Substitution impacts of Nordic wood-based multi-story building types: influence of the decarbonization of the energy sector and increased recycling of construction materials
Tóm tắt
The building and construction sectors represent a major source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Replacing concrete and steel with wood is one potential strategy to decrease emissions. On product level, the difference in fossil emissions per functional unit can be quantified with displacement factors (DFs), i.e., the amount of fossil emission reduction achieved per unit of wood use when replacing a functionally equivalent product. We developed DFs for substitution cases representative of typical wood-frame and non-wood frame multi-story buildings in the Nordic countries, considering the expected decarbonization of the energy sector and increased recycling of construction products. Most of the DFs were positive, implying lower fossil emissions, if wood construction is favored. However, variation in the DFs was substantial and negative DFs implying higher emissions were also detected. All DFs showed a decreasing trend, i.e., the GHG mitigation potential of wood construction significantly decreases under future decarbonization and increased recycling assumptions. If only the decarbonization of the energy sector was considered, the decrease was less dramatic compared to the isolated impact of the recycling of construction materials. The mitigation potential of wood construction appears to be the most sensitive to the GHG emissions of concrete, whereas the emissions of steel seem less influential, and the emissions of wood have only minor influence. The emission reduction due to the decarbonization of the energy sector and the recycling of construction materials is a favorable outcome but one that reduces the relative environmental benefit of wood construction, which ought to be considered in forest-based mitigation strategies. Broadening the system boundary is required to assess the overall substitution impacts of increased use of wood in construction, including biogenic carbon stock changes in forest ecosystems and in wood products over time, as well as price-mediated market responses.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Allwood JM, Cullen JM, Milford RL. Options for achieving a 50% cut in industrial carbon emissions by 2050. Environ Sci Technol. 2010;44(6):1888–94.
European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Closing the Loop—an EU Action Plan for the Circular Economy. COM/2015/0614 Final. 2015. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52015DC0614. Accessed 1 Nov 2020.
European Forest-Based Industry. EU forest-based industries 2050: a vision of sustainable choices for a climate-friendly future. 2020. https://europanels.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Vision-2050.pdf.
Chandrakumar C, McLaren SJ, Dowdell D, Jaques R. A science-based approach to setting climate targets for buildings: the case of a New Zealand detached house. Build Environ. 2020;169:106560.
Bais-Moleman AL, Sikkema R, Vis M, Reumerman P, Theurl M, Erb K-H. Assessing wood use efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions of wood product cascading in the European Union. J Clean Prod. 2018;172:3942–54.
Cembureau. Reaching climate neutrality along the cement and concrete value chain by 2050. Cementing the European Green Deal. 2020. https://cembureau.eu/media/kuxd32gi/cembureau-2050-roadmap_final-version_web.pdf.
Harmon ME. Have product substitution carbon benefits been overestimated? A sensitivity analysis of key assumptions. Environ Res Lett. 2019;14(16):65008.
Howard C, Dymond CC, Griess VC, Tolkien-Spurr D, van Kooten GC. Wood product carbon substitution benefits: a critical review of assumptions. Carbon Balance Manage. 2021;16:1–11.
Hurmekoski E, Jonsson R, Nord T. Context, drivers, and future potential for wood-frame multi-story construction in Europe. Technol Forecast Soc Chang. 2015;99:181–96.
Husgafvel R, Linkosalmi R, Hughes M, et al. Forest sector circular economy development in Finland: a regional study on sustainability driven competitive advantage and an assessment of the potential for cascading recovered solid wood-. J Clean Prod. 2018;181:483–97.
Jiang F, Li T, Li Y, et al. Wood-based nanotechnologies toward sustainability. Adv Mater. 2018;30(1):1703453.
JRC. ILCD handbook: general guide for life cycle assessment—detailed guidance. Luxembourg: European Union Luxembourg; 2010.
Leskinen P, Cardellini G, González-García S, et al. Substitution effects of wood-based products in climate change mitigation. From Science to Policy 7. European Forest Institute. 2018.
Licht S, Wu H, Hettige C, et al. STEP cement: solar thermal electrochemical production of CaO without CO2 emission. Chem Commun. 2012;48:6019–21.
Chen J, Ter-Mikaelian MT, Yang H, et al. Assessing the greenhouse gas effects of harvested wood products manufactured from managed forests in Canada. Forestry. 2018;91(2):193–205.
Geng A, Chen J, Yang H. Assessing the greenhouse gas mitigation potential of harvested wood products substitution in China. Environ Sci Technol. 2019;53(3):1732–40.
Gustavsson L, Haus S, Lundblad M, Lundström A, Ortiz CA, Sathre R, Le Truong N, Wikberg P-E. Climate change effects of forestry and substitution of carbon-intensive materials and fossil fuels. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2017;67:612–24.
