Balance of CO2 of Different Types of Wall Structures

Four different types of wall structures with the same heat transfer coefficient are considered. Values of the СО₂ emission during the process of their manufacturing are presented. It is shown that in the course of manufacture of 1.0 m² of wall structures the significant emission of CO₂ per 1.0 m² of wall surface takes place. In the course of production of timber wall structures, the amount of tied carbon emitted during the manufacturing is lesser than the amount of carbon contained in materials which the wall is made of. The conclusion about ecological friendliness and energy efficiency of frame and timber buildings is made. It is shown that in the course of timber structures manufacturing the least amount of СО₂ is emitted comparing with the variants considered.

Z. PASTORI¹, PhD (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.), Director of Innovation Center
Z. BORCHOK¹, PhD;
G.A. GORBACHEVA², Candidate of Sciences (Engineering) (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.)

¹ University of West Hungary (4. Bajcsy-Zsilinszky Street, Sopron 9400 Hungary)
² Moscow State Forest University (1, 1st Institutskaya Street, 141005, Mytischi, Moscow Region, Russia)

1. IPCC Climate Change 2014: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of working group II to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. 2014.
2. Omer A.M., Energy use and environmental impacts. A general review. Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy. 2009. No. 1. Article Number: 053101.
3. Zecca A., Chiari L. Fossil-fuel constraints on global warming. Energy Policy. 2010. No. 38, pp. 1–3.
4. Upton B., Miner R., Spinney M., Heath L.S. The greenhouse gas and energy impacts of using wood instead of alternatives in residential construction in the United States. Biomass and Bioenergy. 2008. No. 32, pp. 1–10.
5. Bribián I.Z., Capilla A.V., Usón A.A. Life-cycle assessment of building materials: Compearative analysis of energy and environmental impacts of the eco-efficiency improvement potential. Building and Environment. 2001. No. 46, pp. 1133–1140.
6. Shukla A., Tiwari G.N., Sodha M.S. Embodied energy analysis of adobe house. Renewable Energy. 2009. No. 34, pp. 755–761.
7. Hammond G. P., Jones C. I. Embodied energy and carbon in construction materials. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers. Energy. 2008. No. 161 (2), pp. 87–98.
8. Karjalainen T., Kellomäki S., Pussinen A. Role of wood-based products in absorbing atmospheric carbon. Silva Fennica. 1994. No. 28 (2), pp. 67–80.
9. Reddy B.V.V., Jagadish K.S. Embodied energy of common and alternative building materials and technologies. Energy and Buildings. 2003. No. 35, pp. 129–137.
10. Pingoud K., Perälä A.L., Pussinen A. Carbon dynamics in wood products. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change. 2001. No. 6, pp. 91–111.