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.
- 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.
- 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.
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