Energy and Buildings 42 (2010) 230–242

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy and Buildings

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enbuild

Life cycle primary energy use and carbon emission of an eight-storey

wood-framed apartment building
Leif Gustavsson *, Anna Joelsson, Roger Sathre
Ecotechnology, Department of Engineering and Sustainable Development, Mid Sweden University, 83125 Östersund, Sweden

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: In this study the life cycle primary energy use and carbon dioxide (CO2) emission of an eight-storey
Received 7 May 2009 wood-framed apartment building are analyzed. All life cycle phases are included, including acquisition
Received in revised form 28 August 2009 and processing of materials, on-site construction, building operation, demolition and materials disposal.
Accepted 30 August 2009
The calculated primary energy use includes the entire energy system chains, and carbon flows are
tracked including fossil fuel emissions, process emissions, carbon stocks in building materials, and
Keywords: avoided fossil emissions due to biofuel substitution. The results show that building operation uses the
Primary energy
largest share of life cycle energy use, becoming increasingly dominant as the life span of the building
CO2 emission
Life cycle
increases. The type of heating system strongly influences the primary energy use and CO2 emission; a
Construction biomass-based system with cogeneration of district heat and electricity achieves low primary energy use
Building operation and very low CO2 emissions. Using biomass residues from the wood products chain to substitute for
Demolition fossil fuels significantly reduces net CO2 emission. Excluding household tap water and electricity, a
Climate change mitigation negative life cycle net CO2 emission can be achieved due to the wood-based construction materials and
Wood material biomass-based energy supply system. This study shows the importance of using a life cycle perspective
Biofuel when evaluating primary energy and climatic impacts of buildings.
ß 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction building. In particular, few life cycle analyses of wood-framed

The global climate system is being affected by the emission of
greenhouse gases (GHGs), of which the most significant is carbon
dioxide (CO2) [1]. Sweden and many other countries have set long-
term goals for CO2 emission reduction to mitigate climate change.
The building sector globally accounts for a large share of energy
use, and has great potential for reducing primary energy use and
CO2 emission by, e.g. reduced heating demands, increased
efficiency in energy supply chains, and greater use of renewable
resources for materials and fuels. The life cycle of a building
includes the extraction of raw materials; processing of raw
materials into building materials; assembly of materials into a
ready building; occupation or use; maintenance; demolition or
disassembly of the building; and disposal or re-use of the
materials. Transport of materials is involved in several phases.
All these phases have to be considered in order to minimize the life
cycle primary energy use and CO2 emission of a building.
Although numerous studies have examined individual phases
of a building life cycle, relatively few studies have quantified the
primary energy use and CO2 emission over the entire life cycle of a
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +46 63 165979.
E-mail address: leif.gustavsson@miun.se (L. Gustavsson).
constructions have been conducted, even though substituting
wood-based materials in place of more GHG-intensive materials
can be important in a strategy to mitigate climate change [2].
The aim of this study is to determine the primary energy use
and CO2 emission over the life cycle of an eight-storey wood-
framed apartment building recently constructed in Växjö, Sweden.
The building has 3374 m2 of floor area, and 33 apartments. The
analysis includes the production, operation, and end-of-life phases,
and accounts for the full flows of energy and materials from natural
resources to useful services. The primary energy use is determined
by including the entire energy system chains from the extraction of
fuels to the delivered end-use energy. Carbon flows are tracked
including fossil fuel emissions, process emissions, carbon stocks in
building materials, and avoided fossil emissions due to biofuel
substitution.
2. Literature review
2.1. Material production and building construction
A standard methodology for energy analysis was advanced in
1974 to provide consistency and comparability among studies [3].
The same year, the Committee on Renewable Resources for
Industrial Materials (CORRIM) was established to study the

