ZEB Project Report No 29

ZEB Project report 29 – 2016
Selamawit Mamo Fufa, Reidun Dahl Schlanbusch, Kari Sørnes,

Marianne Inman and Inger Andresen
A Norwegian ZEB Definition

Guideline
SINTEF Academic Press
Selamawit Mamo Fufa, Reidun Dahl Schlanbusch, Kari Sørnes, Marianne Inman and
Inger Andresen
A Norwegian ZEB Definition Guideline
ZEB Project report 29 – 2016

ZEB Project report no 29
Selamawit Mamo Fufa2), Reidun Dahl Schlanbusch2), Kari Sørnes2), Marianne Inman2) and
Inger Andresen1)
A Norwegian ZEB Definition Guideline
Keywords:
Norwegian ZEB definition, Operational energy, Embodied emission, ZEB pilot case studies
Illustration on front page:

ZEB. The illustration shows how the generation of renewable energy (green circle) may compensate
for all greenhouse gas emissions from all life cycle stages of the building (red circles).
ISSN 1893-157X (online)

ISSN 1893-1561
ISBN 978-82-536-1513-4 (pdf)
ISBN 978-82-536-1514-1 (printed)
18 copies printed by AIT Bjerch

Content: 100 g Scandia
Cover: 240 g Trucard
© Copyright SINTEF Academic Press and Norwegian University of Science and Technology 2016
The material in this publication is covered by the provisions of the Norwegian Copyright Act. Without any
special agreement with SINTEF Academic Press and Norwegian University of Science and Technology,
any copying and making available of the material is only allowed to the extent that this is permitted by
law or allowed through an agreement with Kopinor, the Reproduction Rights Organisation for Norway.
Any use contrary to legislation or an agreement may lead to a liability for damages and confiscation,
and may be punished by fines or imprisonment.
Norwegian University of Science and Technology 1)

N-7491 Trondheim
Tel: +47 73 59 50 00
www.ntnu.no
www.zeb.no
SINTEF Building and Infrastructure Trondheim 2)

Høgskoleringen 7 b, POBox 4760 Sluppen, N-7465 Trondheim
Tel: +47 73 59 30 00
www.sintef.no/byggforsk
www.zeb.no
SINTEF Academic Press

c/o SINTEF Building and Infrastructure Oslo
Forskningsveien 3 B, POBox 124 Blindern, N-0314 Oslo
Tel: +47 73 59 30 00, Fax: +47 22 69 94 38
www.sintef.no/byggforsk
www.sintefbok.no
Acknowledgement
This report has been written within the Research Centre on Zero Emission Buildings (ZEB). The authors
gratefully acknowledge the support from the Research Council of Norway, BNL – Federation of
construction industries, Brødrene Dahl, ByBo, DiBK – Norwegian Building Authority, Caverion Norge
AS, DuPont, Entra, Forsvarsbygg, Glava, Husbanken, Isola, Multiconsult, NorDan, Norsk Teknologi,
Protan, SAPA Building Systems, Skanska, Snøhetta, Statsbygg, Sør-Trøndelag Fylkeskommune, and
Weber.
ZEB Project report 29-2016 Page 3 of 48

Abstract
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.

Contents
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 6
2. THE ZEB BALANCE ...................................................................................................................... 7
2.1 NET ZERO ENERGY BUILDINGS (NET ZEB) ........................................................................................................... 7
2.2 ZERO EMISSION BUILDING (ZEB) ...................................................................................................................... 8
2.2.1 ZEB Ambition Level Definitions and System Boundaries ................................................................. 8
2.2.2 Components and materials included in the "M" ........................................................................... 10
2.2.3 Addressing Embodied Emissions at all Ambition Levels ................................................................ 13
3. OPERATIONAL ENERGY CALCULATION PROCEDURES ....................................................... 14
3.1 OPERATIONAL ENERGY AND EMISSION CALCULATION PROCEDURE ........................................................................ 14
3.2 CO2 CONVERSION FACTORS ........................................................................................................................... 15
3.2.1 CO2 Factor for Grid Electricity ........................................................................................................ 15
3.2.2 CO2 Factors for Bioenergy and Waste Incineration ....................................................................... 17
3.2.3 Summary of CO2 Factors................................................................................................................ 18
3.3 SYSTEM BOUNDARY FOR OPERATIONAL ENERGY ................................................................................................ 19
3.4 MISMATCH OF GENERATION AND DEMAND ...................................................................................................... 20
3.5 ENERGY EFFICIENCY REQUIREMENTS................................................................................................................ 20
3.6 INDOOR CLIMATE REQUIREMENTS................................................................................................................... 20
4. LIFE CYCLE EMISSION CALCULATION PROCEDURES FOR MATERIALS ............................ 21
4.1 GOAL AND SCOPE DEFINITION ........................................................................................................................ 21
4.1.1 Functional Unit .............................................................................................................................. 21
4.1.2 System Boundary ........................................................................................................................... 22
4.1.3 Service Life ..................................................................................................................................... 23
4.2 LIFE CYCLE INVENTORY AND DATA SOURCES...................................................................................................... 25
4.2.1 The Building Model........................................................................................................................ 25
4.2.2 EPDs and Databases for Life Cycle Inventories .............................................................................. 25
4.2.3 Construction Process ..................................................................................................................... 27
4.2.4 Replacement of PV Modules ......................................................................................................... 28
4.2.5 End of Life ...................................................................................................................................... 28
5. VERIFICATION ............................................................................................................................. 31
6. CASE STUDIES ............................................................................................................................ 32
6.1 PILOT BUILDING MULTIKOMFORT ................................................................................................................... 33
6.1.1 Key Data ........................................................................................................................................ 33
6.1.2 Energy Systems.............................................................................................................................. 33
6.1.3 Materials ....................................................................................................................................... 34
6.2 PILOT PROJECT POWERHOUSE KJØRBO ............................................................................................................ 37
6.2.1 Key Data ........................................................................................................................................ 37
6.2.2 Energy Systems.............................................................................................................................. 37
6.2.3 Materials ....................................................................................................................................... 39
7. REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 43
APPENDICES

1. Introduction
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 guideline
is useful for designers and developers involved in the planning and design of zero emission buildings. It
can also be used as a point of reference for the setting of future standards and regulations on low
carbon buildings.
The guidelines described in this report build upon the following reports and articles:
“A Norwegian Zero Emission Building Definition” (Dokka et al. 2013a),

“A Norwegian ZEB Definition - Embodied Emissions” (Kristjansdottir et al. 2014),
as well as other relevant national and international work in the field of ZEB definitions. The guidelines
are also based on experiences from the ZEB pilot building projects.
This report includes a description of the rules and methods of the ZEB defitions, and provides examples
of practical implementation of the guidelines from the Norwegian ZEB pilot projects.

2. The ZEB Balance
The Norwegian Research Centre on Zero Emission Buildings has developed a definition for zero
emission buildings (ZEB) based on previous and current work implemented by the International Energy
Agency (IEA) and the recast Energy Performance Building Directive (EPBD). The ZEB definition and
guidelines have also been based on experices from pilot building projects withn the research centre.
The EPBD defines a 'nearly zero energy building' as a building that has a very high energy
performance, whereby the nearly zero or very low amount of energy required should be covered to a
very significant extent by energy from renewable sources, including energy from renewable sources
produced on-site or nearby (European Parliament and the Council 2010).
2.1 Net Zero Energy Buildings (net ZEB)

The term 'net zero energy building' (net ZEB) has been introduced to emphasize the concept of an
annual balance between energy imported from and exported to the energy grid – in contrast to an
autonomous building (Sartori et al. 2012). Thus, a net ZEB implies that the building produces the same
amount of energy from renewable sources (e.g. PV, solar thermal collectors) as the energy needed for
its operation. This net ZEB balance can be represented graphically, as seen in Figure 2.1. A net ZEB
balance is achieved through reducing energy demand (X-axis) by means of energy efficiency measures,
and by generating electricity or thermal energy to earn sufficient credits (y-axis) to compensate for
energy required for operation.
Figure 2.1 Net ZEB balance concept (Sartori et al. 2012).
The net zero energy building definition may be further expanded by applying a life cycle perspective,
whereby the primary energy used in the building during operation plus the embodied energy (e.g. life
cycle energy demand from materials, transport and construction) and end of life energy (e.g. life cycle
energy demand from dismantling, transport and waste treatment) are included.

2.2 Zero Emission Building (ZEB)
In a 'zero emission building' as defined by the Norwegian Research Centre on Zero Emission Buildings
(www.zeb.no), the balance is measured in terms of associated greenhouse gas equivalent emissions
during the lifetime of a building instead of on direct energy demand and generation.
At the Norwegian Research Centre on Zero Emission Buildings, the ZEB definition is characterised
through a range of various ambition levels ranging from the lowest (ZEB-O÷EQ) to the highest (ZEB-
COMPLETE) (Dokka et al. 2013a, Kristjansdottir et al. 2014), see figure 2-2.
2.2.1 ZEB Ambition Level Definitions and System Boundaries

Figure 2.2 illustrates the five ZEB ambition levels that have been taken into account during the
assessment of the different Norwegian ZEB pilot projects.
Figure 2.2 ZEB ambition levels. See Table 2.1 for an explanation of the scope of the included life
cycle stages, A1-A5, B4, B4**, B4***, B6, C1-C4.
The "O" refers to emissions associated with Operational energy use. The “M” refers to embodied
emissions 1 associated with building construction Materials. The "EQ" refers to operational emissions
from technical EQuipment. The "C" refers to emissions associated with Construction and installation,
while the "E" refers to embodied emissions associated with the end of life phase of the building.
These system boundaries can be interpreted in light of the works outlined in CEN/TC 350 Sustainability
of Construction works, and more specifically NS-EN 15978 Sustainability of construction works.
Assessment of environmental performance of buildings. Calculation method (NS-EN 15978:2011). NS-
EN 15978:2011 displays a modular system of lifecycle stages for buildings, which provides the basis for
1 Embodied emissions refer to emissions that are “embodied” in the materials that compose a building. The term does not
refer to the carbon that is stored in the building materials, but rather to the emission of greenhouse gases released into the
atmosphere during the production, construction, use and demolition of these materials.

