Archive for March, 2009

 

Just to keep our clients updated, we like to publish the latest price increase updates. I help to motivate new movement to renewable energy , and it helps bring a smile to the face of existing Greencon customers who have made the changes.Here is the latrst atricle from “The Business Day”:

Eskom is likely to apply to the National Energy Regulator of SA (Nersa) for a 34% increase in electricity tariffs for the coming year, well down on the 88% it was contemplating just a few weeks ago.

The 34%, mainly to cover increases in operating costs rather than the cost of its new build programme, would be roughly in line with the real increase of about 25% a year agreed on at last year’s National Electricity Summit and takes account of the damage an excessive hike could do to an economy expected to show hardly any growth this year.

It is understood the proposed increase follows talks in the government in which the Department of Public Enterprises — which as Eskom’s shareholder department favoured the 88% increase for the coming year, and 54% for the next — was persuaded to settle for less. The Treasury, which is believed to have argued for a lower increase, has already agreed to inject R60bn of capital into Eskom over three years and to guarantee R176bn of new and existing debt.

Though it is Nersa that decides tariffs, Eskom needs the government’s support for whatever increase it applies for.

Eskom’s board is due to meet this week on its application, which was originally supposed to go to Nersa in October. Time is running out because the current tariff determination expires tomorrow, and Nersa has to hold public hearings before deciding on the next, three-year, tariff determination.

Eskom chairman Bobby Godsell said yesterday Eskom was likely to submit its application soon, but emphasised that the board had made no decisions on the application. He declined to comment on what the increases might be. He said Eskom’s goals were to get to cost-reflective tariffs as quickly as possible and keep its build programme online, but it was aware of the effect high increases would have and wanted to limit these to what it needed to meet its goals.

Eskom has been seeking a price for electricity that would recover the full operating cost of providing it. “We think that is important, not only for Eskom itself, but also to allow independent power producers to produce electricity and co-generators to sell in the market at a realistic price. It is also important for demand-side management — because the most sensible way to promote energy efficiency is to have electricity realistically priced,” Godsell said. Eskom’s objective was also to proceed with its R343bn build programme, part of SA’s economic stimulus package. “It would not be in the national interest to delay or slow the programme,” Godsell said.

Eskom is building two coal-fired base-load power stations, each of which is now expected to cost more than R100bn and will start generating power only from 2011, as well as some smaller stations. The company is expected to post a loss for the current financial year, and its balance sheet will be under pressure for the next couple of years as it burns cash on the build programme, which will provide the electricity SA needs if it is to avoid the shortages that were the major factor in last year’s power crisis. Eskom had long argued that electricity prices had to double in real terms to reflect the true cost of producing power, and after the power crisis it asked for a 60% increase. Following the African National Congress-inspired electricity summit, which brought together business, the government, labour and Eskom, and public hearings at Nersa, the regulator agreed to a total increase of 27,5%, indicating that increases of 20%-25% a year were projected over the next three years.

Eskom is now said to need a 32% increase just to cover higher operating costs, and to the extent that tariffs fall short of what it needs, it will have to borrow more.

University of Cape Town professor Anton Eberhard warned yesterday that if tariff increases were much less than 80%, Eskom would not have what it needed for new investment. “I f we don’t bite the bullet (of) tariff increases, the consequence will be to threaten investment and security of supply.”

Keep it Green

Greencon

 

 

 

Photo: Ingenhoven Architects        
      
      
     
Although North American green building practices and technology have come a long way in the past 15 years, it’s my opinion, based on my research in Western Europe and the United Kingdom for my forthcoming book, Green Building Trends: Europe, that Western European architects, engineers, and builders are ahead of us in the widespread use of passive design techniques, integrating solar power into building design, and producing low-energy buildings.

Consider, for example, the Solar Office at Doxford International Business Park, near Sunderland, on the northeast coast of England. Designed by David Lloyd Jones and Studio E Architects, it is a low-energy office building whose entire south-facing façade is composed of building-integrated photovoltaics (BIPVs) manufactured by Germany’s Schüco and capable of generating a peak power of 73 kW. The expected annual net energy use of the 4,600-sm (49,500-sf) building is 115 kWh per square meter (10.6 kWh per square foot). Completed in 1998 (more than 10 years ago!), it was the first speculatively constructed office building to incorporate BIPVs, and its solar façade was the largest constructed in Europe up to that time. This is the kind of design innovation that we’re only just beginning to see, and only infrequently, in the U.S. and Canada.

