While reading the post about Green Roof solutions in L.A., it struck me that Green Building solutions need to be pulled even more into the mainstream to live up to their potential. Ultimately, that means bringing the cost in-line, or cheaper than, 'conventional' building methods/materiel.
We've gotta find some ways to bring down the cost of some Green solutions. Until that can be achieved, we're going to be fighting uphill battles & giving fodder to those who will sacrifice the environment to pollution just because they wanna give the finger to leaders like Al Gore.
I can hear a lot of us saying: "Hey, it's not gonna happen until companies mass-produce more components designed for specific
purposes." I can't accept that, especially from a group of Einsteins
like...well, like us!
Reduce-Recycle-Reuse. Shouldn't that also mean "cheap" or "free".
I gotta think clients support those two concepts more than anything.
You are so hopelessly right, it's no problem to be religous when you can spend the money buying the candles ,fine one-off solutions is easy to find but expensive, so is everything when it has to be designed from goods at the top of the food chain --- so realy there are no way around ; 100 different building materials must be replaced with one, new structural methods that cover all forms must serve by plain computer programs, and the building technikes shal not be advanced and complicated, but digital in a way anyone can understand.
So what's realy wrong with 3dh, except it's allmost to good to be true, as 3dh do all those things, and more
MM, you make a really good point and as energy prices spiral upward, it's going to become a real concern for many people. The fact is, until companies that produce solar panels and other renewable energy alternatives make them more affordable for regular people, homeowners are going to have to take matters into their own hands. Unfortunately a lot of people aren't getting that, and probably won't, until they are unable to pay their energy bills.
Actually it's banks that need to get the message. Almost any loser can walk into a car dealer and get a 30k car loan with no problem. Try getting a 30k loan to put solar panels on your house. It becomes all the more frustrating when you consider that the car will be virtually worthless in 10 years while the solar panels will have paid for themselves. I just don't think there can be widespread acceptance of residential solar until the financial industry offers a way to spread out the first cost.
Maybe this foreclosure mess will be the wakeup call the financial industry needs. Seems like if you have clients with $200/month electric bills, freeing up most of that 200 could make the difference between foreclosure/non foreclosure.
The general investment outlook for the Solar Panel Sector looks pretty good & probably within just a few years, PV panels can be equivalent in cost to conventional methods. The main thing holding back a lot of Solar production is material cupply more than anything else, at this point - right now, there's too much demand! But it ain't so much in the USA.
I also find the possibility that the Market will become too saturated w/ Solar companies & products. The overcapacity that sank many Telecom/Data Line companies a few years ago may weed out a lot of the Solar herd.
BTW, one way you could silence a lot of critics of Green was if You had
invested $1000 in a company like First Solar (ticker: FSLR) only 1 year ago - you (& I) would've had about $10,000 today (approx 1000% gain).
So much for working for a livin'!
So, P-V affordability is coming, but as ya'll know, it's not the solution everywhere & for every application. It's only one part of the solution.
I totally agree. It really aggravates me that many of the green products are priced just out of reach for the average environmentally conscious person. I think the tax deductions are a good incentive to the average Joe, but until the prices come down, the measures we could be taking aren't really going to flourish. If only the oil companies didn't have such power in the world...
30k loan to put solar panels on your house. It becomes all the more frustrating when you consider that the car will be virtually worthless in 10 years while the solar panels will have paid for themselves
Sounds like an excellent investment opportunity! Who here wants to help me start a Green Bank?
BTW, WonderK. Good point about the price of Oil...but when the price goews through the inevitable falling after an inevitible spike (like it has recently), the money trail for Green tightens in-step. I almost hate to say it - we need a serious interruption in oil supply (like LBJ#2 taking us to war w/ Iran) to make Green Energy development more of an urgent goal.
Pot and Heroin didn't fund the 9/11 terrorists, oil did. Folks need to realize that, and the energy companies need to realize that too. Energy independence is not only good for the environment its paramount for Natl. security. If we never bothered defending saudi oil fields by putting massive amounts of troops in muslim holy lands during Gulf War I, Osama may have never even bothered with 9/11.
