IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i11p6838-d830875.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dynamic Versus Static Life Cycle Assessment of Energy Renovation for Residential Buildings

Author

Listed:
  • Els Van de moortel

    (Department of Architecture, KU Leuven, Kasteelpark Arenberg 1 Box 2431, 3001 Leuven, Belgium)

  • Karen Allacker

    (Department of Architecture, KU Leuven, Kasteelpark Arenberg 1 Box 2431, 3001 Leuven, Belgium)

  • Frank De Troyer

    (Department of Architecture, KU Leuven, Kasteelpark Arenberg 1 Box 2431, 3001 Leuven, Belgium)

  • Erik Schoofs

    (Molse Bouwmaatschappij, Social Housing Company, Bosveld 152, 2400 Mol, Belgium)

  • Luc Stijnen

    (Zonnige Kempen, Social Housing Company, Grote Markt 39, 2260 Westerlo, Belgium)

Abstract

Currently, a life cycle assessment is mostly used in a static way to assess the environmental impacts of the energy renovation of buildings. However, various aspects of energy renovation vary in time. This paper reports the development of a framework for a dynamic life cycle assessment and its application to assess the energy renovation of buildings. To investigate whether a dynamic approach leads to different decisions than a static approach, several renovation options of a residential house were compared. To identify the main drivers of the impact and to support decision-making for renovation, a shift of the reference study period—as defined in EN 15643-1 and EN 15978—is proposed (from construction to renovation). Interventions related to the energy renovation are modelled as current events, while interventions and processes that happen afterwards are modelled as future events, including dynamic parameters, considering changes in the operational energy use, changes in the energy mix, and future (cleaner) production processes. For a specific case study building, the dynamic approach resulted in a lower environmental impact than the static approach. However, the dynamic approach did not result in other renovation recommendations, except when a dynamic parameter for electricity production was included.

Suggested Citation

  • Els Van de moortel & Karen Allacker & Frank De Troyer & Erik Schoofs & Luc Stijnen, 2022. "Dynamic Versus Static Life Cycle Assessment of Energy Renovation for Residential Buildings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-30, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:11:p:6838-:d:830875
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/11/6838/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/11/6838/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christina Wulf & Jasmin Werker & Christopher Ball & Petra Zapp & Wilhelm Kuckshinrichs, 2019. "Review of Sustainability Assessment Approaches Based on Life Cycles," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-43, October.
    2. Röck, Martin & Saade, Marcella Ruschi Mendes & Balouktsi, Maria & Rasmussen, Freja Nygaard & Birgisdottir, Harpa & Frischknecht, Rolf & Habert, Guillaume & Lützkendorf, Thomas & Passer, Alexander, 2020. "Embodied GHG emissions of buildings – The hidden challenge for effective climate change mitigation," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 258(C).
    3. Asdrubali, F. & Baggio, P. & Prada, A. & Grazieschi, G. & Guattari, C., 2020. "Dynamic life cycle assessment modelling of a NZEB building," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    4. Brounen, Dirk & Kok, Nils & Quigley, John M., 2012. "Residential energy use and conservation: Economics and demographics," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(5), pages 931-945.
    5. Pehnt, Martin, 2006. "Dynamic life cycle assessment (LCA) of renewable energy technologies," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 55-71.
    6. Danielle Devogelaer & Dominique Gusbin, 2018. "Working Paper 05-18 - Insights in a clean energy future for Belgium - Impact assessment of the 2030 Climate & Energy Framework," Working Papers 1805, Federal Planning Bureau, Belgium.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Huopana, Tuomas & Song, Han & Kolehmainen, Mikko & Niska, Harri, 2013. "A regional model for sustainable biogas electricity production: A case study from a Finnish province," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 676-686.
    2. Tabata, Tomohiro & Okuda, Takaaki, 2012. "Life cycle assessment of woody biomass energy utilization: Case study in Gifu Prefecture, Japan," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 944-951.
    3. Dorothée Charlier & Sondès Kahouli, 2018. "Fuel poverty and residential energy demand: how fuel-poor households react to energy price fluctuations," Post-Print halshs-01957771, HAL.
    4. Adam R. Brandt, 2011. "Oil Depletion and the Energy Efficiency of Oil Production: The Case of California," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 3(10), pages 1-22, October.
    5. Chatzigeorgiou, I.M. & Andreou, G.T., 2021. "A systematic review on feedback research for residential energy behavior change through mobile and web interfaces," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    6. Fischbacher, Urs & Schudy, Simeon & Teyssier, Sabrina, 2021. "Heterogeneous preferences and investments in energy saving measures," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    7. Jae Yun Jeong & Inje Kang & Ki Seok Choi & Byeong-Hee Lee, 2018. "Network Analysis on Green Technology in National Research and Development Projects in Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-12, April.
    8. Dorothee Charlier and Sondes Kahouli, 2019. "From Residential Energy Demand to Fuel Poverty: Income-induced Non-linearities in the Reactions of Households to Energy Price Fluctuations," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 2).
    9. Omar Shafqat & Elena Malakhtka & Nina Chrobot & Per Lundqvist, 2021. "End Use Energy Services Framework Co-Creation with Multiple Stakeholders—A Living Lab-Based Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-24, July.
    10. Kristina Henzler & Stephanie D. Maier & Michael Jäger & Rafael Horn, 2020. "SDG-Based Sustainability Assessment Methodology for Innovations in the Field of Urban Surfaces," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-32, June.
    11. Tian, Xueyu & You, Fengqi, 2019. "Carbon-neutral hybrid energy systems with deep water source cooling, biomass heating, and geothermal heat and power," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 250(C), pages 413-432.
    12. Frédéric Gonand, 2016. "The Carbon Tax, Ageing and Pension Deficits," Post-Print hal-01251698, HAL.
    13. Ohler, Adrienne M. & Billger, Sherrilyn M., 2014. "Does environmental concern change the tragedy of the commons? Factors affecting energy saving behaviors and electricity usage," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 1-12.
    14. Ravikumar, Dwarakanath & Malghan, Deepak, 2013. "Material constraints for indigenous production of CdTe PV: Evidence from a Monte Carlo experiment using India's National Solar Mission Benchmarks," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 393-403.
    15. Mostafa Shaaban & Jürgen Scheffran & Jürgen Böhner & Mohamed S. Elsobki, 2018. "Sustainability Assessment of Electricity Generation Technologies in Egypt Using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-25, May.
    16. Estiri, Hossein, 2014. "Building and household X-factors and energy consumption at the residential sector," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 178-184.
    17. Lund, P.D., 2007. "Upfront resource requirements for large-scale exploitation schemes of new renewable technologies," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 442-458.
    18. Belaïd, Fateh & Joumni, Haitham, 2020. "Behavioral attitudes towards energy saving: Empirical evidence from France," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    19. Schröder, Carsten & Rehdanz, Katrin & Narita, Daiju & Okubo, Toshihiro, 2013. "Household formation and residential energy demand: Evidence from Japan," Kiel Working Papers 1836, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    20. Hong, Sanghyun & Bradshaw, Corey J.A. & Brook, Barry W., 2014. "Nuclear power can reduce emissions and maintain a strong economy: Rating Australia’s optimal future electricity-generation mix by technologies and policies," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 712-725.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:11:p:6838-:d:830875. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.