Dynamic Life Cycle Assessments of a Conventional Green Building and a Net Zero Energy Building: Exploration of Static, Dynamic, Attributional, and Consequential Electricity Grid Models.

Clicks: 231
ID: 67736
2018
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #85 of 112 articles by views in Environmental science & technology

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Our study assesses the differences between regional average- and marginal-electricity generation mixes as well as the variability between predicted and observed energy consumption of a "conventional green" Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) building and a Net-Zero Energy Living Building (NZEB). The aim of our study was to evaluate the importance of using temporally resolved building-level data while capturing the dynamic effects a changing electrical grid has on the life cycle impacts of buildings. Two static and four dynamic life cycle assessment (LCA) models were evaluated for both buildings. Both buildings' results show that the most appropriate models ( hybrid consequential for the LEED Gold building, hourly consequential for the NZEB) significantly modified the use-phase global warming potential (GWP) impacts relative to the design static LCA (49% greater impact for the LEED Gold building; 45% greater reduction for the NZEB). In other words, a "standard" LCA would underestimate the use phase impacts of the LEED Gold building and the benefits of the NZEB in the GWP category. Although the results in this paper are specific to two case study buildings, the methods developed are scalable and can be implemented more widely to improve building life cycle impact estimates.
Reference Key
collinge2018dynamicenvironmental Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Collinge, William O;Rickenbacker, Harold J;Landis, Amy E;Thiel, Cassandra L;Bilec, Melissa M;
Journal Environmental science & technology
Year 2018
DOI
10.1021/acs.est.7b06535
URL
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.