0378-7788/$ – see front matter ß 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2009.08.018
 L. Gustavsson et al. / Energy and Buildings 42 (2010) 230–242
potential of wood as a feedstock for industrial production. Boyd
et al. [4] reported that wood-based materials are less energy
intensive than other structural materials that fulfil the same
function, and that wood manufacturing industries could be largely
energy self-sufficient by using biomass residues as fuel.
Boustead and Hancock [5] refined the methodologies of energy
analysis, and calculated the energy inputs for manufacturing
various materials in the USA. Baird and Chan [6] estimated the
energy requirements for producing building materials and for
house construction in New Zealand. Worrell et al. [7] calculated the
energy requirement for production of materials in The Nether-
lands. Fossdal [8] provided a detailed inventory of energy use and
CO2 emissions from the production of selected building materials
in Norway, as well as for the production of entire buildings of
varied size and function.
Cole and Kernan [9] calculated the life cycle energy use of a
multi-storey office building in Canada, constructed with a wood,
steel, or concrete structural frame. They found that the production
of the concrete building used 6% more energy, and the steel
building used 14% more energy, than the wood building. The
energy used for operating the building, identical for all three
materials, dominated the life cycle energy use. Cole [10] found that
the energy use and GHG emission due to the on-site construction
activities was lowest for a steel-framed building, slightly higher for
a wood-framed building, and significantly higher for a concrete-
framed building. Jungmeier et al. [11] observed that auxiliary
energy needed within the forest product chain is low compared to
the heat value of the biomass flows.
Koch [12] compared the carbon balances of structural wood
products and functionally equivalent non-wood materials like
steel, aluminium, concrete and brick, and concluded that net CO2
emission from the use of structural wood products was substan-
tially lower. Künniger and Richter [13] compared utility poles
made of wood, concrete and steel. They found the wood poles to
have lower environmental impact in most categories, including
GHG emission, than the other materials. Buchanan and Honey [14]
calculated the CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and process
emissions from the production of building materials in New
Zealand. They compared wood-framed versions to steel or
reinforced concrete versions of several different types of buildings,
and found that in all cases the wood buildings emitted less fossil
and process emissions during material production.
Schlamadinger and Marland [15] provided a comprehensive
theoretical analysis of the role of wood products in the global
carbon cycle. Based on computer modelling of carbon flows
associated with various land use strategies, they concluded that
using biomass for direct substitution of fossil fuels or fossil fuel-
intensive materials is an important means of reducing net carbon
emission because it provides permanent and cumulative emission
reduction, whereas sequestration or conservation of carbon is
typically limited or temporary. Schlamadinger et al. [16] developed
a standard methodology to compare the greenhouse gas balances
of fossil fuel and biofuel energy systems.
Börjesson and Gustavsson [17] brought together issues of land
use, biofuel supply, and end-of-life alternatives of building
materials in Sweden. They compared a multi-storey building
built with either a wood frame or a concrete frame, and found
that the primary energy used for the production of building
materials was about 60–80% higher for the concrete construction
than for the wood construction. The use of forest and processing
residues and wood-based demolition waste as substitutes for
fossil fuel, and alternative land uses and their effect on carbon
balances, were considered. The net GHG emission, while
generally more favourable for the wood-framed building,
depended strongly on how the wood was handled after
demolition of the building.
231
Scharai-Rad and Welling [18] analysed single-family houses
constructed in central Europe made with either wood or brick.
They considered the utilisation of processing and demolition
residues to replace fossil fuels, and found that net GHG emission
decreased as the volume of recovered wood increased. Petersen
and Solberg [19–21] analysed the use of various wood materials in
place of non-wood materials in Norway. They found wood
construction to have consistently lower GHG emission than
non-wood material.
CORRIM conducted research into all stages of the wood-based
building materials chain, from forest production, harvest, proces-
sing, construction, use, and demolition [22–36]. They compared
concrete- and steel-framed houses to functionally equivalent
wood-framed houses. Upton et al. [37] expanded these case studies
of individual houses to a national scale, over a time period of 100
years. The authors linked the CORRIM data on construction
materials in houses to ‘‘upstream’’ issues like forest growth
dynamics and land use issues, and ‘‘downstream’’ issues like
disposal of the demolition materials and the resulting GHG
emissions.
Gustavsson et al. [38] compared the energy use and CO2
emission of functionally equivalent apartment buildings made
with wood or concrete frames, taking into account the energy
available from biomass residues from the wood products chain as
well as cement process reactions including calcination and
carbonation. They found that the wood buildings have lower
energy use and emission. Gustavsson and Sathre [39] studied the
variability of energy use and CO2 emission of buildings with wood
or concrete frames. They found that wood-framed buildings had
lower energy and CO2 balances than concrete-framed buildings in
all cases except the best-case combination of parameters that was
most favourable for the concrete-frame buildings.
Eriksson et al. [40] conducted a broad system analysis of carbon
stocks and flows in trees, soil, wood products, and substitutable
materials and fuels, finding that overall carbon emissions were
lower when forests were managed intensively to produce
construction materials. The substitution effect of using wood
instead of non-wood materials had the greatest single impact on
the overall carbon balance.
2.2. Building operation
Typical buildings constructed today use most of the life cycle
energy use during the operation phase [41–43]. Adalberth [43]
studied the life cycle energy in seven Swedish houses built in the
1990s and found that about 85% of the life cycle energy use, and
70–90% of the environmental impacts, occurred in the operation
phase. Major efforts have been made to reduce the energy used for
building operation, and there is growing interest in buildings
which demand less energy for heating than conventional ones.
Different types of low-energy houses are being built, with a
variety of descriptive names such as passive house, zero energy
home, self-sufficient house and Minergie [44–47]. Most concepts
refer to houses constructed with the aim of minimizing the final or
purchased space heat demand. This is mainly achieved by
improved insulation, reduced air leakage through the building
envelope and by heat recovery of ventilation air. These measures
result in increased material use and thereby an increased energy
use in the production phase. Few life cycle studies have been
performed of low-energy houses, especially those in a cold climate.
Some that have been carried out conclude that the operational
energy is still most important [41,44], while others show that as
much as 40–60% of the total energy use is in the production/
construction phases [48]. As the energy for operation decreases, it
becomes relatively more important to consider the other phases of
a building’s life cycle.
232 L. Gustavsson et al. / Energy and Buildings 42 (2010) 230–242
The energy performance of buildings is often evaluated based
on the operational energy expressed as final or even purchased
energy. Purchased energy is often inadequate to compare buildings
since it depends on the heating system used. Final energy
expresses the energy demand of the house, but does not account
for primary energy use and hence the environmental impact due to
the supply systems. In a thorough discussion on sustainable
buildings it is therefore important to distinguish between building
concepts that strives to ‘‘minimize the final energy use’’ and those
that ‘‘minimize the resource use and emissions.’’ These goals are
not necessarily the same. Relatively many studies have analyzed
the end-use energy use in buildings, but fewer studies have
examined the primary energy use needed to produce the final
energy service, including losses along the energy chains. Most
Scandinavian life cycle studies of low-energy houses have
considered only the final energy use for operation [43,49].
The primary energy use of operating a building depends on
the processes in the energy supply systems for electricity and
heat. Karlsson [50] compared energy supply systems for heating
purposes and demonstrated the relationship between different
parts of the supply chain, such as fuel, end-use conversion and
large-scale heat and power production technology. The size of
the heat demand in turn influences the suitable type and
capacity of heating system and consequently also the supply
system. Both Larsson et al. [51] and Gustafsson [52] concluded
that house envelope measures and heating system measures
should be considered together, but did not include the entire
supply chains in their studies. Gustavsson [53] analysed the
effects of house envelope measures on district heating system
design and cost, and discussed the importance of analyzing
changes in the building stock when new production capacity is
designed.
The connections between energy demand and supply were
studied in detail by Gustavsson and Joelsson [54,55]. Joelsson and
Gustavsson [56] also conducted an integrated analysis of the
linkage between construction energy input and operational energy
input. This type of analysis permits the ‘‘optimisation’’ of energy
use over the entire building life cycle. Connections, trade-offs and
synergies between different phases of the life cycle must be
identified, allowing an optimisation of building construction and
operation practices to reduce environmental impacts in a cost-
effective way, considering life cycle building costs including
external costs.
In a life cycle optimization, all the life cycle phases of a building
need to be considered [57,58]. Furthermore, when performing
environmental life cycle studies of buildings it is necessary to also
adopt a life cycle perspective on the energy use, and hence consider
the primary energy use in all phases. Sartori and Hestnes [59]
showed that the analytical methods used in previous life cycle
studies have varied, and that several have not stated what type of
energy system is analyzed.
2.3. End-of-life phase
Efficient management of post-use building materials is a
priority issue in the European Union [60] including in Sweden
[61]. However, few studies have focused on the energy and CO2
emission implications of the post-use phase of buildings, and in
many studies where the post-use impacts have been considered,
the demolished material is assumed to be landfilled. For example,
Junnila et al. [62] considered demolished material to be landfilled
in an assessment of the life cycle impacts of a European and a US
building. Ochoa et al. [63] estimated the impacts during the post-
use phase of a building, assuming demolished materials are
landfilled. However, policy instruments such as fees and taxes on
landfilling in many parts of the European Union, and voluntary
agreements in some countries, are increasingly being used to
promote diversion of post-use materials from landfills to other
uses [60,64]. Other instruments which promote recovery and re-
use of demolition materials in Europe are taxes on natural
resources [65]. Furthermore, the landfilling of post-use wood is
prohibited in many parts of the European Union.
Keoleian et al. [66] analyzed the energy use to demolish a
building and transport the material to a recycling plant, although
they did not consider the energy to re-process the demolished
material for reuse. Scheuer et al. [42] analyzed the life cycle energy
and environmental impacts of a building, including the impacts at
the post-use phase, assuming that some material excluding wood
is recycled. However, it is not clear which specific recycling options
they considered for the various materials, or the proportion of
demolished materials which were recycled.
Recovered wood can be burned as biofuel, re-used, or re-
processed to a new product. Sathre and Gustavsson [67] compared
energy and carbon balances of products made of recovered wood
to the balances of products obtained from virgin wood fibre or
from non-wood material. They found that several mechanisms
affect the energy and carbon balances of recovery wood: direct
effects due to different properties and logistics of virgin and
recovered materials, substitution effects due to the reduced
demand for non-wood materials when wood is re-used, and land
use effects due to alternative possible land uses when less timber
harvest is needed because of wood recovery. They concluded that
land use effects have the greatest impact on energy and carbon
balances, followed by substitution effects, while direct effects are
relatively minor.
3. Methods
3.1. Methodological approach
Bottom-up analytical techniques are used here to determine the
primary energy use and CO2 emission in material production,
construction, operation, and end-of-life phases. The analysis is
based on material and energy flows over the building’s life cycle
and the energy supply chains. Bottom-up models start from a
detailed understanding of the fundamental elements and pro-
cesses of the system, and then generate aggregate system
behaviour by simulating the relations between the individual
entities of the system. As the analysis expands to include higher
order indirect inputs, the contribution of additional factors
becomes less significant and more cumbersome to determine.
System boundaries of the analysis are drawn at an appropriate
level, beyond which the energy and material flows are disregarded.
This method allows the analysis of different processes in the
material and energy system chains in great detail. It also allows the
evaluation of the effects of new technologies and potential
improvements to the systems, for which top-down methods are
less suited since they are based on statistical data of historic or
current practice.
3.2. Material production
Based on analysis of construction drawings and personal
communication with staff of the construction industries involved
in the construction, the total quantities of materials in the building
are estimated, broken down by type of material and building
component (foundations/ground floor; outer walls; inner walls;
floor structure; roof; windows; balconies; and interior fixtures).
The energy and carbon implications of the material chains are then
analysed, starting from raw materials extracted from their natural
state or cultivated (e.g. timber production in managed forests),
followed by one or more stages of processing.
 L. Gustavsson et al. / Energy and Buildings 42 (2010) 230–242 233

3.2.1. Material energy balance Table 1

Specific end-use energy (kWhend use/tonne) for production of selected building
The energy balance of the building materials is calculated as the
materials.
primary energy expended to extract, process and transport the
materials, minus the net energy of biomass byproducts that can be Material Fossil fuel Electricity Biomass
recovered and made available for external use throughout the Concrete (average of 3 grades) 181 21 0
material life cycle. This can be expressed as Steel (50% ore-based, 50% scrap) 3342 745 0
Lumber (kiln-dried) 177 139 695
EB ¼ Eproduction  Ebyproducts
Glue-laminated wood 336 305 997
Stonewool insulation 2381 389 0
where EB is the primary energy balance of the materials; Eproduction
Plasterboard 792 161 0
is the primary energy used to extract, process and transport the Polyurethane (includes 23057 4167 0
materials; Ebyproducts is the lower heating value of recovered feedstock energy)
biomass residues from forestry, processing, construction and Glass 1861 200 0
demolition, less the primary energy used for their recovery.
The energy used for producing the materials in the building is residue (kWh/oven dry tonne); b is the diesel fuel energy required
calculated as: to recover and transport the residue, expressed as a proportion of
( )
L the heat energy contained in the residue; a is the fuel cycle energy
½F i;k  ð1 þ ak Þ þ i þ Bi
X X
Eproduction ¼ requirement of the diesel fuel.
i k
h
The available quantities of biomass residues are determined
where Eproduction is the total primary energy use for material based on tree characteristics and the material conversion efficien-
production (kWh); i are the individual types of materials in the cies of harvesting and processing practices. First, the masses of the
building; F is the end-use fossil fuel energy used to extract, process, different wood-based products used in the finished buildings
and transport the materials (kWh); k is the type of fossil fuel: coal, (lumber, glulam, plywood and particleboard) are adjusted to include
oil, and fossil gas; a is the fuel cycle energy requirement of the the waste generated during construction. Next, the wood product
fossil fuel; L is the end-use electricity to extract, process, and masses are adjusted for their assumed water content (15%) and the
transport the materials (kWhe); h is the conversion efficiency for proportion of wood fibre in the finished product (100% for lumber,
electricity production; B is the heat content (lower heating value) 90% for plywood and particleboard, 98% for glue-laminated
of the biofuels used in material processing (kWh). products). Then, the amount of roundwood under bark needed to
The energy-use parameters F, L and B are calculated for each produce these amounts of products is calculated, based on a
material by multiplying the quantity of material in tonnes by the breakdown between end product and mill residue of 49% end
specific end-use production energy of each material in kWh of the product, 51% chips and sawdust. It is assumed that particleboard is
various energy carriers per tonne of material. Table 1 shows produced from residue from lumber production. Additional residue
representative values of specific energy use. Data on energy used can also be produced at secondary material processing industries
for building material production are based primarily on two that provide manufactured products to the building site, such as
process analyses, from Norway [8] and from Sweden [68]. Data on doors, windows and glue-laminated beams. The use of byproducts of
energy used for forest production (seed production, nursery secondary wood processing is not considered, for which additional
operations, site preparations, and pre-commercial thinning) are research is required.
based on [69]. Forest production energy is allocated to the different The amount of living tree biomass corresponding to the
wood products based on the mass of wood fibre contained in the required roundwood volume is calculated using biomass expan-
finished wood products. Data on energy used for harvest, transport sion factors (BEFs) that distribute total tree biomass between stem,
and wood processing operations are based on [68]. bark, foliage, stump and roots [70]. BEFs for 100-year-old Norway
Based on total material mass inputs for the buildings and spruce and Scots pine trees are used, averaged to obtain 53% of the
specific energy demand data for the manufacture and transport of total tree biomass in stemwood under bark, 5% in bark, 14% in
each material, the total final-use energy needed to provide the branches, 6% in foliage, and 22% in stumps and coarse roots. Of the
building materials is calculated. Total primary energy use for the total amount of biomass, part can be practically recovered for
building materials is calculated by taking into account efficiencies energy purposes. The recovery percentages and the assumed
of fuel cycle, conversion and distribution systems. moisture content and heat values of the various types of biofuels
are shown in Table 2. It is assumed that the energy used for
3.2.2. Bioenergy recovery recovery and transport of biofuels is diesel fuel, quantified as a
The life cycle of wood-based building material is shown percentage of the heat energy content of the recovered biomass,
schematically in Fig. 1. The biomass originates in the forest, and is also shown in Table 2.
then processed into usable materials and is assembled into a
finished building. Biomass residues from all stages of the life cycle
can be recovered for use in energy systems. Residues from wood
processing can also be co-produced into additional materials, and
residues from demolished buildings can also be cascaded, or re-
processed into other wood-based materials. In this study the
energy and carbon implications of byproducts of non-wood
building materials are not considered.
The energy available from biomass residues is calculated as:
X
Ebyproducts ¼ fM j  H j  ½1  b j  ð1 þ adiesel Þg
j

