Retrofit versus new-build house using life-cycle assessment

McGrath, T., Nanukuttan, S., Owens, K., Basheer, M., & Keig, P. (2013). Retrofit versus new-build house using
life-cycle assessment. Proceedings of the ICE - Engineering Sustainability, 166(3), 122-137.
https://doi.org/10.1680/ensu.11.00026

Published in:
Proceedings of the ICE - Engineering Sustainability

Document Version:
Peer reviewed version

Queen's University Belfast - Research Portal:

Link to publication record in Queen's University Belfast Research Portal

Publisher rights
Copyright © ICE Publishing 2013. This work is made available online in accordance with the publisher’s policies. Please refer to any
applicable terms of use of the publisher.

General rights
Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Queen's University Belfast Research Portal is retained by the author(s) and / or other
copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated
with these rights.

Take down policy

The Research Portal is Queen's institutional repository that provides access to Queen's research output. Every effort has been made to
ensure that content in the Research Portal does not infringe any person's rights, or applicable UK laws. If you discover content in the
Research Portal that you believe breaches copyright or violates any law, please contact openaccess@qub.ac.uk.

Download date:22. May. 2019

Date text written or revised: 18:03:2011

Title: Retrofit Vs. New Build House using Life Cycle Assessment.

Full names and qualifications of the authors, position and affiliation:

Teresa Mc Grath, BEng, MSc, PhD Researcher, School of Planning Architecture and Civil

Engineering, Queen’s University Belfast.

Sreejith Nanukuttan, BTech PhD, Lecturer, School of Planning Architecture and Civil

Engineering, Queen’s University Belfast.

Kieran Owens, BEng PhD, Renewable Energy Manager, Creagh Concrete Products Limited,

Toomebridge, Co. Antrim.

Muhammed Basheer, PhD, CEng, FICE, FACI., Professor, School of Planning Architecture

and Civil Engineering, Queen’s University Belfast.

Peter Keig MSc, Director of Eco-Energy (NI) Ltd. PhD Researcher, University of Ulster,

Jordanstown.

Contact address, telephone and email address of submitting author:

Sreejith Nanukuttan, School of Planning Architecture & Civil Engineering, David Kerr

Building, Queen’s University Belfast. BT9 5AG.

Telephone: +44 (0)28 9097 4218

E-mail: s.nanukuttan@qub.ac.uk

Number of words in your main text: 7111 (excluding abstract and references)

Number of tables and illustrations: 12 Tables and 8 Figures (Please note figure captions are

detailed on pp.36).
Abstract

This paper reports the findings of research on the environmental performance of two case

study houses, a retrofit and new build. The retrofit was completed to a PassivHaus standard

whilst the new build was completed to current Irish building regulations. Environmental

performance of the retrofit and new build was measured using life cycle assessments,

examining the assembly, operational and end of life stage over life spans of 50 and 80 years.

Using primary information, LCA software and LCA databases the environmental impacts of

each stage were modelled. The operational stage of both case studies was found to be the

source of the most significant environmental damage, followed by the assembly and the end

of life stage respectively. The relative importance of the assembly and end of life stage

decreased as the life span increased. It was found that the retrofit house studied outperformed

the new build in the assembly and operational stage whilst the new build performed better in

the end of life stage however this is highly sensitive, depending on the standards to which

both are completed. Operational energy savings pre and post-retrofit were significant

indicating the future potential for adoption of high quality retrofitting practices.

Keywords: Energy conservation; Rehabilitation, reclamation & renovation; Sustainability.

1 INTRODUCTION
In recent years there has been an increased focus on sustainable development, with world

leaders endeavouring to reduce anthropogenic environmental impacts such as climate change.

The Climate Change Act (2008) saw the UK Government committing to a legally binding

target of a 34% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions/ CO2eq by 2020 on 1990 levels and an

80% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions / CO2eq by 2050 on 1990 levels. In order to

achieve these ambitious targets, CO2 emissions from sectors such as industry, transport and

construction have been quantified with the required reductions presented in numerous

Government strategies. The energy use of the housing sector is the source of over a quarter of

total annual UK CO2 emissions (Energy Saving Trust, 2010). The Energy Performance of

Buildings Directive (2010) aims to improve the energy efficiency of buildings, requiring

public buildings and new buildings to be nearly zero energy from 2018 and 2020

respectively, with certification based on life cycle analyses. The UK intends that all new

homes will be zero-carbon by 2016 (Department of Energy & Climate Change, 2011), with

the recently updated definition requiring the mitigation of emissions from regulated energy

use such as space heating, water heating and lighting as included in Part L1A of the Building

Regulations whilst unregulated energy use such as plug-in appliances are excluded (Zero

Carbon Hub, 2011). Smart meters allowing householders to monitor energy consumption, are

to be installed in all homes by 2020. However, these initiatives alone will not meet the

required 80% reduction in CO2 with between 66 - 80% of homes in 2050 having been built

before the implementation of these new strategies (Energy Saving Trust, 2010; Department of

Energy & Climate Change 2011). Existing stock is aged and underperforming, with the most

recent House Condition Survey using standard assessment procedure (SAP) showing an

average energy efficiency in Northern Ireland and England of 52.4 and 51.4 respectively,

achieving an energy efficiency rating of 'E' (Department of Communities & Local

1
Government, 2010; Northern Ireland Housing Executive, 2008). In order to achieve the 80%

reduction by 2050 the majority of housing will have to achieve above a 'B' energy efficiency

rating, which means achieving a minimum SAP rating of 81.

Studies have been conducted with varying underlying assumptions such as population growth

and housing stock turnover by BRE and the Environment Agency, amongst others to compare

methods of improving the housing stock as per recommendations by the Sustainable

Development Commission. These methods may broadly be categorised as supporting

solutions with increased rates of demolition and new build or high quality retrofitting of

existing homes. These studies have been summarised by Environmental Change Institute

(2006) and Power (2008), which also debate their merits and highlight weaknesses for those

interested in further reading. However, the main limitation of these studies is that a

systematic assessment of the environmental performance and potential energy savings of the

two solutions has not been carried out. In a research project at Queen's University Belfast,

this was given emphasis, the results of which are summarised in this paper, so that a well

informed and an appropriate strategy to achieve the goal of an 80% reduction in CO2 by 2050

could be developed.

An introduction to the life cycle assessment (LCA) framework, a methodology whose

application is becoming prevalent for the evaluation of environmental impacts and

sustainability, particularly within the EU (http://lct.jrc.ec.europa.eu/index_jrc), is outlined.

This is followed by the description of the two case studies that formed the basis of the

analysis with the life cycle stages of assembly, operation and end of life disposal discussed

and analysed. The results are then compared to draw conclusions on the environmental

impact and potential energy savings by 2050.

