This presentation accompanies the research that incorporates human and social aspects into a Life Cycle Energy Analysis to support decision making, and a means to align the most effective life cycle improvements to the social intentions of home owners. It is a preliminary paper in hope to begin to fill the gap in connecting social aspects with lifecycle decision-making

1. Retrofitting
Residential Buildings
in Australia: A Life
Cycle Energy
Analysis
ENGG454 – Thesis
Oral Presentation
By Melissa Gaspari
3267465
http://www.sanctuarymagazine.org.au
ISO 14040 – 1998 Environmental Management – Life cycle assessment – Principles and framework

2. An Overview
 Thesis Aims
 Methodology
 Initial Experimental Findings
http://mashimbye.com/welcome-to-mashimbye-group/2011/05/05/
http://mobileministrymagazine.com/tag/mobile-ministry-methodology/

3. Thesis Aims
This thesis aims to develop a framework using
Life Cycle Energy Analysis (LCEA) as an
approach to support decision-making in
retrofitting options, and how social factors
influence these retrofitting options for
residential buildings within a specific climatic
zone.

4. Innovation and Significance
 Current research identifies many different approaches to using
Life Cycle Analysis to support decision-making in retrofitting,
however few have addressed the influence of social aspects.
 This research incorporates the human and social aspects into a
decision-support framework.
 This framework uses Life Cycle Energy Analysis as a tool to
support decision-making and intends to identify a means to
align the most effective life cycle improvements to the social
intentions, objectives and constraints of homeowners.

5. Proposed Methodology

6. Life Cycle Energy Analysis
Australia/New Zealand Standard, 1998, Environmental
management - Life Cycle Assessment - Principles and
framework, ISO 14040:1998, accessed 28 February 2012,

7. Life Cycle Energy Analysis
Resource
Extraction
Manufacturing
of Product
Construction Operation
Maintenance/
Refurbishment
Demolition
Life-cycle energy analysis through whole life time of the building
 Embodied Energy
Embodied energy is the energy consumed by all
the processes associated with the production of
a building, from the mining and processing of
natural resources to manufacturing, transport
and product delivery.
 Operational Energy
Operational Energy comprises the energy used
for space heating and cooling, hot water
heating, lighting and appliance and equipment
operation throughout the life of the building.0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
1 2 3
Thousands
Operational Energy
Embodied Energy

8. Proposed
Framework

9. Survey Data
Questions 1 2 3 4 5
If in the situation to retrofit
(renovate, upgrade
appliances, layout, make
improvements of any kind etc.)
your current home, why would
you retrofit?
Energy improvements and
visual appeal/style
I would retrofit the house mainly to make it
a more comfortable place to be for
everyone and also to bring it up to current
standards using modern technology, like
insulation, LEDs, new taps, etc. It would be
good to save money on bills too.
I would retrofit (or
would actually be fit
out in first instance) with
water/energy saving
appliances (white
goods) and tap fixtures
etc. Strata living limits
the amount of
structural changes
allowed.
Age of house, means there is a need to
replace old appliances
Keep up with modern technology and
ensure use of the latest appliances
E.g. water tank, save water and use newer
technologies Easy go living
What do you know as energy
retrofit?
Glazing
Alternatives to current
heating and cooling, such as
evaporative cooling, solar
heating
Taking advantage of sun
exposure
Insulation
External Shading
Replacing old inefficient items throughout
the house to reduce power/water usage.
Replacing appliances
with more energy
efficient solutions.
Replacing water usage, heating, cooling,
electricity usage, and reducing the cost of
services
Reducing current costs and increasing
lifestyle
Energy efficient blinds in all
windows
Would you retrofit your house
purely to make energy
efficiency improvements? Yes
Yes, if I thought the cost of the retrofit was
justifiable. Yes
Not solely for retrofitting but would consider
it, e.g. if replacing a broken item would
replace it with a more energy efficient one
Yes and reduce cleaning of
blinds
If you were retrofitting purely
for energy efficiency, what
would be your main
aim/goals? Increases in Thermal comfort
An independent power and water supply
would be good and it would be ideal if
the house didn't need any form of cooling
or heating.
Consumption - energy
efficient appliances as
mentioned above.
Heating - insulation,
heavy curtains, and
energy efficient
windows (if allowed)
To achieve a more cost-effective state (for
operational costs only)
Reduce heat and cold
transfer from building
Do you have any kind of
budget for energy retrofit (or
retrofitting at all), and
approximately how large
would that budget be? $2000-$7000
Not really. It is something that's getting
done slowly as time and money becomes
available.
No, not a present
specifically for that
purpose. May do upon
purchasing that 'said'
property'.
No allocation, when repairs are needed look
at doing most cost effective and efficient.
Would use other income processes such
shares or investments to help allocate
appropriate budget. E.g. If replacing oven,
would ask what's the best value for my dollar
to get something at a good price but has a
good efficiency rating but also cooks well,
and has current feature. Would put cost
effectiveness first don't need a expensive
oven even if it is most efficient, would ask
"Does item do what I need it to do?"
Not at the moment, but
would be about $10,000
When replacing an item and
considering energy efficiency
or during an energy retrofit
what are your expectations of
savings (Expected Savings in
dollars)?
$1000/Year
Increase in value to the value
of investment
Not sure in terms of exact dollars, I would
just expect to be saving money. I would
probably compare bills/usage before and
after the retrofit to see what sort of
savings I was making.
I wouldn’t have any
idea in pricing. I'd have
to research.
No particular monetary savings, however
must improve lifestyle E.g. when choosing
between two comparative product from
different energy sources, would consider life
style impacts before energy improvements
reduced gas account for
heating
When replacing an item and
considering energy efficiency
or during an energy retrofit
what are your expectations of
outcomes (Expected
Outcomes in physical
improvements or comfort
levels)?
Increased Savings
Increase visual appeal to
home
Small changes in behaviour,
with decreased operating
costs
I would expect comfort levels to at least
remain the same but generally to
improve. Improve my comfort!
Increase lifestyle, operational costs and
visual appeal to home
Reduced costs and improve
looks of the house
“(when replacing items) would ask
what's the best value for my dollar to
get something at a good price but has
a good efficiency rating but also works
well, and has current features. Would
put cost effectiveness first don't need a
expensive item even if it is most
efficient, would ask "Does item do what
I need it to do?” “
“If an item is broken would replace it
with a more energy efficient one (but
wouldn’t replace it purely for energy
purposes)”
Retrofit purely for
energy purposes
Expectation of some
behavioural change to
achieve energy
efficiency
Interview with 10 different homeowners

