Post Occupancy Life Cycle Analysis of a Green Building Energy Consumption at the University of Western Ontario in London - Canada

Authors: M. Bittencourt, E. K. Yanful, D. Velasquez, A. E. Jungles

Abstract:

The CMLP building was developed to be a model for sustainability with strategies to reduce water, energy and pollution, and to provide a healthy environment for the building occupants. The aim of this paper is to investigate the environmental effects of energy used by this building. A LCA (life cycle analysis) was led to measure the real environmental effects produced by the use of energy. The impact categories most affected by the energy use were found to be the human health effects, as well as ecotoxicity. Natural gas extraction, uranium milling for nuclear energy production, and the blasting for mining and infrastructure construction are the processes contributing the most to emissions in the human health effect. Data comparing LCA results of CMLP building with a conventional building results showed that energy used by the CMLP building has less damage for the environment and human health than a conventional building.

Keywords: Environmental Impacts, Green buildings, Life CycleAnalysis, Sustainability

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1057281

References:

[1] A. Haapio, P. Viitaniemi. A critical review of building environmental assessment tools. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2008; 28 (7): 469-482
[2] United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Agenda 21. UN United Nation Rio de Janeiro-RJ 1992.
[3] United Nations Environment Programme. Annual report 2010.
[4] M. Brown, F. Southworth. Mitigating climate change through green buildings and smart growth. Environment and Planning 2008; 40 (3): 653-675.
[5] J. Cidell, A. Beata. Spatial variation among green building certification categories: Does place matter? Landscape and Urban Planning 2009; 91 (3): 142-151.
[6] J. Yudelson. Green building through integrated design. McGraw-Hill. New York; 2009.
[7] A. G. Rebitzer, T. Ekvallb, R. Frischknechtc, D. Hunkelerd, G. Norrise, T. Rydbergf, W. P. Schmidtg, S. Suhh, B. P. Weidemai, D. W. Penningtonf. Review Life cycle assessment Part 1: Framework, goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, and applications. Environment International 2004; 30 (5): 701- 720.
[8] U.S Green Building Council. Number of projects. Retrieved September 08, 2011 fro USGBC Website: http://www.usgbc.org.
[9] ISO. ISO 14040. Environmental management and life cycle assessment: principles and framework. Geneva: ISO; 2006
[10] W. Wang, R. Zmeureanu, H. Rivard. Applying multi-objective genetic algorithmsin green building design optimization. Building and Environment 2005; 40 (11): 1512-1525.
[11] I. Z. Bribián, A. A. Usón, S. Scarpellini. Life cycle assessment in buildings: State-of-the-art and simplified LCA methodology as a complement for building certification. Building and Environment 2009; 44 (12) 2510-2520.
[12] A. P. Arena, C. Rosa. de. Life cycle assessment of energy and environmental implications of the implementation of conservation technologies in school buildings in MendozaÔÇöArgentina. Building and Environment 2003; 38 (2):359 - 368.
[13] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Green Building Basic Information, 2011.
[14] A. Wilson. Your green home: A guide to planning a healthy, environmentally friendly new home. New Society Publishers; 2006.
[15] J. Heerwagen, 2001. Do green buildigns enhance well being of workers? Environ. Des. Constr.
[16] L. P. Warren, A. T. Peter. A comparison of occupant comfort and satisfaction between a green building and a conventional building. Building and Environment, 2008; 43 (11): 1858-1870.
[17] J. H. Heerwagen. Green buildings, organizational success, and occupant productivity. Building, Research and Information 2000; 28 (5): 353-367.
[18] G. Kats, M. James, S. Apfelbaum, T. Darden, D. Farr, R. Fox, et al. Greening buildings and communities: Costs and benefits. Capital E; 2008.
[19] R. Cassidy, G. Wright, L. Flynn, D. Barista, M. Richards, D. Popp, et al. White paper on sustainability: A report on the green building movement. Building, Design and Construction 2003.
[20] M. H. Issa, J. H. Rankin, A. J. Christian. Canadian practitioners' perception of research work investigating the cost premiums, long-term costs and health and productivity benefits of green buildings. Building and Environment 2010; 45 (7): 1698-1711.
[21] United States Environmental Protection Agency. Available and emerging technologies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the portland cement industry. 2010.
[22] A. Crookes, D. O-Carrol, C. Robinson. Quantifying green roof performance: A study at the Claudette MacKay-Lassonde Pavilion (CMLP); 2010.
[23] UWO. University of Western Ontario. University Energy Report. London; 2010.
[24] Environment Canada. National climate data and information archive. Canadian Climate Normals 1971-2000.
[25] Independent Electricity System Operator. Energy output by fuel type 2010.
[26] Ontario Power Generation. Retrieved May 07, 2011 from: http://www.opg.com.
[27] J. Bare, T. Gloria, G. Norris. Development of the method and u.s. normalization database for life cycle impact assessment and sustainability metrics. Environment Science and Technology 2006; 40 (16): 5108-5115.