• 12th May 2010
  • 5 comments

CPD articles

CPD: Taking the measure of a low carbon industry

To complete this month's CPD questionnaire, scroll to the end of the article, where you will find a link to the online questionnaire. Select your answers, fill in your contact details then click “submit”. To jump to the test paper right now, please click here.

Before we can squeeze carbon out of the industry, we need to agree on how we account for it in the first place, says  Andy Green of Faithful + Gould.

The UK government consistently reports that buildings are responsible for between 40-50% of national energy consumption, a figure that has also been adopted by the Carbon Trust, DEFRA and many others. However, the Low Carbon Construction Innovation and Growth Team’s (IGT) Emerging Findings report, published in March, suggests we need to move from reporting operational emissions only to addressing “whole life carbon”, including the embodied carbon, of buildings and built assets.

As well as operational emissions, this would cover the carbon emitted in the design stage, in materials and the manufacture of products, in transportation, onsite assembly and in refurbishment or demolition. 

As a preliminary indication of the scale of the carbon footprint associated with all these activities, the IGT report estimates that construction directly influences a total carbon footprint (measured in terms of CO2 equivalence) of 306Mt CO2 (see pie chart overleaf). This represents no less than 48% of the UK total CO2 emissions in 2007. The figure for “energy in use” – 255.9Mt CO2 – includes emissions from energy use in homes and process emissions in industry. In other words, it represents emissions from people’s activity in buildings.

The IGT Emerging Findings report also sets out how the UK will achieve the CO2 emissions targets set out in the Climate Change Act 2008, in the form of the Low Carbon Transition Plan. Almost every proposition put forward by Paul Morrell, the government’s chief construction adviser, represents a market opportunity. It is virtually a business plan for the construction industry from 2010 to 2050. There is huge potential across every sector and stage of a building’s life cycle that can help to cut CO2 emission levels and enable the UK to fulfil its climate change targets by 2050.

Whole life view

Achieving low whole life carbon buildings will require the industry to work in a more integrated and collaborative way. This means a cultural shift from appraising construction projects on initial capital costs, to a more robust assessment on a whole life basis.

Taking whole life carbon into account would mean assessing the operational, or “in-use” carbon impact, which can be shrunk by reducing the energy and therefore carbon consumption from the lighting, air-conditioning, heating, and ICT systems, for example.

Then, embodied carbon emissions would be assessed. Reducing these  involves finding substitutes for high carbon content materials such as cement and concrete, and specifying a higher proportion of recycled content. An example of embodied carbon in a typical office construction is shown in the graphic (see right).

The carbon crunch is coming   

There are now numerous industry triggers for taking the whole life view of carbon, such as the Climate Change Act, the Carbon Reduction Commitment Energy Efficiency Scheme, the use of “carbon budgets” to assess the business case for government projects, and the fact carbon now has an intrinsic value through Emission Trading Systems (ETS) and other
trading vehicles. However, there are also many significant barriers to overcome if the industry is to assess the embodied carbon as well, for example:

  • a reluctance from industry suppliers and manufacturers to invest in the carbon footprinting of their products
  • the construction industry’s difficulties, because of its complex supply chains, to keep abreast of changes in component emission profiles. For example, aluminium components can be manufactured from either a hydro energy smelter or a fossil fuel energy source, with a large difference in carbon footprint
  • an unwillingness on behalf of the client or project team to pay for carbon assessments.

So what does the industry need to do to remove these barriers and help UK plc meet its carbon commitment?

  • develop an accepted industry standard methodology for assessing whole life carbon
  • ensure that accessible robust data on embodied carbon is available for the majority of construction products
  • train competent accredited assessors to undertake whole life views of carbon assessments

l ensure that all stakeholders are committed to make the tough decisions to meet the sustainability targets.

Setting out the boundaries 

In addition, if the focus is to now to shift from reporting operational emissions only, to taking a whole life view of carbon, then there are two further imperatives. First, the construction industry establishes practical ways of setting the assessment boundary.

This is the boundary you put around what you decide to include in the assessment. Emissions are generally categorised (under the Greenhouse Gas Protocol) as Scope 1 (direct greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing, or vehicles or plant owned by the company), Scope 2 (indirect GHG emissions from purchased heat or electricity) and Scope 3 (indirect GHG emissions from other sources, such as business travel and paper consumption).

But when it comes to embodied carbon and life time assessments of operational buildings, there  are still grey areas. Should the calculation only include activities that take place behind the front door, or encompass the energy used by the maintenance company in driving to the site? Should the carbon footprint of products and materials be measured at the point when they leave the factory gate, or arrive at the site? These questions need to be resolved.

Secondly, the industry must allocate responsibilities to the relevant parties in the process and make them accountable for measuring and reducing carbon. The graphic on the preceding pages provides a simplified viewpoint on what the assessment boundaries are and who takes responsibility for them.

Standardised methods

Various green building councils around the world are calling for a global agreement to standardise carbon metrics for measuring and reporting the sustainability performance of buildings. At the Ecobuild conference in February 2010, the UK Green Building Council announced its plans, which are based on the new international metrics for measuring energy, water and waste that were agreed at 2009 International Green Building Council Conference in Singapore. Unfortunately, an embodied carbon metric was left out as it was thought too difficult to achieve.

To address the problem of embodied carbon, the UK government’s Technology Strategy Board has allocated over £4m of funding for innovation research into design and decision tools for low impact buildings. Fourteen consortiums have just been given the funding to respond to this challenge.

Taking a whole life view of carbon will require more code development, but an avalanche of new policies, reports and initiatives should be avoided as it may prove too complex for industry to adopt successfully. Instead, there is a need for standardised  practical methodologies for assessing whole life carbon of buildings which the relevant parties can be suitable trained to use.