the assessment of buildings in the standard. According to this standard, the lifecycle of a building is
divided into the following stages:
Product Stage (A1 - A3): Cradle to gate processes for materials and services used in construction: raw
material extraction and processing (A1), transport of raw materials to the manufacturer (A2), and
manufacturing of products and packaging (A3).
Construction Process Stage (A4-A5): Transport of construction products to the construction site (A4),
transport of ancillary products, energy and waste from the installation process (A5).
Use Stage (B1 - B7): Use of construction products and services, related to building components (B1 -
B5) and operation of the building (B6 - B7), during the entire lifetime of the building. The maintenance
(B2) repair (B3) and replacement (B4) lifecycles are related to the product's estimated service life (ESL).
End of Life Stage (C1 - C4): When the building is decommissioned and not intended to have any
further use, the building is deconstructed or demolished (C1) and transported to waste treatment or
disposal facilities (C2), whereby the waste is either processed (C3) and/or disposed of (C4).
Benefits and loads beyond the system boundary (D): This covers the benefits and loads arising from
the reuse (D1), recovery (D2), recycling (D3), and exported energy / potential (D4) from end-of-waste
state materials.
The current system boundaries of the ZEB ambition levels are defined as follows (see Table 2.1):
1. ZEB-O÷EQ: Emissions related to all energy use for operation "O", except energy use for
equipment and appliances (EQ), shall be compensated for with renewable energy generation.
The definition of O÷EQ therefore includes operational energy use, except energy use for
equipment and appliances (B6*), as outlined in NS-EN 15978: 2011.
2. ZEB-O: Emissions related to all operational energy "O" shall be compensated for with
renewable energy generation. The O includes all operational energy use (B6), according to NS-
EN 15978: 2011.
3. ZEB-OM: Emissions related to all operational energy "O" plus embodied emissions from
materials "M" shall be compensated for with renewable energy generation. The M includes the
product phase of materials (A1 – A3) and scenarios for the replacement phase (B4**),
according to NS-EN 15978: 2011. Note that B4** in ZEB-OM considers only scenarios related
to the production of materials used for replacement. The transportation (A4), installation (A5),
and end of life processes for replaced materials are not included in B4**. The scope of materials
to be included in M for a ZEB-OM ambition level can be found in Table 2.1.
4. ZEB-COM: This is the same as ZEB-OM, but also takes into account emissions relating to the
construction "C" phase. The phases included in C are transport of materials and products to the
building site (A4) and construction installation processes (A5), according to NS-EN 15978:
2011. Note that B4*** in ZEB-COM is expanded to include the transportation (A4) and
installation process (A5) of replaced materials. The end of life processes of replaced materials
is not included in B4***. The scope of materials to be included in M for a ZEB-COM ambition
level can be found in Table 2.1 .
5. ZEB-COME: This is the same as ZEB-COM, but also takes into account emissions relating to
the end of life “E” phase. The end of life phase include deconstruction/demolition (C1), transport

(C2), waste processing (C3), and disposal (C4), according to NS-EN15978: 2011. Similarly, the
end of life processes of replaced materials in B4 are to be included and taken to an end of
waste state.
6. ZEB-COMPLETE: Emissions related to a complete lifecycle emission analysis have to be

compensated for, namely all phases: product stage (A1 - A3), construction process stage (A4 –
A5), use stage (B1 – B7), and end of life stage (C1 - C4). If relevant and available, benefits and
loads beyond the system boundary (D) can be included as additional information, according to
NS-EN15978: 2011.
Table 2.1 illustrates the relationship between the ZEB ambition levels and the modular lifecycle stages
in NS-EN15978: 2011. The lifecycle stages (A1-A5, B1-B7, C1-C4) mandatory for the different ZEB
ambition levels are presented in green. Module D can be included as additional information in ZEB
COMPLETE.
Table 2.1 Description of ZEB ambition levels according to NS-EN15978: 2011(a larger version of the
table is given in Appendix 2).
2.2.2 Components and materials included in the "M"

The “M” in ambition levels ZEB-OM, ZEB-COM and ZEB-COME refers to emissions from building
construction materials and components, excluding emissions from materials used in fixed interiors,
sanitary equipment, telecomunication and automation, and outdoor installations.
In NS-EN15978: 2011, building-related furniture, fixtures and fittings are defined as:
"products that are fixed to the building, so that the dismantling of the product decreases the
performance of the building, and the dismantling or replacement of the product constitutes
construction operation...The system boundary to use stage shall include impacts and aspects of
the building-integrated technical system and building related furniture, fixture and fittings."

Embodied emissions from technical equipment and appliances should be included, as the operational
energy use of technical equipment and appliances is included in ZEB-O. Therefore, for consistency, all
technical equipment and appliances included in the ZEB-O ambition level should also be included in the
material inventory for embodied emission accounting in subsequent ambition levels.
Table 2.2 is showing a recommandation, based on previous experience from the ZEB pilot buildings, of
materials and components that should be included in the "M" calculations. Table 2.2 can be regarded as
a minimum requirement, and any deviation from this should be clearly stated.
The included materials and components must always be reported by refering to list of building elements
(NS 3451: 2009) on the three-digit level.
Table 2.2 Recommended list of included materials and components, based on the list of building
elements (NS 3451: 2009).
Building Parts Building Components
2 Building Structure
21 Groundwork and foundations

211 Clearing of land
212 Excavation
213 Ground Reinforcement
214 Support structures
215 Pile foundations
216 Direct foundation
217 Drainage
218 Equipment and completion
219 Other elements
22 Superstructure
221 Frames
222 Columns
223 Beams
224 Bracings
225 Fire protection of load bearing construction
226 Cladding and surfaces
229 Other
23 Outer walls
231 Load bearing wall
232 Non-load bearing wall
233 Glass Façade
234 Windows and doors
235 Outer cladding and surfaces
236 Internal surface
237 Solar shading
239 Other

24 Inner walls
241 Load bearing wall
242 Non-load bearing wall
243 System walls
244 Windows, doors, folding walls
245 Skirting
246 Cladding and surfaces
247 N/A
249 Other
25 Floor structure
251 Load bearing deck
252 Slab on ground
253 Raised/Built-up Floor, screed
254 Floor System
255 Floor Surfaces
256 Fixed Ceiling and Surface
257 Suspended Ceiling
259 Other
26 Outer roof
261 Primary construction
262 Roof covering
263 Glass Roof, Roof light, Roof Opening
265 Cornice, Flashings, Gutters and Downpipes
266 Ceiling and Internal Surfaces
267 Prefabricated Roof Elements
268 Equipment and Completion
269 Other
28 Stairs, balconies, etc.

281 Internal Stairs
282 External Stairs
283 Ramps
284 Balconies and Verandas
285 Grandstands and Amphi theatres
286 Marquees and Canopies
287 Railings, Handrails, and Fenders
288 Equipment and Completion
289 Other
3 Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning

325 Equipment for heating installations e.g. heat pumps,
32 Heating heaters, domestic hot water tanks and exchangers
and boilers which are not electrical (see 45).
329 Other heat installations e.g. Solar thermal collector

system

36 Ventilation and Air Conditioning 362 Duct System for Air Conditioning
364 Equipment for Air Distribution
365 Equipment for Air Treatment
366 Insulation for Air Treatment
369 Other
4. Electric Power Supply
44 Lighting 442 Light fixtures and fittings, cables, cable trays, plug
sockets
45 Electric heating 452 Electric heaters to be installed in floor, on walls or

roofs
453 Underfloor heating
454 Electrical domestic hot water tanks and electrical
boilers
459 Other electrical heating system equipment
49 Other Photovoltaic system

Other renewable power systems
6. Other installations
61 Prefabricated unit 611-619 Prefabricated rooms/modules excluding

technical equipment and fixed inventory that is
otherwise excluded from the minimum
requirements in this table.
62 Passenger and goods transport 621 Lifts/elevator
For the ambition level ZEB-COMPLETE, it is recommended to include all types of material emissions
originating from building-related construction as well as integrated technical building systems and
services.
2.2.3 Addressing Embodied Emissions at all Ambition Levels

For the two lowest definition levels, i.e. ZEB-O÷EQ and ZEB-O, emissions from materials is not
included. Thus, in principle, such buildings may have relatively low greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
during operation, but higher embodied emissions overall due to sub-optimised choices concerning
structure and materials. That is why we recommend some emphasis on emissions from materials at the
ZEB-O÷EQ and ZEB-O ambition level.
Qualitative measures may be used to identify significant contributors to GHG material emissions . One
such measure could include establishing a list of questions that address important issues concerning
construction solutions, building elements, materials and installations in relation to GHG material
emissions. This list of questions can be used to identify significant contributors to GHG emissions in
buildings, based on previous experiences (Kristjansdottir et al. 2014). This list of questions could be
used by the design team to identify typical contributors to GHG material emissions in order to obtain
ZEB-O÷EQ and ZEB-O buildings with low embodied emissions. An example of such a list may be found
in Appendix 1.

3. Operational Energy Calculation Procedures
3.1 Operational Energy and Emission Calculation Procedure

The operational energy use should be calculated according to NS3031: 2007 - Calculation of energy
performance of buildings - Method and data (NS 3031: 2007), using dynamic simulation tools validated
according to NS-EN 15265: 2007 (NS-EN 15265: 2007). The calculation of usable heated floor area
(BRA) can be performed according to NS 3940: 2012 - Calculation of areas and volumes of buildings
(NS 3940: 2012).
NS 3031: 2007 gives national values for user-dependent values such as set point temperatures, hours
of operation for ventilation, lighting and equipment, DHW energy use, heat gains from occupants, and
so on, for thirteen different building categories. The passive house standards, NS 3700: 2013 - Criteria
for passive houses and low energy buildings - Residential buildings (NS 3700: 2013) and NS 3701:
2012 - Criteria for passive houses and low energy buildings - Non-residential buildings (NS 3701: 2012),
gives specific values for ventilation air volumes, and energy use for lighting and technical equipment.
Set point temperatures, operational hours, and internal loads from occupants is given in NS 3031: 2007
and should be used in the analysis.
For ventilation air volumes and energy use for lights and technical equipment, the values given in NS
3700: 2013 and NS 3701: 2012 are recommended, but other values may be applied if sufficient
documentation is presented (e.g. innovative technologies or strategies for demand control etc.). Local
meteorological data, for the site in which the building is located, should be used in calculations, as
specified in the passive house standards.
If the project applies new innovative solutions or technologies that are not covered by NS 3031: 2007,
NS3700: 2013 or NS3701: 2012, then operational energy should be calculated based on recognised,
scientifically approved methods and procedures, whereby documentation of methods used and
references should be given.
An example of the calcualation of energy performance and the associated GHG emissions is presented
in Table 3.1. Figure 3.1 illustrates an example of delivered energy per energy carrier, and the
associated GHG emission calculation.
Table 3.1 Example of a procedure for calculating the energy performance and GHG emissions.
1. Determine the net energy budget - calculate the net energy demand for thermal energy and
electricity (kWh/m2 heated floor area) according to NS3700: 2013 or NS3701: 2012
2. Evaluate different options for renewable energy supply (on-site or off-site)
3. Design on-site renewable energy production - for example photovoltaic (PV) system (for
electricity production) or solar thermal system (for heat production)
4. Calculate the gross delivered energy
5. Calculate CO2 emissions based on the simulated demand from different energy carriers

Figure 3.1 The calculation of CO2 emissions from net energy demand and delivered energy.
The greenhouse gas emissions from operational energy is calculated according to delivered energy,
using CO2eq (CO2 equivalents) conversion factors for each energy carrier. The CO2eq factor is used to
convert energy from kWh to greenhouse gas emissions for the different energy carriers. CO2 equivalents
is used as an indicator because Carbon Dioxide is the dominant greenhouse gas. All other greenhouse
gases are therefore converted to CO2 equivalents according to their relative contribution to the
greenhouse gas effect. The CO2 factor is equivalent to the primary energy factor and should include all
emissions relating to extraction, processing, generation, storage, transport, distribution, and delivery of
energy.
3.2 CO2 Conversion Factors

