美国单户住宅建筑的体现碳基准

IF 10.5 1区 工程技术 Q1 CONSTRUCTION & BUILDING TECHNOLOGY Sustainable Cities and Society Pub Date : 2024-11-10 DOI:10.1016/j.scs.2024.105975
Matt A. Jungclaus , Nicholas Grant , Martín I. Torres , Jay H. Arehart , Wil V. Srubar III
{"title":"美国单户住宅建筑的体现碳基准","authors":"Matt A. Jungclaus ,&nbsp;Nicholas Grant ,&nbsp;Martín I. Torres ,&nbsp;Jay H. Arehart ,&nbsp;Wil V. Srubar III","doi":"10.1016/j.scs.2024.105975","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The objective of this work was to define and implement a methodology for establishing theoretical, science-based embodied carbon benchmarks for single-family, detached residential buildings based on the United States Department of Energy prototype single-family residential building energy models. The expected differences in materiality across 16 climate zones and 4 foundation types resulted in 64 archetypical single-family residential building models. Probabilistic life cycle assessment was applied to a material quantity takeoff of each building model to approximate each building model's material use intensity (MUI, kg/m<sup>2</sup>) and embodied carbon intensity (ECI, kgCO<sub>2</sub>e/m<sup>2</sup>). The results indicate that average MUIs range from 185 to 346 kg/m<sup>2</sup> and average ECIs ranged from 39 to 121 kgCO<sub>2</sub>e/m<sup>2</sup>. The choice of life cycle assessment (LCA) data had a significant impact on the ECI results. More specifically, ECIs calculated using One Click LCA were approximately 7 % and 44 % higher than those from Tally and Athena Impact Estimator for Buildings (Athena), respectively. When accounting for theoretical maximum biogenic CO<sub>2</sub> storage (not including end-of-life treatment), all net CO<sub>2</sub> emissions intensities computed using Athena were negative, indicating that the buildings were net-CO<sub>2</sub> storing. When using One Click or Tally, 28 % and 50 % of the building models were net-CO<sub>2</sub> storing, respectively. The results presented herein can be used to establish theoretical, science-based embodied carbon benchmarks for single-family residential buildings in the United States. In addition, the methodology could be adopted by entities seeking to establish building-related embodied carbon emissions reduction targets.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48659,"journal":{"name":"Sustainable Cities and Society","volume":"117 ","pages":"Article 105975"},"PeriodicalIF":10.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Embodied carbon benchmarks of single-family residential buildings in the United States\",\"authors\":\"Matt A. Jungclaus ,&nbsp;Nicholas Grant ,&nbsp;Martín I. Torres ,&nbsp;Jay H. Arehart ,&nbsp;Wil V. Srubar III\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.scs.2024.105975\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>The objective of this work was to define and implement a methodology for establishing theoretical, science-based embodied carbon benchmarks for single-family, detached residential buildings based on the United States Department of Energy prototype single-family residential building energy models. The expected differences in materiality across 16 climate zones and 4 foundation types resulted in 64 archetypical single-family residential building models. Probabilistic life cycle assessment was applied to a material quantity takeoff of each building model to approximate each building model's material use intensity (MUI, kg/m<sup>2</sup>) and embodied carbon intensity (ECI, kgCO<sub>2</sub>e/m<sup>2</sup>). The results indicate that average MUIs range from 185 to 346 kg/m<sup>2</sup> and average ECIs ranged from 39 to 121 kgCO<sub>2</sub>e/m<sup>2</sup>. The choice of life cycle assessment (LCA) data had a significant impact on the ECI results. More specifically, ECIs calculated using One Click LCA were approximately 7 % and 44 % higher than those from Tally and Athena Impact Estimator for Buildings (Athena), respectively. When accounting for theoretical maximum biogenic CO<sub>2</sub> storage (not including end-of-life treatment), all net CO<sub>2</sub> emissions intensities computed using Athena were negative, indicating that the buildings were net-CO<sub>2</sub> storing. When using One Click or Tally, 28 % and 50 % of the building models were net-CO<sub>2</sub> storing, respectively. The results presented herein can be used to establish theoretical, science-based embodied carbon benchmarks for single-family residential buildings in the United States. In addition, the methodology could be adopted by entities seeking to establish building-related embodied carbon emissions reduction targets.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48659,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sustainable Cities and Society\",\"volume\":\"117 \",\"pages\":\"Article 105975\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":10.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sustainable Cities and Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2210670724007996\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CONSTRUCTION & BUILDING TECHNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sustainable Cities and Society","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2210670724007996","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CONSTRUCTION & BUILDING TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这项工作的目的是根据美国能源部的单户住宅建筑能源模型原型,确定并实施一种方法,为单户独立住宅建筑建立以科学为基础的理论内含碳基准。