Hi Fei,
Hope you’re well!
I’d like to follow up on this topic as I am currently looking into this exact question. With the retained material being Timber – the reduction in the material quantity in the proposed case has an adverse affect due to the reduction in carbon sequestration seen in timber.
We have structural engineer report stating a 93% retention level of timber floors, which means we can only claim 7% of the benefit of the timber compared to the reference case’s 100%.
Does this discourage the retention of timber structures? Or is there a metric that we can use to navigate around this? My suggestion would be to potentially:
– Alter the timber template in the reference case to exclude modules A1-A3 (leaving the negative effects for module C to accurately show the negative effects of demolishing timber), while including modules A1-A3 in the proposed case to account for the carbon sequestration?
OR
– Exclude the effects of disposal in module C for the proposed case, so the sequestration benefits are not as heavily offset by the disposal emissions.
Very interested to hear back from you soon,
Kind regards,
Nathan