3.2.1 CO2 Factor for Grid Electricity
Within the ZEB Research Centre, there has been an ongoing discussion on how electricity from the grid
should be considered with regards to CO2eq emissions. A central issue is the methodology used for
calculating carbon emission credits for electricity use and generation, and how the generation of
renewable energy during the operational phase should be valued with respect to off-setting embodied
carbon emissions from the production of the building. Since the building has a lifetime of several years,
this involves the stipulation of future carbon intensity of the electricity grid. Another central issue is how
to balance the historic emissions from production of materials, against future GHG emission offsets from
renewable energy surplus from the operation phase. For further discussion of these issues, see
(Andresen et al. 2016-forthcoming).
Georges et al. (Georges et al. 2014) analysed the life cycle GHG emissions from a residential building
and an office building in Norway, by using different scenarios for the electricity weighting factor. The
analysed buildings were virtual case studies for which extensive and detailed information was available
for the material inventories used. The operating energy performance was estimated through dynamic
simulations. The buildings used an all-electric energy solution, meaning that they used heat pump
technology for heating and hot water purposes, and PV on all of the available roof areas as the sole
energy generation solution. The paper showed that the relative contribution of embodied emissions to
total GHG emissions strongly depends on the CO2 factor chosen for electricity. Embodied emissions
dominate operational emissions when low CO2 factors are used, whilst high CO2 factors lead to the

opposite case. This shows that the selection of CO2 factor is of prime importance when assessing the
performance of ZEBs.
If Norway is considered as having an isolated energy system, one may conclude that the carbon
emissions from electricity are very low, in the order of 10-15 gCO2eq/kWh (based on data from Statistics
Norway, www.ssb.no), due to the large share of hydro power. However, since the Nordic power market
is integrated with the Nord Pool spot market, it would be more appropriate to consider the Nordic mix
being representative for all member countries. In this case, the carbon emission from electricity is
around 100 gCO2eq/kWh (Thorsteinsson and Björnsson 2011).
The approach adopted by the ZEB Research Centre considers Norway as part of the European power
system and takes into account that the powergrid in Europe will become more and more integrated over
the years ahead, due to large plans for increased transmission capacity between countries and macro
areas. Since Norway is connected to European countries through transmission lines, increases or
reductions in demand in Norway will lead to increases and decreases in the production of energy in
other European countries. However, it was considered that the average European carbon intensity of
electricity will decrease drastically in the next decades, towards 2050 and beyond, due to policy targets
aimed at mitigating climate change (EU 2011). Since buildings have a long lifetime, assumed 60 years
at the ZEB Research Centre for life cycle assessment purposes, it was deemed necessary to look at
such future evolutions in the power sector.
An analysis of different scenarios for European electricity generation towards 2050 has been performed
by Graabak and Feilberg (Graabak and Feilberg 2011), see Figure 3.2. In the most optimistic scenario
the average carbon intensity would drop from 361 gCO2eq/kWh in 2010 to barely 31 gCO2eq/kWh in
2050.
Figure 3.2 Scenarios of average specific emissions from 2010 to 2050 (Graabak et al 2014).
The results were extrapolated to provide an average value that is representative of a 60 year building
lifetime, producing an average value of 132 gCO2eq/kWh (Dokka 2011), see Figure 3.3. This value has
also been adopted as a reference value in Kristjansdottir et. al.(Kristjansdottir et al. 2014) although with
the remark that "... the use of electricity factors is dependent on the goal and scope of the analysis, and
it is often relevant to include different scenarios for the emission factor."

Figure 3.3 The CO2 factor scenario for grid electricity employed by the ZEB Research Centre, (Dokka
et al. 2013a) (Dokka 2011).
This scenario is of course uncertain and debatable, and it is interesting to look at the CO2 facors used in
other studies for GHG abatement in Norway. In a study by Wolfgang and Mo (Wolfgang and Mo 2007),
the authors calculated how much CO2 emissions would be reduced in the European power system if there
was an increase in renewable energy generation in Norway. They found that emissions in Europe would
be reduced by 526 g/kWh per extra renewable energy generation in Norway (year 2005). In another study
performed by Magnus et al. (Magnus et al. 2010), the authors focused on how alternative technologies
for electrification of petroleum installations and on- and off-shore wind-power would effect European CO2
emissions. Marginal emission co-efficients for the power system were not explicitly calculated, but can be
extracted on the basis of reported results; ranging from between 675 and 711 gCO2/kWh.
These studies indicate that the CO2 factor employed by ZEB is conservative, and that it most likely does
not overestimate the climate effect of zero emission buildings.
3.2.2 CO2 Factors for Bioenergy and Waste Incineration

This section is based on the report from (Lien 2013), which investigates CO2 emissions from biofuels
and district heating in ZEBs. The report recommends that the basic assumption should be carbon
neutrality for the direct combustion of biofuels, however we need to account for the use of fossil fuels in
the production chain of those fuels. Emission factors for different types of biofuels are listed in Table
3.2.

Table 3.2 Specific CO2 emissions from selected biofuels (Lien 2013).
Biofuel type gCO2/MJ gCO2/kWh
GROT(waste from wood harvesting) wood chips 1 3,6
EU wood chips 4 14,4
GROT* pellets/briquettes 2 7,2
EU wood pellets/briquettes** 4 - 22 14,4 - 29,2
Wheat straw 2 7,2
Biogas from wet manure 8 28,8
Biogas from dry manure 7 25,2
* GROT = Wood residue ** lower value is using wood as process fuel, upper value is using natural gas as process fuel
According to Lien (2013), district heating should not be viewed as emission-free waste heat utilisation,
but should instead be analysed on the basis of the actual GHG emissions associated with its
production. The present composition of incinerated waste in Norway is around 50% fossil based.
Specific GHG emissions from waste-incineration-based district heating are comparable to the
combustion of natural gas. The specific CO2 emissions from waste incineration are given in Lien (2013)
as 211 grams of CO2eq/kWh, based on the current plastic content of waste (around 25%) and current
plant efficiencies. If district heating companies can prove that their production mix has a lower emission
factor, then this emission factor may be used.
3.2.3 Summary of CO2 Factors

Table 3.3 shows a summary of the default CO2 factors that have been employed by the ZEB Research
Centre. The factors may vary depending on processes and system boundaries used. Furthermore, other
CO2 factors may be used if the emissions are documented according to accredited methods and
standards. When considering bio-fuels, 1st generation fuels should be avoided. Instead 2nd or 3rd
generation fuels that are certified and sustainably sourced should be used 2.
Table 3.3 Specific CO2-factors employed by the ZEB Research Centre.

Energy carrier gCO2 eq/kWh References
(Dokka 2011), (Dokka et al. 2013a),
Electricity from the grid 130
(Graabak and Feilberg 2011)
Oil (fossil) 285 (Dokka et. al 2013) (Dokka et al. 2013a)
Gas (fossil) 210 (Dokka et. al 2013) (Dokka et al. 2013a)
Wood chips 4 -15 (Dokka et al. 2013a), Lien (2013)
Pellets/briquettes 7 - 30 (Dokka et al. 2013a), Lien (2013)
Biogas from manure 25 - 30 (Dokka et al. 2013a), Lien (2013)
Bio-diesel and bio-oil 50 (Dokka et al. 2013a)
Bio-etanol 85 (Dokka et al. 2013a)
Waste incineration (heat
185 - 211 (Dokka et al. 2013a), (Lien 2013)
only)
2Second generation biofuels are made from lignocellulosic biomass or woody crops, agricultural residues or waste, in
contrast to first generation biofuels that are made from agricultural crops such as sugars or vegetable oils. Third generation
biofuels have only recently entered mainstream production and refer to biofuels derived from algae.

3.3 System Boundary for Operational Energy
The system boundary for operational energy is the physical boundary where delivered and/or exported
energy to or from the building (or cluster of buildings) is measured or calculated (Dokka et al. 2013a).
The physical boundary is used to identify whether renewable energy sources are available on-site
(within the boundary) or off-site. Figure 3.4 illustrates different options for system boundaries as defined
by (Marszal et al. 2011).
Figure 3.4 Illustration of the different levels of possible system boundaries (Marszal et al. 2011).
The Norwegian ZEB Research Centre has employed the following boundaries for electricity and thermal
energy production (Dokka et al. 2013a):
- For local renewable electricity production, level III in Figure 3. has been chosen. That means
the production unit of electricity for a building has to be located on-site, but off-site renewables
(e.g. biofuels) may be used in the production of electricity.
- For thermal energy production, level IV in Figure 3. has been chosen. Thus the thermal energy
production for the building (or cluster of buildings) can be either on- or off-site, but emissions
from the actual energy mix shall be used. Total system losses from the production site to the
building shall be taken into account.
Unlike thermal energy, electricity is a high quality energy form that can be used for most building needs:
heating, cooling, lighting, appliances and technical equipment, fans and pumps. Exported heat from a
building or area (cluster of buildings) to a district heating system or nearby buildings (off-site) may also
be taken into account. However, due to its lower energy quality and limited transportability, the exported
thermal energy should not exceed imported energy (annually).

3.4 Mismatch of Generation and Demand
The mismatch between energy demand of the building(s) and on-site energy generation can vary
considerably on an hourly, daily, weekly and annual basis. This can in turn lead to stress on the grid and
result in varying associated GHG emissions. These issues are addressed in Sartori et al.(Sartori et al.
2014) and Baetens et al.(Baetens et al. 2012), and within International Energy Agency Annex 52 3, see
for example Salom et al. (Salom et al. 2014) and Annex 67 "Energy Flexible Buildings" 4.
Nevertheless, the Norwegian ZEB Research Centre has chosen an approach which considers a
constant CO2 factor with no daily, weekly or annual variation. The same factor is used for both import
and export of electricity from the building(s), and this is called symmetric weighting (Dokka et al. 2013a).
Thus, the grid is regarded as an infinite capacity battery whereby surplus electricity is exported to the
grid and re-imported in periods of net demand. This approach has been taken to limit the complexity of
the calculations. However, it is recommended as best practice that the mismatch between energy
demand and on-site energy production during different seasons is calculated according to NS-EN
15603: 2008 - Energy performance of buildings - Overall energy use and definition of energy ratings
(NS-EN 15603: 2008).
3.5 Energy Efficiency Requirements

The ZEB energy concept involves two design strategies; firstly, to minimise the need for energy use in
buildings through energy efficiency measures, and secondly, to adopt renewable energy and other
technologies in order to meet the remaining energy needs. These strategies are often classified as
either passive or active strategies. Passive strategies relate to the location, layout, massing and form of
the building and materials, while active strategies typically involve technical systems or machinery to
provide services to the building.
The minimum requirement for energy efficiency in ZEBs is presented through the “low energy house
standard” as compliant with NS 3700 (for residential buildings) (NS 3700: 2013) and NS 3701 (for non-
residential buildings) (NS 3701: 2012). These standards set criteria for heating and cooling demand,
maximum heat loss and thermal bridges, as well as air-tightness of the building envelope.
3.6 Indoor Climate Requirements

The indoor climate of a ZEB, should be at least as good as any other building according to the
requirements as set in the Norwegian building regulations. The requirements concerning local
discomfort for category B in appendix A of ISO 7730: 2005 (ISO 7730: 2005) should also be met.
3 http://www.iea-ebc.org/projects/completed-projects/ebc-annex-52/
4 http://www.iea-ebc.org/projects/ongoing-projects/ebc-annex-67/

4. Life cycle Emission calculation procedures for Materials
For new, energy-efficient buildings, such as ZEBs, the production and end of life phases can constitute
approximately half of all primary energy use over the lifetime of a building (Kristjansdottir et al. 2014).
This means that the embodied emissions in construction materials make up a large percentage of total
emissions from a building over its entire lifetime.
The results from one of the ZEB pilot projects, Powerhouse Kjørbo, shows that production, transport,
construction, deconstruction, and end of life treatment of construction materials make up approximately
40% of total lifecycle primary energy demand and approximately 60% of lifecycle GHG emissions, of
which the production of materials and components contribute approximately 85% in both cases (see
Table 6.4).
This finding shows the increasing importance of addressing embodied material emissions when
designing ZEBs. Thus, efficient use of resources, transport logistics, construction, and end of life
treatment of materials should be considered in an integrated, holistic approach.
4.1 Goal and Scope Definition