This example of a highly integrated sustainable office building from more than a decade ago, developed for strictly commercial use, raises some interesting questions. For example, what do the Europeans know (and do) that we don’t know (and should be doing), and why? What are some fundamental differences in the way Europeans and Americans or Canadians approach sustainable design? When comparing the driving forces for sustainability in Europe and North America, it is instructive to consider the experiences and perspectives of leading practitioners, some of whom have practiced in both regions.

John Echlin is an American architect and former president of an architecture firm in Portland, Ore., who worked in Switzerland for two firms over a period of seven years in the 1990s. “What drives buildings in the U.S. are free-market conditions and private development,” he told me. “There’s no doubt that in Europe what drives things are essentially culture and public benefit. In the U.S., we typically build buildings to last 20 years and don’t really think much beyond that. But in Europe the cultural norm is really to build permanently. Because of that, all building strategies relate to finding the most permanent solution. It tends to drive efficiency in operations and promote design approaches that make multiple uses out of single elements.”

The basic conclusion I draw from my recent research in Western Europe and the United Kingdom is that, while there are climatic, cultural, political, and economic differences between Europe and North America that influence how designers and contractors on each side of the Atlantic approach sustainable building, North American Building Teams are going to see dramatic changes in building envelopes, ventilation, space conditioning, climate control, and energy-generating and -conserving systems over the next five years. Many of these technologies, systems, and products will derive from current practices in Western and Northern Europe, especially those found in Germany and the United Kingdom.

What kinds of innovations and practices will we see? A 2006 study of green offices built in the United Kingdom in the 1990s offers a laundry list of green measures that have been incorporated in U.K. projects about a decade earlier than in the U.S.:

• On-site renewable energy, especially solar and geothermal
• External solar shading devices
• Atrium space integrated with the climate management system
• Triple glazing (typically one outer layer and a double-skin inner layer)
• Operable windows
• Use of water (with its far-higher heat capacity) instead of air for cooling
• Radiant cooling systems, including chilled beams and chilled ceilings
• Façade venting for natural ventilation
• Shallow (or narrow) floor plans, offering daylighting to all workspaces
• Mixed-mode ventilation, using thermal chimneys whenever possible
• BIPVs
• Rain capture and water recycling

Bruce Kuwabara is a Canadian architect whose firm, KPMB Architects, Toronto, designed the Canadian embassy in Berlin. Here is what he told interviewer Friedrich H. Dassler, in the German publication Intelligente Architektur (2007), about what it’s like to design a building in Germany versus doing so in Canada: “Frankly, the difference is so great that one wonders whether we inhabit the same world. No one talks about designing a sustainable building in Berlin because it is so ingrained in the culture. Water management and recycling are fundamental to every project, not just as demonstrations but also as law. It was also clear to us how exterior building enclosures have been the subject of tremendous technical and, indeed, aesthetic development in Europe.” He points out, for example, that certain types of glass in large sizes are only available in Europe.
“We know that things are changing here,” he continues. “We see European manufacturers of curtain walls, for example, penetrating the North American market on high-profile public projects.”

Architect John Echlin also has had a foot in both worlds. “Façade design and double-skin façades are certainly important in Europe, and I think there’s a lot of experimentation being done here in the U.S. based on those [innovations]. The whole notion of passive solar and active systems, the active façade, is coming directly from Europe. With essentially all of these things [that we associate with European design], we’re on a learning curve, whereas they’ve been doing them for 20 years.”

Architect James Andrews, an associate principal at the well-known green design firm Overland Partners, in San Antonio, Texas, was educated in the U.K. and worked there from 1990 to 2002. “[As architectural students], we studied engineering and buildings like the Houses of Parliament that had early central heating and mechanical air systems,” he recalls. “With that as a background, the whole collaboration with engineers becomes part of the course of architecture. When you look at some of the eminent architects today, like [Norman] Foster, [Nicholas] Grimshaw, and [Richard] Rogers, you see how they begin very early on approaching new mechanical, plumbing, [and] electrical strategies for the buildings. Doing that has a huge impact on their form and in the way that they create space. They try and take as much advantage as they can of natural light.”

Andrews concludes: “Between the development of mechanical systems and the harvesting of natural light, those are two real drivers in Europe that were not as important in the everyday commercial architecture in the U.S. until the [advent] of LEED.”

Dr. Katy Janda is an American academic currently at Oxford University; her research focuses on understanding how different countries are planning for low-carbon futures. “One of the big differences between the U.S. and the U.K. is that there’s more emphasis on green in the U.S. and less on energy efficiency. In the U.K., the primary push for making change in the building stock is the CO2 reduction target. The government set a reduction target of 60% (compared with 1990) by 2050. That really galvanizes a response, whereas our federal government has not made any such commitment.”

