Gpt Group · ASX:GPT

Gpt — Technical Presentation (February 2009)

13 slides from Gpt's technical presentation, February 2009

  1. Slide 1: Comparison of methods to determine embodied GHG of materials

    Comparison of methods to determine embodied GHG of materials – A case study of outcomes from Rouse Hill Town Centre Dr. Caroline Noller & Colin Reay LCA 2009 Noller_Reay RHTC Materials Feb 2009

  2. Slide 2: Overview

    Overview ƒ Rouse Hill Town Centre – a “sustainable community” ƒ Ecological footprint use as key measure of “how sustainable” ƒ Materials footprint a substantial component ƒ No targets or benchmarks for what is possible ƒ Recycled materials tracked ƒ Compared process analysis to national indicator sh

  3. Slide 3: LCA 2009 Noller_Reay RHTC Materials Feb 2009

    LCA 2009 Noller_Reay RHTC Materials Feb 2009

  4. Slide 4: LCA 2009 Noller_Reay RHTC Materials Feb 2009

    LCA 2009 Noller_Reay RHTC Materials Feb 2009

  5. Slide 5: LCA 2009 Noller_Reay RHTC Materials Feb 2009

    LCA 2009 Noller_Reay RHTC Materials Feb 2009

  6. Slide 6: GHG HIO GHG Hybrid Process

    Deconstruction Stage 0 Development Stage n Extraction Production of building & production of materials & complex Ownership & Waste Re-use; basic materials components Occupation Re-cycling GHG HIO GHG Hybrid The Building Process Level 4 Operating asset Process Complex Product Analysis Building GGE “c

  7. Slide 7: Recycled Materials

    Recycled Materials Roof sheeting Carpets Insulation materials 0.2% 0.3% Structural steel 0.2% 1.2% Aluminum louvres Kerbs 0.0% 0.3% Footpaths 2.6% Plastic materials 0.0% Sub-base 4.6% Non-structural concrete 9.7% Structural concrete 42.8% Other sundry materials 15.5% Reinforcement 22.7% LCA 2009 Nol

  8. Slide 8: Materials Design Response

    Materials Materials Design Response Materials -10% -10%and and counting counting „ 100% non-structural concrete 100% recycled „ 100% sub-base 50-100% recycled Absolute benefit „ Structural concrete fly ash up to 25% ~5,700 + Ha „ Steel reinforcement 85% up to 100% recycled ~20,000 T Co2 „ Roof sheet

  9. Slide 9: Hybrid Process Assessment

    Hybrid Process Assessment recycled total mass recycled Material by Element Qty unit Content % of total (kg) mass (min) (min) Aluminum louvres 5092 m2 20% 101,840 20,368 20% Insulation materials 100000 m2 75% 200,000 150,000 75% Roof sheeting 69915 m2 15% 608,261 91,239 15% Carpets 7168 m2 100% 327,5

  10. Slide 10: GHG Totals & "avoided"

    GHG Totals & “avoided” recycled total mass recycled Saved CO2 Total CO2 Material by Element Qty unit Content % of total (kg) mass (min) (T) (T) (min) Aluminum louvres 5092 m2 20% 101,840 20,368 20% 16,911 63 Insulation materials 100000 m2 75% 200,000 150,000 75% 2,520 4 Roof sheeting 69915 m2 15% 60

  11. Slide 11: Financial Analysis

    Financial Analysis ƒ Considering the alternative approach of $ value multiplied by CO2 intensity of Gross Construction Cost finds;- - High figure of: 98,000 T CO2 (for virgin materials) - Low of: 66,936 T CO2 (for recycled version) ƒ Using CO2/$ GCC from Noller ƒ Using 2005 GCC from internal sources

  12. Slide 12: Analysis

    Analysis Indicator Hybrid Process Financial Variance T CO2 (virgin) 96,273 98,000 1% T CO2 54,951 31,037 56% (recycled) Net T CO2 41,322 66,963 56% Net / T CO2 / 630 1,020 m2 GLA ƒ No financial adjustment of recycled materials as could not be resolved. This is likely to be greatest cause of variance

  13. Slide 13: Conclusion

    Conclusion ƒ Prior study suggests 15 to 30% total building recycling viable. ƒ This study shows greater percentage – although not for whole building. ƒ Financial viability confirmed by default as this was done! ƒ Total carbon footprint for embodied still vastly larger than operational and substantia

GPT Group — Technical Presentation (February 2009) on 6ix