eTool is growing! Join Us

 

2016 was a great year for the team at eTool. We grew our revenue, expanded our service offering and became a truly Global entity with offices in Australia, the U.K. and Brazil. With brighter opportunities on the horizon in 2017 we are seeking to hire a driven and persistent Business Development Coordinator to help build on our existing sales trajectories and accelerate revenue for eTool Pty Ltd while increasing our local and global profile.

 

Business Development Coordinator (Sustainable Built Environment) – UK South East

Job description

Responsibilities

  • Prospecting – building on our client base to accelerate new lead and client generation.
  • Pitching – selling eTool software and consultancy services to the construction sector
  • Communications and closing – following leads and ensuring effective delivery of eTool message throughout sale.
  • Monitoring existing eTool clients – refining our interaction and marketing towards them.
  • Ensuring that eTool clients are “quality” clients
  • Maintenance of the customer relations management system and sales reports
  • Assistance in improving sales processes and refining marketing materials and attending event
  • Identification of new markets and potential sales

Required Experience:

  • Relevant degree and/or masters
  • Minimum 2 years demonstratable experience in liaising with, engaging and presenting to senior business leaders (preferably within the construction industry)
  • Excellent communication skills particularly spoken and presentation
  • Ability to influence decision makers and drive positive outcomes for construction teams
  • Awareness of key challenges facing sustainability in construction

Desirable Experience:

  • Awareness of Breeam, LEED and sustainability ratings schemes
  • Previous experience or working knowledge of sustainability consultancy

Personal attributes:

This sales role requires persistence and determination. eTool provides a flexible working environment and the excitement of working with a young ambitious start-up in a field vital for tackling climate change.

Salary:

Negotiable depending on experience the right candidate can expect a minimum circa 25-35k (pro rata) and could include commisions and company share options.

Location and Hours:

eTool maintain a flexible working arrangement with remote working and home working encouraged. Our UK office is based in Brighton however the candidate may be based anywhere within reasonable travel distance to London (for occasional meetings).

Working hours will initially be part-time at 2-days a week with full time hours for the right candidate expected within 6 months (or sooner).

Applicants are advised to complete our questionaire and upload CV and covering letter to http://etool.polldaddy.com/s/etoolbdcoordinator

Redução do Impacto do Ciclo de Vida do Edifício – LEED (Portuguese)

Análise de Ciclo de Vida (ACV) é uma metodologia usada para avaliar os impactos ambientais associados a todas as etapas da vida de um produto ou serviço. É uma abordagem holística que engloba a extração dos materiais, processamento, fabricação, distribuição, uso, reparo, manutenção, descarte e reciclagem ao fim da vida útil. A ACV quantifica os impactos ambientais e compara a performance por meio da funcionalidade do produto ou serviço. A performance de um prédio comercial, por exemplo, pode ser avaliada por meio do impacto ambiental por m2 de área locável por ano (kgCO2/m2/ano). O estudo de ACV permite identificar as potenciais áreas para aumento de performance e redução de impacto ambiental, podendo também incluir recomendações de melhoria para a equipe de projeto. A ACV é regulada pelo padrão internacional ISO 14044 (e EN15978 especificamente para edificações) e a aplicação na área de construção civil é utilizada mundialmente para promover desenvolvimento sustentável.

Na certificação LEED, o objetivo do crédito Redução do Impacto do Ciclo de Vida do Edifício é otimizar o desempenho ambiental de produtos e materiais e permite obtenção de até três pontos. Apesar da metodologia permitir avaliar impactos relacionados a todo o ciclo de vida do projeto, este crédito LEED (opção 4) tem o foco apenas na estrutura e recinto do edifício, durante período de 60 anos. Ao comparar a performance do projeto proposto com o modelo de referência (Baseline), a equipe de projeto deve demonstrar redução de impacto de no mínimo 10% em pelo menos três categorias de impacto (por exemplo: aquecimento global, depleção da camada de ozônio e eutrofização).