$3000 invested in FSLR last year would've paid for that PV array. Let's also get Archinecters out of debt! Disclaimer - Past results are no indication of future performance.
BTW, my 'Cuda's 40 yrs old - don't count it out yet! Yeah, yeah, I know what ya'll are thinking: "Gas guzzler! Polluter!" HA! I'll bet it's sent less pollution into the atmosphere than your Prius has this year.....
sittin' in a garage under some cloth MM? Nice. I got no issue owning cars like that, by my daily driver would def. have to get better than or equal to 30 mpg.
Apurimac, you're spot-on about energy independence. Too bad we consumers don't do something about it & refuse to buy gas.
I'm currently in Brazil - 1 gallon of gas costs about $6-$7.50/gallon. You should see the traffic jams. They still buy lots of gas & 'Alcool' at these prices, albeit a Ford Focus is a high-average car here.
At less than $3/gal, Americans are gonna continue to be junkies.
Next, I'm visiting the Mopar blog to look for ethanol conversion of 1960s muscle cars. I've heard it's pretty easy, plus I wanna piss off some of those guys that think Global Warming's a scam.
My Bro-In-Law just sent me a Propane Conversion article, also seems pretty straightforward. Plus, I could bring along the grill.
So ANYWAY...How will we make Green more affordable?
I say a lot of it comes from thinking outside the box (nice 1990s catch-phrase revived...I'll figure out how to use 'synergy' next).
One way I'm starting to do it is kinda low-brow. I reuse & salvage &
act like the biggest cheapskate around. By reducing the cost of materiel through the reuse of stuff we'd usually discard, substantial material savings can occur.
Not everything used needs to be New.
One thing that seems to be a barrier to Green Roofs, for example, is the beefier structure required for the extra load. Tha's harder to overcome through conventional methods - Perhaps some of you Calatravas out there can come up w/ ways to integrate the 'green' w/ the structure.
mystery man -
green roofs only heavier if they are of the 'intensive' type. 'extensive' green roofs, requiring less growing medium but having limitations re what can be grown, are not really much heavier than gravel ballast used in roofing.
Hia Steven. Good point. I think I got 'fixated' on a Green roof that you can use like a rooftop patio/garden. The structure required for that would probably be the same load as a conventional rooftop pation.
Do you really need a green roof though if you use rainwater collection into a cistern? That could be an even cheaper option, and if I was building a house in ATL I know I'd be specin' one.
Funny you bring up rainwater reuse. I'd like to do that on a Domestic project. Seems pretty straightforward. n the Caribbean & Africa, you see that in use a lot more extensively.
Since ATL had quite a 'drought' in the Summer & Fall, one of the times that I was actually there. I want to try little re-route of my washing machine rinse cycle. I'd put in a check-valve & manual valve to 'vent' the rinsewater to my rhododendrons in the front yard. I main think the thing that I have to watch is the type of detergent that i use. Plus, I'd send the bleach-y stuff to the sewer.
I have not checked out if this would affect groundwater. I have some concerns about venting untreated water onto the land, but I think that if I kept the detergents to the highly bio-degradable spectrum, the effects would be minimal. I worked w/ an Environmental Engr once who said that soil is an excellent filter for water, but it was just conversation.
the second best filter for water in the natural world is soil, the first is rock. Artisan water is basically water that's been rock filtered for years and then trapped in the stone.