2
2 LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT
2.1 Life cycle assessment background
The life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology allows for the quantification of consumed

resources, emissions and environmental impacts of a product. LCA considers the entire life

cycle of a product, examining the extraction of resources, manufacturing process, use and

eventual disposal. LCA is internationally standardised through the ISO 14040 series, however

these were lacking in technical detail and gave LCA practitioners a wide range of choices.

The ISO were supplemented by best practice developed by the Society of Environmental

Toxicology and Chemistry and currently the International Reference Life Cycle Data System

is being developed to create a robust, consistent and prescriptive framework with greater

quality assurance (EC JRC, 2010).

3
2.2 Life cycle assessment methodology

Figure 1 - Life cycle assessment process, adapted from ISO14044

Life cycle assessment consists of four steps which are described in ISO 14044; goal and

scope definition, life cycle inventory analysis (LCI), life cycle impact assessment (LCIA),

and life cycle interpretation which are shown in Figure 1. Goal definition specifies the

purpose of undertaking and intended audience whilst the scope definition specifies the system

boundaries and the functional unit. The second step is LCI, which quantifies the amount of

materials and energy consumed in the product manufacturing and the resultant waste by

products and emissions. The potential environmental impact associated with inventory results

is calculated in the LCIA stage.

4
Life cycle impact assessment consists of two procedures, which are mandatory; selection of

impact categories and classification and characterisation, and two optional procedures namely

normalisation and weighting as outlined in Guinée et al., (2002), and ILCD (2010), amongst

others. Environmental damages can be classified into impact categories at midpoint or

endpoint level. The process in which an emission from a product becomes an environmental

impact is referred to as an environmental mechanism (Guinée et al., 2002). A midpoint

impact occurs at some point along the environmental mechanism and represents the direct

negative effect on the environment such as eutrophication and climate change. Endpoint

impact is taken at the end of mechanism and are damage orientated indicators corresponding

to damage to human health or ecosystem (Goedkoop et al., 2009). Using multiple midpoint

impact categories allows for greater detail on the environmental damage, but endpoint

damage orientated indicators may be aggregated into single scores which are easier for non-

experts to interpret and understand. There are many impact assessment midpoint and

endpoint methods available, such as CML, Impact 2002+, TRACI and EcoIndicator. A

gathering of LCA experts in the year 2000 concluded with a consensus that a common

framework of impact assessment that presented results at midpoint and endpoint level was

required. The resulting method, ReCiPe, was developed, building on the Eco-indicator 99 and

CML methods and harmonises modelling principles and choices (Goedkoop et al., 2009).

Midpoint: Endpoint: Grouping Single

LCI result EM Impact EM Damage &
Weighting score
category category

5
 Midpoint: Endpoint: Grouping Single
CO2 EM Climate EM Human &
Weighting score
change health

EM = environmental mechanism

Weighting = dependent on how significant the damage category is viewed to be by company/individual developing the LCA

Figure 2 - Relationship between life cycle inventory results, impact categories, damage
categories and single score with simplified CO2 example

The cultural perspective theories of risk by Thompson, 1990, as explained in (Goedkoop et

al., 2009) are used to deal with any uncertainties related to the environmental mechanisms,

with three methods available grouping assumptions and choices; viz. egalitarian, hierarchist

and individualist. The egalitarian perspective considers a time scale that is extremely long

term. Any substance with an indication of ill effect included and damages are considered to

be unavoidable and may lead to catastrophic events. The hierarchist perspective considers a

long term time scale. Substances are included if there is scientific consensus regarding their

ill effect and damages may be avoided with good management. The individualist perspective

considers a short-term timescale (≤100 years) with substances only included if there is

complete proof of their ill effect. Damages are assumed to treatable by economic and

technological development.

As such the ReCiPe LCIA method was used in this study at midpoint and endpoint levels.

The hierarchist perspective was selected with an average weighting set as it is the most

scientifically and politically accepted method and has been used previously in construction

LCA (Blengini & Di Carlo, 2010 (b); De Gracia et al., 2010).

6
The final step of life cycle assessment is the interpretation of the results of the previous

stages. Methodological choices are evaluated for robustness and conclusions and

recommendations presented.

2.3 Use of life cycle assessment in construction

A life cycle assessment of a building generally consists of examining the building in three

stages; assembly, operation and end of life. The significance of the operational stage of a

conventional building in terms issues such as energy use and environmental impact has

previously been identified (Sartori & Hestnes, 2007). To reduce this significance and

increase the energy efficiency of buildings designers have become more focused on creating

low-energy buildings. This is achieved by a number of methods, such as increasing the

envelope air-tightness and improving the buildings’ thermal efficiency with insulation.

Increasing the amount of materials which are energy and resource intensive in manufacture

has an effect on the significance of the assembly stage in life cycle assessment. Life cycle

assessments on low energy buildings have shown that they have a higher embodied energy

than conventional buildings (Ramesh et al., 2010). Sartori & Hestnes, (2007) reviewed 60

case studies examining the operational energy of low energy and conventional buildings and

concluded that the trend of decreasing operational energy is accompanied with an increasing

embodied energy. Overall the conventional buildings reviewed had an embodied energy in

the range of 2 - 38% of its life cycle energy whilst low-energy buildings had a higher

embodied energy range of 9 – 46% of its life cycle energy. It should be noted that the life

cycle energy of low-energy buildings is much smaller than the life cycle energy of

conventional buildings. These studies focus solely on life cycle energy, but it is important to

note that the environmental impacts of a building extends beyond the embodied and

operational energy with other burdens, such as resource and mineral extraction and fossil fuel

use.

7
Blengini & Di Carlo (2010) considered the changing relevance of stages of LCA in their

study of a low energy home and a conventional home in Northern Italy. They concluded that

the operational stage accounted for 50% and 80% of life cycle energy use for the low energy

home and the standard home respectively. In the context of environmental performance the

low energy house outperformed the standard house in environmental indicator categories of

ozone depletion potential, global warming potential and photochemical ozone creation

potential. Previous life cycle assessments in the UK have focused on energy consumption and

carbon emissions and are often not comparable lacking details and consistent boundaries as

detailed in Monahan & Powell (2011). Table 1 shows a range of the values specific to the

UK, with Monahan & Powell (2011) and Hammond & Jones (2008) looking at embodied

energy and carbon associated with the assembly stage whilst Hacker et al. (2008) and NHBC

(2011) examining carbon for the assembly and operational stage.

