Well I'm not quite on the road right now, as I'm taking advantage of an extended invitation to stay in Portland for a while. And I really like it here! So I'm trying my darndest to find work but actually my resume is all over the country at this point so who knows :o)
All right, I decided that I miss the green thread and wanted to ask y'all something.
Many of us here have been lamenting the gap between green products and green systems: we can buy a car that gets better gas mileage, but it's much harder to have an impact on how many miles we (as a society, not just as individuals) need to drive in a day, or a year. What is the #1 system that you would like to see re-invented, and how? Pie-in-the-sky ideas welcome.
I don’t want to interrupt the discussion that rationalist tried to start, but I have a question that I think I should post here instead of starting a new thread.
A couple of years ago, I heard someone say at a lecture that the reduction of negative impact on the environment that could be accomplished by using environmentally friendly construction materials in an average size American house, would be equivalent to building that same house with materials that were not environmentally friendly but with a reduction on its square footage equivalent to the size of an average closet. Does anyone know of any reports or studies that provide some numbers that confirm or contradict this statement? It doesn’t have to be necessarily about residential projects.
Hmm, that is a very pessimistic prospective on the benefits of green materials. The difference in performance is much greater if you use high performance systems and envelopes. But if all you tried to do is use recycled stuff and build to the minimum code, then I can see how little the impact could be.
Sorry, I've seen no quantitative studies on the matter. But it does make some degree of sense: most of the energy in any object or structure is in the embodied energy, right? So reducing the embodied energy is a more effective strategy than improving day-to-day performance. Barry, I would note that he said "green materials" not "recycled materials" so that would include things like low-VOC finishes and high-performance glazing that (while great at continuing performance) sometimes can even increase the amount of embodied energy (think double and triple glazing systems...), or recyclable materials that have not yet been recycled. So on second thought I would not be surprised if much of the savings are a result of comparing with these green-but-not-recycled materials instead of the recycled materials that immediately spring to mind.
So on that slightly convoluted note, would also love to see those numbers!
rationalist: agriculture. right now we might as well drink our food from the gas pump.
I've heard the green-materials vs. SF argument before - it makes sense considering how much material goes into and how much energy is required to heat and cool a large house.
I also recently learned that bamboo flooring isn't that great because it can contain some pretty nasty chemicals and is typically imported from asia.
actually, much of the energy is from the operation and maintenance of buildings. the embodied energy ratio depends on the materials and the legnth the building is standing.
Many green materials either have a health slant and are non-toxic compared to similar - that has nothing to do with energy. Many energy efficient materials aren't green. so there is a catch-22. that's why we're still learning how to be sustainable.
Bamboo for example required the destruction of productive forest habitat for the plantations (same goes for teak, rubber, palm oil, and corn), plus there is the long supply chain from china to the us.
speaking of green ... i ran across this the other day.
car_op:
embodied energy in materials is a slightly important matter. the amout of BTUs to heat & cool a building almost always dwarfs the amount of embodied or primary energy input (the exception being amazing outhouses and zumthor's feldkapelle)
however, if you superinsulate - you frontload w/ a lot of BTUs (assuming rigid instead of cellulose - in which case you still superinsulate, just w/ uberthick walls) but you end up reducing the number of BTUs to heat the building many times over. It pays huge dividends to superinsulate from a BTU or EE standpoint.
i'll look through my energy manual, i've got a graph on this somewhere.
the question of PEI (primary energy input) and LCA energy is an important one. in my mind, it's better to have building products w/ low PEI, utilizing strategies to reduce heat loss and taking advantage of free energy (geothermal, solar, etc).
I would like to say walkability but that's too ambiguous.
I think to get a maximum (not just effectiveness but business growth), one would have to emulate theme parks and resorts as a sort of model to expand upon.
I think the issue with that sort of planned "organic" quality is obviously finding big enough anchors but also the trick of hiding necessary traffic.
Disneyworld employs a complex system of tunnels for operations... that's what gives them ability to runn a 300-seat restaurant on ground level surrounded by sidewalks without any sort of loading dock or "back door."
But I think it would be impossible to balance real world pressures (such as business competition and people not on their best behavior) in that sort of theme-park-esque "utopian" environment.
So, I suppose the system I'm proposing is to mix Transit Oriented Development with Resort Development.
I don't think a lot of new urbanist and walkability schemes really have, for a lack of a better word, a romance to them.
Adaquately done bus stops and some trees on a street is a start but most of these schemes fall short in having a truly endearing quality to them.
I've gotten asked this question probably 10 times, and am wondering if any of you can clarify...
When comparing a concrete structure to a steel structure, which is better off from an embodied energy/manufacturing impact standpoint?
I know steel takes oodles of energy to process and form, but the feedstock (for structural, arc furnace shapes at least) can be nearly 90%+ recycled content.
