Green Building Elements

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.

Switchgrass: Image Credit: USDA

I'm not that much of an automobile enthusiast. Despite my proximity to the Motor City, I don't pay constant attention to the latest twitches in the auto industry. I take the bus to work, and drive a car only occasionally, usually for errands or to shuttle the kids someplace. But I attended the GM ChallengeX event on behalf of EcoGeek.org and Green Options, and I learned a number of things about where automotive technology is trying to go, and came away excited about new things coming along in the automotive industry.

In addition to the work being done in the ChallengeX competition, GM itself is forging ahead in a number of areas with plans for a wide range of fuel options. Dr. Gary Smyth, one of the GM engineers I had the opportunity to meet over dinner, spoke at length about the fuel mix for automobiles in the future. With increasing demand for vehicles, the issue is not whether, say, switchgrass ethanol or bio-diesel is going to be the magic bullet that addresses the future demand for fuel. Rather, it is going to be a mix of a number of different fuels, all of which are being widely used, that is going to be necessary to keep up with demand, both domestically and internationally. "Displacing petroleum" was the phrase that I heard a number of times throughout the day. GM has evidently seen the writing on the wall and is taking steps to address it.

The configuration of some of GM's cars coming out in the next few years is such that the fuel source does not have to drive the development of the vehicle. With the proposed Chevy Volt, for example, the vehicle is driven by its electric motors and its batteries. Whatever internal combustion engine or fuel cell or something else is under the hood is just to run an electrical generator. The vehicle can get its fuel from whatever source the consumers prefer, and in some cases, as with the current Flex-Fuel vehicles in GM's fleet, it may be possible to use more than one kind of fuel.

GM has set itself on course to use lithium-ion batteries for its forthcoming electric vehicles such as the Chevy Volt. One of the issues with lithium-ion batteries is that they can overheat. There have already been multiple incidents and recalls of laptop computer batteries due to fire hazards from these batteries. The increased energy density means that they are able to provide more useful charge with less weight. But that same energy density also means that the batteries can be more prone to damage from overheating.

One thing that was suggested was for the Volt (and other cars with these batteries) is to have a small solar panel on the car that would provide enough power to operate a circulating fan that could help keep the battery array cooler. This is just one of the many issues that needs to be dealt with and overcome in order to bring the Volt to market. And it is small details such as this that will be the success or failure of the Volt.

I'm much more of an automotive enthusiast than I was a couple of months ago. And I will probably be paying a bit more attention to some of the things going on in the auto industry.

For some other perspectives on the meetings that GM personnel had with several bloggers at the event, see these articles, as well:

Autoblog Green
Podtech.net
GM-volt.com (and also here)
Groovy Green

There are layers upon layers of complex issues to be faced when one deals with a question of grave importance such as, "What coffee should I buy this morning?" Ethics are hard to keep straight when so much of the information about a product is a mix of marketing, spin, and carefully crafted image. The truth is often well concealed (and usually deliberately so). To be a conscientious consumer is not easy, with the marketplace stacked against any revelation of the truth the way that it is.

The Rough Guide to Shopping with a Conscience looks to provide some guidance for getting behind the layers of obfuscation and presents the issues that need to be considered in many of these decisions. The book is divided into three parts. Part I: Issues lays out the alternatives and some of the standards for ethical decisions. Part II: Products & companies goes through different categories in more detail. And Part III: Find out more deals briefly with sources for further information.

The Issues section looks at five approaches to ethical decisionmaking: Going green, Fair trade, Boycotts, Selective shopping, and Buying locally. The authors recognize the complexities in all of these issues, and point out the (sometimes conflicting and contradictory) arguments that can be made about deciding one way or another. In most circumstances, they lay out the different viewpoints, but do not offer any definitive answer, because no such solution exists.

