Energy and Buildings 54 (2012) 470–479

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Energy and Buildings

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enbuild

Life cycle assessment of a single-family residence built to either

conventional- or passive house standard
Oddbjørn Dahlstrøm a,b , Kari Sørnes a,c , Silje Tveit Eriksen d , Edgar G. Hertwich a,∗
a
Industrial Ecology Program, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Høgskoleringen 1, 7491 Trondheim, Norway
b
ASPLAN VIAK AS, Postboks 24, 1300 Sandvika, Norway
c
SINTEF Building and Infrastructure, Forskningsveien 3b, 0314 Oslo, Norway
d
Nordbohus AS, Granåsvegen 1, 7048 Trondheim, Norway

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The environmental and resource impacts of wooden single-family residences designed to meet the con-
Received 1 April 2012 ventional Norwegian Building Code from 2010 (TEK10) and the Norwegian passive house standard NS
Received in revised form 19 June 2012 3700 are compared using life cycle assessment. Four different heating systems are evaluated for the two
Accepted 24 July 2012
building designs: (1) electric (resistance heating), (2) electric and wood, (3) electric and a solar heat col-
lector and (4) electric and an air-water heat pump system. The goal of the research is to evaluate the
Keywords:
different ways of lowering the total environmental burden of a building’s life cycle, considering the two
Low-carbon buildings
building standards, and evaluating the impacts due to implementation of renewable heating systems in
Building energy efficiency
Solar hot water heating comparison to standard Norwegian systems largely based on electricity.
The life cycle results show that the wood-framed single-family residence built according to the passive
house standard provides a consistent and clear reduction of cumulative energy demand of 24–38% in
comparison to the conventional building standard TEK10 with electric panel heating. In combination
with efficient heating systems, a passive house building envelope with a heat pump system provides the
largest savings, an improvement of almost 40% compared to a conventional house with electric heating.
The reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of the cleanest design compared to the standard alternative
is almost 30%. Solar heated water also provides substantial environmental gains for the passive house.
On the other hand, a standard building envelope with a heat-pump system reduces impacts to a level
comparable to that of a passive house building with only electric heating.
© 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction assessments (LCAs) of buildings indicate that production-phase

impacts are, in most cases, lower than use-phase impacts, but that
Although the building sector is responsible for 31% of global for some specific measures in buildings with very high energy effi-
energy demand, it also has the greatest potential for the imple- ciency, the trade-off can be negative [1,3,4]. Further, minimizing
mentation of low-cost energy conservation measures, especially energy use does not always result in the most environmentally
through better insulation, improved heating, ventilation and air desirable outcomes as energy systems differ in their impact inten-
conditioning systems, and a set of intelligent design solutions sity [4,5]. It is important to take into account a wider range of
[1,2]. At the same time, increasing building energy efficiency often impacts [1]. A good understanding of the degree of energy and
requires more materials, equipment, and sometimes operational greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions over the life-cycle is
inputs, such as electricity for ventilation and controls, than conven- also important for understanding the contributions building energy
tional construction approaches. In order to make the right selection efficiency measures can make to climate mitigation.
of building energy efficiency measures, we need to understand Climate policy concerns have motivated the EU’s Building
the trade-off in energy consumption and environmental pressures Energy Directive [6], which is currently being implemented
between the conservation of operational energy use and the addi- through country-level regulation. In Norway, a step-wise tight-
tional material and energy inputs required for energy efficient ening of the building code is accelerating the trend of improved
building design in the construction phase [2]. Reviews of life cycle energy efficiency in recent decades. These revisions to national
building codes aim to reach towards the level of a passive house.
In this paper, we examine the environmental benefits of a passive
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +47 91897568. house design for a typical single-family residence, comparing it to
E-mail address: [email protected] (E.G. Hertwich). a building of similar size and appearance but follows the current

0378-7788/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.07.029
 O. Dahlstrøm et al. / Energy and Buildings 54 (2012) 470–479 471