where Ebyproducts is the net energy from recovered biomass residues

(kWh); j are the different types of residues: forest, processing,
construction and demolition; M is the mass of the recovered Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of forest biomass flows over the life cycle of a wood-based
residue (oven dry tonnes); H is the lower heating value of the building material.
234 L. Gustavsson et al. / Energy and Buildings 42 (2010) 230–242
Table 2
Amounts and properties of recovered biofuels. Energy for recovery and transport is expressed as a percentage of the heat value of the recovered biofuel.
Biofuel source Recovery (%) Moisture content (%)
Branches, tops 75 60
Foliage 25 60
Bark 100 60
Processing residues 100b 50
Construction waste 100 15
Demolition wood 90 15
a
Energy used to harvest and transport logs to sawmill is accounted for in lumber production energy.
b
100% of processing residues not used internally for process heat or particleboard raw material.
c
Energy used for demolition of the building is accounted for in end-of-life management.
3.2.3. Material carbon balance
The carbon balance of the material life cycle includes CO2
emission to the atmosphere due to fossil fuel combustion and
industrial process reactions from material production, minus CO2
emission avoided by replacing fossil fuel with recovered biofuels,
minus increased (or plus decreased) carbon stock in materials. The
carbon balance is calculated as:
CB ¼ C fossil þ C process  C avoided  DS
where CB is the carbon balance (kg CO2); Cfossil is CO2 due to fossil
fuel combustion for material production (kg CO2); Cprocess is CO2
emission from industrial process reactions (kg CO2); Cavoided is net
avoided CO2 emission due to replacing fossil fuel with recovered
biofuel (kg CO2); DS is increased carbon stock in wood products (kg
CO2).
3.2.4. Fossil carbon emissions from material production
The carbon emission due to fossil fuel use for material
production is calculated as:
X L
C fossil ¼ ½C k  F k  þ C L 
k
h 3.2.6. Avoided fossil emission due to biofuel substitution
where Cfossil is CO2 emission to the atmosphere due to fossil fuel
combustion for material production (kg CO2); k is the type of fossil
fuel: coal, oil, and fossil gas; C is the fuel-cycle carbon intensity of
the fossil fuel (kg CO2/kWh end-use fuel); F is the end-use fossil
fuel energy used to extract, process, and transport the materials
(kWh); CL is the fuel-cycle carbon intensity of the reference fossil
fuel used to produce electricity (kg CO2/kWh fuel); L is the end-use
electricity to extract, process, and transport the materials (kWhe);
h is the conversion efficiency for electricity production.
Specific full-fuel-cycle CO2 emission from fossil fuel is taken to
be 0.24, 0.29 and 0.40 kg CO2/kWh end-use energy, for fossil gas, oil
and coal, respectively [71].
3.2.5. Process carbon emissions
Process emission is CO2 emission that is caused by chemical
reactions inherent to the production process. Cement production is
the largest source of non-energy-related industrial carbon emis-
sion. Approximately 0.5 tonne of CO2 is released for each tonne of
cement produced [72]. CO2 is released during the manufacture of
cement due to the calcination reaction, when calcium carbonate is
heated and broken down into calcium oxide and CO2. A part of the
CO2 emitted in the calcination reaction during cement manufac-
ture is later taken up again by the cement over a time scale of years
to centuries due to carbonation. In this chemical reaction,
atmospheric CO2 reacts with calcium hydroxide in the hydrated
cement to form calcium carbonate and water.
In this study, the amount of carbonation uptake is based on data
from [73] showing that 8% of the calcination release is re-fixed by
Heat value (kWh/kg dry biomass) Recovery/transport energy (% of heat value)
4.25 5
4.25 5
4.25 1a
4.61 1a
5.17 1
5.17 1c
carbonation over a 100-year span. Kjellsen et al. [74] have
suggested that the carbonation rate may be higher, particularly
due to the increased atmospheric exposure of the concrete when it
is crushed after building demolition. Dodoo et al. [75], however,
have concluded that the carbon uptake by post-use concrete is
small in relation to the total carbon flows over a building life cycle,
even when crushed and exposed for up to 30 years. The CO2
emission from fossil fuel used to crush the post-use concrete is
roughly equivalent to the increased CO2 uptake from carbonation
of the crushed concrete.
The life cycle carbon emission due to industrial process
reactions of material production is calculated as:
C process ¼ ½W cement  P cement  ð1  lÞ
where Cprocess is the net CO2 emission from industrial process
reactions (kg CO2); Wcement is the mass of cement used to construct
the building (kg); Pcement is the CO2 emission due to calcination
reaction during manufacture of the cement (kg CO2/kg cement); l
is the proportion of calcination emission that is re-absorbed by the
cement over the building life cycle.
The net carbon emission reduction of fossil fuels substitution is
calculated based on the full-fuel-cycle emissions of the avoided
fossil fuel, the difference in energy conversion efficiency between
the fossil fuel and the biofuel, and the emission of the fossil fuel used
for recovery and transport of the biofuel. The actual combustion of
biofuel obtained from sustainably managed forests is assumed to
have zero net emission. Biofuel is assumed to replace either coal or
fossil gas. The conversion efficiency is assumed to be unchanged
when coal is replaced by biomass, and 4% lower when fossil gas is
replaced by biomass. These are average values for various
conversion technologies, with no distinction made between
thermal, electrical and cogeneration use of fuels [76]. The diesel
fuel used for recovery and transport of biofuels is shown in Table 2.
The carbon emission avoided due to replacing fossil fuel with
recovered biofuel is calculated as:
X
C avoided ¼ b M j  H j c  C f  c f  ½C diesel  Dresidues 
j
where Cavoided is the net avoided CO2 emission due to replacing
fossil fuel with recovered biofuel (kg CO2); j is the type of biomass
residue: forest, processing, construction and demolition; M is the
mass of the recovered residue (oven dry kg); H is the lower heating
value of the residue (kWh/oven dry kg); Cf is the fuel-cycle carbon
intensity of the reference fossil fuel replaced by the residues (kg
CO2/kWh end-use fuel); cf is the relative conversion efficiency of
biofuel versus reference fossil fuel; Cdiesel is the fuel-cycle carbon
intensity of diesel fuel (kg CO2/kWh diesel); Ddiesel is the quantity
of diesel fuel used to recover and transport the biomass residues
(kWh).
 L. Gustavsson et al. / Energy and Buildings 42 (2010) 230–242
3.3. Building construction
In the construction phase, the diverse materials are assembled
into a complete building. Previous studies have concluded that on-
site construction activities use only a minor part of the total life
cycle energy use of a building. Most previous studies of
construction energy have not made clear whether they report
end-use energy or primary energy. Björklund and Tillman [68]
reviewed the construction of several buildings in Sweden, and
reported construction energy use from 17 to 168 kWh/m2 of
building area. Cole [10] found the contribution of the on-site
construction phase of a wood-frame Canadian multi-storey
building to average about 5% and 12% of the energy used to
produce the building materials, if workers’ transport energy is
excluded or included, respectively. These percentages applied to
the present case study building result in a construction energy use
of 45 and 107 kWh/m2, respectively. Forintek [77] found con-
struction energy to equal about 7% of material production energy.
Adalberth [43] studied 7 Swedish buildings and found that
building assembly activities used on average 74 kWh/m2.
Energy data specific to the construction of the case study
building is lacking. It is therefore assumed that the primary energy
use for on-site construction of the case study building is 80 kWh/
m2, based on the studies described above. Construction-related
carbon emissions are estimated with the assumption that half of
the construction-related primary energy use is for end-use
electricity, and half is diesel fuel.
Some building material is wasted on the construction site. The
amount of building waste typically varies between materials, and
also varies between construction sites. Here, waste material
generated during construction of the buildings is accounted for by
increasing the material quantities in the finished buildings by
specific percentages that are representative for each material.
These waste percentage values of Swedish construction sites are
based on [68], assuming 1.5% concrete waste, 7% insulation waste,
10% plasterboard and wood waste, and 15% steel reinforcement
waste. For all other materials 5% waste is assumed, except crushed
stone and porcelain for which 0% waste is assumed. This analysis
considers the recovery of wood waste for use as a substitute for
fossil fuels. Transport, disposal or recycling of non-wood con-
struction site waste materials is not considered in this study.
3.4. Building operation
The operation phase includes energy for space heating (energy
for heating system and electricity for operating the ventilation
system), domestic hot water, household electricity, and electricity
for facility management purposes. Energy use for maintenance
during the building life is not included in this analysis. The life span
of buildings is uncertain, yet it has a significant impact on the
energy use and CO2 emission during the operation phase. Two
different life spans are considered here: 50 years and 100 years.
All the processes along the energy supply chain, from the
extraction of raw material to refining, transport, conversion to heat
and electricity and distribution to the user can be performed with
different energy efficiency and with varying CO2 emissions. All the
energy input and emissions from these processes need to be
included for a full description of a particular energy system. The
concept of primary energy is used to denote the energy needed in
order to generate the final energy service, including inputs and
losses along the energy chains.
The final energy use during the operation phase of the building
is estimated by computer modelling using ENORM software [78].
ENORM computes the energy and average power demand over a
12-month period based on outdoor temperature and average solar
radiation on a 24-h basis. The program accounts for factors
235
including the thermal transmittances and the areas of the building
envelope, i.e. foundations, external walls, windows, doors and roof.
The indoor air temperature is assumed to be 22 8C inside the
apartments and 18 8C in other parts of the building.
The operation phase of the case study building is evaluated for
several types of heat supply systems: electric resistance heating
(RH), bedrock heat pump (HP), and district heating (DH). The
bedrock heat pump is assumed to have a heat factor of 3 and a
power of 35 kW which covers 98% of the heat demand. An electric
heater integrated with the heat pump covers the remaining
demand.
All of the heating systems require some electricity to run, and
the base-load electricity is assumed to come from stand-alone
power plants with different fuels and technology: coal-based
steam turbine (CST), natural gas-based combined cycle (NGCC),
biomass-based steam turbine (BST), and biomass-based integrated
gasification combined-cycle systems (BIG/CC). These power
systems are assumed to produce electricity used to cover the
household and facility electricity and 95% of the heat demand in
the electrical heating systems, while peak power production with
light-oil-fired gas turbines produces electricity used to cover the
remaining 5%. Coal-fired condensing plants account for the
marginal electricity production in northern Europe today, while
systems with a high share of biomass fuels have potential for
climate change mitigation due to lower net CO2 emission.
However, as the supply of biomass fuel is limited, the high use
of biomass in one system reduces the possibility of replacing fossil
fuels elsewhere. It is therefore desirable to identify systems that
simultaneously minimize biomass use and CO2 emission. BIG/CC
technology holds potential for improved electricity conversion
efficiency in biomass-based systems. It uses a combined cycle,
where fuels are gasified and then used to generate electricity
through a gas and a steam turbine. Combined heat and power
plants (CHP plants) based on combined-cycle technology have a
power-to-heat ratio of about 1.0, compared to about 0.5 for CHP
plants using steam turbines [79].
For the district heating systems analysed here, cogeneration
plants cover the base-load heat demand while light-oil-fired
boilers cover the peak demand. It is assumed that the electricity
cogenerated in the district heating system replaces electricity that
would otherwise be produced elsewhere, in condensing power
plants using similar technology and fuel as the corresponding
cogeneration plant. This electricity is hence subtracted from the
cogeneration system to give heat as the output function of the
system. An underlying assumption is that there is a demand for
electricity produced in stand-alone plants, supported by the fact
that about 75% of the electricity generation in the EU is based on
such production [80]. It is assumed that electricity distribution
losses are 7% and heat losses in the district heating network are 7%.
The hot tap water and the electricity for household and facility
management are generated with technology and fuel correspond-
ing to the heating system. However, an alternative where solar
panels are used to heat hot tap water is also considered. Andresen
et al. [81] presented an overview of solar heating systems in the
Nordic countries, and found that monitored systems designed to
cover 40–60% of the hot water demand showed a solar fraction of
30% or less. In this study it is assumed that the solar panels cover
40% of the annual hot water demand.
Based on the system properties described above, the computer
software ENSYST [82] is used to calculate the primary energy used
for building operation. It estimates the fuel input at each stage in
the energy system chains, and takes into account the energy
efficiency for each process. The net CO2 emission from the
operation phase is also calculated by ENSYST. The methodology
described by Gustavsson and Joelsson [54,55] is followed here. The
assumptions used in ENSYST regarding the production and
236 L. Gustavsson et al. / Energy and Buildings 42 (2010) 230–242

