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 Among the problems with such a suggestion, are the lack of viable renewable energy technologies, outdated transmission lines, and the finances associated with overcoming these obstacles.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 Green Building
Questions have been swirling around the building industry about the new big thing, green building. Will it add cost, will it add time, does painting a building green count? These questions most often involve the sustainable design and construction process, which many people think as daunting.
To highlight some of the important aspects of the green building process and show that green building is not this totally new and confusing change in the way we design and construct buildings, I recently interviewed Doug Wittnebel, a principal at Gensler’s San Ramon office and design director for the interiors of the new AAA NCNU headquarters in Walnut Creek.Here some excerpts of that interview.
Me:
What sustainable strategies set the new AAA headquarters apart from similar sustainable offices?
Doug:
This project differed from other similar projects in three different ways.One of the ways was early in the process when AAA was selecting a site for the office; a very careful study was done on potential sites to determine the location with the closest proximity to mass transit, in this case BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit).The location of the office is in the newly planned Station Landing, where housing, retail and commercial buildings are being planned together in a very smart and sustainable way.This is how projects are going to be done in the near future in the Bay Area and around the country.
Me: Did you couple this strategy with an open office plan?
Doug:
Yes, we absolutely coupled it with an open office plan. In this case we designed the office to promote better collaboration and communication but also more access to natural light. The more access you have to natural light and the outside environment the better you feel, the better you work, the less sick days you take off and the less staff turnover that occurs.
July 29, 2010
by Environmental Building Strategies
in EBS News, Green Building
Tags: LEED legal issues, standard form contracts and LEED
Within the LEED certification process, legal concerns are notable, although not always at the forefront. No one interested in “greening” their building is interested in litigation, lawyers, and most of all, the costs that accompany the two. As a result, in the interests of not sullying a project’s image, the incentives to work issues out at the negotiating table are great. But legal implications in green building are certainly present, especially ones arising out of poor contract drafting.
As general interest in LEED continues to grow, disputes have begun to arise out of standard-form construction contracts that do not contain risk-allocation provisions for LEED certification aspects of the project. The dispute between Southern Builders and Shaw Development illustrates this scenario perfectly. After Southern Builders, the general contractor, filed a mechanic’s lien against the project, Shaw Development counter-sued claiming $635,000 in damages for lost tax credits because the project failed to achieve LEED Silver certification. The parties used an American Institute of Architects (AIA) industry-standard agreement that contained the following language regarding project’s green goals:
“Project is designed to comply with a Silver Certification Level according to the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) Rating System, as specified in Division 1 Section LEED Requirements.”
In no other part of the contract did the parties clarify exactly who would be responsible for achieving that level of certification. While the parties eventually settled, the dispute provides a useful lesson in contract drafting and risk management. As it stands, owners, developers, contractors, sub-contractors, and consultants could be left on the hook with standard form contracts that do not more specifically allocate risk for the parties incorporating LEED certification into the project.
June 23, 2010
by Environmental Building Strategies
in LEED
Tags: LEED 2009, LEED credit compliance, LEED EDGE, LEED project management tool
The Beginning Of LEED EDGE
Here at EBS we have experienced first-hand the frustration that goes along with LEED credit compliance. From CIRs to credit appeals to excess paper-pushing, we knew there had to a better way. Enter LEED EGDE! A tool first conceived internally, LEED EDGE has allowed us to provide clients with accurate, real-time answers to their credit compliance questions. As a result, we save our clients money by being twice as efficient as other consultants. In addition, clients now have the added benefit of knowing the exact level of certification their project is on track to achieve at any time!.
Problems With Credit Compliance
During the development of LEED EDGE, we saw three fundamental flaws in the credit compliance process: excess cost, credit confusion, and wasted time. First, we understood that the compliance process was already an expensive one often leading to frustrating cost increases. Second, we saw how projects could shift focus, making LEED compliance difficult to monitor. Third, we knew how difficult it could be for a project to move forward when the status of certain LEED credits was uncertain.
What Does LEED EDGE Do And How Does It Address Those Problems?
LEED EDGE is a project management tool aimed to simplify and streamline the credit compliance process. It centralizes the total anticipated credits a project could achieve in one tab, guiding the user through each credit with point system breakdowns and information boxes, making the entire process less confusing. In addition, the tool’s functionality allows the user to see the project’s over-all LEED status at any time by offering instant feedback with drop-down menus and easy field entry. As a result, EDGE makes the LEED compliance process more cost-effective, efficient, and easier to understand.
