April 19, 2010
by Environmental Building Strategies
in Renewable Energy
Tags: Blogmaster Hoang, EBS Team
The Southeastern region of the United States is an energy conundrum, comprising about one quarter 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 Portfolio Standard (RPS) aimed at substantially reducing the nation’s carbon emissions. To reach a goal of 15% of each state’s power to be produced by renewable energy, we would need roughly 186 terrawatt hours of energy from various renewable sources to satisfy the Southeast Region’s needs. Among the problems with such a suggestion, are the lack of viable renewable energy technologies, outdated transmission lines, and the finances associated with overcoming these obstacles.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 then producing hydro electric power during peak load hours) and locating wind farms on America’s uninhabited plains or offshore sites. Unfortunately, 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 to transport renewable energy from isolated areas of the Southeast Region.
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 the production of liquid biofuels in cars, 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.
Numbers and percentages courtesy of:
Hadley, Stanton W., Key, Thomas., Deb, Rajat. May 2009. Power Transfer Potential to the Southeast in Response to a Renewable Portfolio Standard: Interim Report 2.
-EBS Blogmaster Hoang
March 22, 2010
by Environmental Building Strategies
in Energy, Green Building
Tags: China, Green Building
The Shanghai Tower will be the tallest building in China by its completion in 2014, but that is not it’s biggest accomplishment. The term “vertical city” has been used to describe the cornucopia of spaces that it will offer including Class-A office space, a luxury hotel, high-end retail, and event space. This aspect still pales in comparison to the building’s biggest accomplishment, its innovation in green design.
With wind turbines, a complex rainwater collection system, two envelope layers that surround nine interior sky gardens, and an ingenious design that mitigates lateral loads from wind and reduces the necessary structural steel by over 20%, this building is setting the bar high for super-tall buildings. Remarkably, all of these sustainable strategies are being implemented in China. To further explain the design process and to prove that sustainability in China is not that surprising I asked the Director of International Architecture and lead designer on the project Peter Weingarten a couple of questions regarding sustainable building in China and how the Shanghai Tower epitomized the emerging trend.
EBS:
I wanted to start of by asking you what the marketplace is like for sustainable building in China. Is it as popular or as big in China as it is in the United States?
Peter: That is an interesting question because on the one hand you could argue that it has never not been popular because a lot of the practices indigenous to other countries are typically more sustainable then what we are accustom to. So we come over there and say “well we are going to talk to you about being sustainable” and they say “we are already are, we already have wastewater and recycling programs”. In Europe they already all shop with reusable bags. It’s kind of an Americanize view if you take that perspective; if you don’t embrace their cultural phenomenon. When we come in we don’t just talk about the US Green Building Council, which is a benchmark here, we talk about global sustainability. There is such booming economic growth in China and India that these issues have been present there for along time. Sustainable agriculture, indoor air quality concerns, getting rid of coal burning power plants, these are issues that have been very prevalent in those regions for a while.
EBS: That is very interesting and quite different than what most Americans would expect.
How did the Chinese bureaucracy affect your project?
Peter: The Chinese government has a strong commitment to developing the future of Shanghai as a financial center on par with New York and Los Angeles and where there is a will there is a very strong way. So we are not getting tied in up the typical bureaucratic issues we normally run into. This project is a priority. It is great to be on a project that is on the fast track and that is well liked. That certainly helps.
EBS: Is the Chinese government’s influence a factor when you are looking at sustainable practices?
Peter: They are pushing for more. We are not just doing because it is an ego `statement; we are doing it to show China’s emersion as green, clean and sustainable. There is such an urban vitality there and this project is building on the standard they set with the Olympics.
EBS: How similar is the China Building Council to USGBC?
Peter: Well we were using the China Star Program and it is very similar to LEED. I think the core tenants are all the same. The performance metrics are based on a different set of regulations. We use ASHRAE, and sometimes they use ASHRAE but sometimes they use something else.