I know concrete (or at least cement) also has a high manufacturing embodied energy content and generally requires a bunch of virgin materials that are likely transported from all over the place.
I suspect the answer is "it depends", but anyone who could shed light on this would be thanked!
reallife,
i think 'it depends' is probably right. there are ways to reduce the PEI of concrete (ggbs, fly ash, locally sourced materials) but there are ways to reduce the PEI of steel as well (recycled, optimized sizing to reduce wastage, etc).
my understanding is the PEI of concrete is a 20-30% worse than steel. but the energy costs associated with a steel building tend to be 5-10% higher than concrete (and energy CO2 almost always dwarfs PEI). if the steel is designed to be disassembled, the life cycle cost is significantly reduced - as it can be reused - so that's a plus. recycling concrete - bleh, there are still CO2 association (transportation, crushing).
in this LCA analysis of conc. & steel options for an institutional building @ queens university the author concluded concrete was better than steel. conc. had lower EE, GWP and toxicity output, but required more resources. steel required significantly more energy over the life of the building.
this paper seems to have roughly the same conclusion.
but from these readings - the answer is rammed earth/cob/strawbale, then wood, then steel if net-zero (a la sobek) or concrete if not.
i wish i could give a more definitive answer, but i'm far from an expert - just highly interested.
Hey, how many of you guys pay attention to what's coming out of the DOE and the research they are doing on energy efficiency in buildings lately? They have REALLY taken it up a notch and are doing some great things. In fact there was a Webinar this morning on green/cool roofs that was pretty awesome, you can view it here:
If you have any interest in hearing more about the DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's efforts to improve buildings and help us move toward zero-energy buildings, you can sign up for their mailing list here: http://www.eere.energy.gov/
Pot Growers Not So Green Analysis byMarianne English Thu Apr 14, 2011 02:00 PM ET
Growing marijuana indoors may be worse for the environment than previously thought, according to one researcher.
In a study, Evan Mills of
the University of California at Berkeley and researcher at the U.S.
Department of Energy, measured the production costs and outcomes of
cultivating this cash crop indoors. The project was not funded by either
organization, he writes.
Even though nearly one third of indoor growing occurs in California, the findings expand to other known producers throughout the United States with permits to supply medical marijuana to licensed dispensers.
The primary culprit? High-intensity ultraviolet (UV) ray lamps that
provide light to marijuana plants. These light sources produce some 500
times more light than what's necessary for reading. In addition, they're
often left on for 30 or more hours on average, according to the study.
Considering other factors such as ventilation and watering, a
standard room to grow the plant uses roughly 13,000 kilowatt hours per
year, with some homes containing 10 such rooms for growing cannabis.
In total, Mills concludes, the energy used to grow marijuana indoors
accounts for 1 percent of the nation's electricity consumption and 2
percent of household electricity use -- comparable to the "output of 7
large electric power plants."
Typically, one kilowatt hour provides enough energy to power a small
fridge for 24 hours or give you four evenings of light with a 60-watt
incandescent lamp, according to a TreeHugger.com article. This interactive webpage helps give you an idea of how much energy other household appliances use.
As highlighted in a Greenwire/New York Timesarticle
on the analysis, indoor cannabis cultivation produces the equivalent of
three million cars on the road in greenhouse emissions each year. These
gases are known to trap heat in Earth's atmosphere and contribute to
global warming.
I've been reading quite a few case studies about radiant heating and it benefits in the residential sector and that got me thinking about its usage within the commercial sector. I've done an initial google search but have come up empty Anyone know if there are case studies or any information out there concerning this type of usage?
holz, that and outdoor air requirements really cramp its style... you have to have ducts either way.... but you can look at chilled beams.... that will probably get you some hits, melt
Oh I missed Earth Day by a long shot this year. Sad.
As a belated Earth Day present, I would like to encourage you to think about your own energy usage in your home and see if there is anything you can do to reduce it. If you are so inclined you can even do a self energy assessment using this online tool by EnergySavvy. It's super cool! And it was made by friends of mine. Plus there's a super cute orange dinosaur. Bonus.
Green Thread Central
Thanks for posting nam! I was just reading that. Pretty interesting but they still seem to be a bit far from their goal of zero-energy.
how many liters of water does it take to make a computer?
yeah they def, aren't there yet...
How you liking life on the road?
Well I'm not quite on the road right now, as I'm taking advantage of an extended invitation to stay in Portland for a while. And I really like it here! So I'm trying my darndest to find work but actually my resume is all over the country at this point so who knows :o)
- a good scientific paper on the pros and cons of alternate energy sources....
I love you TK.
Now I finally have an article to reference other than my own personal research.
+3 architecture points to you, sir!
O-
It's a pleasure!
(but I'm now the person grading folks)
Actually globally i think i read. As a result of the recession from what I remember.
All right, I decided that I miss the green thread and wanted to ask y'all something.
