Archive for the ‘Greencon Design Update’ Category

The water intensity of energy

Whenever water shortages loom anywhere, we hear about how much “embodied water” there is in various products. According to the Water Footprint Network, producing a slice of bread requires 11 gallons of water and producing a pound of beef takes 1,800 gallons. The same sort of analysis can be done with our energy sources. As with foods, different types of energy have different water intensities.

Electricity:

Electricity generation is highly variable in its water-intensity. Roughly 89% of U.S. electricity is produced in “thermoelectric” power plants. These are plants that use heat from burning coal or natural gas or from controlled nuclear fission to generate steam, which then spins turbines. Water is used to create the steam, and then more water is used to cool that steam, condensing it back into water.

Most thermoelectric power plants built before 1970 have “open-loop” or once-through cooling systems that result in relatively little evaporation–though significantly warmer water is returned to the river or other source from which it was taken (which has its own environmental costs).

Most newer plants use “closed-loop” recirculation cooling; far less water is required, but most of that evaporates (consumptive use). Averaged nationwide, 0.47 gallons of water is consumed (evaporated) for each kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity produced by thermoelectric plants, according to a 2003 paper by researchers at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL),Consumptive Water Use for U.S. Power Production.

Most of our electricity not produced by thermoelectric power plants is generated by hydroelectric plants. This accounts for about 9% of the U.S. total. Hydroelectric plants don’t heat water to create steam, so water isn’t needed for cooling, but they use a lot of water nonetheless. Most hydropower is generated by damming rivers to create reservoirs. These reservoirs have significantly larger surface areas than the free-flowing rivers prior to damming, and evaporation from these reservoirs can be significant. Hydrologists produce “free water surface evaporation” maps to model this evaporation, which varies greatly by climate.

For the NREL study mentioned above, researchers calculated evaporation from the 120 largest power-generation reservoirs in the U.S. (representing 65% of total hydropower generation) and used that data to extrapolate evaporation from all of the nation’s 2,300 power-generation reservoirs: 9.05 billion gallons per day. Here’s how the water consumption from hydroelectric power generation in a few states compares: 18 gallons/kWh in Colorado, 21 gal/kWh in California, 65 gal/kWh in Arizona, and 137 gal/kWh in Oklahoma. Nationally, the average is 18 gal/kWh.

By weighting thermoelectric and hydroelectric power generation sources, the NREL report calculated an average water-intensity of electricity in the U.S. to be 2.0 gal/kWh. So if you use 500 kWh per month, that’s requiring, on average, 1,000 gallons of water.

Oil and gas:

Electricity isn’t the only form of energy that requires a lot of water to produce. According to a 2006 U.S. Department of Energy report to Congress, Energy Demands on Water Resources, conventional onshore oil extraction consumes relatively little water: 0.12 to 0.31 gallons of water per gallon of oil (0.8 – 2.2 gal/million Btu). But “enhanced” oil recovery practices, which are becoming increasingly common, are much more water-intensive. These practices range from 1.9 gal water/gal oil (14 gal/million Btu) to over 300 gal water/gal oil (2,500 gal/million Btu). Extracting oil from tar sands in Alberta takes 20-50 gallons/million Btu. Another 1.0 to 2.5 gallons of water are required to process and transport each gallon of oil (7-18 gal/million Btu).

With natural gas, conventional onshore extraction requires negligible water use, but processing and transport averages 3 gal water/million Btu. New “hydraulic fracturing” techniques (sometimes referred to as “frac’ing”), as are being used to recover natural gas from the Marcellus Shale formation, use a great deal of water (and contaminate that water in the process).

Renewables:

On the renewable energy front, some biofuels, especially ethanol produced from corn, are very water-intensive. A 2008 paper in the journal Environmental Science & Technology reported that a light-duty vehicle driven on an E85 fuel (85% ethanol) “consumes” a remarkable 28 gallons of water per mile! Utility-scale solar-thermal power plants that focus sunlight to super-heat an oil heat-transfer fluid, which in turn generates steam, require a lot of water, and that’s an issue in the desert environment where these are being built. (Some other solar-thermal technologies rely on Stirling engine technology, instead of steam turbines, so use almost no water.)

Bottom line: Save Energy to Conserve Water!

The bottom-line conclusion from all this–you saw this coming!–is that by conserving energy we save a lot of water. Replacing incandescent light bulbs with CFLs, upgrading to Energy Star appliances, insulating your house–virtually any energy improvement you make–will also save water. Some experts say this is really important; in the coming decades fresh water could become a more limited resource than energy.

From 1990-2005, Europe was the only region of the world that managed to reduce its per-capita carbon footprint while increasing its standard of living.

How did the Europeans do it?

