Life Cycle Analysis - 4 Building Applications by Target Groups UE1997

European methodology for the evaluation of
Environmental impact of buildings
- Life cycle assessment -
EUROPEAN COMMISSION, DIRECTORATE GENERAL XII FOR SCIENCE, RESEARCH AND

DEVELOPMENT, PROGRAMME APAS
REGENER PROJECT FINAL REPORT
APPLICATIONS BY TARGET GROUPS
Implementation of LCA by the main building actors
January 1997
REGENER, Applications by target groups page 1

2
Contents
4. APPLICATIONS BY TARGET GROUPS _____________________________________1
4.1 GUIDELINES TO BUILDING ACTORS _________________________________________ 6
4.1.1 Goal definition by policy makers ______________________________________________________ 6
4.1.2 Programming by clients______________________________________________________________ 9
4.1.3 Design by architects _______________________________________________________________ 11
4.1.4 Construction by enterprises __________________________________________________________ 16
4.1.5 Manufacturing of products __________________________________________________________ 21
4.1.5.1 Objectives :Why should manufactorers change ? _____________________________________ 21
4.1.5.2 How to proceed ?______________________________________________________________ 21
4.1.5.3 Set the objectives ______________________________________________________________ 22
4.1.5.4 Basic litterature _______________________________________________________________ 22
4.1.5.5 description of the product ______________________________________________________ 23
4.1.5.6 LCA inventory________________________________________________________________ 23
4.1.5.7 LCA classification _____________________________________________________________ 24
4.1.5.8 LCA evaluation _______________________________________________________________ 24
4.1.5.9 improvement _________________________________________________________________ 24
4.1.5.10 Risks and accidents ___________________________________________________________ 24
4.1.5.11 special problems : ____________________________________________________________ 25
4.1.5.12 Presentation and dissemination __________________________________________________ 25
4.2 SENSITIVITY STUDIES ______________________________________________________ 26
4.2.1 Dwelling building _________________________________________________________________ 27
4.2.1.1 Characteristics of the reference ___________________________________________________ 27
4.2.1.2 Analysis _____________________________________________________________________ 28
4.2.2 Educational building _______________________________________________________________ 44
4.2.2.1 Characteristics of the reference ___________________________________________________ 44
4.2.2.2 Sensitivity studies _____________________________________________________________ 47
4.3 SOFT ENERGY COMMUNITY PLANNING_____________________________________ 59
4.3.1 Soft Energy Community - example for Trappes, France____________________________________ 59
4.3.2 CEADS Startup and Input Data_______________________________________________________ 63
4.3.3 CEADS outputs for the Trappes SEC __________________________________________________ 65
4.3.3.1 Base Case ___________________________________________________________________ 65
4.3.3.2 Residential Passive Space Heating Solar Systems_____________________________________ 66
4.3.3.3 Residential Photovoltaic Systems _________________________________________________ 68
4.3.3.4 Residential Solar Water Heating __________________________________________________ 69
4.3.3.5 Biomass Power Plant ___________________________________________________________ 70
4.3.3.6 Wind Power Assessment for Trappes ______________________________________________ 72
4.3.4 Transportation Study for Trappes SEC _________________________________________________ 73
4.3.5 Target Groups ____________________________________________________________________ 77
4.4 REPORT ON REGIONAL APPLICATIONS _____________________________________ 79
4.4.1 Assesment of the renewable energy alternatives in Greater Paris area _________________________ 79
4.4.1.1 simplified economical assessment _________________________________________________ 79
4.4.1.2 Technical complexity __________________________________________________________ 80
4.4.1.3 Environmental criteria __________________________________________________________ 81
4.4.1.4 Social impact _________________________________________________________________ 81
4.4.1.5 Results ______________________________________________________________________ 82
4.4.2 Ecologis exhibition at Paris, La Villette Museum _________________________________________ 87
4.4.3 Higher environmental quality (HEQ) highschools programme_______________________________ 92
4.5 CONCLUSIONS _____________________________________________________________ 95
4.6 ANNEX : DESCRIPTION OF THE ECOLOGIS DEMONSTRATION HOUSE ________ 97

4
Environmental impacts during the life cycle of buildings result from decisions made at all steps of a
building projet, and particularly early phases (policy making, programming, design) during which the
decisions influence significantly the fluxes (energy, water, waste) all along the utilisation phase. This
is why the advice given in section 4.1 concerns not only architects and building enterprises, but also
clients and policy makers. Manufacturers of building products play an important role as well, and are
thus considered.
Besides advice to building professionals, the Regener project aims to evaluate the environmental
benefit of renewable energy techniques. The sensitivity study performed in the second subtask
increases the knowledge on such aspects at the building level, and first conclusions are presented. At a
municipal level, the next section presents an application of the soft energy community concept.
At last, demonstration projects can really promote the new design approaches elaborated. First
experience in this field is described in section 4.4.
GUIDELINES TO BUILDING ACTORS
LCA is sometimes presented as being complicated and inappropriate for practitioners, having a
limited time even for large building projects. We would like here to show that new tools are
developed which allow quick and efficient evaluations. Application of LCA requires a good
knowledge of the possibilities and limits of such tools, in order to integrate environmental quality in
the whole decision process. The present section gives advice to potential users concerning the
possible objectives of LCA, and its application according to these objectives (system limits,
functional unit, sensitivities studies, interpretation of results).
Goal definition by policy makers
- Objectives of an LCA
Life cycle analysis could help policy makers by quantifying the contribution of the different economic
sectors to the global environmental burden in a region, and to evaluate target values according to
technico-economic constraints. In the building sector, such application would lead first to study
typical buildings and quantify their environmental impact. In a second step, relevant technical
6
alternatives (respecting socio-economic boundary conditions) could be compared to the reference and
the environmental benefit obtained could lead to define target values. For instance, bioclimatic design
can reduce by up to 40% the heating energy consumption of a single family house, in a mid-European
climate, compared to a present standard construction. This kind of figure can provide an order of
magnitude of the corresponding target value. If the contribution of the building sector to an impact
(e.g. eutrophication) is very limited, there is no need of setting a target value for the corresponding
indicator. Target values can be evaluated for new buildings but also for refurbishment.
Some decision makers think that considerable work having been done on energy aspects,
environmental quality targets should now focus on other topics. But actually, despite of thermal
regulations, the energy consumption in the whole building sector has not been reduced since the ‘70s.
This sector is still the first energy consumer sector and the potential for energy saving is still very
high. Besides, energy aspects are essential in the whole environmental balance.
There is no general principle concerning target values. Some can be fixed by international agreement,
this is the case of global planetary effects like greenhouse effect or ozone depletion. On the other
hand, some are local like the exhaust of natural resources (e.g. gravel or sand for concrete), use of
water (e.g. in dry southern European regions), production of waste and urban air quality (densely
populated regions). This is why target values and priority setting of environmental indicators are to be
defined rather at a regional or even sometimes local level. But the methodology and the use of LCA
can be the same.
LCA provides indications about the quantification of impacts. It is of course only a tool providing
information and does not replace a more global decision making process, including socio-economic
aspects.
- System limits
Integration of buildings in networks (energy, water, transport, waste collection) should be accounted
for when defining policies at a regional or community level. This is why the system boundary should
not be restricted to the building itself, but should include the link with these networks. The ground
around the building possibly includes car parking and influence rain water flow. The street and
collective equipment (e.g. streetlights) could also be taken into account.
The general assumptions concerning infrastructure, taken into account for energy and transport
processes for instance, are supposed to be integrated in the tools themselves and do not thus have to
be managed by users.
- Functional unit

Results obtained for a whole building can be divided by the useful area in order to derive figures
corresponding to one square meter. But dividing by the useful volume leads to figures related to one
cubic meter, which could also be chosen. Square meter-related targets present the risk to induce a
reduction of the spaces height, but the advantage to reduce also thermal losses. The height of spaces is
often determined by a regulation, economic constraints leading to limit it anyway. Such results, either
related to square or cubic meter, are more appropriate for the definition of target values than absolute
value for whole buildings.
The functional use of buildings (dwelling, offices, educational...) should be precised as well as
specifications concerning internal comfort (temperature set point and occupancy schedules, lighting
requirements, minimal ventilation rates, acoustic protection, possible constraint on maximal summer
temperature,...) and all other aspects included in typical clients briefs (safety, fire regulations,...). In
the case of retrofitting, a specific way of using the tools must be adopted. Retrofitting might also be
compared to new construction or re-construction.
- Sensitivity studies
The comparison of a reference building with technical alternatives requires to perform the
corresponding sensitivity studies. The performance of a building also depends on the occupants
behaviour. A « standardized » behaviour might be defined, according to statistics, or two extreme
behaviours can be used to derive a mean value and see if the benefit of the proposed alternatives is not
anihilated by inappropriate behaviour.
The alternative technical solutions studied should include technologies which are available in the
market. They can also be based upon architectural forms only. It would be interesting to know if
commitments like in Agenda 21 can actually be matched in the building sector : for instance, is it
economically feasible to limit the CO2 emissions related to buildings at their level of 1990 ?
- interpretation of results
Improvements compared to a standard design can be analysed using an ecoprofile. When not all
indicators are reduced in the alternative, then it is necessary to balance the reduced impacts with the
increased ones. According to regional priorities, a weighting of all indicators can be done but, as
mentioned previously, this weighting might depend on the type of building considered and other
boundary conditions. If the global evaluation is in favour of the alternative considered, the target
values can be set e.g. to the performance level of this alternative.
Target values can be demanded to the designers in the program (client’s brief, cf next paragraph), but
it obliges them to calculate the environmental performance of their project according to a similar
8
method. If this should be avoided, then technical targets could be defined instead of performance
targets. For instance, waste sorting, low flow-rate sanitary equipment, condensation boiler can be
demanded instead of 10% reduction in CO2 emissions. But such technical preferences have to be very
precisely justified, otherwise their acceptation by professionals might be problematic. LCA can of
course be used for such justification.
At last, LCA can be used for a verification of the target values fixed in a policy plan. This can be done
on the scale of one particular project, of (part of) new constructions or on (part of) the building stock.
In the last cases, the considered set of buildings has to be classified into typical categories. For each
category, a typical building can be defined on which an LCA can be performed. Adding the impacts
of each category would lead to a global evaluation and a comparison with the target values can be
done.
Programming by clients
Objectives of an LCA
Within the building process “clients” are a very varied and incoherent group of operators. They are
the purchasers of a final product, the construction, which can be used for a multitude of purposes
(individual houses, collective houses, offices, hospitals, schools) for many different types of “clients”.
Every “client” has different motives and reasons for the possible adoption and use of LCA. The
reasons for adopting LCA for the client’s decisional processes is illustrated for one type of client “a
public client, in charge of managing large residential real estate”. This could be a Council House
Institute or a Council Building Institute.
For this type of client, the reasons for adopting LCA can be summarised as:
• the need to respect Council legislations on a national or European level, promoted by decision
makers’ actions on the grounds of social and environmental considerations
• knowledge that managing real estate over a long period can benefit the application of valuation
methods based on LCA, because of the total cost of each of these methodologies.

• increased demand from users, who are progressively more aware of the economic value of quality,
which meets a high quality product (house, office, etc), verified by the total cost and LCA.
System limits
In the case of “clients”, the System limits correspond with the building scale, as a minimum unit, the
whole of buildings (district) and urban context (surrounding area) of which the “client” is responsible
(constructor) or future user of which derives the perception of environmental quality of real estate.
The system limits seldom exceed these confines, including the urban area as a whole - only in the case
in which the client is the city itself - or on a larger scale (the region, state, planet pianeta).
Functional Unit
The unit of measuring surfaces m2 mostly responds to the need of changes of the user and valuations
of indications supplied by LCA methods. However, the unit of volume m3 can also be useful.
Other than changeable physical limits, it is necessary to look at the needs of the size of valuations
required by clients in order to correctly deal with the realisation of each building structure.
Analysis methods can define the morphological, dimensional, environmental and technological
implications of the building in question in order to rigorously check the planning quality. Valuation
criteria in detail:
• the use of the building
• the possibility to change in time: flexibility
• the comfort of the users
• security for the residence
• the composition, aesthetic and building quality
Sensitivity Study
The client can be interested in valuing LCA methods for examples represented in the ownership and
management of the building, collecting useful cognitive elements for an extrapolation of the more
consistent building stock. In this case the sensitivity studies should specify and select the available
information which characterises the building being dealt with, with the ulterior aim of evaluating the
maximum information, without incurring expensive surveys. A second possible objective of the
sensitivity study is that of attempting to point out the information which could give estimates which
are more accurate and estimates which are less important and can be left out in the future. This
10
analysis needs to give indications of those indicators which are to be kept under control in each
building of their stock, in order to be able to reconstruct the highest environmental quality and the
need for interventions.
Interpretation of results
The results can be interpreted by the clients using very simple visual indicators, which portray the gap
between the targeted values and the building considered. Targeted values are very important for the
interpretation of results. They can be originated by regional or national assessments or by internal
targeting campaigns, when a specific building stock is considered.
In the case of new building developments, the client can ask for specific target values, to perform
within a design or construction competition. This can be organised with target values or with
preference methods. Target values could be obtained using LCA on a typical building, possibly
accounting for innovative technological or design choices.
Design by architects
Environmental impacts during the life cycle of buildings result from decisions made at all steps of a
building project, and particularly early phases (policy making, programming, design) during which
the decisions influence significantly the fluxes (energy, water, waste) all along the utilisation phase.
This is why the advice given in this section not only concerns architects and building enterprises, but
also clients and policy makers.
Here, the architects’ role and the environmental information in a design process will be elaborated.
The design process of a real project, called Educatorium, a multi-functional university building in
Utrecht, The Netherlands is the starting point, to explain the added value of LCA based design tools
in the future.
Educatorium is the name of a new built project of the Utrecht University, The Netherlands. There is a
need for additional educational buildings. No existing building is available for renovation, therefore, a
new building is necessary. The Educatorium will connect two existing buildings, The design is part of
a larger urban re-development scheme for the University complex. The programme consists of two
large auditoria of 400 and 500 seats, and three tentamination halls for 100, 200 and 300 people. In
addition there is a canteen with 950 seats and supplementary facilities.

