| Summary: | Today's climate and environmental issues have now been up for discussion for quite long. Various environmental measures have been taken, but it is not always certain that those measures actually are for the better because of the complexity of our environment. Therefore, studies of whole life cycles are very important even if they are time and resource intensive. Real estate accounts for 15% of global carbon emissions, but also affects our environment in many other aspects. In Sweden this number is even higher. About 30 % of its carbon dioxide emissions originates from building sector and changes are therefore of great importance. ByggVesta is a real estate company that wants to be at the forefront when it comes to eco-smart construction and wanted to know how well they are doing. It was therefore desired to conduct this LCA that reviewed their (by February 2012) newest completed property "Teodoliten" in Farsta, Stockholm. This life cycle assessment was a screening LCA i.e. it was carried out very superficially in order to identify the biggest polluters. All results were related to the functional unit of 1m2 floor area and year. It was found that the maintenance phase was the most pollutant one because of use of electricity and water. Here it can be mentioned that the electricity consumption is of Swedish electricity mix-type, which is much cleaner than many of the European mixes. It is therefore possible that the results may have been different if Teodoliten had been placed at another location. Among all the materials in the property, it was found that concrete elements were the worst pollutants. This report has, however, showed that the longer expected life time, the better this concrete frame is in comparison to wooden frame. If the property will be standing for 100 years, it will emit 95 % of the carbon dioxide- eqv. compared to a wooden frame that stands for only 60 years (the amount that is feasible for a wooden framed house). Although the climate aspect is the most focused one, the other environmental aspects show more clearly the benefits of concrete in long time perspective. ByggVesta has also been criticized for their shipments of concrete over the Baltic Sea. However, it has been shown that the transport with a cargo ship corresponds to only 23km by truck. Transport itself is therefore not considered to be a major subject for criticism. Latvian concrete production is of greater interest since the manufacturing process there might differ a lot from Swedish production and have other impact on environment. This issue could not be considered within the scope of this work. Shortly, this analysis shows that concrete frames and transportation with cargo ship is preferable if a building like Teodoliten is considered, with its geographical location and if its lifetime will last for 100 years as ByggVesta predicts. However, to be fully sure of the accuracy of these results it might be good to conduct a full comparative LCA on construction materials.
|
|---|
