NCC 2022 are proposing some dramatic improvements in residential energy use. This is, in principal a fantastic development and one that eTool very much supports. We do however feel that mandating 7 star NatHERS performance carries some risk and isn’t the most effective deployment of available capital for rapid decarbonisation. The reason is simple, there is much lower hanging fruit available in areas not covered by the NCC proposed changes. It’s also highly likely that the 7 Star requirements will lead to net-negative outcomes for the planet.
See below examples of the life cycle impacts (Global Warming Potential) of three detached residential buildings designs in each capitol city (averaged) selected because of their ubiquity (the homes selected are very standard display home products), plus an overall national population weighted average. Due to their relatively large size (and hence large thermal loads in comparison to other impacts) they represent a somewhat “best case” scenario of what improving thermal performance can achieve. The charts below indicate that moving from 6 to 7 stars doesn’t significantly move the needle on life cycle global warming impacts. Although moving from 6 to 7 stars delivers a 25% (average) saving in heating and cooling energy requirements, it only results in an average 2% reduction in life cycle impacts.
While this change could make sense for particularly hot or particularly cold climates, such as Darwin, Hobart and Canberra, it makes significantly less sense for the more temperate areas of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth. So, the question is, can Australian new home buyers get better bang for buck elsewhere? The “Other Impacts” are broad (see below for a breakdown for the population weighted average example), but the two largest categories are outside of the proposed scope for NCC 2022. So, while eTool are supportive of improved thermal performance of buildings, we also see inherent risk associated with targeting this strategy in isolation. That is because, for homes to “rate” 7 stars in many temperature climates they require a lot of thermal mass (e.g. brick and concrete), so what the 2022 NCC may end up doing is discouraging the use of low carbon materials such as timber in preference of brick and concrete for thermal mass. This will in turn result in higher life cycle material impacts and ultimately higher net impacts, working against the intended goals of the amendments (to reduce greenhouse gas emissions).
Likewise, plug loads are another area – currently outside the NCC – that requires attention. Solar PV most certainly should play a role in reducing the impacts of the building, energy monitoring, and possibly other policy levers the government can pull to improve the energy efficiency of appliances. There’s other easy wins that should be addressed, higher efficiency HVAC, lower GWP refrigerant gases are good examples. Ultimately, life cycle assessment should be the cornerstone of any policy for reducing the environmental impacts of Australian residential and commercial buildings.
https://etoolglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/etool_logo_R_1.jpg00Richardhttps://etoolglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/etool_logo_R_1.jpgRichard2020-02-05 10:05:392021-05-13 03:34:35NCC 2022 and NatHERS Star Ratings – eTool Position Statement
If you’re wondering how to complete your LCA models using eToolLCD you have landed on the right place. This is a basic step by step process to start a model from scratch all the way through to certification. There will be variances depending on the project type you’re modelling and the purpose of the LCA but we hope this provides a good initial guidance. You can always check the example projects in your account to compare the scope and make sure you’ve added all required project info.
Inform eTool about your new project and pay the project fee (except for Specialist users who can work on unlimited projects per year).
Create a project, structure and you base design (to be used as reference for comparative LCA process) in eToolLCD.
Insert project information using the “Details” tab. Be sure to use the ‘Compare Benchmark’ – eTool have created a number of Benchmark buildings; including a Residential and Office type. Comparing your design to those Benchmarks will highlight any major gaps in your Life cycle inventory.
Include templates from library or customise your own templates. Make sure you customise templates in the library first, before you load them into your models.
Compare the scope of your Design with the example projects and the Benchmark designs (which you can see in the eTool Library). You can also use the Construction Scope and Energy and Water Scope which are on the Project details as a checklist of items to consider in the data collection phase of your life cycle assessment.
Run the Top Impacts reports – check that the usual suspects and expected items are on the list.
Compare the total impacts of each building Category (Substructure, Superstructure etc) against the Benchmark – (blue bars versus grey bars)
Submit your Base design for Certification by the eTool team. This is quality assurance service and an LCA mentoring process
Clone your Certified Base design to create a LCA – Scenario, often called your Improved design.