Moreover, says Janda, in response to recent evidence on increasing levels of greenhouse gases, the newly formed UK Department of Energy and Climate Change has upped the target to an 80% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050. “From an American perspective, that’s just crazy,” she says, referring to such a target’s political and economic acceptability. “Obviously, the primary push for sustainability in the U.K., in my experience, tends to be more focused on carbon reductions and adaptability.”

The notion of long-term adaptability ties in with the evolution of much current American thinking about green buildings being autonomous with respect to energy and water needs, using primarily on-site systems. The respective roles of regulation and market forces are quite different in Europe from what we expect in the U.S. and Canada. That’s one of the fundamental current differences that are likely to converge over the next five years, as the U.S. and Canada face up to the carbon reduction challenge. Generally speaking, in Europe, and especially in the U.K., people expect their governments to regulate, so government incentives for energy-efficient buildings are less prevalent there than they are in the U.S., or even in Canada.

What can we in the U.S. and Canada make of all this? My bottom line for American architects, engineers, planners, and builders is this: Get with the sustainability program as currently practiced in Europe, or risk becoming obsolete and uncompetitive. A design convergence is occurring in the developed countries, based on common concerns about climate change and future-proofing buildings for an era of climate change, more expensive energy, and carbon neutrality. Each successful example of a well-designed, aesthetically pleasing low-carbon building gives rise to dozens of imitators. Building Teams that fail to figure out how to use the kinds of technologies and innovative design approaches already in place in Europe are going to fall behind competitors who do, both in project awards and in the ability to attract and keep the talent that every design and construction firm needs to stay competitive.

By Jerry Yudelson, PE, MBA, LEED AP

 

Keep it Green 

Greencon 

 

 

 

Although there’s no standard definition for an environmentally responsible office, most people would define it in common sense terms: a work space that uses the least amount of energy and other resources, creates the least amount of waste, and provides a healthy environment for the people working there.

The idea that being green requires untold expense and inconvenience is a fallacy born of stereotypes: that environmental responsibility in business (or in life) demands doing without, sacrificing convenience, and buying premium-priced products that may be inferior to their conventional (and cheaper) countertypes. True, there are some poor-quality, pricey green products out there, but that’s no different from the rest of the marketplace.

In reality, “green” can often mean better, and sometimes cheaper. In the case of offices, going green can cut costs, improve efficiency, and create more pleasant—and sometimes more productive—workplaces. Some, but not all, activities may require making financial investments that pay themselves back over time, but many of the changes are free, requiring mostly operational and behavioral changes. Of course, that’s easier said than done.

Here are the three categories of environmental improvements with the biggest bang for the buck. Some of these can be done by individuals; others require organizational involvement.

1. Energy and Lighting. Commercial buildings consume more than one third of all energy generated in the U.S. and energy use is the largest operating expense (about one third of the budget) of commercial office buildings. There are myriad ways to use energy more efficiently. First and foremost is lighting. Fluorescent and LED (light-emitting diode) bulbs not only provide more lumens per watt but also produce less heat, thereby reducing air conditioning costs. Newer electronic transformers and ballasts that run tube-type fluorescent bulbs are far more efficient than older electromagnetic fluorescents. Bonus: they also eliminate the bulbs’ annoying flicker. According to a recent study by the Canadian government, the annual operating cost for a standard two-lamp electronic fixture costs $2.89 Canadian (about $2.26 USD) a year per square meter, compared with $5.29 Canadian ($4.14 USD) for conventional fluorescents. Based on those figures, a 50,000-square-foot (4,645-square-meter) building with efficient lighting would save $11,148 a year ($8,720 USD) in energy costs. Adding occupancy sensors, which turn lights off when no one’s around, and other lighting controls can cut costs even further.

Of course, there are all those machines: computers, printers, modems, telephones, fax machines, scanners…. Many remain powered up 24/7, despite the fact that they’re used only a few hours (or minutes) a day. Look for Energy Star computers, which must meet strict energy-efficiency requirements developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE). Buying an Energy Star computer helps save energy by 70 percent over conventional models and could save up to $50 annually per machine.