conventional building code. We analyze the environmental trade- occasionally also the demolition of the building. These calculations
offs of a highly insulated building envelope and different energy are often only based on energy and CO2 or greenhouse gas emis-
systems for a single-family residence in Norway. We present sions and neglect other environmental impacts. Few LCA studies
process-level life cycle inventories based on the design and the of passive houses have been published, with these few presenting
construction practices of Nordbohus AS, a large home builder somewhat contradicting results [5,9,13–15].
in Norway, and assess the results using the ReCiPe [7] impact
assessment method. We assess the environmental impacts and
2. Methods
cumulative primary energy requirement related to two similar
designs of a wood-frame single-family residence designed for
Life-cycle assessment is a standardized method used to assess
Stord, a location in Western Norway. The design Stord TEK10 is built
and report environmental impacts of a product’s life cycle through
according to the conventional Norwegian building code from 2010
the raw material production, manufacture, distribution, use and
(NS3031 2007/A1:2010), while Stord Passive is built according the
disposal, including any necessary or induced intermediate trans-
Norwegian passive house standard from 2010 (NS3700 2010). In
portation steps [16]. The SimaPro v7 software tool is used to
this study, four different heating scenarios are compared for the
calculate the emissions from and resources consumed in order to
two building envelopes: (1) electric (resistance heating), (2) elec-
deliver a functional unit of service. These emissions and resource
tric and wood, (3) electric and a solar heat collector and (4) an
consumption are evaluated using impact assessment methods. The
air-water heat pump system and electric floor heating in the bath-
ReCiPe impact assessment method provides a consistent assess-
room. The goal of the research is to evaluate the different ways of
ment of environmental impacts at both the midpoint and endpoint
lowering the total environmental burden of a building’s life cycle
levels [7]. Midpoint indicators are based on common environ-
by considering the two building standards, as well as evaluating
mental problem areas such as toxicity or climate change and
the impacts due to implementation of renewable heating systems
aggregate emissions with common environmental mechanisms
compared to standard Norwegian systems, which are largely based
[17]. Their drawback is the large number of impact categories and
on electricity.
the perceived lower relevance of midpoints for decision making.
The concept of a passive house was first developed at the
Endpoint indicators are damage-oriented; they represent the ulti-
Passivhaus Institute in Germany and aims to minimize heating
mate consequences of negative environmental impact to humans
energy requirements through a highly insulated, air-tight building
and ecosystems. A drawback of endpoint indicators is the higher
envelope, removal of thermal bridges, a heat-recovery ventilation
level of uncertainty caused by common elements in the cause-effect
system, and the heating demand largely covered by internal sources
chain [17]. In the ReCiPe method, each indicator set is calculated for
[8]. The Norwegian passive house criteria NS3700:2010 differs from
three different cultural perspectives representing a view on time
the German Passive House Standard [8] in order to comply with
perspectives and outlook on how future management or technol-
Norwegian construction policy and conform to a colder climate.
ogy development can mitigate environmental issues of the future.
The main criterion in the German standard [8] is that the annual
We present selected midpoint and endpoint indicators based on
energy used for space heating in a passive house should not exceed
ReCiPe v1.03, 2009, following the hierarchic view which is based
15 kWh/m2 . In NS3700:2012, the criterion for annual energy used
on the most common policy principles regarding time frame and
for space heating is dependent on the useful floor area and the local
impacts [7]. This view is often considered to be the default model.
annual mean temperature. Additionally, half of the energy required
Inventory data beyond the construction and operation of the
for warm water heating must be provided by alternative, non-fossil
house itself has been collected from a range of sources, including
or electric energy sources. (NS, 3700:2010). The calculated maxi-
the Ecoinvent v2.0 database (2007) [18], information from man-
mum annual energy use for space heating for the Stord Passive
ufacturers, and environmental product declarations. Data sources
House, located in Stord, is not to exceed 18.4 kWh/m2 .
and modeling choices are described in the case description below
Compared to standard Norwegian building practices, passive
for important materials and elements. A more detailed descrip-
house designs require more material input due to a heavier building
tion of the data is available in [19] and [20]. Inventory calculations
envelope and more complex energy systems.
for individual elements such as windows or electric heaters were
Within the building energy field, there is a strong movement
conducted as part of this work based on data collected from man-
towards increasing energy efficiency through improved technology
ufacturers, using Ecoinvent as a background database.
and engineering solutions. In the meantime, there has been some
criticism of the singular focus on heating energy as an optimization
criterion [5,9]. In Sweden, it has been shown that district heating 3. Case description
can be an attractive alternative to passive house systems that have
a high auxiliary electricity demand [5,9]. In Norway, district heat- 3.1. System and functional unit
ing is less common due to lower population density, with mostly
single family residences, and specific energy policy choices that The analyzed houses are designed by the building company
have favored electric heating and, recently, other user-controllable Nordbohus AS. Both house types are wooden two storey single-
heat sources such as wood stoves, pellet stoves and air-to-air heat family residence and have the same appearance. The assumed
pumps [10]. Historically, Norway has had low electricity prices due location for these houses is the Stord municipality in Western
to abundant domestic hydropower production, but in recent years Norway (latitude 59.8◦ ). All roof insulation for the Stord house
increasing energy demand, improved power grid connections to model is in the ceiling of the second floor; the roof is uninsulated,
neighboring countries, and dry, cold winters have led to higher leaving the attic cold. Fig. 1 presents the technical drawing and
electricity prices and a net import of electricity. outer facade for both houses. The total useful floor space is 187 m2
The LCA of buildings is a rapidly developing field. While the use and the heated air volume is 446 m3 for both houses. The Stord TEK
of LCA is not yet standard in building practice [11], the method is 10 model is based on the TEK Norwegian building code, revised in
rapidly being adopted in the development of energy efficient build- 2010 [21], and the Stord passive house model is built in accordance
ings, especially those which have active energy components [2,12]. with the Norwegian passive house standard NS 3700 [22].
The most common approach is a process-based life-cycle inventory The functional unit for the study is 50 years of 1 m2 useful
approach in which building materials, elements and the building floor area of a residential wooden building with four inhabitants,
process itself are assessed and compared to the operation, and including the entire building life cycle: construction, maintenance,
472 O. Dahlstrøm et al. / Energy and Buildings 54 (2012) 470–479

Fig. 1. Technical drawing and outer facade for Stord TEK 10 and passive house.

operation of the ventilation- and heating system, operational the house production is produced using sustainable forestry man-
energy and water consumption, and end of life treatment. Other agement practices [24].
house characteristics such as indoor climate quality, soundproofing
characteristics, and cost are not considered in the functional unit.
3.4. House construction

3.2. System description The construction phase includes all processes from a greenfield
site until the completion of the house construction. Detailed mate-
Fig. 2 describes the system. Raw material is extracted, trans- rial lists for the TEK10 house and passive house was provided by
ported, processed and transported to the construction site. The Nordbohus, and were further aggregated into the following cat-
construction phase is the same regardless of installed heating sys- egories: construction energy, groundwork and foundation, floor,
tem. wall, roof, windows and doors, electricity (cables) and plumbing,
Inputs to the house during operation include the maintenance of and surface finish in year zero [25]. All energy and materials needed
surface finishes, tap water and energy for space heating, provision to construct the houses are included in the inventory, from nails and
of hot water, and operation of fans, lighting and equipment. After screws to windbreak systems, rain gutters, electric wiring, plumb-
50 years of operation, the house is demolished and all materials ing and bird lists.
undergo waste treatment processes. Transportation of materials and workers to the construction
site are included in the inventories. Inputs of construction energy,
3.3. Life cycle inventory data groundwork and foundation (excavator, building dryer and electric
tools) are based on calculations and contact with external compa-
Generic background data from Ecoinvent [18] is used for raw nies [26–30]. The energy required for drying the building depends
material and energy production. The Ecoinvent processes for on the local climate, chosen drying method (overpressure, absorp-
materials produced in the Nordic countries are modified by sub- tion, condensation) and time used. It is assumed that for the TEK10
stituting the Nordel electricity mix for the UCTE mix. Nordel is also house, a drying time of 6.5 weeks is required, while for the passive
assumed for the electricity used during the operation phase. Data house, 8 weeks is required. While in use, the dryer is operating 24 h
from Forestia [23] are used to model the floor and wall fiberboard. a day, 7 days a week, and has a power consumption of 6 kW.
The inventory for I-beams, structural planed timber, laminated The houses are constructed with a wooden frame insulated with
wood, rough panel and wood sheathing was established by SIN- mineral wool in the walls and roof, and a ground level floor of rein-
TEF Building and Infrastructure in the Mikado project [24]. Timber forced concrete cast over a layer of expanded polystyrene (EPS).
products from the Mikado project have a density of 500 kg/m3 and Both house types have fifteen windows, one outer door consisting
a moisture content of 14–18%. It is assumed that all timber used in mostly of glass, and two extruded polystyrene (XPS) insulated outer
 O. Dahlstrøm et al. / Energy and Buildings 54 (2012) 470–479 473