The goal of a life cycle assessment (LCA 5) for a ZEB, is to quantify the GHG emissions of the building,
using environmental information, based on the defined scope and intended use of the assessment.
4.1.1 Functional Unit

A functional unit is a common reference unit, used to present the results of an environmental
assessment, related to the technical characteristics and functionalities of a building. According to NS-EN
15978: 2011, the functional unit shall include, but not be limited to, information on the following aspects:
- Building type (according to NS 3031: 2007)

- Relevant technical and functional requirements (e.g. regulatory specific requirements)
- Reference study period (e.g. 60 years)
- Pattern of use (e.g. level of occupancy)
The prevailing approach within the Norwegian ZEB Reserach Centre has been to use a functional unit
of 1 m2 of heated floor area (BRA) 6 over a reference study period of 60 years when analysing the
emissions for the whole building (Dokka et al. 2013a, Dokka et al. 2013b, Georges et al. 2014, Houlihan
Wiberg et al. 2014). The basis for this functional unit is rooted in the commonly used metric of reporting
energy use in terms of kWh per m2 of heated floor area (BRA) per year. This definition of a functional
unit facilitates for the comparison and balance of operational energy and embodied material emissions
against on-site energy production.
Alongside the functional unit, it is also required to state total embodied emissions (kgCO2eq) of the
building. It has become good practice to tabulate embodied emission results according to building
component and life cycle module. An example of embodied emission results by life cycle stage is given
in Table 4.1(Inman and Houlihan Wiberg 2015).
5 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is the compilation and evaluation of the inputs, outputs and the potential environmental
impacts of a product system throughout its lifecycle.
6 Heated Floor Area (BRA) is the area of all floors within temperature-controlled spaces (limited by the inside of the building
envelope).

Table 4.1 CO2eq emissions from material use in the ZEB Living Laboratory.
4.1.2 System Boundary

The system boundary describes the scope of the assessment and determines the processes that are
taken into consideration during the life cycle assessment (NS-EN 15978: 2011). The ZEB system
boundaries are defined according to the ZEB ambition levels, as described in Section 2.1.
If other system boundaries are applied instead of those outlined in the ZEB ambition levels, then this
should be clearly explained in the goal and scope definitions, through applying the modular system of
lifecycle stages as defined in NS-EN 15978: 2011 , see Table 4.2.
Table 4.2 Different stages of the life cycle of a building, as defined in NS-EN 15978: 2011.
D
A4-A5
Benefits and
A1-A3 Construction B1-B7 C1-C4
loads
Product Stage Process Use Stage End of Life Stage
beyond the
Stage
system boundary
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 C1 C2 C3 C4 D1 D2 D3 D4
Exported energy / Potential

Deconstruction / demolition
Transport to Manufacturer
Transport to building site
Installation into building
Operational energy use
Transport to end of life

Operational water use
Raw Material Supply
Waste Processing
Refurbishment
Manufacturing
Replacement
Maintenance
Recycling
Recovery
Disposal
Repair
Reuse
Use
The lifecycle modules A1 - C4, cover environmental impacts and aspects that are directly linked to
processes and operations taking place within the system boundary of a building, whereas module D
provides the net environmental benefits relating to exported energy and secondary materials, secondary
fuels or secondary products resulting from reuse, and recycling and energy recovery, which takes place
beyond the system boundary.
The physical boundaries of the building, construction parts, and technical installations included in the
scope of the study should also be clearly defined in the goal and scope.
4.1.2.1 System Boundary to Nature – Biogenic Carbon

According to NS-EN 16485: 2014 - Round and sawn timber-Environmental product declarations-Product
category rules for wood and wood-based products for use in construction (NS-EN 16485: 2014) and
NPCR 015 - Product-category rules for wood and wood-based products for use in construction (NPCR
015 2013), it is stated that for timber obtained from sustainably managed forests, the biogenic carbon
stored in harvested wood should be included, in order to reflect the biogenic nature of wood, its
renewability, and its potential carbon neutrality. The biogenic carbon stored in wood products can be

calculated according to the procedure given in NS‐EN16449: 2014 Wood and wood-based products –
Calculation of the biogenic carbon content of wood and conversion to carbon dioxide (NS-EN 16449:
2014).
Accounting for carbon uptakes and CO2 emissions is particularly relevant for the assessment of
buildings that use wood as a construction material. This is because it considers temporarily storing
carbon or delaying the GHG emissions. The biogenic carbon content (kg CO2eq) of wood may be
included as a negative value to GWP (Global Warming Potential) in module A1. The same amount of
biogenic carbon content (kg CO2eq) must then be removed as a positive value from the system in
modules C3 and C4. During the environmental assessment of a whole building's lifecycle, the biogenic
carbon effect of GWP, consists of negative CO2 emissions in A1, and positive CO2 emissions in C3 and
C4, which results in zero CO2 emissions over the entire lifetime (according to the assumption of
biogenic carbon neutrality) (NS-EN 16485: 2014). In order to consider the biogenic carbon content of
wood, the recommended minimum scope of the LCA should include A1-A3 and C1-C4 lifecycle modules
for the building.
The current approach within the ZEB Research Centre has been to exclude biogenic carbon from ZEB-
OM ambition level (e.g. Multikomfort pilot building, Chapter 6.1) and ZEB-COM ambition level (e.g.
Campus Evenstad pilot building, Chapter 6.3) analyses. This is because the end of life stage is not
taken into account. However, biogenic carbon should be included in ZEB-COME and ZEB-COMPLETE
ambition levels, whereby the overall lifecycle is considered.
4.1.2.2 Carbonation of Concrete

Concrete is a composite material consisting mainly of aggregates, cement, and water. The major part of
CO2 emissions from the production of concrete is related to the production of cement. In cement
production, more than 50% of the CO2 emitted originates from the calcination 7 of limestone (Pade and
Guimaraes 2007). However, the calcination process is slowly reversed by carbonation 8 when
atmospheric CO2 combines with calcium oxide in the cement to form calcium carbonate. However,
carbonation is a very slow process and the absoption of CO2 is small compared to the emissions from
cement production. Due to the present lack of accurate and quantifiable data, the current practice at the
ZEB Research Centre has been to exclude the uptake of CO2 by concrete.
4.1.3 Service Life

The service life of a building, component, or material is usually defined as the period of time in which the
performance meets or exceeds initial requirements. The service life of a building, component, or
material is dependent on many various factors. When calculating the emissions over the lifetime of a
building, we distinguish between the service life of the whole building and the service life of components
and construction materials.
The Whole Building: There are two main definitions of service life at the whole building level, namely
the reference study period (RSP) 9 and the required service life (ReqSL). 10
7 Calcination is the chemical conversion of limestone (calcium carbonate) to calcium oxide (the principal component of
cement) and CO2. CaCO3+heat͢ → CaO+CO2
8 Carbonation is uptake or re-absorption of CO2 from atmosphere.
9 The References Study Period (RSP) is the period of time in which time dependent characteristics of the construction works
are analysed. In some cases, the reference study period may differ significantly from the design life of the building. (NS-EN
15978: 2011)
10 The Required Service Life (ReqSL) is the service life of construction works required by the client or through regulations
(NS-EN 15643-1 (2010). Sustainability of construction works - Sustainability assessment of buildings - Part 1: General
framework, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium.

Typically, the default value for the reference study period shall be the required service life of the
building. However, this is not always the case. The current reference study period being used by the
ZEB Research Centre is 60 years (Kristjansdottir et al. 2014).
Nonetheless, there is at least one ZEB pilot building that has a lower required service life than the
reference study period, namely the Living Laboratory. The Living Laboratory is a temporary building,
and it therefore has a shorter building lifetime than the reference study period of 60 years. In such a
scenario, NS-EN 15978:2011 recommends using an adjustment factor for calculating embodied material
emissions originating from modules B1 – B7 and D. This adjustment factor is calculated by:
RSP/ReqSL.
Components and Construction Materials: Building materials or components often need maintenance,
repair, and/or replacement during the ReqSL of a building. The replacement rate of various
components and materials is based on the estimated service life (ESL) 11 (not to be confused with
expected service life 12 or the design life 13) which may be found in PCRs, 14 or the following Building
Research Design Guide from SINTEF 700.320 Intervals for maintenance and replacement of building
components and 700.307 Definitions, establishments and use of service lifetime data for buildings and
building components/construction parts. It should be remembered that maintenance, repair, and
replacement of building materials and components is contextual, and may vary from case to case.
The number of replacements of a product, components, and elements used in buildings should be
calculated according to NS-EN 15978: 2011 (NS-EN 15978: 2011) using the following formula:
Number of replacements of product (j) = E [ReqSL/ESL(j) -1]

Whereby,
ReqSL is the required service life of the building,
ESL is the estimated service life,
j is the product,
E rounds the factor to the nearest whole integer.
Furthermore, NS-EN 15978: 2011 (NS-EN 15978: 2011) states that "If, after the last scheduled
replacement of a product, the remaining service life of the building is short in proportion to the estimated
service life time of the installed product, the actual likelyhood of this scheduled replacement should be
taken into account."
In most of the ZEB pilot cases, the number of replacements of products have been calculated by simply
dividing the ReqSL of the building by the ESL of the product without rounding up.
11 The estimated service life (ESL) is the service life of a building, or parts of a building, expected in a set of specific in-use
conditions, determined from reference service life data, after taking into account any differences from the in-use reference
conditions (ISO 15686-1 (2011). Buildings and constructed assets- Service life planning-Part 1: General principles and
framework, International Organization for standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.).
12 The expected service life is the maximum period of useful life as defined by the manufacturer. (ISO 26782: 2009)
13 The design life is the intended service life (deprecated), expected service life (deprecated) or service life of construction
works intended by the designer (ISO 15686-1: 2011).

14 Product Category Rules (PCR) define the rules and requirements for EPDs (Environmental Product Declarations) of a
certain product category. They are a key part of ISO 14025 as they enable transparency and comparability between EPDs

Number of replacements of product (j) = ReqSL/ESL(j) -1
Whereby,
ReqSL is the required service life of the building,
ESL is the estimated service life,
j is the product.
The approach of not rounding up the number is a simplification of the standardized method. With this
approach, the number of replacements can be a decimal number. The reason for using this approach,
apart from that it is simpler, is that it removes the subjective evaluation of the likeliness that the last
scheduled replacement takes place.
Refurbishment: If a building undergoes comprehensive restoration and refurbishment, it is

recommended that the lifetime of the restored building is renewed to 100% and reset to 60 years from
the restoration date.
4.2 Life Cycle Inventory and Data Sources
4.2.1 The Building Model

The building element model described in Table 2.2 is used to organize the building in a structured way
to facilitate the quantification of the mass and energy flows with their corresponding CO2 eq emissions
and/or energy use. In order to get an overview of the parts of the building that have been included and
also to do a more structured and detailed comparison with other projects, the building model is
structured according to NS 3451-Table of building elements (NS 3451: 2009).
4.2.2 EPDs and Databases for Life Cycle Inventories

Specific data and/or generic Life Cycle Inventory (LCI 15) databases can be used to supply data for life
cycle purposes. Product specific datasets are typically documented in the form of publically available
environmental product declarations (EPDs) 16, while generic datasets are usually gathered in the form of
LCI such as, but not limited to, the Ecoinvent database (Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories 2010)
and the database of the Norwegian tool Klimagassregnskap.no.
For products which do not have data on their production, technical data sheets from the producers and
generic data from the Ecoinvent database can be used to create a scenario for the emissions from that
actual product. For the electrical components’ emissions, data from Product Environmental Profile
(PEP) 17can be used.
15 Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) is the data collection stage of LCA. LCI is the accounting of everything involved in the “system”
of interest. It consists of detailed tracking of all the flows in and out of the product system, including raw resources or
materials, energy by type, water, and emissions to air, water and land by specific substance.
16 Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) is an independently verified document that communicates transparent and
comparable information about the life-cycle environmental impact of a product.