Identify the strategies to reduce the Top Impacts – use the Recommendations tab to document these design improvement strategies.
Implement design improvements using the “Recommendations” tab and other features like bulk swap. Make sure you record the changes so they can be automatically populated in your reports.
Generate the reports automatically from the software and present to your clients:
Target Setting Study (preliminary design advice)
Design Feedback Report (design development stage)
Environmental Infographics (Useful for marketing and communicating to layperson)
Clone the improved design into a final design and implement all confirmed design improvements.
Submit final design for certification with eTool.
Generate reports from Certified Final design
Emissions certificate
Infographics
Life cycle inventory
Get out there and be proud of achieving a genuinely sustainable design outcome!
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,
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
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….
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
https://etoolglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/etool_logo_R_1.jpg00Pathttps://etoolglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/etool_logo_R_1.jpgPat2016-09-01 01:21:412017-06-02 12:29:28Closed Loop Recycling and EN15978 – how does it work?
eTool recently changed from offering numerous fairly localised benchmark options to a single international average benchmark for each building type. The decision making process was interesting so I thought I’d quickly document it.
The purpose of the eToolLCD benchmark is:
To establish a common measuring stick against which all projects are assessed so that any project can be comparable to another (for the same building type);
To create a starting point, or “average, business as usual case” from which to measure improvements.
From the outset we’ve always understood that a benchmark needs to be function specific. That is, there needs to be a residential benchmark for measuring residential buildings against etc. The first point essentially addresses this.
The second point introduces some complexity. What is, or should be, “average, business as usual”? More specifically, are people interested in understanding how their building performs when compared compared locally, regionally, nationally, or internationally?
When we started trying to answer this question, some scenarios were very helpful. If a designer wants to compare locally, the benchmark needs to reflect the things that are most important to the overall LCA results. The two most critical things are probably electricity grid and climate zone. Localising just these two inputs gets pretty tricky and the number of possible benchmark permutations starts to add up pretty quickly. In Australia there are four main independent electricity grids (NEM, SWIS, NWIS and Darwin). In the Building Code of Australia there’s 10 climate zones. Accounting for which climate zones occur within each grid, there’s about 20 different benchmarks required. To add to the complexity though, the NEM is split into different states (New South Wales, Victoria, Australian Capital Territory, Queensland, Tasmania and South Australia). Generally, because the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting guidance splits the NEM into different states, the NEM is usually considered as six different grids. So there’s upwards of 50 different benchmarks we’d need to create and maintain for Australia alone just to localise electricity grids and climate zone.
One disadvantage of this method is it’s still not all-accommodating. It doesn’t account for remote grids of which there are many in Australia. An example is Kunnanurra which is 100% hydro power. So even in this scenario where we had 50 or so benchmarks for Australia, there’s still big potential for a designer patting themselves on the back for a great comparison to the benchmark when really it’s just a local condition, and vice versa. The same can be said about an off grid scenario (effectively just a micro grid of it’s own).
The other disadvantage is maintenance of all these benchmarks. Expanding the above scenario internationally there could easily be 1000’s of possible benchmarks. There’s so many that it would be hard for eTool to initially create them, and even harder to subsequently maintain them. Clearly the localised benchmark option had some big challenges.
At the other end of the benchmarking philosophy we considered just having generic benchmarks, or even one global benchmark. This is perhaps a more user-centric, or building occupant sensitive system. That is, the building occupants are probably more interested in this measure as it’s more about how they live compared to the global community. So a building may be “average” compared to the local context, but actually be very low impact compared to the broader average (due to favourable local conditions). Conceivably, the local conditions contributing to the ease with which a building can perform may be part of people’s motivation for living in a particular area.