Many of us here have been lamenting the gap between green products and green systems: we can buy a car that gets better gas mileage, but it's much harder to have an impact on how many miles we (as a society, not just as individuals) need to drive in a day, or a year. What is the #1 system that you would like to see re-invented, and how? Pie-in-the-sky ideas welcome.
I don’t want to interrupt the discussion that rationalist tried to start, but I have a question that I think I should post here instead of starting a new thread.
A couple of years ago, I heard someone say at a lecture that the reduction of negative impact on the environment that could be accomplished by using environmentally friendly construction materials in an average size American house, would be equivalent to building that same house with materials that were not environmentally friendly but with a reduction on its square footage equivalent to the size of an average closet. Does anyone know of any reports or studies that provide some numbers that confirm or contradict this statement? It doesn’t have to be necessarily about residential projects.
Thank you in advance.
Hmm, that is a very pessimistic prospective on the benefits of green materials. The difference in performance is much greater if you use high performance systems and envelopes. But if all you tried to do is use recycled stuff and build to the minimum code, then I can see how little the impact could be.
Sorry, I've seen no quantitative studies on the matter. But it does make some degree of sense: most of the energy in any object or structure is in the embodied energy, right? So reducing the embodied energy is a more effective strategy than improving day-to-day performance. Barry, I would note that he said "green materials" not "recycled materials" so that would include things like low-VOC finishes and high-performance glazing that (while great at continuing performance) sometimes can even increase the amount of embodied energy (think double and triple glazing systems...), or recyclable materials that have not yet been recycled. So on second thought I would not be surprised if much of the savings are a result of comparing with these green-but-not-recycled materials instead of the recycled materials that immediately spring to mind.
So on that slightly convoluted note, would also love to see those numbers!
rationalist: agriculture. right now we might as well drink our food from the gas pump.
I've heard the green-materials vs. SF argument before - it makes sense considering how much material goes into and how much energy is required to heat and cool a large house.
I also recently learned that bamboo flooring isn't that great because it can contain some pretty nasty chemicals and is typically imported from asia.
actually, much of the energy is from the operation and maintenance of buildings. the embodied energy ratio depends on the materials and the legnth the building is standing.
Many green materials either have a health slant and are non-toxic compared to similar - that has nothing to do with energy. Many energy efficient materials aren't green. so there is a catch-22. that's why we're still learning how to be sustainable.
Bamboo for example required the destruction of productive forest habitat for the plantations (same goes for teak, rubber, palm oil, and corn), plus there is the long supply chain from china to the us.
speaking of green ... i ran across this the other day.
car_op:
embodied energy in materials is a slightly important matter. the amout of BTUs to heat & cool a building almost always dwarfs the amount of embodied or primary energy input (the exception being amazing outhouses and zumthor's feldkapelle)
however, if you superinsulate - you frontload w/ a lot of BTUs (assuming rigid instead of cellulose - in which case you still superinsulate, just w/ uberthick walls) but you end up reducing the number of BTUs to heat the building many times over. It pays huge dividends to superinsulate from a BTU or EE standpoint.
i'll look through my energy manual, i've got a graph on this somewhere.
the question of PEI (primary energy input) and LCA energy is an important one. in my mind, it's better to have building products w/ low PEI, utilizing strategies to reduce heat loss and taking advantage of free energy (geothermal, solar, etc).
What about materials that have high PEIs but extraordinary long lifespans?
Concrete in that example is both a horrible and great example provided it stands the test of time.
And to rationalist's question:
I would like to say walkability but that's too ambiguous.
I think to get a maximum (not just effectiveness but business growth), one would have to emulate theme parks and resorts as a sort of model to expand upon.
I think the issue with that sort of planned "organic" quality is obviously finding big enough anchors but also the trick of hiding necessary traffic.
Disneyworld employs a complex system of tunnels for operations... that's what gives them ability to runn a 300-seat restaurant on ground level surrounded by sidewalks without any sort of loading dock or "back door."
But I think it would be impossible to balance real world pressures (such as business competition and people not on their best behavior) in that sort of theme-park-esque "utopian" environment.
So, I suppose the system I'm proposing is to mix Transit Oriented Development with Resort Development.
I don't think a lot of new urbanist and walkability schemes really have, for a lack of a better word, a romance to them.
Adaquately done bus stops and some trees on a street is a start but most of these schemes fall short in having a truly endearing quality to them.
Maybe I should send the question to Mythbusters...
I've gotten asked this question probably 10 times, and am wondering if any of you can clarify...
When comparing a concrete structure to a steel structure, which is better off from an embodied energy/manufacturing impact standpoint?
I know steel takes oodles of energy to process and form, but the feedstock (for structural, arc furnace shapes at least) can be nearly 90%+ recycled content.
