Your building sector globally currently consumes more energy (34%) compared to the transport sector (27%) or even the industry sector (28%). Also, it is the largest polluter, with all the biggest likelihood of significant cuts to greenhouse gas emissions in comparison to other sectors, at no cost.
Buildings provide an readily available and highly inexpensive ability to reach energy targets. An eco friendly building is just one that minimises energy use during design, construction, operation and demolition.
The requirement to reduce energy use during the operation of buildings is currently commonly accepted around the world. Changing behaviour could cause a 50% lowering of energy use by 2050.
Such savings are strongly influenced by the caliber of buildings. Passive buildings are ultra-low energy buildings where the requirement for mechanical cooling, heating or ventilation can be eliminated.
Modular or prefabricated green buildings, designed and constructed in factories using precision technologies, might help achieve these standards. These buildings are top quality and much more sustainable than buildings constructed on-site through manual labour. These are potentially doubly efficient in comparison with on-site building.
However, despite support for prefab house there are many of hurdles in the way of a prefab revolution.
Factory production means modular green buildings are better sealed against draughts, which in conventional buildings can are the cause of 15-25% of winter heat loss.
And factories also provide higher quality control systems, ultimately causing improved insulation placement and better energy efficiency. Good insulation cuts energy bills by up to half compared to uninsulated buildings.
Because production within a factory setting is on-going, rather than depending on individual on-site projects, there is more scope for R&D. This increases the performance of buildings, including causing them to be more resilient to natural disasters.
For example, steel structure warehouse in Japan have performed well during earthquakes, with key manufacturers reporting that none of their houses were destroyed by the 1995 Hanshin Great Earthquake, instead of the destruction of numerous site-built houses.
Buildings constructed on location probably can’t attain the same benefits as modular buildings. Case studies in the united kingdom show savings of 10% to 15% in building costs and a 40% decrease in transport for factory in comparison with on-site production. Factories also don’t lose time on account of bad weather and have better waste recycling systems.
Sorting waste at Sekisui House Ltd Recycling Centre. Karen Manley
As an example, Sekisui House, a Japanese builder, carries a system for all their construction sites where waste is sorted into 27 categories on-site and 80 categories within their recycling centre for the best value from the resources.
On-site building is open to the elements. This prevents access to the precision technologies required to produce buildings to the highest environmental standards. These technologies include numerical controlled machinery, robotic assembly, building information models, rapid prototyping, assembly lines, test systems, fixing systems, lean construction and enterprise resource planning systems.
For example, numerical controlled machinery provides more precise machine cutting that can’t be matched by manual efforts. This, combined with modelling, fixing and testing 98dexppky helps ensure that factories produce more airtight buildings, in comparison with on-site production, reducing energy leakage.
High-Tech Factory, Shizuoka, Sekisui House Ltd. Karen Manley, Author provided
Below 5% of the latest detached residential buildings australia wide are modular green buildings.
In leading countries including Sweden the pace is 84%.
In Japan, 15% of most their residential buildings are modular green buildings created in the world’s most technologically advanced factories.
Globally, there is a trend toward increased market penetration of green modular buildings. Yet their adoption within the Australian building sector is slower than expected.
Constructing houses on location is less sustainable. Grand Canyon National Park/Flickr, CC BY
However, we could still catch up. The most recent evidence implies that strengthening building codes and providing better enforcement is the most cost effective path towards more sustainable housing.
Australia doesn’t have got a great record here. Our building codes might be better focused, stricter, and definitely our enforcement might be a lot better.
Building in the future
Because the biggest polluter along with a high energy user, the building sector urgently has to reform for global warming mitigation.
There are serious legacy issues. Mistakes we made in past times endure during the entire life of buildings. Building decisions we make today are often very costly to reverse, and buildings continue for decades! Australia Wide, a timber building will likely last a minimum of 58 years, as well as a brick building no less than 88 years.
Currently, potential building owners are funnelled toward on-site construction processes, in spite of the clearly documented benefits associated with prefabricated homes. This really is reflected from the low profile made available to modular housing from the National Construction Code and not enough aggressive and well enforced environmental standards. We clearly need better policy to back up the modular green building industry.