EBS: But in general they are pretty similar?
Peter: It translates very well.
EBS: Is the popularity of the China Star Program on par with LEED in the US or is it in its beginning stage?
Peter: It is pretty popularity because the Chinese are very proud of their system.
EBS: I also wanted to know a bit about the sustainable practices you implemented in this project. The rain collection system was really interesting as was the wind turbines you implemented. Where exactly did you put the turbines?
Peter: Well it’s a 662-meter building and up that high the wind is very strong. In a super- tall building the wind is both your friend and your enemy. Once you get above 80 stories most private brokers will tell you that the economics of the building don’t pan out, because you have so many structural considerations because of the lateral load. With this project we designed the building to mitigate the wind forces by using a curved shape. We were able to save 25% of the ton steel tonnage by not presenting a broad face to the wind. By allowing the wind to flow aerodynamically we mitigate direct lateral pressures. We also made use of the Diagrid System, which allows the wind to flow in a natural way instead of orthogonally like with classic designs. 25 percent savings is huge in the scheme of things.
EBS: How was the whole process of designing the structure to use 25 percent less steel but still hold up to the shearing force of the wind?
Peter: We reached a point where we have the technology to accomplish this. Early on it was about technical achievements. It was about figuring out how to design a super-tall building to stand at all. Now we have the technology and we can look to incorporate architectural aesthetics in these buildings in a much more integrated way. This building embodies the integrated design process. The skin, the structure, the façade, its all designed to increase the efficiency of the building. The way this works you have got this aerodynamic shape and every 14 floors you have what is called an outrigger truss. That acts like your shoulder. The outrigger trust broadens the base of the building. The broader the base the better it supports itself. A big tall thin building will move more than a tall broad building. What that enables us to do is create a double skin. We built a space between the inner skin and what’s really the façade of the building. That creates a sky garden. That sky garden acts as thermal buffer so you don’t have the climate coming right to the face of the building. What that means is that instead of having a completely opaque building you have a clear one. Most skycrapers are essentially opaque to the outside because of the high reflectivity of their windows, a necessity to limit solar heat gain. With the Shanghai Tower, because the façade is not in direct contact with the outside, we could make it completely transparent. For the first time in super-tall buildings you will be able to see occupants in the sky gardens, and you get a strong visual connection not only from the inside but also from the outside. With other buildings it is like wearing sunglasses. When you are the street you have no idea what’s going on inside.
These experiential sustainable practices are so important to the industry especially with architecture. We have the ability to improve energy efficiency and use daylighting controls, but if we can bring a noticeable change to a building that the tenants will see and feel, that is really the future.
EBS: There has always been an issue of how to make buildings green and look good? How do you combine sustainable building and building aesthetics?
Peter: You have heard of the term “vertical city”. This is the first time I think we have actually seen that truly realized. There have been other projects that have claimed to be a vertical city but you can’t really have a vertical city if the building is not transparent. You can imagine that there is quite a contradiction as the building is in China, which is seen as closed. Its communist and this project is open, transparent.
EBS: Thank you so much for meeting and discussing the future of sustainability in China.
— The EBS Team —
January 8, 2010
by Environmental Building Strategies
in Energy, Green Building
Tags: energy, Green Building, West Coast Green
I recently attended the West Coast Green conference in San Francisco and came out enthused and confused.
I was enthused about the progress the green buildingindustry is making. That over 14,000 people from all over the country came to learn about the new innovations in green building is huge for an industry, which in many ways, is in its infancy.
I listened to speakers from all sides of the business, real estate experts, government officials, green building consultants, and contractors to list only a few. They all provided interesting insights on where the industry was and should be going and a bit about it how it was going to get there.
There were also more numbers thrown around than a mathematician could handle. The amount of the money that was being directed to the industry from the stimulus bill, CO2 reduction goals, energy efficiency performance goals, and more and more goals.