根据 16 个气候带和 4 种地基类型在物质性方面的预期差异,得出了 64 个单户住宅建筑原型模型。对每个建筑模型的材料数量进行了概率生命周期评估,以估算每个建筑模型的材料使用强度(MUI,kg/m2)和内含碳强度(ECI,kgCO2e/m2)。结果表明,平均材料使用强度从 185 kg/m2 到 346 kg/m2 不等,平均内含碳强度从 39 kgCO2e/m2 到 121 kgCO2e/m2 不等。生命周期评估(LCA)数据的选择对 ECI 结果有重大影响。更具体地说,使用 One Click LCA 计算的 ECI 分别比 Tally 和 Athena Impact Estimator for Buildings (Athena) 高出约 7% 和 44%。当考虑到理论上最大的生物源二氧化碳储存量(不包括报废处理)时,使用 Athena 计算出的所有二氧化碳净排放强度均为负值,表明建筑物具有二氧化碳净储存功能。使用 One Click 或 Tally 时,分别有 28% 和 50% 的建筑模型具有净二氧化碳储存功能。本文介绍的结果可用于为美国单户住宅建筑建立理论上的、以科学为基础的内含碳基准。此外,寻求制定与建筑相关的内含碳排放量减排目标的实体也可采用该方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Embodied carbon benchmarks of single-family residential buildings in the United States
The objective of this work was to define and implement a methodology for establishing theoretical, science-based embodied carbon benchmarks for single-family, detached residential buildings based on the United States Department of Energy prototype single-family residential building energy models. The expected differences in materiality across 16 climate zones and 4 foundation types resulted in 64 archetypical single-family residential building models. Probabilistic life cycle assessment was applied to a material quantity takeoff of each building model to approximate each building model's material use intensity (MUI, kg/m2) and embodied carbon intensity (ECI, kgCO2e/m2). The results indicate that average MUIs range from 185 to 346 kg/m2 and average ECIs ranged from 39 to 121 kgCO2e/m2. The choice of life cycle assessment (LCA) data had a significant impact on the ECI results. More specifically, ECIs calculated using One Click LCA were approximately 7 % and 44 % higher than those from Tally and Athena Impact Estimator for Buildings (Athena), respectively. When accounting for theoretical maximum biogenic CO2 storage (not including end-of-life treatment), all net CO2 emissions intensities computed using Athena were negative, indicating that the buildings were net-CO2 storing. When using One Click or Tally, 28 % and 50 % of the building models were net-CO2 storing, respectively. The results presented herein can be used to establish theoretical, science-based embodied carbon benchmarks for single-family residential buildings in the United States. In addition, the methodology could be adopted by entities seeking to establish building-related embodied carbon emissions reduction targets.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Sustainable Cities and Society
Sustainable Cities and Society Social Sciences-Geography, Planning and Development
CiteScore
22.00
自引率
13.70%
发文量
810
审稿时长
27 days
期刊介绍: Sustainable Cities and Society (SCS) is an international journal that focuses on fundamental and applied research to promote environmentally sustainable and socially resilient cities. The journal welcomes cross-cutting, multi-disciplinary research in various areas, including: 1. Smart cities and resilient environments; 2. Alternative/clean energy sources, energy distribution, distributed energy generation, and energy demand reduction/management; 3. Monitoring and improving air quality in built environment and cities (e.g., healthy built environment and air quality management); 4. Energy efficient, low/zero carbon, and green buildings/communities; 5. Climate change mitigation and adaptation in urban environments; 6. Green infrastructure and BMPs; 7. Environmental Footprint accounting and management; 8. Urban agriculture and forestry; 9. ICT, smart grid and intelligent infrastructure; 10. Urban design/planning, regulations, legislation, certification, economics, and policy; 11. Social aspects, impacts and resiliency of cities; 12. Behavior monitoring, analysis and change within urban communities; 13. Health monitoring and improvement; 14. Nexus issues related to sustainable cities and societies; 15. Smart city governance; 16. Decision Support Systems for trade-off and uncertainty analysis for improved management of cities and society; 17. Big data, machine learning, and artificial intelligence applications and case studies; 18. Critical infrastructure protection, including security, privacy, forensics, and reliability issues of cyber-physical systems. 19. Water footprint reduction and urban water distribution, harvesting, treatment, reuse and management; 20. Waste reduction and recycling; 21. Wastewater collection, treatment and recycling; 22. Smart, clean and healthy transportation systems and infrastructure;
期刊最新文献
Improving thermal comfort using personalized local conditioning: A large-scale retrospective questionnaire survey conducted during a heatwave in China Modeling the evolution of community structure by the dynamic network analysis: Sustainability transition in Kyoto Eco-School Districts, Japan Can transportation networks contribute to the sustainable development of urban agglomeration spatial structures? A novel construction and evaluation framework for driving cycle of electric vehicles based on energy consumption and emission analysis The mitigating effect of green Space's spatial and temporal patterns on the urban heat island in the context of urban densification: A case study of Xi'an
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1