Cutting Carbon/Greenhouse/GHG emissions is what IPCC and GHG Protocol are trying to do.
It is a globally accepted framework for systematically trying to lower carbon emission.
Using GHG Protocol, big corporates measure-control-report carbon emissions.
Let us assume that there is company named ABC.
Scope 1 – ABC Company’s own emissions from boiler, turbine, heater, incinerator, air-conditioner, freeze, freezer, etc.
Scope 2 – ABC Company’s own emissions from electricity, gas, etc which is energy purchase
Scope 3 – They are not ABC company’s own carbon emissions, but carbon emissions from its supply chain partners:
- Up value chain – Miners-Manufacturers-Suppliers-Transporters, from where material comes to ABC company, so purchasing side.
- Down value chain – Customers-Manufactures-Consumers-Transporters-Franchise-Waste. This is the place where ABC company’s goods are sold/consumed.
I hope this helps a bit.
Scope 1:
- Is Cradle to gate emissions (EN 15804 A1-A3) from company ABC’s in-use energy and in-use carbon, premises-side of the consumer unit
- (I think I would exclude turbine from your list since it generates energy rather than consume it)
- I guess it will include improvements due to voltage optimisation premises-side of the consumer unit.
- I believe LCA of products focusses on impacts and emissions from the production of product to sell,
- but probably does not try to distinguish between production and accommodation consumption and emissions and just regards it as an overhead of production.
- I say this on the assumption they do not do sub-metering between factory and office on the same site.
- I believe that LCA and EPD data is the source and it converts everything to GHG = CO2equivalents.
- GBC V2 includes LCA EPD datasets for the products used to make a building.
Scope 2:
- Is emissions in primary energy delivered to your premises. (Part of EN 15804’s A3)
- To some extent is out of ABCs control (but they can choose a Green Energy Tariff)
- Depends upon: fuel choice (e.g. Renewable energy v Fossil energy)
- and varies upon production inefficiency (fuel to steam to generator to electricity),
- conversion inefficiency (PV DC via Inverter to AC or transformers and voltage drops)
- and transmission losses (along sunk, overhead or buried cables)
- I guess it does not address voltage optimisation premises-side of the consumer unit.
-
I believe LCA of products focusses on impacts and emissions from the production of product to sell,
-
it inevitably adds primary energy choices and emissions to the calculations.
-
The LCA will choose main electricity average figure for ABCs country
-
France has a high nuclear % Uk has a significant RE % and reducing fossil %
-
Unless ABC have onsite RE, have access to offsite RE installations or buy Green Tariff and choose it to calculate accordingly.
-
I do have a table for emissions from mains electricity across all EU countries individually
-
(not yet incorporated into GBC V2 calculations but could be added with less than an hours work)
-
I might do that today.
Scope 3:
I reviewed a bit more on GHG Protocol website.
- LCA (Life Cycle Assessment) and Supply Chain (Scope 3) are two different approaches to the same solution of carbon emission reduction.
- I think, your calculator takes care to reduce carbon emission by carefully selecting product as well as design, so focusing on the right approach of LCA.
- Secondly, supply chain (scope 3) may be irrelevant in your case, as the product (i.e. building) is to be used by the person who buys/rents it. So basically, it is almost at the end of the supply chain (i.e. consumption).
- I do not have access to the calculator, but if this calculator has end of life (when building is demolished in future) carbon footprint, then I think you have addressed scope 3.
- Green Building Encyclopaedia has many screenshots of GBC V2 if you want to see inside.
- The LCA function has EN 15804 C1-C4 and D so can do the calculation if the data is on the manufacturers EPDs
- I think that the RICS Document allows a theoretical calculation for C1-C4 and D but I need to investigate it.
- You seem to have done an amazing job in creating something very difficult.
- Thank you very much for your kind words, it is not so difficult, as time consuming, it has taken 10 months so far.
- It would put most people off
- It would take a big project with a long programme to carry its development as an overhead