Premium
A life‐cycle assessment model for zero emission neighborhoods
Author(s) -
Lausselet Carine,
Ellingsen Linda AgerWick,
Strømman Anders Hammer,
Brattebø Helge
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
journal of industrial ecology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.377
H-Index - 102
eISSN - 1530-9290
pISSN - 1088-1980
DOI - 10.1111/jiec.12960
Subject(s) - electricity , nexus (standard) , unit (ring theory) , life cycle assessment , climate change , energy mix , greenhouse gas , climate change mitigation , embodied energy , environmental economics , environmental science , zero emission , natural resource economics , business , electricity generation , economics , computer science , engineering , ecology , microeconomics , quantum mechanics , production (economics) , electrical engineering , mathematics , power (physics) , physics , mathematics education , biology , embedded system
Buildings represent a critical piece of a low‐carbon future, and their long lifetime necessitates urgent adoption of state‐of‐the‐art performance standards to avoid significant lock‐in risk regarding long‐lasting technology solution choices. Buildings, mobility, and energy systems are closely linked, and assessing their nexus by aiming for Zero Emission Neighborhoods (ZENs) provides a unique chance to contribute to climate change mitigation. We conducted a life‐cycle assessment of a Norwegian ZEN and designed four scenarios to test the influence of the house size, household size, and energy used and produced in the buildings as well as mobility patterns. We ran our scenarios with different levels of decarbonization of the electricity mix over a period of 60 years. Our results show the importance of the operational phases of both the buildings and mobility in the neighborhood's construction, and its decline over time induced by the decarbonization of the electricity mix. At the neighborhood end‐of‐life, embodied emissions then become responsible for the majority of the emissions when the electricity mix is decarbonized. The choice of functional unit is decisive, and we thus argue for the use of a primary functional unit “per neighborhood,” and a second “per person.” The use of a “per m 2 ” functional unit is misleading as it does not give credits to the precautionary use of floor area. To best mitigate climate change, climate‐positive behaviors should be combined with energy efficiency standards that incorporate embodied energy, and absolute threshold should be combined with behavioral changes.