February 23, 2012
by macko
in EBS News, Green Building
Today we will commence a blog series focused around Greenbuild 2012 – yes the one in San Francisco in November – that will strive to bring relevant updates as well as opinion pieces on what will be (or at least is touted to be) the biggest Greenbuild ever.
A couple of important things to announce in this first posting – they are as follows:
Greenbuild dates: Nov. 14-16, 2012
Greenbuild SF site: Greenbuild San Francisco
Greenbuild SF location: Moscone Center 747 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94103
Greenbuild Host Committee & Volunteer Info: Visit USGBC-NCC’s website for information on Host Committee activities, volunteer opportunities and the most up to date information on Greenbuild parties, tours and happenings: USGBC NCC Host Committee
What I want to stress beyond the basic info listed above is that this year’s Greenbuild is determined to be the biggest, the best and the most unique. San Francisco is a destination city with most inhabitants claiming origin from other parts of the country or the world. It is a come one, come all city that despite it’s less than 1 million inhabitants (805,463 as of June 2010 Census) is considered a major international destination. Tourism, food, culture/diversity and the arts make up some of the most attractive aspects of this one-of-a-kind city – what I think is most impressive is that when Greenbuild comes to town in November, approximately 5% of the city’s regular population will congregate in one area of downtown. That’s amazing, 5% of a city all located one area, gathering around a relatively unknown (to most of the world) topic (that of green building) for an entire week!
As a member of the Greenbuild Host Committee I want to make sure you keep apprised of the progress we’re making in an effort to, as I said above, make this the biggest, best and most unique Greenbuild ever. Please follow updates on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn
Check back in a month for more updates!
–The EBS Team
February 8, 2012
by macko
in EBS News, Energy, Value
*Submitted as a Federal Public Comment in support of PACE – see line at bottom of Post
To Whom it May Concern,
On behalf of Environmental Building Strategies we would like to show our support for PACE as a creative financing mechanism that would greatly enhance our ability to affect a more positive impact on the built environment through the commercial and residential real estate clients we serve. One of our greatest strengths is proving financial viability of sustainability initiatives – we do so with the use of other creative financing mechanisms such as Commercial Local PACE districts, On-Bill Financing, Off-Bill Financing and PPAs.
We believe there are reasonable ways to mitigate the financial risks associated with tiers of debt instruments and the loan organizations who issue those instruments. That said, governmental effort, support, creativity, and collaboration are needed to help shape a program of this magnitude and even more importantly we’ll need the gall to work with those who oppose it for strictly monetarily motivated reasons. The PACE program and ideal it creates is too strong and the environment too important to let it fail again.
Thank you
–The EBS Team
Post your PACE Comments here: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/01/26/2012-1345/mortgage-assets-affected-by-pace-programs#addresses
February 6, 2012
by Environmental Building Strategies
in Energy, Renewable Energy
Tags: EBS Team
The Southeastern region of the United States is an energy conundrum, comprising about one third of the demand in the country, yet having the lowest capacity for renewable energy (about 6%). This discrepancy is an incredible obstacle to any proposed Renewable Energy Portfolio (RPS) aimed at substantially reducing the nation’s carbon emissions. To reach a goal of 15-20% of our power to be produced by renewable energy, we would need roughly 174 TWhrs of energy from various renewable sources. Among the problems with such a suggestion, are the lack of viable renewable energy technologies, outdated transmission lines, and the finances associated with overcoming these obstacles. Renewable energy is the future; unfortunately, our wind and solar technologies are not yet competitive with fossil fuel based alternatives, biomass technology would require a significant shift in our country’s farming focus, and hydroelectric options have been almost completely exhausted.
Wind energy seems quite promising with the only problems being that it is incredibly unreliable, many consider windmills an eye sore, but most importantly, it can only account for a maximum of 11% of the renewable energy demand in the region. Solutions range from building large hydro-storage facilities (using energy produced during low demand to pump water uphill into a reservoir and the producing hydro electric power during peak load hours) and locating wind farms on America’s uninhabited plains or offshore sites. Unfortunately, these all of these technologies will be a moot point unless a complete overhaul of the electrical grid in the southeast occurs with substantial improvements and additions to the transmission lines in order for the Southeast to import renewable energy from neighboring regions of the United States.
Solar technologies are incredibly expensive to produce, yield low efficiency returns, and have not proven to be a viable solution on a large scale without considerable government subsidies. Although there have been recent advancements in multi-layered thin-film solar technologies, it will be decades before solar options become competitive if it happens at all. This is the least cost-effective solution for an RPS demand. By covering every rooftop in the Southeast with solar panels, solar energy can produce a whopping 1.1% of the renewable energy demand.
Biomass may have the most potential out of any of the renewable energy sources. In a perfect scenario where maximum efficiency for electrical production is reached, none of the farmed biomass is used for biofuels, and all farming is directed towards the production of biomass fuels (none of these propositions is remotely likely) the Southeast could provide 27% of its renewable energy needs through biomass. This is a significant amount; however, realistically, it would only reach a fraction of that. The problem that makes this irrelevant is that burning biomass for electricity also produces CO2 pollution and does not qualify for any of the recently proposed RPS’s.
Although hydroelectricity seems like a magic solution to our problems, there may not be a single natural waterway in North America which has not already been exploited. Almost all the rivers have already been dammed for hydroelectric power and flooding controls, in many cases, multiple times. We can continue this process in the Southeast, but there are significant environmental repercussions of such actions. Not only does this disrupt the migration and birthing pattern of many species of fish, but, more importantly, it disrupts the natural flow and movement of nutrient rich sediment (dirt). This may not seem important until one looks at the bigger picture and chain of events in which this sediment fails to reach the deltas of our rivers, fails to fill in the coastlines of our country, then fails to feed the marshes and wetlands in the Southeast. Still not getting the picture? That’s OK, there’s more. Marshes and wetlands are our natural defenses against floods, hurricanes, and storms. The damming of our rivers and disruption of the flow of sediment is THE reason that our country experienced a disaster on the scale of Hurricane Katrina. Further expansion of hydropower through dams seems like a much less viable solution after this is taken into account. However, if it were decided that the dangers and consequences were worth braving, hydroelectric power has the capacity to provide a significant 26% of the renewable demand.
