
1/ It was assumed that 8% of CO2 emissions from calcination reactions would be reabsorbed by the concrete over a 100-year building life.
• The average greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation over a 100-year perspective is 2 to 3 times better for the wood building than the concrete building. It is also better over 50-year and 300-year building life cycles.
• The use of wood building materials in place of concrete, coupled with the greater integration of wood by-products into energy production would be an effective means of reducing fossil fuel use and net CO2 emissions to the atmosphere.
Key Findings:
Växjo Wooden City
Part of an effort initiated in 1996 to become a fossil fuel free city and the “greenest city in Europe.” Results from the Wälludden Project were the basis for focus on wood
construction.
Energy Consumption and CO2 Emissions in Constructing a Large
Office Building
Athena Sustainable Materials Institute Ottawa, Canada
(1992)
Energy Consumption and CO2 Emissions in Constructing a Large Office Building
Wood Steel Concrete
Life cycle comparison of three designs.
Construction
Total Energy Use*
Above Grade Energy Use*
CO2 Emissions**
Wood 3.80 2.15 73
Steel 7.35 5.20 105 Concrete 5.50 3.70 132
* GJ x 103
** kg x 103
Analysis of a Large Office Building
CaCo3 CaO + CO2
• Wood building on concrete foundation had embodied energy only 67% of that of concrete and 53% of that of the steel building.
• Wood building had above grade embodied energy only 59% that of concrete and 42% that of steel building.
• Carbon emissions associated with wood structure only 60% and 70% of those of concrete and steel structure respectively.
Key Findings:
FP Innovations Laboratory, Vancouver, B.C.
Energy Consumption and CO2 Emissions in Constructing the Roof of Oslo International Airport Terminal
Agricultural University of Norway Oslo, Norway
(2002)
Energy Consumption and CO2 Emissions in Constructing the Roof of Oslo International Airport Terminal
Compared energy consumption and GHG emissions associated with two options for
construction of the roof structure: steel beams and glue-laminated spruce wood beams.
• Manufacturing steel beams uses 2 to 3 times more energy and 6 to 12 times more fossil fuels than manufacturing glulam beams.
• If virgin, rather than recycled, steel is used, the differences as indicated above become substantially greater.
• In the most likely scenario, steel beam manufacture results in 5 times greater GHG emissions than does the manufacture of glulam beams.
Key Findings:
Energy Consumption and CO2 Emissions in Constructing the Roof of Raleigh-
Durham Airport Terminal
Athena Sustainable Materials Institute (2011)
Energy Consumption and CO2 Emissions in Constructing the Roof of Raleigh-
Durham Airport Terminal
LCA showed that use of wood rather than traditional materials for this application resulted in:
energy savings of 5,600 MWh
GWP savings of 1,000 t CO2e
Energy Consumption in Construction of Warehouses Made
of Wood, Steel, and Concrete
Federal Research Centre for Forestry and Forest Products
Hamburg, Germany (2003)
Energy Consumption and GWP Associated with Construction of Alternative Warehouse Designs
Wood Steel Concrete
Energy (incl. operational energy) - GJ 5,330 6,580 8,000
GWP (mt CO2e) 1,030* 1,320 1,600
* If wood is recovered for energy generation at the end of building life, the GWP for the wood design drops to 829 mt.
• In a series of life cycle assessments of buildings and building components made of wood and non-wood materials, production of wood alternatives consistently used less energy and emitted less GHG than non-wood materials.
Key Finding:
LCA of Mid-Rise Office Building Construction Alternatives:
Laminated Timber vs. Reinforced Concrete
Canadian Wood Council/ University of British Columbia (2012)
LCA of Mid-Rise Office Building Construction Alternatives:
Discovery Place – Building 12 Burnaby, B.C.
A 153,000 ft2 office building, constructed in 2009. Five story Three levels of underground parking Cast-in place reinforced concrete structural frame
LCA of Mid-Rise Office Building Construction Alternatives:
Reinforced Concrete Glulam/CLT
LCA of structural system and enclosure of existing
building.
LCA of functionally equivalent structural system and building
envelope.
LCA of Mid-Rise Office Building Construction Alternatives:
Glulam/CLT
LCA of functionally equivalent structural system and building envelope using a combination of glulam and cross laminated
timber (CLT) for the vertical and horizontal force resisting systems, in conjunction with reinforced concrete shear core.
