Retrofitting Residential Buildings in Australia: A Life Cycle Energy Analysis

ENGG454 – Thesis Oral Presentation

By Melissa Gaspari3267465

http://www.sanctuarymagazine.org.auISO 14040 – 1998 Environmental Management – Life cycle assessment – Principles and framework

An Overview

Thesis Aims Methodology Initial Experimental Findings

http://mashimbye.com/welcome-to-mashimbye-group/2011/05/05/http://mobileministrymagazine.com/tag/mobile-ministry-methodology/

Thesis Aims

This thesis aims to develop a framework

using Life Cycle Energy Analysis (LCEA) as an

approach to support decision-making in

retrofitting options, and how social factors

influence these retrofitting options for

residential buildings within a specific climatic

zone.

Innovation and Significance

Current research identifies many different approaches to using Life

Cycle Analysis to support decision-making in retrofitting, however

few have addressed the influence of social aspects.

This research incorporates the human and social aspects into a

decision-support framework.

This framework uses Life Cycle Energy Analysis as a tool to support

decision-making and intends to identify a means to align the most

effective life cycle improvements to the social intentions, objectives

and constraints of homeowners.

Proposed Methodology

Life Cycle Energy Analysis

Australia/New Zealand Standard, 1998, Environmental management - Life Cycle Assessment - Principles and framework, ISO 14040:1998, accessed

28 February 2012,

Life Cycle Energy Analysis

Resource Extraction

Manufacturing of Product

Construction Operation Maintenance/ Refurbishment

Demolition

Life-cycle energy analysis through whole life time of the building

Embodied Energy

Embodied energy is the energy consumed by

all the processes associated with the

production of a building, from the mining and

processing of natural resources to

manufacturing, transport and product delivery.

Operational Energy

Operational Energy comprises the energy

used for space heating and cooling, hot water

heating, lighting and appliance and equipment

operation throughout the life of the building.1 2 3

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000Operational Energy

Embodied Energy

Proposed Framework

Survey Data

Questions 1 2 3 4 5

If in the situation to retrofit (renovate, upgrade appliances, layout, make improvements of any kind etc.) your current home, why would you retrofit?

Energy improvements and visual appeal/style

I would retrofit the house mainly to make it a more comfortable place to be for everyone and also to bring it up to current standards using modern technology, like insulation, LEDs, new taps, etc. It would be good to save money on bills too.

I would retrofit (or would actually be fit out in first instance) with water/energy saving appliances (white goods) and tap fixtures etc. Strata living limits the amount of structural changes allowed.

Age of house, means there is a need to replace old appliancesKeep up with modern technology and ensure use of the latest appliancesE.g. water tank, save water and use newer technologies Easy go living

What do you know as energy retrofit?

GlazingAlternatives to current heating and cooling, such as evaporative cooling, solar heatingTaking advantage of sun exposureInsulationExternal Shading

Replacing old inefficient items throughout the house to reduce power/water usage.

Replacing appliances with more energy efficient solutions.

Replacing water usage, heating, cooling, electricity usage, and reducing the cost of servicesReducing current costs and increasing lifestyle

Energy efficient blinds in all windows

Would you retrofit your house purely to make energy efficiency improvements? Yes

Yes, if I thought the cost of the retrofit was justifiable. Yes

Not solely for retrofitting but would consider it, e.g. if replacing a broken item would replace it with a more energy efficient one

Yes and reduce cleaning of blinds

If you were retrofitting purely for energy efficiency, what would be your main aim/goals?

Increases in Thermal comfort

An independent power and water supply would be good and it would be ideal if the house didn't need any form of cooling or heating.

Consumption - energy efficient appliances as mentioned above. Heating - insulation, heavy curtains, and energy efficient windows (if allowed)

To achieve a more cost-effective state (for operational costs only)

Reduce heat and cold transfer from building

Do you have any kind of budget for energy retrofit (or retrofitting at all), and approximately how large would that budget be? $2000-$7000

Not really. It is something that's getting done slowly as time and money becomes available.

No, not a present specifically for that purpose. May do upon purchasing that 'said' property'.

