Author: Kathrina Simonen, Dirk Kestner; Contributors: Frances Yang, Kelly Roberts, Lionel Lemay
Embodied energy
and embodied carbon are similar yet distinct metrics to evaluate the
environmental impact of a material, product or building. Table 7.1 summarizes the key differences
between operational and embodied impacts as well as energy and carbon.
Table
7.1: Summary differences between
embodied and operational energy and carbon
Embodied
Energy
Embodied energy reports the total energy
(kilojoules) used to produce a building, building product or material. Total energy use is different and is a
typical output of a comprehensive LCA. Total energy use should reflect all life
cycle phases including use and disposal, but embodied energy does not include
use and may or may not include installation, maintenance and disposal. Although products with higher embodied energy
often have higher embodied carbon, the two are not always proportional as
carbon emissions depend upon the energy source. For example, an energy-intensive production
process that used mostly renewable or low carbon fuel sources could have a very
small embodied carbon footprint, yet a high embodied energy. Energy use is a direct measure of
manufacturing energy needs combined with energy efficiency. A carbon footprint, on the other hand,
measures a combination of energy use efficiency and fuel source emissions.
Embodied
Carbon
While many are familiar with the terms
“carbon footprint” or “embodied carbon”, use of the term carbon has been used
loosely in many circles. In some cases
“carbon” may mean CO2e, or the total equivalent Global Warming Potential. However, there are other cases, such as some
of the more accessible structural material databases, where embodied carbon
means only the CO2 emissions associated with a quantity of material. For this reason it is best to speak of
embodied CO2e, or “'climate change impact in CO2e”.
Embodied CO2e is an estimate of the
contribution to climate change made by the production (rather than use or
disposal) of a product. Thus, it represents a portion of an LCA that estimates
only the contribution to climate change and only through certain initial phases
of its life. The Global Warming
Potential (GWP) is a widely recognized environmental impact metric reporting
the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that have been identified to impact climate
change. It is measured in units of
kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalents and includes contributions from
multiple greenhouse gasses (GHG) such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide
and others. The mass of each of these
GHGs is converted to represent the equivalent impact of a kilogram of carbon
dioxide and thus summed to an equivalent mass of carbon dioxide or CO2e. The Kyoto protocol tracks six primary
greenhouse gasses (UNFCCC, while the EPA’s TRACI model (EPA 2011) and CML’s
Characterization Factor Database (CML-IA 2010) track over 90.
Reporting
Standards
Standards for tracking and reporting the
carbon footprint of companies, organizations and products have been/are being
developed. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol
(GHG Protocol) is a widely used greenhouse gas emission accounting standard
that has been developed in cooperation between the World Resource Institute and
the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WRI/WBCSD 2011). The GHG Protocol divides GHG emissions into
categories referred to as scopes (See Figure 7.1).
Figure
7.1. Defining GHG emissions by source type
(scope), (WRI/WBCSD, 2011)
Scope 1 defines the emissions directly
under the control of the company that are related to the generation of energy
used to power facilities and vehicles.
These are categorized as direct emissions because the company reporting
the emissions directly controls them.
Scope 2 defines those emissions related to the generation of energy
purchased by a company. These are
categorized as indirect as the company only has indirect control over the
process. Scope 3 defines the emissions
related to other indirect emissions, such as the extraction and production of
purchased materials and fuels, transport-related activities in vehicles not
owned or controlled by the reporting entity, outsourced activities, waste
disposal, etc. Upstream activities of Scope 3 are those that are purchased by a
company and used in the primary activities of the company (or production of a
product). Downstream activities of Scope 3 occur after the product leaves the
company ‘gate’ and include use and disposal impacts.
While initial standards focused on
reporting corporate carbon footprints, in October of 2011, the WRI/WBSCD
released a Product Standard (WRI/WBCSD 2011).
This standard, which is based on LCA methodology, articulates methods
appropriate for evaluating and tracking the carbon footprint of a material or
product. Efforts to harmonize these standards with ISO are underway.
Summary
So what does this mean to a practicing
structural engineer? Both embodied
carbon and embodied energy are valuable metrics. If you are concerned about
climate change impacts, you should focus on understanding and reducing GHG
emissions or the embodied ‘carbon footprint’.
If you are concerned about fossil fuel depletion and energy
independence, you should focus on understanding and reducing total energy consumption.
For some, one issue may be more important than another, for others, both will
be equally important.
References
References
This post was adapted from the University of Washington report on LCA for the Washington State Senate, (Simonen and Haselbach 2012) by permission of the co-authors, one of who is on the SEI Sustainability Committee.
CML-IA (2010). CML-IA Characterization Factor Database. Published by the Institute
of Environmental Sciences (CML) at the Universiteit Leiden. Accessed April 8, 2013 from http://cml.leiden.edu/software/data-cmlia.html.
EPA (2011).
Tool for the Reduction and
Assessment of Chemcial and Other Environmental Impacts (TRACI) TRACI_2_1.xlsx. Database published by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Details accessed April 8, 2013 from http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/std/traci/traci.html.
Simonen, K. and Haselbach, L. (2012). LCA for WA: Life Cycle Assessment and
Buildings Research for Washington State. Final report submitted to
Washington State Legislature, Olympia, WA.
Accessed April 8, 2013 from http://courses.washington.edu/lcaforwa/wordpress/?page_id=213.
UNFCC (2012). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Accessed April 8, 2013 from http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/publications/08_unfccc_kp_ref_manual.pdf.
WRI/WBCSD (2011). Product
Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard. Report of the World Resources Institute and
World Business Council for Sustainable Development. Accessed April 8, 2013 from http://www.ghgprotocol.org/files/ghgp/Product%20Life%20Cycle%20Accounting%20and%20Reporting%20Standard.pdf.
Return to Top 10 Home
Return to Top 10 Home
Some specific examples to illustrate the points in the table above, of how energy and carbon differ for structural materials.. bio-based materials can absorb carbon during the growth of the plants they are derived from, and then give up the carbon when they burn or decay aerobically. At the same time, the making of cement emits carbon in the chemical reaction of calcination, and then slowly absorbs carbon through carbonation if offered the right environmental conditions later.