Cross-Laminated Timber
Material Group
Unit of Measurement
Concrete Design
Timber Design
Foundation
Footings m3 of concrete 1,408 1,408
Slab-on-grade m3 of concrete 416 416
Foundation walls m3 of concrete 834 834
Below-grade columns m3 of concrete 151 151
P2, P-1, and ground floor slabs m3 of concrete 3,253 3,253
Superstructure
Primary shear walls and cores m3 of concrete 1,293 1,293
Vertical load-bearing walls m3 of concrete/CLT 181 128
Above-grade floors & roof m3 of concrete/CLT 3,628 2,950
Above-grade columns m3 of concrete/glulam 268 122
Beams & roof parapet m3 of concrete/glulam 166 947
Wood sealer m2 -- 1,586
Unit of Concrete
Design Details
Material Group
Unit of Measurement
Concrete Design
Timber Design
Building Enclosure
Curtain wall m2 2,415 2,415
Cedar siding m2 of 13 mm thickness -- 13,374
ccSPF insulation m3 2,134 --
R-13 insulation m3 258 115
Steel stud framing m2 @ 406 mm O/C 1,617 --
Wood stud framing m2 @ 406 mm O/C -- 1,617
Gypsum wall board m2 of 13 mm thickness 1,929 1,929
Design Details
Environmental Impact Comparisons
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Fossil fuel depletion
Acidification
Smog
Ecological toxicity
Eutrophication
Water intake
Criteria air pollutants
Human health effects
Ozone depletion
Global warming potential
Laminated Timber/CLT Reinforced Concrete
Library Square, Kamloops, B.C.
FP Innovations (2012)
Library Square, Kamloops, BC
Library Square, Kamloops, BC Six story structure (Five stories of wood over podium slab). Combined residential/commercial. • 140 condo units • 14,000 ft2 street level commercial • 20,000 ft2 library • Underground parking
Volume of wood used 2,927 m3 Carbon sequestered and stored (CO2e)
2,124 metric tons
Avoided greenhouse gases (CO2e)
4,520 metric tons
Total potential carbon benefit (CO2e)
6,645 metric tons
Library Square, Kamloops, BC
Carbon savings from the choice of wood in this one project are equivalent to: 1,269 passenger vehicles off the road for a year Enough energy to operate a home for 565 years
Library Square, Kamloops, BC
An observation regarding consistency of findings:
Vs.
A Cautionary Note
Should you find a study that reports markedly different results, check the details.
- Were international protocols followed? - All critical elements included? - Same scope of operations evaluated? - Functionally equivalent products compared?
Forest Carbon Dynamics
Source: ).
The Global Carbon Cycle
Sequestered Carbon • Fossil Fuels
– Petroleum – Coal – Natural gas
• Limestone (CaCo3) • Forests
– Trees – Litter – Forest soils
• Other plants – Shrubs, grass, ag. crops – Algae
Sequestered millions of years ago
Sequestered, released, and
re-sequestered as part of
ongoing carbon cycle.
stereSeques
Fossil Carbon
s Biogenic Carbon
Growing trees capture carbon dioxide from the air and release
oxygen.
CO2 O2
Carbon
Species Ash C H O N
% % % % %
Douglas Fir 0.80 52.30 6.30 40.50 0.10
Hickory 0.73 47.67 6.49 43.11 0.00
Maple 1.35 50.64 6.02 41.74 0.25
Ponderosa Pine 0.29 49.25 5.99 44.36 0.06
Western Hemlock 2.20 50.40 5.80 41.10 0.10
Yellow Pine 1.31 52.60 7.00 40.10 0.00
White Fir 0.25 49.00 5.98 44.75 0.05
White Oak 1.52 49.48 5.38 43.13 0.35
BARK
Douglas Fir bark 1.20 56.20 5.90 36.70 0.00
Loblolly Pine bark 0.40 56.30 5.60 37.70 0.00
cies Ash C H O N
Proximate Analysis of Wood
Source: Biomass Energy Foundation (2009) (http://www.woodgas.com/proximat.htm)
Trends in U.S. Forestland Area 1630-2009
1045
759 732 760 756 762 755 744 739 737 747 751
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1630 1907 1920 1938 1953 1963 1970 1977 1987 1992 1997 2009
Mill
ion
Acr
es
Source: USDA – Forest Service, 2009.
Trends in U.S. Forestland Area 1630-2009
1045
759 732 760 756 762 755 744 739 737 747 751
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1630 1907 1920 1938 1953 1963 1970 1977 1987 1992 1997 2009
Mill
ion
Acr
es
Source: USDA – Forest Service, 2009.
