{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024017467248908297, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01601164483260553, 'mean_word_length': 5.138392857142857, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Functional unit, technological dynamics, and scaling properties for the life cycle energy of residences.

Prior LCA studies take the operational phase to include all energy use within a residence, implying a functional unit of all household activities, but then exclude related supply chains such as production of food, appliances, and household chemicals. We argue that bounding the functional unit to provision of a climate controlled space better focuses the LCA on the building, rather than activities that occur within a building. The second issue explored in this article is how technological change in the operational phase affects life cycle energy. Heating and cooling equipment is replaced at least several times over the lifetime of a residence; improved efficiency of newer equipment affects life cycle energy use. The third objective is to construct parametric models to describe LCA results for a family of related products. We explore these three issues through a case study of energy use of residences: one-story and two-story detached homes, 1,500-3,500 square feet in area, located in Phoenix, Arizona, built in 2002 and retired in 2051. With a restricted functional unit and accounting for technological progress, approximately 30% of a building's life cycle energy can be attributed to materials and construction, compared to 0.4-11% in previous studies.