To maximize those savings, plug office machines into a power strip that can be turned off (or will switch off automatically); the transformers in most machines’ AC adapters draw power continuously, even when the machines are not in use, or even when they’re not plugged into the adapter. And don’t rely on computers’ screen savers to save energy—they don’t.2. Paper Use. Reducing paper use is a no-brainer, when you consider paper’s real cost. A study by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and Citigroup estimated that the real  price tag of a $2 ream of office paper is 31 times that—$62—when you add in the costs of paper storage, printing, copying, recycling, disposal and postage. So, saving paper has a multiplier effect—and not just financially: The pulp and paper industry is the second-largest consumer of energy in the U.S. and uses more water to produce a ton of product than any other industry.

There are countless paper-saving tips, starting with the obvious: Don’t print unless you must. If you do print, use both sides of the page or print drafts on the blank side of already printed documents.

Whatever paper you do use, recycle if possible. Recycling white and mixed office paper can be profitable. It eliminates waste-disposal costs, as many recyclers will haul the paper for free, because they can resell it in recycling markets. A 150-person office can generate 23 tons of the stuff in the course of a year, saving up to $3,900, according to a 2000 study by a New York City government agency, although prices fluctuate over time and from region to region.

3. Travel and Commuting. Getting to and from work or traveling to business meetings represents the biggest part of some companies’ environmental footprint, in terms of the energy used and pollution generated. In the U.S., roughly a third of total greenhouse gas emissions stem from automobile, air, train and bus travel. Both business travel and employee commuting represent opportunities to save time and money.

For example, telecommuting—allowing select employees to work from home or other locations all or part of the time—can save employees’ time and cut their commuting costs, and it can also reduce real estate costs. The cost of operating a computer and a broadband line from home is considerably cheaper than the tab for an office cubicle. Employees might be happier and more productive, too—between 10 and 20 percent more productive, according to several recent studies. For example, a 2004 study by AT&T found that a company could eliminate one office for every three teleworkers, a savings of about $2,000.

Cutting business travel is another potential source of savings. A new generation of “telepresence” technologies is enabling even smaller companies to “meet” long distance with others. Portable telepresence equipment that can fit on a conference table now costs around $5,000, a tab quickly offset by the expensive biz trips avoided.

Source: Scientific American 

Keep it Green 

Greencon

 

 

 

Ireland’s Mainstream Renewable Power and local developer Genesis Eco-Energy have announced an €850 million (about R11 billion) plan to develop 18 wind farms by 2014, adding 500MW of electricity to the national grid.
 

The project comes amid increasingly ambitious efforts to kickstart South Africa’s renewable energy sector, driven by its potential to spur growth and create jobs, plus mounting concerns about the contribution of coal-based electricity to climate change.

At a conference yesterday to evaluate the country’s renewable energy target, Minerals and Energy Minister Buyelwa Sonjica said she would like renewable energy to account for between 6 percent and 9 percent of electricity generated by 2013, and between 9 percent and 15 percent by 2018.

The current 2013 renewables target, set six years ago, is equivalent to about 4 percent of projected electricity demand.

The upper range of Sonjica’s desired 2018 target is in line with calls at the recent climate change summit for a 15 percent renewable energy target by 2020.

Davin Chown, the director of operations at Genesis, said the joint venture was ready to start construction of two wind farms with combined capacity of 70MW next year – one in Jeffrey’s Bay and the other at Colesberg. They are expected to be operational in 2011. The other projects would be in Western Cape, Eastern Cape and Northern Cape, each generating between 30MW and 150MW.

Mainstream and Genesis would put in between 30 percent and 40 percent of the project equity, with the rest debt-funded on a project-by-project basis, Chown said.

Commitments had already been received from local financial institutions such as Absa, while the Development Bank of Southern Africa had put up some funds for the 30MW Jeffrey’s Bay wind farm. One of Mainstream’s investment partners was Barclays Capital.

The company had opted not to wait for the National Energy Regulator of SA (Nersa) to announce the renewable energy feed-in tariff next week, because it had adopted a “bullish and aggressive stance” on the renewables market, Chown said. “We know the renewables market will happen. There’s no other way it can go.”

The company’s projects would require a feed-in tariff for wind energy of between R1 a kilowatt-hour (kWh) and R1.05/kWh, he said. Should the tariff come in below this level, the partners would rethink financing mechanisms.

“It may slow things down … but it’s not going to stop us,” added Chown.

Following hearings last month to assess the initial 65.48c/kWh wind tariff proposed by Nersa, the regulator’s member for electricity, Thembani Bukula, said he believed Nersa had “no other option”, but to raise the tariff in the direction of 90c/kWh.

Chown said Mainstream and Genesis would initially import the turbines from a supplier to be selected in a bidding process. Suppliers were likely to be those with proven technology

Mainstream is to hold a majority stake in the joint venture, with Genesis acting as developer. Local shareholders will take stakes in individual projects.