One big answer is the European city. The majority—76 percent—of Europeans are “urbanized.” These aren’t the mass-transit-less cities blighted by what the United Nations calls “low-density suburbs surrounding city cores, commonly referred to as ‘urban sprawl’.”

They’re on a totally different model—livable, dense cores, with excellent mass-transit systems. Turin, Italy, and Bordeaux, France, have invested billions of euros in a network of trams with links to the high-speed intercity European railway network. In Bordeaux, traffic has dropped by 30 percent. With fewer cars on the road, bicycling is far more pleasant: ridership has tripled. Turin, meanwhile, has been re-structuring its inner city, restoring it to architectural prominence.

On a smaller scale, Güssing, Austria, has cut its carbon emissions by over 90 percent simply by banning fossil-fuel use for public buildings, and it uses an innovative technology to convert waste-wood to natural gas. There’s a lesson there for those wary of command-and-control measures—they sometimes work just fine.

In Germany, Freiburg uses a command-and-control directive to make energy efficiency for homes mandatory: German law stipulates a maximum waste of 75 kilowatt-hours per square meter, “roughly a quarter of the energy lost from a typical Victorian house in Britain,” but in early 2008 Freiburg was mandating 65kWh/m2, while contemplating lower figures. The city’s inhabitants rely on trams and bicycles to move about town, using car-shares when necessary.

Other German cities have simply banned older automobiles and trucks, an approach Amsterdam has emulated. The absence of such older vehicles means less particulate matter in the air, making cities that much more livable—and healthier too.

Last year, Milan passed anti-congestion legislation, charging vehicles up to 10 Euro to enter the city center. Letizia Moratti, Milan’s mayor, has publicly predicted a 30 percent reduction in pollution and a 10 percent reduction in traffic. Electric and hybrid cars are permitted to enter the restricted zone without paying a fee of any kind. The money the tax raises is funneled toward buses, cycle paths, and green vehicles.

The legislation essentially copies the ground-breaking London anti-congestion scheme, implemented in 2003, which has successfully reduced both traffic and carbon dioxide emissions in the London metro area.

Such initiatives have contributed to a groundswell of support across the European urban landscape for radical approaches to climate change on a decentralized, municipal scale.

Several months ago, over 350 mayors across Europe signed onto a covenant to reduce carbon emissions by 20 percent by 2020, including large, core metropolises such as Paris, Brussels, Rome, Stuttgart, Barcelona and Nottingham. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg supported the idea. It’s worth noting that the massive northeast conurbation that includes New York City had one of the smallest carbon footprints in the United States in 2005.

This is in line with studies such as the one carried out by David Dodman that have suggested that urban areas in general emit far less carbon-emissions per-capita than non-urban areas. Per-capita emissions in New York and Barcelona are only a third of the national average for the U.S. and Spain, respectively, and those of London are around half of Britain’s national average.

The lessons are clear. As urban theorist Mike Davis notes,

The city is our ark in which we might survive the environmental turmoil of the next century. Genuinely urban cities are the most environmentally efficient form of existing with nature that we possess because they can substitute public luxury for private or household consumption.

However, Davis’s view is somewhat gloomier than that suggested by optimistic studies of urban per-capita greenhouse emissions like Dodson’s. Cities draw much of their consumption from agricultural or manufacturing hinterlands, with supply chains thousands of miles long. Anyone looking at the “made in X East Asian city” sticker on most manufactured goods, knows this. The carbon-cost of such goods is often counted in the producing and not the consuming location.

It is for such reasons that restructuring cities’ infrastructures must go hand-in-hand with a restructuring of regional planning. Cities must be both “genuinely urban,” as Davis writes, and surrounded by greenbelts, the “agricultural estates” of the city that urban critic and polymath Lewis Mumford spent his life advocating. Such a style of planning will result in much shorter supply chains—and is probably part of the reason Latin America’s countries, robust food producers, have such low carbon-footprints.

It’s a big change, but far from an impossible one.

Source: Solve Climate Blog

Keep it Green

Greencon

You can see the carbon emissions rising by the day over the skyline of Guangzhou, where armies of construction workers are busy throwing up skyscrapers that will soon surpass anything in New York in terms of height and ­energy consumption.

Pearl River Tower in Guangzhou, China. Artist’s impression: Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP 2009 It is the same story all over China where, despite the economic crisis, engineers are completing four more tower blocks every day – almost all fitted with air conditioning, heating, lighting and lifts that will run on coal-powered electricity.

The country is in the middle of the greatest building boom in human history. Six of the world’s 10 tallest buildings completed last year were in China, including the 492-metre-tall Shanghai World Financial Centre. Even taller structures are on their way – such as the Shanghai Centre, 632 metres,  and at 600 metres, the Goldin Finance 117 in Tianjin.

But among the giants there is one that could hold out hope for a low-carbon future. The Pearl River Tower, now being erected in Guangzhou, the provincial capital of Guangdong province, is being billed as the most energy efficient superskyscraper ever built.