Table 1 – UK specific case studies with assembly and operational carbon and energy
consumption
Author No Embodied Construction Operational Predicted System
Energy Carbon Carbon Service Boundaries
(GJ/m2) Life
kgCO2 / m2 kgCO2 /m2

Monahan UK 3 5.7-8.2 405 - 612 - - Cradle to

& Powell construction
(2011)

Hammond 12UK 14 5.34 403 - - Cradle to

& Jones & construction
(2008) 2USA

Hacker et UK 4 - 492 – 568 - 100 Cradle to

al (2008) occupation

NHBC UK 12 - 410 - 530 690 – 1050 60 Cradle to

(2011) occupation
650-780 1060-1790 120

8
The end of life stage is often considered the most difficult in the LCA process with credible

predictions regarding the future rate of recycling and reuse subject to change and are highly

dependent on future recycling policy (Scheuer et al., 2003). Review articles show that this

stage is not included in most literature (Sartori & Hestnes, 2007, Ramesh et al., 2010).

Allocation of the environmental savings appears to be problematic; there is no common

agreement on how energy gains from a demolished building may be allocated (Ramesh et al.,

2010). Previous LCA papers, which have included an end of life stage based on assumptions

and predictions, have shown that the end of life stage accounts for minimal amounts of total

life cycle energy (Scheuer, 2003; Junnilla et al., 2006). Blengini & Di Carlo (2010) however

emphasise the importance of the end of life waste scenario, with recycling of construction

waste reducing the amount sent to landfill and displacing the effect of the removal of virgin

material. Whilst the author recognises the benefit of including such detailed observations it

was not possible to gather the extensive detail required. A simplified approach was adopted;

where-in the end of life stage saw predictions of 70% of materials being reused / recycled on

site and 30% being sent to landfill, a conservative split value based on current rates of

recycling within the construction industry (WRAP, 2009).

3 DESCRIPTION OF CASE STUDIES

3.1 Retrofit house – Victorian house
A red brick solid wall three storey mid-terrace Victorian house was studied prior to and after

retrofitting. The house is a typical example of the Victorian terraces that are common across

the UK. An extension completed in 1985 was constructed of double leaf block walls, with a

75mm cavity and 25mm insulation. The house consists of three bedrooms, a bathroom,

kitchen, living and dining room; further details are provided in Table 2.

9
Whilst there are some UK guidelines and specifications for retrofitting practices provided by

the Energy Saving Trust (2010), National Refurbishment Centre (2011) and the currently

under draft PAS 2030 for improving the energy specification of existing buildings, the house

is being retrofitted to PassivHaus standard, a German construction standard developed by the

Passiv House Institut (Passive House Institute, 2006). A house built or retrofitted to the

PassivHaus standard has exceptionally low energy consumption - maximum annual space

heating requirements of 15kWh/m2 and total primary energy demand (including space and

water heating, electricity, lighting, fans and pumps) of 120kWh/m2. Heat losses are

minimised with airtight and thermally efficient building envelope with low air change rates

comparatively to conventional buildings.

As a house in a mixed terrace of social and private dwellings external wall insulation was

unsuitable, instead the internal masonry walls were parged with the bonding of a vapour

barrier to provide an airtight seal. A combination of phenolic and aerogel insulation was used

with additional flanking insulation to minimise thermal bridging at the junctions of the

internal and external walls. The roof was treated in a similar fashion fitted with air-tight

barrier and insulation. The original floor slab which had no insulation was removed and

replaced with one atop of 200mm phenolic insulation, PassivHaus certified triple glazed

windows and external doors were used throughout with thermal bridging with masonry

minimised by inserting aerocell and closed cell foam insulation around the edges of the

frames. Given the expected low air change rate on completion a mechanical ventilated heat

recovery (MVHR) system has been installed to eliminate potential humidity issues, ensure

sufficient air quality and allowing heat recovered from air being removed to heat incoming

air. An eight module photovoltaic panel was mounted on the south facing roof with a

predicted annual yield of 1.462kWh. More detailed information about this project and other

low energy building projects is available from the Low Energy Building Database (2011).

10
3.2 New build house
The new build reported case study is a semi-detached block of two houses achieving a B2

Building Energy Rating, the official energy assessment method of Ireland. Each house is an

identical 2.5 storey four bedroom dwelling. The attic space conversion to a master bedroom,

en-suite and dressing room, results in the optimal use of a house foot print that would

typically be used for a three bedroom house. The building envelope consists of double leaf

precast concrete walls with a 40mm cavity and 100mm high density insulation shot fixed to

the inner leaf. Internal walls and the shared party walls were constructed of precast concrete

panels. Floors are precast prestressed concrete units. All precast items were manufactured

locally and were lifted by crane into place, with stainless steel brackets connecting and

securing panels and flooring. This method of construction allows for rapid construction and

produces very little construction waste onsite. A pitched timber roof was constructed and

finished with vapour barrier, sarking felt, battens and concrete roofing tiles. Further details

are provided in Table 2.

Table 2 - General details of pre / post-retrofit & new build case studies

Units Pre-retrofita Post-retrofitb New build

Usable floor area m2 91.68 91.68 144.158c
Volume m3 219.319 217.4208 353.1871c
Number of floors 3 3 3c
Air change rate (test ACH
results at 50 Pa) 12.21 1 10d
Indoor temperature ⁰C 18-21 18-21 18-21
U-Values
Ground floor W/(m2K) 0.48 0.1 0.6e
Walls W/(m2K) 1.20 0.15 0.6e
Roof W/(m2K) 2.22 0.1 0.3e
Door W/(m2K) 3 1 3.0e
Windows(average) W/(m2K) 4 0.9 3.0e
a&b
Information for pre/post-retrofit Eco-Energy NI, pers comm. (2010).
c
Information for New Build Owens Group, pers comm. (2010)

11
d
New Build Air Change Rate – figure based on reasonable upper performance limit for air permeability of the Irish Building Regulations

(Department of Environment, Heritage & Local Government, 2008, p.20).

e
New Build U-value figures based on maximum elemental u-values of the Irish Building Regulations (Department of Environment, Heritage

& Local Government, 2008, p.17)

4 METHODOLOGY
Despite the well defined methodology of life cycle assessment, journal articles do not have to

adhere to the requirements of ISO14040, with much of the literature non comparable due to

varying assumptions and methodological choices. Optis & Wild (2010) on completion of a

review of the adherence of 20 journal articles to ISO14041 concluded that the majority did

not present sufficient information, limiting their potential use to others and the advancement

of LCA use. To reduce uncertainty, in so far as possible international standards and

guidelines as per ISO14040, Guinée et al. 2002, ILCD, 2010 were adhered to in this paper,

with any deviations highlighted. Table 3 shows details of the functional unit and life span

modelled for the study.

Table 3 - Functional unit & life span modelled

Definition & modelling procedure Reference

Functional unit Identified function of a product, allows analysis Guinée et al., 2002
and comparisons between alternatives. To allow
for the significant difference in size of the
buildings the environmental impact and energy
consumption is expressed in terms of habitable
living area, per m2.