In one Eastern Cape project, the proceeds accruing to a local trust are to be used to install solar water heaters in community houses.

Chown said the partners were locating the farms on the land of several communities that had benefited from the land restitution programme.

The wind farms are set to supply the national electricity grid, but Mainstream has not yet negotiated a power purchase agreement because of uncertainty about whether Eskom, Nersa or the Department of Minerals and Energy is the correct vehicle.

Mainstream’s chief development officer, Torben Andersen, said South Africa had “excellent” wind resources, with 10 000MW of market potential.

Mainstream has other wind farm projects in Canada, Chile, Scotland, the US and Europe.

Source Business report 

Keep it Green 

Greencon

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  Durban – Polluted water, poor management of dams and deteriorating infrastructure could lead to a major water crisis in South Africa, a Durban-based water researcher warned on Friday.

“South Africa is currently experiencing a threat with regards to polluted water sources, poor management of dams, sewerage works and treatment plants.

“These problems are paving the way for a major water crisis,” said Durban University of Technology (DUT) water researcher Professor Faizal Bux.

He was speaking ahead of World Water Day on March 22.

“A number of provinces within South Africa are currently looking into ways of averting this,” he said.

“Water authorities and government need to address this issue urgently. Adequate clean water supply is a backbone of a successful economy and therefore should be regarded as a priority area of funding by government.”

Penalties

Bux commended the Ethekwini municipality for imposing strong penalties on industrial companies that discharged effluent into the natural water resources.

“This has proved to be an effective measure as companies are battling to curb expenses due to the current financial meltdown. Companies are now seeking alternative treatment measures to avoid such penalties,” said Bux.

He also noted the South Africa lost huge amounts of water due to poor maintenance of pipes and delivery systems.

“Although our average annual rainfall in South Africa is lower than the global average, our primary problem lies with sustaining good water quality rather than a limitation at the source.”

It was also unfortunate, said Bux, that some poor communities still relied on rivers as a water source as this gave rise to water-borne diseases.

Bux, who was from the DUT’s centre for water and wastewater technology, was assisting some companies with developing and optimising cost-effective and environmentally-friendly on-site treatment technologies.

 

Source: News24

Keep it Green 

Greencon 

 

   

 

 

 

          

Photo: Manitoba Hydro Place, Winnipeg; Tom Arban, courtesy Kuwubara Payne Mckenna Blumberg Architects

 The impact of builings and there total greenhouse gas contribution has estimates up into the 30% mark. Greater than any other single greenhouse contributer. Go the shift towards more neutral buildings is an important factor for a carbon sensible planet. We in South Africa are way behind the rest of the planet, but with the formation of the the Green Building Council (GBCSA) and it’s Accredited Proffesional (AP) programme, hopefully we can start the chage here as well. Greencon is now a GBCSA  member and we are waiting for AP certification, read the article below to see how the rest of the world is tacklinh the changes that are neccessary…     

By Robert Cassidy, Editor-in-Chief March 16, 2009 Building Design and Construction       
“In 1987, a group of building experts from 15 countries, under the aegis of the Paris-based International Energy Agency, toured 45 commercial buildings worldwide to investigate what kinds of building systems reduced energy consumption most effectively, which failed to do so, and why.

Among the participants were two German engineers, Matthias Schuler and Thomas Auer, who, according to Schuler, came away from the project with two overriding ideas. The first was that the most energy-efficient buildings they studied had been designed from the start with the target of reducing energy consumption—holistically, not as an afterthought.

The second grand idea was that the “conversation” between architects and engineers was halting, at best. “Engineers think in numbers, architects think in pictures,” Schuler recalls. “There was a need for a moderator”—an entity that would iterate ideas back and forth between members of the Building Team to enable them to integrate the physical elements of any building project to produce the optimal solution.

From that exercise was born, in 1992, Transsolar Climate Engineering. Based in Stuttgart. Munich, and New York, the 46-employee energy design consultancy has served as moderator and climate engineer for such pacesetting projects as the Hochtief Prisma office building (Frankfurt-am-Main), the Mineral Bath in Bad Elster, the Federal Office Building (Berlin), Deutsche Post Tower (Bonn), the Lavin-Bernick Center for Student Life (Tulane University), the New Bangkok International Airport, and the Klarchek Information Commons at Loyola University Chicago (see “Naturally Cool Enclosure,” June 2008, www.BDCnetwork.com/article/ca6570756.html).