17 Product Environmental Profile (PEP) is a reference system, in line with ISO 14025, used to provide environmental profile
of products from electrical, electronic and HVAC products.

Figure 4.1 shows the results from a sensitivity analysis carried out to evaluate the influence of using
emission data from Norwegian EPDs instead of generic data from Ecoinvent for selected materials in a
study of a ZEB concept residential building (Houlihan Wiberg et al. 2015).
Figure 4.1 CO2eq emission comparisons between the original ZEB study with generic data and the study
where Norwegian EPDs were applied (Houlihan Wiberg et al. 2015).
Plasterboard, concrete, and insulation materials were selected for the sensitivity study since these
materials were responsible for the highest emissions apart from PV in this case study (Dokka et al.
2013b). Photovoltaic panels were not included in the sensitivity analysis as there is currently no
Norwegian EPDs available for this product. To evaluate the benefits of using locally resourced
materials, wood was also selected in this sensitivity study, using Norwegian EPD data. It was found that
the baseline emissions of 7.2 kgCO2eq/m2/yr could be reduced to 5.8 kgCO2eq/m2/yr if specific data for
concrete, insulation, plasterboard, and wood were used.
In order to ensure the quality and transparency of the LCA, the complete inventory of the calculations
should be documented including data sources, assumptions, and uncertainties. The age of the data
should always be reported. It is not recommended to use expired EPDs nor generic data older than 10
years. An example of a library sheet used for documenting the sources of EPD data for the ZEB
concept residential building is shown in Table 4.3.

Table 4.3 List of EPD data sources used for sensitivity analysis carried out for ZEB concept residential
building study (Houlihan Wiberg et al. 2015).
Functional Impact
Material description Physical properties unit categories Information disclosure
Category of resource Material specification Density Unit GWP Data Scope Electricity mix Year of Reference
/process used [kg CO2 eq., source data
100 (EPD,
years/FU-DU] Database
etc.)
Ferdigbetong Nordpool (0,122
3
Concrete B25 M60 Betong Øst 2358 kg/m 1m3 189,9 EPD A1-A3 kg CO2eq/kWh) 2012 NEPD 123N
Norwegian
Norgips Standard Type A production mix
Plasterboard (STD) 720 kg/m3 1m3 168 EPD A1-A3 from Ecoinvent v2 2013 NEPD00113E
NORDEL (189
3
Insulation Glava glasswool 16,5 kg/m 1m3 21,14 EPD A1-A3 gCO2eq/kWh) 2011 NEPD 221E
ENTSO-E (0,0073
3
Insulation EPS isolation 15 kg/m 1m3 64,71 EPD A1-A3 kgCO2eq/MJ) 2013 NEPD-322-185-NO
Norwegian mean
supply electricity
mix from 2008-
Load bearing Structural timber of 2010(0,021
timber beam spruce and pine 420 kg/m3 1m3 53 EPD A1-A3 kgCO2eq/MJ) 2013 NEPD-308-179-EN
Norwegian mean
supply electricity
mix from 2008-
Sawn dried timber of 2010 (0,021
3
Wood battons spruce or pine 450 kg/m 1m3 41 EPD A1-A3 kgCO2eq/MJ) 2013 NEPD-307-179-EN
The electricity mix used in the production of the materials affects the embodied emission. The electricity
mix used for calculating the embodied energy and related emissions should be the grid mix in the
country where the main energy consuming processes take place (NS-EN 15804: 2012) . In the EPDs,
this is usually the case. However, some foreign EPDs might apply green certificates 18.
The electricity mix (calculation procedure) shall be documented (as shown in Table 4.3), and any
deviations from this shall be justified.
4.2.3 Construction Process

Transport of construction materials from the factory to the building site (A4) can be calculated and
documented using the following information:
- Collecting information about the weight and density of the materials, place of production of
materials,means of transportation, and type of fuel used.
- Estimating the distances to the building site using tools like e.g. Google Maps.
- Finding the emission factor per ton-km (by the type of transport mode used) or by the type of
fuel emission conversion factor (for the type of fuel used).
When using EPD data for A4, it is important to check whether the values given in the EPD include
transportation from production site to a building site or to a central warehouse.
In the construction and installation stage (A5) the manufacturing and transport of ancillary materials as
well as the energy required during installation and wastage of construction products up to end of waste
18A Green Certificate is a tradable commodity that acts as a guarantee that the electricity that is traded is sourced from
renewable energy sources. The certificates can be traded separately from the energy produced
(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Green_certificate&oldid=632402173). Producers of wind energy, bio energy, wave
energy, small-scale hydropower and solar energy, sell the Green Certificates to the end consumers. A demand for green
certificates is created through the European manufacturers' obligation to satisfy the given “green” percentage in their
electricity consumption . Thus, a market for green certificates is a subsidy scheme for promoting renewable energy
production

state, should be included. Until now, transport of workers during the construction of the building has
mostly been excluded from the emission calculations. This is according to NS-EN 15978: 2011, Section
7.4.3.2 (NS-EN 15978 2011). However, in the Evenstad pilot project, transport of workers has been
studied and the results indicate that the impact is considerable. Thus, further work is required to
evaluate the impact of people transport.
In the Powerhouse Kjørbo project, the construction and installation processes were estimated for the
design phase based on registered data from previous construction projects and adjusted based on
known differences between the previous projects and the current project (Fjeldheim et al. 2015). The
estimated data were adjusted according to actual registered transport distances as well as electricity
and fuel consumption during the construction phase.
With a lack of data, the current practice at the ZEB Research Centre is to account for 10% losses of
building materials during construction installation (A5) processes (Inman and Houlihan Wiberg 2015).
However, it is acknowledged that this is an indicative value and an area for further research.
4.2.4 Replacement of PV Modules

PV systems, which generate renewable electricity to offset the emissions from the building during
operation, do not contribute to GHG emission during their operation. However, the PV systems
contribute significantly to the embodied emissions in zero emission buildings (Dokka et al. 2013b).
Within the PV industry there is continuous development on new technologies and material use as well
as efficiencies for PV modules (NREL 2016). When the reference study period is estimated to 60 years,
the PV system needs to be replaced once. Prospective studies of the life cycle primary energy use of
PV modules have been presented in Frischknecht et al. (2015), Bergesen et al. (2014), and Mann et al.
(2014). These studies highlight the expected reduction of material use as well as expected increases in
efficiencies of PV modules.
For the replacement scenario (B4) of PV modules, a 50% reduction of the environmental impacts
relative to the A1-A3 impacts can be used. This has been applied as a rule of thumb in the emission
calculations of the ZEB pilot buildings.
4.2.5 End of Life

According to NS-EN 15804: 2012, the end of life stage (C1-C4) starts when the materials or products
are replaced, dismantled or deconstructed from the building site and until it reaches the end-of-waste
state (NS-EN 15804: 2012). Products that reach the end-of-waste state during the construction stage
(A4-A5) or the use stage (B1-B7) will have their end of life considered within the life cycle stage in which
it arises.
A product reaches the end-of-waste state if it may still be used for a specific purpose, has a positive
market value, fulfils relevant technical requirements, and do not lead to adverse environmental impacts,
see Figure 4.2. Any declared benefits and loads from net flows leaving the product system not allocated
as co-products and having passed the end-of waste state, shall be included in module D. Module D is
not part of the building's system, but it is an information module used to increase transparency.

Figure 4.2 End-of-waste decision tree (NS-EN 15804: 2012).
The end of life phase (C1-C4) can be modelled with the use of generic data, e.g. from the Ecoinvent
database.
C1 - deconstruction/demolition
This module includes deconstruction, including dismantling or demolition, and on site sorting. In lack of
reliable data, it may be assumed that the amount of energy used in the deconstruction phase (C1) is
equal to the amount used in the construction and installation processes (Fjeldheim et al. 2015).
C2 - transport from construction to waste treatment

This module includes transportation of waste to waste processing and disposal sites.
C3 and C4 - waste processing and disposal

This module includes waste processing for reuse, recycling and recovery (C3) and disposal of waste
that does not reach the end-of-waste state (C4).The use of generic data for scenarios describing the
end of life treatment (C3 and C4) can be based on current national waste accounts for main materials.
An example of current statistics for treatments of waste from building and construction waste for Norway
is shown in Table 4.4.

Table 4.4 Treatment of waste from construction, renovation, and demolition of buildings (tonnes 2013)
(Stastics Norway (2015)).
Treatment, Sent to Composting Biogas Energy Other or
Landfill
total recycling production recovery unspecified
1 090 207
Materials, total 1 818 897 2 336 4 262 500 339 13 829
760 371
Wood 260 453 42 363 2 146 0 207 573 17 8 355
Paper and
25 768 24759 10 0 915 46 39
cardboard
Plastics 5 287 2 124 0 0 3 085 77 0
Glass 9 314 7 135 0 0 0 332 1846
Metals 86 015 85 917 0 0 0 1 97
Gypsum 67 330 47 888 0 0 1472 17970 0
EE-waste 9 967 8 185 0 0 1177 561 44
Bricks and
concrete and
other heavy 72 6985 585 887 0 0 17 140199 882
building
materials
Polluted bricks
19831 4 806 0 0 2 14930 94
and concrete
Other waste 24058 19 563 4 0 526 2872 1092
Mixed waste 325797 21 376 176 4262 281425 18015 543
Asphalt 240608 237 803 0 0 0 2805 0
Hazardous
17484 2 953 0 0 4147 9546 837
waste
In the Powerhouse Kjørbo pilot building, the scenarios for the end of life treatment of the various
materials were based on the average distribution of recycling, incineration and landfill of concrete,
aluminium, glass, gypsum, insulation, plastic, steel, wood and bitumen using generic waste data
between 2006 and 2011 from SSB (Fjeldheim et al. 2015).

5. Verification
The designed performance and calculations should be verified by monitoring and evaluation, so that
lessons learned can be transferred to new projects.
The following verification procedures are recommended:

- Verification of annual energy performance and the ZEB balance: Measurement of the
delivered imported and exported energy to evaluate if the designed performance is achieved.
The CO2 balance is calculated based on the specific CO2 factors for each energy carrier.
- Verification of energy performance level: Comparing simulated and measured energy use for
the different energy purposes (heating, domestic hot water, fans, lighting, appliances) according
to NS 3031. A procedure for verification of energy performance in use may be found in (Dokka
and Grini 2013).
- Monitoring if indoor climate parameters obtained: Measurement of temperatures, velocities,
CO2 levels, noise and acoustic levels, light levels (natural / artificial), etc. in summer and winter
conditions.
- AS-BUILT assessment of embodied emissions: Since the actual materials, products, and
processes used in the construction of the building may be different from what was assumed in
the design phase, an AS-BUILT analysis should be performed based on the materials that were
actually used in the construction.
It is also recommended that the LCA made for ZEBs are verified and quality assured by an
independent, qualified third party (Kristjansdottir et al. 2014).

