The European Union aims to reduce greenhouse gases emissions by 80–95% compared to 1990 levels by 2050. Therefore the life cycle concept has gained widespread acceptance as a model for evaluating the environmental impact of goods and services. In this study, the optimal thickness of various insulation materials for external walls, roofs, and floors using a Mediterranean climate zone's hot summers and mild winters for a hypothetical residential building for four cardinal orientations was determined. The criteria for determining the optimum thickness represent a turning point in terms of cooling energy consumption (electricity). The optimum thickness of nine different types of insulation materials was defined using the aforementioned approach. These materials included aerogel, polyisocyanurate, polyurethane, extruded polystyrene, expanded polystyrene, phenolic foam, cellulose fiber (cellulose), mineral wool, and glass wool (GW). The purpose of this paper is to calculate the carbon payback time (CPBT) using the cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment method by considering the global warming potential (GWP) of insulation materials at their optimum thickness. The CPBT is calculated as the ratio of the total building's GWP to the GWP of savings from cooling and heating (electricity and natural gas). The results indicated that when evaluating the average CPBT for four cardinal orientations (FCO), aerogel has the longest CPBT of 2.34 years, and GW has the shortest CPBT of just 0.09 years. Aside from cost payback time, the findings of this study provide a new perspective on selecting appropriate thermal insulation.
HuangHZhouYHuangR, et al.Optimum insulation thicknesses and energy conservation of building thermal insulation materials in Chinese zone of humid subtropical climate. Sustain Cities Soc2020; 52.
2.
ParganaNPinheiroMDSilvestreJD,et al.Comparative environmental life cycle assessment of thermal insulation materials of buildings. Energy Build2014; 82: 466–481.
3.
AsdrubaliFAlessandroFDSchiavoniS. A review of unconventional sustainable building insulation materials. SUSMAT2015: 1–17.
4.
KalhorKEmaminejadN. Qualitative and quantitative optimization of thermal insulation materials: Insights from the market and energy codes. J Build Eng2020; 30.
5.
ParaschivSBărbuţă-MişuNParaschivLS. Technical and economic analysis of a solar air heating system integration in a residential building wall to increase energy efficiency by solar heat gain and thermal insulation. Energy Reports2020; 6: 459–474.
6.
LiXPengCLiuL. Experimental study of the thermal performance of a building wall with vacuum insulation panels and extruded polystyrene foams. Appl Therm Eng2020; 180.
7.
SchiavoniSD’AlessandroFBianchiF,et al.Insulation materials for the building sector: a review and comparative analysis. Renew Sustain Energy Rev2016; 62: 988–1011.
8.
BerardiU. The impact of aging and environmental conditions on the effective thermal conductivity of several foam materials. Energy2019; 182: 777–794.
9.
HollbergARuthJ. LCA In architectural design—a parametric approach. Int J Life Cycle Assess2016; 21: 943–960.
10.
BolattürkA. Determination of optimum insulation thickness for building walls with respect to various fuels and climate zones in Turkey. Appl Therm Eng2006; 26: 1301–1309.
11.
SaafiKDaouasN. A life-cycle cost analysis for an optimum combination of cool coating and thermal insulation of residential building roofs in Tunisia. Energy2018; 152: 925–938.
12.
DlimiMIkenOAgounounR, et al.Energy performance and thickness optimization of hemp wool insulation and air cavity layers integrated in Moroccan building walls’. Sustain Prod Consum2019; 20: 273–288.
13.
DombayciÖA. The environmental impact of optimum insulation thickness for external walls of buildings. Build Environ2007; 42: 3855–3859.
14.
DicksonTPavíaS. Energy performance, environmental impact and cost of a range of insulation materials. Renew Sustain Energy Rev2021; 140: 110752.
15.
PlevinRJDelucchiMACreutzigF. Using attributional life cycle assessment to estimate climate-change mitigation benefits misleads policy makers. J Ind Ecol2014; 18: 73–83.
16.
CelluraMCusenzaMALongoS. Energy-related GHG emissions balances: IPCC versus LCA. Sci Total Environ2018; 628–629: 1328–1339.
17.
IngraoCLo GiudiceATricaseC, et al.Recycled-PET fibre based panels for building thermal insulation: environmental impact and improvement potential assessment for a greener production. Sci Total Environ2014; 493: 914–929.
18.
ShaoYLiJZhouZ, et al.The effects of vertical farming on indoor carbon dioxide concentration and fresh air energy consumption in office buildings. Build Environ2021; 195: 107766.
19.
WangTZhangXTianD, et al.A new index to assess chemicals increasing the greenhouse effect based on their toxicity to algae. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol2015; 40: 948–953.
20.
AxaopoulosIAxaopoulosPPanayiotouG,et al.Optimal economic thickness of various insulation materials for different orientations of external walls considering the wind characteristics. Energy2015; 90: 939–952.
21.
Amiri RadEFallahiE. Optimizing the insulation thickness of external wall by a novel 3E (energy, environmental, economic) method. Constr Build Mater2019; 205: 196–212.
22.
DombayciAAtalayÖGüven AcarŞ, et al.Thermoeconomic method for determination of optimum insulation thickness of external walls for the houses: case study for Turkey. Sustain Energy Technol Assessments2017; 22: 1–8.
23.
AmaniNKiaeeE. Developing a two-criteria framework to rank thermal insulation materials in nearly zero energy buildings using multi-objective optimization approach. J Clean Prod2020; 276.
