MAGU Life Cycle Assessment

One-third of Germany’s final energy consumption is accounted for by heating and hot water production. To fulfill our responsibility to future generations—not only with regard to finite energy resources—we must ensure a high level of material efficiency in our use of resources during construction.

Based on the findings above, it is possible to calculate, using a single-family home as an example, the primary energy required to produce the entire thermal insulation system.

The life cycle assessment includes all modules from A1 to C4—that is, raw material extraction, manufacturing, transportation, installation, and finally, decommissioning and recycling. We do not take into account the hypothetical positive effects resulting from the substitution of other climate-damaging emissions in the event of thermal recovery after 40 years.

As a basis, we’ll use a small single-family home with 120 m² of living space, for which we’ll assume a U-value of 0.15 W/m²K for the entire building envelope—which corresponds to a heating requirement of 40 kWh per square meter of living space per year (KFW 40 standard).

The total surface area of the building envelope is approximately 280 m² (floor slab, exterior walls, and roof surfaces), which is insulated with 20 cm of MAGU Neopor to achieve the required U-value of 0.15 W/m²K. This means we need 56 cbm of MAGU Neopor insulation for the entire house—not quite the volume of a semi-truck. The total weight of the 56 cbm of insulation is approximately 1,800 kg—or 30 kg per cubic meter—which is equivalent to about 3 buckets of Neopor raw material; the rest is air from the Black Forest and Hüfingen trapped within the cellular structure.

The energy-saving potential and the reduction in CO₂ emissions that thermal insulation provides over the building’s 40-year lifespan are many times greater than the energy required to insulate the building in this way.

In our discussions so far, we have not taken the life cycle assessment of the load-bearing structure into account. After all, the load-bearing core of a MAGU wall is the solid concrete core. Detailed values for concrete are also available in Ökobaudat, the database of the Federal Ministry of the Interior, Building, and Community (BMI).

For ready-mix concrete—as with insulation materials—we have included Module A4, which covers transportation, in addition to Modules A1 through A3, which cover the actual manufacturing process (average distance from the concrete plant: 17.3 km) as well as the placement of the concrete in the structure via Module A5. During the operational phase (Module B), there are no climate-relevant energy expenditures. The demolition of the load-bearing structure, as well as the removal and recycling (Modules C1 through C3), are also included in the energy assessment of the concrete in accordance with the guidelines of Ökobaudat.

For ready-mix concrete, the total primary energy input over the entire product life cycle is 1,348 MJ per cubic meter of concrete. Given the building envelope area of 280 m² mentioned above, approximately 48 cubic meters of ready-mix concrete are used for the load-bearing wall structure, resulting in a total primary energy consumption of 64,704 MJ or 17,943 kWh. Converted to our light heating oil, this represents an additional 1,550 liters of primary energy required for the extraction of raw materials, the production of the concrete, transportation, installation, demolition, and recycling.

To put it simply, the structural framework and thermal insulation of a KFW 40 MAGU house with a living area of 120 m² require approximately 39,000 kWh of energy—which is equivalent to 3,400 liters of heating oil.

When you consider this in relation to the energy and CO₂ savings—compared to Germany’s current energy demand for heating—the savings exceed the total energy required to construct the building after just 5 years.

We subsequently calculated the energy required to manufacture the thermal insulation using other insulation materials as well. As can be seen in the table, the primary energy factor varies slightly depending on the insulation material used. For example, while the extraction of raw materials (Module A1) is somewhat simpler and requires less primary energy for some insulation materials, their production is somewhat more energy-intensive (Modules A2/A3).

We are again considering primary energy use as a whole, since both renewable and ‚non-renewable‘ insulation materials can be produced using both gray (non-renewable) and climate-neutral energy (Modules A2 and A3).

Choosing the right insulation material affects not only energy consumption during a building’s operational life but also its carbon footprint over its entire life cycle. Renewable raw materials can store CO₂, while fossil-based insulation materials are often associated with higher emissions during production. However, stored CO₂ can also be released during disposal, which affects the overall carbon footprint.

When it comes to the carbon footprint, however, the situation is different—all renewable raw materials have a negative greenhouse gas footprint, since they remove large amounts of CO₂ from the atmosphere as they grow.

However, the positive carbon footprint is only temporary—when the material is landfilled or incinerated, the stored CO₂ is released back into the atmosphere. If the wood fiber were still a tree in the forest, a piece of furniture, or a park bench, the carbon footprint would be just as negative—that is, the CO₂ would be just as effectively sequestered. From a climate policy perspective, it would be more effective to promote reforestation, encourage green spaces in cities, continue to combat rainforest deforestation, or ban rock gardens.

However, the potential for energy savings offered by all insulation materials when used for thermal insulation is the same. The relationship between energy demand based on insulation thickness and energy-saving potential over the course of a building’s lifespan was already illustrated in the chart at the beginning of the section on ‚Resource Efficiency in Building Construction.‘.

For every building, it can be demonstrated that significant energy savings are achieved through the thermal insulation of the building envelope. In addition, this can significantly enhance the building’s primary purpose—namely, the comfort and quality of life for its users and occupants.

The overall environmental quality of a building depends on many factors: thermal comfort, living comfort, emissions, durability, adaptability, flexibility, suitability for alternative uses, simplicity, and safety during construction.

From a life-cycle assessment perspective, thermal insulation made of straw or cellulose would initially be preferable to other insulation materials. However, for this insulation to last for decades, it is essential that it be installed very carefully and in a professional and proper manner. An intact vapor barrier, effective protection against insect infestation, and fire safety measures are just a few of the basic requirements. Even minor changes can quickly disrupt the building’s thermal balance and jeopardize healthy living conditions in the home.

Thus, in addition to life cycle assessment values, the potential of the building material—taking its technical properties into account—must also be considered. In particular, it is crucial to use the building material intelligently and to harness its respective potential.