The disadvantage of the generic benchmarking approach is that it isn’t as useful for a designer to compare their building’s performance against this as the local conditions (which may create a significant advantage of disadvantage) aren’t considered. This was a big consideration for us, eToolLCD is a design tool, it has to be relevant to designers. Interestingly though, the way eToolLCD is generally used is the base design is modelled, and then improvements are identified against this base design. The benchmark is usually only used towards the end of the process as a communication and marketing tool.
Also, there’s no reason why the designer can’t model their own local benchmark, for example, a code compliant version of their own design.
This topic spurred some serious debate at eTool. In the end, the deciding factors were:
A local approach couldn’t really be adopted without localising at least the grid and climate zone for each benchmark option. That is, it would have been too difficult to go half way with localisation (for example, only localising climate zone and not grid), as this really just revoked the whole advantage of localising the benchmarks.
Taking the very localised approach was going to put a huge benchmark creation and maintenance burden on eTool which wasn’t necessarily productive
The choice of a generic benchmark didn’t detract from the function of eToolLCD as a design tool.
Greenhouse Gas pollution is a global problem not a local problem, we feel people probably need to measure and improve their performance against a global benchmark rather than a local one.
So the single global benchmark was the direction we choose. Once this decision was made, we needed to determine how to statistically represent global averages. We decided to choose an aspirational mix of countries to make up the global benchmark, that is, select the standard of living that we felt most people in the world aspire to and determine the average environmental impacts of buildings in these demographic locations. This does mean the global benchmarks are generally higher than the actual global average building stock for a given function. That doesn’t stop us from estimating what the sustainable level of GHG savings is against this aspirational benchmark (90%+). It also enables us to strive for this level of savings without adversely effecting our standard of living aspirations (globally). The global benchmark created using this approach is the residential benchmark. More information about how this was conducted can be found here.
For those people or organisations that would like a customised benchmark, eTool can provide this service. Please get in touch.
In light of eTool’s recent exploration into global markets, we thought it prudent to create a “global” benchmark for housing developments. eTool will be using this benchmark for all future housing projects. The reasons an international statistically mixed use benchmark is the most robust model to compare designs against are as follows:
The planet does not care what kind of house you build only how close it is to zero carbon. A mixed use benchmark provides a fair comparison of performance across different house types be it apartments, detached, maisonettes etc.
The planet does not care where you build your building, only how close it gets to zero carbon. Climate change is a global problem, whilst regional benchmarks can be useful for comparing similar buildings in the same area they can produce unfair results. For example, a house built in a low carbon grid area (e.g. Brazil) may have emissions of 2 ton/person/year. This may only be a small improvement against the average Brazil house as they both have the benefit of a low carbon grid. Conversely a building in WA may have higher emissions (say 3 ton/person/year) but despite having higher emissions than the Brazil case could show a larger improvement against the average WA house. A single benchmark is the only way to give correct credit for the true sustainability performance of a building.
Before getting into the nitty gritty, it’s important to understand the purpose of the eTool benchmark, which is:
To establish a common measuring stick against which all projects are assessed so that any project can be comparable to another.
To create a starting point, or “average, business as usual case” from which to measure improvements.
Benchmark Form and Structure
The benchmark has been created to represent an average dwelling built in a developed country, the statistics for a range of developed countries have been population weighted and combined into a single theoretical average dwelling.
The statistics used in the benchmark are based on data obtained for each country. The construction type and dwelling size statistics take new build data wherever available, as this data is generally reliable and represents a picture of the way buildings are currently being built across the developed world. For residential buildings there is a mix of houses and apartments. This is the latest breakdown of the new dwellings density mix across the countries considered in 2010:
The occupancy is calculated by dividing teh countries population by the number of dwellings to give an average. This is weighted by population to give a global average of 2.52. For the single dwelling element (59% of our average dwelling) a building structure has been modelled taking a cross section of commonly used construction techniques. In this instance, the data was obtained for U.S.A. The U.S.A makes up the largest proportion of new housing in the developed world and is considered to represent a fair “average house.” Construction techniques are unlikely to differ significantly enough to impact on the overall modelling, whilst brick houses may be more common in the U.K. and Germany, timber framing is far more prevalent in Japan and Sweden.