transport of fuels for electricity and heat are the same as those Table 3
End-use and primary energy used for the production of materials and for on-site
made by Gustavsson and Karlsson [83,84]. Wood chips used for
construction of the case study building.
energy purposes are assumed to be produced from logging
residues. Fossil gas, as well as crude oil for production of petrol, End-use energy Conversion/ Primary energy
fuel cycle
diesel and light fuel oil, are assumed to originate from offshore
production in Norway. Coal is assumed to be imported from mines MWh kWh/m2 MWh kWh/m2 MWh kWh/m2
in South Africa, Poland and Colombia. Fossil gas 106 31 5 2 111 33
Coal 470 139 47 14 517 153
3.5. End-of-life phase Oil 961 285 48 14 1009 299
Biomass 521 154 0 0 521 154
Electricitya 442 131 685 203 1127 334
The final stage in the life cycle of a building is the demolition or
disassembly of the building, followed by the disposal, recycling, or Total 2499 741 785 233 3285 974
re-use of the materials. The energy used for demolition of buildings a
Produced in a coal-fired power plant.
is typically small (1–3%) in relation to the energy used for material
production and building assembly [9]. Adalberth [43] studied 7 Table 4
Swedish buildings, including 3 single-family houses and 4 multi- Heat value of biofuel residues recoverable for external use, fossil energy (diesel)
family buildings, and estimated that demolition would use less used for recovery and transport, and the available net energy.