"Once you start thinking about all the positive and negative implications of what you buy and use, it quickly becomes clear that there's no one-size-fits-all approach — no simple list of moral checks and crosses. For one thing, there are always conflicting priorities. Is it better, for instance, to support the local independent cafe around the corner, or buy a fairly traded cup from the global chain across the road? Is it "ethical" to favor local products — doing your bit to limit envionmentally harmful transportation — or does that mean harming impoverished countries that are eager to export?"

The middle section on Products & companies collects information about all manner of products and services, and examines the various concerns and tradeoffs involved in searching for the most ethical choice in a given category. More detailed discussion of particular issues for a given topic. Food is a multifaceted topic, and the discussion includes issues such as the use of antibiotics, by catch in fishing, organic standards (and alternatives to the 'organic' label), vegetarianism and the humane treatment of animals, genetically modified organisms, and more are all discussed.

For example, in many cases, the terms we think are indicative of preferred products may not be as meaningful as we believe. "Free range" poultry, for example, conjures a vision of chickens wandering a barnyard, but "in theory, a coop or stall door could be opened for five minutes a day to satisfy such minimal requirements." We can make well-meaning choices, but what we are actually supporting may be a very different thing. It is difficult to know all of these things, because so much energy is spent to convince us of some beautiful image, rather than the truth of the situation. With fuller knowledge, we can make more meaningful choices.

Clothing, money matters, household goods (including cleaning products, furniture, toys, and more), and transportation are all covered in greater depth, as well. Most topic areas have a few listings for websites of suppliers and producers of products or sources for further information.

The final Find out more section is a brief collection of resources for gathering further information and a little bit of information about how to research a company. The websites and books and magazines listed may have some usefulness, but this is more of an addendum than a crucial part of the book.

There is a lot of good information in this book. It is less the sort of thing one should read cover to cover than it is a reference to keep on hand. If many of these concepts are still fresh with you, it is likely to be too much to absorb all at once. The authors do a very good job of pointing out the differing opinions and the tradeoffs involved in these choices, because none of this is black and white. Rather than feeding pat answers, this is a book that will prick at your conscience, and help you to address those decisions you make as a consumer and as a citizen with more thought and care.

You are most likely already aware of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), and know that FSC certified lumber is preferred for use in green construction because it is sustainably managed and harvested. It also has a chain of custody reporting system that ensures that everyone in the processing chain is following the correct procedures with their materials sourcing and their handling of the material. However, construction is not the only place where you will find FSC certified products.

The printing industry is another huge user of wood and forest products. And, as with construction uses, FSC is heavily involved in promoting sustainable practices for printing and paper-making uses. In order to use the FSC trademark on a product, the producer must be a member of FSC. Every step of the way, from the management of the forest and the cutting of the trees, through the pulping of the wood and the manufacture of the paper must meet FSC guidelines, and the product produced carries a certificate that has been independently verified by a third-party source. For a printer to use the FSC trademark on a catalog, for example, they need to be certified themselves as FSC chain-of-custody certificate holders.

"It's what drove local faucet-maker Moen Inc. to ask St. Ives (a printing company) to print catalogs on FSC-certified paper. As a supplier to the construction industry, which is becoming increasingly green, it's important that Moen demonstrate it's doing its part." Another landmark coming this summer, Scholastic Inc. is also going to be using FSC paper for at least 65% of its initial printing of the seventh book in the Harry Potter series.

As more and more people are learning is the case with green building, printing with FSC paper is not necessarily more expensive. Many kinds of FSC certified paper also contain some recycled content, but because paper degrades as it is recycled, some virgin wood pulp needs to be used to provide the necessary strength. FSC works to ensure that the stock for that comes from sustainable sources.

According to the FSC website, "Over the past 12 years, over 84 million hectares in more than 82 countries have been certified according to FSC standards while several thousand products are produced using FSC certified wood and carrying the FSC trademark. FSC operates through its network of National Initiatives in 40 countries."

via: Ann Arbor News and Newhouse News Service

Links:
Forest Stewardship Council

FSC Paper