Utrecht University aims to develop the building environmentally benign and energy efficient. The
architect is OMA (Office for Metropolitan Architecture). In the design team they worked intensively
together with ABT (structural engineers) and IBL (consultants for installations). Specific consultants
were added: FBU (infrastructure), TNO (acoustics, comfort) and W/E consultants sustainable building
(ecological aspects).
The main chosen ecological and energy aspects (sustainable building) of the Educatorium are
• Optimized daylight admission
• Reduced water use for toilet flushing
• Enhanced use of bicyles
• Natural shading by trees
• No artificial cooling by use of thermal mass
• Material efficient building structure
• Minimized use of finishes
• Sustainable finishes
• Green roof on auditoria
• Direct connection to chp and seasonal heat storage
• Low temperature heating system
• Displacement ventilation system
• Heat recovery in kitchen waste water
Sustainable building in the design process

The design process was organized in three layers. First layer was a steering group: amongst others the
client and University board. Second layer: a project team: client and a few members of the design
team. Third layer: design team.
The sustainable design was developed within the design team. The roles of the environmental
consultant were three:
• guiding the design, through a section on environmental issues in the design brief.
• consultancy to architect and consultants on possible alternatives, and making suggestion
• environmental assessment in different design stages and feedback to the design team
Two available and well known methods have been used: Environmental Preference Method for
Building Materials (Handbook of Sustainable Building) and BREEAM. The first is mainly used to
guide into alternatives. The second one was used to show the wide range of issues, on global, local
and indoor level. And by showing the credits obtained in different design stages.
12
Following the different phases of a design process: preliminary design, final design and
specifications, the process of sustainable design will be elaborated. Sustainability was first adressed
during the preliminary design, i.e. after first sketches were made.
Sustainability was a precondition for the design. Some issues were adressed in the design brief, but
shortly. No quantitative targets were set, only qualitative aspects.
Preliminary design phase

The preliminary design is the elaboration of the structure design. Most emphasis will be given to the
building level, more than urban design.General floorplan, main structural design and architectural
expression are decided in the preliminary design phase. First calculations on construction, investments
and exploitation costs are made.
Sustainable issues
The environmental consultant developed the environmental paragraph for the design brief, and
assessed the preliminary design using BREEAM.
The architect and the design team were assisted by the environmental consultant in adressing
sustainability. In some cases, the architects’ philosophy was well in line with sustainability.
Little literature or reference projects were available, as the combination of functions of the
Educatorium is rather unique.
Most avaliable literature on sustainable building refers to housing and office buildings.
Notice on environmental issues

With the aim of guiding the design team the environmental consultants developed a notice on
environmental issues of the Educatorium. Environmental targets were set and environmental
assessment tools were selected. On the one hand, this notice was used to set common ambitions
towards sustainability in the design. On the other hand the targets could be used as a reference
document.
Environmental aspects are made concrete and specific, by illustrating with potential measures and
assessment criteria. A common vision towards sustainability, the role and responsabilities of each
member of the design team was developed. In addition the role of the environmental consultant was
explained, which eases communication in the design process.
Based on this, a more accurate draft list of environmental measures could be developed during the
preliminary design.
Table below illustrates the issues and aspects. Conversations and discussions with members of the
design team are marked with dots. Also, it becomes clear the environmental aspects cross borders of
typical responsabilities in a design team.

Environmental-aspects Architect Structural HVAC Physics Acoustics Infra
engineer consultant structure
General issues
Material use • •
Water use • •
Energy use • • •
Measures at building and environment level

Building shape •
Dimensioning of spaces • • •
and installations
Environmental Maintenance: • •
- waste separation
- Bicycle storage •
Building components
Foundation • •
Facades • • •
Roof • • •
Finishes and interior
Installations and climate • •
Ventilation • •
Lighting • •
Water systems •
Built environment • •
In order to assess the preliminary design more specifically than with BREEAM, an assessment
scheme was deducted from the starting notice. The assessment scheme follows the headlines of the
National Environmental Policy Plan of The Netherlands:
• Integral life-cycle management: closing life-cycles, reduced environmental impact of building
materials, efficient use of materials, avoidance of waste, water conservation, recycling of water,
• Rational Use of Energy: Energy efficient building, use of solar energy and wasted heat, use of
daylight, efficient heat generation, avoid active cooling
• Quality control: good indoor climate conditions, enhance quality of the built environment
14
At the end of the preliminary design, a list of attention points was developed for the final design
phase.
Final design phase

During the final design phase most effort has been given to material choices, water conservation and
rational use of energy. Specific tools have been used to advice the design team
• consultancy and assessment of the design using Environmental Preferences for building materials
• environmental assessment, using BREEAM
Bilateral consultancy with architect and design team members was arranged additionally.
Detailed advice was given on specific items, to mention:

• use of rainwater versus water conservation measures
• ventilation systems and its consequences to indoor climate
• choice of building materials (i.e. insulation materials).
In most cases such advice refers to one building component or building element. In some cases
product examples were brought to design team meetings.
This way of advice, demonstrates that information needs to be concrete and specific. Also shown
examples from other projects were well received.
Specification phase
During the specification phase, all components and spaces are detailed and specified. The design will
be described in the building specification documents and specification drawings. These documents are
basis to construction contracts, and will be used to settle investments costs, exploitation costs anc
comparison to available budgets.
Many building materials are decided during the specification phase. Also general details are
developed, which is important for the use of sealants or alternative solutions, and the possibilities of
future recycling (composite materials, glues or seperate components).
More items are: sizing of materials (maximum use of complete components), waste seperation during
construction.
The environmental consultant advices the architect and other design team members by providing
information, responding to questions, as well as environmental assessment of the final results.
Implicit costing of sustainability

The client has reserved financial means to realize the environmental quality of the building. However,
no pointed budget was made available. Nor a percentage nor a fixed budget was given. The
environmental quality had to be part of the available budget.
At the end of the day, it can be recalculated that 2.5% of the construction costs (excluding land) of the
Educatorium are related to sustainability.
Conclusions
Prioritizing
The design team and the client had to prioritize which measures and which environmental aspects
were to be realized. It is a major problem that there is a lack of quantitative information on the
environmental impact of buildings and its components. Moreover a number of environmental impacts
cannot yet be quantified. It is difficult to prioritize according to the impact of measures, The costs and
environmental benefits are not yet clearly quantified. Therefore, it is rather difficult to prioritize
between different solutions.
Quantitative tools needed

No quantitative tools could be used in this process, only qualitative tools. (Qualitative tools can be
based on quantitative information, but they don’t generate quantitative project information outcomes).
Upcoming LCA based tools on building level, as ECO QUANTUM are very needed to fill the gaps,
as experienced in the design process of the Educatorium in Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Environmental consultants needed to work with architects

Generally spoken, the knowledge of architects with respect to environmental issues is limited.
Amongst other, the architect has to divide time between many subjects and disciplines. Also
sustainability has no first priority. On a short term, it is therefore recommended to add environmental
consultants to design teams. On the long term, sustainability should become a part of daily practice of
all members of design teams.
Construction by enterprises
In order to give an ordered structured vision of the applications of LCA in the building sector (e.g. the
solftware Equer), one can choose the concept of sustainable development. This tool which rests on the
principle of life cycle brings some help to each of the three steps of an enterprise caring about the
preservation of resources.
16
The following diagram illustrates the step of the development and starts an arborescence of the uses of
the software. This approach can also be looked at as a matrix in the use of LCA while precising the
potential of each case.
A building firm it provides

will sustain customers with
the future if... sustainable products
it adopt processes
that save resources
it contributes to raise the

environmental awareness
of all its employees
1-Within the "design and build" in the construction sector, LCA is an appropriate help in order to
answer a client's brief established according to a performance approach (it designates the results to be
obtained without ordering the means to reach them).
SCHEME DESIGN
The first step is built around the preparation of the general layout. The software allows to simulate
different scenarii and to choose the one which is best suited to the expected performances.
Used in parallel with a tool of economic evaluation, its use is easy. It allows for a real optimization of
the resources because in general the environmental performance represents a supplementary
constraint and does not allow to overleap the available budget.

ARCHITECTONIC CHOICES
Following the previous choices, LCA is useful for choosing the construction options.
Its simplicity in use and its cumulative exeprience are means to multiply the architectonic
configurations, compare them and combine them in order to obtain a satisfactory level. Moreover, it
is a dialogue mean among the many actors, formalizing what the experts in project management call
current engineering. It allows for an arbitration on the environmental plan equivalent decisions.
LCA is fully used to anticipate decisions.
technical
cost
100%
area of the
80 % answer
Decisions
expenditures
time
briefdesign production
Project phases
2- In the most current configuration, LCA is used to answer a tender and to explain the construction
firm's proposal. It is to maximise the production conditions of the future product.
RISK ANALYSIS
Faced with an architectural project, the company in charge of implementation has to verify whether it
answers the objectives of the client. It has to evaluate risk analysis in order to prevent its own
responsibilities. This project review is part in classical quality process while widening the field of
18
traditional risks. It allows for engaging with the architect an authorized dialogue favoring therefore
the foreward prevention means.
PROPOSAL FOR ALTERNATIVES
The use of LCA allows the builder to maximise the architectural project while proposing alternative
the importance of which varies according the intrinsec qualities of the project. These alternatives
answers two preoccupations: differentiate itself from another proposal by its scientific master or
justify the neutrality of a constructive project while facilitating the production on the site. In this sense
the software is used to establish the company's proposal. It participates in the commercial policy.
LCA participates therefore in a professional process.
to
provide
sustainable process
risk design
management better proposal
ensure enhance differenciate optimize

safe design
Improving the environmental quality through the production process
3- For the "citizen-company", LCA is an efficient mean for engaging a proper mode of action
favouring an active participation to the city life with its population.
INCREASE AWARENESS AMONG EMPLOYEES
While allowing for a comparison of the construction companies'proposals with a level of reference,
the software is a simple mean to present the active role of the whole personnel while respecting the
environment. It is its affichage and transparent aspects. It is also within the company the tool for
awareness and training. The visualization of the profiles authorizes a progressive assimilation of the
most pertinent choices.

OPENNESS AND EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION
The LCA methodology also constitutes an easy support for exchanging among different companies
scientific information. One has to underline that a share of results is needed to comfort a fragile
knowledge which requires to be enlighted by all the analyses. The software participates in a true
openness and allows for saving collective resources while avoiding to duplicate the same studies.
Hence LCA becomes a tool of collective learning.
to
implement
a learning process
increase exchange
awareness informations
program train capitalize share

objectives
Synthetic presentation of possible uses of LCA tools according to users objectives
Objectives Uses of LCA tools
efficiently provide enlight create alternatives

contribute sustainable scheme
to sustainable products design make decision
development
support create alternatives
architectonic
choices explain decision
organize assess ensure safe decision

sustainable risks
production adjust process
20
improve differenciate products
process
optimize products
implement increase program objectives

a learning awareness
process train teans
exchange capitalize results

information
share konwledge
Manufacturing of products
Objectives :Why should manufactorers change ?
- pression from market for environmentally friendly products

- pression from designers and clients for LCA for materials and products
- quality management and ecoaudit standards from the EC
- better control of production process
How to proceed ?
- set the objectives

- LCA goal hierarchy
- basic litterature
- ISO standards
- LCA principles and standards
- Eco controlling principles
- Existing data bases and how to use them
- knowledge about the product

- defintion of all the offered products (functional unit )

- where do the products/components come from (bought / produced)
- position of the product in the buildings life cycle
- knowledge about the production process

- LCA inventory
- LCA classification
- LCA evaluation
- improuvement
- immediate improuvement
- mid term improuvement
- long term improuvement
Set the objectives
- LCA goal hierarchy
Basic litterature
ISO standards
ISO 4000 (quality management) has to be combined with ISO 14000 (ecoaudit,
environmental quality) -> article SIA
LCA principles and standards
There are many evaluation methods (labels, declaration of content etc.), they
all are based on LCA inventories. These inventories have to be made by
manufactorers. Better start out immediately with a standard LCA (type SETAC).
There are specialized software tools like SIMA PRO ,
Eco controlling principles
LCA mappes a production process from the mass flow point of view. Mass and
money flows are paralell and can be combined in an ecocontrolling approach.
There are rules (OBU), examples and specialized software (Schaltenegger und
22
Sturm, Braunschweig, OBU list )
LCA - data bases
Tools need data bases for precombustion process, for data on basic materials,
data on transport and waste as well as algorithmes for aggregation. Some of
the tools integrate data bases.
description of the product
defintion of the functional unit
kg, m3, t/km, m2 of product etc.
position of the product in the buildings life cycle
how far should the LCA go - example of YTONG blocs
system limits - origine of the products
the constituting parts must be analysed where do the products/components come

from (bought / produced)
Organizing an LCA
- method = SETAC
- who should make it ?
- internal
- external consultant
- collaboration with other firms, universities, associations
- external evaluation
- publication of the results, dissemination
- cost
LCA inventory
-> SETAC steps

LCA classification
-> SETAC steps
LCA evaluation
-> SETAC steps
- visualisation of basic results
- aggregated values
- multicriteria analysis
- ranking and classification
- compairison with other products
improvement
-> SETAC steps
Immediate improvement
- direct effects on product and production process

by controlling machine times, energy and massflows (above all waste), buying
other external components/materials with better LCA results (improuvement
10-20 % without significant cost) before publication of LCA results
mid term improvement
- by changing part of the production process when equipment is changed or new

products are produced. Improuvement should be factors > 100 %. Time scale 5
years. These measures take time for detailled analysis and reengineering.
long term improvement
What are the thermodynamic and stocheiometric limits of the the improuved
process/products. Do they have a long term chance or sghould they be replaced
by other technologies, materials
Risks and accidents
24
Are they part of LCA ? How to appreciate them ? -> ITAS publication
These problems should be linked to the laws of work protection and other
hygienic standards
- human toxicological declaration
- outgazing risks
special problems :
- ressource consumption - taking into account recycled parts

there is no bonus, only recycled input can be considered
- taking care of the components at the end of the life cycle. This will
become always more important. There have to be general solutions (industry).
- now and in future
- direct on site linked with use
- centralized linked with production
- by special firms linked with waste /disposal
Presentation and dissemination
- Information about the products

- Information about the production process
- Information about recycling
- Information about the use/application of products
- Information about the firm and its quality and environmental objectives
and achievements
- Training the design, production and sales staff
- Joining groups of firms, organisations etc.
- Sponsoring instead of traditional public relations

