What was the initial purpose of the SBUF project, and why did Plant decide to participate?
– The project aims to develop a coordinated methodology for full-life-cycle climate calculations for buildings in order to assist stakeholders who wish to perform more comprehensive climate calculations and to enable comparisons between calculations. We were asked by Skanska and Malmö Stadsfastigheter to assist them with the calculations for their case study, and we naturally agreed, as this is an important project. Over the course of the project, our involvement has expanded to include another case study as well as working meetings regarding the calculation methodology.
“The projectaims to develop a coordinated methodology for full-life-cycle climate calculations for buildings in order to assist stakeholders who wish to perform more comprehensive climate calculations and to enable comparisons betweencalculations.”
What is your role in the project team, and what contributions have you been able to make?
– I think it’s a good thing that we’ve brought in a representative from another tool developer to help us achieve a transparent and tool-neutral methodology. I’ve also spent a great deal of time delving into these issues during the development of Plant’s methodology, and I hope that this has made me a valuable discussion partner even on more detail-oriented topics.
What are the biggest challenges you've encountered?
– A significant challenge is the many assumptions about the future that must be made. Some of these have a major impact on the results, which is why I think it’s positive that the project has tested many alternative assumptions in the case studies in order to justify the recommended methodology and understand how it affects the results. Another challenge is that installations and interior finishes are usually calculated using standard values, and therefore there is a lack of detailed data needed to better calculate the usage phase for those building components. This is being addressed in two other SBUF projects in which Plant is
involved.
How does this methodology differ from previous methods?
– Fundamentally, it is very similar to the one we have implemented, but there are differences in certain assumptions and the choice of data sources that affect the results. When it comes to other people’s methodologies, it is more difficult to comment, as we often lack insight into all the methodological choices that have been made. That is also why a project like this is important—to contribute to greater transparency and consistent calculations within the industry.
How has the taxonomy influenced interest from your partners?
– The requirements of the taxonomy have led to increased demand for climate calculations that cover the entire life cycle. At the same time, there is uncertainty regarding how these should be interpreted. A key principle of the project is that the methodology should align with the climate requirements of the EU taxonomy, so the hope is that the industry will gain a better understanding of and a consistent interpretation of these requirements.
How have you worked to meet customer needs before common guidelines were established?
– In cases where the standard and taxonomy leave room for interpretation, we have sought to base our methodology on public sources that have taken a firm stance on various issues. However, we are clear that it is a work in progress and will be adapted to industry-wide guidelines when they become available. We also strive to be transparent about our assumptions to facilitate comparisons with calculations from others.
What insights have you gained from the work meetings?
– These have been valuable opportunities for knowledge exchange that have given me a better understanding of everything from interpreting various future scenarios to the pros and cons of different data sources for energy carriers. It has also been an important forum for realizing that many of us are grappling with the same issues and challenges.
How does the new methodology fit in with Plant's current tools?
– The computational framework is very similar to our current method, which makes it easier to implement the necessary adjustments. In addition, Plant offers a highly flexible tool, providing us with strong support for customers who wish to go beyond the proposed basic methodology and test other scenarios and assumptions.
Stages B and C of the life cycle assessment have previously lacked clear guidelines; how do you think the new methodology will change this?
– I believe the guidelines developed by the project will be a valuable resource, both for those performing the calculations and for those commissioning them. We can see how the current guidelines for the construction phase contribute to more consistent requirements and greater comparability between calculations, and I hope to see the same trend for calculations covering the entire life cycle.
What role do IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute and other partners play in this project?
– IVL plays a key role thanks to its extensive insight into the development of standards and directives at the EU level, as well as Nordic harmonization. They also possess specialized expertise in relevant fields and experience in developing methodologies and guidelines. Other parties have contributed important experiences from specific projects and local conditions that shed light on different perspectives, as well as the client’s perspective and an understanding of the broader environmental and climate work in which these building calculations are to be integrated.
