Abstract

AbstractInsulation materials decrease the final energy consumption of buildings. In Germany, fossil and mineral insulations dominate the market despite numerous life cycle assessments (LCAs) showing that bio‐based insulations can offer environmental benefits. Evaluating the results of such LCAs is, however, complex due to a lack of comparability or costs considered. The objective of this study is comparing bio‐based insulations under equal conditions to identify the most environmentally friendly and cost‐efficient material. For this purpose, a comparative LCA and life cycle costing (LCC) were conducted from “cradle to grave” for four bio‐based and two nonrenewable insulations. The bio‐based insulation materials evaluated were wood fiber, hemp fiber, flax, and miscanthus. The nonrenewable insulations were expanded polystyrene (EPS) and stone wool. Key data for the LCA of the bio‐based insulations were obtained from preceding thermal conductivity measurements under ceteris paribus conditions. Eighteen environmental impact categories were assessed, and direct costs were cumulated along the life cycle. Results show that the most environmentally friendly bio‐based insulation materials were wood fiber and miscanthus. A hotspot analysis found that, for agriculturally sourced insulations, cultivation had the largest environmental impact, and for wood fiber insulation, it was manufacturing. The use phase (including installation) constituted a cost hotspot. The environmental impacts of end‐of‐life incineration were strongly influenced by the fossil components of the materials. Overall, bio‐based insulations were more environmentally friendly than EPS and stone wool in 11 impact categories. The LCC found EPS and miscanthus insulation to be most cost‐efficient, yet market integration of the latter is still limited. It can be concluded that miscanthus biomass is an environmentally and economically promising bio‐based insulation material. Comparability of the environmental performance of the bio‐based insulations was increased by applying the same system boundary and functional unit, the same impact assessment methodology, and the preceding ceteris paribus thermal conductivity measurements.

Highlights

  • In the residential sector of the European Union (EU), it is expected that heating will still account for 64% of final energy consumption in the year 2020, and by 2050 will still share 54% (EC, 2013)

  • In Germany, fossil and mineral insulations dominate the market despite numerous life cycle assessments (LCAs) showing that bio-­based insulations can offer environmental benefits

  • Overall, hemp fiber and flax insulation display a comparable impact pattern. This stands in contrast to the other two materials evaluated, wood fiber and miscanthus insulation, which have similar impact levels

Read more

Summary

Introduction

In the residential sector of the European Union (EU), it is expected that heating will still account for 64% of final energy consumption in the year 2020, and by 2050 will still share 54% (EC, 2013). These figures underline the need for insulation materials to reduce the environmental and economic impact of the building stock (Al-­Homoud, 2005) in the EU, of which 75% is currently energy inefficient (EC, 2019a). Hemp (5%) and other biomass sources (2%) make only minor contributions Nonrenewable insulation materials, such as polystyrene and mineral wool, have a considerable cost advantage over bio-­based materials through their sheer market dominance. Bio-­based insulations can reduce environmental impacts in comparison to nonrenewable materials (Torres-­ Rivas et al, 2018)

Objectives
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call