One thing I didn’t hear enough of was specific ways to connect money to goals. People were so excited to learn that the government was finally sending money their way they forgot to ask how it would actually be implemented and with what oversight.
After the opening remarks I decided to spend the next three days focusing on one thing, how to get actual changes implemented. I decided to break down this task into two areas. First, I would focus on how conferences like this could teach and encourage people to start changing the built environment to stop negatively effecting the natural environment. Secondly, I wanted to know how to get money to these newly educated people to carry out the ideas they learned.
Interview with an Environmental Consultant
To figure out how conferences like West Coast Green affect change I decided to talk to a presenter who led a session at the conference. Matt Macko is a principal at the San Francisco based green building consulting firm Environmental Building Strategies. He led a session titled Deep Retrofits of Commercial Buildings along with Jose Guevara, Property Manager at Cushman & Wakefield of California, Inc.
CleanTechies: What was your talk focused on?
Matt: I discussed the potential to flip the current green building conversation from its current state, littered with defensive reactionary discussions mostly focused only on conservation, to one where we work on the offensive to create demand in the marketplace around sustainable decision making. I targeted some economic and financial evaluations that a handful of firms are providing their clients as highlights of the quality work being done in the sustainability industry.
CleanTechies: What were the three most important things you think people got out of your talk?
Matt: People walked away with an understanding that demand must be created to tip the marketplace in order to meet our GHG goals. They also left with a better understanding of the financial value that can be derived through intelligent sustainable decision making. Lastly, they should have walked away understanding that investing in energy efficiency is as at least as lucrative if not more profitable than investing in Google.
CleanTechies: How do you think people will use the information you gave them to improve the green building industry?
Matt: I hope to generate more intelligent conversations around how we value “green.” If I had one main objective to relay it would be that we have the tools to prove the value of sustainability but we are just not doing a good enough job to date. I hope from there people will find ways to carry the message along and encourage others to join the movement.
CleanTechies: What is the focus of your firm’s work and how are you trying to change the conversation?
Matt: My firm focuses on making the business case for sustainability. We are a consultancy that uses tools such as discounted cash flow and energy models to prove the value of energy efficient decisions to our clients. Many of our clients come to us looking for efficiency through the LEED process. Our development of the LEED EDGE tool has helped several firms realize significant efficiency gains through making the LEED Certification process easy and virtually paperless.
Why I was confused?
Throughout the three days, and from almost every person I talked to, people had an encouraging outlook on the future of green building. They cited the mass amounts of money headed its way and they mentioned the new standards mandated by the government as proof that green building is here to stay.
One of the most exciting talks I heard was Panama Bartholomy’s talk on “Greening Existing Buildings: The Biggest Piece of the Low Carbon Puzzle.”
In it he mentioned the importance of the existing building retrofit market on reaching all of the carbon emissions goals being sent down from the politicos in Washington and Sacramento. He also outlined where some of the stimulus money was headed, but very little about how exactly it was going to be used or who was in charge of oversight.
I wouldn’t call it lack of foresight but clearly the infrastructure is not ready for all the money flowing in, though there are signs of life. Panama mentioned one specific financing optioned that would encourage homeowners to improve their home’s energy performance. PACE districts allow homeowners to implement energy efficient measures with no upfront cost to them. They pay for the measures with increased property taxes, which should be more than offset by the resulting energy savings.
Some recent success.
Joe Biden recently announced his contribution to the movement. He asked the Council Of Environmental Quality, earlier this year, to come up with a study on how the government could guide the development of a home energy efficiency retrofit market. They produced the “Recovery Through Retrofit” report. It offered several recommendations: more access to information for homeowners, more transparent and accessible financing, and a plan for worker training.
All these things are necessary and important but this report fails in going far enough in its scope. It doesn’t hash out any programs or concrete plans on how to bring all of its recommendations to fruition.