Apu-
most rock tends to be non-reactive and does nothing to purify water.
ok some minerals get disolved, especially from limestone and uranium from granite. soil chemistry is more engaging, especially clays that can bind with heavy metals and organic mater can absorb organic chemistry like hydrocarbons. but that doesn't fully clean the water. for that you need a biofilm, ie slimey bacteria to absorb stuff out of the water and utilize those chemicals as food. Most big water treatment plants utilize a sand bed filter where the sand acts as a matrix for the biofilm to grow and to filter out larger particle, sand = lots of surface areas
'artisan water' refers to water from an artisan well, ie tapped into an aquifer that is under pressure and so will flow to the surface. nothing about being underground that makes it pure- there is more non-potable groundwater in the world then sweet crystal clear refreshments. Out in desert and coastal areas, brine and salt water intrusion are significant.
most of the potable ground water gets infiltrated slowly, very slowly (and has lots of contact time with soil biota and microbes in the rocks before collecting in the aquifer. so as typical of us stupid humans, we tend to utilize this water faster then it can recharge, so the well goes dry...
Generally on continental Europe (particularly Germany) there are handsome financial subsidies offered for solar panels and green roofs. As a result there is a considerable number of buildings (particularly in rural Germany in my experience) that have entire roof surfaces covered with PV cells.
And cities such as Stuttgart make the addition of green roofs mandatory on new industrial(?) buildings. Green roofs hold a certain amount of moisture, thereby reducing the temperature of their environment, hence a reduction in the need for air conditioning, summer power surges etc.
Overall if you do the maths I expect 'green' initiatives pay for themselves on an area/city/country level, let alone reduced bills for the individual owner. Unfortunately IMO if initiatives aren't taken by governemtns and regional bodies to encourage green building, I doubt the market will rush to make them affordable.
MM perhaps it is only in the US and then even excluding California (and maybe Chicago) that green roofs specifically and other such options are not affordable.
It is simply as Daley, the Governator and much of Europe seem to know, of making them affordable...
for a trillion dollars, i'm thinking health care, free education and ample energy research would have been a better trade off. but then again, i'm just a commie lovin hippie, sorta.
Holz:
I think the 'War' o n Terror figure is close to $2.5T. for that kind of dough, I think we should've been fighting a 2 front war w/ a real opponent, such as the Gerries & Japs!! At the very least, we could've already been to Mars & back, solved world hunger or assured that everyone has an atomic powered Segway (or rocket packs).
BTW, that would've been a subsidy ffor our energy problems several times over.
Problem is, that's subversive, un-American talk. How dare anyone question fiscal irresponsibility?
Oh yeah, there's that body count thing, too.
Oh well, as they say "Freedom Ain't Free". Like 'they' know what Freedom is anyway.
GRRRRR.. Growl. One more reason I've got another caiparinha hangover.
In London this is being implemented as a requirement for 10-20% of a new building's energy needs being from renewable sources. Buying green power doesn't count. Biomass is unfeasible for pollution and logistical reasons, Wind and PV are wildly inefficient on UK/Urban sites. Borehole could never generate enough.
The way this all adds up is that (on one project) £500,000 has been spent designing and installing a turbine that was part of the planning application. It is expected to reduce energy bills by £250/year. That £250 saving will likely be wiped out by maintenance costs.
The reason that these technologies are still expensive is because a lot of materials and energy go into making the turbines and PV panels. In the case above this is much more energy than will be recouped in operation.
While funding and research is required to improve the technologies, the installation of inadequate/underdeveloped/inefficient pieces of kit in places where they do not make the most difference is an utter waste of time.
That's my point: I believe that too much of the Green Building movement is predicated on buying expensive stuff to be Green.
A lot of it works fine, but there's not enough emphasis, say, on reusing stuff we would ordinarily throw away such as construction debris, or plastic coke bottles.
Stay with the video, it's in Portuguese & takes a minute to get to the actual subject of Solar Water Heating, but it's kinda neat.
I'm not talking one-off stuff, here. I'm talking about something like what this guy, Jose Alano, has spearheaded. He's basically just a guy from Southern Brazil who has designed a solar water heater that:
a) Reuses trash, thus solves the problems of disposal
b) Is simple, thus anyone can build it
c) Is basically Free, thus anyone can have it. Those who ordinarily
couldn't get hot water, now can.
d) Can create a cottage industry, thus economic benefits are created
e) Cuts Energy consumption
From what I can understand, maybe hundreds of these water heater arrays are on roofs of ordinary people's houses around Santa Catarina, Brazil.