With wind turbines, solar panels, ­sun-shields, smart lighting, water-cooled ceilings and state-of-the-art insulation, the 310-metre tower is designed to use half the energy of most buildings of its size and set a new global benchmark for self-sufficiency among the planet’s high rises.

Engineers say the tower could even be enhanced to create surplus electricity if the local power firm relaxes its monopoly over energy generation.

Due for completion in October 2010, the structure currently looks no different from the many other masses of steel and concrete that are reaching for the sky in Guangzhou.

The horizon is rising fast and grey in China’s wealthiest province. By the time the Asian games begin next year, the provincial capital will boast a 432-metre-high TV tower, excluding its 150-metre antenna, and the 391-metre Zhongxin Plaza. Both structures will be bigger than any building in New York.

While Dubai and other cities in the Middle East are building a handful of still loftier structures, nowhere can compare with China for the sheer mass of supertowers being planned or under construction.

One management consultancy firm estimates that China will erect up to 50,000 new skyscrapers by 2025. Along with smaller structures, McKinsey ­estimates that buildings will account for 25% of China’s energy consumption by then, up from 17% today.

More efficient buildings could drastically reduce this demand, though few are likely to go as far the 71-storey Pearl River Tower, which combines many of the world’s leading energy-saving technologies on a scale never seen before.

The most spectacular feature will be the four wind turbines built into the belly of the structure. The building has been shaped to drive air through the cavities at maximum velocity so the ­turbines can generate 1m kilowatt hours of electricity a year. The building will also produce electricity via the photovoltaic cells of the solar shades cooling its east and west facades.

The biggest contribution to energy efficiency will come from the radiant ceiling technology, which uses piped water to keep the internal space cool. Energy will also be extracted from the difference in air temperature between the building’s inner and outer walls. Rather than use fans to recirculate old air, fresh air will be delivered to every floor through natural buoyancy.

According to Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, the US architectural firm behind the design, the energy efficiency devices add about $13m (£8m) to the construction costs. But this could be earned back within five years by reduced electricity bills, lower maintenance costs and extra rent from the space not used for air ­conditioning ducts.

Roger Frechette, the firm’s chief engineer, estimates the tower will reduce energy consumption by 58% compared with a standard building this size.

Under the initial design for a “zero-emission skyscraper”, it could even have generated surplus energy with micro-turbines that could sell electricity back to the grid at night. But this proposal was dropped after opposition from the local utility company, which is cautious about allowing rival sources of power generation.

This may change. Faced by a deteriorating environment, uncertain world energy supplies and pressure to act on climate change, the Chinese government is trying to shift towards a more sustainable model of development. It is experimenting with ecocities and introducing new green building codes.

Guangzhou is following this trend. As the workshop of the world, the city has a reputation as a humid, heavily polluted sprawl. But it is trying to change this by building taller structures as well as improving the infrastructure for service industries.

“We are trying to make our city more energy efficient. In the past, we expanded too fast. That was a mistake we are trying to correct now,” said Chen Qing, the deputy director of the city’s Urban Planning and Research Centre.

Not everyone, however, is convinced that skyscrapers are the best way to achieve the city’s green goals, given that the Pearl River Tower will be built with 26,500 tonnes of steel and more than 40,000 cubic metres of concrete, and that its main tenant will be a tobacco company.

Meng Qinglin, a professor at the ­environment and energy laboratory of the South China University of Technology, says urban planners are following global fashions without paying sufficient attention to whether low emission buildings are what they claim to be.

“There is a misconception that buildings can generate sufficient wind and solar power for themselves. We need to look deeper at how much pollution is caused and how many resources are used in the development and manufacture of those technologies,” he said.

“They call it clean energy, but often the burden is simply being shifted to other places, where the silicon is mined and the turbines and solar panels are made.”

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

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.
             
               

               
              

 Keep it Green

Greencon

We are very aware of the Green fad that has taken all industry by storm at the moment. It’s great to see awards being given to pioneers of the Green revolution. People who have always understood the importance of minimal impact and reduced cost to the environment.

Australian architect Glenn Marcus Murcutt is the recipient of the 2009 AIA Gold Medal, the coveted honor annually bestowed by the American Institute of Architects (AIA). Known for his focus on sustainability and socially responsibility, the 65th Gold Medalist designs Modernist suburban and rural homes with natural materials.

“Recently our architectural field experienced an ‘ecological boom,” writes 2005 AIA Gold Medalist Tadao Ando in a letter of support for Murcutt’s nomination. “However, without relation to such a trend of time, Glenn Murcutt has always been focusing on the geographical and regional conditions, from the very beginning of his career.”Murcutt was born in London in 1936, and spent his childhood in the remote Morobe district of New Guinea. In 1970, he launched his own firm in Sydney.