than 10 kWh/m2. Winistorfer et al. [34] estimated the demolition Heat value Recovery/ Net energy
of single-family houses in the USA to use from 8.4 to 9.6 kWh/m2. of residues transport available
The National Trust for Historical Preservation [85] found that the energy
demolition of a 5000 m2 wooden building used about 7.5 kWh/m2. MWh kWh/m2 MWh kWh/m2 MWh kWh/m2
As with construction energy, most previous studies have not Forest harvest residues 1048 311 52 16 995 295
clearly stated whether they consider primary or end-use energy. In Wood processing residues 2782 825 28 8 2754 816
this study, it is assumed that the primary energy used for Construction site residues 240 71 2 1 238 70
demolition of the case study building is 10 kWh/m2, based on the Total biomass residues 4070 1206 83 24 3988 1182
results of the studies described above. Demolition-related carbon
emissions are calculated based on the assumption that the
demolition energy is from diesel fuel. It is assumed that 90% of shown, including calcination emission during manufacture minus
the wood-based demolition materials are recovered and used as carbonation uptake during a 100-year lifespan. The stock of carbon
biofuel, with the remaining 10% of wood materials decaying into in the wood-based materials is temporary and will be lost when the
CO2 released to the atmosphere. building is demolished and the wood-based materials are burned.
Energy for recovery, transport or disposal of non-wood Table 6 shows the flows of biomass associated with the life cycle
demolition materials is not considered in this study. Building of the case study building. About 420 tonnes (oven dry) of wood
materials made of plastic and paper could also be recovered and material is contained in the building.
used for energy purposes, but they are not considered in this study Table 7 shows the wood content of the different components of
because the quantities of these materials are small. In addition, the case study building, and the fossil energy and bioenergy used to
these materials are often used in composite products manufac- produce the materials in the different components. Production of
tured or installed using adhesives, making their physical separa- materials for the foundation, which is predominately made of
tion from the demolition residue potentially difficult. Dodoo et al. concrete and contains no wood, uses 28% of all fossil energy.
[75] found that the use of recovered demolition wood to substitute
for fossil fuels gave a higher carbon benefit than recovery of 4.2. Building operation
demolished concrete or steel materials. For this reason, and
because wood is the primary structural material in the case study Table 8 shows the end-use energy for operation of the building.
building, the end-of-life analysis in this study is limited to the The difference in space heating energy between the 3 heating
recovery of wood materials. systems is due to the energy for, e.g. pumps used to operate the
heating systems.
4. Results The primary energy use for building operation, using different
energy supply systems, is shown in Table 9. The choice of energy
4.1. Building production supply systems and heating systems for space heating and tap
water have a considerable impact on the operating primary energy
Quantities of materials comprising the different components of use. For coal-based systems, district heating results in 70% less
the building are listed in Appendix A. The energy used to produce primary energy use for space heating than if using resistance
the materials and assemble the building is shown in Table 3. A total heaters, and 35% less for the total operation. The choice of
of about 2500 MWh of end-use energy is used, or about 740 kWh/ electricity supply system also makes a difference, and using BIG/CC
m2. Taking into account conversion losses and fuel cycle inputs for instead of BST reduces the primary energy use for operation by
the different energy types, the total primary energy use is about around 15%. The primary energy for space heating and tap water
3300 MWh, or about 975 kWh/m2. heating with district heating systems is shown to be less than the
Table 4 shows the energy balance of the recovery of residues corresponding end-use energy in Table 8. This is because the
from forest harvest, wood processing, and construction activities. electricity cogenerated with district heat is assumed to replace
The net energy available is about 4000 MWh, or 1180 kWh/m2. The electricity produced in a stand-alone plant.
energy value of the processing residue used as raw material for The primary energy for tap water heating can be decreased by
particleboard production for the building is 57 MWh. using a thermal solar panel system. In Fig. 2 the building operation
The carbon balance from the production of materials and the energy is shown with and without solar panels for hot tap water
construction of the case study building is shown in Table 5. Positive heating. Space heating and tap water heating use large fractions of
numbers indicate emissions into the atmosphere, and negative the total energy use when using RH-CST. When these services are
numbers indicate avoided emissions. Net cement reactions are supplied by more energy-efficient supply systems, the primary
 L. Gustavsson et al. / Energy and Buildings 42 (2010) 230–242 237

Table 5
Carbon balance of material production and construction of the case study building, with reference fossil fuel of either coal or fossil gas.

Fossil coal reference Fossil gas reference

2
t CO2 kg CO2/m t CO2 kg CO2/m2

Material production (fossil fuel end-use) 485 144 485 144

Material production (electric end-use) 393 116 189 56
Cement reactions 91 27 91 27
Carbon stock in wood building materials 768 228 768 228
On-site construction emissions 93 27 71 21
Fossil fuel substitution (forest residue) 415 123 239 71
Fossil fuel substitution (processing residue) 1102 327 635 188
Fossil fuel substitution (construction residue) 95 28 55 16
Fossil fuel used for biofuel recovery/transport 32 10 32 10

Total 1287 381 829 246

Table 6 installed, while with DH-BST and DH-BIG/CC the reductions are 5%
Biomass flows associated with the case study building, expressed in tonnes of dry
and 3%, respectively.
matter, tonnes of dry matter per square meter of floor area, and as a percentage of
the mass of dry wood fibre in the building. The CO2 emission from building operation depends heavily on
the carbon content of the fuel used in the energy supply systems
Source Tonnes Tonnes/m2 %
(Table 10). Hence, the fossil gas-based systems have lower
Total tree biomass 2182 0.611 492% emission than the coal-based systems, and the biomass-based
Biomass removed from forest 1550 0.416 335% systems are the lowest. Resistance heating has higher primary
Harvested roundwood 1210 0.353 284%
energy use than other heating technologies, and has higher CO2
Recoverable forest residue 340 0.063 51%
Processing residue used internally for biofuel 113 0.034 27% emission than other technologies when using the same fuel.
Processing residue used for particleboard 11 0.003 3%
Processing residue available for external use 631 0.182 146% 4.3. End-of-life material management
Recoverable construction waste 47 0.014 11%
Wood in building 419 0.124 100%
Recoverable demolition wood 377 0.112 90%
Table 11 shows the energy and carbon balances of the building’s
end-of-life phase. The energy used for demolition and recovery of
wood-based materials is very small in relation to the heat energy
content of the recovered demolition wood. Similarly, the carbon
Table 7 emission from the fossil fuels used for demolition and recovery of
Wood product content and primary energy use for manufacture of materials in
the biofuel is very small compared to the carbon benefits of using
different building components. Electricity is assumed to be from a coal-fired power
plant. the recovered wood material to substitute for fossil fuels.

Wood product Fossil energy used Bioenergy

4.4. Complete building life cycle
content used

Tonnes % kWh/m2 % kWh/m2 % Table 12 shows the primary energy use for the production,
Foundation 0 0% 208 28% 0 0% construction, operation and end-of-life phases of the building life
Floor structure 236 47% 163 22% 72 47% cycle with biomass-based district heating. The operation phase is
Roof 12 2% 23 3% 3 2%
the largest single user of primary energy, and is proportionally
Outer walls 101 20% 85 12% 32 21%
Inner walls 61 12% 135 18% 18 12% greater when the building lifespan is longer. The biofuel recovered
Windows 6 1% 33 5% 1.4 1% from the production and construction processes is greater than the
Doors 11 2% 7 1% 2.5 2% primary energy that is used in those processes.
Balconies 55 11% 41 6% 18 12% Fig. 3 shows the primary energy use for the building during 50
Stairs 4 1% 3 0.4% 1.2 1%
years, excluding tap water heating and household and facility
Interior fixtures 15 3% 42 6% 6 4%
electricity, for five different energy supply systems. The primary
Total building 500 100% 739 100% 154 100% energy use is divided in six parts. The space heating constitutes the
largest single part, while the primary energy use for on-site
construction and demolition together constitute 3% of the primary
energy use for these services is much lower. Consequently, the energy used. The amount of fossil fuels replaced by recovered
solar panels has a smaller impact on the primary energy use when biomass is the same regardless of the energy supply system, while
using district heating than when using a less energy-efficient the primary energy use for operation varies.
supply system. With RH-CST, the case study building has 25% The relative proportion of primary energy used for material
lower operational primary energy use when solar panels are production and building construction and that used for space

Table 8
End-use energy (kWh/m2) for a 50 year operation phase of the case study building, using different heating systems. For a 100 year life span of the building, all values are
doubled.

Space heating Electricity for ventilation Tap water heating Electricity for household use and Total operation
facility management

Resistance heaters 625 415 1724 2100 4964

Bedrock heat pump 703 415 1724 2100 4942
District heating 715 415 1724 2100 4954
238 L. Gustavsson et al. / Energy and Buildings 42 (2010) 230–242

Table 9
Primary energy use (kWh/m2) for a 50 year operation phase of the case study building, using different energy supply systems. For a 100 year life span of the building, all values
are doubled.

Space heating Ventilation Tap water heating Electricity for household use and facility management Total operation

Coal-based steam turbine (CST)

Resistance heaters 1601 1064 4416 5381 12462
Bedrock heat pump 656 1064 1609 5381 8710
District heating 447 1064 1077 5381 7969

Natural gas-based combined cycle (NGCC)

Resistance heaters 1472 978 4059 4946 11454
Bedrock heat pump 607 978 1489 4946 7444
District heating 331 978 799 4946 7054

Biomass-based steam turbine (BST)

Resistance heaters 1866 1240 5146 6271 14524
Bedrock heat pump 756 1240 1854 6271 10121
District heating 391 1240 942 6271 8843

Biomass-based integrated gasification combined cycle (BIG/CC)

Resistance heaters 1609 1069 4436 5405 12519
Bedrock heat pump 659 1069 1616 5405 8749
District heating 247 1069 596 5405 7317

Fig. 4 shows CO2 emissions over a 50-year building life span,

excluding tap water heating and household and facility electricity,
using different energy supply systems. With biomass-based
district heat, the CO2 emission from space heating is small. If
the building uses resistance heating with fossil electricity, the CO2
emission from space heating dominates over the CO2 emission
from the other life cycle phases. The building has negative
emission in the production and construction phase due to the
substitution of fossil fuel with biomass residues from the
production and construction. A biomass-based energy supply
system, including cogeneration of district heat and electricity,
gives negative total life cycle CO2 emission.

Fig. 2. Primary energy use for a 50-year operation phase, with and without using
solar panels for heating tap water, and using coal-based resistance heating (RH-CST)
and biomass-based district heating (DH-BST).
heating and ventilation shifts depending on the energy supply
system. As the space heating energy decreases due to more
efficient supply systems, the production energy constitutes a larger
fraction of the total energy use. When using RH-CST the production
energy is 27% of the total primary energy use, and when using DH-
BIG/CC it is 42% of the total.
5. Uncertainties
The quantities of some materials might be over- or under-
estimated in our analysis, as no official bill of materials prepared by
the designers or builders of the building was available. This
uncertainty is larger for materials that are small and do not appear
on construction plans, for example connectors, small wood strips,
paint and putty. In addition, materials that make up the heating
systems (e.g. radiators) are not included in the materials
quantities.

