Green Building Elements

Like this post? Subscribe to our RSS feed and stay up to date.

Relaxation!
Fashion!
Celebrity!
Botox!
Booze!
Interiors!
Green!

Yes, most of this list refers to the Brit series Ab Fab but if Eddy and Patsy turned in their smokes and cocktails for organic and sustainable munchies then they too would be excited for the opening of the Epi Center MedSpa, the first LEED certified MedSpa in the country. (Another LEED spa exists in D.C. but it isn’t a MedSpa). So, because fictional characters from a long ago Brit TV series couldn’t check out this just opened San Fran based spa, I decided that I had to do it. Read the rest of this entry »

Restaurants here in San Francisco open, and close, almost as often as the fog rolls in so we don’t usually pay an extreme amount of our precious attention to another restaurant du jour. Mixt Greens recently opened but they don’t qualify for new kid on the block status nonetheless they do deserve green props. Thus I direct my attention to their third installment of the Mixt Greens empire.

This third location, located in SoMa, just opened and used zero-VOC paints to improve the air quality, and I could definitely smell the food and not the fumes. They even used recycled paint to cover their ceiling. I didn’t find any bamboo or cork for the flooring but something better as they used an unfinished concrete floor with 50% flyash content. That high flyash content along with the fact that the floor will last a long time (plus it’s easy to clean) makes that choice a no-brainer. Read the rest of this entry »

For quite some time now, everyone’s been wondering if “green building” techniques will pay on the real estate market. These days, with the housing market in submarine status, the notion that some sort of green designation might help move empty houses is particularly attractive. This successful local realtor asks a national board:

The builder plans on offering variations of a design depending on the buyer’s price point. We are actively discussing what the buyer will pay for certain green features in this price range. Green has not become big in my Emerald Coast market yet. Suggestions as to what can be recouped and what will sell and what the buyers will pay?

We’re finally starting to get some data.

Read the rest of this entry »

I’ve been away a bit the last couple of weeks which is why you haven’t heard as much from me as usual. I’ve been learning some new things about cars and automotive technology and seeing the latest models being unveiled. I had an opportunity to find out about the new ethanol process and partnership between General Motors and Coskata Inc. that may prove to be a significant milestone in energy production, and signal a reduction in the use of fossil based materials as fuels.

I also attended the North American International Auto Show (more commonly known around here as the Detroit Auto Show) to see what is new in the automotive world. Over at our sister website, Gas 2.0, I’ve written more about Coskata’s technological development in ethanol production, a next generation process for producing ethanol without using corn or other food as feedstock for the process. Even if you hate cars and never drive one, the Coskata process is interesting because, by using different microbes in the bioreactors, other useful alcohols can be produced, including some that are used in the production of plastics (which have applications in buildings and other products). The front end gasification technologies also can be used to deal with municipal waste streams, in some implementations.

Read the rest of this entry »

Green technologies make good sense to most of us, but incomplete or uncoordinated implementation can lead to circumstances where green technologies are not able to provide the full benefits that they can. In some instances, regulatory requirements can even lead to making green technologies counterproductive.

Read the rest of this entry »

The city of the future is not going to be a Jetson-esque collection of bubbles in the air, or towers connected by monorails, or any other radical vision. The city of the future will be more like that in Blade Runner, mostly recognizably familiar older buildings. Most of the city of the future has already been built and is standing. Certainly new buildings will be built. But they need to be made much more efficient than existing buildings. And Architecture 2030 is pressing for architects and the building industry to radically alter their methods of designing and building buildings to address environmental issues.

(The interspersed quotes in this article are taken from the Architecture 2030 "Think You’re Making a Difference?" page.)

Architecture 2030 is a foundation established by architect Ed Mazria in 2002. Mazria famously created the pie chart graph (see illustration) showing that buildings represent 48% of the total energy used in this country. As the largest single segment of energy use, responsible for nearly half of all energy use in the country, buildings need to have more attention paid to them. Architecture 2030 is dedicated to reducing all fossil-fuel, greenhouse-gas-emitting energy use for buildings by 2030, with an immediate 50% reduction (as compared to the typical energy use for particular building types), and phased increases in the reduction percentage until the 100% target is reached in 2030.