10. Retrofitting Priorities
Reasons to Retrofit
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Operational
Energy
Improvement
Visual Appeal Increased
Comfort
Additional
Property Value
Life style
Improvements
Operational
Savings
Replacement of
Older
Components
All
> 50
< 30

11. Retrofitting Priorities
Product Objectives
Invest-
ment
Cost
Social Impacts
Priority by Age
Group
Time
Improvemen
t to Lifestyle
Thermal
Comfort <30 >50
Replace Single Glazing with
Double Glazing Windows
20-30% reduction in Heating
and Cooling
High Low Low High 2 5
3000MJ of energy per
increase in star rating
Savings $250
Saving 0.4 Tonnes of Green
House Gas Emissions
Installing Wall Insulation
save up to 20% of energy
costs Mid Mid Low High 1 0
Installing Ceiling and Wall
Insulation
Save up to 45% of energy
costs Mid Mid Low High 1 0
Installing Floor Insulation
Save up to 5% of energy
costs Mid Mid Low Mid 1 0
Installation of various Air-
Sealing techniques Improve Thermal Comfort Low Low Low Mid 3 2
Installation of various
Shading Devices Improve Thermal Comfort Low Low Mid Low 5 3
Installation of Skylights to
reduce artificial lighting
Improve natural light,
remove article light sources Mid High Mid Low 0
Replacement of Appliances
to all 3.5 stars or above
Reduce energy and water
demands Mid Low High Mid 4 1
Place solar heating for water
Reduce non-renewable
energy demands High Mid Low Low 0 4

12. Preferred Retrofitting Choices
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Priority
< 30
> 50

13. Case Studies:
Case Study One; Balgownie
www.maps.google.com.au

14. Case Studies:
Case Study Two: Holt

15. Preliminary Results
Life Cycle Assessment
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
Base Model Insulation Glazing Insulation,
Glazing
^Appliances *Solar Water ^Shading ^Air Sealing
MegaJoules(MJ)Thousands
Operational Energy
Embodied Energy
1 - Case Study 1 (>50’s)
2 – Case Study 2 (>30’s)

16. Preliminary Results
Operational Energy
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Base Model Insulation Glazing Insulation and Glazing
MegaJoules(MJ)Thousands
Case 1
Case 2

17. Preliminary Results
Embodied Energy
36.4
36.6
36.8
37
37.2
37.4
37.6
37.8
38
38.2
Base Model Insulation Glazing Insulation,
Glazing
MegaJoules(MJ)
Thousands