Table 10
CO2 emission (kg CO2/m2) for a 50 year operation phase of the case study building, using different energy supply systems. For a 100 year life span of the building, all values are
doubled.

Space heating Ventilation Tap water heating Electricity for household use and facility management Total operation

Coal-based steam turbine (CST)

Resistance heaters 596 396 1643 2002 4638
Bedrock heat pump 239 396 586 2002 3224
District heating 166 396 401 2002 2966

Natural gas-based combined cycle (NGCC)

Resistance heaters 317 210 874 1065 2466
Bedrock heat pump 134 210 328 1065 1737
District heating 72 210 175 1065 1522

Biomass-based steam turbine (BST)

Resistance heaters 61 40 168 204 473
Bedrock heat pump 37 40 91 204 373
District heating 20 40 49 204 314

Biomass-based integrated gasification combined cycle (BIG/CC)

Resistance heaters 57 38 158 193 446
Bedrock heat pump 10 38 24 193 264
District heating 8 38 18 193 257
 L. Gustavsson et al. / Energy and Buildings 42 (2010) 230–242 239

Table 11
Energy and carbon balance of the end-of-life management of the case study building. The reference fossil fuel is either coal or fossil gas.

Primary energy use CO2 emission

Coal Fossil gas

MWh kWh/m2 tonnes of CO2 kg CO2/m2 tonnes of CO2 kg CO2/m2

Fossil fuel used for building demolition 34 10 10 3 10 3

Fossil fuel used for biofuel recovery 19 6 6 3 6 3
Demolition wood used to substitute fossil fuel 1946 577 770 228 444 132

Total 1893 561 755 224 428 127

Table 12
Primary energy balance (kWh/m2) and carbon balance (kg CO2/m2) of the life cycle of the case study building, for life spans of 50 and 100 years. The heating system is biomass-
based district heating (DH-BST). Positive numbers indicate energy used and CO2 emitted, and negative numbers indicate energy that is available and CO2 emissions avoided.

Primary energy use CO2 emission

50 years 100 years 50 years 100 years

Material production 894 894 287 287

Construction 80 80 27 27
Biomass recovery from production 1182 1182 468 468

Operation 8843 17687 314 627

Space heating 391 781 20 40
Ventilation 1240 2480 40 80
Tap water heating 942 1883 49 97
Household and facility electricity 6271 12542 204 409

Demolition 10 10 3 3
Biomass recovery from demolition 571 571 225 225

Total 8074 16918 62 251

Production energy data were not available for all materials, so in
these cases data for similar materials are used. For example, the
83 kg of rubber in the building was assumed to use the same
production energy as an equivalent amount of polyurethane plastic,
and the 275 kg of wood wool panels was assumed to use the same
production energy as an equivalent amount of particleboard.
Although estimates of production energy data can be obtained for
some of these materials, it is preferable to use consistent data from
process analyses [8,68] to avoid introducing errors due to
inconsistent system boundaries and other methodological issues.
The quantities of materials affected by this simplification are minor
in comparison to the total materials quantity.
The most recent comprehensive analyses of energy use in
building material production in Europe date from the mid-1990s.
The efficiency of industrial technologies has generally improved
over time, resulting in differences in energy requirements and
emissions between materials processed by state-of-the-art tech-
nologies and those made in older factories. There is a need for
updating and improving the quality of data available on energy use
and environmental impacts in the Swedish building materials
industry.
Various factors influence the specific energy use for material
production, including cement clinker production efficiency,
blending of cement, crushing of aggregate, recycling of steel,
lumber drying efficiency, and material transport distance [39].
There is geographical variation, as technological innovations
diffuse across countries and regions. For example, Richter [86]
showed variability in cumulative energy demand for wood-based
products in different studies, and Josa et al. [87] showed a range of
energy use and CO2 emission in cement production in the
European Union. Swedish industries are generally considered to
be relatively efficient, compared to the global average, but there is
nevertheless a potential to increase the efficiency of manufactur-
ing processes.
Swedish forests are generally considered to be sustainably
managed, thus the decrease in biological carbon stock in tree
biomass that occurs at the time of harvest will be restored as the
forest re-grows and accumulates atmospheric carbon through the

Fig. 3. Primary energy use (excluding tap water heating and household and facility
electricity) for a 50 year life cycle of the case study building using five alternative
energy supply systems for space heating: resistance heaters (RH), heat pump (HP)
and district heating (DH), combined with coal-based steam turbines (CST), biomass-
based steam turbines (BST) and biomass-based integrated gasification combined-
cycle systems (BIG/CC). Space heating includes electricity for ventilation.
Fig. 4. CO2 emission (excluding tap water heating and household and facility
electricity) for a 50 year life cycle of the case study building using five alternative
energy supply systems for space heating. For supply system abbreviations, see
Fig. 3. Space heating includes electricity for ventilation.
240 L. Gustavsson et al. / Energy and Buildings 42 (2010) 230–242

process of photosynthesis. Carbon storage in forest soils changes at
a slower rate, thus moderating the changes in total forest
ecosystem carbon stock. Intensified forest management has been
shown to increase soil carbon stock, in spite of removal of
additional biomass from the ecosystem, due to the increased
growth rate and increased litter fall [40]. Although forest dynamics
are not explicitly considered in this report, an essential boundary
condition is that the forests producing the wood for the building
are sustainably managed, thus over the complete life cycle there
should be minimal net change in carbon stock.
In this study it is assumed that the end-of-life wood materials
are burned for energy recovery. Various other uses for recovered
wood are possible, including re-use as lumber, and re-processing
into particleboard or pulp. Such optimisation of end-of-life product
recovery and recycling systems may become increasingly impor-
tant in the future, to gain additional value from the wood as a
material, before it is burned to recover its feedstock energy [67]. In
such a future scenario, the ‘‘design for disassembly’’ of buildings
would become more prevalent to facilitate the removal of wood
products with minimal damage, to maintain their potential for
further re-use as a material [88].
6. Discussion and conclusions
During the construction phase of the case study building, more
energy can be obtained from biomass residues from the wood
products chain than is used to produce the building. Additional
bioenergy can be obtained at the end of the building life cycle if
wood-based demolition residues are recovered and used as biofuel.
The use of recovered biofuels to substitute for fossil fuels can
significantly reduce the net emission of CO2.
There is a potential to increase the recovery of biomass residues.
For example, recovery of stumps after harvesting is a potential to
increase biofuel recovery from the wood production chain. If 50% of
stumps are recovered from the forest harvest needed to produce
the wood for the case study building, an additional 254 MWh of net
energy will be obtained, after deducting the fossil energy used to
recover the stumps. This is an additional 75 kWh/m2. If
this additional biofuel were used to replace fossil coal or gas the
net carbon emission would decrease by 31 or 17 kg CO2/m2,
respectively.
The choice of heating systems plays a major role in primary
energy use and CO2 emission. District heating with cogenerated
heat and electricity, and bedrock heat pumps, are heating systems
that can deliver energy services with low primary energy use.
Biomass-fired supply systems provide service with very low net
CO2 emission. Considering only the construction-specific life cycle
inputs (excluding hot tap water and electricity for domestic and
facility management use), a negative life cycle emission of CO2 can
be achieved due to the wood-based construction materials and a
biomass-based energy supply system.
The choice of technology for generating electricity and district
heat has a smaller effect on primary energy use and CO2 emission
than the choice of heating system. Technology development of
biomass-based electricity generation is nevertheless important,
and the use of integrated gasification combined-cycle instead of
steam turbines is a way of achieving more efficient biomass-based
supply chains. In addition, in a biomass-based energy system the
use of cogeneration is more important for the overall system
efficiency than in a fossil gas-based energy system. This is due to a
larger gain of not having to produce electricity in stand-alone
plants, which are less efficient for biomass than for fossil gas.
The results of this study show that it is important to adopt a life
cycle perspective involving both material and energy supply when
evaluating the primary energy and climatic impacts of buildings.
Knowledge and technology for constructing buildings with a low
heating demand is widely available today, which is important to
incorporate because space heating constitutes a large share of the
total primary energy use. However, the more energy efficient the
heating and supply systems become, the more relative importance
the other building life cycle phases will have.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of NCC,
Midroc, and Martinsons. Bengt Abelsson of Martinsons has been
particularly helpful. Funding support from the European Union and
CBBT is gratefully acknowledged.

