Embodied impacts of key materials for UK decarbonised domestic retrofit: Differences between sources of embodied carbon and embodied energy data

Low energy domestic retrofit consumes materials, such as insulation, membranes and glazing, with smaller quantities of structural timber, steel or concrete, which have associated embodied impacts from resource extraction, manufacture and end-of-life treatments. In retrofit design, coefficients for material embodied impacts vary widely between sources and can lead to different results in a life cycle energy or carbon analysis, and perhaps different material choices in retrofit implementation. This paper considers how and why results differ between sources, and whether such data is suitable for making climate-beneficial design decisions. Embodied energy and carbon coefficients for 18 key retrofit materials were obtained from two widely used LCA databases and their similarity was quantified. The data collected illustrates that 70% embodied energy and embodied carbon data is within 20%, but that 30% of data was more than 20% different. Consistency of product naming and the absence in the datasets of key retrofit materials are factors identified contributing to variation, and present real constraints in practice. Furthermore, this exercise showed that embodied impacts for the types of materials most prominent in retrofits are less-well characterised than other major construction materials, and presents another layer of uncertainty. The data showed embodied energy was more consistent between sources than embodied carbon. This raises doubts about the predominant use of embodied carbon over energy for such analyses and establishes that a focus on embodied carbon over embodied energy has less power to reduce greenhouse gas emissions than considering both metrics together. It is concluded that obtaining such data with confidence is challenging and requires expertise in LCA, and is therefore unlikely to be accessible to most retrofit designers. Datasets need to be more complete and offer higher confidence to ensure delivery of high quality and meaningful results for climate-beneficial design decisions.