6. Case Studies
The Norwegian ZEB centre has nine pilot building projects, see Table 6.1. The ZEB pilot buildings are
all designed according to ZEB-targets on GHG emission and/or primary energy. Different strategies are
used to accomplish ZEB-budgets for the different projects, and ZEB-partners have been involved in the
calculations in various degrees. This means that the calculations have been made using somewhat
different approaches. Variations in the ZEB-budgets includes ZEB-ambition level, system border, level
of detail, choice of background database, choice of LCA tool etc. The pilot projects are also very
different in terms of building type, size, construction methods, etc.
Table 6.1 ZEB pilot building projects.

ZEB pilot buildings Type of building Ambition level Location
Haakonsvern Office building ZEB-O÷EQ Bergen
Skarpnes 5 single-family houses ZEB-O Arendal
Zero Village Bergen ca. 800 dwellings ZEB-O Bergen
Powerhouse Brattøra Office building ZEB-OM÷EQ Trondheim
Powerhouse Kjørbo Office building, renovation ZEB-OM÷EQ Sandvika
Multikomfort Single family house ZEB-OM Larvik
Living Laboratory Single family house ZEB-OM Trondheim
Heimdal VGS Education * Heimdal
Campus Evenstad Education and office ZEB-COM Hedmark
*In the Heimdal pilot project, the calculations included all the emissions from the materials (A1-A3) and in
addition emissions from transport to building site (A4). However, the ambtion level is set to compensate
only 20% of these emissions. (ZEB O20%M + A4)
This chapter summarizes the different approaches and shows results from the two of the ZEB pilot
buildings; Multikomfort (residential building) and Powerhouse Kjørbo (office building) using a common
ZEB definition methodology.

6.1 Pilot Building Multikomfort
Figure 6.1 The Multikomfort house. Photo: Jon Østgård.
6.1.1 Key Data

Location Larvik
Building type New residential building / Demonstration house
Heated floor area 201 m2
Building stage As built
ZEB ambition level ZEB-OM
Building developer/ Optimera and Brødrene Dahl
owner
Involved companies Snøhetta, ZEB, Optimera, Brødrene Dahl, Bergersen Flis, Geberit, Glava, Grohe,
Gustavsberg, Ifo Porsgrund, Intra, Lyngson, Nilan, Oras, Oso, PipeLife, Schneider
Electric, Uponor, Villeroy & Boch, VPI, Grundfos, Aubo, Barkevik, Bergene Holm,
Boen, Elfa, Fisher, Gyproc, Isola, Moelven, Natre, Paslode, Velux, Weber.
Opening 2014
6.1.2 Energy Systems

Heating: Ground-source-to-water HP (Nilan Compact P Geo 3kW), which covers 80% heating and has
a COP of 5.17. Solar thermal collectors by Hewalex, 16 m2, which covers 20% of the heating load. Hot
water is collected in a 400 liter tank by Oso, which serves the underfloor heating system.

DHW: Heat from waste water (sink, shower, dishwasher, washing machine) preheats the water in the
water tank. In addition, DHW is provided by the solar collectors, by an air-to-water HP in the exhaust of
the ventilation shaft, and by the ground-source-to-water HP. Washing machines use hot water directly
(hot-fill machienes, no electricity for water heating needed). Excess heat from the solar themal collectors
is used for heating the water of the swimming pool.
Ventilation: the ventilation system is connected to a heat exchanger (85% efficiency) located in the
ground-source HP and connected to the exhaust air shaft. The heat from the water system increases
the temperature of the supplied air.
Lighting: LED lights.
Water system: Rain water is collected, recycled, and stored in a 6000 liter tank. It is then reused in
toilets and for watering the garden.
Energy supply: Photovoltaic modules from Innotech with 15,5% efficiency, 250 Wp, 122 m2 installed
area, connected to a 48V battery bank at 600Ah.
Control system: The energy system is connected to meters that are controllable via a web connection.
A battery bank is in the car-port, and its charging status is controllable by the same system.
Results
The thermal energy performance of the building was calculated with the programs SIMIEN
(Programbyggerne.no) and PolySun (VelaSolaris.com). The calculations showed a net energy load for
the building of 16,387 kWh per year. Including the heat pump system, the greywater system and the
solar collector system, the demand for delivered energy was calculated to 6,900 kWh per year. Annual
electricity yield from the PV system was calculated by the software PVsyst (PVsyst.com), to 19,200 kWh
per year.
6.1.3 Materials
Service life, building 60 years
Evaluated indicators Greenhouse Gas emissions (kg CO2eq)
Year of assessment 2014
Involved companies in ZEB /SINTEF Building and Infrastructure (for the analysis), Optimera (for
LCA calculations product choices), Snøhetta (for the BIM inventory), Brødrene Dahl (for
technical analysis)
Tool, LCA Simapro+ Microsoft Excel. The amounts of materials have been gathered by
using material takeoffs from the Revit BIM (Building information model) for
the construction materials.
Background database Environmental product declarations (EPDs), Ecoinvent database v2.2 (Swiss
Centre for Life Cycle Inventories 2010), and scientific articles. The analysis
by (Fthenakis, 2012 ) and EPD by Innotech provided information regarding
embodied energy related to the PV modules.
System boundaries according to NS-EN 15978: 2011

A1-A3 and a simplified B4 life cycle stages are included:
Transport and waste scenarios are not included in B4.

Physical boundaries and included construction parts
Construction parts: Foundation, roof, inner walls, outer walls, floors, windows, doors. and inner stairs.
Technical installations: Ventilation equipment, low voltage electrical equipment, materials use in floor
heating system, solar electric panels, solar thermal collectors
Not included: Chemicals (like glue), lighting systems, sewage systems and interiors, material used in the
garden, waste materials at the building site.
Service life of materials and components

Set mainly based on lifetime set by relevant EPDs and estimated technical lifetime based on information
from producers.
Material Choices
• Reduced amount of concrete and steel used in foundations, use of timber instead of steel in load
bearing constructions (glue laminated beams), use of low carbon concrete instead of normal
concrete.
• Biogenic CO2 for the timber used in the construction and absorption of CO2 by carbonatisation of
the concrete are not accounted for in the analysis.
• Recycled bricks in selected areas of the façade, timber claddings both in outer façade and selected
inner walls.
• Ceramic tiles made of recycled material
• Robust floor material (parquet with 20 year lifetime)
• Solar cells produced based on recycled material
• The Norwegian standard, NS 3451:2009; Table of building elements, is used to structure the
material groups.
Results
Table 6.2 Calculated emissions for different construction parts.

Pre use phase1 Use phase2 Total
Construction Parts (according to NS
(kg CO2 eq/m2 (kg CO2 eq/m2 (kg CO2 eq/m2 year
3451:2009)
year) year) year)
21 Groundwork and foundations 0.69 0.00 0.69
22 Superstructure 0.16 0.00 0.16
23 Outer walls 0.68 0.37 1.05
24 Inner walls 0.28 0.24 0.53
25 Structural deck 0.44 0.16 0.60
26 Outer roof 0.23 0.00 0.23
28 Stairs 0.03 0.00 0.03
36 Ventilation and air conditioning 0.11 0.10 0.20
43 Low voltage supply 0.07 0.07 0.15
49 PV system (Other el. power inst.) 1.34 0.33 1.67
69 Other technical inst. (solar thermal system 0.19 0.19 0.39
and floor heating)
Total 4.22 1.47 5.70
1Represents the main emissions due to all the materials that go into the building in year 0.
2Represents the emission scenario from materials that are replaced during the 60 years lifetime.

Figure 6.2 Emissions related to materials and technical parts.
Table 6.3 ZEB balance

Annualized GHG emissions kg CO2eq/(m2year) kg CO2eq/year
Operational energy 4.5 911
Materials production 5.7 1150
Renewable energy produced from PV -12.4 -2534
TOTAL -2.2 -442

6.2 Pilot Project Powerhouse Kjørbo
Figure 6.3 One of the office blocks of Powerhouse Kjørbo. Photo: Byggenytt.no.
6.2.1 Key Data
Location Sandvika (near Oslo)

Building type Office, renovation. Two office building blocks (3 and 4 floors)
connected by a common stairway. Original construction from
1980.
Heated Floor Area 5180 m2
Building stage As built
ZEB ambition level ZEB-OM÷EQ
Building owner / Tenant Entra AS / Asplan Viak
Involved companies Snøhetta, Skanska, Hydro, Asplan Viak, Sapa, Entra, ZERO and
ZEB.
Opening April 2014
6.2.2 Energy Systems

Due to the fact that the energy need for ventilation normally comprises a large share of the energy
budget in office buildings, there has been a particularly high focus on reducing the energy need for
ventilation. This includes using low emitting materials to reduce the ventilation demand, demand control,
displacement ventilation, low pressure design to minimize fan energy, and highly efficient heat recovery.

During normal operation, the average ventilation air volume is about 3 m3/(m2h) in winter, and about 6
m3/(m2h) in summer (on warm days).
Figure 6.4 Ventilation system using stairways for vertical supply and exchaust ventilation shafts.
Illustration: Snøhetta/MIR.
During summer the spaces are cooled by the supply air which is drawn in from the facades to a central
ventilation unit located in a mechanical room below the roof in each building. Vertical supply ducts in the
building core channel the air to the different office levels where it flows directly into the open plan office
spaces. The closed offices and the meeting rooms have separate ventilation ducts. The existing
staircases are used as vertical ventilation shafts. Integrated rotary heat exchangers are situated in the
central ventilation units, which can recover approximately 85% of the heat from the exhaust air during
the heating season.
Furthermore the very energy efficient building envelope is combined with daylight utilization, a lighting
control system suiting the different user needs, energy efficient fixtures, and a ground source heat pump
reduces the electricity demand for operation.
Heating is provided by a heat pump system which is connected to ten thermal probes (boreholes) in the
park, each of which is approximately 200 metres deep. Heating of the office spaces is provided primarily
by radiators which are attached to the core walls of the building. The heat pump is also used to pre-heat
the supply air and to heat the potable water (domestic hot water). The buildings are also connected to
district heating for backup.
“Free cooling” is provided by circulating the brine from the ground probes through a heat exchanger in
the ventilation system. The brine temperature is about 8-10°C. This is sufficient to cool the building
during summer; during the heat wave of the summer of 2014, the heat pump did not need to be
switched on.
A total of 1560 m2 of photovoltaic panels were fitted on the roofs of the two office buildings as well as on
the neighboring garage. It consists of 950 modules with 20% efficiency.
Results
The simulations of operational energy performance were done using the dynamic energy simulation tool
SIMIEN (Programbyggerne.no) and in accordance with NS 3031:2007 (NS 3031: 2007). Energy