A eTool, empresa Australiana especializada em avaliação do ciclo de vida de todo o edifício, desenvolveu o software eToolLCD que atende aos requisitos técnicos da norma ISO 14044 e pode ser utilizado na certificação LEED. A eTool iniciou operações em 2012, já completou mais de 300 análises internacionalmente e é pioneira no uso de ACV para certificação na Austrália (Green Star). Atualmente, está expandindo os serviços na Europa (BREEAM) e nas Américas. Os projetos LEED que utilizaram o software eToolLCD incluem: King Square 2 – Cundall (Austrália), Wildcat Building – Arup (Dinamarca) e ENOC Tower – AESG (Dubai).

“A única forma de garantir redução de impacto ambiental é quantificar a performance ao longo da vida útil do projeto e a metodologia de ACV foi desenvolvida para auxiliar na tomada de decisões. Este crédito LEED será muito importante para as equipes de projeto trabalharem de forma ainda mais integrada e o software eToolLCD facilita muito esta análise”, afirma Henrique Mendonça, engenheiro da eTool que está de volta ao Brasil depois de passar cinco anos na Austrália e se especializar na prática de ACV de toda a edificação.

Saiba mais sobre nossos projetos recentes aqui.

 

 

LCA – More than just easy credits

Since being awarded IMPACT compliance in Christmas 2015 eTool now have many clients successfully using eTool on either a consulting basis or as LCA software providers.  With an IMPACT compliant LCA they can guarantee the two bonus LCA Materials credits in Breeam New Construction 2011/2014. These credits are awarded as a bonus to the Green Guide materials credits and awarded for completing an LCA and reporting on the results. 6+1 credits can also be achieved under Breeam Fit-out/Refurbishment/International, up to 23 credits in HQM and 3 under LEED.  The tool can also be used to assist in life cycle costing Man 2 credits, and Mat 06 Resource Efficiency.  The Bre are trying to encourage uptake in LCA and for the time being the credits can be applied at any stage of the design – effectively points for trying.

Below are just some of the clients who we have been working on LCAs with to date.  Although the primary motivation is often Breeam related, LCA is also providing some fantastic learning outcomes for design teams.

etoolclients

“We have been using eToolLCD for the last year and have completed 3 certified assessments.  As with any new software there is a learning curve involved but the training and level of support has been excellent and we can now complete an IMPACT assessment on our project in a couple of days (depending on complexity).  This has enabled us to give our clients and design teams valuable information on the environmental impacts of design options as well as giving an additional 2% to the projects BREEAM assessment once the eToolLCD model has been certified.” David Barnes, Volker Fitzpatrick 

Find out more about our recent projects here.

 

 

GBCA Feedback

eTool drives on innovation and forward thinking to bring solutions and help us mitigate environmental impacts. We have been working closely with GBCA since 2013 when LCA was included as an Innovation Challenge. Since completing its first LCA later that year, eTool has become a leader in providing consultancy and software services related to LCA for the Green Building industry.
There are now over 50 projects that used eToolLCD to achieve the Materials Life Cycle Impact credit and technical experience was developed internally at eTool and amongst software users.
The construction industry is moving to LCA for environmental decision making, and recognising that the only way to prevent adverse trade off is to use life cycle assessment within a life cycle design process. Following this global trend, eTool thought it was very important to provide feedback when GBCA opened for public consultation. Here are some of the key points included:
• Consideration of functionality in the principles, and use of LCA as early as possible to inform the design process.
• Normalisation and weighting should be considered to prevent negative trade offs between environmental impacts and guarantee whole of building performance.
• Use of LCA model to calculate GHG, Water and other life cycle impacts because it is very flexible, it delivers good environmental outcomes and it is aligned with global trend, which simplifies the maintenance of GS calculator tools.
We look forward to the advancements of LCA use within the Green Building industry so please stay tuned for more news on this soon.

 

Closed Loop Recycling and EN15978 – how does it work?