No allocation, when repairs are needed look at doing most cost effective and efficient. Would use other income processes such shares or investments to help allocate appropriate budget. E.g. If replacing oven, would ask what's the best value for my dollar to get something at a good price but has a good efficiency rating but also cooks well, and has current feature. Would put cost effectiveness first don't need a expensive oven even if it is most efficient, would ask "Does item do what I need it to do?"

Not at the moment, but would be about $10,000

When replacing an item and considering energy efficiency or during an energy retrofit what are your expectations of savings (Expected Savings in dollars)?

$1000/YearIncrease in value to the value of investment

Not sure in terms of exact dollars, I would just expect to be saving money. I would probably compare bills/usage before and after the retrofit to see what sort of savings I was making.

I wouldn’t have any idea in pricing. I'd have to research.

No particular monetary savings, however must improve lifestyle E.g. when choosing between two comparative product from different energy sources, would consider life style impacts before energy improvements

reduced gas account for heating

When replacing an item and considering energy efficiency or during an energy retrofit what are your expectations of outcomes (Expected Outcomes in physical improvements or comfort levels)?

Increased SavingsIncrease visual appeal to homeSmall changes in behaviour, with decreased operating costs

I would expect comfort levels to at least remain the same but generally to improve. Improve my comfort!

Increase lifestyle, operational costs and visual appeal to home

Reduced costs and improve looks of the house

“(when replacing items) would ask what's the best value for my dollar to get something at a good price but has a good efficiency rating but also works well, and has current features. Would put cost effectiveness first don't need a expensive item even if it is most efficient, would ask "Does item do what I need it to do?” “

“If an item is broken would replace it with a more energy efficient one (but wouldn’t replace it purely for energy purposes)”

Retrofit purely for energy purposes

Expectation of some behavioural change to achieve energy efficiency

Interview with 10 different homeowners

Retrofitting PrioritiesReasons to Retrofit

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

All

> 50

< 30

Retrofitting Priorities

Product Objectives

Invest-ment Cost

  

Social Impacts 

Priority by Age Group

TimeImprovement to Lifestyle

Thermal Comfort <30 >50

Replace Single Glazing with Double Glazing Windows

20-30% reduction in Heating and Cooling

High Low Low High 2 5

3000MJ of energy per increase in star ratingSavings $250

Saving 0.4 Tonnes of Green House Gas Emissions

Installing Wall Insulationsave up to 20% of energy costs Mid Mid Low High 1 0

Installing Ceiling and Wall Insulation

Save up to 45% of energy costs Mid Mid Low High 1 0

Installing Floor InsulationSave up to 5% of energy costs Mid Mid Low Mid 1 0

Installation of various Air-Sealing techniques Improve Thermal Comfort Low Low Low Mid 3 2

Installation of various Shading Devices Improve Thermal Comfort Low Low Mid Low 5 3

Installation of Skylights to reduce artificial lighting

Improve natural light, remove article light sources Mid High Mid Low 0

Replacement of Appliances to all 3.5 stars or above

Reduce energy and water demands Mid Low High Mid 4 1

Place solar heating for water

Reduce non-renewable energy demands High Mid Low Low 0 4

Preferred Retrofitting Choices

0

1

2

3

4

5

6< 30

> 50

Pri

ori

ty

Case Studies:Case Study One; Balgownie

www.maps.google.com.au

Case Studies:Case Study Two: Holt

Preliminary ResultsLife Cycle Assessment

1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2Base Model Insulation Glazing Insulation,

Glazing^Appliances *Solar Water ^Shading ^Air Sealing

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

Operational Energy Embodied Energy

Mega J

oule

s (

MJ)

1 - Case Study 1 (>50’s)

2 – Case Study 2 (>30’s)

Preliminary ResultsOperational Energy

Base Model Insulation Glazing Insulation and Glazing0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

Case 1

Case 2

Mega J

oule

s (

MJ)

Preliminary ResultsEmbodied Energy

Base Model Insulation Glazing Insulation, Glazing

36400

36600

36800

37000

37200

37400

37600

37800

38000

38200

Mega J

oule

s (

MJ)

Preliminary ResultsEmbodied Energy

Base Model Insulation Glazing Insulation, Glazing

18600

18800

19000

19200

19400

19600

19800

20000

20200

20400

Mega J

oule

s (

MJ)