A similar approach was taken with windows, internal walls, floors and roofs. The vast majority of those installed in new builds across America and Europe are double glazed and allowances have also been made for the smaller proportions of other window framing options currently in common use.
For the multi-family dwellings, a standard concrete frame structure has been taken with one level of car parking and typical auxiliary and common layouts, such that the apartment living area represents approximately 50% of the total floor area of the building. The total impacts of this building have been weighted on a per m2 basis and 56 m2 has been added to the model to represent the apartment element.
Benchmark Operational
Existing data has been used for operational energy, and arguably new build data would be preferable, but total existing data is generally a lot more robust (and readily available). Whilst new build energy figures were available for some countries, the figures tend to be from modelling completed for regulatory purposes and are therefore theoretical. In many countries there is a perceived “performance gap” between modelling results and actual consumption mainly due to differences in occupant behaviour, but also because of limitations in software and methodologies used for the modelling. The hope is that there will be continued industry effort towards monitoring of new build housing performances. Until further data in this area is available, we have a robust snapshot of how average buildings are currently performing by taking existing housing data.
The data for total residential fuel consumption was divided by the total number of dwellings in each country analysed. This was then weighted according to population to give a final figure for the average energy consumption of a developed country dwelling.
End-use percentage estimates were then used to determine where this energy is being used in the dwellings. Again, U.S. data[ix] has been used to represent the average.
Other impacts such as appliances and cabinetry and finishes have also been included by the estimated proportion of dwellings estimated to include these.
The global average water consumption is considered fairly consistent across most developed countries with America and Australia having higher water consumption due to larger garden sizes. A conservative nominal 169l/person/day has been assumed for water supply and treatment.
[i] Populations by country 2010 http://countrymeters.info/en/United_States_of_America_(USA)
What are all these new impact categories eTool can now measure? Below are some definitions:
Climate Change impacts result in a warming effect of the earth’s surface due to the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, measured in mass of carbon dioxide equivalents.
Stratospheric Ozone Depletion is caused by the release of gaseous chemicals that react with and destroy stratospheric ozone. Although the Montreal treaty has significantly reduced the use of the most damaging substances and there is evidence that the abundance of ozone depleting gases is reducing in the atmosphere, some releases of ozone depleting chemicals still occur.
Acidification Potential provides a measure of the decrease in the pH-value of rainwater and fog, which has the effect of ecosystem damage due to, for example, nutrients being washed out of soils and increased solubility of metals into soils. Acidification potential is generally a regional impact and is measured in mass of sulphur dioxide equivalents. The mechanism dominating the acidification impacts is the combustion of fossil fuels, release of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide which dissolves with condensed water in the atmosphere and falls as rain. The term acid rain describes severe incidents of this mechanism.
In general terms, Eutrophication Potential provides a measure of nutrient enrichment in aquatic or terrestrial environments, which leads to ecosystem damage to those locations from over enrichment and is measured in mass of phosphate equivalents.
Tropospheric Ozone Formation Potential is the creation of lower atmospheric ozone (commonly known as smog) due to the mechanism of VOCs reacting with sunlight. In particular, the release of carbon monoxide from steel production is predominant; however other releases such as nitrogen oxide, sulphur dioxide and methane also contribute significantly to POCP.
Mineral & Fossil Fuel Depletion (Abiotic Depletion) provides an indication of the potential depletion (or scarcity) of non-energetic natural resources (or elements) in the earth’s crust, such as iron ores, aluminium or precious metals, and it accounts for the ultimate geological reserves (not the economically feasible reserves) and the anticipated depletion rates. It is measured in mass of antimony equivalents.
Human Toxicity, in general terms, refers to the impact on humans, as a result of emissions of toxic substances to air, water and soil, and is expressed in terms of damage to human health by the index mDALY (1/1000th of a disability adjusted life year)
Land Use is measured in years of use of arable land (m2.year). This describes the area and time land is occupied by production systems both natural and industrial for the production of the building materials but not the occupation of the building itself. While not strictly an impact category it is linked to general land use pressure and is therefore a proxy for biodiversity and other land competition impacts.