The sum of all these renewable percentages only equates to 65% of the 174TWhrs needed to fulfill an RPS of 15-20% renewable energy supply for the nation. Now, where would the remaining 35% come from? The Southeast Region would have to import that from neighboring states, requiring a massive overhaul of the electrical grid and the construction of high-efficiency, long distance transmission lines on a massive scale. The cost of such a gigantic infrastructure project alone would be staggering, however, the constant and never-ending importation of that much energy would cripple the states’ economies in the region. Even if trade-able carbon emissions were a part of the RPS and transmission lines were not necessary, this would still have a devastating effect on the local economy. Options for the Southeast Region of the United States to produce more than 10% renewable energy are significantly inadequate, so an all-encompassing RPS does not seem feasible with our current technology.
- EBS
February 5, 2012
by Environmental Building Strategies
in Sustainability
Top 10 Myths about Sustainability
1. Nobody knows what sustainability really means…
a. Not true
b. Entered the lexicon in 1987
c. “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”
d. You learned what it meant in Kindergarten – “don’t take more than you share”
2. Sustainability is all about the environment.
a. The concept around sustainability originally dealt with income gap issues surrounding poverty by giving disadvantaged countries access to natural resources in order to create a more balanced lifestyle/world
b. “We have an economy where we steal the future, sell it in the present, and call it GDP.” - Paul Hawken (among others) – This debate isn’t whole heatedly about the environment, climate change or the polar ice caps; sustainability touches so many more aspects of our lives including the recent global financial crisises which were created by money hogs breaking rule 1.d. above…
c. Sustainability is definitely about the environment though…
i. We borrow money from the future to buy oil, degrade land in the process, spill it in our oceans, drink that water, burn that oil, make that plastic, pollute our homes, air and water with the plastic chemicals, throw out the plastic, pollute land and water when it doesn’t bio-degrade, drink the water, eat the food, and the process starts all over again when we consume more.
3. Sustainable is a synonym for “green.”
a. Some overlap but i whole heatedly disagree that they are or can be used synonymously.
i. Green usually means some preference for natural over artificial where as sustainability is a systems based thinking approach to lasting human creations – economic systems, enviro systems, building systems, etc.
4. It’s all about recycling.
a. Yes it is true that a more efficient use of pretty much anything is a step in the right direction towards sustainability.
b. However in terms of sustainability, the most important areas are as follows:
i. Energyii. Transportation
c. If you think you are living green or being sustainable by recycling you are gravely mistaken my friend
5. Sustainability is too expensive.
a. Only true when you try to fit a square peg in a round hole
i. Forcing the situation when something is already in place is no way to solve a need for intelligent systems based thinking
b. When thought about and applied early early early in a decision process, the most sense is derived.
6. Sustainability means lowering our (the American) standard of living
a. Not at all true – standards of living should be measured by the happiness of the people living. Americans are among the most UN-Happy people in the world yet hold the highest standard of living on a wealth-based system.
b. “Addressing climate change is the biggest job creation program there is.”
c. Technology and Innovation stem from the principles of sustainability
7. Consumer choices and grassroots activism, not government interventions offer the fastest, most efficient routes to sustainability.
a. CO2 global reductions need to happen from leadership – whether that be corporate or government, we need leaders in this area.
b. Carbon Tax Emissions – while they would be wildly unpopular, their is little doubt is most economists minds that their effectiveness would yield the results we need.
i. Think about it this way… – At this current point in time, you can negatively impact the future (smoking, burning, polluting air & water, and most importantly, consuming) as much as you’d like and not pay for it. * As a side note, a federal consumption tax along with environmental taxes would curb all of the above issues.
c. Free market thinkers don’t like this because it potentially stifles freedom. I would agree however I realize the importance. One of the greatest free market thinkers of all time – Milton Freedman – agrued that government should only step in and exert their effect when 3rd parties are affected by an outcome. He said that we shouldn’t be regulating seat belts and air bags as their presence in the car has no potential adverse affect on a 3rd party in a car crash between 2 people. Makes sense and I agree. Pollution and/or financial corruption (as seen in the recent market crash) affects everyone and therefor humanity is the 3rd party. We need government intervention in those cases.
8. New technology is always the answer.
a. Not always…
b. Proper tire inflation in your car is a conservation technique that requires no new technology and is one of the fastest way to return value.
b. Battery exchange programs are incredibly effective ways of utilizing continued resources.
c. Turning up/down thermostats to appropriate settings or turning off heating/cooling systems when not in use is another conservation technique that requires no new technology – just common sense and a memory.
9. Sustainability is ultimately a population problem.
a. Yes to some extent…
b. But that will take generations
i. We don’t have that time
10. It’s just too hard…
a. Creating a sustainable fuel source from corn based Ethanol is too hard and converting every car in the world is too hard but
i. Energy intensity of producing fuel from corn
b. Tradeoffs needs to be analyzed by detailed Life Cycle Costing Models
Once you understand the concepts, living sustainably is a wonderfully rewarding experience
Greenbuild 2012 – San Francisco here we come! Feb 23 2012
PACE Program Reconsidered – Please comment – we did Feb 08 2012
Southeastern United States Renewable Energy Feasibility Feb 06 2012
The 10 Myths about “sustainability” – abridged version Feb 05 2012
Recent Comments