SENSITIVITY STUDIES
The object of these studies is to use environmental assessment tools developed in the context of
REGENER, to show their capacity to provide a decision aid, with a view of improving the
environmental quality of different projects of building. LCA method is proposed to the different
actors of building (designers, firms, managers...) but this sections concerns specifically architects, and
illustrates evaluation of environmental benefits we can hope when using renewable energies.
Two cases of constructions have been selected, a dwelling building and an educational one. We are
interested in solutions allowing to reduce energy related impacts in buildings, using in particular solar
energy (level of insulation, orientation, South window area and inertia), possibly active techniques
(controlled ventilation with heat exchanger, dynamic windows, direct solar floor heating), and
choosing the type of energy used (wood fuel, electricity, gas, geothermics). We will examine too the
future users' behaviour to evaluate its importance and to focus the possible elements to take into
account for a building policy respecting the environment.
We have used the EQUER software, linked to the IFIB data base on materials, for the global
environmental assessment of the project and the COMFIE software for the precise assessment of
heating loads. The EQUER software allows to exchange data with COMFIE which is a multi-zone
dynamic simulation tool adapted to solar design. The whole set of tools (COMFIE, EQUER, IFIB
data base) is particularly adapted for studies where thermal and environmental quality is taken into
account.
26
Dwelling building
We have selected a dwelling building which corresponds to a theoretical but representative case of
residential building in France. The reference volume of the dwelling, will be a flat (5 main rooms),
built according to actual prescriptions and respecting the different regulations. The description of the
dwelling was provided by the CSTB (scientific and technical centre of building).
Characteristics of the reference
Site
- Location : PARIS
- Type : urban
- Altitude : 100 m
- Latitude : 48,77 °N Longitude : -2,02 °E
- Meteorological location : TRAPPES
Building
- 5-roomed flat
- Joining dwelling with one common wall
- Multiple orientation dwelling, South principal orientation
- Inertia: medium,
- Floor area : 95,4 m2
- Roof area : 95,4 m2
- External wall area : 70 m2
- South window area : 7,3 m2
- Insulation on walls : 8 cm of polyurethane
- GV = 175 W/°K - GV requirement = 177 W/°K
Walls Surface Material e (cm) Material e Material e Material e

m2 (cm) (cm) (cm)
roof 95,4 waterpr 1 polyuret 6 concrete 18 plaster 1

South wall 17,3 concrete 20 polysty. 8 plaster 1
North wall 17,2 concrete 20 polysty 8 plaster 1
West wall 25,5 concrete 20 polysty 8 plaster 1
wall/unheating 11 concrete 20 polysty. 4 plaster 1
space
South windows 7,3 double 4-6-4
PVC
floor 95,4 concrete 18
door 1,6 wood 5
interior wall 24,5 plaster 1 concrete 20 plaster 1
interior door 3,2 wood 3
Table 1 : Description of walls from the outside to the inside (dwelling building)
Plan
Analysis
SOUTH
28
An average distance of 100 km is considered for material transportation. Surplus of building materials
is estimated to 10%. The building's life time is fixed to 80 years. The daily needs in gas and for
cooking are evaluated to 1400 Wh per person. We supposed that urban waste are sorted and recycled
(only for glass and paper) at a distance of 100 km. We supposes that the rest of waste is either
incinerated (50%) or put in dump. For the transportation of urban waste, a distance of 20 km is
defined for the dumped part and a distance of 40 km is defined for the incinerated part, both
transported with a 16 tons lorry. The incinerator is equipped with a system of waste-heat recovery
which provides a gas urban district heating.
Presentation of the parameters - values of variations
The three tables below list the parameters to study as well as the values of the variations associated to
every parameter regarding the reference case. We emphasise the architectural model of reference
which has been chosen because it represents a morphology-type and allows to satisfy the regulation
demands. The high column of parameters allows to approach the concept of high environmental
quality (HEQ). On the contrary, the low column of parameters shows a low quality of building. The
parameters are listed in three categories : those related to the design of the building (orientation, south
surface, inertia, insulation), those linked to the use of special techniques (controlled ventilation with
heat exchanger, triple glazing with heat recovery, direct solar floor), those associated to the users’
behaviour (set point temperature of heating, ventilation, water consumption, production and waste
sorting), and those concerning the energy choice (electricity, gas, wood fuel).
Variation of Low Reference High

parameters
Orientation North South South
South window area 4 m2 7,32 m2 15 m2

Inertia Interior insulation Interior insulation Exterior insulation
Insulation 4 cm of polyurethane 8 cm of polyurethane 12 cm of polyurethane
Table 2 : Design parameters (dwelling)

parameters
Mechanical exhaust Mechanical exhaust Mechanical exhaust with

heat recovery
Mechanical systems Double glazing Double glazing Triple glazing with heat
recovery
Without solar active Without solar active With Direct Solar Floor
system system
Table 3 : Mechanical systems (dwelling)

parameters
Set point temperature Tc = 22°C Tc = 19°C Tc = 17°C

Ventilation Air exchange rate = 0,6 Air exchange rate = 0,6 Air exchange rate = 0,6
ACH + 20% ACH ACH
Water D.H.W = 60 l/j D.H.W = 40 l/j D.H.W = 40 l/j

Cold water = 150 l/j Cold water = 100 l/j Cold water = 80 l/j
Waste Waste = 1,5 kg Waste = 1 kg (*) Waste = 0,8 kg

Sorting of paper : 0% Sorting of paper : 20% Sorting of paper : 60%
Sorting of glass : 0% Sorting of glass : 40% Sorting of glass : 80%
(*) National French average, ADEME Letter n° 35, September-October 1996
Table 4 : User behaviour
30
parameters
Energy Electricity Gas Wood
Table 5 : Energy
The absolute value of results is very difficult to explain in an assessment because the units are unusual
and the method used gives only impact potentials on environment for the majority of themes treated.
So, it is necessary to compare a profile to another one to deduct the environmental benefits.
To assess the impact of every parameter, we compare first the induced effect on the environmental
profile by the variation of every parameter. Theses tests will allow to measure the link of the
parameters between them and then to give a hierarchy according to their influence on every theme
(energy consumption, exhaustion of resources, greenhouse effect, acidification of soils,
eutrophication, aquatic toxicity, human toxicity, water consumption, production of non radioactive
waste, production of radioactive waste, creation of atmospheric ozone, odours). In a second time, we
will combine several aspects to test the global influence of design, mechanical systems and user
behaviour.
The following cases will be treated :
- effect of a global design approaching a high environmental quality (HEQ),

- effect of the users’ global behaviour (economical behaviour " or "spendthrift"),
The environmental profile of the reference dwelling
The environmental profile of the reference case is shown figure 1. The figure 2 allows to make a
distinction between the three steps of the assessment : the building corresponding to the phases of the
production of components and of the building site, the use corresponding to the activity during the
building life time as well as renovation and treatment of waste produced during this phase, the
building demolition with corresponding waste process.
The use phase is the most sensitive phase on impacts except on waste process. The building phase
represents a contribution lower than 8% on most of the impacts with a maximum of 22% for aquatic
toxicity. The demolition phase is below 8% except for the waste production having an impact of 56%.

The predominance of the use phase is explained by the important energy flow consumed during the 80
years of the building exploitation. These rates will be minimised with the implementation of disposals
which will reduce this flow, especially the energy needs of the building (heating and domestic hot
water). The contribution of the building phase up to 22% on aquatic toxicity is explained by a
significant emission of metal and hydrocarbons in aquatic environment during the fabrication of
materials. 124 tons of inert waste will be put in dump at the end of the life cycle of the building, what
explains the high participation rate of the demolition phase to this theme. The use phase provides
about the same quantity of waste, but they are mainly domestic waste.
REFERENCE DWELLING ECOPROFILE
Energy (9612 GJ)

1
Odour (30408 Mm3) Water (24051 m3)
0,8
0,6
O3 smog (119 kg) Resourc. (103 E-9)
0,4
0,2
Humtox (2046 kg) 0 Waste (253 t eq)
Ecotox -W (594668 m3) Radw aste (12 dm3)
Eutrop. (186 kg PO4) GWP 100 (419 t CO2)
Acidif. (1639 kg SO2)
Fig.1 : Environmental profile of reference dwelling
32
Fig.2 : Proportion of impacts on the life cycle stages
Compared sensitivity of the factors
Design and occupants ‘behaviour
Results are expressed in % and show the maximum variation of impacts generated by extreme values
of the variations. Figures 3 shows the effect of the insulation level on the reference housing
« ecoprofile » and figures 4 shows the impact of the set point temperature (associated to the air
renewal). Table 6 shows all the environmental performances of the various variants of conception and
occupants behaviour, excluding the production and sorting waste which will be studied in paragraph
4.2.1.2.3.3 (the results are also expressed in % and show the maximum variation of impacts generated
by extreme values of parameters).
Energy
1
Odour Water
0,8
0,6
O3 smog Resourc.
0,4
e = 4 cm
0,2
Humtox 0 Waste e = 12 cm
e = 8 cm (réf.)
Ecotox - W Radwaste
Eutrop. GWP 100

Acidif.
Fig. 3 : Conception variant : Insulation level

Energy
1
Odour Water
0,8
0,6
O3 smog Resourc.
0,4
0,2 T° = 22°C +
Humtox 0 Waste 20% venti.
T°=19°C
(reference)
Ecotox - W Radwaste
T°=17°C
Eutrop. GWP 100
Acidif.
-
Fig. 4 : Influence of set point temperature
Orientation South area Insulation Set point Water

Temperature consumption
ENERGY 1.9 5.3 14.3 22.2 8.2
WATER 0 0.2 0.4 0.7 40.6
RESSOURCE 1 1 1 1 1
WASTE 0.4 3.1 2.3 4.2 1.6
RADWASTE 0 0 8.3 8.3 0
GWP 100 2.3 6.3 15.4 24.9 8.1
ACIDIFICATION 0.8 0.7 4.2 9.5 3.1
EUTROHICATION 1 0 6.1 9.9 3.1
ECOTOX WATER 2.3 8 13.6 26 8.8
HUMANTOX 0.8 2.3 3.9 10.3 3.4
O3 SMOG 0 1.7 - 3.4 4.9 1.7
ODOUR 0.6 1.8 5.1 8 2.4
Table 6 : Variant performance
Table 6 shows that important variations in impact are obtained for the primary energy consumption,
greenhouse effect, acidification, eutrophication, water toxicity, human toxicity and radioactive waste
themes, except for water consumption by users which not surprisingly affects the water theme. We
have therefore regrouped these main themes in Figure 5 which shows a striking hierarchy between the
different factors: the set point temperature, associated with air renewal is the first factor influencing
the listed environmental themes, with sensitivity exceeding 20 % for the primary energy, greenhouse
34
effect and water toxicity themes, with a 10% sensitivity for acidification, eutrophication and human
toxicity themes. The increase in the set point temperature from 17°C to 22°C considerably increases
heat energy needs and consumption (57%) which explains why the set point temperature effect is well
ahead of the other factors. Although a variation of 5°C seems excessive, the result shows the
importance of user behaviour in the final environmental appraisal.
The second sensitive factor is the level of insulation which shows differences of around 14% for the
first three previous themes, a difference of 6% for eutrophication and a difference of 4% for the
acidification and human toxicity themes. The variation of the thermal insulation factor considerably
modifies the thermal losses of the building. It therefore has a considerable effect on the ecoprofile.
One should however note a reduction in the difference between the increase in thickness from “4 cm”
to “8 cm” and the increase in thickness from “8 cm” to “12 cm”. There could therefore be a limit
above which the improvement in performances does not compensate the investment needed for the
production of the insulating material.
Finally, in order of importance, come water consumption (cold and hot water), the South glazed area
and orientation, except for the water consumption effect on the water theme for which user savings in
hot and cold water (in comparison to wasteful behaviour) leads to an overall reduction of 40%.
Although water consumption and the South area have an important impact on the primary energy,
greenhouse effect and water toxicity themes (between 5 and 8.8%), the orientation effect is lower with
a maximum of 2 % on these same themes. This last result is explained by the multiple orientation of
the model and the normal dimensioning of the openings. The sensitivity of these factors is thereby
reduced, their effects in most of these cases are however above 2% in the listed themes and their
consideration improves the environmental quality of the building.

Figure 5 : Sensitivity to design and behaviour parameters
Use of specific techniques
36
Figure 6 and table 7 show the different results obtained in the framework of technological variants:
the use of double flow ventilation, the use of dynamic triple glazing in the living rooms,

and the use of a direct solar floor for heating purposes. The results are given regarding the reference
case.
Energy
1
Odour Water
0,8
O3 smog 0,6 Resourc.
0,4 Reference
0,2 Double flow
Humtox 0 Waste
Dynamic windows
D.S.Floor
Ecotox - W Radwaste
Eutrop. GWP 100

Acidif.
Figure 6 : Technological variants
Important variations in impact are obtained for the primary energy, greenhouse effect, water toxicity
and human toxicity themes. The direct solar floor has the strongest influence on these themes, leading
to reduced impacts of 12.6 % on energy, 14.3% on the greenhouse effect and 11.5% on water toxicity.
The other impacts are also affected, reductions are lower than 3% except for radioactive waste (8.3%),
human toxicity (5%), odour (4.1%), eutrophication (3.2%) and acidification (3.5%). The direct solar
floor is well ahead of the two other solutions as in the Paris area it covers 40 % of the total needs of a
house or flat according to the performance results calculated by the ASDER (Association Savoyarde
pour le Développement des Energies Renouvelables) in Northern France.
Double Flow Triple glazing Direct solar

Ventilation heat recovery floor
ENERGY 7.5 7.8 12.6
WATER 0.2 0.2 0.3
RESSOURCE 0 0 0
WASTE 1.2 1.2 2
RADWASTE 8.3 8.3 8.3
GWP 100 8.6 8.8 14.3
ACIDIFICATION 2.9 2 3.5
EUTROHICATION 3.2 1.6 3.2
ECOTOX WATER 9 9.5 11.5
HUMANTOX 3.2 3.2 5
O3 SMOG 1.7 1.7 2.5
38
ODOUR 2.5 2.5 4.1
Table 7 : Technological variants
The two remaining systems lead to approximately the same results, the strong points being the effects
on the greenhouse effect (8.8 and 8.6%), water toxicity (9 and 9.5%), radioactive waste (8.3%) and
energy (7.5 and 8%). These results are explained by the comparable performance of the two systems:
the efficiency of double flow ventilation which recuperates energy rejected outside by ventilation is
approximately 50% and dynamic glazing which pre-heats the air between the glass reduces thermal
losses on air by 60 % at night and by 40% during the day (according to the “Campaign to measure
behaviour factors of dynamic glazing installations in buildings in Le Mans” report, COSTIC, CEBTP,
September 1989).
The production of passive systems leads to higher impacts during the construction phase of the model,
but the savings made during the utilisation phase largely compensates this and substantially improves
the environmental profile, especially in the case of the use of the direct solar floor. This observation
shows the value of this technology which deserves to be more widely applied in the French building
sector, from a general environmental point of view.
The sensitivity of the different factors studied hereto is explained by the strong influence of the
factors on the building energy needs during the utilisation phase (heating, hot water), with dominant
sensitivity set point temperature. Through the energy combustion process (gas in this case), the
diminution of needs consequently leads to decreasing the greenhouse effect, toxic effects on water
environments, the effect of acid rain and effects on human health. For all the variants covered, except
for water consumption, orientation and the south area, the reduction of radioactive waste is quite
considerable (8.3%). This is explained by the substantial reduction in the quantity of fossil fuel used,
therefore in the quantity of electricity needed to supply the gas (extraction, processing...) with the
consequent drop in the quantity of radioactive waste created.
Waste production and sorting
Figure 7 shows the effect of user behaviour regarding the production of daily waste and the sorting of
glass and cellulose products (paper, cardboard...). Two different behaviour patterns have been
simulated. The first (economical behaviour) corresponds to people producing 0.8 kg of waste per day
and sorting 60% of paper and 80% of glass, and the second (spendthrift behaviour) corresponds to
people producing 1.5 kg of waste per day and sorting no glass or paper. We recall that the reference

chosen is the production of 1 kg of daily waste (national French average), with 20 % of paper and
40% of glass sorted.
Energy
1
Odour Water
0,8
O3 smog 0,6 Resourc.
0,4
0,2 spendthrift behaviour
Humtox 0 Waste Reference
Economical behaviour
Ecotox - W Radwaste
Eutrop. GWP 100