Buildings are responsible for more of an impact on the environment than cars or other elements of energy use because they last so long. As you drive around cities in the country, almost all of the vehicles on the road were built within the last 20 years. But the majority of the buildings are at least that old, and many are decades older. Buildings last a long time. They need to be substantial in order to accomplish their purposes. This makes them long-lasting, but they also are slow to adopt new, more efficient technologies. Replacing them is also incredibly expensive and extremely material and energy-intensive. So making sure that our buildings are built efficiently and with an eye to the future is crucial.

For building operations, carbon offsets are one way many people are looking to reduce the impact of their energy use. And while those steps can help to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide, the scale of even large scale efforts dwindles to near insignificance when compared to the amount of carbon that building energy use puts into the atmosphere.

"Home Depot is funding the planting of 300,000 trees in cities across the US to help absorb carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions…

The CO2 emissions from only one medium-sized (500 MW) coal-fired power plant, in just 10 days of operation, will negate this entire effort."

Conservation steps can be helpful. Cutting your lighting energy usage by switching from incandescents to compact fluorescents is a step that many sources strongly advocate. (I’ve even mentioned it once or twice myself.) The energy savings are dramatic, and can cut energy use by more than half. Multiplied across millions of households, this amounts to a huge energy total, but lighting is just a portion of total building energy use.

"If every household in the US changed a 60-watt incandescent light bulb to a compact fluorescent…

The CO2 emissions from just two medium-sized coal-fired power plants each year would negate this entire effort."

Lighting energy reduction is a good first step, but there needs to be more done to build on these improvements. In addition to having all buildings be built to neutral GHG-emissions standards by 2030, they are also calling for an equal amount of existing building area to be renovated to matching levels of efficiency. Many steps are being taken presently to increase the efficiency of existing homes and buildings, but often, these steps are just doing less-bad than they are turning things around to the point of doing good. These are positive steps, certainly. But we need to continue to press for further improvements still.

"Wal-Mart is investing a half billion dollars to reduce the energy consumption and CO2 emissions of their existing buildings by 20% over the next seven years. If every Wal-Mart Supercenter met this target…

The CO2 emissions from only one medium-sized coal-fired power plant, in just one month of operation each year, would negate this entire effort."

Even if all of Architecture 2030’s goals are met, there will still be billions of square feet of buildings that have not been renovated by 2030 that will still be needing fossil-fueled energy supplies for their operation. Joshua Hill’s recent article noted the latest imperative from Architecture 2030 which calls for the elimination of coal as the "silver bullet" necessary to stop global warming. In 20 years, it is possible to begin to make significant changes in our energy infrastructure, so that renewable power sources represent an increasing portion of the energy being generated. Those developments, combined with increasing the energy efficiency of the buildings we are building, can help turn our energy profile to one that does not put such a carbon burden on the environment.

Image source: Architecture 2030

While most of the focus in sustainable building is on energy efficiency, water conservation, and the efficient use of appropriate materials, preserving dark skies is a feature that may not immediately come to mind. But the LEED rating system includes a credit (Sustainable Sites: Light Pollution Reduction) for minimizing light pollution. So why are dark skies an element of green building?

Perhaps the most vocal advocates for dark skies are astronomers, both professionals as well as amateurs. The Bortle Dark-Sky Scale was created by astronomers to evaluate the quality of a dark nighttime sky.

Dark nighttime skies are needed by birds for navigation. Animals (and humans, too) are adapted to the day-night cycle. There have been reports of robins in urban areas that have stopped singing at daybreak because the city never becomes dark enough for the birds to perceive that it has become night.

Of course, part of the issue is the use of appropriately sized and placed lights on a building site to illuminate only the portions of a site that needs to be lit. By reducing the size or number of fixtures, in addition to helping to maintain a dark nighttime sky, a building owner will also pay for fewer fixtures, and will pay less for the electricity to operate those fixtures.

But the security that is the reason for much site lighting may not be the most effective means of providing security for buildings. According to an article in New Yorker magazine:

[L]ighting is effective in preventing crime mainly if it enables people to notice criminal activity as it’s taking place, and if it doesn’t help criminals to see what they’re doing. Bright, unshielded floodlights — one of the most common types of outdoor security lighting in the country — often fail on both counts, as do all-night lights installed on isolated structures or on parts of buildings that can’t be observed by passersby (such as back doors). A burglar who is forced to use a flashlight, or whose movement triggers a security light controlled by an infrared motion sensor, is much more likely to be spotted than one whose presence is masked by the blinding glare of a poorly placed metal halide "wall pack."