Resource Depletion (Water) provides an indication of the total net input of water used throughout the life cycle of the building.
Ionising Radiation covers the impacts arising from the release of radioactive substances as well as direct exposure to radiation. The impact is expressed in terms of damage to human health by the index uDALY (1/1,000,000th) of a disability adjusted life year.
Ecotoxicity refers to effects of chemical outputs on nonhuman living organisms. Expressed in comparative toxic units (CTUe) it provides an estimate of the potentially affected fraction of species integrated over time and volume per unit mass of a chemical emitted.
Particulate Matter is defined as a mixture of solid and liquid particles of organic and inorganic substances resulting from human activities and suspended in the atmosphere. Several studies show that PM causes serious adverse health effects, including reduced life expectancy, heart disease, lung cancer, asthma, low birth weight, and premature birth. Precursors involved in PM formation include sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), ammonia (NH3), and volatile and semivolatile organic compounds. Measured as either PM2.5 (particulate matter smaller than 2.5 micrometers) or PM10 (particulate matter between 2.5 to 10 micrometers). Finer particles can travel deeper into the lungs and are usually made up of materials that are more toxic therefore PM2.5 can have worse health effects than the coarser PM10.
We conducted a retrospective LCA on the harbour bridge a while back, which highlighted how versatile eTool LCA was. It was clunky though. Whilst setting up the harbour bridge project we had to answer questions in the eTool LCA interface like “Number of bedrooms”. We weren’t quite sure how we were going to solve this little quandary once and for all. There seemed to be an unmanageably large number of different types of structures with potentially unique functional attributes. For example, in the OmniClass classification there’s 748 different “Facility Types”. When you also add all the possible iterations of mixed type facilities we really started scratching our heads. Why? Here’s a few reasons:
The result was bigger than the biggest number that excel could calculate (1.79 x 10308)
If we provided the software uses with a drop down to choose from this list, the drop down would extend past he bottom of your screen, through the Earth, out of our solar system, out of the milky way and through a bunch of other galaxies.
If you could navigate through that list of different functions at the speed of light, and the one you wanted happened to be half way down the list, it would take you longer than the time between the big bang and now
The amount of data stored in that list would take your computer about the same length of time to retrieve the list from the internet
Anyway, we knew we needed another method. We needed an ability to not only choose from the list of facility types, but enable custom combinations of these facility types in the one design. For example, a mixed development with residential, retail and commercial space.
This feature also started us on our journey of BIM integration. Thus far we’ve drawn on COBIE as our categorisation standard, but in the future we hope to map this to other standards so users can report however they see fit. The flexibility of eTool LCA just exploded (without the clunkiness, or waiting until the next big bang for your list of facility types to download).
eTool LCA for Infrastructure
In our new list of possible design functions we have infrastructure elements such as roads, rail, air ports, bridges, stadiums etc. We even have applicable functional attributes that users can choose for the appropriate infrastructure. For example, a road designer may choose to measure their impacts per:
passenger transported
tonne of freight transported
workload unit (one passenger or 100kg of freight)
unit area of pavement
unit length of the road
Hopefully this drives some serious though about what the function of that infrastructure is, and how the movement of passengers or freight may be better done with lower carbon alternatives such as rail! After all this is one of the beauties of LCA.
eTool LCA for Energy Generators
Another neat example of facilities that can now be assessed with eTool LCA is electricity generators. Fancy running an environmental life cycle assessment of a wind turbine verse solar PV verses coal fired plant? Knock your socks off! The functional unit you’ll probably be choosing here is impacts per life cycle kWh generated.
eTool LCA for Data Centres
A little left field, but how to you compare the sustainability of data centres? Have a go in eTool LCA! You can choose from the below functional units to ensure you’re making fair comparisons between different options:
Annual data stored
Life cycle data stored
Annual data transmitted
Life cycle data transmitted
Net usable area
What next for eTool LCA?