Acidif.
Figure 7 : Influence of the production and sorting of domestic waste
We observe large variations for all the impacts, except on the consumption of water and the
production of radioactive waste which have not varied. The sensitivity is particularly acute for odour
(72%), the exhaustion of resources (65%), the creation of photochemical ozone (51%), eutrophication
(48%) and soil acidification (45%). The other themes however remain heavily affected as do the
quantity of waste generated (28%), the greenhouse effect (23%) or energy consumption (14%).
Limiting the production of waste and above all sorting it, in the case of recycling by the municipality,
reduces the impact of their treatment after use, avoiding dumping and incineration of recycled
quantities. The avoided impact, corresponding to the new manufacture of products replaced by
recycled domestic waste, therefore has a considerable influence on the themes linked to the
exhaustion of resources and to the consequences of the combustion of fossil fuel needed to produce
materials, such as the creation of photochemical ozone, eutrophication problems or soil acidification.
The important contribution made by the domestic sector to problems of odour from paper mills and
the reduction of the production of paper by recycling thereby appreciably reduces pollution around
these factories.
Energy choice
The figure 8 shows the effect of the energy choice to ensure the needs in heat and domestic hot water
on the environmental profile of the reference case. We have compared first natural gas and electricity
then natural gas to wood fuel (but gas is still used for domestic hot water needs). In this paragraph,
the results are given regarding the reference case.
40
The change to wood leads to the reduction of aquatic toxicity (34%), greenhouse effect (30%), human
toxicity (11,9 %), and odour (9%). Wood fuel uses less energy than gas for its conditionning, which
reduces nuisances. The greenhouse effect is reduced too because we consider that CO2 emitted by
wood combustion is equivalent to CO2 used by trees to grow up. However, use of wood leads to an
increase of atmospheric ozone (82%) and to primary energy consumption. The first result is due to a
more important emission of CH4 in the case of wood (1,5 time the emitted quantity of natural gas
according to the tests made by CETIAT and COSTIC on new individual boilers). The second result is
attributed to the combustion low efficiency of wood facilities (65% according the models) in front of
gas facilities (between 85 and 95%) which explains that the primary energy quantity has been
multiplied by two.
The change to electricity leads to important increases of impacts on most of the themes, except on
aquatic toxicity, human toxicity and odour which are respectively decreasing to 35%, 4%, and 13,9%.
The radioactive waste are three times more because of an important nuclear production (77%). In
France, Electric heating produces consumption peak during winter so it becomes necessary to use coal
power plants. This one having higher-grade sulphur and carbon contents than natural gas,
acidification of grounds and greenhouse effect are increased respectively of 196% and 41.7%. The
efficiency of electric power plants (25% including in line losses) is lower than the efficiency of
boilers (85 to 95%), which explains that primary energy quantity has been multiplied by two.
Globally, the environmental profile of wood and gas shows lower impacts than electricity. In addition
to its environmental benefit in low population density region, wood helps to sustain economic
development and national planning. It supports local employment and acts in forest maintenance,
country and peri urban planning, valorisation of industrial land set aside and diversification of
agricultural activities.
Energy
1
Odour Water
0,8
0,6
O3 smog Resourc.
0,4
0,2 Electricity
Humtox 0 Waste Gas
Wood
Ecotox - W Radwaste
Eutrop. GWP 100
Acidif.
Figure 8 : Effect of energy choice

Global influence of design and users’ behaviour
To obtain sensitivity to the global design of the dwelling building, we have combining several aspects
of design choices. The high environmental quality (HEQ) dwelling offers the favourable
characteristics of design, like an south principal orientation, 15 m2 of south glazed area, 12 cm of
exterior insulation, an exchanger for the controlled ventilation, sanitary equipments allowing water
saving, and a direct solar floor for the heating system (see table 8). Figure 9 shows the effect of this
global conception on the environmental profile of the reference case. As the most important
contribution to a building’s environmental impact is the utilisation phase, partly due to the associated
energy and water flows, these design choices affect strongly the profile : water consumption has been
reduced of 47%, water toxicity of 32%, greenhouse effect of 28%, primary energy of 26%,
radioactive waste of 16.6%, human toxicity of 9.6%, %, ozone of 7.5%, eutrophication of 7%,
acidification of 7%, and waste of 4,7%.
Dwelling reference HEQ dwelling
South glazed area 7.32 m2 15 m2

Insulation 8 cm of polyurethane 12 cm of polyurethane
Position of insulation Interior Exterior
Mechanical exhaust without exchanger with exchanger
Solar system - Direct solar floor
Sanitary equipment without control With control (efficiency : 50%)
Table 8 : HEQ dwelling characteristics
42
Energy
1
Odour Water
0,8
0,6
O3 smog Resourc.
0,4
0,2
Reference
Humtox 0 Waste
HEQ design
Ecotox - W Radwaste
Eutrop. GWP 100

Acidif.
Figure 9 : sensitivity to design
However, thanks to the previous sensitivity studies, we have note that behaviour occupants has also a
great importance. So we can ask how can environmental benefits acquired with a high environmental
quality (HEQ) conception be reduced in case future users are not informed enough and if the efforts
made are still justified. To answer this question, we have simulated two extreme behaviours, an
economical occupant and a spenddrift one, combining the characteristics presented in the table 5. The
two compared scenarios are called again in the table 9 hereunder.
Economical Spendthrift
Set point temperature 17°C 22°C

Ventilation 0.6 ACH 0.75
DHW 40 l/person/day 60l/person/day
Cold water 80l/person/day 150 l/person/day
Paper sorting 60% 0%
Glass sorting 80% 0%
Table 9 : The two compared scenarios
Figure 10 shows that occupants behaviour affect strongly dwelling’s consumption in the case of a
HEQ design. As the reduction of the heating consumption is strongly reduced in the HEQ design case
(65% with respect to the reference), the influence of the users is increased. Nevertheless, Figure 10
shows that the efforts made for a high environmental quality conception is justified even in the case of
spendthrift users. We observe that this behaviour does not annihilate the efforts made by designers,

improvements are observed in all impacts by comparing to the reference case, in particular on water
consumption (48%), water toxicity (40%), greenhouse effect (38%), primary energy consumption
(37%) and radioactive waste (15%). Of course, an economical occupant will fully profit of his HEQ
dwelling which will have a particular low environmental profile. This comparison confirms the
necessity to design HEQ buildings even if the environmental conscience level of the future occupants
is unknown, which is generally the case in practice. These results also fully justified the importance of
a targeted information campaign based on waste sorting and thermal concerns (temperature, air
renewal, equipment and control allowing water saving). This sensivity study is only an example, and
the results must be precised according to the site, the building use and more generally to the local
Energy
1
Odour Water
0,8
Reference Spendthrift
0,6
O3 smog Resourc. behaviour
0,4
Reference Economical
0,2
behaviour
Humtox 0 Waste
HEQ Spendthrift behaviour
Ecotox - W Radwaste HEQ Economical behaviour
Eutrop. GWP 100

Acidif.
context.
Figure 10 : Influence of extremes occupants behaviours
Educational building
We have selected an educational building, which corresponds to the reconstruction of a highschool

located in the region of Ile-de-France. The reference volume is a typical classroom of the highschool.
This latter has taken into account the environmental quality when the rebuilding operation and the
rehabilitation of the building started in 1994.
Characteristics of the reference
Site
- Location : PARIS
- Type : urban
44
- Altitude : 100 m
- Latitude : 48,77 °N Longitude : -2,02 °E
- Meteorological location : TRAPPES
Building
- Name : Maximillien Perret

- Polyvalent school and vocational training
- Location : Alfortville (94)

- Capacity : 65 students
- Inertia: medium
- Multiple orientation , principal orientation: north
- Floor area : 130 m2
- Roof area : 130 m2
- External wall area : 54,2 m2
- North window area : 23,8 m2
- Insulation on walls : 8 cm of polystyrene
- Heating floor and radiators

- G1 = 0,34 W/m3.°C (whole building),
- G1 requirement = 0,48 W/m3.°C.
Walls Surface Material e Material e Material e Material e

m2 (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm)
Roof 130 zinc 1 mineral 10 mineral 10 ? 1
wool wool
West wall 40 concrete 20 polyst 8 paint -
North wall 15,8 concrete 20 polyst 8 paint -
Floor 130 aerated 20 stone 5 p.v.c 1
concrete B.A
Wall/corridor 39 concrete 20
North windows 23,8 Double 4-6-4
Alu mm

Internal wall 40 tile of 1
bricks
Door/corridor 1,8 wood 5
Table 1 : Description of walls from the outside to the inside (educational building)
Plans
CORRIDOR
CLASSROOM
46
Sensitivity studies
An average distance of 100 km is considered for the material transportation. Surplus of building
materials is estimated to 5%. This percentage is lower than dwelling because the client has defined a
priority for the environmental quality of the « clean site », like mobilisation of teams, organisation of
the site process, control of waste generated by the site and of the free discharge of polluting liquids, as
well as the reduction of nuisances felt by the neighbourhood. The building life time is fixed to 80
years. Daily transportation of occupants is not taken into account in this study because it is considered
being the same in all cases. The paper can be sorted at a local level at a distance of 100 km and we
suppose that the rest of waste is put in dump. For the transportation, a distance of 20 km is defined for
the dumped part.
Presentation of the parameters - values of variations
The three tables below list the parameters to study as well as the values of the variations associated to
every parameter regarding the reference case. The high column of parameters allows to approach the
concept of high environmental quality (HEQ). On the contrary, the low column of parameters shows a
low quality of building. The parameters are listed in three categories : those related to the design of
building (orientation, south surface, inertia, insulation), those linked to the use of special techniques
(controlled ventilation with heat exchanger, direct solar floor), those associated to the management of
consumption (control of set point temperature of heating, equipments which allow water saving, paper
sorting), and those concerning the energy choice (geothermics, fuel, wood fuel).

parameters
Orientation North North South
South window area 12 m2 23.8 m2 23.8 m2

Inertia Interior insulation Interior insulation Exterior insulation
Insulation 4 cm of polyurethane 8 cm of polyurethane 12 cm of polyurethane
Table 2 : Parameters of design (educational building)

parameters
Ventilation Mechanical exhaust Mechanical exhaust Mechanical exhaust with

heat recovery
Without Without With Direct Solar Floor
Table 3 : Mechanical systems (educational building)

parameters
Set point temperature T = 22°C T = 20°C T = 18°C

Air exchange rate = Air exchange rate = Air exchange rate =
2 ACH 2 ACH 2 ACH
Water D.H.W = 5 l/j D.H.W = 5 l/j (*) D.H.W = 2.5 l/j (**)
Cold water = 15 l/j Cold water = 15 l/j Cold water = 7.5 l/j
Sorting paper Waste = 0,05 kg Waste = 0.05 kg (***) Waste = 0,05 kg

Sorting of paper : 0% Sorting of paper : 20% Sorting of paper : 60%
(*)Corresponding to a school where the majority of students are in half boarding, data from « Chaud-
Froid-Plomberie », September 1994
(**) Use of equipment which reduce water flow rate
(***) Production of waste in this Polyvalent school are composed of 0.035 kg/person of metals (steel,
zinc, copper,..) and we supposed that each student produce 0.015 kg of paper per day.
Table 4 : Consumption management
48
parameters
Energy Fuel Fuel Wood

Geothermics
Table 5 : Energy
As previously, we compare profiles to others to deduct environmental benefits. We will compare first
the induced effect on the environmental profile by the variation of every parameter. Theses tests will
allow to measure the link of the parameters between them and then to give a hierarchy according to
their influence on every theme. In a second time, we will combine several aspects of design to test
the global influence of a high environmental quality of building (HQE).
The environmental profile of the reference educational building
The environmental profile is shown on Figure 1. Figure 2 allows to make a distinction between the
three steps of the assessment (construction, utilisation, demolition).
The majority of impacts are produce on utilisation phase, except on waste production. The building
phase represents a contribution lower than 12% on all impacts, 12% is obtained for eutrophication.
The demolition phase is below 1%, except for the waste production having an impact of 45%. The use
phase provides actually the same quantity of waste (mainly metals and paper) than the demolition
phase, for which 248 tons of inert waste will be put in dump. As previously, the predominance of the
use phase is explained by the important energy flow consumed during the 80 years of the time life of
the building. These rates will be minimised with the implementation of disposals which will reduce
this flow, especially the energy needs of the building (lighting, heating, cold water and hot domestic
water).