Night skies away from the glare of a city can be a fantastic sight. Just as the old growth forests are part of our shared legacy that needs to be protected, being able to enjoy a darker sky is another experience that is being lost to more and more people. Cities will never be completely unlit, and it is highly unlikely that citydwellers in any major city will ever be able to see the Milky Way in the skies over their heads. But darker nights can contribute to energy savings and wildlife health, as well as contributing to better security at night.

via: Bruce Schneier

Links:
DarkSky.org
New Yorker article
Bortle Dark Sky Scale
Dark Sky abstracts of articles about effects on wildlife

Construction, as many of you know by now, is one of the biggest single sources for waste and may be responsible for as much as 30% of the volume used in some landfills. And, because commercial space is turned over more frequently, the interior build-out of office space is one of the biggest sources of construction debris and waste. As companies change their staff, the space they occupy fluctuates, and often old spaces are torn out and new spaces built with different configurations.

Since the spaces in an office are not part of the structure (in most cases), the walls that divide offices and meeting rooms can be relatively quickly disassembled and rebuilt in a new configuration without affecting the building structure. This flexibility appeals to building owners and tenants alike, because space can be easily customized to meet the particular needs of any tenant. But it leads to an awful lot of waste, as well.

A new system of wall construction devised by Sean Dorsy, a graduate architecture student at The Catholic University of America, uses standard 4 x 8 sheets of plywood cut with slots so that the panel can be unfolded like an accordion to make a wall structure to replace standard stud construction.

This wall system provides savings of weight (138 lbs versus 245 lbs), wood (since plywood uses trees more efficiently than 2×4s), and money ($51.89 for the plywod system versus $55.89 for an equivalent section of stud wall). But also, unlike the standard wood stud construction, the system is much easier to disassemble, and therefore easier to re-use when the time comes to reconfigure the space.

A number of office furniture companies produce panelized wall systems that are used to allow businesses and building owners to quickly install and reconfigure spaces. These wall panels are also demountable and reusable, so that a space can be reconfigured rather than demolishing and rebuilding walls to reconfigure space as companies’ needs change or building tenants come and go. In addition to saving materials and reducing waste, these panelized systems are typically quicker to assemble.

Panelized systems have their drawbacks, as well. The look is usually not as nice as a gyp board wall, with more exposed seams and a less refined appearance. They are also frequently covered with vinyl wallcoverings, which have their own environmental costs many people would rather avoid.

Dorsy’s wall system makes somewhat less sense for residential uses, because in most typical home construction some of the interior walls are structural, and the walls are not moved as frequently. Building some walls with standard stud construction and others with the expanded plywood method might turn out to be more costly than having all walls built in the same fashion and from the same materials.

The problem with any system of demountable walls (whether using Dorsy’s system or a commercial panealized wall system or some other scheme) is that interior spaces rarely work out perfectly evenly within a space. If you have 4-foot-wide panels and you need 14 feet of wall, you still end up cutting pieces and producing waste. And then, when the time comes to reconfigure the space again, those already cut pieces are usually seen as waste and are consigned to the landfill at that point. Still, this typically produces less waste than a full build-out and tear-down would create.

via: Architect Magazine

Today was a big day for GM’s concept Chevrolet Volt. First, they announced an official partnership with A123Systems for the creation of the Volt’s batteries, then they told Reuters they had a firm production schedule that includes a 2010 sale date. If they stick to it, it will be the first plug-in electric hybrid from any major manufacturer. GM vice chairman of Global Product Development Bob Lutz announced that GM and A123Systems have agreed to co-develop battery technology for the forthcoming Chevy Volt (and other GM E-Flex vehicles) using A123’s nanophosphate battery technology.

"A123Systems is considered a forerunner in the development of nanophosphate-based cell technology, which, compared to other lithium-ion battery chemistries, provides higher power output, longer life and safer operations over the life of the battery."

This does not necessarily mean that LG Chem is out of the running to supply batteries for the Volt or other GM vehicles. The press release from GM notes that both A123Systems and LG Chem are potential suppliers for E-Flex vehicles. "A123Systems and LG Chem are both top-tier battery suppliers, with proven technologies," said Denise Gray, director of GM’s Energy Storage Devices and Strategies. "We’re confident one, or possibly both of these companies’ solutions will meet our battery requirements for the E-Flex system." But the close cooperation between GM and A123 for the development of batteries specifically for GM’s needs makes it more likely that A123Systems will end up as the major supplier for the final product.

