its not a matter of being able to design a net zero building...its a matter of finding a client who is willing to pay for one.  Most clients are rich and they didn't get that way by being generous. the 2030 challenge is a fools errand.  what we should be talking about is changing the outdated service model that prohibits innovation by putting the architrct in a position of professional servant and the ridgid licensure process that limits and discourages interdiciplinary studies and cross pollination with other fields.  Innovation happens with Inclusion and entrepreneurship.   As FLW said "the only thing wrong with architecture is the profession of architecture." 

Jla-x, there are so many things we can do as architects at little or no cost to the client to make buildings more efficient than they are now. For so long we have blamed clients for not wanting to go green, but if we don't educate them about its long term value, then no progress can be made. Showing life-cycle costs and long term savings can completely change a client's point of view. 

^ yes but that wasnt the question. 

net zero is way more difficult and expensive to achieve and requires sacrifices that most clients will not make.  even 1% does wake up we are all screwed anyway.  Hate to sound like a buzz kill but after much research into the topic I have realised that its hopeless at this point. 

There are many traditional dwelling styles around the globe built from local, natural, recyclable  materials by hand. Plug that into your equation.

"Green" is one thing "Net Zero" is another.... knowing how to do "Net Zero" and finding someone to let you do it are equally opposing. Have a friend (non-architect) who did a net zero home for himself, got sick and had to move back home... house was for sale for 3 years, in good times....OP is polling the wrong people.

miles, yes its very achievable technically, but not culturally as it requires either sacrifice which people will not do, or great expense.   

also, Im not saying that we shpuldnt focus on sustainability, just dont see the power in the hands of designers so long as  the service model is the main focus.  we need a major cultural and evonomic shift and the 2030 challenge does nothing but deny the fact that the system is broken by pretending that we can work with it.  We cant. Its more feel good bs.  Feeling like we are doing something when in fact we arw not is the most dangerous thing.  Its snake oil.  We need to change the structure of the building industry and simultaniously the culture of the built environment.  First that then we can maybe start seeing major reductions in co2 and waste.   

So jla-x how can we help influence that cultural shift?? Doesn't it start with each designer/architect/student/dreamer wanting to change the world?

Trail – yes perhaps, but if you have ever worked in the trenches you’d know….that each of us can do a half hour pitch to a client on the virtues of this and have it end in a second by the word “No!” Unfortunately like most things it has to be legislated and Jimmy Carter tried that in 1977 only to have it all reversed by Ronald Reagan less than 10 years later. Like climbing a sand dune.

Part of the problem is also that unless there is a system like Passivhaus and LEED, architects don't even TRY to make architecture more energy-efficient... we always have to seek out credit in some way shape or form...

architects don't design buildings to leed, our clients do.  we just help show them how.

if you want net-zero, it really has to start with the end users.  or banks.  there was a project here where supposedly the bank was driving LEED, and certification was tied to the financing for some reason.

To be honest; No I personally can't design that.  Basically, all this stuff is post my education.  Continuing ed seems to be trade generated, therefore even asbestos guys would claim their product can do this.  So, I simply don't trust the information out there nor want to spend the time truly researching what it takes when it is so much easier to just not do it and hire someone else who claims that expertise (and takes on that liability if it's wrong and blows the various grants and tax incentives for the client). 

And well... I can afford to not learn.  It's the privilege of being old and experienced.  It is a very small market, things change, trends change, etc.  As noted above, when it becomes a major market I still don't have to personally address it.  I'd just have to hire someone who does who'd be better at this than I would ever be anyway. 

Should also note youth has it's own issues.  I'm guessing you haven't been around long enough to see these things and technologies evolve.  The 'green' movement is rather like diets.  It will always be around and is a good idea; hence why it won't die no matter how much industry fights it.  However, theories, methods, and 'how' changes and evolves.  You'll learn to be a generalist and hire those gullible enough to focus their entire existence on just a particular diet.   Doesn't mean their diet isn't effective, but it may not be what the cool kids are doing 4 years from now or whatever whims influence the powers that be to make requirements.  Specializing in a certain kind of diet, like vegan, won't go so hot if a paleo diet becomes the 'real diet' of popularity to take root.  Better to spend your time figuring out why various diets work and what makes a body tick, then hire specialist to cater to a specific client's pallet and likes. 

I would use some non renewable energy while designing it, so no, I can't. 

Buildings in the end come down to cost, with a few exceptions people look at the upfront construction cost and obviously it cost quite a bit more to build LEED and a whole lot more to build net zero.

I once bought a dvd player for 400$ you could get the same thing for 50$ today.  What you are looking for in a client who would even consider net zero is the guy would would have bought the DVD player when it was 1000$ and you had to have a special tv to make it work.

BIG companies wanting to make a statement and government entities will be the only way a lot of these technologies make it into the mainstream.  That or a major energy shortage but unless the profits and cheap energy from fossil fuels are used to create and produce these technologies it will be too late by the time there is a major shortage. You would think we would remember gas heading toward 5$ a gallon and focus on getting out from under the combustion engine but the powers that be and fracking ran the cost of gas back down and the momentum has shifted.  

I thought I'd put this here 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/20/us/politics/mitch-mcconnell-urges-states-to-help-thwart-obamas-war-on-coal.html

JLC - 1, well then there's that.

suddenly, the net-zero fad feels like a joke.

JLC-1, friend of mine did a $2 Million house for the CEO of the largest solar panel manufacture in the U.S., not a single solar panel on it…...walls were R13 (when they were headquarters in the north)….even this guy thinks it's a joke.

I know; I used to have a 1986 Saab 900, bought it for $750 and drove it 4 years, I could bet money that keeping that car running for 28 years is more sustainable than any Tesla, but I don't know the math involved.