4.7 Article

Embodied energy assessment of building materials in India using process and input-output analysis

Journal

ENERGY AND BUILDINGS
Volume 86, Issue -, Pages 677-686

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.10.042

Keywords

Embodied energy; Building materials; Process analysis; Input-output method

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Growing demand for urban built spaces has resulted in unprecedented exponential rise in production and consumption of building materials in construction. Production of materials requires significant energy and contributes to pollution and green house gas (GHG) emissions. Efforts aimed at reducing energy consumption and pollution involved with the production of materials fundamentally requires their quantification. Embodied energy (EE) of building materials comprises the total energy expenditure involved in the material production including all upstream processes such as raw material extraction and transportation. The current paper deals with EE of a few common building materials consumed in bulk in Indian construction industry. These values have been assessed based on actual industrial survey data. Current studies on EE of building materials lack agreement primarily with regard to method of assessment and energy supply assumptions (whether expressed in terms of end use energy or primary energy). The current paper examines the suitability of two basic methods; process analysis and input-output method and identifies process analysis as appropriate for EE assessment in the Indian context. A comparison of EE values of building materials in terms of the two energy supply assumptions has also been carried out to investigate the associated discrepancy. The results revealed significant difference in EE of materials whose production involves significant electrical energy expenditure relative to thermal energy use. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available