Development of these batteries will, of course, have implications in fields other than just plug-in/hybrid vehicles. Presently, much of A123Systems’ battery production is used for power tools. But ongoing developments in battery technology will have ramifications for all kinds of devices that use portable power from cordless tools to laptop computers and other portable electronics.

After the press conference Reuters caught Lutz, and asked him more specifically about the Volt’s time line. Lutz replied "We’ll have some on the road for testing next spring, and we should have the Volt in production by the end of 2010." That’s the firmest language we’ve yet heard, and the only date currently set by any manufacturer for a plug-in hybrd.

You can find the whole press release in the article at GM-Volt.com.

Hank Green contributed to this article. Cross-posted at EcoGeek.org.

Also on Green Options:

Will GM Revive the Electric Car? Parts 1 and 2.

A couple of my friends have recently asked about the new renewable energy credit program that our local electricity utility, DTE Energy, is now offering. One friend asked me about it directly, and another raised the question on the state mailing list for the o2 Network. There was an interesting discussion about the topic on the 02 list, and I’ve included some of the information that other people shared on that list in this article.

In southeast Michigan, the local electricity company is DTE Energy. Although it has (or had) a number of business units exploring all manner of alternative energy production, DTE has been relatively resistive to including any renewable energy in its portfolio. Despite consumer demand for green energy, DTE has no plans to construct anything, and has been very resistive to connecting alternative producers to its grid. (This is the same company that fought against connecting a wind turbine installed at a local middle school from connecting to the grid.)

Looking at the renewable energy credit (REC) program that DTE is offering, there isn’t much to it. DTE is offering now has two options for residential customers. One is a premium of 2 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) on all electricity used. The other is to buy RECs in blocks of 100 kWh for $2.50 each (2.5 cents per kWh). These are supposed to come from in-state sources, to the greatest extent possible, but DTE has argued that there aren’t many in-state sources available to them.

Michigan’s Pubic Service Commission "Opinion and Order" (PDF) regarding DTE’s program recognizes the comments and criticism about the program and how much (or how little) it will do to encourage the development of renewable energy production in the state of Michigan.

"The primary criticism of the RRP made in the comments centers on the issue of whether and how much the proposed program will encourage development of in-state or in-service-territory renewable resources. Some of the commenters are of the opinion that procuring RECs alone will not prove sufficient to support the development of in-state renewable resources. Other commenters criticize the company’s proposal because Detroit Edison’s only responsibility will be to act as a broker that buys RECs at one price and sells them at a higher price."

The order from MPSC specifically disallows DTE from providing some out-of-state RECs, and has tried to steer the program toward emphasizing in-state energy production as much as possible. A presentation on the Ann Arbor (MI) website notes that "Importing Energy Means Exporting $$$" and goes on to add that 100% of the coal, 96% of the oil, and 75% of the natural gas used in the state is imported. This amounts to an annual outflow of $18 billion from the state. And this is exactly why Michigan (and the rest of the country, too) needs to develop local, renewable energy resources.

As tepid as the DTE program may seem, it’s the only program that I’m aware of that specifically includes funding development of alternative sources of energy in the state of Michigan. On the positive side, some fraction of the proceeds of the REC program will go toward development of in-state renewable energy. And participation in the program serves to indicate consumer interest in the program and a willingness ot pay a premium for green power.

On the downside, this is a company that has demonstrated very little interest in providing green energy for its customers. I’m not sure how much of an effect my participation in the DTE program is going to have towards actual new development. If I want to buy RECs, there are lots of providers around, and many of them are probably competitive with DTE’s rates. The REC program being offered by DTE is unlikely to do much on its own to spur the development of additional in-state sources of renewable energy.

On the other hand, a renewable energy portfolio standard (RPS) would mandate that a certain percentage of a utility’s power come from renewable sources. But that’s a whole further step, and something that some states have, but which the state of Michigan still lacks.

Right now, I’m not signed up with the new DTE program, and I’m not hurrying to do so. Once the portfolio of providers is available, I’ll re-evaluate. And in the meantime, I’m looking for another REC provider that supports renewable energy in-state.