| Summary: | 碩士 === 朝陽科技大學 === 營建工程系碩士班 === 98 === In order to respond to global warming and extreme climates, as well as the serious warning proposed by scientists saying that the Earth will enter an irreversible cycle of biological destruction after the global temperature rises by 2℃, every country in the world should show active attitudes and actual deeds aimed the issue of energy saving and carbon reduction. Especially for the construction industry, according to surveys, the CO2 emission quantity from energy consumption in the architecture industry in Taiwan has accounted for 28.8% of nationwide emission quantity, which shows that the construction industry has its unshirkable responsibility for the environmental impact caused by carbon emission.
In the past, the more obvious related policies in our country are mainly the ones regarding the promotion of green buildings. However, in terms of the assessment content of Green Building Label, the focus concerned by the existing system is to design a house encompassing the effect of energy saving and carbon reduction at the using stage. However, if judged from the angle of a building’s life cycle, the undertakings, such as new construction, renovation, dismantling and reconstruction, or replacement of internal/external equipment and building materials, will all produce environmental cost such as carbon emission during the processes of construction, transport, production, and discard disposal. For the existing buildings, if the advantages of “green building construction” are simply emphasized in the aspect of usage, the question is whether much more carbon emission will occur due to the ignorance of the aforementioned other environmental costs produced accordingly. For the construction industry, the issue of energy saving and carbon reduction is not only limited to the using stage of a building. In the 28.8% of nationwide carbon emission quantity that the construction industry in Taiwan has accounted for, 9.31% and 1.49% of it respectively derive from building material production and construction transport. Therefore, the carbon emission quantity at the non-using stage should not be ignored.
In order to explore whether the aforementioned doubts will possibly occur in the reality, a new project of construction work that has passed the Green Building Label was taken as the example in this study. Its original planning and design were applied to be the building condition after “green building construction”, which was used for the baseline group. Then, according to such a project’s building condition setting for the situation of non green buildings when the green building indicator was calculated, the situational conditions were established, assuming that all the green building designs have been removed from such a building, which was used for the control case group. Later, the calculation was performed, aimed at the effectiveness of energy saving and carbon emission (namely the reduced carbon emission) at the using stage acquired according to the perspective of architecture indictors, as well as the carbon emission quantity produced in the process of dismantling and reconstruction, when such a building was undergoing green building construction through partial dismantling and reconstruction from its original status of a non green building. Then, based on the perspective of cost-effectiveness comparison, the Sensitivity Analysis of the two was performed, in or order to understand the problem whether the green building construction of the existing buildings may not do any help to the current emergent task for slowing down the threat of climate warming but result in many more problems of environmental burdens instead, in terms of total carbon emission quantity.
Through Case Analysis, the findings indicated: The environmental cost at the stage of dismantling and building construction may be too great to counteract the effectiveness of energy saving and carbon reduction obtained at the using stage of building materials, equipment or structures. Such results have exactly echoed with the perspective the study intended to emphasize. That is to say, when pursuing the “green building construction” of the existing buildings, we should undertake the assessments of environmental cost and effectiveness based on a more comprehensive angle, for fear of resulting in much more environmental damage.
|
|---|