Findings of Preliminary ResultsOperational Energy

< 30 priorities bring about large energy savings, greater star ratings

> 50 priorities bring about smaller savings in more diverse areas of house hold energy use, in water energy and water usage demand

> 50 priorities are based on already having some level of energy efficiency mechanisms in place

Findings of Preliminary ResultsEmbodied Energy

< 30 priorities bring about significant additional embodied energy

> 50 priorities are much harder to assess in terms of embodied energy, as the variables in appliances, solar energy, shading and air sealing are difficult to account for

> 50 priorities reflect their intentions to maintain and use items until their reach their obsolescence point which can be seen as one method to reduce embodied energy in a LCA

Preliminary ResultsLife Cycle Assessment

1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2Base Model Insulation Glazing Insulation,

Glazing^Appliances *Solar Water ^Shading ^Air Sealing

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

Operational Energy Embodied Energy

Mega J

oule

s (

MJ)

1 - Case Study 1 (>50’s)

2 – Case Study 2 (>30’s)

Findings of Preliminary ResultsLife Cycle Assessment

< 30 prioritise retrofitting options that have a large embodied energy cost, and are will to put aside aspects such as time and money to achieve greater energy improvements

> 50 priorities bring about smaller savings in more diverse areas of house hold energy

use, in water energy and water usage demand and this is not always assessed in

LCA

All retrofitting choices bring about saving, even if only minor.

Next Step

Incorporate further social factors in LCEA and retrofitting choices e.g. Time Constraints

Further test framework to see how it can support further retrofitting decision-making using the two case studies

http://www.timecreationcoaching.com.au

Acknowledgements and References• Lan Ding, Thesis Supervisor ENGG452, University of Wollongong

• Survey Participants

• ABS 2009, 2009-10 Year Book Australia, Cat no. 1301.0, Australian Bureau of Statistics, (ABS), Canberra.

• Australia/New Zealand Standard, 1998, Environmental management - Life Cycle Assessment - Principles and framework, ISO

14040:1998, accessed 28 February 2012,

• Bankier and Gale 2006. Energy Payback of Roof Mounted Photovoltaic Cells, Energy Bulletin,

• Carbon Cops 2007. Carbon Cops Transforming energy use Embodied emissions and energy, ABC Copyright 2007,

• Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency 2010, The Pathway to 2020 for Low-Energy Low-Carbon Buildings in Australia:

Indicative Stringency Study, Cat no. DCC 137/2010, Efficiency, Department of Climate Change and Energy, Canberra.

• Department of the Environment 2008, Energy Use in the Australian Residential Sector 1986-2020, Cat no. 978-1-921298-14-1,

Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra.

• Fay, Treloar, et al. 2000, "Life-cycle energy analysis of buildings; A case study", Building Research and Information, Vol.28, 31-31.

• Haynes 2012, "Embodied Energy Calculations within Life Cycle Analysis of Residential Buildings", Unknown, 1-15.

• Home Energy Advice Team 2010, accessed 13 March 2012. http://www.heat.net.au/action-advice-page

• Ireland 2008, "The Changing Shape of Renewables Technology", Electrical Construction and Maintenance, Vol.107, 1, pp. C26-C30.

• McLeod and Fay 2011, "The cost effectiveness of housing thermal performance improvements in saving CO2-e", Architectural Science

Review, Vol.54, 2, pp. 117-123.

• Reardon, Milne, et al. 2010, Your Home Technical Manual, Fourth Edition, Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency,

Efficiency, Department of Climate Change and Energy, Canberra.

• Tucker, Hramiak, et al. 1999, Towards More Energy Efficient Australian Housing: Life-Cycle Aspects, Cat no. BCE Doc. 99/149, CSIRO,

Highett.

• University of Wollongong 2011, ENGG446 Energy Efficiency Enhancement in Domestic Buildings, Sustainable Buildings Research

Centre, delivered Autumn Session 2012.

Melissa GaspariTarun CharkerJenny CharkerPeter CharkerRyan Duff

Angela GaspariRobert Gaspari

Todd HuuskesStefanie GaspariPeter Lennon