Fig. 2. Flowchart for the functional unit and its system boundaries.

doors. In comparison to the TEK10 house, the passive house has a basis of area covered, with an additional 10% included as waste in
different foundation, 15 cm of additional mineral wool insulation in painting, bathroom- and floor-cover. Furniture, kitchen equipment,
the outer walls, and 5 cm additional insulation in the roof, I-beams interior decor, electronic equipment and other furnishings are not
instead of structural timber, and improved insulation characteris- included in this study.
tics in the windows and doors. In addition, the thermal conductivity The lifetime of roof shingles is 50 years [32] and for under roof is
of the outer wall insulation is reduced for the passive house. Table 1 it assumed to be like the building lifetime [33]. The rain gutters have
presents the building element characteristics for both houses. a technical lifetime of 30 years [34]. It is generally recommended
to renovate the outer roof every 30 years [32,35]. It is therefore
assumed that a complete renovation of roof tiles, under roof, rain
3.5. Waste produced during construction
gutters and snow protectors occurs after 30 years. All windows and
outer doors are replaced after a life of 30 years [36,37]. U-values for
During the construction phase, most of the materials, such as
the new windows and doors are assumed to be the same as those
wood and plastic barriers, are transported to the site uncut and
replaced.
in bulk amounts. A study by Monahan and Powell [31] points out
the concern of waste from construction activities in the UK. “On
site construction typically has contingency and error related over 3.6.2. Water
ordering, amounting to approximately 10% of all materials brought Statistics Norway has, based on reports from the municipal
to site, with 10–15% of the materials imported to a construction site waterworks, estimated that an average Norwegian consumes 195l
being exported as waste” [31]. An additional 10% is added to uncut of water per day [38]. With an assumption of four occupants in both
bulk material quantities in the inventory. This added quantity is the TEK10 and passive house, this corresponds to an annual water
assumed to be waste produced during construction [25]. No con- consumption of 285 m3 .
struction waste from mineral wool is assumed, since this material
is pre cut during the production. 3.6.3. Energy
The annual direct energy consumption of the TEK10 and passive
3.6. House operation house is simulated by Nordbohus [25] in the Norwegian building
simulation program SIMIEN (v 5.006) [39]. Results from SIMIEN are
3.6.1. Surface finish presented as annual total direct energy (Table 3). Energy require-
Surface finishes for year zero before the house is in its opera- ments for hot water, lighting and technical equipment are the same
tion phase, consist of one coat primer and two top coats of paint for the TEK10- and passive-house. Values for standard user condi-
on outdoor walls, two coats of paint on indoor walls and ceilings, tions are taken from NS 3031:2010 [40] and NS 3700:2010 [22]
complete bathroom covers and wood parquet floor covers. The ser- respectively. The simulated direct energy budget is presented in
vice life and number of cycles for the different finish elements are Table 3. The different heating systems are further described in Sec-
found in Table 2. The material input quantities are calculated on the tion 3.7.

Table 1
Building element characteristics. Note that U-value calculations are based on detailed element characteristics, which are not fully presented here.

Area m2 TEK10 house Passive house

2
U value (W/(m K)) Description U value (W/(m2 K)) Description

Outer walls, net area, mineral wool 172 0.22 200 mm ␭-0.037 0.12 350 mm ␭-0.033
Windows and doors 40 1.17 Double layer 0.80 Triple layer
Roof, mineral wool 92 0.12 350 mm ␭-0.037 0.09 400 mm ␭-0.037
Ground floor, EPS 94 0.13 300 mm ␭-0.038 0.09 300 mm ␭-0.035
Thermal bridge value 0.05 0.03

Heat exchanger efficiency 80% 81%

SFP ventilation 2.5 kW/(m3 /s) 1.5 kW/(m3 /s)
Air leakage 50 Pa 2.5 Air change/h 0.6 Air change/h
Ventilation air change 1.2 m3 /hm2 1.2 m3 /hm2
474 O. Dahlstrøm et al. / Energy and Buildings 54 (2012) 470–479

Table 2
Service life and number of cycles for the different surface finish elements.

Component Service life (years) Number of life cycles (n) Description

Paint wall, outdoor 8 7 3 coats year 0, 2 coats per cycle

Paint wall, indoor 10 5 2 coats per cycle
Paint ceiling, indoor 10 5 2 coats per cycle
Bathroom 30 2 Panel, wet room plates, tiles
Floor covering 20 3 Varnished parquet floor
Roof tiles and under roof 30 2 Tiles, vapor and windbreak, sealing
Rain gutter and snow protector 30 2 Powder coated metal parts
Windows and outer doors 30 2 Including painted lining