Hasanbeigi A, Price L, Lin E. Emerging energy-efficiency and CO2 emission-reduction technologies for cement and concrete production: a technical review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2012;16(8):6220–38.
IEA. 2018 global status report—towards a zero-emission, efficient and resilient buildings and construction sector. 2018. https://www.worldgbc.org/news-media/2018-global-status-report-towards-zero-emission-efficient-and-resilient-buildings-and.
IEA. Material efficiency in clean energy transitions. 2019. www.iea.org/publications/reports/MaterialEfficiencyinCleanEnergyTransitions/.
Jussila J, Nagy E, Lähtinen K, Hurmekoski E, Häyrinen L, Mark-Herbert C, Roos A, Toivonen R, Toppinen A. Wooden multi-storey construction market development—systematic literature review within a global scope with insights on the Nordic region. Silva Fennica. 2022;56:10609. https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.10609.
Oliver CD, Nassar NT, Lippke BR, et al. Carbon, fossil fuel, and biodiversity mitigation with wood and forests. J Sustain For. 2014;33(3):248–75.
Peñaloza D, Erlandsson M, Berlin J, et al. Future scenarios for climate mitigation of new construction in Sweden: effects of different technological pathways. J Clean Prod. 2018;187(2018):1025–35.
Rüter S, Werner F, Forsell N, Prins C, Vial E, Levet A-L. ClimWood2030—climate benefits of material substitution by forest biomass and harvested wood products: perspective 2030. Final report. Thünen report. 2016.
Ruuska A, Häkkinen T. Potential impact of wood building on GHG emissions. VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland. VTT research report. 2012. https://www.puuinfo.fi/sites/default/files/content/tiedotteet/vtt-selvitti-puurakentamisen-yleistyminen-vahentaa-co2-paastoja-huomattavasti/potentialimpactofwoodbuildingonghgemissions1252012.pdf.
Röck M, Ruschi M, Saade M, et al. Embodied GHG emissions of buildings—the hidden challenge for effective climate change mitigation. Appl Energy. 2020;258:114107.
Sathre R, O’Connor J. Meta-analysis of greenhouse gas displacement factors of wood product substitution. Environ Sci Policy. 2010;13(2):104–14.
Suominen T, Kunttu J, Jasinevičius G, et al. Trade-offs in sustainability impacts of introducing cascade use of wood. Scand J For Res. 2017;32(7):588–97.
Seppälä J, Heinonen T, Pukkala T, et al. Effect of increased wood harvesting and utilization on required greenhouse gas displacement factors of wood-based products and fuels. J Environ Manage. 2019;247:580–7.
Tettey UYA, Dodoo A, Gustavsson L. Effect of different frame materials on the primary energy use of a multi storey residential building in a life cycle perspective. Energy Build. 2019;185:259–71.
Toktarova A, Karlsson I, Rootzén J, Göransson L, Odenberger M, Johnsson F. Pathways for low-carbon transition of the steel industry—a Swedish case study. Energies. 2020;13(15):384.
Trinomics, VITO, Wageningen University, Research, Technische Universität Graz and Ricardo. Evaluation of the climate benefits of the use of harvested wood products in the construction sector and assessment of remuneration schemes. Report to the European Commission, DG Climate Action, under Contract No. 340201/2020/831983/ETU/CLIMA.C.3, Trinomics BV, Rotterdam. 2021.
Turner DA, Williams ID, Kemp S. Greenhouse gas emission factors for recycling of source-segregated waste materials. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2015;105:186–97.
Weiss M, Haufe M, Carus M, et al. A review of the environmental impacts of biobased materials. J Ind Ecol. 2012;16(1):169–81.
Werner F, Taverna R, Hofer P, Thürig E, Kaufmann E. National and global greenhouse gas dynamics of different forest management and wood use scenarios: a model-based assessment. Environ Sci Policy. 2010;13:72–85.
World Green Building Council. Bringing embodied carbon upfront coordinated action for the building and construction sector to tackle embodied carbon. 2019. https://www.worldgbc.org/sites/default/files/WorldGBC_Bringing_Embodied_Carbon_Upfront.pdf.
Yang K-H, Song J-K, Song KI. Assessment of CO2 reduction of alkali-activated concrete. J Clean Prod. 2013;39:265–72.
FAO. 2015 Global Forest Products Facts and Figures. 2016. Available at: https://www.fao.org/3/i6669e/i6669e.pdf
Hildebrandt J, Hagemann N, Thrän D. The contribution of wood-based construction materials for leveraging a low carbon building sector in Europe. Sustain Cities Soc. 2017;34:405–418.
Rüter S, Werner F, Forsell N, Prins C, Via E, Levet A-L. ClimWood 2030, climate benefits of material substitution by forest biomass and harvested wood products: perspective 2030 – final report. Braunschweig: Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut. 2016. p. 142.
European commission. A Roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050. 2011.