Photo: Manitoba Hydro Place, Winnipeg; Tom Arban, courtesy Kuwubara Payne Mckenna Blumberg Architects

    
Manitoba Hydro: Putting integrated design to the test 
Transsolar’s mediation skills were put to the test in the design of a new corporate headquarters for Manitoba Hydro. In 2000, the Canadian province’s electric utility set out to build what it hoped would be the most energy-efficient office building in the world, one that would use 60% less energy than that set by Canada’s model national energy code. In addition, the company set high standards for workplace functionality, urban regeneration, signature architecture, and cost-effectiveness.Manitoba Hydro’s management assembled its Building Team—Canadian firms Kuwabara Payne McKenna Blumberg (KPMB), architect; Smith Carter Architecture & Engineers, AOR; Earth Tech Canada, M/E engineers; Yolles/Crosier Kilgour, structural engineers; and construction manager PCL, plus Transsolar as climate/energy engineer—and required them to operate under a brand new “integrated design process” (IDP) formulated by Natural Resources Canada.

Manitoba Hydro’s board had one final demand: Its new HQ had to be the tallest building in Winnipeg. That mandate could lead to only one solution—a tall, skinny building. In the numerous charrettes that were held to comply with the IDP contract, however, it became clear to the team and client that, based on Transsolar’s modeling, Winnipeg’s damnably contradictory climate—with minus-35ºF temperatures in the winter and (remarkably) more sunny days than any other big city in Canada—would make it impossible for such a pencil-thin structure to meet the 60% energy-conservation goal.

From the IDP process emerged a radically different building—an 18-story tower sitting on a four-story, A-shaped base, totaling 372 feet in height. (CanWest Place, at 420 feet, and two other Winnipeg buildings are taller.) The diagonal facades of the A are clad in double skins with operable interior windows to control air circulation and indoor temperature. A solar chimney at the vertex of the A uses stack pressure to exhaust hot air in summer. A ground-source heat pump system feeds water to a radiant heating and cooling system in the exposed concrete ceiling slab.

          
                  

            
The full south façade of the 18-story tower is glazed to take advantage of Winnipeg’s sunshine. Double skins on the east and west temper the outside air, and a solar chimney at the north end enhances air exhaust.          
            
               

The bottom of the A, along the south side, is glazed over the full height of the tower to take advantage of the sun in winter; operable louvers in the inner façade can be closed in summer to reduce indirect solar heat gains. The tower floors are divided into three six-floor layers, each with a south-facing atrium that serves as a voluminous winter garden to condition the air going into the offices on each floor.
 
“The building is like an organism,” says Auer. “The radiant system fits with the geothermal system, the façade fits with the ventilation, and the shape of the building fits with the solar access. The systems and the building operations become integral to the physical structure and mechanical systems of the building.”

The first 300 employees moved in last December. Even though it was minus-30ºF outside, the inside temperature was comfortable. Another 1,500 staff will move in next month, when the $258 million building is expected to be completed.
             
               

               
              

 

Where Passive Climate Systems Work Best Passive solar design and natural ventilation concepts work better in more northerly climates like Winnipeg or Chicago than in places like New Mexico or New Orleans, says Transsolar’s Matthias Schuler. Cold temperatures and relatively low sun angle make buildings in northern cities good candidates for the kind of hybrid ventilation treatment used at Manitoba Hydro. Building projects in other climates need approaches specific to their locales. Transsolar’s Thomas Auer says he’s seeing a more open attitude toward innovative building approaches among North American clients. On the one hand, “North America was always budget-driven,” he says. “In Germany, there is a different attitude. Buildings here contribute more to the social fabric of the city.” At the same time, European regulations, such as those requiring worker proximity to windows, can handcuff designers. “In Germany, workstations are lined up against the wall, and this leads to a double-loaded building,” he says. “The Hydro building has 40 feet of column-free space to furnish an open plan. Nobody would do this in Germany.”

 Keep it Green

Greencon

 

We at Greencon encourage water saving devices on a daily basis, as part of a holistic solution. From an energy saving point of view, every litre of water saved has a massive knock on effect. Go to our Greencon Energy Calculator to see how massive water saving can be as a total energy solution, not to mention the fact we are running out of the life saving resource.

Here is an impostant article by Alexandra Hudson and Thomas Grove

 

ISTANBUL (Reuters) – Government ministers from 120 countries, scientists and campaigners meet in Istanbul this week to discuss how to avert a global water crisis and ease tensions between states fighting over rivers, lakes and glaciers.

 

Nearly half of the world’s people will be living in areas of acute water shortage by 2030, the United Nations warned last week, and an estimated 1 billion people remain without access to safe drinking water and sanitation.