How To Try It Out?
If you go to our website, www.TheLEEDEDGE.com, you’ll find more detailed information about product features as well as ways to either demo or buy one of the two modules currently available: LEED O&M 2009 and LEED CI 2009. If you have any questions, please feel free to email us at info@ebsconsultants.net!
Thanks!
-The EBS Team
May 21, 2010
by Environmental Building Strategies
in Renewable Energy
Tags: Clean Energy, Government Mandates, Government rebates
Many are aware of the subsidies, tax credits, and grants available to property owners and utilities to install and utilize alternative energy (i.e., wind, solar, biomass, etc.). Unfortunately, many forget that these technologies need to be manufactured somewhere. The majority of the panels that go into a photovoltaic array and the large blades that make up wind turbines are currently being manufactured overseas, often in China. This directly contradicts President Obama’s plan to spur green job growth with the passage of the Stimulus Bill. Enter the SEAM Act.
The Security in Energy and Manufacturing Act extends an existing tax credit (The Advanced Energy Manufacturing Tax Credit (MTC), which provided a 30% of total project cost credit to help fund projects that expanded, or re-equipped clean energy manufacturing plants. The SEAM Act goes beyond a simple extension of the $2.3 billion program, it redefines it. Infusing an additional $5 billion into the program while substituting grants for tax credits, it will allow smaller startups who haven’t garnered the tax liability to apply for tax credits to offset some of the costs of their planned plants. It also prioritizes purely manufacturing projects over assembly plants.
This Act comes at a key time, as there are hundreds of projects that applied for credits under MTC that were denied because funding ran out so quickly. Like the “Cash for Clunkers” program, the actual interest in MTC far outweighed initial projections, proving that it was a successful program.
But why, you might ask, should we focus on clean technology manufacturing. According to the Act’s author, Representative Phil Hare from the 17th congressional district in Illinois,
“As clean energy becomes one of the world’s largest industries, forecasted at over $2 trillion annually, advanced energy manufacturing will offer one of the best chances for the U.S. to restore its manufacturing base and create good-paying jobs domestically.”
This is only one of the many reasons why the US needs to spur clean manufacturing jobs. Over the past several decades this nation has seen its manufacturing base erode. Losing out to cheaper Chinese products, the manufacturing industry, one of the largest employment sectors in the US has seen the largest decline in jobs over the past ten years. According to the United States Department of Labor, in 1998, the manufacturing sector employed the second highest number of workers, over 17.5 million. Sense then, the industry has seen a 2.6 percent annual decrease in jobs, which is double the rate of decline of the next-to-worst sector. Advanced energy manufacturing offers a unique opportunity to pursue an environmentally responsible agenda while creating many permanent, high-paying jobs that are desperately necessary to revive an employment powerhouse in serious decline. With the promise of huge green job creation numbers to live up to, why not focus on the area of biggest potential.
The demand side makes an even stronger case to up clean technology manufacturing. With the new requirement that 25% of each state’s energy portfolio must come from clean, renewable energy being mulled over in Washington, and with the potential for a Carbon Cap and Trade system being introduced, the demand for huge new solar and wind farms will take off. Couple that with the improvements that are being made to the efficiencies of these technologies pushing them towards being on par with coal in terms of the production price per kW, and you start to have not only an environmental reason, and a government mandated reason, but also an economic reason. Maybe the one positive that came of out of the recent oil spill in the Gulf, is that it quieted some “Drill baby Drill” proponents. Clearly an increase in off-shore drilling is not the answer to our energy situation; why not look to an abundant and everlasting source, the sun, which creates not only solar power, but wind power as well.
Looking before the future, at the present, renewable energy production is already taking off. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, over the past ten years, wind energy production has increased an average of 24% annually. Over that same time period, energy production from crude oil has decreased an average of 2.4% annually. While crude oil reserves are running out, and the potential for wind and solar production is only increasing, let’s start focusing our efforts and our money on a sector that has some potential. For those of you who wonder where all this money could come from, look no further than the oil industry, which receives huge subsidies from the government so they can continue searching for an archaic fuel source that is destroying our environment. Estimates are that US Oil companies receive, according to Greenpeace, between $15 billion and $35 billion a year from tax payers in the form of avoided taxes.
Recent Comments