3.7. Heating system scenarios Transportation of a chimney sweeper to site every third year is
included.
Four different heating and hot water scenarios are analyzed for
each of the two building versions, Stord TEK10 (T) and Stord passive 3.7.3. T/P 2: a solar collector system collecting 3311 kWh heat
house (P). These scenarios differ in the heating source: annually, electricity covers the rest
System 2 is based on three vacuum solar collectors that collect
1. exclusively electricity, 3311 kWh of heat annually for tap water and space heating through
2. electricity and wood, a hydronic heating system with two radiators, one in each floor.
3. electricity supplemented by a solar collector and The two bathrooms are assumed to have hydronic floor heating.
4. electricity and an air-water heat pump. The data input regarding the solar thermal collectors is based on
an analysis published in the Ecoinvent report No.6-XI [42]. Jung-
All electricity consumed is the low voltage Nordel mix as found bluth’s analysis of solar collectors and basic components has been
in Ecoinvent. Although a wood stove and a chimney is installed in modified to the houses considered in this study. The roof on which
both building versions for all heating system scenarios, it is only the collectors are assumed to be installed has a slope of 30◦ with
used in the TEK10 1 (T1) and passive house 1 (P1) scenarios. A bal- an azimuth angle of 11◦ . The simulation tool Polysun [43] is used to
anced ventilation system with heat recovery is installed and used determine the most efficient collector size and the corresponding
for all heating system scenarios. usable solar energy at the houses located in Stord. This simula-
tion recommended three collectors with a total area of 13.4 m2 ,
3.7.1. T/P 0: electricity covering the heating demands for both providing about 3.5 MWh/yr.
space and tap water The expected lifetime of a solar collector system is 15–30 years
System 0 is an electrical system consisting of wall-mounted [42]. In this analysis, a lifetime of 25 years is assumed. The solar
electric panel radiators and an electric water heater for heating collector and water tank have to be replaced once in the calcu-
of tap water. Total installed power is approximately 28.9 W/m2 for lated 50 year lifetime of the house. The distribution pipe system
Stord TEK10, and approximately 19.3 W/m2 for Stord passive. The is assumed to last for the entire 50 year lifetime. Pumps and the
life expectancy of the electric heaters and the hot water tank is 25 antifreeze-inhibitor are assumed to be renewed every tenth year.
years. No maintenance of this equipment is required.
3.7.4. T/P 3: an air-water heat pump system covering 75% of total
3.7.2. T/P 1: wood burned in stove covering 40% of space heating, heating demand and electricity covers the rest
electricity covers the rest System 3 includes an air-to-water heat pump providing tap
System 1 includes electric panel radiators and water heater, but water and space heating through a hydronic heating system with
also the use of a wood stove and a chimney. Inventory for wood two radiators, one in each floor. In reality, more than two radia-
fuel production is taken from the Mikado project [24], and data tors would be needed in a TEK10 house, but for simplicity the same
from wood combustion is taken from Solli et al. [41]: “combus- system is used in both houses. The two bathrooms are assumed to
tion of the wood is found to be most important for all types of have floor heating. The heat pump covers 75% of the heat demand,
impacts, even for global warming, where the CO2 emissions from while electric heating covers peak demand.
combustion are treated as ‘climate neutral’. Products of incomplete The air-to-water heat pump is in this study based on an analysis
combustion [methane] are the reason for this” [41]. The greenhouse published in the Swiss ecoinvent report No.6-X [44]. The seasonal
gas emissions of logging and cutting (14%), transporting (20%) and performance factor (SPF) describes the heat pump’s annual perfor-
burning (66%) Norwegian wood is in this study 88.1 g CO2 eq/kWh, mance as Qyr /Wyr , where Qyr is the yearly heat supplied by the heat
with an efficiency of 64%. The lifetime of the electric heaters and pump, and Wyr , the yearly energy supplied to the heat pump. The
the hot water tank is 25 years. The wood stove and chimney pipes heat pump in this study has an SPF of 2.3 and is rated at 10 kW,
are assumed to last for the entire building lifetime of 50 years. which is large for a passive house. The recommended installed
power for a heat pump in the passive house is rather 5–6 kW, but
Table 3 the difference between these two heat pumps in terms of material
Annual direct energy demand for the TEK10 and passive house. input is assumed to be small. The refrigerant used in the study is
Energy budget (kWh/year) TEK10 Passive R-134a.
The expected lifetime of a heat pump is 15–20 years [44]. This
Space heating 9293 2997
Heating coil (ventilation) 617 454 analysis is therefore assuming a 20-year lifetime for the heat pump
Fans and pumps 819 929 and 25-year lifetime for the water heater. The hydronic pipe system
Hot water 5572 5572 is assumed to last during the whole building lifetime of 50 years.
Lightning and equipment 5409 5409
The refrigerant volume must be replenished, to fugitive refriger-
Cooling 0 0
ant emissions over the heat pump lifetime. In this study, this loss is
Total 21,710 15,361 assumed to be 6% per year [44]. It is assumed that control and main-
Total pr m2 116 82
tenance personal inspect the pump every seventh year; transport
 O. Dahlstrøm et al. / Energy and Buildings 54 (2012) 470–479 475

of the new system and the maintenance personnel to the house is a substantial fraction of the total energy use. Life cycle inventory
included. data is presented in [20] and [19].

