A Norwegian ZEB Definition Guideline

The objective of this report is to provide a comprehensive and consistent guideline for the Norwegian definition of Zero Emission Buildings (ZEB) and the associated calculation methodologies. The guidelines described in this report build upon the article "A Norwegian Zero Emission Building Definition”, the report “A Norwegian ZEB Definition - Embodied Emissions” as well as other relevant national and international work. The guidelines explain the methodology used within the ZEB Research Centre, focusing upon operational energy use calculations and life cycle emission calculations for materials. Furthermore, the guidelines illustrate the ZEB definition and methodology with selected examples from the ZEB pilot case studies. This guideline is useful for designers and developers involved in the planning and design of zero emission buildings. The guideline can also be used as a point of reference for the setting of future standards and regulations on low carbon buildings.publishedVersio

Life Cycle Assessment as a tool for resource optimisation of continuous basalt fibre production in Iceland

Continuous Basalt Fibre (CBF) is a structural material formed from molten rocks and is analogous to glass fibre. The concept of using molten rock to form fibres dates back to the start of the last century. The inception of more comprehensive research took place in the 1970s, by former Soviet countries. The largest active mines today are located in Ukraine and Russia. The market is steadily developing as production becomes more economically viable, and CBF becomes more readily known and tested. Continuous basalt fibres are ideally suited for demanding applications that require high temperatures, chemical resistance, durability, mechanical strength and low water absorption. CBF therefore has a large potential within the construction industry. Greenbas is a project led by Innovation Centre Iceland and funded by NORDMIN. It investigates the extraction of volcanic basalt, for the optimised, sustainable production of CBF in Iceland. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a useful tool for the assessment of environmental impacts, including greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. LCA has been used to address every step of the future production chain of CBF in Iceland; from the mining and crushing of rocks, to the fibre production of CBF using various energy mixes. This future production chain has been compared to current CBF production in Russia, in order to optimise production in terms of consistency, quality, cost and GHG emissions. This research is relevant to conference topics: \u27LCA and other assessment tools for waste and resource management and planning\u27 and \u27life cycle engineering and sustainable manufacturing.\u27 Please click Additional Files below to see the full abstract

Adding 6 months of androgen deprivation therapy to postoperative radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a comparison of short-course versus no androgen deprivation therapy in the RADICALS-HD randomised controlled trial

Background Previous evidence indicates that adjuvant, short-course androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improves metastasis-free survival when given with primary radiotherapy for intermediate-risk and high-risk localised prostate cancer. However, the value of ADT with postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy is unclear. Methods RADICALS-HD was an international randomised controlled trial to test the efficacy of ADT used in combination with postoperative radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Key eligibility criteria were indication for radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer, prostate-specific antigen less than 5 ng/mL, absence of metastatic disease, and written consent. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to radiotherapy alone (no ADT) or radiotherapy with 6 months of ADT (short-course ADT), using monthly subcutaneous gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogue injections, daily oral bicalutamide monotherapy 150 mg, or monthly subcutaneous degarelix. Randomisation was done centrally through minimisation with a random element, stratified by Gleason score, positive margins, radiotherapy timing, planned radiotherapy schedule, and planned type of ADT, in a computerised system. The allocated treatment was not masked. The primary outcome measure was metastasis-free survival, defined as distant metastasis arising from prostate cancer or death from any cause. Standard survival analysis methods were used, accounting for randomisation stratification factors. The trial had 80% power with two-sided α of 5% to detect an absolute increase in 10-year metastasis-free survival from 80% to 86% (hazard ratio [HR] 0·67). Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN40814031, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00541047. Findings Between Nov 22, 2007, and June 29, 2015, 1480 patients (median age 66 years [IQR 61–69]) were randomly assigned to receive no ADT (n=737) or short-course ADT (n=743) in addition to postoperative radiotherapy at 121 centres in Canada, Denmark, Ireland, and the UK. With a median follow-up of 9·0 years (IQR 7·1–10·1), metastasis-free survival events were reported for 268 participants (142 in the no ADT group and 126 in the short-course ADT group; HR 0·886 [95% CI 0·688–1·140], p=0·35). 10-year metastasis-free survival was 79·2% (95% CI 75·4–82·5) in the no ADT group and 80·4% (76·6–83·6) in the short-course ADT group. Toxicity of grade 3 or higher was reported for 121 (17%) of 737 participants in the no ADT group and 100 (14%) of 743 in the short-course ADT group (p=0·15), with no treatment-related deaths. Interpretation Metastatic disease is uncommon following postoperative bed radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy. Adding 6 months of ADT to this radiotherapy did not improve metastasis-free survival compared with no ADT. These findings do not support the use of short-course ADT with postoperative radiotherapy in this patient population

Duration of androgen deprivation therapy with postoperative radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a comparison of long-course versus short-course androgen deprivation therapy in the RADICALS-HD randomised trial