I’ve heard its complicated why is that?

We need to reward recycling but also have to be careful not to double count the benefits (at the start and end of life for example).  The approach under EN15978 is as follows:

  • to reward “design for deconstruction” as the key driver that determines the net results over the whole life of a building
  • to allocate economically, so if a product is a waste product at the end of the buildings’ life (there is no market for it, so it costs money to remove it from site rather than having some sort of scrap value) then any benefits associated with recycling that product are picked up by the next person who uses it.  So essentially, recycled timber is all rewarded at the start of the building’s life.  Recycled aluminium is all rewarded at the end (in net terms)

Allocation of reused products from other industries are also done economically, one example of this is recycled fly ash or blast furnace slag in concrete.  Because Blast Furnace has some value, it’s not as attractive environmentally as fly ash

The rules for recycling allocation under the EN15978 methodology were initially somewhat mind-boggling for me.  To understand them you will  likely need to take a number of re-visits and you should try to wipe out any preconceptions you may have on recycling.

So how does it work?.

Lets start with what is included in the scope of En15978 first,

boundary

Note that Module D is actually a form of “System Expansion” and one could argue is outside of the life cycle of the building.

Before we look into recycling allocation further we also need to understand a few definitions.

Recycled content is the proportion of recycled material used to create the product, the global industry average recycled content of aluminium today is approximately 35%. This means that in 100kg of aluminium 35kg comes from old recycled aluminium and 65kg comes from new raw material.

Recycling rate is the proportion of useful material that gets sent back into the economy when the product comes to the end of its life. The global industry average recycling rate of aluminium today is approximately 57%. This means that in 100kg of waste aluminium 57kg will be recycled into new aluminium products and 43kg will be sent to landfill.

Closed loop recycling, whereby a product is recycled into the same product (e.g. steel roof panel recycled into steel reinforcement).  The loop is closed because when the steel product comes to the end of its life it can be recycled into a new steel product (theoretically this can happen continually forever).  Closed loop is more straightforward to calculate as the emissions are directly offset by the new product that would have been required to be made from scratch.

Open loop recycling is when the product is used to create something new (e.g. old plastic bottles recycled into carpet).  The loop is open because the plastic now in the carpet required other material inputs to create the carpet and cannot be recycled further (if a process is developed that can continually recycle the plastic carpet then it becomes closed loop). We use economic allocation to understand the impacts that are being offset.

Now lets focus on a closed loop recycling example of a standalone 1000 kg of ‘General Aluminium’ modeled in eTool.  Under EN15978 scope impacts under module D – Benefits and loads outside the system boundary are quantified.  This includes closed loop recycling which is not directly related to the actual physical boundary or life cycle of the building.

The life cycle stages for the aluminium are shown below

alum recy 1

Kg CO2e by LC stage for 1000kg of general aluminium 

Hang on, the impacts are bigger for the 100% recycled content option???

Well, there is an initial saving in the product stage of 18,280 kg CO2e from using 100% recycled content aluminium versus using a 100% raw material. The no recovery option also gets a small advantage for transport of waste (C2) because landfill sites tend to be closer to a building than recycling sites on average. The no recovery option is also (very slightly) penalised for disposal impacts, if the aluminium is recovered it has 0 disposal impacts because it is sent to the recycling plant and these impacts are counted in the A1-A3 stage of the new aluminium product. The interesting result though is in the closed loop recycling.  We have a credit applied to the aluminium that is recovered and put back in the economy. This is effectively offsetting the assumed extraction requirement for the new aluminium to be used in the (aluminium) economy – for example in the next building.  Likewise aluminium that is not recovered causes a higher net demand for new aluminium.  To determine the ‘credit’ or ‘penalty’ at the end of the building’s life, the net increase in new aluminium required due to the use of the aluminium in the building is calculated.  In the 100% recycled content, 0% recovered the material is penalised by the equivalent mass of new aluminium which will need to be extracted to supply the next building.