3.8. House end-of-life 4.2. Life cycle impacts

The demolition process includes the use of an excavator with Indicator results at the midpoint and endpoint levels show the
demolition equipment and transportation of workers to the site. advantages associated with passive house design, more efficient
We do not credit any gains from either potential material reuse energy systems and renewable energy sources. This can be seen in
or recycling or from energy recovery from incineration. These Table 4, which presents scenario T0 with absolute emissions per
assumptions form the basis of a worst-case waste scenario. It is m2 over the 50-year building lifetime. The other scenarios are pre-
assumed that all waste is sorted in two different fractions. One sented normalized to the T0 results. Apart from a slight increase
fraction is transported to a sorting plant, while the other fraction in freshwater ecotoxicity, the passive house design reduces mid-
is sent to a municipal incineration plant. Materials in the sorting point indicator results by up to 25% compared to the TEK10 house.
plant fraction include glass, metal components, cement and min- Of the heating systems investigated, the heat pump demonstrates
eral wool. After sorting, the non-recyclable fraction is transported the greatest benefit in a broad range of indicators although it has
to an inert material sanitary landfill. Ash from the incineration of a substantially higher ozone depletion impact due to refrigerant
EPS, XPS, plastic, rubber, sealing, paper, wood and particleboard is leakage. For the passive house building envelope, the system with
transported to a residual material landfill. The materials produced the solar panel (P2) has an overall performance comparable to the
from waste recycling and energy recovered from waste incineration system with heat pump (P3). The environmental performance of
are not included in this system. wood stove heating (T/P1) is less distinct, with clear increases in
emissions contributing to particulate matter formation and pho-
4. Results and discussion tochemical oxidant formation, yet advantages over an all-electric
solution in other impact categories. The results reported are for the
4.1. Life cycle inventory hierarchic perspective unless specified otherwise.
An evaluation of the endpoint indicator results shows a 25%
The life cycle results show that the wooden single-family resi- reduction of total environmental impacts of P3 compared to T0 in
dence built in accordance to the passive house standard provides all three cultural perspectives: individualist (I), egalitarian (E) and
a consistent and clear reduction of cumulative energy demand of hierarchic (H) in Table 4 and for H in Fig. 3. The endpoint evalua-
24–38% compared to the conventional building standard TEK10 tion shows a significant deviation from the assessment using the
with electric panel heating (Table 4). Cumulative energy savings cumulative energy demand in the assessment of the wood-based
obtained through more efficient energy systems are of a similar heating system. In the endpoint assessment, the large emissions
order of magnitude. A passive house construction combined with a of particulate matter and precursors and their associated health
heat pump system provides the greatest savings, corresponding to impacts contribute to the total increase in the overall assessment
an energy reduction of almost 40% and climate change emissions indicator. The relative differences between the different perspec-
reductions of 30%. An interesting discovery is that the cumulative tives, however, are minimal. The human health impact of the
energy demand of the standard building construction with a heat- particulate matter formation impact category is emphasized in the
pump system is equal to that of a passive house building with only individualistic perspective, thus resulting in a poorer performance
electric heating. Solar hot water heating also provides substantial of T1 relative to T0 in this endpoint perspective. The overall end-
benefits for the passive house, as hot water demand accounts for point results in Fig. 3 indicate that for the buildings, human health

Table 4
Overall LCA results for the compared house alternatives. Absolute emission per m2 for a 50 year lifetime is presented for alternative T0 (conventional house with electric heat),
while corresponding relative numbers are presented for the other alternatives T1–T3 (conventional house with wood stove, solar collector, and heat pump, respectively) and
P0–P3 (passive house with electric heat, wood stove, solar collector and heat pump, respectively).

Impact category Unit Absolute (Unit/m2 ) Relative to T0

T0 T1 T2 T3 P0 P1 P2 P3

Midpoint Climate change kg CO2 eq 1657 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.81 0.78 0.72 0.73
Ozone depletion mg CFC-11 eq 237 0.95 0.96 4.60 0.99 0.98 0.96 3.84
Human toxicity kg 1.4-DB eq 345 0.89 0.95 0.84 0.84 0.81 0.80 0.76
Photochemical oxidant formation kg NMVOC 4.59 1.63 0.94 0.85 0.88 1.09 0.82 0.8
Particulate matter formation kg PM10 eq 2.77 1.80 0.94 0.83 0.85 1.11 0.79 0.76
Ionising radiation kg U235 eq 1758 0.84 0.88 0.74 0.73 0.67 0.6 0.58
Terrestrial acidification kg SO2 eq 5.84 0.95 0.93 0.82 0.83 0.81 0.75 0.73
Freshwater eutrophication g P eq 19.1 0.91 0.96 0.87 0.87 0.84 0.83 0.81
Marine eutrophication kg N eq 1.47 1.07 0.94 0.85 0.88 0.90 0.82 0.79
Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1.4-DB eq 1.11 0.86 0.9 0.78 0.80 0.76 0.70 0.68
Freshwater ecotoxicity kg 1.4-DB eq 4.55 0.96 1.03 0.95 1.06 1.04 1.09 1.04
Marine ecotoxicity kg 1.4-DB eq 5.04 0.92 1.03 0.91 0.89 0.87 0.92 0.86
Agricultural land occupation m2 a 114 0.86 0.91 0.79 0.78 0.73 0.69 0.65
Urban land occupation m2 a 15.0 0.91 0.97 0.85 0.84 0.81 0.81 0.76
Natural land transformation m2 0.44 0.94 0.95 0.87 0.91 0.89 0.86 0.84
Water depletion m3 104 0.98 0.98 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.95 0.94
Metal depletion kg Fe eq 226 0.89 1.07 0.92 0.81 0.78 0.88 0.82
Fossil depletion kg oil eq 453 0.89 0.91 0.81 0.82 0.79 0.74 0.71
Cumulative energy demand GJ eq 57.9 0.85 0.89 0.76 0.76 0.71 0.65 0.62

Endpoint Endpoint (I) V1.03/Europe I/A Pt 143 1.02 0.91 0.86 0.82 0.82 0.73 0.75
Endpoint (H) V1.03/Europe H/A Pt 149 0.99 0.92 0.83 0.82 0.82 0.73 0.73
Endpoint (E) V1.03/Europe E/A Pt 273 0.93 0.93 0.84 0.85 0.83 0.79 0.77
476 O. Dahlstrøm et al. / Energy and Buildings 54 (2012) 470–479