Now that's the real purpose of 'Green'. I think there's a tendency to
get snobby about how to be Green, sometimes. Isn't 'Green' really about saving energy, eliminating pollution & providing benefits.
I just don't think it's only about providing Green Roofs for wealthy Hollywood types w/ houses overlooking the Pacific.
Supplement: Alano doesn't just use plastic bottles, there are other kinds of waste, such as plaastic milk containers & apparently mylar 'tater chip bags provide reflective surfaces to heat the water.
I'm gonna look this guy up, while down here & see how it's done & how it performs.
Now, i'm the guy that wants a wind turbine at my rural house... However, I also firmly believe that "green" has become a kind of substitute religion for many, including the majority of posters on this site. The green movement has fairly successfully sort of co-opted as uniquely theirs any idea pertaining to a less wasteful approach to the use of resources. And a very good v. evil "with us or against us" environment has been created. I doubt that "green" is a very good encompassing life philosophy. It's not in itself a value sytem, much less a religion. But it is extremely popular, and so touting green will right now get the "A+" kudos.
I'm instead enjoying Psyarch's approach and commentary... a type of commentary that seems less about making everything green just because it's touted by fervent green disciples as "the right thing to do", and more about a rational assessment.
oh and stop it with the commie talk people, we all know bombs are way more useful than solar panels. Especially when you drop them on ghettos and dirt.
just to refresh the actual 'content' in this discussion...
there's been a 'design accord' floating around for several months now - it's a self defined, agreed to pledge to do right by the environment in all aspects of business practice. i've seen compared to the kyoto treaty, hannover principles, 2030 challenge, and everything in between. mostly, it's aimed at the industrial design sector, but does include architecture.
reason i bring it up is that the most interesting aspect of it (and others have noticed this as well) is that it breaks down the barrier to sharing ecologically innovative information. specifically (and let's go to the actual document):
"We promote openly sharing knowledge about green design and sustainability. We believe that building environmental intelligence should be a collective exercise. For this cause, we advocate for inverting the traditional model of competition, and encourage pooling knowledge so that all may benefit and build on marketable and sustainable solutions."
now, it'll be interesting to see how that gets applied in practice, but it's at least an encouraging step. because, if the goal is to make green more affordable, we're going to have to stop hiding all of our collected information. if everyone has to re-invent the wheel to get on board, then we've failed in one of our most basic obligations to further the public welfare.
You make a good point...Even within the context of Kyoto. The developing contries have been saying either share/subsidize your green tech or don't expect us to get on board...
My example of the 'Coke Bottle Solar Collectors' seems to be an example of people in a developing nation getting ahead of the curve. But good point made re: the design accord.
BTW,
I am by no means anywhere near being an expert on Green Tech, etc. So if the underlying topic of these posts has already been addressed, or if LEED, or any others do address my assertion of 'Green Must = Affordable' (as I am sure many ideas have been) I welcome, no I require you to point it out.
Jan 24, 08 7:24 pm ·
·
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.
Green Must = Affordable
While reading the post about Green Roof solutions in L.A., it struck me that Green Building solutions need to be pulled even more into the mainstream to live up to their potential. Ultimately, that means bringing the cost in-line, or cheaper than, 'conventional' building methods/materiel.
We've gotta find some ways to bring down the cost of some Green solutions. Until that can be achieved, we're going to be fighting uphill battles & giving fodder to those who will sacrifice the environment to pollution just because they wanna give the finger to leaders like Al Gore.
I can hear a lot of us saying: "Hey, it's not gonna happen until companies mass-produce more components designed for specific
purposes." I can't accept that, especially from a group of Einsteins
like...well, like us!
Reduce-Recycle-Reuse. Shouldn't that also mean "cheap" or "free".
I gotta think clients support those two concepts more than anything.
