Modest proposal for combating climate change
Robert Cassidy, Editor-in-Chief -- Building Design & Construction, 11/1/2007 12:00:00 AM
We're putting too much emphasis on greening new buildings as the solution to climate change. Seven years into LEED for New Construction, only 833 buildings have been certified; another 5,595 are registered. LEED for Existing Buildings has touched fewer than 700 projects. That leaves millions of existing nonresidential buildings and 125 million housing units unaccounted for.
So, what can we do to cut greenhouse gas emissions that's relatively inexpensive, fast, and effective? Some thoughts:
1. Do the easy things first. What would happen if we bumped up the insulation and R-value in half—or a quarter, or a tenth—of the existing buildings in the U.S.? How much energy would that save?
What if we really pushed compact fluorescents? We don't have to ban incandescent bulbs. Just replace, say, 15-20% of them with CFLs. This last year, Chicago gave away 500,000 CFLs to encourage people to give them a try. Why can't we extend that concept nationally?
Better still, what can we do to encourage people to turn off lights (and computers, and A/C systems) that aren't being used? Harvard University trains 80 undergrad “green ambassadors” a year to talk to fellow students about cutting energy waste in the residence halls. The result: a 15% savings in electricity bills. Just turn off the light!
Windows! How much wasted energy (and resulting greenhouse gases) are seeping out of the billions of windows in our buildings? How much would we save if we replaced, say, 10% of them with more efficient units? Ditto for doors.
2. Encourage building commissioning. Commissioning pays off. Evan Mills, PhD, a highly respected researcher at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, has shown that commissioning an older building costs 27 cents/sf and will reveal 11 deficiencies; the payback period: nine months. Commissioning a new building will turn up 28 deficiencies, at a cost of $1.00/sf (4.8-year payback)—but much of that cost can be made up in reduced change orders.
Most existing buildings are energy hogs and need fine-tuning, and many new buildings are replete with design and construction shortcomings that commissioning would find. Yet only about 1% of buildings are commissioned, according to the U.S. Energy Department. A lost opportunity.
3. Save existing buildings.We're too eager in this country to tear down and replace buildings. We need to reconsider the practical effect of throwing away all that embodied energy—and cost. Of course, structurally unsafe buildings do need to be demolished. But too many salvageable structures are being torn down without considering how they might be reused. The old adage “waste not, want not” still carries weight.
4. Encourage density.Not in our thinking, but in our landscape. Instead of “location, location, location,” we need to think “concentrate, concentrate, concentrate.” That's the only way we're going to cut down our excessive commuting miles, with all the resulting waste and emissions they produce. “Density” is going to have to be the new mantra in the next decade.
-
Finally someone like Robert Cassidy, Editor-in-Chief of Building Design and Construction says something logical. Its as if the whole design team is off and runnig without a game plan. If we just step back and think about the whole LEED program we only have 700 buildings certified in 7 years this is going no where fast. If we consider the global implications which we all want to talk global then we are only the tip of the pin not even the pin head in the whole global aspect of energy. I see China will surpass the US in three years or less in oil consumptiom but they and many other countries have not come to the table as of yet. We are generations from cutting our needs for energy. I started in the construction industry in the mid 1960's and have seen the building envelopes go from simple brick and block with plaster on the inside face with single glazed glass to R-11 walls and R-19 roofs in the mid 1970's to R-21 walls and R-30 to R-40 roof with Low e glazing that has cut the eneryg consumption to almost 10% of what it was 40 years ago. We do keep beating a dead horse and I commend Robert Cassidy for bringing to lite the existing buildings that are just sucking energy out every where. As in all business unless we get some kind of substantial incentive from the Tax man we will not as a country come around. It is still all about the money and as long as business can pass along the cost of energy they will do it. As far as commisssioning I have a complete chapter and verse on this issue, that I will not go into.
Walt Mager - 2007-10-12 06:48:00 MST -
Even under the best of circumstances, architecture will provide only incremental help to either climate change or energy security. Consider that we have roughly 100 million residences in the US and build about a million more every year. Even if every one of those new homes is 100% green (no emissions, no energy use, and everyone walks to work) it will take 100 years to cut the impact of housing by 50%. And how many are, or could be, 100% green? The number is close to zero.
The picture for commercial buildings is much the same. 60% of architectural work is rehabilitation, yes. But the percentage of existing buildings that undergo major systems rehab every year is still very small compared to those that don't, and the energy savings is typically only 20% below code or less.
This does NOT mean we should not build as green as possible. The solution must rely on all the incremental efforts. But the building industry is in danger of unintentional self-delusion if we believe building can solve, or even have a major impact on the problem.
Architects, engineers, contractors and others in the field who care about the issue must address all the other things they can do or influence. Get out of your SUV. Change your bulbs. Educate your kids. Ride a bike. Talk to your city council. Write your congressman. Move to the city. Walk. Stop mowing your lawn (lawn mowers are 60 times more polluting than the average new car).
As you note, development patterns are more significant than buildings. A recent article in Environmental Building News notes that driving to the office accounts for almost 150% more energy and emissions than the building itself.
Kevin Pierce, AIA, LEED AP - 2007-7-12 14:08:00 MST -
The embodied energy in a residential structure that is, say, 50 years old is so small compared to energy use of that building that it is far far more efficienct to knock the building down and replace it with one that uses half the energy. Most systems in a residence have a lifespan of no more than 75 years; after this time major renovations are required. Might as well replace the building at that time.
David Taylor - 2007-7-12 10:04:00 MST
Is building commissioning worth the cost?
08/13/2009Report: Most data centers are too cold
09/16/2009






