I know concrete (or at least cement) also has a high manufacturing embodied energy content and generally requires a bunch of virgin materials that are likely transported from all over the place.
I suspect the answer is "it depends", but anyone who could shed light on this would be thanked!
reallife,
i think 'it depends' is probably right. there are ways to reduce the PEI of concrete (ggbs, fly ash, locally sourced materials) but there are ways to reduce the PEI of steel as well (recycled, optimized sizing to reduce wastage, etc).
my understanding is the PEI of concrete is a 20-30% worse than steel. but the energy costs associated with a steel building tend to be 5-10% higher than concrete (and energy CO2 almost always dwarfs PEI). if the steel is designed to be disassembled, the life cycle cost is significantly reduced - as it can be reused - so that's a plus. recycling concrete - bleh, there are still CO2 association (transportation, crushing).
in this LCA analysis of conc. & steel options for an institutional building @ queens university the author concluded concrete was better than steel. conc. had lower EE, GWP and toxicity output, but required more resources. steel required significantly more energy over the life of the building.
this paper seems to have roughly the same conclusion.
but from these readings - the answer is rammed earth/cob/strawbale, then wood, then steel if net-zero (a la sobek) or concrete if not.
i wish i could give a more definitive answer, but i'm far from an expert - just highly interested.
I would like to posit the idea of what would be more efficient is produced from clean energy sources.
Methane or electric fired concrete kilns or steel made via induction.
Or has GE not coughed up these details on two of these proprietary technologies yet?
I suppose that is an interesting view point here is that concrete and steel (as well as wood) can be made carbon-neutrally (minus off gassing).
Where as many composite materials cannot be.
(Given electric ovens, furnaces, pneumatics and motors.)
came across this today:
http://www.eco-sheet.com/home
100% recycled plywood substitute.
Long time no post!
Hey, how many of you guys pay attention to what's coming out of the DOE and the research they are doing on energy efficiency in buildings lately? They have REALLY taken it up a notch and are doing some great things. In fact there was a Webinar this morning on green/cool roofs that was pretty awesome, you can view it here:
http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/corporate/ns/cool_roof_webinar_04_2010.pdf
If you have any interest in hearing more about the DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's efforts to improve buildings and help us move toward zero-energy buildings, you can sign up for their mailing list here: http://www.eere.energy.gov/
Happy Earth Day, fellow inhabitants!!!
:o)
http://news.discovery.com/human/pot-growers-not-so-green-110414.html
Pot Growers Not So Green
Analysis by Marianne English
Thu Apr 14, 2011 02:00 PM ET
Growing marijuana indoors may be worse for the environment than previously thought, according to one researcher.
In a study, Evan Mills of the University of California at Berkeley and researcher at the U.S. Department of Energy, measured the production costs and outcomes of cultivating this cash crop indoors. The project was not funded by either organization, he writes.
Even though nearly one third of indoor growing occurs in California, the findings expand to other known producers throughout the United States with permits to supply medical marijuana to licensed dispensers.
NEWS: Engineering Law-Friendly Hemp
The primary culprit? High-intensity ultraviolet (UV) ray lamps that provide light to marijuana plants. These light sources produce some 500 times more light than what's necessary for reading. In addition, they're often left on for 30 or more hours on average, according to the study.
Considering other factors such as ventilation and watering, a standard room to grow the plant uses roughly 13,000 kilowatt hours per year, with some homes containing 10 such rooms for growing cannabis.
In total, Mills concludes, the energy used to grow marijuana indoors accounts for 1 percent of the nation's electricity consumption and 2 percent of household electricity use -- comparable to the "output of 7 large electric power plants."
Typically, one kilowatt hour provides enough energy to power a small fridge for 24 hours or give you four evenings of light with a 60-watt incandescent lamp, according to a TreeHugger.com article. This interactive webpage helps give you an idea of how much energy other household appliances use.
As highlighted in a Greenwire/New York Times article on the analysis, indoor cannabis cultivation produces the equivalent of three million cars on the road in greenhouse emissions each year. These gases are known to trap heat in Earth's atmosphere and contribute to global warming.
I've been reading quite a few case studies about radiant heating and it benefits in the residential sector and that got me thinking about its usage within the commercial sector. I've done an initial google search but have come up empty Anyone know if there are case studies or any information out there concerning this type of usage?
melt.
commercial is mostly cooling dominated, isn't it?
holz, that and outdoor air requirements really cramp its style... you have to have ducts either way.... but you can look at chilled beams.... that will probably get you some hits, melt
Oh I missed Earth Day by a long shot this year. Sad.
As a belated Earth Day present, I would like to encourage you to think about your own energy usage in your home and see if there is anything you can do to reduce it. If you are so inclined you can even do a self energy assessment using this online tool by EnergySavvy. It's super cool! And it was made by friends of mine. Plus there's a super cute orange dinosaur. Bonus.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.