Hmmmmmm…

Yes it may seem counter-intuitive but try to think of the world aluminium economy as a single life cycle entity.  If everyone used only 100% recycled aluminium that has 0 end-of-life recycling rate (ie it ends up in landfill) then we would soon run out of recycled aluminium available.  We would have to go back to using raw aluminium (maybe even start digging it back out from landfill!).  By encouraging recovery of the aluminium EN15978 is trying to discourage the overall extraction of the raw material.

O.K. That wasn’t too bad

So far so good but it gets trickier! Lets imagine we have fully recycled content and fully recovered aluminium,

Well you get the best of both worlds – reduced product stage and closed loop credits right?

Wrong!  Here is what happens….

alum recy 2

Kg CO2e by LC stage for 1000kg of general aluminium 

The minus CO2e credit at end of life can not be applied in this instance because you are already using 100% recycled aluminium. There is no material extraction in this case to offset and your end-of-life credit is 0. You don’t get penalised for the added extraction for the future building but you don’t get credit for it because that has already been given in the product stage. Under EN15978 there is actually a very similar amount of carbon associated with a 0% recycled/100% recovered aluminium scenario and a 100% recycled/100% recovered aluminium.

Whoa, that’s deep.

Its a tricky one and there is certainly an argument to say this is not encouraging the right behaviour but the emphasis on end-of-life treatment means that the impacts are accounted for and credit is given without double counting.

So what do we take from all of this?

Recycling content and rate is an important consideration in buildings but it is no silver bullet. Every little helps in sustainability though. Focus on the durability and deconstructability of the product over the recycled content which under EN15978 has a relatively small impact on the environmental performance.

*Note figures show are taken from eToolLCD September 2016

References: Recycling Rates of Metals, T E Graedel, 2011

the-new-perth-stadium-and-sports-precinct-amphitheatre

Perth Stadium – Kicking Goals with LCA

As part of an overall environmental strategy stipulated by the State Government, LCA has been integrated into the design and construction of Perth Stadium.  eTool produced life cycle assessment analysis in three stages forming part of the overall design strategy as outlined below.

 

the-new-perth-stadium-and-sports-precinct-view-from-the-south-east91476cb055b76ffab2a0ff0100ce4282 the-new-perth-stadium-and-sports-precinct-athletics-format

 

Process

Stage 1: An initial “Targeting Study” was completed during bid stages whereby two initial models were developed – an initial LCA model of Perth Stadium and a benchmark LCA model of the already constructed Etihad Stadium (Melbourne) which was considered a typical stadium build.  From the outset, Perth Stadium was indicating an improvement over the benchmark due to the predominantly steel structure which is inherently lower in CO2e emissions compared to concrete structures.  The targeting study also highlighted a number of CO2e hotspots such as food and drinks refrigerators which are typically left on between games.  Controls to switch off non-perishable items between events were an obvious easy win and one which the design team was confident in being able to implement.

Stage 2: As the design progressed, further information became available and the models accuracy was increased and consolidated with bills of quantities.  With steel and concrete contributing the majority of the embodied impacts, it was important that these elements were accurate.  The refrigerant gasses for chillers and food refrigerators was also included which contributed over 2% towards the total CO2e impacts, with the Stadium seating also found to have very high recurring impacts.  Strategies put forward included using a low impact refrigerant such as CO2 and specifying extended warranties for the seating in order to increase the duration of their useful life (hence lowering their impact).

Stage 3:  The model was finalised to include all recommendations uptaken as well as final quantities for materials and energy modelling figures.  The design team were able to implement the following:

Strategies to switch-off non perishable item fridges between events

Blast Furnace Slag replacement in some structural concrete elements

Extended Seat Warranty effectively prolonging the predicted lifespan of the seats

The State LCA requirements were as follows.

