The first factories were simply extensions on houses and the machines and equipment were generally sized to fit into slightly large rooms.
Reducing the size of the photovoltaic array from 24 to 12 units would reduce carbon by 12 kgCO2/m2.All the above items added up together would mean just a reduction of around 4.7 kgCO2/m2, mainly due to the simplification of the heating and photovoltaic systems.
Compared to a residential LETI 2020 (Band C) target building (A-C) with a total embodied carbon of 675 kgCO2/m2, that is equivalent to just 0.7% reduction in carbon..Comparison of embodied carbon (A-C) between a baseline residential building based on LETI Band C and same building with Passivhaus characteristics.The adoption of the above Passivhaus standard does not have a substantial impact on the embodied carbon compared to a standard residential building.
The adoption of Passivhaus does not prevent the incorporation of additional strategies to reduce embodied carbon and all designs retain the potential to achieve low embodied carbon performance if it is part of the design intent.. Further potential benefits from Passivhaus arise from the compact shape and the use of timber, although full life cycle analysis is required to quantify this.The compact shape is predicted to reduce the absolute quantity of materials whilst timber is a material with low embodied carbon which can be ultra-low depending on its end-of-life treatment..
Timber shows its maximum potential if it can be continuously reused at the end of a buildings’ lifecycle.
If it is burnt or sent to landfill it will release CO2 and methane to the atmosphere, losing its properties as a heat sink.My recent article.
“Construction Platforms for Asia: Thoughts on the DfMA Journey in Asia-Pacific”.discussed some recent developments in my region but the interest in using DfMA on construction projects to drive benefits related to cost and programme, quality, productivity, health and safety and sustainability is growing worldwide.. As DfMA grows from a niche topic into a mainstream conversation in the construction industry, more and more government and private sector stakeholders are getting involved developing strategies and finding opportunities.
However, there is a fundamental challenge hindering newcomers to DfMA and MMC – understanding what these terms actually mean.. Confusion is a barrier to change: talking about Modern Methods of Construction.The DfMA landscape is littered with acronyms, abbreviations and terminology that is often poorly defined and even more poorly understood.