Appendix A. Mass (kg) of materials comprising the case study building, broken down by major building components. Mass of wood
products is based on a moisture content of 15%

Total Foundation Floor Roof Outer Inner Windows Doors Balconies Stairwells Interior
structure walls walls fixturesa

Lumber Total 115985 54182 11645 10274 16029 6047 10425 3830 992 2560
Spruce 69292 31344 11645 10274 16029
Pine 20248 6047 10371 3830
Oak 26445 22838 54 992 2560
Glulam 369925 180796 90363 44730 51608 2428
Particleboard 12603 271 275 12057
Plywood 1237 1237
Plasterboard 231747 73791 9099 23937 116109 8489 321
Concrete Total 1518367 1513152 5214
K30 65424 60209 5214
K35 1302000 1302000
K60 150943 150943
Crushed stone 145506 145506
Stone 248 248
Glass 29344 18823 163 9989 162 207
Ceramics 22213 8859 13354
Porcelain 1350 1350
Steel 71244 34068 15569 1439 1262 4656 221 1509 397 85 12038
Aluminium 1373 947 108 318
Rock wool 69890 19613 5520 12951 31785 21
Rubber 83 83
Plastic Total 5746 2132 34 85 1640 1854 1
Polypropylene 52 52
Polyurethane 3245 1583 1662
 L. Gustavsson et al. / Energy and Buildings 42 (2010) 230–242
Appendix A (Continued )
Total Foundation Floor Roof
structure
Polyethylene 311 34 85
Polystyrene 2132 2132
PVC 5 5
Paints 4679
Mortars 56443 1646
Putty/fillers 9547 1197 152
Glue 377 56
Asphalt 128 128
Tar paper 2622 2622
a
Does not include materials comprising the closets.
References
[1] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: Impacts,
Adaptation and Vulnerability Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth
Assessment Report, 2007 Accessed at http://www.ipcc.ch/.
[2] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of
Climate Change Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment
Report, 2007 Accessed at http://www.ipcc.ch.
[3] International Federation of Institutes for Advanced Study, Energy Analysis Report
No. 6 on Energy Analysis Workshop on Methodology and Conventions, 25–30
August, Guldsmedshyttan, Sweden, 1974.
[4] C.W. Boyd, P. Koch, H.B. McKean, C.R. Morschauser, S.B. Preston, Wood for
structural and architectural purposes: Panel II Report, Committee on Renewable
Resources for Industrial Materials, Wood and Fiber 8 (1) (1976) 3–72.
[5] I. Boustead, G.F. Hancock, Handbook of Industrial Energy Analysis, Ellis Horwood
Publishers, Chichester, UK, 1979.
[6] G. Baird, S.A. Chan, Energy Costs of Houses and Light Construction Buildings,
Report No. 76, New Zealand Energy Research and Development Committee,
Auckland, 1983.
[7] E. Worrell, R.J.J. van Heijningen, J.F.M. de Castro, J.H.O. Hazewinkel, J.G. de Beer,
A.P.C. Faau, K. Vringer, New gross energy requirement figures for material
production, Energy 19 (6) (1994) 627–640.
[8] S. Fossdal, Energi-og Miljøregnskap for bygg (Energy and environmental accounts
of building construction), Report 173, The Norwegian Institute of Building
Research, 1995 (In Norwegian).
[9] R.J. Cole, P.C. Kernan, Life-cycle energy use in office buildings, Building and
Environment 31 (4) (1996) 307–317.
[10] R.J. Cole, Energy and greenhouse gas emissions associated with the construction of
alternative structural systems, Building and Environment 34 (3) (1999) 335–348.
[11] G. Jungmeier, F. McDarby, A. Evald, C. Hohenthal, A.-K. Petersen, H.-P. Schwaiger,
B. Zimmer, Energy aspects in LCA of forest products: guidelines from COST Action
E9, International Journal of LCA 8 (2) (2003) 99–105.
[12] P. Koch, Wood versus nonwood materials in U.S. residential construction: some
energy-related global implications, Forest Products Journal 42 (5) (1992) 31–42.
[13] T. Künniger, K. Richter, Life cycle analysis of utility poles: a Swiss case study, in:
Proceedings of the 3rd International Wood Preservation Symposium, 6–7 Feb-
ruary, Cannes-Mandelieu, France, 1995.
[14] A.H. Buchanan, B.G. Honey, Energy and carbon dioxide implications of building
construction, Energy and Buildings 20 (3) (1994) 205–217.
[15] B. Schlamadinger, G. Marland, The role of forest and bioenergy strategies in the
global carbon cycle, Biomass and Bioenergy 10 (5–6) (1996) 275–300.
[16] B. Schlamadinger, M. Apps, F. Bohlin, L. Gustavsson, G. Jungmeier, G. Marland, K.
Pingoud, I. Savolainen, Towards a standard methodology for greenhouse gas
balances of bioenergy systems in comparison with fossil energy systems, Biomass
and Bioenergy 13 (6) (1997) 359–375.
[17] P. Börjesson, L. Gustavsson, Greenhouse gas balances in building construction:
wood versus concrete from lifecycle and forest land-use perspectives, Energy
Policy 28 (9) (2000) 575–588.
[18] M. Scharai-Rad, J. Welling, Environmental and Energy Balances of Wood Products
and Substitutes, Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, 2002
Web accessed at http://www.fao.org.
[19] A.K. Petersen, B. Solberg, Greenhouse gas emissions, life-cycle inventory and cost-
efficiency of using laminated wood instead of steel construction, Case: beams at
Gardermoen airport, Environmental Science and Policy 5 (2) (2002) 169–182.
[20] A.K. Petersen, B. Solberg, Substitution between floor constructions in wood and
natural stone: comparison of energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, and
costs over the life cycle, Canadian Journal of Forest Research 33 (6) (2003) 1061–
1075.
[21] A.K. Petersen, B. Solberg, Greenhouse gas emissions and costs over the life cycle of
wood and alternative flooring materials, Climatic Change 64 (1–2) (2004) 143–
167.
[22] L.R. Johnson, B. Lippke, J.D. Marshall, J. Comnick, Life-cycle impacts of forest
resource activities in the Pacific Northwest and Southeast United States, Wood
and Fiber Science 37 (CORRIM Special Issue) (2005) 30–46.
[23] D.E. Kline, Gate-to-gate life-cycle inventory of oriented strandboard production,
Wood and Fiber Science 37 (CORRIM Special Issue) (2005) 74–84.
[24] B. Lippke, J. Wilson, J. Perez-Garcia, J. Boyer, J. Meil, CORRIM: life-cycle environ-
mental performance of renewable building materials, Forest Products Journal 54
(6) (2004) 8–19.
241
Outer Inner Windows Doors Balconies Stairwells Interior
walls walls fixturesa
192
1
802 3877
49193 2697 2907
653 2588 4957
321
[25] B. Lippke, J. Comnick, L.R. Johnson, Environmental performance index for the
forest, Wood and Fiber Science 37 (CORRIM Special Issue) (2005) 149–155.
[26] M.R. Milota, C.D. West, I.D. Hartley, Gate-to-gate life-cycle inventory of softwood
lumber production, Wood and Fiber Science 37 (CORRIM Special Issue) (2005)
47–57.
[27] J. Perez-Garcia, B. Lippke, D. Briggs, J.B. Wilson, J. Boyer, J. Meil, The environmental
performance of renewable building materials in the context of residential con-
struction, Wood and Fiber Science 37 (CORRIM Special Issue) (2005) 3–17.
[28] J. Perez-Garcia, B. Lippke, J. Comnick, C. Manriquez, An assessment of carbon
pools, storage, and wood products market substitution using life-cycle analysis
results, Wood and Fiber Science 37 (CORRIM Special Issue) (2005) 140–148.
[29] M.E. Puettmann, J.B. Wilson, Life-cycle analysis of wood products: cradle-to-gate
LCI of residential wood building materials, Wood and Fiber Science 37 (CORRIM
Special Issue) (2005) 18–29.
[30] M.E. Puettmann, J.B. Wilson, Gate-to-gate life-cycle inventory of glued-laminated
timbers production, Wood and Fiber Science 37 (CORRIM Special Issue) (2005)
99–113.
[31] J.B. Wilson, E.R. Dancer, Gate-to-gate life-cycle inventory of I-joist production,
Wood and Fiber Science 37 (CORRIM Special Issue) (2005) 85–98.
[32] J.B. Wilson, E.R. Dancer, Gate-to-gate life-cycle inventory of laminated veneer
lumber production, Wood and Fiber Science 37 (CORRIM Special Issue) (2005)
114–127.
[33] J.B. Wilson, E.T. Sakimoto, Gate-to-gate life-cycle inventory of softwood plywood
production, Wood and Fiber Science 37 (CORRIM Special Issue) (2005) 58–73.
[34] P. Winistorfer, Z. Chen, B. Lippke, N. Stevens, Energy consumption and greenhouse
gas emissions related to the use, maintenance, and disposal of a residential
structure, Wood and Fiber Science 37 (CORRIM Special Issue) (2005) 128–139.
[35] B. Lippke, L. Edmonds, Environmental performance improvement in residential
construction: the impact of products, biofuels, and processes, Forest Products
Journal 56 (10) (2006) 58–63.
[36] J. Meil, J. Wilson, J. O’Connor, J. Dangerfield, An assessment of wood product
processing technology advancements between the CORRIM I and II studies, Forest
Products Journal 57 (7–8) (2007) 83–89.
[37] B. Upton, R. Miner, M. Spinney, L.S. Heath, The greenhouse gas and energy impacts
of using wood instead of alternatives in residential construction in the United
States, Biomass and Bioenergy 32 (1) (2008) 1–10.