Background Previous evidence supports androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with primary radiotherapy as initial treatment for intermediate-risk and high-risk localised prostate cancer. However, the use and optimal duration of ADT with postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy remains uncertain. Methods RADICALS-HD was a randomised controlled trial of ADT duration within the RADICALS protocol. Here, we report on the comparison of short-course versus long-course ADT. Key eligibility criteria were indication for radiotherapy after previous radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer, prostate-specific antigen less than 5 ng/mL, absence of metastatic disease, and written consent. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to add 6 months of ADT (short-course ADT) or 24 months of ADT (long-course ADT) to radiotherapy, using subcutaneous gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogue (monthly in the short-course ADT group and 3-monthly in the long-course ADT group), daily oral bicalutamide monotherapy 150 mg, or monthly subcutaneous degarelix. Randomisation was done centrally through minimisation with a random element, stratified by Gleason score, positive margins, radiotherapy timing, planned radiotherapy schedule, and planned type of ADT, in a computerised system. The allocated treatment was not masked. The primary outcome measure was metastasis-free survival, defined as metastasis arising from prostate cancer or death from any cause. The comparison had more than 80% power with two-sided α of 5% to detect an absolute increase in 10-year metastasis-free survival from 75% to 81% (hazard ratio [HR] 0·72). Standard time-to-event analyses were used. Analyses followed intention-to-treat principle. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN40814031, and ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT00541047 . Findings Between Jan 30, 2008, and July 7, 2015, 1523 patients (median age 65 years, IQR 60–69) were randomly assigned to receive short-course ADT (n=761) or long-course ADT (n=762) in addition to postoperative radiotherapy at 138 centres in Canada, Denmark, Ireland, and the UK. With a median follow-up of 8·9 years (7·0–10·0), 313 metastasis-free survival events were reported overall (174 in the short-course ADT group and 139 in the long-course ADT group; HR 0·773 [95% CI 0·612–0·975]; p=0·029). 10-year metastasis-free survival was 71·9% (95% CI 67·6–75·7) in the short-course ADT group and 78·1% (74·2–81·5) in the long-course ADT group. Toxicity of grade 3 or higher was reported for 105 (14%) of 753 participants in the short-course ADT group and 142 (19%) of 757 participants in the long-course ADT group (p=0·025), with no treatment-related deaths. Interpretation Compared with adding 6 months of ADT, adding 24 months of ADT improved metastasis-free survival in people receiving postoperative radiotherapy. For individuals who can accept the additional duration of adverse effects, long-course ADT should be offered with postoperative radiotherapy. Funding Cancer Research UK, UK Research and Innovation (formerly Medical Research Council), and Canadian Cancer Society

Life Cycle GHG Emissions of Material Use in the Living Laboratory

This report documents the design and construction of the ZEB Living Laboratory in Trondheim; with a view to better understand the implication of design choices on embodied material emissions. Accordingly, the material inventory in terms of the building envelope, building services, and energy supply system are presented in-depth. The embodied material emission results are presented for each building component category, and highlight important design drivers for the reduction of embodied material emissions in the construction of buildings. A material emission balance is also presented. Compared to previous ZEB projects, the results show relatively high emissions, with total emissions of 23.5kgCO2eq/m2/yr, whereby 12.1kgCO2eq/m2/yr originate from the production phase (A1 – A3). There are multiple reasons for this. Firstly, a more comprehensive material inventory was available for the Living Laboratory at an 'as built' stage. The system boundary includes more life cycle stages (A1 – A3, A4, A5 and B4). Furthermore, the building is not a typical residential building but a test laboratory. The results demonstrate that the choice of insulation material is a key design driver in lowering embodied material emissions, and that even state-of-the-art insulation materials, with typically high embodied emission factors, can be applied in a sensitive and effective way for low total embodied emissions. The results demonstrate that when half the quantity of concrete is used in the strip foundation design, then embodied emissions are significantly reduced. The foundation design may also be further optimised through specifying low carbon concrete. Another design driver is identified in the timber superstructure, which has a relatively low contribution to total embodied emissions, despite its large volume. It is suspected that a corresponding concrete and steel structure will not only weigh more, but also result in a two-fold increase in emissions. The results demonstrate that approximately half of all embodied emissions originate from the outer roof and PV system. This is because of the roof profile and building adapted PV system used, and highlights an area for further optimisation. The findings show that the reference service lifetime (RSL) of materials can greatly affect the distribution of emissions across life cycle phases, whereby a short RSL has higher embodied emissions in the replacement phase (B4), and a long RSL, in line with the lifetime of the building, has a larger focus on production phase emissions (A1 - A3). The material emission balance also highlights that further measures are required to reduce material emissions and increase on-site renewable energy production, in order to reach a zero emission balance. The sensitivity analysis of the functional unit questions the use of a 60-year building lifetime, when the Living Laboratory is a temporary building. It is therefore recommended that the end-of-life (EOL) life cycle phases are considered in more detail, in order to optimise the demountability and recyclability of the building, instead of the durability of materials. In conclusion, it was found that these results provide useful approximations for embodied material emission calculations, when a detailed material inventory may not be available. It also highlights methodological and design considerations when carrying out a life cycle assessment of a building. Furthermore, the Living Laboratory provides alternative solutions for low embodied emission design.publishedVersio