Murcutt will receive the award at the American Architectural Foundation’s Accent on Architecture Gala in February.

In 2002, Murcutt took home the Pritzker Architecture Prize, considered by many to be architect’s highest honor.

Previous AIA Gold Medalists include Thomas Jefferson, Frank Lloyd Wright, Louis Sullivan, LeCorbusier, Louis Kahn, I.M. Pei, Cesar Pelli, Edward Larrabee Barnes, and last year’s recipient, Renzo Piano.

The AIA also named Olson Sundberg Kundig Allen Architects the recipient of the 2009 AIA Firm Award, the highest honor bestowed on an architecture firm, and Adèle Santos of Santos Prescott and Associates recipient of the 2009 Topaz Medallion for Excellence in Architectural Education Award.

Keep it Green

Greencon

We hope that the latest research from Autodesk point towards a more serious desire from customers to look at better renewable alternatives.

Most major architectural firms are committed to sustainable design, but the 2008 edition of the Autodesk/AIA Green Index indicates that these sensibilities are also rubbing off on their customers.

Clients are, in fact, the chief driver of green building. Sixty-six percent of architects surveyed by the software developer and the American Institute of Architects cited client demand as the primary motivation for green building. Forty-two percent of architects polled affirmed that their clients specifically request green elements for the majority of projects. Additionally, 47 percent say clients are implementing these practices in their own work, an increase of 15 percent over last year.

Meanwhile, architects believe the primary reasons that clients are requesting green buildings are reduced operating costs (60 percent), marketing (52 percent), and market demand (21 percent, up 10 points from the 2007 study).

Similar surveys conducted by Autodesk in Japan, Italy, and the United Kingdom found that the primary factors driving green building differed by region. The United Kingdom and Japan cited regulatory requirements (75 percent and 64 percent, respectively), while architects in Italy pointed to rising energy costs (70 percent).

Released in Boston last month during GreenBuild, the annual survey aims to measure the amount of sustainable design practiced by AIA members. Christine McEntee, chief executive officer of the AIA, says this year’s survey results are encouraging because they show that clients, and the market at large, realize the “bottom-line benefits of sustainable design.”

Keep it Green

Greencon

It is part of the daily toil for the consultants at Greencon. Convincing customers of all sorts that investing in renewables is not only environmentally a positive but also an investment in economic growth and sustainability. An amazing study has just been released with some interesting facts, read below:

“Landmark International Green Building Study Finds Benefits of Building Green Outweigh Cost Premium

A landmark international study on the costs and benefits of green buildings finds that energy and water savings alone outweigh the initial cost premium in most green buildings and that green buildings cost, on average, less than 2% more to build than conventional non-green buildings. This stands in contrast to public perception, such as a 2007 survey by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, which found that business leaders believe green buildings to be on average 17% more expensive than conventionally designed buildings.

The study, Greening Buildings and Communities: Costs and Benefits, also finds that an average size green office creates at least one-third of a permanent job per year, equal to $1/square foot (sf) of value in increased employment, compared to a comparable non-green building, and that the continued rapid growth in green building is creating tens of thousands of new jobs. Additionally, the study found that productivity and health benefits are a major motivating factor for building green.

“This report provides the first large-scale data resource on the cost and benefits of green buildings and sustainable community designs,” said Henry Kelly, President of the Federation of American Scientists. “The careful research and documentation provides powerful evidence that major reductions of energy and water use in buildings can be achieved at costs far lower than new supplies of energy. It will be an invaluable resource for years to come.”

“The deep downturn in real estate has not reduced the rapid growth in demand for and construction of green buildings,” said Greg Kats, the study’s lead author and a Managing Director of Good Energies. “This suggests a flight to quality as buyers express a market preference for buildings that are more energy efficient, more comfortable and healthier.”

With buildings currently consuming 40% of the world’s energy, including two-thirds of its electricity, the marginal cost increase associated with green buildings is typically partially offset by savings elsewhere. For example, a more efficient building envelope can reduce the size of heating or cooling systems needed to provide a comfortable indoor temperature; hi-tech waterless urinals reduce plumbing requirements; and technologically advanced daylighting and window systems can decrease lighting cost while improving light quality.

Additional highlights from the study include important findings regarding the potential for significant cost reductions in the shift from conventional sprawl to a sustainable design approach. The report also evaluates both the financial and spiritual benefits for religious institutions that decide to build green.

This report was supported by Good Energies, a leading global investor in renewable energy and energy efficiency industries. Select findings from the study can be found at: www.goodenergies.com. The complete findings of the study will be published as a book in the summer of 2009

This article was prepared by Law & Health Weekly editors from staff and other reports. Copyright 2008, Law & Health Weekly via NewsRx.com.”

Keep it Green

Greencon