Environmental perspective on two glazing typologies

Transcription

1 Environmental perspective on two glazing typologies Nicola Lolli The Research Centre on Zero Emission Buildings ZEB, Department of Architectural Design, History and Technology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology 1

2 Objective Comparison of two glazing technologies (tripleglazing with argon and double-glazing with aerogel). Comparison of three glazing ratios (, 33%, and 50%). Application to the East and West facades of a residential block in Oslo (Myhrerenga Borettslag). Analysis of the yearly energy demand and greenhouse gas emissions. 2 Illustration: Sintef Byggforsk

3 Objective Variation of the glazing ratio: 33% 50% 3 Illustration: Nicola Lolli

4 Method Current renovation of the Myhrerenga Borettslag as reference building (façade U-value 0.12 Wm -2 K -1, glazing ratio, triple-glazing with argon). Proposed upgrades with triple-glazing with argon: façade U-value 0.10 Wm -2 K -1,, 33%, and 50% glazing ratio Proposed upgrades with double-glazing with aerogel: façade U-value 0.10 Wm -2 K -1,, 33%, and 50% glazing ratio Triple-glazing with argon: U-value 0.79 Wm -2 K -1 Double-glazing with aerogel: U-value 0.50 Wm -2 K -1 4 Share of aerogel glazing: for and 33% glazing ratio: 28% aerogel. for 50% glazing ratio: 39% aerogel.

5 Method Phases of the life cycle model : production, transportation, building use, maintenance, and end-of-life. Building lifetime set to 50 years. Variation of maintenance schedules for glazing: long (50 yrs), short (20 yrs), and supershort (10 yrs, only for aerogel glazing). ZEB conversion factor = kgco 2-eq kwh -1 5

6 Yearly building energy demand + 8% 110,0 100,0 + 2% argon 90,0 80,0 aerogel 70,0 kwh/m2 y 60,0 50,0 40,0 Pumps 30,0 Fans 20,0 interior equipment 10,0 interior lighting 0,0 hydronic system (heating + DHW) aerogel argon 33% aerogel 33% argon 50% aerogel 50% argon Ref. bld. 6 Total energy use of 50% argon is 8% higher than of argon Total energy use of 50% aerogel is 2% higher than of aerogel

7 Yearly building energy demand + 4% + 9% 110,0 100,0 90,0 80,0 70,0 kwh/m2 y 60,0 50,0 40,0 Pumps 30,0 Fans 20,0 interior equipment 10,0 interior lighting 0,0 hydronic system (heating + DHW) aerogel argon 33% aerogel 33% argon 50% aerogel 50% argon Ref. bld. 7 Total energy use of argon is 4% higher than of aerogel Total energy use of 50% argon is 9% higher than of 50% aerogel

8 Life cycle emissions (long maintenance) 20,00 18,00 16,00 14,00 + 3% + 9% kg CO2 eq/m2 y 12,00 10,00 8,00 6,00 4,00 2,00 M+EOL BOP ZEB EE 0,00 33% 33% 50% 50% reference building 8 Total emissions of argon are 3% higher than of aerogel Total emissions of 50% argon are 9% higher than of 50% aerogel

9 Life cycle emissions (supershort maintenance) + 3% + 7% 20,00 18,00 16,00 14,00 kg CO2 eq/m2 y 12,00 10,00 8,00 6,00 4,00 2,00 M+EOL BOP ZEB EE 0,00 33% 33% 50% 50% reference building 9 Total emissions of argon are 3% higher than of aerogel Total emissions of 50% argon are 7% higher than of 50% aerogel

10 Embodied emissions - long maintenance 320 E E E E E E+03 REMOVAL OLD PARTS PAINT WOOD PRESERVATIVE PLASTER 200 E+03 TILING 10 kg CO2 eq 180 E E E E E E E E E E+00 Reference building 33% 33% 50% 50% CONCRETE GYPSUM BITUMEN PLASTIC RUBBER GLASS STEEL EPS ROCKWOOL WOOD

11 Embodied emissions - short maintenance 320 E E E E E+03 REMOVAL OLD PARTS PAINT WOOD PRESERVATIVE 220 E+03 PLASTER 200 E+03 TILING 11 kg CO2 eq 180 E E E E E E E E E E+00 Reference building 33% 33% 50% 50% CONCRETE GYPSUM BITUMEN PLASTIC RUBBER GLASS STEEL EPS ROCKWOOL WOOD

12 Embodied emissions - supershort maintenance 320 E E E E E E+03 REMOVAL OLD PARTS PAINT WOOD PRESERVATIVE PLASTER 200 E+03 TILING 12 kg CO2 eq 180 E E E E E E E E E E+00 Reference building 33% 33% 50% 50% CONCRETE GYPSUM BITUMEN PLASTIC RUBBER GLASS STEEL EPS ROCKWOOL WOOD

13 Limitations Uncertainty of results due to: No known data of service life of aerogel glazing. No known data of disposal scenario of aerogel (assumed as landfilling). Little emissions data for aerogel. Embodied emissions for the assembling of the glazing technologies is not calculated. Embodied emissions for the transportation of the maintenance workers is not calculated. Variation of the building orientation is expected to change the results. A different electricity-to-emissions conversion factor is expected to give different results. 13

14 Summing up The embodied emissions decrease when the glazing ratio increases (maximum 8% difference). Emissions for paint and concrete tiling are maximum 38% of the total (for short maintenance). Emissions for glass and aerogel are maximum 9% of the total (for supershort maintenance). The glazed part of the facades has lower emissions than the opaque part, per unit of surface. 14

15 Conclusions Lifecycle emissions: double-glazing with aerogel has always lower emissions than triple-glazing with argon, regardless of the maintenance schedule. Embodied emissions: double-glazing with aerogel result in higher emissions than triple-glazing with argon for a short maintenance schedule. With longer maintenance both glazing technologies have lower and similar embodied emissions. The choice of maintenance schedule (given by quality of materials) is critical. 15 A future greener energy grid would make the aerogel glazing technology not competitive, regardless of the maintenance schedule.

16 Nicola Lolli. First Year Hearing Thank you! 16