You are so hopelessly right, it's no problem to be religous when you can spend the money buying the candles ,fine one-off solutions is easy to find but expensive, so is everything when it has to be designed from goods at the top of the food chain --- so realy there are no way around ; 100 different building materials must be replaced with one, new structural methods that cover all forms must serve by plain computer programs, and the building technikes shal not be advanced and complicated, but digital in a way anyone can understand.
So what's realy wrong with 3dh, except it's allmost to good to be true, as 3dh do all those things, and more
classic!
MM, you make a really good point and as energy prices spiral upward, it's going to become a real concern for many people. The fact is, until companies that produce solar panels and other renewable energy alternatives make them more affordable for regular people, homeowners are going to have to take matters into their own hands. Unfortunately a lot of people aren't getting that, and probably won't, until they are unable to pay their energy bills.
ah, if my spec book could be reduced from 100 different materials down to 1, that would make my day sooooo much easier
I'm all for that
I like to brew tea in a modified solar beer hat, if that helps.
Actually it's banks that need to get the message. Almost any loser can walk into a car dealer and get a 30k car loan with no problem. Try getting a 30k loan to put solar panels on your house. It becomes all the more frustrating when you consider that the car will be virtually worthless in 10 years while the solar panels will have paid for themselves. I just don't think there can be widespread acceptance of residential solar until the financial industry offers a way to spread out the first cost.
Maybe this foreclosure mess will be the wakeup call the financial industry needs. Seems like if you have clients with $200/month electric bills, freeing up most of that 200 could make the difference between foreclosure/non foreclosure.
The following takes a moment to focus solely on Solar Panels.
Here's an interesting link on the future investment outlook regarding Solar panel companies:
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/JubaksJournal/O
utOfTheSpotlightSolarWillThrive.aspx?page=all&vv=550
The general investment outlook for the Solar Panel Sector looks pretty good & probably within just a few years, PV panels can be equivalent in cost to conventional methods. The main thing holding back a lot of Solar production is material cupply more than anything else, at this point - right now, there's too much demand! But it ain't so much in the USA.
I also find the possibility that the Market will become too saturated w/ Solar companies & products. The overcapacity that sank many Telecom/Data Line companies a few years ago may weed out a lot of the Solar herd.
BTW, one way you could silence a lot of critics of Green was if You had
invested $1000 in a company like First Solar (ticker: FSLR) only 1 year ago - you (& I) would've had about $10,000 today (approx 1000% gain).
So much for working for a livin'!
So, P-V affordability is coming, but as ya'll know, it's not the solution everywhere & for every application. It's only one part of the solution.
Just thought it was an interesting insight.
Sorry, I'm notoriuosly bad @ cut-n-paste:
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/JubaksJournal/OutOfTheSpotlightSolarWillThrive.aspx?page=all&vv=550
I totally agree. It really aggravates me that many of the green products are priced just out of reach for the average environmentally conscious person. I think the tax deductions are a good incentive to the average Joe, but until the prices come down, the measures we could be taking aren't really going to flourish. If only the oil companies didn't have such power in the world...
Sounds like an excellent investment opportunity! Who here wants to help me start a Green Bank?
BTW, WonderK. Good point about the price of Oil...but when the price goews through the inevitable falling after an inevitible spike (like it has recently), the money trail for Green tightens in-step. I almost hate to say it - we need a serious interruption in oil supply (like LBJ#2 taking us to war w/ Iran) to make Green Energy development more of an urgent goal.
Pot and Heroin didn't fund the 9/11 terrorists, oil did. Folks need to realize that, and the energy companies need to realize that too. Energy independence is not only good for the environment its paramount for Natl. security. If we never bothered defending saudi oil fields by putting massive amounts of troops in muslim holy lands during Gulf War I, Osama may have never even bothered with 9/11.
$3000 invested in FSLR last year would've paid for that PV array. Let's also get Archinecters out of debt! Disclaimer - Past results are no indication of future performance.