Life span Life spans of 50 & 80 years modelled for both Sartori & Hestnes,
case studies. 2007; Ramesh et
al., 2010

4.1 System boundary and assumptions

The recently released European Standard, Sustainability Assessment of Buildings BS EN

15643-1:2010, is the first in a series of standards from the CEN TC/350 Sustainability of

Construction Works currently under development. It sets out a framework to examine the

sustainability of a building by studying the environmental, economic and social performance

12
of the building using a life cycle approach. It recommends that the building life cycle is

divided into three stages:

 the before use stage (referred to as the assembly stage in this paper) - consists of raw

materials, transports, manufacturing process and construction process.

 the use stage (referred to as the operational stage in this paper) - consists of

maintenance, material replacement rates, operational energy; heating, lighting,

appliances and hot water heating.

 the end of life stage - consists of demolition/deconstruction process, material

reuse/recycling/refusing.

Figure 3 shows the system boundaries used in the modelling process, with items outside the

thick broken line excluded from modelling whereas items inside this line were included.

Whilst some of the excluded items would be of environmental significance, such as

operational water use, operational waste production, waste transport and reprocessing of

recyclable materials, these were neglected from the modelling process as primary data could

not be gathered for both case studies. Including these items would have required a large

number of assumptions to be applied to both case studies which would have eventually been

negated with any comparison between the two buildings.

13
Figure 3 - System boundary included in study

The remaining items excluded from the system boundary were not part of the modelling

process because it has been shown in previous literature that they have only a small

environmental impact, as listed in Table 4.

Table 4 - Rationale for excluding items from study

Item Reason for exclusion References

Replacement rates of Replacement rate is low (75-80 years) for Scheuer et al., 2003;
materials structural elements and high for internal Kellenberger &
finishes. Internal finishes not modelled. Althaus, 2009.

Construction No comprehensive primary data for both Scheuer et al., 2003;

process impacts studies available. Scheuer et al., (2003) Kellenberger &
reviewing others estimated construction Althaus, 2009.
process was 1.2-10% of embodied energy.
Kellenberger & Althaus (2009) concluded
that it could be ignored. Thus given low
relative impact of assembly stage it is felt
that neglecting this is not significant.

Material Previous literature has shown that less than Scheuer et al., 2003;
transportation from 1% of primary energy and environmental Sartori & Hestnes,
factory to site impacts are associated with the transport of 2007.
materials.

14
4.2 Life cycle inventory and data assumptions

4.2.1 Assembly materials

The bill of quantities and design drawings were received for both the retrofit and new build

houses. Using the SimaPro 7.2 LCA software application, primary data was amalgamated

along with secondary data from the Ecoinvent database and the inventory modelling was

undertaken. The Ecoinvent database compiles a broad range of products and services from

Swiss and Western European manufacturers and service providers (further information

available at www.ecoinvent.ch). Due to its large range of construction materials and

processes it has been used in a number of recent LCA (Bribián et al., 2009; Blengini & Di

Carlo, 2010 (b); De Gracia et al., 2010). Processes in the Ecoinvent database contain

information about the raw material usage, extraction, production and transportation of

construction material and all associated environmental impacts, such as emissions to air and

water. Of the 2,500 processes available in the Ecoinvent database, 30 were used to model the

life cycle inventory of the retrofit and new build case studies. Whilst the author recognises

that use of the Ecoinvent database is not ideal for the UK, with many of the entries based on

mid-Europe processes, the lack of comprehensive and transparent life cycle assessment

details for processes in the UK resulted in its use. One exception to the use of the Ecoinvent

database was in the case of the precast concrete components used in the new build where

Ecoinvent was supplemented by details from the Inventory of Carbon and Energy (Hammond

& Jones, 2008) to compensate for additional energy required and carbon produced in the

precast process.

Table 5 – Quantities of materials used in retrofit and new build case studies

Material Unit Retrofit New Build

Insulation kg 1112.67 3168.23
Steel kg 1368.45 3614.47
Oriented strand board m3 2.85 0.00
Doors m2 13.04 38.51
Window frame m2 2.34 4.74

15
 Sarking felt kg 271.83 875.16
Gypsum plaster board kg 1919.42 688.75
Softwood timber m3 1.54 6.02
Lead kg 33.15 60.01
Concrete m3 5.70 156.43
Glazing m2 9.14 26.86
Plastics kg 139.60 1788.09
Ventilation equipment no 1.00 0.00
Copper kg 5.09 13.76
Photovoltaic panel m2 1.39 0.00
Base plaster kg 1402.16 22641.00
Concrete roof tile kg 696.78 2162.16
Inverter no 1.00 0.00
Gravel kg 12768.00 75600.00
Sand kg 1938.00 8500.00

4.2.2 Operational consumption

Table 6 shows the operational consumption for both the retrofit and the new build in terms of

the space heating, domestic hot water (DHW) and electricity consumption. In the case of the

retrofit detailed SAP calculations where available giving the predicted energy consumption

and electricity generation from the PV roof panel. In the case of the new build the operational

consumption was calculated using Dwelling Energy Assessment Procedure (DEAP) similar

to the UK Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP) and was rated a B2 equivalent to a

consumption of 125kWh/m2/year. A detailed breakdown was not available and based on

average Irish household consumption patterns a 78%/22% split between electricity and space

heating and DHW was used. (Sustainable Energy Ireland, 2008)

Table 6 - Retrofit & new build operational energy

House Unit Yearly

Retrofit kWh/m2
Space heating and DHW 46.83
Electricity demand 32.27
PV Generation 47.39
New Build kWh/m2
Space heating and DHW 97.50
Electricity consumption 27.50

16
The retrofit electricity demand being offset by the PV with the surplus electricity,

approximately 15kWh/m2/year, being fed into the electricity grid. The net environmental

benefit of this renewable energy source is outside the system boundary of the project and is

not included.

4.3 Life Cycle Impact Assessment

As outlined previously the ReCiPe Midpoint and Endpoint LCIA methods were used in the

modelling process. For the ReCiPe Endpoint method the hierarchist perspective was selected

with an average weighting set. Having used the average weighting factors the endpoint

damage categories were aggregated to create single score that reflected the environmental

impact of each stage on a point scale.

5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

The total results of the life cycle assessment showing the environmental performance of the

retrofit and new build were examined using ReCiPe at midpoint and endpoint level. The New

Build house is represented as NB whilst the Retrofit house is represented as R. The

performance of both houses for the assembly and operational stage is also presented using the

ReCiPe Endpoint method as it is easily interpreted. Furthermore, an examination of the

relationship between the embodied and operational energies of the new build and retrofit

house comparatively to the operational energy of the pre-retrofit house was conducted. These

results are discussed in the following sections.

