If you build it ...

Green building may be quickest path to decreased emissions

Posted by Tia Ghose at 12:31 PM on 14 Mar 2008

Read more about: green building | placemaking | climate | greenhouse-gas emissions

Reuters has the skinny on a new report on green building. The report concluded that building green would reduce greenhouse emissions more quickly than any other approach.

According to the article:

North America's buildings release more than 2,200 megatonnes, or about 35 percent of the continent's total, of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. If the construction market quickly adopted current and emerging energy-saving technologies, that number could be cut by 1,700 megatonnes by 2030, the report said.

Alas, there are "obstacles" preventing the rapid adoption of green building techniques:

One is the so-called split incentive policy, where those who construct environmentally-friendly buildings do not necessarily reap the benefits of using them.

Also, governments and other institutions separate capital and operating budgets instead of budgeting for the lifetime of a construction project, creating a disincentive to build "green," the report found.

Oh well, I guess I'll have to make do with a nice cozy place on the Street of Dreams until green building catches on. Uh, scratch that.

For story: If you build it ...
8 Comments | Post a Comment

Measuring green-ness

The Street of Dreams is a great example of a big problem in LEED (and other "green" rating systems): Density. Sure you get a point or two for density, but the big points are in energy savings - where you compare your building to an identical building (with the same window area, etc.) without energy-saving features. But sometimes the best way to save energy isn't by adding gadgets and better glazing - it's by building less square footage and less glass.

Perhaps rating systems should measure based on a standard square-foot-per-person for each use (residential, office, etc.) and standard window/wall ratio.

Problems like this aside, almost all Architects, most engineers, and many contractors are strongly motivated to build for energy efficiency - at least in my experience on the west coast. We're constantly squeezing owners/developers to reduce just a bit more energy use, but it's a long and slow battle.

I'm currently working with a developer that really wants to be green, but will be immediately selling his new building and won't see a penny of the energy-efficient measures we design for except through a vague premium he can charge for it being a green building. As a result he's able to pay a bit extra for better glass (etc.) but not a lot.

Well-designed rating systems could solve all of these issues. Potential owners would know what they're buying, and could feel confident that the extra money they spend will be paid back in energy savings.

by Matt G at 1:33 PM on 14 Mar 2008

Paying per kwh

A 10 cent subsidy for generating a green kwh or a 5 cent subsidy for saving it would pay owners of a building, not builders. That's true. But would not the incentive payed filter back top the builder in a higher price for the building?

And in a greater demand for that builder's product?

With a conservation and renewable generation (roof or wall mounted solar PV, small or medium wind, biogas power with farm or industrial buildings) subsidy all calculated and guaranteed in a contract, a lending institution could figure that into the financing.

Builders that could verify and sign contracts based on actual power generation and savings subsidies would expand their business in an energy boom.

Government should institute these subsidies and establish regulations based on NREL and other studies and quality control of subsidy programs with random inspection.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 11:53 AM on 16 Mar 2008

Jevons Paradox

I haven't seen any studies of the latest greenbuilding (as opposed to sustainable buildings) that address Jevons Paradox or the rebound effect.

If the process of designing and erecting new buildings becomes more efficient the prices of the commodities goes down which increases the total number of building.

Without strong aggregate consumption limiting public policy, greenbuilding just enables the status quo, massive ecological devastation.

Until someone builds a building as smart as a tree...

Sunsetbeachguy

by sunsetbeachguy at 9:36 PM on 17 Mar 2008

Paradox

Green conversion derails the paradox. Greenhouses added onto existing buildings, oriented for best solar collection, for instance. This allows almost any building, no matter the solar exposure, to be heated, cooled, and powered by solar energy. And even to produce excess solar electricity in all but the cloudiest regions.

Conversion is so much cheaper than starting new green buildings from the ground up, that it will absorb most of the capital going green.

It will not take wholesale replacement to get to net zero GHG emmision buildings. 36% of GHG is caused by building heating/cooling.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 10:33 PM on 17 Mar 2008

Greening Buildings Already Built

Stroll down any New York City street to catch a glimpse of the climate challenge embedded in our buildings. And it is a challenge because we cannot get anywhere near the City's 30% target for reducing the size of its carbon footprint by the year 2030 if these buildings aren't transformed into high performance, energy-saving green machines. Since all that brick, glass and steel can last 50, 80 or a 100 years, the impact of what we have now becomes the legacy for our great-grandchildren.

The only way to make a deep and durable impact on this City's patchwork array of 950,000 buildings is by changing the rules, not just the options, for going green. The rules that matter most are the New York City Building Code and the State's Energy Conservation Construction Code and it is an article of faith that amending them is never easy.

What's in our tool kit and what are our choices? Read
When Starting Over Is Not An Option

by NancyatSallan at 7:47 AM on 18 Mar 2008

What's in our tool kit and what are our choices? Read
When Starting Over Is Not An Option

by NancyatSallan at 7:48 AM on 18 Mar 2008

Go geodesic NYC

Retrofit Nancy.

A nice weather proof, clear dome right over the city, that would capture enough solar energy to power the city. Remember the sea wall will need to be started yesterday as well, to counter storm surge!

Just make the bottom 50 feet of the dome from fiber cement. Great seawall. All the rain water run off from the dome could supply a water conserving NYC with it's whole supply.

It would cost around the same as a new world trade center. Am I right?

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 8:01 AM on 18 Mar 2008

Building performance vs. green building

I agree with the earlier comment suggesting that green point rating systems are more of a problem than a help in this scenario because they lead to all sorts of green materials and whiz bang equipment being assembled in a new building without assuring that the hoped for energy efficiency gains are actually met. The building performance trade addresses that head on by directly measuring the actual energy uses and losses of whole building systems as they are actually installed. Doing so leads to reports that make it easy to see the amount of energy one might expect to use to heat, cool, light, and run a given building, which in turn makes it possible to estimate the relative financial advantage of a new or retrofitted high performance building (to the extent that one can predict the future costs and availability of energy) and factor that into purchase or finance decisions.

The three main problems are that there is relatively low awareness of the building performance (known as "home performance" in the residential market) and building commissioning trades so people don't know of the benefits it can provide, there are not nearly enough highly skilled professionals to do the exacting investigations and installation work necessary to realize the gains made possible through the whole building systems approach to building performance, and it is much, much easier to market and profit from investments in an alternative energy project (for which demand will likely outstrip supply for decades) than it is to educate the public and train crews of trades people and building inspectors (to say nothing of legislators writing building codes). The result is that we continue to get endless hype about the almost religious hope and righteousness of renewable energy projects while the very large potential to reduce the demand for energy used in buildings--shaving off 1/3 of heating and 1/2 of cooling and lighting energy needs is a typical result--remains more or less unknown even to those who are passionate about the need to actually conserve energy.

Conserving energy is necessary because it is unlikely that alternative energy will be able to offset the dirty sources of energy unless the total quantity of energy demanded levels off or falls. A 2% increase in the total amount of energy being consumed worldwide dwarfs the entire annual alternative energy manufacturing capacity even as new plants and projects are popping up like flowers in Spring. We need some serious conservation programs, and building performance is one of the most promising and beneficial prospects for making a large scale, welcome impact. Not only can building performance projects save energy, they also tend to improve indoor air quality dramatically, improve the comfort of conditioned living and working spaces, and result in less wear and tear on components of buildings.

by Rune at 8:59 AM on 18 Mar 2008

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.