BTW, my 'Cuda's 40 yrs old - don't count it out yet! Yeah, yeah, I know what ya'll are thinking: "Gas guzzler! Polluter!" HA! I'll bet it's sent less pollution into the atmosphere than your Prius has this year.....
sittin' in a garage under some cloth MM? Nice. I got no issue owning cars like that, by my daily driver would def. have to get better than or equal to 30 mpg.
Apurimac, you're spot-on about energy independence. Too bad we consumers don't do something about it & refuse to buy gas.
I'm currently in Brazil - 1 gallon of gas costs about $6-$7.50/gallon. You should see the traffic jams. They still buy lots of gas & 'Alcool' at these prices, albeit a Ford Focus is a high-average car here.
At less than $3/gal, Americans are gonna continue to be junkies.
My Cuda? Under some fancy cloth? I'm Old-Skool, I use leaves from October. Yeah, you got me.
Next, I'm visiting the Mopar blog to look for ethanol conversion of 1960s muscle cars. I've heard it's pretty easy, plus I wanna piss off some of those guys that think Global Warming's a scam.
My Bro-In-Law just sent me a Propane Conversion article, also seems pretty straightforward. Plus, I could bring along the grill.
Apu
9/11 was an inside job
Even if 9/11 was an inside job, it was still influenced by oil.
So ANYWAY...How will we make Green more affordable?
I say a lot of it comes from thinking outside the box (nice 1990s catch-phrase revived...I'll figure out how to use 'synergy' next).
One way I'm starting to do it is kinda low-brow. I reuse & salvage &
act like the biggest cheapskate around. By reducing the cost of materiel through the reuse of stuff we'd usually discard, substantial material savings can occur.
Not everything used needs to be New.
One thing that seems to be a barrier to Green Roofs, for example, is the beefier structure required for the extra load. Tha's harder to overcome through conventional methods - Perhaps some of you Calatravas out there can come up w/ ways to integrate the 'green' w/ the structure.
Not everything has to be 2x10s @ 16"oc.
green is a way to sell product
mystery man -
green roofs only heavier if they are of the 'intensive' type. 'extensive' green roofs, requiring less growing medium but having limitations re what can be grown, are not really much heavier than gravel ballast used in roofing.
Hia Steven. Good point. I think I got 'fixated' on a Green roof that you can use like a rooftop patio/garden. The structure required for that would probably be the same load as a conventional rooftop pation.
Leaves from oct? Nice.
Do you really need a green roof though if you use rainwater collection into a cistern? That could be an even cheaper option, and if I was building a house in ATL I know I'd be specin' one.
Funny you bring up rainwater reuse. I'd like to do that on a Domestic project. Seems pretty straightforward. n the Caribbean & Africa, you see that in use a lot more extensively.
Since ATL had quite a 'drought' in the Summer & Fall, one of the times that I was actually there. I want to try little re-route of my washing machine rinse cycle. I'd put in a check-valve & manual valve to 'vent' the rinsewater to my rhododendrons in the front yard. I main think the thing that I have to watch is the type of detergent that i use. Plus, I'd send the bleach-y stuff to the sewer.
I have not checked out if this would affect groundwater. I have some concerns about venting untreated water onto the land, but I think that if I kept the detergents to the highly bio-degradable spectrum, the effects would be minimal. I worked w/ an Environmental Engr once who said that soil is an excellent filter for water, but it was just conversation.
the second best filter for water in the natural world is soil, the first is rock. Artisan water is basically water that's been rock filtered for years and then trapped in the stone.
At least that's what i know...
Well, I got soil. My sister stole the big rock I had holdin' up the Cuda.
I think it's under her Buick.
remember, you bitches don't own my planet.