5.1 Retrofit Vs new build

5.1.1 Environmental performance of complete life cycle - endpoint results

Table 7 shows the percentage contribution that each stage to a single score environmental

impact using the ReCiPe Endpoint life cycle impact assessment methods over life spans of 50

and 80 years.

17
The operational stage of both case studies has the most significant environmental impact of

the total life cycle, a finding which is in keeping with previous studies (Scheuer et al., 2003,

Ortiz et al., 2009, Sartori & Hestnes, 2007, Ramesh et al., 2010). The operational stage

accounted for between 89 and 97% of the single score environmental impact. This is due to

the long life spans and the expected operational consumption causing significant

environmental emissions with fossil fuel based heating/DHW systems and the current

electricity generation fuel mix also being fossil fuel intensive. Potential changes to electricity

generation fuel mix are discussed further in section 5.3.

The relative percentage importance of the assembly and end of life stage decrease with the

increasing life span as the operational stage is lengthened, thus consuming more operational

energy. The end of life stage is shown as a negative figure, indicating the positive effect on

the environment, with environmental savings being made as materials are expected to be

reused / recycled.

Table 7 – Life cycle impacts for retrofit & new build houses: service life of 50 & 80
years

ReCiPe Endpoint (H/A) (% per stage R 50 NB 50 R 80 NB 80

of total impact) Year Year Year Year
Assembly 26.00 11.65 16.94 7.44
Operational 89.15 94.45 92.93 96.46
End of life -15.15 -6.10 -9.87 -3.90

The breakdown of the scores into the three endpoint damage categories, viz., resources,

ecosystem quality and human health are shown in Figure 4, with a maximum score

approximately 370. The resources score is high because of the fossil fuel intensive space

heating and electricity generation process required during the operational stage. Human

health is also high scoring, affected by the type of energy being consumed, with the burning

18
of fossil fuels a contributor to human health impact categories such as human toxicity,

photochemical ozone formation and climate change impacts.

Government initiatives such as the ‘Retrofit for the Future’ competition from the Technology

Strategy Board (2009) as well as publications from the Energy Savings Trust have already

recognised the vast potential for carbon savings by increasing the energy efficiency of the

housing stock. Building a-new or the adoption of retrofitting techniques to large swathes of

social and private housing across the UK will allow for improved operational performance

with significant savings accumulated over time, which is discussed further in coming

sections.

400.

350.

300.

250.
Resources
200.
Pt

Ecosystems
150.
Human
100. health

50.

0.

-50.

Figure 4 - Environmental impact per m2 of retrofit (R) & new build (NB) house by

disaggregated single score (ReCiPe Endpoint H/A)

19
5.1.2 Environmental performance of complete life cycle - midpoint results
ReCiPe Midpoint in the hierarchist (H) -perspective was used to show direct environmental

impacts of the total life cycle impact of the retrofit and new build house in terms of the

functional unit, m2, over life spans of 50 and 80 years as per Table 8. The retrofit performs

better than the new build in all impact categories examined. Of particular current relevance is

the climate change result expressed in terms of CO2 eq, with the new build the source of

almost four times the amount of CO2 eq of the retrofit. Table 9 illustrates the breakdown of the

total CO2eq of the life cycle in the assembly, operational and disposal stages. The new build

embodied energy and carbon is lower than in the previous studies as detailed in Table 1 due

to European inventory processes used in the modelling and system boundaries excluding

energy required in the construction process and transport, but are still close to previously

reported ranges.

Table 8 - Extract of ReCiPe Midpoint (H) results of total life cycle impacts on the
environment per m2 floor area

Impact category Unit (kg) R 50 Year NB 50 Year R 80 Year NB 80 Year

Acidification SO2 eq. 0.75 6.35 1.10 10.03

Eutrophication P eq. 0.05 0.39 0.07 0.62

(freshwater)

Eutrophication N eq. 0.40 1.69 0.50 2.47

(marine)

Climate change CO2 eq. 705.85 2688.15 1084.89 4204.94

Human toxicity 1,4DB eq. 74.66 456.81 93.26 690.89

Table 9 - CO2 eq per stage of life cycle ReCiPe Midpoint (H) results per m2 floor area
Unit R50 Year NB 50 Year R80 Year NB 80 Year

Assembly kg CO2 eq 141 339 141 339

Operational kg CO2 eq 631.7375 2527.983 1010.78 4044.773

Disposal kg CO2 eq -66.887 -178.833 -66.887 -178.833

Total kg CO2 eq 705.8504 2688.15 1084.893 4204.94

20
5.2 Assembly stage
The contribution to the environmental single score of the each material is presented in Figure

5 for the retrofit and new build house. The impact is expressed in terms of the functional unit

of the house area in m2. As the retrofit house uses the existing structure of the terraced house

it requires fewer materials and therefore performs better in the analysis than the new build. A

large quantity of insulation, with a resource and energy intensive manufacturing process, is

required to achieve the high quality retrofit and is the largest proportion at 29% of assembly

stage environmental damage. The insulation and concrete precast elements are the source of

18% and 43% of the environmental impact associated with the assembly stage of the new

build house, an expected outcome due to the significant quantities used and the energy

intensive nature of these products.

Sand
Gravel
Inverter
Concrete Roof Tile
Base Plaster
Photovoltaic Panel
Copper
Ventilation Equipment
Plastics
Triple Glazing
Concrete New Build
Lead Retrofit
Softwood Timber
Gypsum Plaster Board
Bitumen Sealing
Window Frame
Doors
Oriented Strand Board
Steel
Insulation
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Pt

Figure 5 – Relative impact of retrofit construction materials per m2 (ReCiPe Endpoint

H/A)

21
The overall environmental impact associated with the construction of the new build exceeds

that of the retrofit, but when these results are expressed in terms of the functional unit as per

Figure 6 the extent of environmental damage associated with the new build is lessened, due to

the larger floor area. However, overall the retrofit has marginally less associated damage than

the new build. This may be attributable to the fact that the existing materials in the retrofit,

the main structure, was not included in the modelling process, given that it would be very

difficult to model accurately materials that were over 100 hundred years old. The new build

was modelled in its entirety, thus having a higher quantity of materials causing more

environmental damage. The energy or waste associated with the construction processes was

also not within system boundaries. However, it should be noted that the construction time of

the new build was significantly faster than that of the retrofit. The retrofit required the soft

striping of the interior of the house, an invasive procedure that required the occupants to

leave. As a trial demonstrator project in an emerging field, the retrofit served as a ‘learning

curve’, which if replicated in the future could be improved on with different technologies and

methods. This is also true of the new build, which has the potential to improve its energy

efficiency by using different materials or more stringent construction details. The massive

improvement on the energy performance from pre-retrofit to post-retrofit however clearly

indicates the merits of action, as discussed later.

