The cost impact on climate-smart material choices

This report has been carried out together with Bonava with the purpose to investigate the difference in climate impact and cost of both concrete and wooden frames in apartment buildings. This to investigate if it is profitable to build climate smart. To perform this, a life cycle analysis and a life cycle cost analysis were performed on two frames of different materials; a wooden frame called "Nästet 3" and a concrete frame called "Kv. Smugglaren”. The results of the life cycle analysis shows that the wooden frame “Nästet 3” has less climate impact in comparison to the concrete frame “Kv. Smugglaren”. The wooden frame had a total emission of 176 tons of CO2e which is about 65 kg CO2e per square meter of gross area. The result of the life cycle analysis on the concrete frame “Kv. Smugglaren” showed a climate impact of 793 tons of CO2e, which approximately is 229 kg CO2e per square meter of gross area. This study shows that a concrete frame in apartment buildings has a greater climate impact than a wooden frame. The results of the life cycle cost analysis shows that the wooden frame “Nästet 3” has the lowest frame material cost, about half as much as the concrete frame “Kv. Smugglaren”. However, it has the largest total construction cost, approximately 0.8% larger than the concrete frame. When all results are compared, it can be concluded that it does not necessarily cost more to build with more climate-smart materials. Using wood as a frame material is both more climate-smart and cheaper than concrete