It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
To reach the environmental goals set by EU, Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) and national building regulations will demand reductions in building’s energy consumption. Energy consumption goals for buildings are pursued through high thermal performance building components (HTPBC). Paradoxically, building regulations have no requirements regarding the embodied energy of buildings and components. To meet the requirements set by governments, HTPBCs in most cases require an increasing embodied energy (from insulation), assumed to be paid back during the service-life of HTPBCs. Accounting for decarbonization of the future energy supply, the expected payback might not be feasible in terms of total environmental footprint, since the future energy supplies are expected to be greener than the building’s embodied energy. Using roof windows as a case study, we assess if strict demands for building’s energy consumption, will lead to more sustainable buildings if all temporal variations in terms of global warming impacts across the service-life are taken into account. A comparison of double and tripple glazed windows reveals that the expected net energy savings obtained during the use phase are compromised by relatively higher impacts induced in the production stage. The case study indicates requirements of building’s energy performance might compromise the overall sustainability of building component solutions, as the additional embodied energy required to produce triple glazed windows most likely will not be compensated for by saved operational energy, when taking into account the forecasted decarbonatization of the building energy future supply.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Section for Building Design, Department of Civil Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark
2 VELUX Group, Hørsholm, Denmark
3 Sustainability, Department of Technology, Management and Economics, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark
4 SDU Life Cycle Engineering, Department of Chemical Engineering, Biotechnology and Environmental Technology University of Southern Denmark, Campusvej 55, 5230 Odense-M, Denmark