impacts and resource impacts receive greater consideration than a major role when evaluating the total environmental burden of a
ecological impacts. This is related to the fact that in society as a building’s lifecycle [4,46]. A parameter that has great influence on
whole, ecological impacts are mostly caused by food production the environmental burden of the operational stage is the electricity
and not buildings [45]. mix. In Norway, this is of special interest due to Norway’s large pro-
duction and use of hydropower, which has nearly no emissions per
4.3. Distribution across the lifecycle
kWh produced. At the same time, Norway is trading a share of this
energy in a Nordic electricity market called NordPool [47]. The Nor-
Fig. 4 illustrates the role of specific components and materi-
wegian consumption mix thus varies throughout the season, and
als in the lifecycle impact of the buildings. Four impact categories
cannot be determined on a daily basis. Given Norway’s participation
at the midpoint level are presented: climate change, particulate
in the Nordic market and the resulting physical exchange of elec-
matter formation, terrestrial acidification and cumulative energy
tricity with other Nordic countries, the Netherlands and Germany,
demand. The embodied emissions are grouped into the different
environmental impact calculations based on a purely Norwegian
lifecycle phases, where W.D.C + E.O.L mean waste during construc-
production mix cannot be justified. Many argue that a current aver-
tion, together with end of life treatment of the materials.
age Norwegian “consumption mix” should be used in LCA analyses,
Compared to the base case T0, climate impacts are reduced in
while others favor the production mix within the Norwegian or
the other alternatives as less electricity is used in the operational
Nordic borders. Some even argue for the use of a European mix
phase of the system. The higher the embodied energy, the lower
as connections between the Nordic and European power grids are
the emissions through energy in the operational phase.
increasing through sea and land cables; this mix would therefore be
It is clear that the scenarios using wood as an energy source
presented as the marginal mix, as Norwegian hydropower would
(heating scenario 1) have much higher particulate matter impacts
be exported rather than curtailed if there is a surplus.
in the operational phase. T1 has over 70% greater particulate matter
Fig. 7 shows the climate change potential of the scenarios
emissions than T0, which only includes electrical heating.
concerning Norwegian (0.018 kg CO2 eq/kWh), Nordic (0.19 kg
The level of embodied terrestrial acidification in the construc-
CO2 eq/kWh) and European (0.59 kg CO2 eq/kWh) production elec-
tion phase is higher in the passive house scenarios due to greater
tricity mix from year 2004 [48]. As can be seen in the results, the
share of transport, diesel combusted in building machines and insu-
larger the amount of CO2 eq/kWh used, the more important the
lation needed in the walls.
use phase of a building becomes. When the Norwegian electricity
4.4. Distribution between the construction material input and mix is used, the production phase plays a greater role in the overall
elements emissions, making the passive house design less favorable.
Fig. 7 shows that when the Norwegian electricity mix is
Fig. 5 shows the share of greenhouse gas emissions presented assumed, the passive house scenarios P0, P2 and P3 have slightly
by material category in each building type. Transport, mineral wool higher lifecycle climate change impacts than the corresponding
and EPS/XPS contribute the most to the overall emission outputs of heating solutions in the TEK10 house. While heating the TEK10
the constructions, although concrete and fiberboard are also sig- house with 40% wood energy has the highest climate change
nificant contributors. The passive house has a heavier construction impacts, the T0 and T2 scenarios have the least climate change
with a greater quantity of mineral wool and wood in the walls, impacts. When the Norwegian electricity mix is used in the analy-
floor and roof. Fig. 6 shows the breakdown by building elements. sis, climate change impacts for both house designs and all heating
Installation of triple-layer, energy effective windows in the pas- systems considered are within a range of ±6% of each other.
sive house in comparison to double-layered windows in the TEK10 In contrast, when using the European (UCTE) electricity mix, the
house makes a difference between the two constructions when it solar collector and air-to-water heat pump alternatives perform
comes to emissions related to windows and doors. very well in climate change emissions, especially when installed
in a passive house. The passive house heating systems have lower
4.5. Sensitivity and uncertainties greenhouse gas emissions than the TEK10 systems, for both the
Nordel and the UCTE electricity mix. The choice of electricity mix
Many earlier studies have stressed the importance of the use is therefore very important in the discussion concerning passive
phase of conventional buildings, showing that the impacts related house technology and renewable energy sources.
to production of construction materials and HVAC system will not This study was based on recommendations from the technical
neutralize the benefit of improvements in the operational phase. building codes used to evaluate the buildings. Since this study is
Adalberth et al. [46] and Sartori et al. [4] presented case studies based on standardized user conditions and behavior patterns, the
of Norwegian houses where the use phase of the building played true user behavior is likely an important source of uncertainty for

160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
TEK T0 TEK T1 TEK T2 TEK T3 PAS P0 PAS P1 PAS P2 PAS P3
Damage to human health Damage to ecosystems Damage to resource availability

Fig. 3. Endpoint indicator results for the different alternatives, Pt/m2 useful floor area for hierarchical perspective.
 O. Dahlstrøm et al. / Energy and Buildings 54 (2012) 470–479 477

0% 50% 100% 150%

TEK T0
TEK T1

Climate change
TEK T2
TEK T3
PAS P0
PAS P1
PAS P2
PAS P3
TEK T0
TEK T1
Parculate maer

TEK T2
formaon

TEK T3
PAS P0
PAS P1
PAS P2
PAS P3
TEK T0
Terrestrial acidificaon

TEK T1
TEK T2
TEK T3
PAS P0
PAS P1
PAS P2
PAS P3
Cumulave Energy Demand

TEK T0
TEK T1
TEK T2
TEK T3
PAS P0
PAS P1
PAS P2
PAS P3

Construcon Surface finish W.D.C+E.O.L Venlaon + Heang System Energy

Fig. 4. Environmental impacts of the two building envelopes (TEK: following the current technical standard; PAS: passive house standard) and the four different energy
systems 0–3.

Fig. 5. Greenhouse gas emission from house construction materials in kg CO2 eq/m2 useful floor area.