For those who are rushing to check out the above functionality, bare in mind this is hot off the press and we’re yet to develop a library of templates that support these new types of construction entities. This will come though, especially with the template validation functionality that is already helping our library grow.
In the mean time, software features continue to roll on. The two big projects we’re working on at the moment is BRE IMPACT compliance. We’re excited about this as it’s a third party verification system specifically designed for what eTool LCA does – LCA of Construction Projects. Not only is this a big indication of the mainstreaming of LCA, it’ll also be really nice to have an official seal of approval on the accuracy of eTool LCA.
The other big project is a push on reporting. We’re introducing a whole heap of cool new reports aimed at users to generate promotional and marketing ideas for their improved buildings. Is this core to LCA, absolutely now. Is it important to ensure that environmentally sustainable buildings proliferate? Absolutely. We don’t have our pulse on this globally but we hazard to guess the biggest impediment to truly sustainable buildings in Australia is a total disinterest within the real estate industry. And eTool LCA is will hopefully spark this interest a little more by providing agents with really useful info to help them sell better buildings.
Past that, refer to our product roadmap which (although partially implemented) gives a good idea of where we’re heading longer term.
The last few months have been hectic for our software development team. We brought the software into line with the European standard EN15978 – Sustainability of construction works – Assessment of environmental performance of buildings – Calculation method. We undertook so eTool could be used to gain innovation credits in Green Star projects. For out international audience, this is a environmental rating scheme managed by the Green Building Council of Australia.
Technically the update was a big challenge, EN15978 a very comprehensive standard with quite strict rules regarding how the LCA calculations should be conducted. It’s a piece of work we planned back in 2012, we did need that little commercial push to undertake the change, and the opportunity to utilise eTool LCA for Green Star projects provided this. We are really happy that we managed to complete this piece of work. We really think the planet has a lot to benefit from through this standard, and hopefully through the use of eTool LCA. Here’s some reasons:
EN15978 was written by CEN technical committee 350 who are also developing other standards to meet there overall mandate of delivering standards to holistically assess the sustainability of construction works. This is really exciting. It effectively draws a line in the sand and gives really solid guidance on how we should be assessing the buildings. It includes social, economic and environmental considerations for sustainability.
A good Life Cycle Assessment is without doubt the best way to measure and improve the environmental performance of something. This has been recognised by CEN TC 350 who have relied on it nearly exclusively for the environmental assessment of buildings.
CEN TC 350 also developed a standard for the assessment of building products. These will be used by the new ECO EPD framework being developed in Europe which will align most of the major EPD Program operators. Now this is exciting. Finally, we have an international system that reports truly comparable data for construction products. It’s equivalent to nutrition labelling for building products (substituting health info with environmental info).
All this means the stars are nicely aligning for low impact buildings. There’s a huge opportunity to cut through the greenwash if industry uptakes this approach. One of the things we love about this approach is it actually enables policy makers to set budgets in order to ensure we hit sustainability goals. I’ve written about this concept and how it might be approached here.
Software Speed Improvements
Users during the last 12 months would have noticed that at times, particularly for very big designs, the software laboured. It was getting pretty frustrating for our ops team who were working more and more on complex LCA models for large projects. We’d delayed tackling this problem because it required a massive re-write of the back end. There’s nothing worse than spending two months labouring on a software improvement project, then delivering the result which looks exactly the same! It was a very nice change though, to give you an idea of the performance improvement, we had a large test design that was taking the best part of four minutes to save, now it’s taking just two seconds. The big driver for this was actually to enable more features to be introduced to eTool LCA that would have otherwise slowed it down further. There’s more coming!
Record Recommendations
This is probably my favourite new feature. It makes the job if modelling and tracking improvement ideas very easy. I can honestly say this has enabled our operations team to significantly increase the research time we can allocate to identifying more improvement ideas. Less time doing little admin tasks like copying and pasting data between eTool and spreadsheets, and more time focusing on reducing the impacts of the design. All users need to do now is hit record, model the improvements, hit stop and every change to an impact due to that improvement will be recorded at different life cycle stages of the building. And it’s recorded for every indicator too, so you can see how much carbon you saved verses how much money you saved. I love using this feature. Check it out.