Apu-
most rock tends to be non-reactive and does nothing to purify water.
ok some minerals get disolved, especially from limestone and uranium from granite. soil chemistry is more engaging, especially clays that can bind with heavy metals and organic mater can absorb organic chemistry like hydrocarbons. but that doesn't fully clean the water. for that you need a biofilm, ie slimey bacteria to absorb stuff out of the water and utilize those chemicals as food. Most big water treatment plants utilize a sand bed filter where the sand acts as a matrix for the biofilm to grow and to filter out larger particle, sand = lots of surface areas
'artisan water' refers to water from an artisan well, ie tapped into an aquifer that is under pressure and so will flow to the surface. nothing about being underground that makes it pure- there is more non-potable groundwater in the world then sweet crystal clear refreshments. Out in desert and coastal areas, brine and salt water intrusion are significant.
most of the potable ground water gets infiltrated slowly, very slowly (and has lots of contact time with soil biota and microbes in the rocks before collecting in the aquifer. so as typical of us stupid humans, we tend to utilize this water faster then it can recharge, so the well goes dry...
Generally on continental Europe (particularly Germany) there are handsome financial subsidies offered for solar panels and green roofs. As a result there is a considerable number of buildings (particularly in rural Germany in my experience) that have entire roof surfaces covered with PV cells.
And cities such as Stuttgart make the addition of green roofs mandatory on new industrial(?) buildings. Green roofs hold a certain amount of moisture, thereby reducing the temperature of their environment, hence a reduction in the need for air conditioning, summer power surges etc.
Overall if you do the maths I expect 'green' initiatives pay for themselves on an area/city/country level, let alone reduced bills for the individual owner. Unfortunately IMO if initiatives aren't taken by governemtns and regional bodies to encourage green building, I doubt the market will rush to make them affordable.
Good point lekizz..
MM perhaps it is only in the US and then even excluding California (and maybe Chicago) that green roofs specifically and other such options are not affordable.
It is simply as Daley, the Governator and much of Europe seem to know, of making them affordable...
I'd like to see a graphic that shows what area you can cover with PV panels with the money that were spent on the war in iraq
for a trillion dollars, i'm thinking health care, free education and ample energy research would have been a better trade off. but then again, i'm just a commie lovin hippie, sorta.
or as my reagan hugging gramps said, "heck, gas is still above $3.00/gallon."
Holz:
I think the 'War' o n Terror figure is close to $2.5T. for that kind of dough, I think we should've been fighting a 2 front war w/ a real opponent, such as the Gerries & Japs!! At the very least, we could've already been to Mars & back, solved world hunger or assured that everyone has an atomic powered Segway (or rocket packs).
BTW, that would've been a subsidy ffor our energy problems several times over.
Problem is, that's subversive, un-American talk. How dare anyone question fiscal irresponsibility?
Oh yeah, there's that body count thing, too.
Oh well, as they say "Freedom Ain't Free". Like 'they' know what Freedom is anyway.
GRRRRR.. Growl. One more reason I've got another caiparinha hangover.
It's true 2.5 trillion is the "official" accounting.. Just imagine all the black budget money spent.
We could have rebuilt Katrina, retooled our economy etc...But as you said such talk is commie talk.
There is much greenwash coming (indirectly) from the Clinton Climate Initiative/C40
In London this is being implemented as a requirement for 10-20% of a new building's energy needs being from renewable sources. Buying green power doesn't count. Biomass is unfeasible for pollution and logistical reasons, Wind and PV are wildly inefficient on UK/Urban sites. Borehole could never generate enough.
The way this all adds up is that (on one project) £500,000 has been spent designing and installing a turbine that was part of the planning application. It is expected to reduce energy bills by £250/year. That £250 saving will likely be wiped out by maintenance costs.
The reason that these technologies are still expensive is because a lot of materials and energy go into making the turbines and PV panels. In the case above this is much more energy than will be recouped in operation.
While funding and research is required to improve the technologies, the installation of inadequate/underdeveloped/inefficient pieces of kit in places where they do not make the most difference is an utter waste of time.
Green roof, yes. Rooftop turbine, no.
That's my point: I believe that too much of the Green Building movement is predicated on buying expensive stuff to be Green.