The “Retrofit Ramp-Up”, a program recently drawn up to fund retrofit programs, has started receiving applications for qualified projects to receive funding but this program also has its flaws. It helps facilitate funding but only for those who go looking for it and have the knowledge and expertise to get it.
Compare this approach to the one the government has taken with auto industry. The government does not offer funding to improve average MPG of automakers’ fleets to meet more stringent standards; instead they mandate the new standards. Why couldn’t the government take more of a hard-line approach, similar to this example, with the existing home and building retrofit market? I like the idea of money going to the right people but couple that with some mandated standards that have teeth, then everyone will be forced to see what they sometimes are too stubborn to realize, that green building can save them money.
My solution.
California already has a leg up on most states and could act as an example for the nation to follow. State government officials could begin by using the power of AB 1103 to get ENERGY STAR scores for all commercial buildings in the State.
The “Recovery Through Retrofit” report also called for an ENERGY STAR program for homes to be created, which could provide later structure to update this solution.
After compiling all of the ENERGY STAR scores, the government could mandate and directly fund the retrofit of the worst buildings, possibly the lowest 10% of ENERGY STAR scores. These buildings would then go through an energy audit where the best energy conservation measures could be identified.
Payback could be formulated in either of two ways. Either the government could get paid back with the energy savings resulting from the increased efficiency or they could increase property taxes and have the building owner get the energy savings, similar to PACE districts. In both cases retrofits would be mandated, but the key is that these changes would not cost a dime in the end.
Energy savings in these wasteful buildings would be very high and would easily pay for the retrofits within a couple of years. The government could then use the projects as an example of the potential of the industry, further enticing interest and generating new projects. These projects would also create numerous jobs. Connected to the program would have to be a mandated education curriculum to get contractors up to speed on how to implement the upgrades. This education would further improve the future of the retrofit industry by increasing the stock of qualified workers.
— The EBS Team —
January 5, 2010
by Environmental Building Strategies
in Energy, Green Building
Tags: Energy, Government Mandates, Green Building
This article was written and submitted by Chris Birk
D.C.’s Green Building Dilemma
By Chris Birk of www.suretybonds.com/edu
When it passed in 2006, Washington, D.C.’s Green Building Act was heralded as an innovative way to incorporate green efficiencies into private and public building projects.
But not everyone was thrilled, especially surety companies — the industry that issues bonds that guarantee work and protect taxpayer and private dollars. Three years later, there’s still a bit of a battle brewing that could jeopardize the course of green building in the District of Columbia and perhaps beyond.
At issue is the idea of a “green” performance bond. In general, performance bonds are a standard risk-management tool and a part of most building projects across the country. They basically guarantee that a contractor performs the job up to code and contract.
Usually, these are the standard fare — surety underwriters examine a contractor’s finances, experience, cash flow and ability to get the job done. Then, they examine the contract to see what specific industry standards are supposed to be met. If everything fits, the surety typically issues a performance bond.
But green building introduces a new, scary wrinkle for surety companies. A contract that demands a contractor achieve a certain degree of efficiency — say, for a decline in carbon dioxide emissions or water efficiency — likely requires certification by a third party, like the U.S. Green Building Council.
That raises immediate red flags for a surety. They’re on the hook financially if a contractor fails to perform. The question is, can they be liable if a contractor fails to achieve the necessary level of energy efficiency — if, for example, carbon dioxide emissions aren’t eliminated to the required level.
That’s a major reason why most surety companies refrain from bonding a contractor when a contract requires specific energy efficiencies or any type of third-party certification.
But that’s the law as written in Washington. The new regulation, which takes full effect in 2012, mandates that projects that fall short of green building standards have to pay claims into a city fund dedicated to green building.
Needless to say, the surety industry has been up in arms over the provision.
After months of back and forth, industry leaders and D.C. officials are working on a compromise while re-examining the law’s language. A public hearing regarding the issue was slated to be held on Dec. 14.