We’re pushing the envelope a little with what’s possible for web based software and Microsoft Internet Explorer has been a pretty challenging for us, it seems that we fix it up to work in one version, and those fixes break something in another version. Needless to say, if you’re happy using safari, chrome, firefox or basically any other browser by MS Internet Explorer you shouldn’t have any issues. If you’re stuck with MS IE, or love using it, here’s the work around for using the eTool app…
https://etoolglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/LCA_Alex-home_basic-design.jpg9251183Richardhttps://etoolglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/etool_logo_R_1.jpgRichard2013-10-25 14:49:192017-06-02 12:30:01eTool and Internet Explorer
eTool is always busy in the background updating the libraries available to users. Lately we’ve ramped up the activities in a big with with some major updates to our libraries. Even more exciting is that we’re improving the functionality of eTool with some big software development projects. I thought I’d take some time to update you.
Library Updates
Earlier in the year we conducted a large LCA study on a cutting edge development in the UK, One Brighton. The study was commissioned by Bio Regional who run the One Planet Living sustainable living framework. We will be publishing the results of this study before the end of the year. During the modelling we adapted a pretty cool approach to modelling the UK Benchmarks where we morphed a number of different density buildings, based on the new build mix, to create a weighted average density and size building. Our previous approach to this was to pick the most popular density building and adjust it’s size and other characteristics appropriately. We liked the new approach so have also applied that to Australia. This was timely as the density mix in Australia is also changing pretty dramatically as we embrace higher density living, particularly in Sydney and Melbourne (Sydney is now building more apartments and semi-detached dwellings than detached). The new residential benchmarks are loaded up into the eTool Library read to compare your project against. We’re also working on some office building benchmarks also, and looking into community buildings. Watch this space!
Out templates library is also undergoing a bit of an overhaul. There’s more to come but essentially we’ve be consolidating the current templates library and adding new templates where needed. This will be an eternally evolving project and we have some really cool ideas about how users can share templates that we’re mocking up at the moment with implementation in mind.
Our materials, transport, equipment and energy databases are about to get an overhaul to. You may have heard the GBCA has introduced credits for LCA. Some of the indicators they’ve chosen weren’t being tracked by eTool so we’re in the process of updating this data. Some interim updates have been performed including updating electricity grid coefficients to match the latest NGERs figures in Australia, and updates to some water grid figures (notably Perth to account for the increasing reliance on desalination).
Software Updates
Some big projects are now underway to take the eTool software to the next level. See our product road map to get an understanding of the long term goals. The focus is on aligning eTool with relevant international standards (in particular EN15978). In the process we’re also fixing bugs along the way and generally improving the user experience. Recent or impending improvements are listed below.
Functionality
Improved speed for the app. You may have noticed that working on large designs the app started to labour a bit, or a lot if you were working on really big designs. We’ve cut the save / clone time down by 75% which although is a good start is just the tip of the iceberg, we’re aiming to get a 95% improvement in performance in speed through a project that is revolutionising the back end of eTool. I won’t go into the details, I’ll just say it’s a big project but is going to pay big dividends to users.
We’ve also changed the UI a little. Projects will soon be listed more conveniently (most recent on the top of the list when you log in). There’s a big expansion in functionality for documenting project recommendations and our reports are about to get some serious attention also.
Bug Fixes
A few pesky bugs have also been fixed:
All design details now clone properly
Custom template details now clone properly
Reports on a design can be seen by all users accessing that design
Updates to certificate calculations to include PV generation and limit overall rating when gold savings aren’t achieved in both embodied and operational categories
https://etoolglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Software_Features_Banner.jpg177618Richardhttps://etoolglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/etool_logo_R_1.jpgRichard2013-10-17 13:20:282017-06-02 12:30:03eTool LCA Software Updates – Spring 2013