Passive

TEK10

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Construcon energy Groundwork and foundaon Floor
Wall Roof Windows and doors
Electricity and plumbing Surface Finish year 0 Waste during construcon

Fig. 6. Greenhouse gas emissions of house construction elements in kg CO2 eq/m2 useful floor area.
478 O. Dahlstrøm et al. / Energy and Buildings 54 (2012) 470–479

4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
T0 T1 T2 T3 P0 P1 P2 P3 T0 T1 T2 T3 P0 P1 P2 P3 T0 T1 T2 T3 P0 P1 P2 P3

Norwegian el mix NORDEL el mix UCTE el mix

kg CO2 eq/m2 kg CO2 eq/m2 kg CO2 eq/m2

Construcon and W.D.C, year 0 Surface finish and maintenance, year 0 50

E.O.L, year 50 Heang and venlaon system, year 0 50
Electricity and tap water, house operaon, year 0 50 Firewood, producon and compuson, year 0 50

Fig. 7. Greenhouse gas emissions associated with Norwegian, Nordel and UCTE electricity production mix (year 2004) for all house types. T = TEK10 house and P = passive
house.

the assessment. User behavior may also affect the technical lifetime [2] P. Hernandez, P. Kenny, From net energy to zero energy buildings: Defining
of installed systems and the need for the maintenance. life cycle zero energy buildings (LC-ZEB), Energy and Buildings 42 (6) (2010)
815–821.
Brunklaus et al. [5] showed that the residents influence build- [3] T. Ramesh, R. Prakash, K.K. Shukla, Life cycle energy analysis of buildings: An
ing performance through their choice of heating system, but also overview, Energy and Buildings 42 (10) (2010) 1592–1600.
stressed that construction companies and material producers must [4] I. Sartori, A.G. Hestnes, Energy use in the life cycle of conventional and
low-energy buildings: a review article, Energy & Buildings 39 (3) (2007)
also make responsible choices regarding their energy use and envi- 249–257.
ronmental impacts. In this study, the chains of actors assumed [5] B. Brunklaus, C. Thormark, H. Baumann, Illustrating limitations of energy stud-
to behave similarly in the two cases, thus giving the two build- ies of buildings with LCA and actor analysis, Building Research & Information
38 (3) (2010) 265–279.
ing standards the same starting point with regard to energy use
[6] EU, Directive 2010/31/EU on the energy performance of buildings, in:
and material choices. In this way it is easier to compare the two European Paliament and Council, Brussels, 2010, http://ec.europa.eu/energy/
concepts and isolate the role of heating system selection has on efficiency/buildings/buildings en.htm (accessed 12.04.2011).
[7] M. Goedkoop, R. Heijungs, M. Huijbregts, A. De Schryver, J. Struijs, R. Van
environmental impact.
Zelm, ReCiPe 2008, A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises
harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level.
5. Conclusion First edition: Report I: Characterisation, 2009, http://www.lcia-recipe.net/
(accessed 04.05.2011).
[8] W. Feist, Life-cycle energy lanaces compared: low-energy house, passive house,
The lifecycle assessment results indicate a clear but modest self-sufficient house, in: International Symposium of CIB W67, Vienna, 1996.
reduction of 24–38% in the cumulative energy demand of the pas- [9] A. Dodoo, L. Gustavsson, R. Sathre, Building energy-efficiency standards in
sive house design compared a house built in accordance with the a life cycle primary energy perspective, Energy and Buildings 43 (7) (2011)
1589–1597.
recently revised standard TEK10. These results are, more than any- [10] B.M. Sopha, C.A. Klöckner, E.G. Hertwich, Exploring policy options for a transi-
thing else, a reflection of the substantial gains already achieved in tion to sustainable heating system diffusion using an agent-based simulation,
improving the efficiency standard of buildings. The energy bud- Energy Policy 39 (5) (2011) 2722–2729.
[11] T. Malmqvist, M. Glaumann, S. Scarpellini, I. Zabalza, A. Aranda, E. Llera, S.
get in Table 3 showed a large reduction of the overall heating Díaz, Life cycle assessment in buildings: the ENSLIC simplified method and
requirement, which is still the single largest source of energy guidelines, Energy 36 (4) (2011) 1900–1907.
demand in the standard house. Improvements in environmental [12] I. Sartori, T.H. Dokka, I. Andresen, Proposal of a Norwegian ZEB definition:
assessing the implications for design, Journal of Green Building 6 (3) (2011)
performance could be achieved addressing the technology used to
133–150.
meet the substantial energy requirements for hot water provision, [13] M. Michlmair, P. Maydl, Life-cycle design of residential buildings: appearance
either through a heat pump or a solar collector system. Further and reality of ecological assessments, in: 1st International Symposium on Life-
Cycle Civil Engineering, Varenna, Lake Como, 2008, pp. 397–402.
improvements would likely also address lighting and equipment.
[14] S. Thiers, B. Peuportier, Thermal and environmental assessment of a passive
building equipped with an earth-to-air heat exchanger in France, Solar Energy
Acknowledgements 82 (9) (2008) 820–831.
[15] M. Zimmermann, H.J. Althaus, A. Haas, Benchmarks for sustainable construc-
tion: a contribution to develop a standard, Energy and Buildings 37 (11) (2005)
This paper is based on two Master’s theses at the Norwegian 1147–1157.
University of Science and Technology (NTNU). The authors would [16] H. Baumann, A.-M. Tillman, The Hitch Hicker’s Guide to LCA, Studentlitteratur,
like to thank Rolf Andrè Bohne at NTNU, Kjersti Folvik, Torhildur Lund, 2004.
[17] E.G. Hertwich, D. Pennington, J. Bare, Introduction, in: H.A. Udo de Haes (Ed.),
Kristjansdottir, Michael Klinski and Igor Sartori at SINTEF Build- Life Cycle Impact Assessment: Striving towards Best Practice, Society of Envi-
ing and Infrastructure and three anonymous reviewers for helpful ronmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Pensacola, 2002.
comments and feedback. [18] Ecoinvent, Ecoinvent 2.0. Swiss centre for Life Cycle Inventories, 2007,
http://ecoinvent.org/, (accessed).
[19] K. Sørnes, Heating and ventilation of a highly energy efficient resi-
References dential buildings: environmental assessment of technology alternatives,
Master Thesis, Department of Energy and Process Engineering, NTNU, 2011.
[1] D. Ürge-Vorsatz, N. Eyre, P. Graham, D. Harvey, E.G. Hertwich, C. Kornevall, http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:no:ntnu:diva-13635.
M. Majumdar, J. McMahon, S. Mirasgedis, S. Murakami, A. Novikova, Y. Jiang, [20] O. Dahlstrøm, Life cycle assessment of a single-family residence built to passive
Energy end-use: buildings, in: IIASA (Ed.), Global Energy Assessment, Cam- house standard, Master Thesis, Department of Energy and Process Engineering,
bridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012. NTNU, 2011. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:no:ntnu:diva-13649.
 O. Dahlstrøm et al. / Energy and Buildings 54 (2012) 470–479 479