Without a compromise, contractors and project developers in D.C. might have to shoulder more risk than ever before. And that could have serious repercussions for building, not just in the District but across the country.
— The EBS Team —
November 24, 2009
by Environmental Building Strategies
in Energy
Tags: Cap and Trade, Energy, Green Building
As debate heats up around the proposals for clean energy legislation in Congress, one of the main points of contention is the amount of money it will cost. More specifically, everyone wants to know how the average American household will be impacted by the respective energy bills in the House (Waxman-Markey’s American Clean Energy and Security Act) and the Senate (Kerry-Boxer’s Clean Energy Jobs and American
Power Act). This article will investigate the change in energy prices one can expect from legislation that could be passed within the coming months, and try to sift through the wide discrepancy in figures that are being tossed around. Then some recommendations will be presented as to how energy usage can be reduced, to preempt any anticipated rises in cost.
How much will it cost?
How much more money per year should a typical American household expect to pay if clean energy legislation were to pass? Depending on where one gets their information from, this figure varies hundreds of dollars!
It helps to learn where the information is coming from. Analyzing the House’s proposal, the U.S. Government’s Environmental Protection Agency found that, “the overall impact on the average household, including the benefit of many of the energy efficiency provisions in the legislation, would be 22 to 30 cents per day ($80 to $111 per year).” Meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the cost to be about $175 per household. On the other hand, an August report by the conservative Heritage Foundation claims that “a typical family of four will pay, on average, an additional $829 each year for energy-based utility costs” after the passage of Waxman-Markey.
Although it may be difficult to agree on how many more dollars Americans can expect to pay from clean energy legislation, nearly every study concurs on one fact – we can expect energy prices to increase in the future with the passage of a clean energy act. For anyone in the country paying utility bills, from homeowners to property managers to retail owners, this means they can expect to see their electricity prices rise.
So what should we do? Fight legislation?
Hardly. Aside from ecological and health arguments for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and mitigating global climate change, there would be catastrophic impacts on the world’s economy were we to proceed at our current pace of fossil fuel consumption. In fact, most scientists argue that we need to take much more drastic and strict measures at combating climate change than even the more ambitious proposals worldwide are suggesting – meaning many feel that the House and Senate acts would not go far enough in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, fighting any attempt at curbing greenhouse gas emissions (such as stymieing clean energy legislation or not participating in international climate talks) is near-sighted and irresponsible, because of the enormous toll we would be placing on our future’s environment and economy. The current House and Senate proposals may not be perfect, but they are a step in the right direction – so let’s not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
A better solution: Energy efficiency!
A better solution: start using less electricity and less energy as we make the shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy. The best way to do this is by reducing energy demand and using energy more efficiently. How does one do that?
A good place to start is with an energy audit of a building, which analyzes the energy usage of a building and recommends measures to improve efficiency. These are often done for free or at a discounted rate by a utility company. Another option is to hire a certified Home Energy Rater, who typically use high-end equipment to thoroughly diagnose a building’s efficiency. It is up to the user to implement the recommend improvements once the audit is complete.
Another recommendation is to have the systems of the building commissioned. Commissioning entails hiring a commissioning agent to come inspect elements of the building – such as the HVAC system, lighting, water heating – and make sure they are all operating at maximum efficiency and as they were intended to do. Then the agent will make the adjustments to correct any deficiencies and have the systems running at optimal performance levels.
For a larger building or commercial space (such as an office or retail store), one can attempt to implement an overhaul in operations and management that will demand less energy use by the individuals occupying the space. There are several programs that exist which provide guidelines for instituting these changes, which include such recommendations as switching to more efficient appliance to informing building occupants about energy-saving techniques.
In any approach, it is important to use the tools and information available and put them to use. Whether this is the latest in IT or simply common sense that should be shared, applying intelligence to our system of energy consumption will reap huge rewards.
—The EBS Team—
Recent Comments