[38] L. Gustavsson, K. Pingoud, R. Sathre, Carbon dioxide balance of wood substitution:
comparing concrete- and wood-framed buildings, Mitigation and Adaptation
Strategies for Global Change 11 (3) (2006) 667–691.
[39] L. Gustavsson, R. Sathre, Variability in energy and carbon dioxide balances of
wood and concrete building materials, Building and Environment 41 (7) (2006)
940–951.
[40] E. Eriksson, A. Gillespie, L. Gustavsson, O. Langvall, M. Olsson, R. Sathre, J.
Stendahl, Integrated carbon analysis of forest management practices and wood
substitution, Canadian Journal of Forest Research 37 (3) (2007) 671–681.
[41] B.N. Winther, A.G. Hestnes, Solar versus green: the analysis of a Norwegian row
house, Solar Energy 66 (6) (1999) 387–393.
[42] C. Scheuer, G.A. Keoleian, P. Reppe, Life cycle energy and environmental perfor-
mance of a new university building: modelling challenges and design implica-
tions, Energy and Buildings 35 (10) (2003) 1049–1064.
[43] K. Adalberth, Energy Use and Environmental Impact of New Residential Buildings,
Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Building Physics, Lund University, 2000.
[44] W. Feist, Life-cycle energy analysis: comparison of low-energy house, passive
house, self-sufficient house, in: Arbeitskries kostengünsige Passivhäuser Proto-
kollband nr 8, Passive House Institute, 1997.
[45] Minergie, The Minergie standard for buildings, 2008 Web-accessed at http://
www.minergie.com.
[46] Passive House Institute, Passive House Institute, 2009 Web-accessed at http://
www.passiv.de.
[47] National Renewable Energy Laboratory, On the Path to Zero Energy Homes,
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, US Department of Energy, Washington,
2001.
[48] C. Thormark, A low energy building in a life cycle: its embodied energy, energy
need for operation and recycling potential, Building and Environment 37 (2002)
429–435.
[49] C. Thormark, Resursanvändning i ett 12-vånings lågenergihus utan värmesystem,
Division of Construction Management, Lund, Lund University, 2006(in Swedish).
[50] Å. Karlsson, Comparative Assessment of Fuel-Based Systems for Space Heating, Ph.D.
Thesis, Environmental and Energy Systems Studies, Lund University, 2003.
242 L. Gustavsson et al. / Energy and Buildings 42 (2010) 230–242
[51] M. Larsson, Å. Blomsterberg, et al., Effektiviseringslaboratoriet—rapport från
verksamhetsåret 1990-1991, Vattenfall utveckling AB, 1991 (in Swedish).
[52] S.-I. Gustafsson, Optimisation of insulation measures on existing buildings,
Energy and Buildings 33 (2000) 49–55.
[53] L. Gustavsson, District heating systems and energy conservation: part II, Energy
19 (1) (1994) 93–102.
[54] L. Gustavsson, A. Joelsson, Energy conservation and conversion of electrical
heating systems in detached houses, Energy and Buildings 39 (6) (2007) 716–726.
[55] A. Joelsson, L. Gustavsson, District heating and energy efficiency in detached
houses of differing size and construction, Applied Energy 86 (2009) 126–134.
[56] L. Gustavsson, A. Joelsson, Life-cycle primary energy analysis of residential
buildings, Energy and Buildings (2009), in press.
[57] S. Citherlet, T. Defaux, Energy and environmental comparison of three variants of
a family house during its whole life span, Building and Environment 42 (2007)
591–598.
[58] G. Verbeeck, H. Hens, Life cycle optimization of extremely low energy buildings,
in: Proceedings of Clima 2007 WellBeing Indoors, Helsinki, Finland, 10–14 June,
2007.
[59] I. Sartori, A.G. Hestnes, Energy use in the life cycle of conventional and low-energy
buildings: a review article, Energy and Buildings 39 (3) (2007) 249–257.
[60] European Commission, Task Group 3: Construction and Demolition Waste, Final
Report of the Construction and Demolition Waste Working Group, Brussels, 2001.
Web accessed at http://ec.europa.eu.
[61] Swedish Ministry of Environment, The Swedish Environmental Code: Ds 2000:61,
2000 Web accessed at http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/574/a/2284.
[62] S. Junnila, A. Horvath, A. Guggemos, Life-cycle assessment of office buildings in
Europe and the U.S., Journal of Infrastructure Systems 12 (1) (2006) 10–17.
[63] L. Ochoa, C. Hendrickson, H.S. Matthews, Economic input and output life-cycle
assessment of U.S. residential buildings, Journal of Infrastructure Systems 8 (4)
(2002) 132–138.
[64] Swedish Government, An ecoefficient society: non-toxic, resource-saving envir-
onmental life cycles, in: Summary of Government Bill 2002/03:117, 2003 Web
accessed at http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/574/a/22065.
[65] C. Thormark, Conservation of energy and natural resources by recycling building
waste, Resources, Conservation and Recycling 33 (2) (2001) 113–130.
[66] G.A. Keoleian, S. Blanchard, P. Reppe, Life-cycle energy, cost and strategies for
improving a single-family house, Journal of Industrial Ecology 4 (2) (2001) 135–
156.
[67] R. Sathre, L. Gustavsson, Energy and carbon balances of wood cascade chains,
Resources, Conservation and Recycling 47 (4) (2006) 332–355.
[68] T. Björklund, A.-M. Tillman, LCA of building frame structures: environmental
impact over the life cycle of wooden and concrete frames, in: Technical Environ-
mental Planning Report 1997:2, Chalmers University of Technology, 1997.
[69] S. Berg, E.-L. Lindholm, Energy use and environmental impacts of forest opera-
tions in Sweden, Journal of Cleaner Production 13 (1) (2005) 33–42.
[70] A. Lehtonen, R. Mäkipää, J. Heikkinen, R. Sievänen, J. Liski, Biomass expansion
factors (BEFs) for Scots pine, Norway spruce and birch according to stand age for
boreal forests, Forest Ecology and Management 188 (1–3) (2004) 211–224.
[71] L. Gustavsson, P. Börjesson, B. Johansson, P. Svenningsson, Reducing CO2 emis-
sions by substituting biomass for fossil fuels, Energy 20 (11) (1995) 1097–1113.
[72] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 1995—Impacts
Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate Change: Scientific-Technical Analyses,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1996.
[73] J. Gajda, Absorption of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide by Portland Cement Concrete,
R&D Serial No. 2255a, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL, USA, 2001.
[74] K.O. Kjellsen, M. Guimaraes, Å. Nilsson, The CO2 Balance of Concrete in a Life Cycle
Perspective, Danish Technological Institute, 2005 Web-accessed at http://
www.nordicinnovation.net.
[75] A. Dodoo, L. Gustavsson, R. Sathre, Carbon implications of end-of-life manage-
ment of building materials, Resources, Conservation and Recycling 53 (5) (2009)
276–286.
[76] L. Gustavsson, B. Johansson, Cogeneration: one way to use biomass efficiently,
Heat Recovery Systems and CHP 14 (2) (1994) 117–127.
[77] Forintek, Raw Material Balances Energy Profiles and Environmental Unit Factor
Estimates for Structural Wood Products/Structural Steel Products/Cement and
Structural Concrete Products, Vancouver, Forintek Canada, 1993.
[78] EQUA, Enorm, Version 1000, EQUA Simulation AB, Stockholm, 2001.
[79] P.E. Grohnheit, B.O.G. Mortensen, Competition in the market for space heating:
district heating as the infrastructure for competition among fuels and technol-
ogies, Energy Policy 31 (2003) 817–826.
[80] L. Gustavsson, R. Madlener, CO2 mitigation costs of large-scale bioenergy tech-
nologies in competitive electricity markets, Energy 28 (2003) 1405–1425.
[81] I. Andresen, K. Ellehauge, B. Karlsson, J. Nieminen, Solar heating systems for
passive houses in the Nordic countries—an overview, in: Proceedings of Passivhus
Norden 2008, Trondheim, Norway, 2-3 April, 2008.
[82] Å. Karlsson, ENSYST, Lund University, 2003.
[83] L. Gustavsson, Å. Karlsson, A system perspective on the heating of detached
houses, Energy Policy 30 (2002) 553–574.
[84] L. Gustavsson, Å. Karlsson, Heating detached houses in urban areas, Energy 28 (8)
(2003) 851–875.
[85] National Trust for Historical Preservation, New Energy from Old Buildings, The
Preservation Press, Washington, DC, 1981.
[86] K. Richter, Life Cycle Assessment of Wood Products, in: G.H. Kohlmaier, M. Weber,
R.A. Houghton (Eds.), Carbon Dioxide Mitigation in Forestry and Wood Industry,
Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1998.
[87] A. Josa, A. Antonio, A. Heino, E. Byars, A. Cardim, Comparative analysis of available
life cycle inventories of cement in the EU, Cement and Concrete Research 34 (8)
(2004) 1313–1320.
[88] C.J. Kibert, Deconstruction: the start of a sustainable materials strategy for the
built environment, UNEP Industry and Environment 26 (2–3) (2003) 84–88.