 

The world’s population of 6.6 billion is forecast to rise by 2.5 billion by 2050. Most of the growth will be in developing countries, much of it in regions where water is already scarce.

 

As populations and living standards rise, a global water crisis looms unless countries take urgent action, the international body said.

 

“Water is not enough of a political issue,” said Daniel Zimmer, associate general of the World Water Council, one of the organizations behind the World Water Forum.

 

“One of the targets is to make politicians understand that water should be higher up on their domestic agenda and care that it is a necessity for the welfare, stability and health of their populations.”

 

Because of the lack of political attention, hundreds of millions of people remain trapped in poverty and ill health and exposed to the risk of water-related disasters, the U.N. warns.

 

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has said water scarcity is a “potent fuel for wars and conflict.”

 

Water shortages have been named as a major underlying cause of the conflict in Darfur in western Sudan. Water is also a major issue between Israel and its Arab neighbors, and the states of Central Asia, one of the world’s driest places, where thirsty crops such as cotton and grain remain the main source of livelihood.

 

Tajikistan has asked World Water Forum organizers to mediate in its dispute with Kyrgyzstan over water during the conference, World Water Forum Vice Secretary Ahmet Mete Saatci told Reuters.

 

Other subjects on the agenda for the talks from March 16-22 will be how to avert catastrophic floods and droughts as climate patterns change, and how the global financial crisis threatens to hit large-scale water infrastructure projects within the next several years.

 

The heads of state, environment and development ministers, scientists and development organizations hope to draw up a list of recommendations to help safeguard water resources and to share experiences where projects have been successful.

 

Among the heads of states attending the conference is Iraq’s President Jalal Talabani.

Keep it Green 

Greencon 

 

 

 

At Greencon we have been warning potential investors in renewable products that it makes not only environmental sense but it really makes financial sense. Power per kilowatt in South Africa is way to cheap, our materials and power stations are built at international costs but our power is sold at a fraction of the cost.Then when you consider how polluting our power is to our fragile environment. Now the delay in announcing imminent price increases has put Eskom and financial planners in a tricky situation..

From Fin24, Johannesburg – A storm is brewing over Eskom’s decision to delay its application for tariff increases.

Prompting concerns that the utility may again be targeting electricity price increases of up to 80%, Eskom on Tuesday confirmed that it has held back on making an application to the National Energy Regulator of South Africa (Nersa) to measure

Eskom spokesperson Fani Zulu told Business Day that Eskom had had to review some of its assumptions that underpinned the tariff application following the world’s financial crisis.

Zulu said the crisis had “affected our customers, our ability to borrow and Eskom’s forecast of the growth in the demand for electricity”.

He also said the approval in December of the electricity pricing policy by cabinet had also necessitated the review of the application.

In addition, he said Eskom also had to confirm other sources of funding before finalising the tariff application.

“The minister of finance announced in February government guarantees to Eskom totalling R176bn. The approved guarantees are a very important building block in accessing other sources of funding,” Zulu said.

But while Zulu insisted that Eskom’s application for electricity tariff increases is “imminent”, the delay in the submission has resulted in not only uncertainty about the magnitude of the increase its request but will also delay the determination of municipal electricity tariffs.

Nersa’s head of electricity regulation Thembani Bukula said the public consultation and decision-making process for the multiyear price determination requires three to four months.

Frost & Sullivan energy analyst Cornelis van der Waal said that the delay in the application was causing uncertainty about “what is going to happen to electricity prices in the short term”.

He said the delay would also affect investment decisions of the big consumers of electricity.

Van der Waal said the credit crisis should be a factor in Eskom’s application, as the slowdown had driven down electricity sales.

South Africans are using less electricity now than they were this time last year.

Lower demand for commodities has also affected the mining industry.

Demand for electricity has fallen by about 1 500MW as ferro-alloy and steel producers cut back on production.

“Eskom must make up for the lost sales. Nobody anticipated the magnitude of the crisis. It is important for Eskom to get a fair increase,” Van der Waal said.

Waiting for the election?

But the Democratic Alliance says confusion over the pricing of electricity is compounding the effects of the financial crisis.

Energy-intensive employers will delay investing in South Africa and creating much needed job opportunities until they know how much electricity will cost.

Hendrik Schmidt speaking for the party on Tuesday said that the pricing of electricity has an equally important impact on service delivery, as municipal electricity tariffs are a key revenue contributor to local government.

“Without a pricing guide from Eskom, municipalities will be unable to project their own revenue streams and this will impact on how much they will be able to spend on providing services to their communities,” Schmidt said.