[21] S.B.E. TEK, Revisjon av Teknisk Forskrift 2007, 2007, http://www.be.no/beweb/ [37] O. Dahlstrøm, LCA of the building envelope elements of a wood-based passive
info/energikurs07/Energi-veilederkurs/Foredrag/02NyeEnergikrav.pdf, house: modern highly effective windows, in: Project Report, Department of
(accessed 09.11.2010). Energy and Process Engineering, NTNU, 2010.
[22] NS, Criteria for passive and low energy residential buildings, NS 3700:2010, [38] SSB, KOSTRA: Kommunal vannforsyning, 2009, 2010, http://www.ssb.no/
3700, Standards Norway, 2010. emner/01/04/20/vann kostra/ (accessed 03.05.2011).
[23] Forestia, FDV Dokumentsjon - Forestia Gulv Standard og Ekstra, 2010, [39] ProgramByggerne, Simien 5.006, Skollenborg, Norway, 2011, http://www.
http://www.forestia.no/dm documents/FDV 0310 Forestia Gulv MNJX1.pdf programbyggerne.no/ (accessed 13.02.2011).
(accessed 25.04.2011). [40] NS, Amendment A1, Calculation of energy performance of buildings Method
[24] S. Wærp, C. Grini, K. Folvik, J. Svanæs, Livsløpsanalyser (LCA) av norske trepro- and Data, 3031, Norwegian Standard, 2010.
dukter, SINTEF Byggforsk, 2009. [41] C. Solli, M. Reenaas, A.H. Strømman, E.G. Hertwich, Life cycle assessment of
[25] S.T. Eriksen, Civil architect at Nordbohus [unpublished notes], Thoning Owe- wood-based heating in Norway, International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment
sensgt 28, 7044 Trondheim, Norway, 2011. 14 (6) (2009) 517–528.
[26] Byggforsk, Byggforskserien 474.533 – Byggfukt, Uttørking og forebyggende [42] N. Jungbluth, Sonnenkollektor-anlagen, in: R. Dones (Ed.), Sachbilanzen von
tiltak, in, SINTEF Byggforsk, 474.533:2006. Energiesystem: Grundlagen für den ökologischen Vergleich von Energisyste-
[27] DeWalt, Power Tools, 2011, http://www.dewalt.no/powertools/ (accessed men und den Einbezug von Energisystemen in Ökobilazen für die Schweiz
06.02.2011). ecoinvent report No. 6XI, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf,
[28] F-Tech, Dry building, 2011, http://www.f-tech.no/default.aspx?pageId=1043 CH, 2007.
(accessed 28.04.2011). [43] VelaSolaris, Polysun 5.5, in, 2011, http://www.polysun.ch/ (accessed
[29] S. Geving, J. Holme, Prosjektrapport nr 53: Høyisolerte konstruksjoner og fukt, 24.03.2011).
analyse av fukttekniske konsekvenser av økt isolasjonstykkelse i yttervegger, [44] T. Heck, Wärmepumpen, in: R. Dones (Ed.), Sachbilanzen von Energiesystem:
tak, kryperom og kalde loft, SINTEF Byggforsk, 2010. grundlagen für den ökologischen Vergleich von Energisystemen und den Ein-
[30] A. Horn, Dantherm air handling AS, 2011, http://www.dantherm-air- bezug von Energisystemen in Ökobilazen für die Schweiz ecoinvent report
handling.no/Produkter/Avfukting.aspx. No. 6-X, Paul Scherrer Institut Villigen, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories,
[31] J. Monahan, J.C. Powell, An embodied carbon and energy analysis of Dübendorf, CH, 2007.
modern methods of construction in housing: a case study using a [45] UNEP, Environmental impacts of consumption and production: priority
lifecycle assessment framework, Energy and Buildings 43 (1) (2010) products and materials, in: International Panel for Sustainable Resource Man-
179–188. agement, Paris, 2010.
[32] Monier, Hvordan står det til med taket ditt?, n.d., http://www.monier.no/ [46] K. Adalberth, A. Almgren, E.H. Petersen, Life cycle assessment of four multi
ta-vare-paa-ditt-tak/hvordan-staar-det-til-med-taket-ditt.html (accessed familiy buildings, International Journal of Low Energy and Sustainable Build-
18.05.2011). ings 2 (2001) 1–21.
[33] Icopal, FDV Dokumentasjon, Ventex Supra, diffusjonsåpent undertak, 2011, [47] Nordpool, Nordic Power Marked, 2011, http://www.nordpoolspot.com/
http://www.icopal.no/upload/icopalno/fdv/fdv-ventex%20supra.pdf (accessed Market-data1/Maps/Power-System-Overview/Power-System-Map/ (accessed
29.04.2011). 13.03.2011).
[34] Icopal, FDV Dokumentasjon, Takrenne, stål, 2007, http://www.icopal.no/ [48] M. Tuhschmid, R. Frischknecht, M.F. Emmeneger, C. Bauer, R. Dones, Strommix
upload/icopalno/fdv/fdv-staalrenne.pdf (accessed 29.04.2011). und Stromnetz, in: Dones (Ed.), Sachbilanzen von energiesystemen: Grundla-
[35] Icopal, Hvordan sjekke taket ditt?, n.d., http://www.icopal.no/AboutIcopal/ gen für den ökologischen Vergleich von Energiesystemen und den Einbezug
Hvordan%20sjekke%20taket%20ditt.aspx (accessed 18.05.2011). von Energiesystemen in Ökobilanzen für die Schweiz. ecoinvent report No 6,
[36] Byggforsk, Byggforskserien 700.320 – Intervaller for vedlikehold og utskifting V2. 0, Paul Scherrer Institut Villigen, Swiss Centre for Life cycle Inventories,
av bygningsdeler, in, SINTEF Byggforsk, 700.320:2010. Dübendorf, CH, 2007.