– a 7% reduction against the benchmark in product stages (A1-A5)

– a 5% reduction in Maintenance stages (B2-B5)

– a 20% reduction in Operational stages (B6-B7)

Results

The LCA analysis was able to successfully show performance against these impacts and quickly develop effective strategies to meet the targets.  The final design specification shows overall life cycle impacts of 7.68 tCO2e/seat/year; which when split across the planned 37 events per year results in impacts of 0.2 tCO2e/visit.  This exceeds the targets with a

– a 9.1% reduction in product stages (A1-A5)

– a 8.1% reduction in Maintenance stages (B2-B5)

– a 32.2% reduction in Operational stages (B6-B7)

The study also highlights the importance of taking a Life Cycle approach towards targets.  When targets are set for individual elements perverse outcomes can occur.  For example, PV panels are very effective in reducing life cycle emissions in Western Australia, however in this instance they would negatively affect the maintenance target (due to the replacement of the panels).  eTool recommends that a single whole of life approach is taken to ensure absolute environmental benefit is achieved.

David Barr - Gen Y

LCA Reveals Carbon Savings For LandCorp’s Gen Y Winner

The ‘Step House’ by David Barr Architects is the winner of the LandCorp Gen Y competition for unique and sustainable residential dwelling design concepts that encapsulated the Generation Y lifestyle.

The  project is located within LandCorp’s White Gum Valley, an innovative residential development located 3km from the Fremantle city centre. David Barr Architects conducted a full eTool Life Cycle Assessment of the project, which helped to inform additional innovative sustainable design features.

Some of the features include the installation of a 9kw PV system, low embodied energy materials, energy efficiency measures and low water use. The carbon emissions per occupant per year is estimated at 64kg, which is 98% lower than the average equivalent Australian residence.

Read more about the Gen Y project here >>

 

Coles

Coles Becomes First Australian Supermarket to Undertake LCA

Coles has become the first supermarket in Australia to use life cycle assessment and has achieved a 4 Star rating from Green Star.

Leona McLaggan from SD Consultants took the eToolLCD software in-house and used eToolLCD to help achieve the LCA credit in Green Star.

Coles has achieved:

  • 50% more fresh air compared to minimum standards, through high-performance heating, ventilation and air-conditioning systems
  • 15% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, with highly-efficient chillers and heat reclaimed from refrigeration cases used to supply heating to other parts of the supermarket
  • LED lighting installed throughout, reducing energy consumption and internal heating loads
  • 70% reduction in water consumption, compared with traditional supermarkets, from a range of water-efficiency measures, including water-efficient fixtures and fittings, and 150,000 litre capacity water tanks

Click here for a full article by the Green Building Council of Australia.

LoveLCD_Banner

{#3} Why Love LCD? – It offers an integrated design process.

Our “Love LCD” campaign is now in full swing and we’re excited to release our videos over the coming weeks. We started this campaign because we are passionate about reducing carbon in buildings and to us, life cycle design is the best way to do that. We want to spread our love of LCD and hope others will be inspired to learn more and use Life Cycle Design too!

Why Love LCD?

{Reason #3} LCD Offers an Integrated Design Process.

Watch Alex Bruce (eTool Co-founder and Business Development Director) tell us why he loves Life Cycle Design.

Check out our other ‘Love LCD’ videos:


{#1} Life cycle assessment allows you to identify the sometimes surprising aspects of a design that can be improved.


{#2} LCD takes the guesswork out of sustainability


carpark

Car Park Lighting Sensors

So if you’re designing an apartment building and you’re stuck with an underground car park things can get pretty nasty with energy consumption.  With no natural light and a clear safety requirement to keep the area lit all things point to an energy hungry lighting solution.   Even the most efficient lamps will still burn a lot of power running 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

The most obvious solution to drop run time is lighting controls.  Specifically motion sensors.  But how should these be set up, and how does the set up (number of lamps per sensor and lamp shutoff delay) actually effect the energy savings the controls will achieve?  The short answer is, make sure they turn off really quickly after the car or person is out of the area.  The long answer is below:

It’s Complex…

The interplay between the car park layout, vehicle traffic, pedestrian traffic, simultaneous use of certain areas of the car park, probability of a specific car bay being accessed, the shut-off delay timing and the distribution of sensors means calculating light run time is very complex.  Pondering the possibilities got the better of me and I ended up running a simulation to determine effect of some key parameters.