The methodologies available to guide the industry include:

1) Publicly Available Specification (PAS) 2050, prepared by the British Standards Institute and co-sponsored by the Carbon Trust and DEFRA. This  provides a standard for assessing the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of products and developments.

 2) The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors’ new Rules of Measurement (Part 3) for Operations and Maintenance will include information on how to measure, cost and report on embodied and operational emissions during the cost estimating, cost planning and procurement stages of a project. This is due to be published in 2011.

 3) ISO 15686 part 5 and its UK supplement, the Standardized Method of Life Cycle Costing in Construction Procurement, briefly covers the life cycle costing of carbon. However the second supplement, BS8544 Life Cycle Costing In Use, is being drafted and will tackle the issue, providing guiding principles, instructions and worked examples.

Leadership role

There is a huge opportunity to influence how billions of pounds of construction investment are spent, and to help to reshape the industry to become more integrated, collaborative and progressive, able to make a radical impact on the whole life carbon performance of all buildings. To take advantage of this, the construction industry needs to develop a clear vision so it can play a leadership role in the move to low carbon.

Andy Green is director of Whole Life Costing at Faithful+Gould, part of the Atkins Group. He is co-writing the forthcoming BS and RICS guides.  

 

% of the total carbon footprint: Setting the assessment boundary and allocating responsibilities

1% Carbon emissions from the design process

These are the emissions associated with producing the design. They are less than 1%, but still important  when striving to reduce the level of carbon activity. 

Who is responsible? This would include the design team, ie engineers, architects, quantity surveyors and others in the construction team.

13% Carbon emissions from materials or product manufacture

These are emissions from extracting materials, processing, refining and remediation and are sometimes called embodied carbon.

There are a number of published sources, such as DEFRA factors, as well as the Inventory of Carbon and Energy (ICE) produced by the University of Bath. But only a small amount of the components used in a building’s construction have reliable emission factors.

Who is best to assess? Product researchers and quantity surveyors, as they are responsible for validation and costing of materials.

2% Carbon emissions from distribution

Transport emissions from factory to construction site gate. Typical UK transport emissions (by road, rail, air, and water) can be calculated using government data, but the picture is more complex with imported products.

Who is best to assess? The contractor, as it is ultimately responsible for the supply chain, working collaboratively with its selected suppliers.

1% Carbon emissions from assembly or operations on site (during construction phase)

Emissions from enabling works, remediation, clearance, ground improvements, removal/ demolition of structures, cleaning. Includes earthworks, assembly, piling, asphalt laying, pumping, lighting, security, temporary works and site offices.

Who is best to assess? The contractor, as it is in charge of the site.

84% Carbon emissions in use (operational carbon impact)

The emissions from the building when the construction phase has finished and the building is in use. These include the energy to run the lighting, heating, cooling, lifts and ICT systems. Also, emissions associated with maintaining the building and the embodied carbon in replacing the plant over the life of the building. 

Who is best to assess? 1 The design and construction teams to ensure they predict the emissions correctly using a range of sophisticated modelling tools. 2 The facilities management teams for the buildings. 3 The occupants who use the building and can have a big impact on behavioural emissions (such as switching off lights and computers).

?% Carbon emissions from end of use  (refurbishment and/or decommission/disposal)

An omission from the IGT report is the carbon emissions associated with decommissioning or end of life. This is another poorly understood part of the whole life carbon cycle and would include emissions from the demolition, decommissioning, and waste management process.  

Who is best to assess? Uncertain, as this will depend if there is an future refurbishment option, or potential to obtain  carbon “credits” locked up in the building’s fabric.

 

CPD test paper

Whole life carbon accounting

The CIOB requires members to assess and fulfil their own CPD needs. Members can therefore choose to study the CPD articles published in CM as a valid part of their personal record of CPD activity.

To complete this month's CPD questionnaire, scroll down to the end of the article, and you will find a link to the online questionnaire. Select your answers, fill in your contact details then click “submit”.

If all five questions are answered correctly, you will be invited to download and print a PDF document confirming your successful completion of the questionnaire.

If one or more questions is answered incorrectly, please reread the article and try again, pressing “submit” to resend the amended form.

The questionnaire for the May edition will be available on the website until 1 July. We are no longer offering the facility to send questionnaires by fax or post. Please email any questions regarding this CPD service to cmcpd@atompublishing.co.uk

 

Complete your CPD questionnaire by clicking on the link below:

http://www.construction-manager.co.uk/construction-professional/cpd-questionnaire/4/

 

  • 24th May 2010, at 11:26 AM
  • Murray Bainbridge

Excellent facility for doing CPD but what is the point of putting name/organisation details at the end of the question paper if that information is not captured in the generated pdf certificate? Technology means this can easily be done; please look into this.

  • 25th May 2010, at 02:13 PM
  • Stephen Paul Nesbitt

I wholeheartedly agree with Murray's comment above, I was expecting that the CPD certifcates would have my details on it, after all potentitial employers may just think they are copies of blanks?

  • 25th May 2010, at 02:16 PM
  • Stephen Nesbitt

Oh.. and I also agree with Murray in that this online facility is a great way of gaining some CPD hours efficiently, thanks CM.

  • 13th Jun 2010, at 01:57 PM
  • Hus Hussey

I have just read the CPD article in the June 2010 edition of Construction Manager, but can find the copper CPD questionnaire on your web site. Where is it hidden??

  • 1st Jul 2010, at 02:50 PM
  • Peter Bailey

Agree with those above, why is PDF download letter blank.

Leave a comment