Trends in U.S. Forestland Area 1630-2009
1045
759 732 760 756 762 755 744 739 737 747 751
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1630 1907 1920 1938 1953 1963 1970 1977 1987 1992 1997 2009
Mill
ion
Acr
es
Source: USDA – Forest Service, 2009.
Trends in U.S. Forestland Area 1630-2009
1045
759 732 760 756 762 755 744 739 737 747 751
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1630 1907 1920 1938 1953 1963 1970 1977 1987 1992 1997 2009
Mill
ion
Acr
es
Source: USDA – Forest Service, 2009.
U.S. Timber Growth and Removals, 1920 - 2006
Billions of cubic feet/ year
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1920 1933 1952 1976 1986 1996 2006
Net GrowthRemovals
Source: USDA - Forest Service, 2009.
Standing Timber Inventory – U.S. 1952-2007
0100200300400500600700800900
1000
1952 1962 1970 1976 1986 1991 1997 2002 2007
Hardwoods Softwoods
Bill
ion
Cub
ic F
eet
Source: USDA-Forest Service, 2009.
Carbon in Above-Ground Portion of Standing Trees, U.S. 1990-2009
11
11.5
12
12.5
13
13.5
14
14.5
15
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Aboveground Biomass
Bill
ion
Tons
Car
bon
Source: USEPA (2012). Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, 1990-2011, p. 7-15.
Forest Soil Carbon Inventory, U.S. 1990-2010
0
10
20
30
40
50
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Soil Organic C LitterDead Wood Belowground BiomassAboveground Biomass
Bill
ion
Tons
Car
bon
Source: USEPA (2012). Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, 1990-2011, p. 7-15.
Forest Management
Slowing of Tree Growth with Increasing Age
Source: Brack, C. (1997) Australian National University).
100 – 150 yr
Carbon Storage in a Sustainably Managed Forest at Stand Level
Source: Adapted from Colnes (2011).
Carbon Storage in a Sustainably Managed Forest at Stand and Parcel Levels
Source: Adapted from Colnes (2011)
Carbon Storage in a Sustainably Managed Forest at the Landscape Level
Source: Adapted from Colnes (2011)
Carbon Storage in a Sustainably Managed Forest at Stand Level
Source: Adapted from Colnes (2011).
Clearcutting in lodgepole pine - Montana.
Similar area, two years following harvest.
Similar area ten years following harvest. All natural regeneration.
Harvesting Cycles of Lodgepole Pine in Nature
An example from Yellowstone National Park
Yellowstone 1988
Eleven years later..
Harvesting and Manufacturing
To the mill
Left on-site
Uses of Material Processed at Milling Sites
Source: Bowyer (2012). Data for United States, 2005.
52% processed into lumber. 36% converted to paper, particleboard, fiberboard, insulation board. 11-12% used to generate energy. ≤1% waste.
A substantial portion of this wood goes into long-term
use, such as building construction.
Carbon in Wood Products in Use, U.S. 1990-2010
1.1
1.15
1.2
1.25
1.3
1.35
1.4
1.45
1.5
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Bill
ion
Tons
Car
bon
Source: USEPA (2012). Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, 1990-2011, p. 7-15.
Replacing Forest Carbon Transferred to
Wood Structures
Library Square, Kamloops, BC (2,927m3 of wood)
Time period needed for North American forests to replace the
volume of wood used in this structure at current net growth rates:
9 minutes
Summary • Carbon accounting is increasingly of interest to society.
• Accurate tracking of carbon requires rigorous assessment through the life-cycle of products.
• Systematic assessment consistently shows that production and use of wood products results in lower energy consumption and CO2 emissions than functionally equivalent non-wood products.
• Forests are renewable, and in U.S. and North American forests net annual growth far exceeds removals.
Summary • In the managed forests of North America, carbon stores are steadily increasing at the same time that carbon stores in wood structures are increasing as well.
In addition to carbon storage in wood structures, every time wood is used instead of more energy intensive alternatives, substantial carbon emissions are avoided.
This concludes The American Institute of Architects Continuing
Education Systems Course
Wood Products Council 866.966.3448 [email protected] Dovetail Partners 612.333.0430 www.dovetailinc.org
Questions?
WoodWorks Upcoming Events
December 13 – Webinar: Treated Wood Piling – The Support You Need!
January 8 – Alexandria VA Wood Solutions Fair
January 29 – Oakland CA Wood Solutions Fair
February 27 – Seattle WA Wood Solutions Fair