A Conceptual Car Park

The conceptual car park looked like the below pick.  Effectively 150 bays with one pedestrian access and a main vehicle exit point at one end.

Car Park Map

I used some basic lighting design to work out how many lights would be needed (single globe T5s) to achieve an adequate light levels (50lx).  The calcs indicated a requirement of about 80 lamps.  I just placed these in the road ways and walk ways in my conceptual design.  These are the numbers with the x in front of them.  In reality they’d be probably be spaced more evenly but this satisfies the requirements of the model which is just to see how many lights would be triggered when each bay was accessed.

Which Car Bay Triggers which Lamp?

That was a manual process of thinking about how a person will walk from the lift to the car, and then how they will drive out (or vice versa).  The below diagram shows that if car bay 125 is accessed the blue line will be traversed by the car driver and passengers, whilst the red line will be travelled by the car.  All the lamps highlighted in red will subsequently need to fire.

Car Park Map - Lights Triggered By Bay 125

Simulation

I got some stats on how many trips and average household does from here and here.  The Sydney data also gave these neat graphs on when the trips occur as well.  This enabled me to put a probability on a given car being accessed at a certain time of the day.  The sensors are obviously going to give the most benefit during lower trip frequency times.  But depending on the set up, you can even get a reduced run time during the peak times in this car park (not every day, but some days there’ll be savings due to the random nature of when people take a car trip).

Screen Shot 2015-05-24 at 2.59.53 pm

After some sense checking I ran the simulation for different combinations of motion sensor parameters.  The focus was on:

  • The delay before the lamp is shut down after the motion sensor is activated (or re-activated)
  • The number of lamps per sensor (if you whole car park is wired to one sensor, you’re not going to get as much benefit)

The below chart shows the results.  It looks pretty clear that the most important attribute is the delay before the lights are shut down again.  Amazingly, with 10 lamps per sensor a 90% run time reduction could be achieved if the lamps only fired for a minute.  10 lamps per sensor is probably as sparsely as you’d want to space the sensors to make sure they fired when there was movement

Simulated Car Park Lighting Energy with Sensors

Pit Falls

The simulation is obviously not a real live thing so I want to note some possible pit falls.

  • I got lazy and didn’t model weekend days separately.  So the actual savings are probably greater than what I’ve reported above.
  • If you car park is full or big rodents that trigger motion sensors 24 hours a day, the savings won’t be achieved.
  • My “Shut off delay time (mins)” is actually the lamp run time from when the motion sensor is first fired during a particular event, not from when it was last fired during that event.  So for you to achieve the 1 minute shut-off delay, you’ll probably want the light to go down 5 or 10 seconds after there was no motion in an area.  Perhaps this would cancel out the additional savings you’d get from lower weekend trips.

Other Car Park Lighting Ideas

Although motion sensors in car parks are an absolute no-brainer, there are also other things that can be done to make car park lighting smarter, a few of which I’ll include below.

Lux sensors may also be utilised with dimmable lamps to ensure light levels over the requirements are not delivered and hence energy savings may be achieved due to lower average lamp power.  The benefit of lux sensors in underground car parks is limited however due to a lack of natural light.

A better coefficient of utilisation can be achieved with light coloured rooms (more reflectance, so better light utilisation from your lamps which means you’ll need less lamps).

The lamp itself should be considered carefully and in conjunction with the lighting controls.  The most efficient globe in the world may be the wrong choice if you need more of them than necessary.  Similarly, if it won’t handle being turned on and off all the time, that’s going to be a problem.

The light housing can also help if it’s got a nice reflective backing to disperse the light where it’s needed (down and sideways) instead of where it’s not (up).