He called on Eskom to release its pricing application to the National Energy Regulator of South Africa immediately. “There is speculation that given the difficulty in accessing international credit markets,” he said,

“The South African consumer will be shocked by a hefty increase in electricity tariffs so that Eskom can make up its shortfall in funding.

“The speculation is that the government is waiting until after the general elections to publicise this.”

He insisted that in a sector in which its state-owned enterprise monopolises 95% of electricity production, it is the duty of the ANC government to take responsibility for Eskom’s excuses in justifying its inability to plan for the future.

“The financial crisis is not an excuse,” he said. “Eskom cannot afford to delay its pricing whilst it waits for a more predictable economic environment.”

Keep it Green 

Greencon 

You have probably heard of green buildings, green cars and, perhaps, even green phones. But were you aware that green beer is flowing from the taps of some U.S. breweries, and not the kind for St. Patrick’s Day tomorrow? Among the leaders of the movement is Lucky Labrador Brewing Company in Portland, Ore., which for the past year has been saving big bucks by using solar energy to heat water used in the brewing process.  

Lucky Labrador’s first green beer, “Solar Flare Ale,” was an instant sensation when it was introduced in February 2008, according to brewery co-owner Gary Geist. Sales spiked in the month following the beer’s debut, Geist says. But, he notes that going solar is more about long-term benefits than about temporary sales spurts.

He says the entire system, which includes 16 solar panels on the brewery roof, cost about $70,000 up front but that it ended up costing only about $6,000, thanks to a $21,000 (30 percent) federal tax credit, a $35,000 (50 percent) state tax credit, and an $8,000 incentive from the Energy Trust of Oregon (a nonprofit that assists businesses taking steps to reduce their gas and electrical energy consumption). It was quite the investment, he says, given that it saves the company about $3,000 annually in gas bills, which means it will have paid for itself by this time next year.

To understand how the sun powers Lucky Lab’s beer-making operation, you must first understand how the beer is brewed. There are three stages to brewing, and two of them require very hot water, Geist explains. The first is to mix barley with water that’s about 160 degrees Fahrenheit (71 degrees Celsius) in a nine-foot- (2.7-meter-) tall steel tank called the “mash tun” (the traditional term for barrel). When combined with hot water, the enzymes in the barley convert its starch into sugars.

Using a large fiberglass paddle, a brewer stirs the mixture, which Geist says looks like “cereal in water.” After about an hour and a half, the sugary liquid, now called “wort,” is separated from the barley with a sieve and transferred into a kettle, where it is boiled, along with hops—plants containing oils that give beer its bitter aroma and flavor. Finally, the wort is removed from the kettle, cooled, and then poured into a closed tank called a fermenter where it is combined with yeast, microbes that convert the sugars to alcohol and carbon dioxide.

The solar power drives the first step of the brewing process when the barley is mixed with hot water, says Bruce McLeod, lead installer for Ra Energy, the company that provided Lucky Lab with its system. Water entering the mash tun gets its heat from 16 four-by-10-foot (1.2-by-3-meter) “solar thermal collectors,” thick panels atop the brewery’s roof. As the panels absorb heat from the sun, a liquid made of propylene glycol and water that resists freezing during Oregon’s cold winters within them becomes scorching hot (up to 230 degrees F, or 110 degrees C), McLeod explains. This broiling liquid passes through pipes into a heat exchanger, which transfers the heat energy to water stored in a massive 1,500-gallon (5,680-liter) tank in the brewery. This storage tank supplies hot water not only for the brewing process but for the kitchen and bathroom sinks, too, according to Geist. 

He notes that the system works like a hybrid car, meaning it gets its energy to heat water from two sources: solar energy, used in the mash tun phase, and natural gas, which is necessary for the kettle phase. The reason the sun cannot drive the whole process, he says, is because the solar system cannot heat water beyond 180 degrees F (82 degrees C), which is shy of the 212 degrees F (100 degrees C) needed to make it boil.

For this reason, Lucky Labrador cannot go 100 percent green—though it gets kudos from enviros for reducing its natural gas consumption by about 25 percent in the past year.

Does the beer taste any different? Not a bit, Geist says, noting he has no regrets about his decision to brew green. 

“We discovered that going solar was not only good for sustainability,” he says, “but a good business decision with a great investment return.”

Keep it Green 

Greencon

They obviously can’t make much of a difference to global emissions, but what the government of the Maldives is doing to attempt to stem carbon emissions is a great example for the rest of the world. Here is an article from The New York Times…