22
 30.

25.

20.

Resources
Pt

15.
Ecosystems
Human health

10.

5.

0.
Retrofit assembly New build assembly

Figure 6 – Comparison of the environmental impacts of construction per m2 of retrofit

& new build by disaggregated single score (ReCiPe Endpoint H/A)

5.3 Operational stage

A significant proportion of the environmental burdens for both the 50 and 80 year life span

are associated with the operational stage. The results are presented in the disaggregated single

score form, showing the damage categories of human health, ecosystem quality and

resources.

The largest associated environmental impact for the operational stage as shown in Figure 7 is

in the form of fossil fuels (included in the resources damage category) with high human

health impacts directly related to burning of fossil fuels in the forms of respiratory organics /

inorganics and climate change. The ‘electricity, low voltage, production GB, at grid/GB’ of

the Ecoinvent database that was used to model the operational energy is based on the energy

23
fuel mix of the UK in 2007. As can be seen from Table 10, UK electricity generation is

dominated by fossil fuels, with coal, oil and gas accounting for 77.63% of electricity

production (European Commission, 2010). The UK government White Paper on Energy

(2007) indicates the government’s commitment to securing energy supplies and reducing

their environmental impacts by increasing the use of renewable and nuclear energy and

decarbonising the existing energy mix. A recent study (Jones, 2011) considered the effect of

the decarbonisation of the electricity mix with the greenhouse gas (GHG) intensity of

electricity improving between now and 2050 and householders adopt some GHG mitigation

techniques. A static projection that does not account for the improvement to electricity mix or

consumer attitude results in an operational carbon 50% higher than a dynamic projection

which does. To consider this further a country that already had high levels of renewable and

nuclear power in 2007, when the electricity Ecoinvent database was compiled, was chosen.

Sweden as shown in Table 10 has a lower GHG intensity than the UK and was used to

consider the differences between a static and dynamic scenario.

Table 10 - Gross electricity generation by fuel type-UK & Sweden (2007) (Based on
European Commission, 2010, EU Energy & Transport in Figures- Statistical Handbook,
Section 2.4.3 p.43)

United Kingdom Sweden

Fuel type Quantity % of Total Quantity % of Total
(TWh) (TWh)
Coal 136.70 34.51 0.70 0.47
Oil 4.70 1.19 1.10 0.74
Gas 166.10 41.93 1.50 1.01
Other power stations 1.40 0.35 0.50 0.34
Nuclear 63.00 15.91 67.00 45.03
Pumped storage 3.90 0.98 0.00 0.00
Renewable 20.40 5.15 78.20 52.55
Total 396.1 100 148.8 100

Sweden’s electricity generating process, ‘electricity low voltage, production SE, at grid/SE S’

was used to model the operational energy of both case studies and then compared with the
24
UK process modelled to show the environmental benefits of two scenarios; 1) immediate

adoption of lower GHG intensity/fossil fuel dependent energy mix as per Sweden and 2)

adoption of lower GHG intensity energy mix after 30 years.

400.

350.

300.

Resources
250.

Ecosystems
Pt

200.

Human
150.
health

100.

50.

0.
R Imm R Mix R 50 NB NB NB 50 R Imm R Mix R 80 NB NB NB 80
50 50 Imm Mix 50 80 80 Imm Mix 80
50 80

Figure 7 – Environmental impacts per m2 of operational stage by damage categories

(ReCiPe Endpoint H/A)

Note: Mix 50 represents the usage for 30 years of the current UK electricity mix with

adoption of Swedish electricity mix for 20 years. Mix 80 represents the usage for 30 years of

the current UK electricity mix with the adoption of Swedish electricity mix for 50 years.

Figure 7 indicates there is a significant potential reduction in environmental impact on

adoption of energy mix that has lower GHG intensity. Over an 80 year life span the UK

process has a maximum point score of 355 for the new build as opposed to the entirely

25
Swedish process, which has a maximum point of score 234. Significant reductions can also

be seen in the introduction of less GHG intense energy mix after 30 years with the new build

80 year life span scoring approximately 280 compared to 355 of the original mix. There is a

substantial decrease in resources category as would be expected given that only 2.22% of

Sweden’s electricity is generated by fossil fuels. However, the overall decrease in

environmental impact from using the Swedish mix is accompanied by a doubling of the

radiation impact category as included in the human health category, due to a higher nuclear

power usage. Overall the decrease in environmental damage from changing the electricity

generation mix is significant, with large environmental savings possible over a building's life

span emphasising the importance of the decarbonisation of energy production as outlined in

Department of Energy & Climate Change, (2009).

6 RETROFIT PERFORMANCE
Given the nature of the Retrofit for the Future Competition the pre and post-retrofit

performances were compared with the new build performance. The embodied energy of the

post-retrofit and new build were included as per Table 11.

Table 11 - Embodied energy and carbon of retrofit and new build

Embodied Energy kWh/m2 GJ/m2 kgCO2eq/m2

Retrofit 959.134 3.45 140.69
New build 1284.88 4.63 340

The cumulative operational energy was per Table 12 with Figure 8 displaying the embodied

and operational energy.

26
Table 12 - Operational energy of pre / post-retrofit and new build

Operational Energy kWh/m2/yr kWh/m2 kWh/m2

50 Years 80 Years
Pre-retrofit 346 17300 27680
Post-retrofit 46.83 2341 6250
New build 125 6250 10000

30

25

Pre-
Cumulative energy MWh/m2

20 retrofit

Post-
retrofit
15
New
build
10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Years

Figure 8 – Comparison of the embodied energy and the operational energy for three

houses, (pre-retrofit, post-retrofit and a new build)

The pre-retrofit line represents the operational energy of the house without any modifications

or retrofitting, with no initial embodied energy included and hence starts at origin of the

graph. The new build line shows the initial embodied energy of the new build house,

positioned slightly higher than the retrofit, increasing yearly due to its relatively higher

operational energy compared to retrofit house. The post-retrofit line, the lowest line on the

27
graph, represents the initial embodied energy and the operational energy of the retrofit house.

Thus in terms of embodied and operational energy the retrofit house performs relatively

better than the new build house. Both the new build and the retrofit significantly outperform

the house pre-retrofit, which has an operational energy requirement four times greater than

either the new build or the retrofitted. The intersection of all three cases occurs in

approximately 4 years after construction, indicating that the additional embodied energy of

the retrofit and new build has completed their ‘pay-back’ period, having saved in operational

energy comparatively to the non retrofitted (pre-retrofit) house. Figure 8 further emphasises

the idea that taking no course of action in terms of the current housing stock in the UK is not

a viable option, with high associated energy wastage.