24.
ZhangYJiePLiuC,et al.Optimizing environmental insulation thickness of buildings with CHP-based district heating system based on amount of energy and energy grade. Front Energy2020.
25.
ZhangLLiuZHouC, et al.Optimization analysis of thermal insulation layer attributes of building envelope exterior wall based on DeST and life cycle economic evaluation. Case Stud Therm Eng2019; 14: 1–9.
26.
Braulio-GonzaloMBoveaMD. Environmental and cost performance of building’s envelope insulation materials to reduce energy demand: thickness optimisation. Energy Build2017; 150: 527–545.
27.
RostiBOmidvarAMonghasemiN. Optimal insulation thickness of common classic and modern exterior walls in different climate zones of Iran. J Build Eng2020; 27: 100954.
28.
YlménPMjörnellKBerlinJ,et al.Approach to manage parameter and choice uncertainty in life cycle optimisation of building design: case study of optimal insulation thickness. Build Environ2021; 191.
29.
AsdrubaliFBallariniICorradoV, et al.Energy and environmental payback times for an NZEB retrofit energy performance of buildings directive net or nearly zero energy building. Build Environ2019; 147: 461–472.
30.
LiXTingleyDD. Solid wall insulation of the Victorian house stock in England : A whole life carbon perspective. Build Environ2021; 191.
31.
KaramiPAl-AyishNGudmundssonK. A comparative study of the environmental impact of Swedish residential buildings with vacuum insulation panels. Energy Build2015; 109: 183–194.
32.
LlantoyNChàferMCabezaLF. Energy & Buildings A comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) of different insulation materials for buildings in the continental Mediterranean climate. Energy Build2020; 225.
33.
Boschmonart-rivesJGabarrellXSierra-pJ. Environmental assessment of façade-building systems and thermal insulation materials for different climatic conditions. J Clean Prod2020; 113: 102–113.
34.
DicksonTPavíaS. Energy performance, environmental impact and cost of a range of insulation materials. Renew Sust Energ Rev2021; 140.
35.
EvinDUcarA. Energy impact and eco-e ffi ciency of the envelope insulation in residential buildings in Turkey. Appl Therm Eng2019; 154: 573–584.
36.
KuničR. Carbon footprint of thermal insulation materials in building envelopes. Energy Effic2017; 10: 1511–1528.
37.
OfficeBCS. Population and Housing Census 2011: National statistical tables. Vol. 3. Statistics Botswana; 2014.
38.
CteDEL. Catálogo de elementos constructivos del cte. 2.
39.
StorlieCBHeltonJC. Multiple predictor smoothing methods for sensitivity analysis: description of techniques. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2008; 93: 28–54.
40.
DijkmanTJ,et al.LCA of food and agriculture. In: Life cycle assessment: theory and practice. DTU Orbit 2017, pp.723–754.
41.
JinH. GB/T 24040-2008 environmental management-life cycle assessment-principles and framework national standard understanding. Stand Sci2009.
42.
HillCNortonADibdiakovaJ. A comparison of the environmental impacts of different categories of insulation materials. Energy Build2018; 162: 12–20.
43.
ParganaNDuarteMDinisJ,et al.Comparative environmental life cycle assessment of thermal insulation materials of buildings. Energy Build2014; 82: 466–481.
44.
García-GusanoDGarraínDDufourJ. Prospective life cycle assessment of the Spanish electricity production. Renew Sustain Energy Rev2017; 75: 21–34.
45.
SkoneTJ. Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions: natural gas and power production. Energy information administration. Natl Energy Technol Lab2015.
46.
TajuddeenISajjadianSMJafariM. Regression models for predicting the global warming potential of thermal insulation materials. 2023.
47.
HillCNortonADibdiakovaJ. A comparison of the environmental impacts of different categories of insulation materials. Energy Build2018; 162: 12–20.
48.
TingleyDDHathwayADavisonB,et al.The environmental impact of phenolic foam insulation boards. Proc Inst Civ Eng Constr Mater2017; 170: 91–103.
49.
BiswasKShresthaSSBhandariMS,et al.Insulation materials for commercial buildings in North America: an assessment of lifetime energy and environmental impacts. Energy Build2016; 112: 256–269.
50.
Lopez HurtadoPRouillyAVandenbosscheV,et al.A review on the properties of cellulose fibre insulation. Build Environ2016; 96: 170–177.
AbandaFHByersL. An investigation of the impact of building orientation on energy consumption in a domestic building using emerging BIM (building information modelling). Energy2016; 97: 517–527.
53.
RanaJHasanRSobuzHR, et al.Impact assessment of window to wall ratio on energy consumption of an office building of subtropical monsoon climatic country Bangladesh. Int J Constr Manag2020.
54.
FosasDColeyDANatarajanS, et al.Mitigation versus adaptation : does insulating dwellings increase overheating risk ?Build Environ2018; 143: 740–759.
55.
OzelM. Determination of optimum insulation thickness based on cooling transmission load for building walls in a hot climate. Energy Convers Manag2013; 66: 106–114.
56.
AkyüzMKAltuntaÖ. Economic and environmental optimization of an airport terminal building’s wall and roof insulation. Sustainability2017.
57.
TingleyDDHathwayADavisonB. An environmental impact comparison of external wall insulation types. Build Environ2015; 85: 182–189.
58.
CountriesSE. Comparison of the carbon payback period (CPP) of different variants of insulation materials and existing external walls. Energies2023.
