Schwartz, Yair; Raslan, Rokia; Mumovic, Dejan; (2022) Refurbish or replace? The Life Cycle Carbon Footprint and Life Cycle Cost of Refurbished and New Residential Archetype Buildings in London. Energy , 248 , Article 123585. 10.1016/j.energy.2022.123585.

Preview

Text Schwartz_Refurbish or Replace_AAM.pdf - Accepted Version Download (2MB) | Preview

Abstract

The environmental performance of existing buildings can have a major role in achieving significant reductions in CO2 emissions: In the UK, around 75% 2050's housing stock has already been built. While building performance improvement efforts mostly focus on operational performance, buildings environmental impact is the result of processes that occur throughout their life cycle. To achieve significant emission reductions in an economically viable way, this study uses Life Cycle Performance approaches to carry a cross-comparison between the refurbishment and replacement of two housing archetypes in London: mid-terrace-house and a bungalow. Specifically, the study integrates Life Cycle Carbon Footprint (LCCF) and Life Cycle Cost (LCC) protocols (EN 15978:2011 and BS ISO 15686–5), thermal simulations (EnergyPlus), building generative design framework (PLOOTO - Parametric Lay-Out Organisation generator) and mathematical optimisation algorithms (NSGA-II). Results show that the optimal refurbishment archetypes generally performed better than replacements (Refurbishments LCCF ranges between 1,100 and 1,500 kgCO2e/m2 and LCC 440-680 £/m2, compared to that of the replacements scenarios, ranging 1,220-1,850 kgCO2e/m2 and 550-890 £/m2). The study also highlights benefit of incentivising re-use to achieve quicker emissions reductions. The study lastly discusses a range of embodied and operational performance issues.

Download activity - last month

Export as XMLCSVJSON

Download activity - last 12 months

Export as XMLCSVJSON

Downloads by country - last 12 months

Export as JSONXMLCSV

Archive Staff Only

View Item