7 CONCLUSIONS
7.1 Comparison of the new build house with the retrofitted house
The environmental effects of the operational stage of all case studies modelled far

outweighed either the assembly or end of life stage. As such, it is felt that reducing the

operational stage energy demand in so far as possible is a worthwhile endeavour. The results

reported in this paper show the sensitivity of the retrofit house to the optimal level of

refurbishment. Overall the results would favour the adoption of a high quality retrofitting

scheme to remediate existing stock issues. It should be noted that the retrofit undertaken is of

a very high quality and is an intrusive and laborious process. The re-use of the existing

embodied energy in the retrofit building allows for the specification of high grades of

insulation and other energy saving devices, such as the photovoltaic panels whilst still

achieving a lower assembly stage impact than the new build. It must also be noted that the

optimal operational level of the new build house must not be neglected. The new build house,

though achieving a relatively good environmental performance rating, could potentially

achieve a higher performance rating through a more focused low energy and embodied

28
energy design. In terms of the energy consumption, 78 kWh/m2/year separates the retrofit and

new build house, which if altered without significant changes to environmental impacts of the

assembly or end of life stage could see the new build outperform the retrofit. Overall these

are only two case studies and further case studies on new build and retrofit projects should be

undertaken to understand further the influence of new materials and technologies on the

overall energy and carbon performance of new and existing housing stock.

7.2 Benefits of retrofitting

The case studies reviewed in this paper reveals that retrofitting will considerably reduce the

energy requirement of a house over its life time. The energy 'pay-back' period for retrofitting

was shown to be around 4 years for the examples considered in this research. Given that the

current housing stock is underperforming, immediate action would allow for optimal savings

and go towards the required carbon reductions by 2050.

7.3 Significance of operational energy reductions

Given the long life spans of houses in the UK the operational energy requirements

accumulate annually. As the current housing stock is currently underperforming with poor

SAP ratings the effect of energy inefficiency is replicated across the UK with large energy

losses translating to needless environmental impacts. Improving the condition of the housing

affords a better quality of life for the occupants eradicating issues such as fuel poverty whilst

also fulfilling the requirements of the Climate Change Act.

7.4 Importance of decarbonising the grid

The energy generation mix of the UK as modelled is heavily fossil fuel dependent. If the

energy mix in the UK had larger renewable or nuclear constituents then the associated

environmental impacts of the operational stage of both case studies would be significantly

different with the potential for the assembly and end of life stage to increase in relative

importance. The validity of the results presented in this paper would be affected by such a

29
change to the energy mix with greater focus required for the increased environmental impacts

of the assembly and end of life stages.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support provided by the School of Planning,

Architecture and Civil Engineering at Queen’s University Belfast for carrying out the

research. Thanks also to Norry Henry from Precast Buildings Systems, Knockdrin,

Mullingar, Co. Westmeath, Republic of Ireland provided information on the new build

housing project in Westmeath.

REFERENCES
Blengini & Di Carlo (2010) Energy-Saving Policies and Low-Energy Residential Buildings:

an LCA Case Study to Support Decision Makers in Piedmont (Italy). International Journal of

Life Cycle Assessment 15, 652-665.

Blengini & Di Carlo (2010) (b) The Changing Role of Life Cycle Phases, Subsystems and

Materials in the LCA of Low Energy Buildings. Energy & Buildings 42, 869-880.

Climate Change Act 2008: Elizabeth II. Chapter 27. Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, 2008.

See http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/27/part/1/crossheading/the-target-for-2050 for

further details. Accessed 11/10/11.

De Gracia, A., Rincón L., Castell, A., Jiménez, M., Boer, D., Medrano, M. & Cabeza, L.F.

(2010) Life Cycle Assessment of the Inclusion of Phase Change Materials (PCM) in

Experimental Buildings. Energy & Buildings 42, 1517-1523.

30
Department of Energy & Climate Change (2011) Carbon Plan. See

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/tackling/carbon_plan/carbon_plan.aspx for further

details. Accessed 01/04/2011..

Department of Environment Heritage & Local Government (2008) Building Regulations

2007 Technical Guidance Document L – Conservation of Fuel and Energy – Dwellings.

Dublin: Department of Environment Heritage & Local Government. See

http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/BuildingStandards/FileDow

nLoad,19069,en.pdf for further details. Accessed 02/09/2010.

Department of Communities & Local Government (2010) Housing and Planning Statistics

2010. See http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/statistics/pdf/1785484.pdf for further

details. Accessed 15/01/2011.

Energy Saving Trust (2010) Sustainable Refurbishment: Towards an 80% Reduction in CO2

Emissions, Water Efficiency, Waste Reduction, and Climate Change Adaption. See

http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/business/Global-Data/Publications/Sustainable-

refurbishment for further details. Accessed 21/04/2011.

Environmental Change Institute (2006) Reducing the Environmental Impact of Housing –

Final Report. See http://www.rcep.org.uk/reports/26-

urban/documents/reducingenvironmentalimpactofhousing.pdf for further details. Accessed

07/01/2011.

European Commission (2010) EU Energy & Transport in Figures – Statistical Pocket Book.

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. See

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/publications/statistics/doc/2010_energy_transport_figures.pdf for

further details. Accessed 18/01/2011.

31
ECJRC - European Commission Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment &

Sustainability (2010) Our thinking – life cycle thinking. See http://lct.jrc.ec.europa.eu for

further details. Accessed at 02/06/2011.

Goedkoop, M., Heijungs, R., Huijbregts, M., De Schryver, A., Struijs, J. & Van Zelm, R.

(2009) ReCiPe 2008 A Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method which Comprises Harmonised

Category Indicators at the Midpoint and the Endpoint Level. Report 1: Characterisation. 1st

ed. Den Hagg, Netherlands: Ministerie van Vrome; 2009.

Guinée, J.B., Gorrée, M., Heijungs, R., Huppes, G., Kleijn, R., de Koning, A., van Oers, L.,

Wegener Sleeswijk, A., Suh, S., Udo de Haes, H.A., de Bruijn, J.A., van Duin, R. &

Huijbregts, M.A.J. (2002) Handbook on Life Cycle Assessment: Operational Guide to the

ISO Standards. Series: Eco-efficiency in Industry & Science. 1st ed. Dordrecht; London:

Kluwer.

Hacker, J.N., De Saulles, T.P., Minson, A.J., Holmes, M.J. (2008) Embodied and operational

carbon dioxide emissions from housing: A case study on the effects of thermal mass and

climate change. Energy & Buildings, 40, pp.375-384.

Hammond, G.P. & Jones, C.I. (2008) Embodied energy and carbon in construction materials.

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Energy, 161, pp.87-98.

