Abstract
This paper presents a comparative analysis of the carbon footprint, energy demand and life cycle costs of a model of a building located in the Central Europe climate zone. One specific example—the quantitative differences in global warming potential, life cycle costs and thermal comfort—has been shown, depending on the different construction (wood, brick) and heat sources used; traditional and energy-saving solutions have been considered. The research was carried out using the EnergyPlus simulation program for a multi-zone model of a naturally ventilated single-family house. Calculations were made for a 25-year life cycle using the standard climate data for Warsaw (Poland). The real occupancy schedule of the individual rooms was adopted and the instantaneous ventilation airflow was modeled, and its intensification due to the additional opening of windows was optimized. An estimated budget of the entire structure of the building and the heat sources was used for the cost analysis. The research has succeeded in developing some general conclusions and guidelines and recommendations for both the investors and designers of energy-saving and environmentally friendly houses. Considering the most economical an ecological solution, wooden houses are better than brick houses. In the wooden building, however, there are a larger number of thermal discomfort hours.
Highlights
One of the key objectives in current global climate and energy policy is reducing the emission of greenhouse gases
The building becomes a kind of “thermos” and without additional cooling system it is not possible to remove the additional internal heat. This issue is especially important in an age of warming climates; the aim of this research is to assess which of the popular types of building construction in Central Europe has the smallest impact on the natural environment in terms of carbon dioxide emissions, generates the lowest life cycle costs of the building, and allows the minimum requirements for thermal comfort in buildings with natural ventilation to be met
This research focused on analyzing the differences between the life cycle cost (LCC), global warming potential (GWP) and Hdis, depending on the building construction and type of heat source used
Summary
One of the key objectives in current global climate and energy policy is reducing the emission of greenhouse gases. EU countries are set to implement the provisions of the Paris Agreement (signed in 2015), which set individual targets for each country to reduce CO2 emissions in sectors of the economy such as transport or construction This is why it is so important for newly designed buildings to be analyzed in terms of their environmental impact—the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). Gustavsson et al [3] analyzed an 8-storey building, made using wood-based technology They primarily studied the primary energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions at all stages of the life cycle of the building, including heating variants. Another example is the research of Blengini et al [4], the purpose of which was to determine the carbon footprint and energy life cycle for traditional single-family, low-energy houses in Italy. Lewandowska et al [6] focused on a very detailed LCA, in which two model houses for a four person family were studied with a usable area of 98 m2 ; one was constructed using brick technology, the other in wood
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
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