18. Preliminary Results
Embodied Energy
18.6
18.8
19
19.2
19.4
19.6
19.8
20
20.2
20.4
Base Model Insulation Glazing Insulation,
Glazing
MegaJoules(MJ)Thousands

19. Findings of Preliminary Results
Operational Energy
 < 30 priorities bring about large energy
savings, greater star ratings
 > 50 priorities bring about smaller savings in
more diverse areas of house hold energy
use, in water energy and water usage
demand
 > 50 priorities are based on already having
some level of energy efficiency mechanisms
in place

20. Findings of Preliminary Results
Embodied Energy
 < 30 priorities bring about significant additional
embodied energy
 > 50 priorities are much harder to assess in terms
of embodied energy, as the variables in
appliances, solar energy, shading and air sealing
are difficult to account for
 > 50 priorities reflect their intentions to maintain
and use items until their reach their
obsolescence point which can be seen as one
method to reduce embodied energy in a LCA

21. Preliminary Results
Life Cycle Assessment
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
Base Model Insulation Glazing Insulation,
Glazing
^Appliances *Solar Water ^Shading ^Air Sealing
MegaJoules(MJ)Thousands
Operational Energy
Embodied Energy
1 - Case Study 1 (>50’s)
2 – Case Study 2 (>30’s)

22. Findings of Preliminary Results
Life Cycle Assessment
 < 30 prioritise retrofitting options that have a
large embodied energy cost, and are will to
put aside aspects such as time and money
to achieve greater energy improvements
 > 50 priorities bring about smaller savings in
more diverse areas of house hold energy use,
in water energy and water usage demand
and this is not always assessed in LCA
 All retrofitting choices bring about saving, even if only minor.

23. Next Step
 Incorporate further social factors
in LCEA and retrofitting choices
e.g. Time Constraints
 Further test framework to see how it can support
further retrofitting decision-making using the two
case studies
http://www.timecreationcoaching.com.au

24. Acknowledgements and
References
• Lan Ding, Thesis Supervisor ENGG452, University of Wollongong
• Survey Participants
• ABS 2009, 2009-10 Year Book Australia, Cat no. 1301.0, Australian Bureau of Statistics, (ABS), Canberra.
• Australia/New Zealand Standard, 1998, Environmental management - Life Cycle Assessment - Principles and framework, ISO 14040:1998,
accessed 28 February 2012,
• Bankier and Gale 2006. Energy Payback of Roof Mounted Photovoltaic Cells, Energy Bulletin,
• Carbon Cops 2007. Carbon Cops Transforming energy use Embodied emissions and energy, ABC Copyright 2007,
• Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency 2010, The Pathway to 2020 for Low-Energy Low-Carbon Buildings in Australia:
Indicative Stringency Study, Cat no. DCC 137/2010, Efficiency, Department of Climate Change and Energy, Canberra.
• Department of the Environment 2008, Energy Use in the Australian Residential Sector 1986-2020, Cat no. 978-1-921298-14-1, Department of
the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra.
• Fay, Treloar, et al. 2000, "Life-cycle energy analysis of buildings; A case study", Building Research and Information, Vol.28, 31-31.
• Haynes 2012, "Embodied Energy Calculations within Life Cycle Analysis of Residential Buildings", Unknown, 1-15.
• Home Energy Advice Team 2010, accessed 13 March 2012. http://www.heat.net.au/action-advice-page
• Ireland 2008, "The Changing Shape of Renewables Technology", Electrical Construction and Maintenance, Vol.107, 1, pp. C26-C30.
• McLeod and Fay 2011, "The cost effectiveness of housing thermal performance improvements in saving CO2-e", Architectural Science
Review, Vol.54, 2, pp. 117-123.
• Reardon, Milne, et al. 2010, Your Home Technical Manual, Fourth Edition, Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Efficiency,
Department of Climate Change and Energy, Canberra.
• Tucker, Hramiak, et al. 1999, Towards More Energy Efficient Australian Housing: Life-Cycle Aspects, Cat no. BCE Doc. 99/149, CSIRO, Highett.
• University of Wollongong 2011, ENGG446 Energy Efficiency Enhancement in Domestic Buildings, Sustainable Buildings Research Centre,
delivered Autumn Session 2012.
Melissa Gaspari
Tarun Charker
Jenny Charker
Peter Charker
Ryan Duff
Angela Gaspari
Robert Gaspari
Todd Huuskes
Stefanie Gaspari
Peter Lennon