Life cycle GHG Emissions of material use in the Living Laboratory

© Grada Publishin

Embodied greenhouse gas emissions from PV systems in Norwegian residential Zero Emission Pilot Buildings

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the combustion of fossil energy need to be reduced to combat global climate change. For zero energy and Zero Emission Buildings (ZEB), photovoltaic solar energy systems are often installed. When the goal is to build a life cycle Zero Emission Building, all emissions come under scrutiny. Emissions from photovoltaic (PV) energy systems in Zero Emission Buildings have been shown to have a relative large share of material emissions. In this paper, we compare GHG emissions per kW h of electricity and greenhouse gas emission payback times (GPBT) for three residential PV systems in Zero Emission Pilot Buildings in Norway. All the buildings have roof mounted PV systems with different design solutions. The objective is to analyse the emission loads and GPBT of these three systems to facilitate for more informed choices of energy systems for Zero Emission Buildings. The results show that the total embodied emissions allocated per square meter of module area are around 150–350 kg CO2 eq/m2 for the three different systems. Emissions from the mounting systems vary from 10 to 25 kg CO2 eq/m2 depending on the material types and quantities used. When modules replace other roofing materials, such as roof tiles, mounting emissions were reduced by approximately 60%. GHG emissions per kW h electricity produced were in the range of 30–120 g CO2 eq/kW h for the different systems. The system with the lowest emissions was the largest system, which had a simple mounting structure and modules with reused cells. It was found that the GPBT was strongly dependent on the scenario used for electricity grid emissions. By applying a dynamic emission payback scenario with an optimistic reduction of emissions from the European electricity grid, the GPBT was 3–8 years for the different systems. When comparing the emissions with current Norwegian hydropower emissions, of around 20 g CO2 eq/kW h, it was found that all of the PV system’s emissions were higher. When compared to a mainly fossil fuel based grid, all the PV system’s emissions are low. This study highlights the importance of reliable emission documentation for PV modules and their mounting structures on the market.Acknowledgements. The authors gratefully acknowledge the support from the Research Council of Norway, several partners through the Research Centre on Zero Emission Buildings (ZEB) and the research project Building Integrated Photovoltaics for Norway (BIPV Norway). Special thanks to Harald Amundsen, Project Manager at Brødrene Dahl in Norway who provided details on the Multikomfort PV system. Also thanks to Roald Rasmussen at Skanska in Norway for providing details on the Skarpnes PV system.acceptedVersio

A Norwegian ZEB Definition Guideline

The objective of this report is to provide a comprehensive and consistent guideline for the Norwegian definition of Zero Emission Buildings (ZEB) and the associated calculation methodologies. The guidelines described in this report build upon the article "A Norwegian Zero Emission Building Definition”, the report “A Norwegian ZEB Definition - Embodied Emissions” as well as other relevant national and international work. The guidelines explain the methodology used within the ZEB Research Centre, focusing upon operational energy use calculations and life cycle emission calculations for materials. Furthermore, the guidelines illustrate the ZEB definition and methodology with selected examples from the ZEB pilot case studies. This guideline is useful for designers and developers involved in the planning and design of zero emission buildings. The guideline can also be used as a point of reference for the setting of future standards and regulations on low carbon buildings

Embodied greenhouse gas emissions from PV systems in Norwegian residential Zero Emission Pilot Buildings

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the combustion of fossil energy need to be reduced to combat global climate change. For zero energy and Zero Emission Buildings (ZEB), photovoltaic solar energy systems are often installed. When the goal is to build a life cycle Zero Emission Building, all emissions come under scrutiny. Emissions from photovoltaic (PV) energy systems in Zero Emission Buildings have been shown to have a relative large share of material emissions. In this paper, we compare GHG emissions per kW h of electricity and greenhouse gas emission payback times (GPBT) for three residential PV systems in Zero Emission Pilot Buildings in Norway. All the buildings have roof mounted PV systems with different design solutions. The objective is to analyse the emission loads and GPBT of these three systems to facilitate for more informed choices of energy systems for Zero Emission Buildings. The results show that the total embodied emissions allocated per square meter of module area are around 150–350 kg CO2 eq/m2 for the three different systems. Emissions from the mounting systems vary from 10 to 25 kg CO2 eq/m2 depending on the material types and quantities used. When modules replace other roofing materials, such as roof tiles, mounting emissions were reduced by approximately 60%. GHG emissions per kW h electricity produced were in the range of 30–120 g CO2 eq/kW h for the different systems. The system with the lowest emissions was the largest system, which had a simple mounting structure and modules with reused cells. It was found that the GPBT was strongly dependent on the scenario used for electricity grid emissions. By applying a dynamic emission payback scenario with an optimistic reduction of emissions from the European electricity grid, the GPBT was 3–8 years for the different systems. When comparing the emissions with current Norwegian hydropower emissions, of around 20 g CO2 eq/kW h, it was found that all of the PV system’s emissions were higher. When compared to a mainly fossil fuel based grid, all the PV system’s emissions are low. This study highlights the importance of reliable emission documentation for PV modules and their mounting structures on the market