Energy (10525 GJ)
1
Odour (20156 Mm3) Water (50228 m3)
0,8
0,6
O3 smog (81 kg) Resourc. (79 E-9)
0,4
0,2
Humtox (2879 kg) 0 Waste (255 t eq)
Ecotox -W (7,2 Mm3) Radwaste (34,7 dm3)
Eutrop. (122 kg PO4) GWP 100 (566 t CO2)

Acidif. (1681 kg SO2)
Fig. 1 : Environmental profile of reference building
100%
90%
80%
70%
60% Demolition
50% Utilisation
40% Construction
30%
20%
10%
0%
Water Waste
Energy Eutrop. Humtox Odour
Acidif.
Resourc. GWP 100 O3 smog
Radwaste Ecotox - W
Fig. 2 : Proportion of impacts on the life cycle stage
Compared sensitivity of the factors
Design and management of building
Results are expressed in % and show the maximum variation of impacts generated by extreme values
of the variations. Figure 3 shows the effect of orientation on the reference « ecoprofile » and Figure 4
shows the impact of set point temperature. Table 6 shows all the environmental performances of the
50
various variants of conception and management consumption, excluding the production and sorting
waste which will be studied in paragraph 4.2.2.2.3.4.
Energy
1
Odour Water
0,8
0,6
O3 smog Resourc.
0,4
0,2
North
Humtox 0 Waste
South
Ecotox - W Radwaste
Eutrop. GWP 100

Acidif.
Fig. 3 : Effect of orientation
Energy
1
Odour Water
0,8
0,6
O3 smog Resourc.
0,4
0,2
Humtox 0 Waste T° = 22°C
T°=20°C
Ecotox - W Radwaste (reference)
T°=18°C
Eutrop. GWP 100
Acidif.
Fig. 4 : Effect of set point temperature
Orientation South area Insulation Set point Water

Temperature consumption
ENERGY 11.5 4.2 10.1 19.2 13.1
WATER 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.7 48.4
RESSOURCE 0 0 0 0 0
WASTE 2 3.5 1.2 3.2 2
RADWASTE 4.4 0 4.3 7.2 4.4
GWP 100 13.3 5 11.9 22.4 13.1

ACIDIFICATION 10.4 1.8 9 17.2 10.6
EUTROPHICATION 9 0 7.8 14.7 9
ECOTOX WATER 14.6 5.5 12.1 24.8 14.1
HUMANTOX 11.9 4.3 10.4 19.9 11.9
O3 SMOG 0 1.2 -6.3 1.2 0
ODOUR 0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.1
Table 6 : Variant performance
Table 6, which presents also the maximum variation of impacts generated by extreme values of the
variations of the parameters, shows that important variations in impact are obtained for the primary
energy consumption, greenhouse effect, acidification, eutrophication, water toxicity, human toxicity
and radioactive waste themes, except for water consumption by users which not surprisingly affects
the water theme. We have therefore regrouped these main themes in Figure 5.
The set point temperature is the first factor influencing the listed environmental themes, with
sensitivity reaching 25% for aquatic toxicity, 22% for greenhouse effect, 20% for human toxicity,
19% for primary energy consumption, 17% for soil acidification, 14.7% for eutrophication and 7.2%
for radioactive waste production. We observe too that orientation, insulation, and water
consumption, have approximately the same influence on the various themes. The good results
obtained for the effect of orientation are due to the total glazing oriented in the same direction and due
to the capacity of the structure to stock solar gains in the case of south orientation (exterior insulation
and floor composed of 25 cm of concrete). Actually, the change to south orientation, lead to reduce
aquatic toxicity about 14%, greenhouse effect about 13%, primary energy consumption about 11.5%,
soil acidification about 10%, eutrophication about 9% and radioactive waste production about 4.4%.
The south glazed area have a lower effect but the performance is quite sensitive, 5.5% for aquatic
toxicity, 4.3% for human toxicity, 5% for greenhouse effect, and 4.2% for primary energy
consumption (the south glazed area, being divided by two, increases the energetics needs of
exploitation by 11%). This lower sensitivity is explained first by the limited variation range of the
south glazed area, regarding daylighting needs. Secondly, glazings are not equipped of protections
which can reduce thermal losses during the unoccupied periods, even if classrooms are less heated
(set point temperature of 20°C during lessons, otherwise 14°C), then the thermal balance of one
glazing square meter is decreased.
52
Figure 5 : Sensitivity to design parameters
Insulation Temperature

Use of specific techniques
Figure 6 and table 7 show the different results obtained in the framework of two technological
variants, a double flow ventilation and a direct solar floor for heating needs. The results are given
regarding the reference case.
Energy
1
Odour Water
0,8
0,6
O3 smog Resourc.
0,4
0,2 Reference
Humtox 0 Waste Double flow
D.S.Floor
Ecotox - W Radwaste
Eutrop. GWP 100
Acidif.
Fig. 6 : Technological variants
Double Flow Direct solar

Ventilation floor
ENERGY 16.1 19.1
WATER 0.2 0.3
RESSOURCE 0 0
WASTE 2.7 3.1
RADWASTE 6.2 7
GWP 100 18.7 22.5
ACIDIFICATION 14.6 16.1
EUTROPHICATION 13.1 12.3
ECOTOX WATER 20.5 24
HUMANTOX 16.8 19.8
O3 SMOG 0 0
ODOUR 0 0
Table 7 : Technological variants
54
We observe that the two systems lead approximately to the same results for all themes, with slight
advantages to the direct solar floor (DSF). The strong points being the effects on eutrophication (13.1
and 12.3%), greenhouse effect (18.7 and 22,5%), primary energy consumption (16.1 and 19.1%),
human toxicity (16.8 and 19.8%), soil acidification (14.6 and 16.1%) and eutrophication (13.1 and
12.3%). Theoretically, the direct solar floor has a higher efficiency than double flow ventilation, we
recall that DSF covers in the Paris climate 40% of the total needs and double flow recovers only
losses from air exhaust (efficiency : 50%). But the large participation of air renewal losses in the
global heat losses (ventilation flow rate is about 2 ACH during occupied periods) increases the
potential of energy recovery from air rejected outside by the mechanical ventilation. Implementation
of a double flow ventilation is then particularly adapted to this case of building to reduce
environmental impacts.
Choice of energy
In the reference case, space heating and domestic hot water are provided by a fuel boiler. Fig.7 shows
the sensitivity of the environmental profile to the choice of energy. We have compared first domestic
fuel to wood fuel (but gas is still used for domestic hot water needs) then domestic fuel to
geothermics. In the latest case, we have considered that geothermal exploitation is done in the water
table of Dogger, situated in the Paris region, which is about 1800 m in depth. The installations already
realised, currently supply urban district heating for dwellings and public equipment. The fraction
covered ranges between 50 and 100% of the needs. We considered here an average fraction of 70%,
with fuel heat as back-up energy.
The use of wood fuel leads to the most important reduction of aquatic toxicity (58%), greenhouse
effect (52%), human toxicity (50%) and radioactive waste (17,7%). Wood fuel uses less energy than
fuel for its conditionning, which reduces nuisances. The greenhouse effect is reduced too because we
consider that CO2 emitted by wood combustion is equivalent to CO2 used by trees to grow up.
However, use of wood leads to an increase of eutrophication (27.8%), of atmospheric ozone (224%)
and to primary energy consumption (58%). This latest consequence is attributed to the low
combustion efficiency of wood facilities (65% according to the models) compared to fuel facilities
(between 85 and 95%). The increase of ozone is due to a more important emission of CH4 in the case
of wood (see 4.2.1.2.3.4). These results show that, regarding air pollution, oil fuel is preferable than
wood fuel if wood boiler has not an efficient control of combustion and a filtration of combustion
gases (which is generally the case in practice for small wood boiler). But globally, if wood fuel is
integrate in district heating, regarding global pollution and sustainable economic development, wood
fuel is preferred.

In opposition to wood, the use of geothermics leads to important reductions (regarding to the
reference case) of primary energy consumption (33,6%), eutrophication (27%) and soil acidification
(30,7%). It is also quite benefic for the reduction of aquatic toxicity (42,7%), human toxicity (34.8%),
greenhouse effect (39%) and radioactive waste (12.4%). These results are explained by the main
advantages of this circuit : it does not emit atmospheric polluting agents and allows to prevent
exhaustion of energetic sources. When it replaces fuel, it allows to reduce significantly emissions of
sulphur components responsible for soil acidification. From an economical point of view, many
installations offer a satisfactory profit and stand the comparisons with fuel or natural gas installations.
This sensivity study is only an example, and the results must be precised and analysed according to
the real fraction covered by geothermics, to the energy consumed by auxiliary installations, and
globally to the technical and economic conditions of exploitation.
Energy
1,00
Odour Water
0,80
0,60
O3 smog Resourc.
0,40
0,20 Fuel
Humtox 0,00 Waste Geothermics
Wood
Ecotox - W Radwaste
Eutrop. GWP 100
Acidif.
Fig.7 : Effect of energy choice
Sorting paper
In the case of Maximillien Perret highshcool, which is a polyvalent school, waste are mainly
composed of metals (steel, copper, zinc,..) and paper. We have some definite data for metals, each
student produce about 0,035 kg of metals per day. For the paper production, we supposed that we get
per classroom about 2 paper basket per day, including the activity of the administration. It
corresponds about 0,015 kg of paper production per student during a day. As data base containing
inventories of recycling metals are not available in the present data base, we consider only paper
recycling. Two extreme scenarios have been simulated, the first corresponds to 0% of sorting paper,
and the second to 60% of sorting paper (reference : 20%). Figure 8 shows the effect of these various
scenarios on the environmental profile.
56
Energy
1
Odour Water
0,8
0,6
O3 smog Resourc.
0,4
0,2 0% sorting
Humtox 0 Waste 20% (reference)
60% sorting
Ecotox - W Radwaste
Eutrop. GWP 100

Acidif.
Fig. 8 : Sorting paper
We observe that large variations are obtained for odour (59,6%), exhaustion of resources (36,7%),
creation of ozone (17,6%) and eutrophication (13,5%). The other themes are also affected such as
soil acidification (7,6%), quantity of waste (7%), human toxicity (5,4%) and consumption of primary
energy (4,4%). Sorting paper in this case reduces the impact of its treatment after use, avoiding
dumping of recycled quantities. The avoided impact, corresponding to the new manufacture of
products replaced by recycled paper, has an influence on the themes linked to the exhaustion of
resources and the consequences of the combustion of fossil fuel needed to produce paper, such as the
creation of photochemical ozone, eutrophication problems or soil acidification. Finally, the reduction
of the production of paper by recycling appreciably reduces pollution (odour) around paper mills.
Global influence of design
To obtain sensitivity to the global design, we have combining several aspects of design choices,
including choices linked to the management of the building. The high environmental quality (HEQ) of
our school building offers the favourable characteristics of design, like an south orientation, 23,8 m2
of south glazed area, 12 cm of exterior insulation, an exchanger for the controlled ventilation, a direct
solar floor for the heating system and sanitary equipment allowing water saving. The two compared
scenarios design are presented in the table 8 hereunder.
reference HEQ building
South glazed area 23.8 m2 23.8 m2

Insulation 8 cm of polyurethane 12 cm of polyurethane

Position of insulation Interior Exterior
Mechanical exhaust without exchanger with exchanger
Solar system - Direct solar floor
Sanitary equipment without control With control (efficiency : 50%)
Table 8 : HEQ characteristics
Thanks to the previous sensitivity studies, we have observed that large environmental benefits can be
acquired by integrating these disposals. Of course, their combination provides a HEQ building which
has a particularly low environmental profile : aquatic toxicity has been reduced of 67,4%, greenhouse
effect of 62,3%, primary energy consumption of 55,8%, human toxicity of 55,9%, water consumption
of 54,7%, acidification of 47,6%, eutrophication of 40% and radioactive waste of 20,4%.
Energy
1
Odour Water
0,8
0,6
O3 smog Resourc.
0,4
0,2
Reference
Humtox 0 Waste
HEQ design
Ecotox - W Radwaste
Eutrop. GWP 100
Acidif.
Fig. 9 : Influence of global design
As for the previous case (dwelling building), the sensitivity of the different factors studied is
explained by the strong influence of the factors on the building energy needs during the use phase
(heating, hot water). Through the energy combustion process (oil fuel in this case), the diminution of
needs consequently leads to decreasing the greenhouse effect, the toxic effect on water environment,
acid rains, effects on human health and radioactive waste production.
Globally, for this type of building, some design parameters, like south orientation, level of
insulation and finally south glazed area, must be taken into account to reach a low environmental
profile. Some techniques, like a double flow ventilation or a direct solar floor, are also very
interesting to promote. These first results have also shown the importance of controling correctly the
whole consumption of the building (heating, lighting, paper). The building design must include the
58
control of set point temperature to regulate the heating system, thanks for instance to traps with
thermostat in water installation heating. To economise on water reduce too the environmental
impacts, currently many manufacturers propose temporised traps, pressure controllers, flushes with
thrifty pans of toilets and even systems of detection of water leaks. The first application concerning
the sorting of paper give a first idea of the influence of waste management. In terms of decision aid,
the choice of site must be taken into account, in particular possibilities of collectivity to organise the
waste sorting and their treatment (recycling, incineration, dumping).
SOFT ENERGY COMMUNITY PLANNING
JCEM has developed a tool for energy calculations at a municipal level (CEADS). This tools includes
renewable energy systems, and a few impact factors complement energy calculations : SO2, Nox,
particles. Making a link in the future between such tools and LCA could be a promising perspective.
As target group, this section mainly concerns municipal services.
CEADS has been used primarily in the US and Pacific Rim countries. As such it is not familiar to
potential European users. To improve that situation, the next section will present a brief overview of
key features of CEADS (see Kreider and Curtiss, 1996, for details of CEADS) and then present a Soft
Energy Community (SEC) case study for Trappes, France. Actual screen captures from the software
are included below.
Soft Energy Community - example for Trappes, France
The SEC to be analyzed for Trappes is shown in the figure on the next page. From the architectural
program viewpoint the SEC includes:
• total site area 238 hectares

• total community area 62 gross hectares
• typical neighborhood (3) 6 gross hectares
• typical residence 164 m2
• typical atrium office building 2200 m2
• typical high-tech office building 2000 m2
• overall SEC density 9.3 dwelling units (du)/hectare

• village density 15.0 du/hectare
• neighborhood density 27 du/hectare
• population 1688 inhabitants

• family dwellings 3 persons/du
• apartments 2 persons/du
• total dwelling units 574

• total single family du 520
• other minor building types:
apartments (3)
retails stores (8)
townhouses (3)
hotel (1)
apartments (2)
atrium office buildings (3)
greenhouse (1)
school building (1)
Other features of the SEC shown on the site plan include
• pedestrian, bicycle and electric vehicle zones

• climate responsive landscaping
• neighborhood centers (3)
• electronic cottage included with each residence
• photovoltaic street lighting
• waste treatment facility
• central transit stop with parking
Consider the following energy sources as examples only knowing that they may not be useable. They
are not necessarily all the best choices for the specific site of Trappes.
The technologies that are included in this presentation are:
• Solar thermal - water and passive space heating, residential systems

• Solar photovoltaics - both residential and community scales
60
• Solid waste combustion for thermal and electrical power
• Wind power conversion to electricity
• Biomass Energy
Notice that these technologies are not all practical for Trappes but are included to illustrate how
CEADS assesses a wide variety of technologies. From earlier discussions we have ascertained that
CHP/DHC1 and solar technologies may not be suitable for this site but they are included as
illustrations of CEADS capabilities.
There is a set of economics routines in CEADS. These are not reported on here since the emphasis is
on energy and environmental aspects. In addition to these five specific technologies, energy
conservation at the building level is assumed to be employed.
1The site plan shows a CHP plant but its capacity is set to zero. It could be non-zero if we wished to
evaluate a heat and power plant fired by refuse derived fuels from the SEC, for example. CEADS is
able to assess such systems.