A lot of it works fine, but there's not enough emphasis, say, on reusing stuff we would ordinarily throw away such as construction debris, or plastic coke bottles.
Such as these Plastic Coke bottles: link
Stay with the video, it's in Portuguese & takes a minute to get to the actual subject of Solar Water Heating, but it's kinda neat.
I'm not talking one-off stuff, here. I'm talking about something like what this guy, Jose Alano, has spearheaded. He's basically just a guy from Southern Brazil who has designed a solar water heater that:
a) Reuses trash, thus solves the problems of disposal
b) Is simple, thus anyone can build it
c) Is basically Free, thus anyone can have it. Those who ordinarily
couldn't get hot water, now can.
d) Can create a cottage industry, thus economic benefits are created
e) Cuts Energy consumption
From what I can understand, maybe hundreds of these water heater arrays are on roofs of ordinary people's houses around Santa Catarina, Brazil.
Now that's the real purpose of 'Green'. I think there's a tendency to
get snobby about how to be Green, sometimes. Isn't 'Green' really about saving energy, eliminating pollution & providing benefits.
I just don't think it's only about providing Green Roofs for wealthy Hollywood types w/ houses overlooking the Pacific.
Supplement: Alano doesn't just use plastic bottles, there are other kinds of waste, such as plaastic milk containers & apparently mylar 'tater chip bags provide reflective surfaces to heat the water.
I'm gonna look this guy up, while down here & see how it's done & how it performs.
Here's a shorter link
Sorry, it's also in Portuguese, but looks to have some data.
Now, i'm the guy that wants a wind turbine at my rural house... However, I also firmly believe that "green" has become a kind of substitute religion for many, including the majority of posters on this site. The green movement has fairly successfully sort of co-opted as uniquely theirs any idea pertaining to a less wasteful approach to the use of resources. And a very good v. evil "with us or against us" environment has been created. I doubt that "green" is a very good encompassing life philosophy. It's not in itself a value sytem, much less a religion. But it is extremely popular, and so touting green will right now get the "A+" kudos.
I'm instead enjoying Psyarch's approach and commentary... a type of commentary that seems less about making everything green just because it's touted by fervent green disciples as "the right thing to do", and more about a rational assessment.
But I still want a turbine.
thanks TK, you learn something new everyday
oh and stop it with the commie talk people, we all know bombs are way more useful than solar panels. Especially when you drop them on ghettos and dirt.
just to refresh the actual 'content' in this discussion...
there's been a 'design accord' floating around for several months now - it's a self defined, agreed to pledge to do right by the environment in all aspects of business practice. i've seen compared to the kyoto treaty, hannover principles, 2030 challenge, and everything in between. mostly, it's aimed at the industrial design sector, but does include architecture.
reason i bring it up is that the most interesting aspect of it (and others have noticed this as well) is that it breaks down the barrier to sharing ecologically innovative information. specifically (and let's go to the actual document):
"We promote openly sharing knowledge about green design and sustainability. We believe that building environmental intelligence should be a collective exercise. For this cause, we advocate for inverting the traditional model of competition, and encourage pooling knowledge so that all may benefit and build on marketable and sustainable solutions."
now, it'll be interesting to see how that gets applied in practice, but it's at least an encouraging step. because, if the goal is to make green more affordable, we're going to have to stop hiding all of our collected information. if everyone has to re-invent the wheel to get on board, then we've failed in one of our most basic obligations to further the public welfare.
to see the design accord website: here
@ Jaru...
You make a good point...Even within the context of Kyoto. The developing contries have been saying either share/subsidize your green tech or don't expect us to get on board...
My example of the 'Coke Bottle Solar Collectors' seems to be an example of people in a developing nation getting ahead of the curve. But good point made re: the design accord.
BTW,
I am by no means anywhere near being an expert on Green Tech, etc. So if the underlying topic of these posts has already been addressed, or if LEED, or any others do address my assertion of 'Green Must = Affordable' (as I am sure many ideas have been) I welcome, no I require you to point it out.
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.