demand for lighting and equipment was set according to expected real use for a normalized operation
period.
As the Powerhouse definition states that the fulfilment of the definition should be documented by
measured results, the Powerhouse Kjørbo was instrumented for detailed energy metering and energy
use was followed up closely. Operation and measurements started in April 2014, and results for the first
year of operation are presented in Table 6.5. In total, the results show a surprisingly high
correspondence in sum between calculated and measured energy. The specific delivered energy was
calculated to 23.54 kWh/(m2yr) (not including electricity for electrical appliances and server room), while
the measurements showed 23.52 kWh/(m2yr). However, the results deviate more when different energy
purposes is analysed. The results have not been corrected for climate variations and user variations.
Furthermore, the data have not yet been fully analysed and are not fit for making exact conclusions. The
building is in a two year test phase and undergoing adjustments to optimize the energy use, and several
adjustments have already been made. Examples are:
• Energy for lighting was too high, as the lights were activated when the solar screens went
down. This has been corrected by programming the screens to not roll all the way down.
• The energy for domestic hot water was too high as the electric heating element kicked in too
soon. This was solved by adjusting the thermostat.
• The heat pumps have too many starts and stops which will shorten service life of the
compressor.
• The heat recovery unit has lower efficiency than expected due to too low air flow rate. Design
heat recovery rate: 85%, measured 1st year: 70-75%. This fact was previously unknown to the
manufacturer.
Table 6.3 Calculated predicted energy performance and measured energy performance. Source:
Skanska (Presented at the ZEB conference 2015).
Energibudsjett 2014 vs målt
forbruk, Powerhouse Kjørbo Energibudsjett første driftsår Målt forbruk fra april 2014 til mars 2015 (første driftsår)
Blokk 4, Blokk 5 og mellombygg Totalt netto Totalt Spesifikt Totalt netto Totalt Totalt Spesifikt Spesifikt
(tot. BRA=5180) energibehov elektrisitetsbehov elektrisitetsbehov energibehov elektrisitetsbehov fjernvarmebehov elektrisitetsbehov fjernvarmebehov
[kWh] [kWh] [kWh/m 2] [kWh] [kWh] [kWh] [kWh/m 2] [kWh/m 2]
Romoppvarming 107 921 33 725,3 6,51 66 782,0 16 135,8 277,4 3,12 0,05
Ventilasjonsvarme 10 625 3 320,4 0,64 40 853,0 9 621,3 402,0 1,86 0,08
Tappevannsoppvarming 29 726 9 289,5 1,79 11 625,9 5 956,8 0,0 1,15 0,00
Vifter og internpumper - ventilasjon 15 475 15 475,2 2,99 17 763,6 17 763,6 3,43
Pumper (teknisk rom i kjeller - bygg 4) 11 300 11 300,4 2,18 8 992,6 8 992,6 1,74
Belysning 41 074 41 073,6 7,93 63 374,8 63 374,8 12,23
Utstyr- generelt 52 912 52 911,6 10,21 58 973,0 58 973,0 11,38
Utstyr - datarom (serveranlegg) 105 120 105 120,0 20,29 40 835,7 40 835,7 7,88
Romkjøling/komfortkjøling 0 0,0 0,00 0,0 0,0 0,0
Dataromskjøling 105 120 7 008,0 1,35 39 200,0 inngår i pumpedrift
Ventilasjonskjøling 11 322 754,8 0,15 10 211,0 inngår i pumpedrift
Sum - alle målte verdier 490 595 279 979 54,05 358 612 221 654 679 42,79 0,13
Sum målte verdier eksklusive
serveranlegg 385 475 174 859 33,76 317 776 180 818 679 34,91 0,13
Sum eksklusive serveranlegg og
generelt utstyr 332 563 121 947 23,54 258 803 121 845 679 23,52 0,13
Målte ytelser - varmepumper Elforbruk Varme levert COP
Varmepumpe tappevann 2 427,7 7 352,0 3,03
Varmepumpe øvrig oppvarming 23 053,7 97 580,0 4,23
Totalt for begge varmepumper 25 481,40 104 932,00 4,12
6.2.3 Materials
Service life, building 60 years
Evaluated indicators Primary energy (kWh) and greenhouse gas emissions (kg CO2eq)
Year of assessment First results in 2012 (after design phase). Updated in 2015.
Involved companies in LCA ZEB, Skanska
calculations

Tool, LCA BIM (for the construction materials) + MagiCad (for the
ventilation system) + Microsoft Excel + Simapro
Background database EPDs + Ecoinvent v2.2 + scientific articles.
Construction Impacts related to A4 and A5
Processes included For the design phase an estimate was made for the energy
demand in the construction installation process based on
registered data from previous construction projects and adjusted
based on known differences. During the construction phase the
estimates were updated with actual registered transport
distances as well as electricity and fuel consumption.
Impacts Related to A1-A3 + B4

• Included: Emissions related to material extraction and production, including materials related to the
PV system.
• System boundaries: Materials for infrastructure related to water and drain is not included.
• B4 were based on service lifetimes available from PCR and SINTEF Building and Infrastructure's
guidelines BKS 700.320 (Byggforskserien).
• Biogenic CO2 for the timber used in the construction and absorption of CO2 by carbonatisation of
the concrete are not accounted for in the analysis.
• The loadbearing structure from the previous building has been adjusted and reused in the new
building. Embodied energy and emissions loads from the reused components are not accounted for
in the analysis. This decision was made to encourage reuse of materials and because the reused
components were older than 30 years. According to Section 7.3 in the standard NS-EN 15978:2011
environmental loads from components shall be allocated based on the remaining service life.
Analyses concluded that based on the calculation rules of the standard, the impacts of demolishing
the old structure and rebuilding it with today's materials would result in a 50% reduced
environmental impact. This was decided to be counter intuitive and it was chosen to disregard the
environmental loads of the existing structure, which is not in line with the standard.
• Transport of materials and components to the site was registered. The tonnage for each transport of
materials and components is not known; therefore the total tonnage of the project has been evenly
distributed over the total number of transports.
• Due to the static information of the EPDs, there is an inconsistency between the primary energy
factors and CO2 factors used for the operational energy demand and the production of materials and
components.
• It was assumed that the embodied energy and emissions from the production of the PV modules will
be reduced with 50% in 30 years. This is of course uncertain, however analyses presented by
Frischknecht et al. (2015), Bergesen et al. (2014), and Mann et al. (2014) support that there is a
continuous improvements in the production of PV modules. The improvements are mainly
connected to increased material efficiency, improved production processes, and the transition to
increased use of renewable energy in the production process. It was also assumed that the
efficiency of the PV modules installed after 30 years will have an increased efficiency by about 40 %
from 20 % to 28%. This is based on the average historic development of Single Junction GaAs –
Single crystal cells and Thin film crystal cells recorded by Wilson (2014) (NREL 2014). This is also
in accordance with the optimistic scenario presented in (Frischknecht et al. 2015).
• The structure of the inventory analysis for the construction materials is according to NS 3451:2009.

Impacts Related to C1-C4
• C1: Dut to lack of good data, the deconstruction phase is assumed to be equal to the
construction installation process. Less heating will be needed as the duration will be shorter, but
deconstruction of the concrete structure will require more fuel for machinery. These differences
are assumed to balance each other.
• C2: The transport of waste from site to treatment facility and disposal were based on Erlandsen
(2009) and supplemented with generic distances from Wittstock et al. (SSB (2011)) where
necessary due to lack of data.
• C3 and C4: The scenarios for the end of life treatment of the various materials are based on the
average distribution of recycling, incineration, and landfill of concrete, aluminium, glass,
gypsum, insulation, plastic, steel, wood, textile, bitumen, and generic waste between 2006 and
2011 (Statistisk Sentralbyrå 2013).
Results
Table 6.4 ZEB budget for Powerhouse Kjørbo (Fjeldheim et al. 2015). Note that the number for
operational energy (B6) is not including equipment (plug loads).
Greenhouse gas
Primary energy, emissions,
Life Cycle stages kWh/(m2year) kgCO2eq/(m2year)
A1-A3 Raw material supply, transport to
manufacturing sites and manufacturing 20,11 3,77
A4 Transport to building site 0,11 0,02
A5 Construction/installation 2,67 0,23
B4 Replacements 10,34 1,82
B6 Operational Energy Use – Energy demand 58,10 3,89
B6 Operational Energy Use – Energy production -121,80 -7,03
C1 Deconstruction 2,67 0,23
C2 Transport to waste treatment plant 0,27 0,06
C3 Waste processing for reuse, recovery or/ and
recycling 0,11 0,02
C4 Disposal 0,47 0,43
Sum -26,96 3,44

1000 000
2013
2016
2019
2022
2025
2028
2031
2034
2037
2040
2043
2046
2049
2052
2055
2058
2061
2064
2067
2070
2073
-1000 000
-2000 000
kWh primary energy
-3000 000
-4000 000
-5000 000
-6000 000
-7000 000
-8000 000
Figure 6.5 Primary energy results over the life cycle (Fjeldheim et al. 2015).

7. References
Andresen et al. (2016-forthcoming). Life time compensation of greenhouse gas emissions in Zero
Emission Buildings (ZEB) – Revisiting the conversion factor for electricity. The Research Centre on Zero
Emission Buildings.
Baetens, R., R. De Coninck, J. Van Roy, B. Verbruggen, J. Driesen, L. Helsen and D. Saelens (2012).
"Assessing electrical bottlenecks at feeder level for residential net zero-energy buildings by integrated
system simulation." Applied Energy 96: 74-83.
Bergesen, J. D., G. A. Heath, T. Gibon and S. Suh (2014). "Thin-Film Photovoltaic Power Generation
Offers Decreasing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Increasing Environmental Co-benefits in the Long
Term." Environmental science & technology 48(16): 9834-9843.
Dokka, T. H. (2011). Proposal for CO2-factor for electricity and outline of a full ZEB-definition, ZEB-
memo. The Research Center on Zero Emission Buildings.
Dokka. T. H. and K. Grini (2013). Etterprøving av bygningers energibruk. Metodikk. SINTEF Akademisk
forlag, ISBN 978-82-536-1340-6 (pdf).
Dokka, T. H., I. Sartori, M. Thyholt, K. Lien and K. B. Lindberg (2013a). A Norwegian Zero Emission
Building Definition. Passihus Norden 2013, Göteborg, Sweden.
Dokka, T. H., A. H. Wiberg, L. Georges, S. Mellegård, B. Time, M. Haase, M. Maltha and A. G. Lien
(2013b). A zero emission concept analysis of a single family house. ZEB Project report no 9, The
Research Centre on Zero Emission Buildings (ZEB).
EU (2011). “A Roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050”. Communication from
the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the Regions. COM (2011) 112 final. Brussels, 8.3.2011.
European Parliament and the Council (2010). Directive 2010/31/EU of The European Parliament and
the Council of 19 May 2010 on the Energy Performance of Buildings. The european parliament and the
council of the european union. Directive, 2010/31/EU
Fjeldheim, H., T. Kristjansdottir and K. Sørnes (2015). Establishing the life cycle primary energy balance
for Powerhouse Kjørbo. Passivhus Norden | Sustainable Cities and Buildings. Copenhagen, 20-21
August 2015.
Frischknecht, R., R. Itten, F. Wyss, I. Blanc, G. Heath, M. Raugei, P. Sinha and A. Wade (2015). " Life
cycle assessment of future photovoltaic electricity production from residential-scale systems operated in
Europe, Subtask 2.0 "LCA", IEA-PVPS Task 12.".
Georges, L., M. Haase, A. Houlihan Wiberg, T. Kristjansdottir and B. Risholt (2014). "Life cycle
emissions analysis of two nZEB concepts." Building Research & Information 43(1): 82-93.
Graabak, I., B. H. Bakken and N. Feilberg (2014). “Zero Emission Building and Conversion Factors
between Electricity Consumption and Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in a Long Term Perspective”,
Environmental and Climate Technologies 2013/13, De Gruyter, doi: 10.2478/rtuect-2014-0002.
Graabak, I. and N. Feilberg (2011). CO2 emissions in a different scenarios of electricity generation in
Europe. SINTEF Enery Research.