62
CEADS Startup and Input Data
In this and the next section we will use a minimum of text to describe self evident data inputs and
outputs for CEADS. The screen captures are for the Trappes SEC. The screens are shown in the
order that a user would encounter them in a normal CEADS run. The screen below is that which
selects the weather data file. The next screen has to do with energy prices.
The prices and fuel types can be edited by the user. The values above are only examples for Trappes.
Next, one specifies the building mix. Here we have considered a community of several building types
as described in the previous section. This screen shows the specifications for the most common SEC

building type, the single family dwelling: As shown in the site plan, there are 160 residential
dwelling units and here is the screen where the user so specifies.
No DHC usage is considered. For the base case that is to be run first, no solar usage on the building
scale will be used. That will be added later. Details of this building type (Housing 3) follow.
The wall, window, roof and infiltration characteristics are entered by the user for this residential
building class. These values can all be changed by the user at any time in a CEADS run. Additional
characteristics are included on the next screen - thermostat settings, electrical use and DHW needs are
entered here.
64
Fuel types for heating are selected next. Here we have selected 85% efficient gas appliances.
Electricity, fuel oil and district heating are also available. No cooling is considered for residences but
is included for office, retail and other commercial buildings along with apartments.
CEADS outputs for the Trappes SEC
Base Case
At this point the base case (no solar energies) can be run. One of the output screens is shown below
in which the community energy total usage is displayed. The electrical usage is for the building
internal gains (lighting and equipment) and depends on the occupancy schedule selected. The thermal
total is the gross energy input to the community for both heating and water heating. No cooling was
chosen for these runs. This screen's values will be used as the base case for comparison purposes

later. The "locally produced" case has zero entries because there is no renewable energy source nor
any locally produced CHP energy.
Base case emissions are displayed next. In addition to the usual pollutants, CO2 is also shown so that
global warming potential can be evaluated.
Residential Passive Space Heating Solar Systems
At this point we wish to evaluate several solar systems one at a time. Below is the solar screen on
which sizes of DHW, PV and passive systems are specified along with costs, efficiency and system
type. Note that the passive solar systems can be either with or without night insulation. Although
these systems could be installed on all building types, we will demonstrate by installing a small
passive system only on all single family residences (486). The community energy screen shows that
thermal savings are about 20% for the specific system chosen. This rather low number is due to the
overcast winter climate in Trappes.
66
The community energy output screen indicates that thermal energy needs for the SEC are reduced by
passive heating to 22.9 GWh from 27 GWh in the base case. There is no effect on electrical
consumption, of course.
Likewise, there are emissions savings due to the use of passive solar. They appear only in the NOx
and CO2 entries because natural gas that is being displaced by solar heat has only these two types of
emissions. The second screen below shows the percent savings due to the passive solar usage.

Residential Photovoltaic Systems
The summary screen below shows that significant savings that accrue due to covering one third of the
single family residential roof area with PV panels. Performance is better for PVs than for passive
solar because the passive solar system operates only during short winter days whereas the PV system
operates during long summer days as well. The table below does not include the passive solar system
of the prior section; therefore, thermal needs of the community are identical to the base case.
Notice that the "locally produced" entry above refers to energy produced only on the overall
community level by large, community-wide plants. The electricity produced by PV systems on
residences appears in the center column of this screen. The reader can compare the value shown
above to the base case (annual electricity, 12 GWh and peak demand, 2.1 MW). Emissions savings
from PV use are also shown below.
68
Residential Solar Water Heating
Finally, the PV and passive systems are deactivated and solar DHW only is considered only for the
SFR buildings. The summary screen below shows the savings that accrue due to the DHW systems.
Because the DHW load is a small part of the total community load, there is not much overall impact
but the water heating savings is 45% of the SF residential water heating load2.
Finally the community emissions screen for the DHW case looks like this.

Again, the emissions that are affected are only the first and third entries because natural gas emits
only those substances.
Biomass Power Plant
A biomass plant is now considered using the species populus (common name poplar) as the energy
source. For this community of 1700 persons we have selected a 2000-hectare tree farm. Poplar has a
harvest period of four years so 500 hectares are utilized each year. Biomass can also be used in
individual homes but the emissions and efficiency factors for heating stoves are not standardized or
well known.
The biomass plant screen requires specification of the species, thermal and electrical efficiencies and
the plant cost. The option to use biomass for electricity only, for heat only or for community
cogeneration is available. Here we consider electricity only.
Biomass sources have their own specific emission factors and the screen below allows the user to
enter these or to use standard default values. It is best to use specific emission factors for the species
being used as the biomass source.
2This size of DHW solar systems is not necessarily the economic optimum. It may be too large. A
recent addition to CEADS enables the user to find the optimum size of all renewable energy systems.
70
At the community level the energy impacts of using the specified biomass farm and power plant are
significant and appear in the first column as community produced electrical power. That offsets the
grid power by the amount shown. There is still 4.2 GWh/yr needed from the grid however. A larger
plant would meet a larger portion of the electrical load. No building mounted renewables are
included.
The emissions from the new biomass plus grid configuration are shown below. Some have increased
over the grid-only scenario and others have decreased.

Finally if biofuel is used for both electricity and thermal loads, then the community energy scenario is
as follows. Both thermal and electrical loads have locally produced entries in the summary table.
This calculation does not take into account the fact that CO2 emitted by biomass combustion is
actually recaptured by the next growth of trees thereby making a net contribution of near zero to the
global CO2 inventory.
Wind Power Assessment for Trappes
As the final illustration of CEADS,. we will evaluate the performance of a wind power system for the
SEC at Trappes. The wind system details are shown in the next figure. The aerogenerators are rated
at 275 kW at the rating wind speed of 15.6 m/s. Since the wind speed at Trappes has an average value
of 4.2 m/s, the rated speed is not often reached and wind power is not highly economical.
72
The energy production of the specified wind farm meets the average load of the SEC but is not able to
meet the peak load.
Transportation Study for Trappes SEC
The figure on the next page shows nine main transportation arteries for the prototype SEC. Each is
labeled with an "R" number denoting "roadway." Based on the population and centroid distances
among and between village housing clusters, the transportation has been entered. Several of the input
screens are shown immediately below for an in-place roadway (R4) and the bypass roadway (R1). A

third type of route could be added; this is the out-of-place route having to do with travel outside of the
SEC vicinity. For R4 we have.
The next input screen captures exhibit the "details" for the three transport types above. CEADS
calculates the roadway length from the site plan drawn by the user.
74
Fuel usage details for the single occupancy vehicle.
Fuel usage details for heavy vehicles.
Fuel usage details for mass transportation buses.

The last image shows that other fuels can be selected including compressed natural gas, liquefied
natural gas, methanol and ethanol can also be selected for any of the vehicle types. For each roadway
a different vehicle and fuel mix can be selected.
The bypass roadway (R1) has the following characteristics.
Transportation outputs of CEADS have been separated from buildings outputs for this illustrative
case. Energy use, for example is
Observe that the transportation energy usage is very large for the in-place travel alone. Including the
out-of-place travel would have produced a still larger number. The current version of CEADS
includes only global warming pollutants for transportation, that is why CO2 only is shown above. In
principle, all pollutants due to automobiles can be included.
Target Groups

Municipal, state and federal energy and environmental offices conduct studies that assess which
measures are to be addressed by builders prior to construction approval. CEADS and LCA-based
tools are critical to their decision process because they offer the only known method of assessing
environmental and energy impacts of buildings in a principled, rational way. They can mandate that
builders use specific approaches to assess impacts.
Universities have used CEADS for training architects and building engineers. It is easy to imagine
that LCA tools could also serve a key purpose in educating building designers of the future.
78
REPORT ON REGIONAL APPLICATIONS
ARENE, Regional Agency for Environment and « New » Energies, has been created in Greater Paris
area and replaces our initial partner (Environment and Culture Office of Regional Council). The main
project of ARENE concerned by REGENER is the «Higher environmental quality highschools »
programme. Identification of the most appropriate renewable energy techniques has also been done by
complementing the classical technico-economical evaluation (cf first volume of REGENER final
report) by environmental and social criteria.
Another important project in Greater Paris area, the Ecologis exhibition in the science museum (La
Villette), has been launched by Comite 21 since the beginning of REGENER. Because it is
concerning building and environment, we decided to apply the Regener tools also in this project.
Assesment of the renewable energy alternatives in Greater Paris area
Typical cases have been selected out of 150 projects reviewed. Rather large scale projects
corresponding to various renewable energy techniques have been considered. The selection accounts
for a propper design and maintenance of the projects, and availability of precise data. The selected
projects are listed in table 1 below.
simplified economical assessment
We have taken into account two main criterions : VAN (Present Net Value) and TR (payback time) to
which it is necessary to add two more criterions : the investment cost I and the price of the solar kWh.
The evaluation marks are the following ones :
Economical efficiency VAN/I :
- VAN / I < 0 : eliminatory

- VAN / I < 0,1 : 0 point
- 0,1 < VAN / I £ 0,5 : 1 point
- 0,5 < VAN / I £ 1 : 2 points
- 1 < VAN / I : 3 points

Payback time :
- TR ≤ 2 ans : 2 points
- 2 ans < TR ≤ TR £ 5 ans : 1 point
- 5 ans < TR ≤ 10 ans : 0 point
- 10 ans < TR ≤ 15 ans : - 1 point
- 15 ans < TR ≤ 20 ans : - 2 points
Investment cost I :
- negligible : 1 point
- 10 000 F < I £ 200 000 F : 0 point
- 200 000 F < I : - 1 point
Price of the kWh “ENR“ :
- < gas price : 1 point

- between gas and electricity : 0 point
- > electricity price : - 1 point
These marks permit to make a global analysis including the economic analysis together with
technical, environmental and social criterions as explained below.
Technical complexity
Elaboration and maintenance suppose a precise evaluation of the complexity of the system : necessary
skill, sophisticated equipment, frequency and duration of the various works on the site, etc...
According to the reference system (for example a traditional boiler in case of space heating), an
important complexity leads to the diminution of one point at each stage (installation and
maintenance). In active solar heating, the results are good only in some cases (such as sanitary hot
water, swimming-pools etc...), whereas in passive solar heating, the inhabitant chooses the
temperature of his lodging, the periods of time he wants to live in his place, the position of the control
systems (which has a consequence on the quantity of renewed air), the thermic advantages bound to
80
lightning and domestic equipments etc... Therefore, it is not possible to easily estimate heating
consumation and guarantee results. That is why this criterion is mentioned, but not taken into account
in the above energy marks.
Environmental criteria
Various aspects must be considered, from local scale (atmospheric pollution) to planetary scale
(greenhouse effect). According to the reference system, a reduction of gas emission leads to the
increase of one point for energy marks, whereas an increase of air pollution, harmful noise effects or
useful surface consuming, leads to the diminution of one point. On the contrary, the preservation of
natural resources leads to the increase of one point.
Social impact
The creation of employments on the site as well as secondary employments (for example forest
maintenance) leads to the increase of one point for energy marks. It is the same for quality life
improvement (for example bioclimatic architecture improves thermic and visual comfort) and the
diminution of risks (particularly for heating resources transportation).
Before thinking of the development of technologies, local authorities have wanted to make sure of
their practical applications. That is why this criterion is eliminatory and considered as more important
than the others. Yet, this situation does not prevent from going on with research, development or
demonstration on a small scale, in order to improve the various products (for example direct solar
floors or transparent isolation).
It is important to remark that Ile de France is a region which plays an important part in the promotion
of innovations, particularly in export (photovoltaic installations for isolated sites in Africa for
example). So, even if a demonstrative installation is not immediately profitable, it may have
interesting economic consequences as far as market and employment are concerned.
The environmental cost being eliminated (for example thanks to the reduction of polluting emissions),
it has not been taken into account in this study, which is not in favour of renewable energies. Yet, we
can consider the fixing of an “ecotax“ as an equivalent of an energy price increase and so we can use
the obtained results by comparing the various evolutions of energy price. We can say that an ecotax
could be an advantage for long term technics and could, in most cases, increase solar installations
profit.

Results
The results of the qualitative economical and complementary evaluations are given in tables 2 and 3
below.
Some criteria, like the reduction of greenhouse effect and acid rains, or the indirect job creation, are
not included in the summation because these parameters are constant for all the techniques studied.
The results are presented in table 4. They show that, in the case of Greater Paris Area, bioclimatic
architecture and wood fuel have the highest score. Unglazed collectors for swimming pools and air
collectors are also to be considered.
Using the multicriteria assessment method (i.e. normalizing the scores and clarifying weighting
factors), the results are presented in table 5. They are quite similar.
82
Table 1 : List of projects studied
DHW = domestic hot water
DFH = direct floor heating
7709 : piscine, moquette solaire 9218 : DHW, flat plate 7812 : school, passive solar 7813 : dwellings, passive solar 7735 : dwellings, straw fuel
collectors
5029 : lycée, chaufferie bûches 3927 : district heating, wood 4928 : sewage plant with 8952 : grid, aerogenerator 7710 : sport hall, air collectors
fuel methane production and (heating + DHW)
cogeneration
7711 : piscine, moquette solaire 7305 : dwellings, DFH 9117 : dwellings, passive solar 9523 : dwellings, passive solar 9350 : canal lock, photovoltaic
and air collectors system
1426 : piscine, digesteur et 7331 : sewage plant with
biogaz methane production and
cogeneration
Table 2 : Economical analysis
projects 7709 9218 7812 7813 7735 5029 3927 4928 8952 7710 7711 7305 9117 9523 9350 1426 7331
critères
solar overcost (I) -1 -1 0 0 -1 0 -1 -1 -1 0 -1 0 0 0 1 -1 -1
VAN/I 0 - 1 - 2 2 2 0 - - - - 1 0 - - -
pay back time 0 - -1 - 1 1 1 0 - - - - 0 -1 - - -
price of solar kWh 1 - 1 - 1 1 1 0 - - - - 0 0 - - -
Table 3 : Complementary analysis
projects 7709 9218 7812 7813 7735 5029 3927 4928 8952 7710 7711 7305 9117 9523 9350 1426 7331
criteria
Technical feasibility
complexity of installation 0 0 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 0 0 0 0 -1 -1 -1
complexity of maintenance 0 -1 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 -1 0 -1 -1 0 0 -1 -1
guarrantee of performance (1) o o n n o o o o o o o o o n o o o
Environmental impact
reduction of greenhouse effect and 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
acid rains
atmospheric pollution 0 0 0 0 -1 -1 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
noise 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ground occupation -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 -1 0 0 0 -1 0 0
exhaust of natural resources 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Social aspects
on site job creation 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
indirect job creation 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
quality of life 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0
diminution of risks 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
Sub- Total 3 3 5 5 2 1 2 1 1 3 3 4 4 5 2 1 1
General total 3 - 6 - 5 5 5 0 - - - - 5 4 - - -
(1) non accounted for in the weighting calculation
84
Table 4 : Analysis by techniques
Technique economical benefit technical complexity environmental benefit social benefit sub-total without general total
economical analysis
unglazed collectors for 0 0 1 2 3 3
swimming pools
flat plate collectors for eliminated -1 2 2 3 -
DHW
air collectors for heating 0 -1 2 2 3 3
DFH eliminated -1 2 2 3 -
passive solar heating 1 0 2 3 5 6
wood or straw fuel in 3 -2 1 3 2 5
collective heating
methane production and -1 -2 2 1 1 0
cogeneration
aerogenerators eliminated -1 0 2 1 -
photovoltaic systems eliminated except non -1 2 2 3 -
grid connected site

