Assessing whole life carbon impacts of retrofitting Canada’s 19th and early 20th century homes towards net-zero
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ongoing climate crisis provides a unique challenge within the residential sector to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 in response to Canada’s net-zero goal. Although legislation has been put in place to address the decarbonisation of the existing housing stock, the challenging goal set by the Canadian government requires action beyond current energy guidelines. This poses a difficult challenge regarding the retrofit of housing built in the 19th and early 20th century. The extensive retrofit needed to bring these houses to the highest level of residential sustainability may counteract the idea of national zero-carbon when considering embodied carbon. This paper seeks to evaluate the whole-life carbon impacts of implementing deep retrofits in 19th and early 20th-century Canadian homes using the EnerPHit standard. To achieve this objective, the study compares whole-life carbon emissions under a non-retrofit baseline and a retrofit scenario that adheres to the EnerPHit standard, focusing on homes in Southern Ontario. HOT2000 Energy simulation software was used to assess the operational energy consumption, while One Click LCA was used to evaluate the whole life carbon of the two scenarios. This study found that the deep retrofit resulted in a 60% reduction in annual operational emissions compared to the baseline scenario. The whole-life carbon assessment further demonstrated a 48% reduction in total emissions over a 60-year period, with a carbon payback period of 6.8 years. These results imply that adapting this retrofit strategy would be beneficial to meeting Canada’s 2050 net-zero goals, as the operational energy savings are superior to the total embodied carbon associated with the retrofit strategy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".