Hope, S. M. (2011). The debate about a green certificate market in Norway : arguments, issues and
concerns. , MSc thesis. Norwegian School of Economics.
Houlihan Wiberg, A., L. Georges, T. H. Dokka, M. Haase, B. Time, A. G. Lien, S. Mellegård and M.
Maltha (2014). "A net zero emission concept analysis of a single-family house." Energy and Buildings
74: 101-110.
Houlihan Wiberg, A., L. Georges, S. Fufa Mamo and B. Risholt (2015). A zero emission concept
analysis of a single family house: Part 2 sensitivity analysis. ZEB Project report no 21, The Research
Centre on Zero Emission Buildings (ZEB).
Inman, M. R. and A. Houlihan Wiberg (2015). Life Cycle GHG Emissions of Material Use in the Living
Laboratory. ZEB Project report no 24, The Research Centre on Zero Emission Buildings (ZEB).
ISO 7730: 2005 Ergonomics of the thermal environment -- Analytical determination and interpretation of
thermal comfort using calculation of the PMV and PPD indices and local thermal comfort criteria,
International Organization for standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
ISO 15686-1 (2011). Buildings and constructed assets- Service life planning-Part 1: General principles
and framework, International Organization for standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Kristjansdottir, T., H. Fjeldheim, E. Selvig, B. Risholt, B. Time, L. Georges, T. H. Dokka, J. Bourrelle, R.

Bohne and Z. Cervenka (2014). A Norwegian ZEB-definition embodied emission. ZEB Project report no
17, The Research Centre on Zero Emission Buildings (ZEB).
Lien, K. M. (2013). CO2 emissions from Biofuels and District Heating in Zero Emission Buildings (ZEB).
ZEB Project report no 10, The research Centre on Zero Emission Buildings (ZEB).
Magnus, K., P. Anngjerd, S. Joar, S. Harald and T. Thomas (2010). Offshore vindkraft og elektrifisering i
nordlige Nordsjø – En mulighetsstudie . TR A6993, SINTEF Energy, Trondheim, Norway.
Mann, S. A., M. J. de Wild-Scholten, V. M. Fthenakis, W. G. J. H. M. van Sark and W. C. Sinke (2014).

"The energy payback time of advanced crystalline silicon PV modules in 2020: a prospective study."
Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Applications 22(11): 1180-1194.
Marszal, A. J., P. Heiselberg, J. S. Bourrelle, E. Musall, K. Voss, I. Sartori and A. Napolitano (2011).
"Zero Energy Building – A review of definitions and calculation methodologies." Energy and Buildings
43(4): 971-979.
NPCR 015 (2013). Product-categoty rules for wood and wood-based products for use in construction,
NPCR 015 rev1, The Norwegian EPD Foundation, Oslo, Norway.
NREL (2016). Research Cell Efficiency Records [Online]. National Center for Photovoltaics at the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, U.S Department of Energy.
NS-EN 15265: 2007 Energy performance of buildings Calculation of energy needs for space heating
and cooling using dynamic methods General criteria and validation procedures. Standard Norge, Oslo.
NS-EN 15603: 2008 Energy performance of buildings - Overall energy use and definition of energy
ratings European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium.
NS-EN 15643-1 (2010). Sustainability of construction works - Sustainability assessment of buildings -

Part 1: General framework, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium.

NS-EN 15804: 2012 Sustainability of construction works Environmental product declarations Core for
the product category of construction products, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels,
Belgium.
NS-EN 15978: 2011 Sustainability of construction works - Assessment of environmental performance of

buildings - Calculation method European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium.
NS-EN 16449: 2014 Wood and wood-based products Calculation of the biogenic carbon content of
wood and conversion to carbon dioxide, Standard Norge, Oslo, Norway.
NS-EN 16485: 2014 Round and sawn timber-Environmental product declarations-Product category
rules for wood and wood-based products for use in construction, Standard Norge, Oslo, Norway.
NS 3031: 2007 Calculation of energy performance of buildings - Method and data, Standards Norway,
Oslo, Norway.
NS 3451: 2009 Table of Building Elements, Standards Norway, Oslo, Norway.
NS 3700: 2013 Criteria for passive houses and low energy buildings - Residential buildings (in
Norwegian), Standards Norway, Oslo, Norway.
NS 3701: 2012 Criteria for passive houses and low energy buildings - Non-residential buildings (in
Norwegian), Standards Norway, Oslo, Norway.
NS 3940: 2012 Calculation of areas and volumes of buildings, Standards Norway, Oslo, Norway.
Pade, C. and M. Guimaraes (2007). "The CO2 uptake of concrete in a 100 year perspective." Cement
and Concrete Research 37(9): 1348-1356.
Salom, J., A. J. Marszal, J. Widén, J. Candanedo and K. B. Lindberg (2014). "Analysis of load match
and grid interaction indicators in net zero energy buildings with simulated and monitored data." Applied
Energy 136: 119-131.
Sartori, I., A. Napolitano and K. Voss (2012). "Net zero energy buildings: A consistent definition
framework." Energy and Buildings 48: 220-232.
Sartori, I., J. Ortiz, J. Salom and U. I. Dar (2014). Estimation of load and generation peaks in residential
neighbourhoods with BIPV: bottom-up simulations vs. Velander method. WSB Conference – World
Sustainable Buildings, 28-30 Oct., Barcelona, Spain.
SSB (2011). "Waste from building and construction. Downloaded June 4, 2014 from
https://www.ssb.no/statistikkbanken/SelectVarVal/saveselections.asp."
Stastics Norway (2015). "Waste from building and construction, 2013. Downloaded August 4, 2015 from
http://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-miljo/statistikker/avfbygganl/aar/2015-06-
09?fane=tabell&sort=nummer&tabell=229782."
Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories (2010). Ecoinvent database v2.2. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle
Inventories, Dübendorf, Switzerland.
Thorsteinsson, T. and H. Björnsson (2011). Climate Change and Energy Systems – Impacts, Risks and
Adaptation in the Nordic and Baltic Countries. Nordic

Völler, S., O. Wolfgang and M. Korpås (2014). Energi- og miljøpåvirkning av el-bil. Systemanalyse med
EMPS (Samkjøringsmodellen), TR A7385, SINTEF Energy.
Wolfgang, O. and B. Mo (2007). Reduserte CO2 utslipp som følge av økt fornybar kraftproduksjon i
Norge. TR A6583, SINTEF Energy, Trondheim, Norway.

Appendix 1. Questions to be addressed as minimum requirements to obtain the ZEB-O÷EQ and
ZEB-O levels
Table 1.1 What measures have been implemented to limit the GHG emissions resulting from the following
solutions of construction, building elements, materials and installations listed below over the lifetime of the
building? Source: (Kristjansdottir et al. 2014).
- Need for piling and sheet piles

- Need for waterproof concrete in the basement
Conceptual phase
- The constructions made of concrete are designed to be used to their full load-bearing
capacity without compromising the flexibility of the structure
- The constructions made of steel are designed to be used to their full load-bearing
capacity without compromising the flexibility of the structure
- Solution for insulating structures below or at ground level
- Fire-resistant constructions
- Sound-insulating constructions
- Optimization of technical solutions and material quantities for inner walls
- Optimization of technical solutions and material quantities for external walls
- Flooring
- External cladding
Choice of external windows
Design phase
-
- Technical installations (energy-producing units, air handling units, etc.)
- Effective replacement of materials/components
- Reuse of components
- Achieving the optimal balance between embodied carbon and service life related to
replacement
- Carbon intensity of the concrete
- Carbon intensity of the steel

Appendix 2: Illustration of ZEB ambition levels according to NS-EN 15978: 2011

The Research Centre on Zero emission Buildings (ZEB)
The main objective of ZEB is to develop competitive products and solu-
tions for existing and new buildings that will lead to market penetration
of buildings that have zero emissions of greenhouse gases related to
their production, operation and demolition. The Centre will encompass
both residential and commercial buildings, as well as public buildings.
Partners
NTNU ByBo Direktoratet for byggkvalitet

www.ntnu.no www.bybo.no www.dibk.no
SINTEF Multiconsult DuPont

www.sintef.no www.multiconsult.no www.dupont.com
Skanska Brødrene Dahl NorDan AS

www.skanska.no www.dahl.no www.nordan.no
Weber Snøhetta Enova

www.weber-norge.no www.snoarc.no www.enova.no
Isola Forsvarsbygg SAPA Building system

www.isola.no www.forsvarsbygg.no www.sapagroup.com
Glava Statsbygg Sør-Trøndelag fylkeskommune

www.glava.no www.statsbygg.no www.stfk.no
Protan Husbanken
www.protan.no www.husbanken.no
Caverion Norge Byggenæringens Landsforening

www.caverion.no www.bnl.no
www.zeb.no

ZEB Project Report No 29

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ZEB Project Report No 29

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ZEB Project Report No 29

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ZEB Project report 29 – 2016

Selamawit Mamo Fufa, Reidun Dahl Schlanbusch, Kari Sørnes,

A Norwegian ZEB Definition

A Norwegian ZEB Definition Guideline

ZEB Project report 29 – 2016

Illustration on front page:

ISSN 1893-157X (online)

18 copies printed by AIT Bjerch

Norwegian University of Science and Technology 1)

SINTEF Building and Infrastructure Trondheim 2)

SINTEF Academic Press

ZEB Project report 29-2016 Page 3 of 48

ZEB Project report 29-2016 Page 4 of 48

ZEB Project report 29-2016 Page 5 of 48

“A Norwegian Zero Emission Building Definition” (Dokka et al. 2013a),

ZEB Project report 29-2016 Page 6 of 48

2.1 Net Zero Energy Buildings (net ZEB)

Figure 2.1 Net ZEB balance concept (Sartori et al. 2012).

ZEB Project report 29-2016 Page 7 of 48

2.2.1 ZEB Ambition Level Definitions and System Boundaries

ZEB Project report 29-2016 Page 8 of 48

ZEB Project report 29-2016 Page 9 of 48

6. ZEB-COMPLETE: Emissions related to a complete lifecycle emission analysis have to be

2.2.2 Components and materials included in the "M"

ZEB Project report 29-2016 Page 10 of 48

21 Groundwork and foundations

ZEB Project report 29-2016 Page 11 of 48

28 Stairs, balconies, etc.

3 Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning

329 Other heat installations e.g. Solar thermal collector

ZEB Project report 29-2016 Page 12 of 48

4. Electric Power Supply

45 Electric heating 452 Electric heaters to be installed in floor, on walls or

49 Other Photovoltaic system

61 Prefabricated unit 611-619 Prefabricated rooms/modules excluding

62 Passenger and goods transport 621 Lifts/elevator

2.2.3 Addressing Embodied Emissions at all Ambition Levels

ZEB Project report 29-2016 Page 13 of 48

3.1 Operational Energy and Emission Calculation Procedure

ZEB Project report 29-2016 Page 14 of 48

3.2 CO2 Conversion Factors

ZEB Project report 29-2016 Page 15 of 48

ZEB Project report 29-2016 Page 16 of 48

3.2.2 CO2 Factors for Bioenergy and Waste Incineration

ZEB Project report 29-2016 Page 17 of 48

3.2.3 Summary of CO2 Factors

Table 3.3 Specific CO2-factors employed by the ZEB Research Centre.

ZEB Project report 29-2016 Page 18 of 48

ZEB Project report 29-2016 Page 19 of 48

3.5 Energy Efficiency Requirements

3.6 Indoor Climate Requirements

ZEB Project report 29-2016 Page 20 of 48

4.1 Goal and Scope Definition

4.1.1 Functional Unit

- Building type (according to NS 3031: 2007)

ZEB Project report 29-2016 Page 21 of 48

4.1.2 System Boundary

Exported energy / Potential

Transport to building site