Table 5 : RESULTS OF THE WEIGHTED SUMMATION
7709 7812 7735 5029 3927 4928 9117 9523 Weight
ECONOMICAL ANALYSIS overcost 0 0,5 0 0,5 0 0 0,5 0,5 2

VAN/I 0 0,5 1 1 1 0 0,5 0 2
pay back time 0,5 0 1 1 1 0,5 0,5 0 2
price of solar kwh 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1
TECHNICAL FAISABILITY complexity of installation 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1

complexity of maintenance 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
ENVIRONNEMENTAL IMPACT reduction of g.e and a.r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

atmospheric pollution 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1
noise 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
ground occupation 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
exhaust of natural resources 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
SOCIAL ASPECTS on site job creation 0 0 1 0,5 1 0 0 0 2

indirect job creation 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
quality of life 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
diminution of risk 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
TOTAL 0,40 0,60 0,53 0,53 0,53 0,20 0,53 0,47 15
Not included in the weighted summation
86
Ecologis exhibition at Paris, La Villette Museum
«Comite 21» is an association created after the Rio Conference in order to promote the application of
Agenda 21 commitments in France. The Rio commitment was to stabilize in year 2000 the CO2
emissions to their level of year 1990. According to Pierre Chemillier (President of the Greenhouse
effect commission and former President of CSTB), the objective in France has become a limit on CO2
emissions per capita (2 tons per year and per person -it was 1,8 ton in 1990-). This actually
corresponds to an increase by 11% instead of a stabilization, but it is lower than the mean European
value of 2,3 tons/year/person. This lower figure in France is due to the larger use of nuclear energy,
which of course produces radioactive waste but less CO2. The building sector being the first energy
consumer (with 45% of the overall energy consumption in France), this sector is much concerned by
such limitation of CO2 emissions.
In the functionning of Comite 21, institutional partners and industrials take part together in projects.
EcoLogis is one of the projects and concerns ecological dwelling. Another project concerns e.g. cities.
The partners collaborating in EcoLogis are institutions like the Ministry of dwelling, CSTB, Ecole des
Mines, ARENE and industrials : LYONNAISE DES EAUX-DUMEZ (large consortium including
water supply, waste management, building enterprises), LAFARGE (cement and plaster industry),
SAINT-GOBAIN (glazing industry), ISOVER (thermal and acoustic insulation), GAZ DE FRANCE
(national gas company), ELF-ATOCHEM (plastic industry), SOMMER ALLIBERT (ground coating
and sanitary equipment).
The exhibition includes a demonstration « house » showing technical or architectural possibilities

improving environmental quality. The aim is to sensibilize and inform a rather large public and not
only professionals.
An international architecture competition has been organized by Comite 21, and some knowledge
from the Regener activities have been used in order to write the programme for this competition. 200
teams have shown their interest and 60 were selected to participate. The sketches and description
provided by each team were evaluated by a technical committee constituted by 2 architects and 2
engineers. This committee selected ten projects and proposed them to the jury, constituted of members
of Comite 21, professors in architecture schools and various institutional partners. Actually, the jury
has chosen a project which was not selected by the technical committee, but which was assumed to be
adapted to an exhibition. The winner is a team constituted of a Finnish architect, a Finnish engineer
and a French partner.

Ecole des Mines advised the design team concerning thermal performance (energy saving and thermal
comfort). Another partner performed daylighting and acoustic calculations. Life cycle analysis was
performed only at the end of the design, because the connection with the data base on building
materials was not completed before. The 4 facades of EcoLogis are covered with 4 different materials
: the south facade is mainly glazed, the west facade is wooden, the north is made of plastic (ABS) and
the east of metal. The idea was not to select an « optimal » material, but to show that most materials
can lead to a satisfactory performance if they are properly used (e.g. south oriented glazings provide
solar gains, steel is partly made of recycled material, wood is renewable).
The double glazed components include a low emissivity coating, which is not yet the most common
technique and is thus useful to promote. Other components are presented : a sunspace illustrating
bioclimatic architecture and a heat exchanger allowing heat recovery from exhaust air, low flow-rate
sanitary equipment, domestic waste sorting equipment. Solar energy applications (solar water heater,
photovolyaic system) are presented on a movable platform (Economade) situated in the garden near
the house. Comfort is also illustrated (acoustic performance of insulation and ceiling, daylighting).
The low inertia of the building and some horizontal glazing used for daylighting induce a poor thermal
comfort. But it was not possible to increase thermal inertia because no foundation is allowed on the
site, so that only very light materials can be chosen : EcoLogis is no real house but rather an exhibition
stand. Another constraint was to increase the area of the house in order to welcome groups of visitors.
A « virtual » house has then been defined in order to correct these specificities due to the exhibition
functionality.
This EcoLogis « virtual » house was compared to a reference house corresponding to a standard in
France for new construction : statistics from INSEE (national statistics institute) have been used in
order to identify the most common materials and techniques, and an architect has drawn a typical plan
of a single family house (area of around 100 m2). This reference building has been defined in the
frame of a workshop on environmental quality evaluation (ATEQUE), organized by the Ministry of
dwelling. A common occupancy pattern has been considered for the reference house and EcoLogis.
This does not correspond to the actual situation at the exhibition but rather to a typical family
occupation pattern : 2 adults and 2 children, 0.6 air change per hour, daily hot (resp. cold) water
consumption of 100 l (resp. 40l) per person, 1 kg/person/day of domestic waste (including 12% of
glass and 30% paper).
Various environmental indicators have been calculated using one of the tool developed with the
support of Regener (EQUER software, developed by Ecole des Mines) and the data base on materials
provided by IFIB. The input parameters considered are given in annex. The results are presented in the
next figure. Compared to the reference, the global warming potential in Ecologis has been reduced by
88
20%, without increasing the quantity of nuclear waste. Considering the reduction of CO2 emissions
objective, energy saving and renewable energy are thus interesting alternatives in the building sector
compared to electric heating. It is doubtful that electric heating decreases CO2 emissions because the
peak winter demand induces the use of thermal electricity production (coal) with a low efficiency and
thus more CO2 emissions than using a fuel or gas boiler.
Comparative ecoprofile, EcoLogis versus standard house
A comparison has been made using EQUER between gas, electricity and wood fuel for heating in the
case of the reference house mentioned above. The difficulty in this comparison is to evaluate the
contribution of nuclear, thermal and hydraulic productions in the electricity mix for heating.
According to a study of the French ministry of industry, a nuclear plant is economical if it is used at
least 4,000 hours per year. We performed a yearly calculation of heating loads using the thermal
simulation tool COMFIE, and obtained the electric power needed for each hour. We derived a
threshold power value P corresponding to the 4,000 hours threshold : loads higher than P occur less
than 4,000 hours. Then we evaluated the electricity production mix by the following method : for a
load L higher than P, we assume that P is provided using hydro-electricity and nuclear plants, and L-P
is provided using coal thermal plants.
At the moment in France, almost all thermal plants function with coal. This led to estimate the
contribution of coal thermal plants to 64%, the contributions of hydro-electricity and nuclear being
respectively 14% and 22%. Using this mix, the results presented hereunder have been obtained. In the
future, coal thermal plants could be replaced by gas plants with a higher efficiency (combined cycle).

This would reduce the related environmental impacts but though, the overall efficiency of electric
heating would remain lower than using fossile fuel in a boiler, leading to a higher primary energy
consumption.
The next graph graph shows that the global warming potential with electric heating is higher than with
gas or wood heating. In fact, some nuclear plants are in France -due to oversized equipment-
functioning less than 4,000 hours a year. But according to the trend towards a more liberal energy
market in Europe, it is doubtful that this situation could perdue over the life duration of a building
(having an order of magnitude of 100 years) so that the mix estimated above is more probable in the
future than the present mix. This comparison justifies the choice of gas energy for heating made in
EcoLogis rather than electricity. Compared to wood, the global warming potential is higher with gas
but the air pollution (smog) is lower. In a densely populated region like Greater Paris area, gas is
preferred for health reasons, above all in single family houses where a wood boiler would be too small
to allow economical filtration of combustion gases.
Comparative ecoprofile : gas, electric and wood boiler for heating
Another possibility to evaluate the impact of electric heating can be to consider the European mix for
electricity production, with the argument of the European electricity market. This would lead to
similar results as above : electric heating produces more CO2 than gas heating, even with a nuclear
and hydraulic contribution. We can thus regret the initiative from the new president of the French
electricity company to promote electric heating again. But this marketing campaign could be less
successful than planned because the consumers are now aware of the higher cost of electric heating
(around 3 times more expensive than gas). More sensible approaches are tempted to reduce the
electricity peak demand, e.g. using wood fuel during peak days, which could be acceptable in housing
90
due to infatuation for fireplaces. The new trend towards air-conditioning could also increase the value
of P and thus reduce the thermal contribution in the electricity production mix, but this would increase
the energy consumption in summer and affect the overall balance.
In order to illustrate the scientific knowledge available, an interactive software (Ecoprofile) has been
developed and installed on a computer inside the exhibition. The use must be very simple for the
public so there is only one screen. On the left side, the visitors can choose options (e.g. house versus
flat, bioclimatic versus standard design, electric, gas, fuel or wood heating, thermostat set point,
sorting of domestic waste, reduction of water consumption, home to work distance) and the results
appear on the right side in the form of histograms. The ecoprofile corresponding to their choices is
compared to the reference described above.
This software complements cultural or architectural presentations by showing what citizens can do for
the environment in their everydaylife. Quantifying the relative importance of transport, heating, waste
management, etc. may sensibilize the public and help the promotion of alternative concepts like
bioclimatic architecture or wood fuel. It also shows that the single family house presented is not the
only possibility for dwelling : environmental impacts are often lower for flats because of lower energy
consumption for heating and, at urban level, lower consumption of transport.
Interactive software installed in the exhibition at La Villette museum

The modest financial means of EcoLogis exhibition only allowed to afford a standard computer for
this presentation and no more sophisticated device. By comparison, the very large exhibition occuring
at the same time at La Villette on electricity has a much larger budget and fantastic interactive
scenographies. This corresponds to the general situation in France where the budget for electricity is
not in the same order of magnitude than for other energies. Nevertheless, Comite 21 compensated their
low budget by a considerable work so that Ecologis has made information available which is not
commonly spread in the « French culture ».
Higher environmental quality (HEQ) highschools programme
A frist survey of renewable energy applications in Greater Paris area had shown the importance of the
building sector (cf task 1 report). When studying how a policy could be defined by the regional
council, three types of possibilities were identified : action on the buildings managed by the regional
administration itself, education of professionals and support to industrial R&D. Concerning the
92
buildings managed by the regional administration, it was decided to start with highschools because
there is a specialized service in charge of programming and commissionning the projects for the whole
region, and a new highschool was planned for the education of future consultants in the field of energy
equipment in buildings. Educational activities are not considered in the Regener project, but these
activities do take place in another frame. R&D support in the field of renewable energies was given a
rather low priority by the person in charge of this topic. Thus, we decided to focus on the HEQ
highschools programme.
The objective of this programme is to promote environmental quality in the professional practice
through optimisation of some technical parameters and performance monitoring. It will be an
opportunity to perform an environmental evaluation of a building during its life cycle. This first
experiment in France may constitute a demonstration example. It should lead to the development of
precise and pragmatic tools for technical decision and evaluation, at any stage of building projects
(programming, studies, project evaluation, construction and functioning). The conclusions of this first
experiment should be used to improve the methodology for further projects. The regional
administration wishes to define a label for such « green highschools ».
Environmental quality objectives have been added in a separate annex within the whole programme
given to the competing teams. Very few performance levels are fixed, except concerning energy (5%
reduction of energy consumption is demanded). The main objectives concern the building process
itself (reduction of pollution on the site during building), the reduction of energy and material fluxes
and the improvement of indoor comfort and air quality. The design teams had to answer 175 questions
allowing the evaluation of their projects by the jury. They had to identify overcosts for a « higher
environmental quality » alternative compared to a standard design, and this overcost should be lower
than 3% of the standard cost. It is assumed that this higher investment cost will be compensated by
lower management costs (energy, water) so that environmental quality is economical.
Ecole des Mines collaborated with one of the design teams, constituted by an architect, a building
enterprise and consultants. The project obtained the best environmental evaluation, but was not
selected due to other architectural aspects.
The method presently used by ARENE is not based upon life cycle analysis, it is a qualitative
assessment : an approach similar to the BREEAM method with more details on input parameters but
no information yet about the method itself. Environmental quality is balanced with issues concerning
comfort, costs, social aspects (employment, quality of life), some of which being highly subjective
(e.g. psycho-sociological comfort). The weighting of environmental indicators is given in the
following table.

Environmental themes weighting
global warming potential 1.86
ozone depletion 0.96
smog 1.60
radioactive waste 0
non radioactive waste 2
exhaust of natural resources 1.08
primary energy 0
eutrophication 0
ground occupation 1.12
Other environmental themes (e.g. air, water, ground pollution, modification of water flows) are taken
into account but their evaluation is not explained. Comfort and health aspects are complementing
environmental aspects, but these evaluations are also not explained.
Compared to this approach, life cycle analysis gives a clear information on the evaluation methods for
all environmental themes. The weighting of all indicators into a single note can be made according to
regional priorities (e.g. the smog indicator could be considered more important than water
consumption in Greater Paris area). This could contribute to increase the objectivity of architectural
competitions, and to reduce the impacts of the building sector which are presently very high : this
sector represents 56% of the overall energy consumption and 45% of SO2 emissions for instance.
Appropriate design methodologies could be very useful in the frame of a prevention strategy, aiming
at a reduction of fluxes by architectural means and sensible occupants behaviour.
94
CONCLUSIONS
LCA based tools are already operational in experimental projects. They allow precise comparisons of
alternatives on the basis of a multicriteria environmental profile. First sensitivity studies have shown
the environmental benefit of renewable energy applications in the building sector.
The precison of the evaluations performed is often questionned by decision makers, and an error
analysis would be very useful. Some data differ between the different bases, and some processes are
very uncertain, especially those occuring at the end of the life cycle.
Concerning the use of LCA based tools by professionals, target groups have been identified and
deriving dedicated tools from the general LCA basis seems promising. Identification of input-output
appropriate to the various building actors according to the phase of the project would be the next
necessary step.
The first demonstration projects for which LCA methods were used have shown the ability of this
approach to integrate environmental concern in decision processes. In general, these applications
supported energy efficient or renewable energy technologies in the building sector by showing their
environmental benefit. The corresponding supplementary investment (increased glazing area, masonry
for thermal inertia, ...) is soon compensated by energy gains during the utilisation phase, leading to a
beneficial balance over the whole life cycle. Life cycle optimization of energy, environmental impact
and manpower is a new challenge for building professionals and the REGENER project brings a
substancial contribution towards this objective.