ILCD (2010) European Commission Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment &

Sustainability ILCD Handbook - International Reference Life Cycle Data System Framework

and Requirements for Life Cycle Impact Assessment Models and Indicators. 1st ed. European

Union (2010)

ISO International Organisation for Standardisation. Environmental Management – Life Cycle

Assessment – Principles and Framework. ISO, Geneva, Switzerland, 2006, ISO 14040.

32
ISO International Organisation for Standardisation, Environmental Management - Life Cycle

Assessment – Requirements and Guidelines. International Organisation for Standardisation,

Geneva, Switzerland, 2006, ISO 14044.

Jones, C. (2011) Embodied Carbon: A Look Forward. Sustain Insight Article 1, 1-16. See

http://www.sustain.co.uk/resources/briefing-documents-and-reports/embodied-carbon-a-look-

forward-insight-report.aspx for further details. Accessed 16/01/2011.

Junnilla, S., Horvath, A., Guggemos, A.A. (2006) Life Cycle Assessment of Office Buildings

in Europe and the United States. Journal of Infrastructure Systems 12, No. 1, 10-17.

Kellenberger, D. & Althaus, H.J. (2009) Relevance of Simplifications in LCA of Building

Components. Building & Environment 44, 818-825.

Low Energy Building Database (2011) Eco-Energy Retrofit, Grove Housing Association,

Belfast – Project Overview. See http://www.retrofitforthefuture.org/projectPDF.php?id=32

for further details. Accessed 16/01/2011.

Monahan, J. & Powell, J.C. (2011) An embodied carbon and energy analysis of modern

methods of construction in housing: A case study using a life cycle assessment framework.

Energy & Buildings, 43, pp.179-188.

National Refurbishment Centre (2011) Resources - Refurbishment Good Practice Guides.

See http://www.rethinkingrefurbishment.com/resources.jsp?id=65 for further details.

Accessed 01/09/2011.

NHBC Foundation (2011) Operational & Embodied Carbon in New Building – A reappraisal.

N34. [pdf] Available at:

http://www.nhbcfoundation.org/Researchpublications/Operationalandembodiedcarboninnewb

uild/tabid/466/Default.aspx [Accessed 11 October 2011]

33
Northern Ireland Housing Executive (2008) Northern Ireland House Condition Survey 2006

Main Report. [pdf] Belfast: Northern Ireland Housing Executive. See

http://www.nihe.gov.uk/housing_conditions_survey_2006.pdf for further details. Accessed

20/07/2011.

Optis, M. & Wild, P. (2010) Inadequate Documentation in Published Life Cycle Energy

Reports on Buildings. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 15, 644-651.

Ortiz, O., Castells, F. & Sonnemann, G. (2009) Sustainability in the Construction Industry: A

Review of Recent Developments Based on LCA. Construction and Building Materials 23,

28-39.

Ortiz-Rodríguez, O., Castells, F. & Sonnemann, G. (2010) Life Cycle Assessment of Two

Dwellings: One in Spain, a developed country, and one in Colombia, a country under

development. Science of the Total Environment 408, 2435-2443.

Passive House Institute (2006) Definition of Passive Houses. See

http://www.passivhaustagung.de/Passive_House_E/passivehouse_definition.html for further

details. Accessed on 13/01/2011.

Power, A. (2008) Does Demolition or Refurbishment of Old and Inefficient Homes Help to

Increase our Environmental, Social and Economic Viability? Energy Policy 36, 4487-4501.

Ramesh, T., Prakash, R. & Shukla, K.K. (2010) Life Cycle Energy Analysis of Buildings: An

Overview. Energy & Buildings 42, No. 10, 1592-1600.

Sartori, I. & Hestnes, A.G. (2007) Energy Use in the Life Cycle of Conventional and Low-

Energy Buildings: A Review Article. Energy & Buildings 39, 249-257.

34
Scheuer, C. Keoleian, G.A. & Reppe, P. (2003) Life Cycle Energy and Environmental

Performance of a New University Building: Modelling Challenges and Design Implications.

Energy and Buildings 35, 1049-1064.

Sustainable Energy Ireland (2008) Energy in the Residential Sector 2008 Report. Energy

Policy Statistical Support Unit. See

http://www.seai.ie/News_Events/Press_Releases/Energy_in_the_Residential_Sector_FNL.pd

f for further details. Accessed 19/09/2011.

Technology Strategy Board (2009) UK Companies Win Contracts to Devise Blueprint for

Low Carbon Social Housing Refits. Press Release. See http://www.innovateuk.org/_

assets/pdf/press-releases/press%20release%20retrofit.pdf for further details. Accessed

23/04/2011.

WRAP (2009) Time for a New Age – Halving Waste to Landfill: Seize the Opportunity. [pdf]

London: UBM. See

http://www.wrap.org.uk/downloads/BUIDLING_SUPP_Ed.e573a5f5.8154.pdf for further

details. Accessed 05/01/2011.

Zero Carbon Hub (2011) What doe the budget mean for zero carbon homes? Emissions from

household appliance use are removed from the zero carbon equation. E-news from the Zero

Carbon Hub, March 2011. See

http://www.novamedia1999.co.uk/zerocarbonhub/march2011/` for further details. Accessed

1st April 2011.

35
Figure Captions

Figure 1 – Life cycle assessment process – adapted from ISO14044: Flow chart diagram
showing relationship between the fours steps of life cycle assessment.

Figure 2 - Relationship between life cycle inventory results, impact categories, damage
categories and single score with simplified CO2 example: Two flow chart diagrams showing
relationship between inventory results, impact categories, damage categories and single score
with example.

Figure 3 - System boundary included in study: Simple box diagram indicating items included
and not included in study.

Figure 4 - Environmental impact of retrofit (R) & new build (NB) house by disaggregated
single score (ReCiPe Endpoint H/A): Column chart showing environmental impact by the
three damage categories of human health, ecosystems and resources, four columns – retrofit
50 year life span, retrofit 80 year life span, new build 50 year life span and new build 80 year
life span.

Figure 5 – Relative impact of retrofit construction materials per m2 (ReCiPe Endpoint H/A):
Bar chart comparing impacts of retrofit and new build construction materials.

Figure 6 – Comparison of the environmental impacts of construction per m2 of retrofit & new
build by disaggregated single score (ReCiPe Endpoint H/A): Column chart of environmental
impacts by damage category

Figure 7 – Environmental impacts per m2 of operational stage by damage categories(ReCiPe

Endpoint H/A): Column chart by damage category for operational stages of retrofit and new
build for 50 and 80 year life spans.

Figure 8 – Comparison of the embodied energy and the operational energy for three houses,
(pre-retrofit, post-retrofit and a new build): Line chart with three series representing pre-
retrofit, new build and post-retrofit from the bottom up. Pre-retrofit starts at graph origin
whilst post-retrofit and new build start further up on the y-axis.

36