Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Embodied CO2

Options
  • 17-11-2008 1:29pm
    #1
    Deuce
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1 ✭


    A recent report from Davis Langdon shows that although the operational carbon footprints of building is gradually decreasing, this is done at the expense of Embodied Co2 (the amount of CO2 released during the manufacture of the materials, transport to the building site...)

    In the UK, embodied CO2 represents 19% of total carbon emissions, although there are no exact figures for Ireland, the figure is expected to be higher.

    Why isn't the issue of Embodied CO2 being addressed? What are we doing to reduce it?

    There are technologies available to reduce the embodied CO2 of buildings by 25% at no extra cost. Why isn't this being implemented everywhere?
    Tagged:


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    10-10-20
    Registered Users Posts: 7,030 ✭✭✭10-10-20


    In my opinion, that's pretty much always going to be true.
    The more complex the build in terms of insulation and building materials, the more engineered the materials have to be.

    Think it about it like this...
    Typical builds in the 70's used breeze blocks with skim-coats either side.
    These days we need inner and outer leaves, ties, multiple skim coats, insulation foils & foams and plasterboard.

    So where's the offset you ask? Well the future buildings will offset the initial embodied energy within a few years through energy efficiencies. These will only accumulate over the 50/60 year lifetime of the build.

    I'm not advocating ignorance of the issue, I just feel that we have only just started out on the path of creating greener homes, so these issues which are secondary now, will improve over time, again, through further engineering!


  • Options
    #3
    muffler
    Registered Users Posts: 46,014 ✭✭✭✭muffler


    Moved from Renewable Energies to the Green Issues forum


  • Options
    #4
    Mellor
    Registered Users Posts: 39,270 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    Deuce wrote: »
    There are technologies available to reduce the embodied CO2 of buildings by 25% at no extra cost. Why isn't this being implemented everywhere?
    Can you give details of these technologies,
    10-10-20 wrote: »
    In my opinion, that's pretty much always going to be true.
    The more complex the build in terms of insulation and building materials, the more engineered the materials have to be.
    I wouldn't agree.
    While your example holds true, single domestic is going to be lower than a top spec cavity. Not all similar, alsmost identical, materials will be the same. Embodied energy and CO2 can be reduced via specification.
    Examples:

    Local Stone verses Stone imported from china.
    Both used in the same building, equally as complex and engineered, yet the embodied energy and CO2 is totally different.

    Other areas were the above applies is furniture, ironmoungry etc. Insulation specification can also have an effect.


Advertisement