96
ANNEX : DESCRIPTION OF THE ECOLOGIS
DEMONSTRATION HOUSE
****************************************************************
BUILDING
****************************************************************
EcoLogis
NAME OF THE SAVING FILE : EcoLogis
LOCATION : La Villette
ALTITUDE : 50m LATITUDE : 48.8∞ LONGITUDE : -2.0∞
METEOROLOGICAL LOCATION : tra
*******************************************
WALLS
*******************************************
sol
SLOPE 0∞
INTERNAL BUILDING FINISH : STANDARD ALPHA=0.60 EPSILON=0.90
EXTERNAL BUILDING FINISH : zÈro ALPHA=0.00 EPSILON=0.00
COMPOSITION : sol
1.20cm OF Wood board K:0.20 W/m/K RO:680.00 kg/m3 CP:0.64 Wh/kg/K
4.00cm OF Mineral wool K:0.04 W/m/K RO:60.00 kg/m3 CP:0.22 Wh/kg/K
2.60cm OF Gypsum + cardboard K:0.21 W/m/K RO:900.00 kg/m3 CP:0.22 Wh/kg/K
toit
SLOPE 0∞
EXTERNAL BUILDING FINISH : STANDARD ALPHA=0.60 EPSILON=0.90
COMPOSITION : toit
0.20cm OF Construction steel K:60.00 W/m/K RO:7800.00 kg/m3 CP:0.14 Wh/kg/K

sud
SLOPE 90∞ ORIENTATION 0∞
COMPOSITION : mur
0.20cm OF PVC sealing K:0.23 W/m/K RO:1380.00 kg/m3 CP:0.53 Wh/kg/K
ouest
COMPOSITION : mur
nord
COMPOSITION : mur
est
98
SLOPE 90∞ ORIENTATION -90∞
COMPOSITION : mur
sol vÈranda
SLOPE 0∞
EXTERNAL BUILDING FINISH : zÈro ALPHA=0.00 EPSILON=0.00
COMPOSITION : sol vÈranda
15.00cm OF B25 concrete K:1.70 W/m/K RO:2355.00 kg/m3 CP:0.31 Wh/kg/K
mur mitoyen
EXTERNAL BUILDING FINISH : foncÈ ALPHA=0.80 EPSILON=0.90
COMPOSITION : mur mitoyen
12.00cm OF B25 concrete K:1.70 W/m/K RO:2355.00 kg/m3 CP:0.31 Wh/kg/K
toit vÈranda
SLOPE 0∞
COMPOSITION : toit vÈranda

sud vÈranda
COMPOSITION : menuiserie acier
5.00cm OF AIR_menuiserie acier K:0.31 W/m/K RO:1.00 kg/m3 CP:0.34 Wh/kg/K
********************************************
ZONES
********************************************
*******************************
* ZONE OUTSIDE *
*******************************
*******************************
* ZONE GROUND *
*******************************
TEMPERATURE :10∞C
*******************************
* ZONE logement *
*******************************
OCCUPANCY SCHEDULE : DWELLING

VOLUME OF logement :400.00 m3
INERTIA OF THE FURNITURE :400.0 Wh/K
MAXIMAL EXTERNAL VENTILATION FLOW RATE :0.10 VOLUME/h
STANDARD WEEK -% of max FLOW RATE-
100
HOUR MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY
SUNDAY
1 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
2 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
3 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
4 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
5 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
6 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
7 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
8 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
9 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
10 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
11 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
12 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

SUNDAY
13 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
14 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
15 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
16 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
17 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
18 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
19 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
20 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
21 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
22 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
23 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
24 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
INTERNAL SOURCE OF VENTILATION AIR n∞1: vÈranda

FORCED CONVECTION WITH A MAXIMAL AIR FLOW RATE OF 0.50 VOLUME/h
STANDARD WEEK -% of max INT FL RATE-
SUNDAY
1 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

2 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
3 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
4 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
5 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
6 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
7 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
8 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
9 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
10 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
11 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
12 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
STANDARD WEEK -% of max INT FL RATE-

SUNDAY
13 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
14 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
15 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
16 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
17 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
18 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
19 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
20 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
21 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
22 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
23 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
24 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
HEATING DEVICE :
MAXIMAL HEATING POWER: 20000.0 W
THE THERMOSTAT IS IN ZONE logement
STANDARD WEEK -TEMPERATURE (∞C)-
SUNDAY
1 19 19 19 19 19 19 19
2 19 19 19 19 19 19 19
102
3 19 19 19 19 19 19 19
4 19 19 19 19 19 19 19
5 19 19 19 19 19 19 19
6 19 19 19 19 19 19 19
7 19 19 19 19 19 19 19
8 19 19 19 19 19 19 19
9 19 19 19 19 19 19 19
10 19 19 19 19 19 19 19
11 19 19 19 19 19 19 19
12 19 19 19 19 19 19 19
STANDARD WEEK -TEMPERATURE (∞C)-

SUNDAY
13 19 19 19 19 19 19 19
14 19 19 19 19 19 19 19
15 19 19 19 19 19 19 19
16 19 19 19 19 19 19 19
17 19 19 19 19 19 19 19
18 19 19 19 19 19 19 19
19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19
20 19 19 19 19 19 19 19
21 19 19 19 19 19 19 19
22 19 19 19 19 19 19 19
23 19 19 19 19 19 19 19
24 19 19 19 19 19 19 19
STANDARD WEEK -Int HEAT GAINS (W)-

SUNDAY
1 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
2 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
3 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
4 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
5 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
6 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
7 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

8 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
9 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
10 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
11 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
12 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

SUNDAY
13 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
14 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
15 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
16 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
17 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
18 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
19 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
20 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
21 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
22 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
23 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
24 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Max NUMBER OF PRESENT PEOPLE:-2

(Negative values if per 100 m3)
STANDARD WEEK -% OF PRESENCE-
SUNDAY
1 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
2 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
3 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
4 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
5 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
6 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
7 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
8 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
9 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
10 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
104
11 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
12 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

SUNDAY
13 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
14 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
15 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
16 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
17 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
18 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
19 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
20 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
21 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
22 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
23 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
24 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
THE ZONE logement IS SURROUNDED BY 7 WALLS

164.0 m2 OF sol BETWEEN logement AND OUTSIDE
THE ZONE WALL n∞1 IS REACHED BY 0 DISTANT SHADING(S)
NAME OF THE ALBEDO : STANDARD
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
ALBEDO: 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
THERMAL BRIDGES : 0.0 W/K
THIS ZONE WALL IS A FLOOR + AIR SPACE
THE WIND EXPOSURE IS NORMAL
0 GLAZING(s)
164.0 m2 OF toit BETWEEN logement AND OUTSIDE

ALBEDO: 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

THIS ZONE WALL IS A CEILING
0 GLAZING(s)
55.0 m2 OF mur mitoyen BETWEEN logement AND vÈranda

ORDER OF MATERIALS :
logement
STANDARD
Gypsum + cardboard
Mineral wool
B25 concrete
foncÈ
vÈranda
THERMAL BRIDGES: 69.00 W/K
27.0 m2 OF ouest BETWEEN logement AND OUTSIDE

ALBEDO: 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
1 GLAZING(s)
8.1 m2 OF ECO +
U:1.90 W/(m2.K) TAU_N:0.63 2 GLAZING(S)
WIDTH : 1.00 m HEIGHT : 1.50 m
77.0 m2 OF nord BETWEEN logement AND OUTSIDE

ALBEDO: 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
106
1 GLAZING(s)
0.7 m2 OF ECO +
27.0 m2 OF est BETWEEN logement AND OUTSIDE

ALBEDO: 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
1 GLAZING(s)
2.4 m2 OF ECO +
37.0 m2 OF sud BETWEEN logement AND OUTSIDE

ALBEDO: 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
1 GLAZING(s)
36.5 m2 OF double + simple
YOUR double + simple IS SHADED BY casquette
DISTANCE FROM THE WINDOW: 0.50 WIDTH: 2.20
*******************************
* ZONE vÈranda *
*******************************

OCCUPANCY SCHEDULE : vide
VOLUME OF vÈranda : 57.00 m3
INERTIA OF THE FURNITURE : 0.0 Wh/K
MAXIMAL EXTERNAL VENTILATION FLOW RATE :3.51 VOLUME/h
SUNDAY
1 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
2 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
3 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
4 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
5 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
6 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
7 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
8 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
9 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
10 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
11 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
12 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

SUNDAY
13 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
14 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
15 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
16 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
17 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
18 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
19 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
20 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
21 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
22 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
23 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
24 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
108
SUNDAY
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SUNDAY
13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Max NUMBER OF PRESENT PEOPLE:0

SUNDAY

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SUNDAY
13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
THE ZONE vÈranda IS SURROUNDED BY 6 WALLS

55.0 m2 OF mur mitoyen BETWEEN vÈranda AND logement
ORDER OF MATERIALS :
vÈranda
foncÈ
110
B25 concrete
Mineral wool
STANDARD
logement
THERMAL BRIDGES: 69.00 W/K
25.0 m2 OF sol vÈranda BETWEEN vÈranda AND OUTSIDE

ALBEDO: 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
THIS ZONE WALL IS A FLOOR + AIR SPACE
0 GLAZING(s)
25.0 m2 OF toit vÈranda BETWEEN vÈranda AND OUTSIDE

ALBEDO: 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
THIS ZONE WALL IS A CEILING
0 GLAZING(s)
79.0 m2 OF sud vÈranda BETWEEN vÈranda AND OUTSIDE

ALBEDO: 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

1 GLAZING(s)
75.0 m2 OF ALUMINIUM SINGLE
3.2 m2 OF ouest BETWEEN vÈranda AND OUTSIDE

ALBEDO: 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
1 GLAZING(s)
3.2 m2 OF est BETWEEN vÈranda AND OUTSIDE

ALBEDO: 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
1 GLAZING(s)
SUMMARY OF THE SIMULATION RESULTS COMFIE 3.4

*********************************
EcoLogis
112
External temperature, mean : 8.51∞C , mini: -4.39∞C , maxi: 26.91∞C
total heating load during the period: 8527 kWh

or coefficient B = 0.25 W/(m3.K)
total cooling load during the period: 0 kWh
contribution of the internal gains (persons, lighting,...) : 6840 kWh
estimation of the energy cost for various fuels :
***************************************************************************
* ≥ gas (cond.) * gas * fuel oil * *
* efficiency * 1.00 * 0.80 * 0.80 * *
*price / kWh * 0.23 * 0.23 * 0.19 * *
* cost * 1961 * 2451 * 2025 * *
***************************************************************************
* ≥ coal * wood * electricity * air cond. *
* efficiency * 0.80 * 0.80 * 1.00 * 1.90 *
*price / kWh * 0.23 * 0.14 * 0.73 * 0.40 *
* cost * 2451 * 1492 * 6225 * 0 *
***************************************************************************
results for the different zones:
***************************************************************************
* zone * heating load * cooling load * min Temp. * max Temp. * mean Temp. *
***************************************************************************
* * * * * * *
* 1 * 8527 kWh * 0 kWh * 18.66∞C * 35.33∞C * 21.41∞C *
* 2 * 0 kWh * 0 kWh * 3.61∞C * 41.24∞C * 15.94∞C *
* * * * * * *
***************************************************************************
************************************************************
* zone * maximum heating power * maximum cooling power *
************************************************************
* * * *

* 1 * 5372 W * -0 W *
* 2 * 0 W * -0 W *
* * * *
************************************************************
114

Life Cycle Analysis - 4 Building Applications by Target Groups UE1997

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Life Cycle Analysis - 4 Building Applications by Target Groups UE1997

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

European methodology for the evaluation of

Environmental impact of buildings

- Life cycle assessment -

EUROPEAN COMMISSION, DIRECTORATE GENERAL XII FOR SCIENCE, RESEARCH AND

REGENER PROJECT FINAL REPORT

APPLICATIONS BY TARGET GROUPS

Implementation of LCA by the main building actors

REGENER, Applications by target groups page 1

REGENER, Applications by target groups page 3

GUIDELINES TO BUILDING ACTORS

Goal definition by policy makers

REGENER, Applications by target groups page 7

REGENER, Applications by target groups page 9

REGENER, Applications by target groups page 11

Sustainable building in the design process

Preliminary design phase

Notice on environmental issues

REGENER, Applications by target groups page 13

Measures at building and environment level

Final design phase

Detailed advice was given on specific items, to mention:

Implicit costing of sustainability

REGENER, Applications by target groups page 15

Quantitative tools needed

Environmental consultants needed to work with architects

A building firm it provides

it contributes to raise the

REGENER, Applications by target groups page 17

LCA is fully used to anticipate decisions.

PROPOSAL FOR ALTERNATIVES

ensure enhance differenciate optimize

Improving the environmental quality through the production process

INCREASE AWARENESS AMONG EMPLOYEES

REGENER, Applications by target groups page 19

Hence LCA becomes a tool of collective learning.

program train capitalize share

Synthetic presentation of possible uses of LCA tools according to users objectives

Objectives Uses of LCA tools

efficiently provide enlight create alternatives

organize assess ensure safe decision

implement increase program objectives

exchange capitalize results

Objectives :Why should manufactorers change ?

- pression from market for environmentally friendly products

- set the objectives

- knowledge about the product

REGENER, Applications by target groups page 21

- knowledge about the production process

Set the objectives

- LCA goal hierarchy

LCA principles and standards

Eco controlling principles

LCA - data bases

description of the product

defintion of the functional unit

kg, m3, t/km, m2 of product etc.

position of the product in the buildings life cycle

how far should the LCA go - example of YTONG blocs

system limits - origine of the products

the constituting parts must be analysed where do the products/components come

-> SETAC steps

REGENER, Applications by target groups page 23