I should add, I'm interested particularly on how zero-net energy can be achieved in an urban context. But any suggestions are welcome.

you really don't need a book on this, take the systems that exist and use them in creative ways. Every site is unique and calls for it's own solution towards a net zero energy production and offset system.

weather you can get the resources and afford these materials is the question

If the lifeless institutional powers that be (their cogs) don't see a mechanism to exploit life for a profit will it happen? likely not with out organized community effort in this social economic and political climate. Grassroots

i think anti hit this one...

the most up to date info will be online (lots of resources out there) and a book will be outdated before it's printed.

there are a few projects being built in the northwest (one in issaquah, ironically - the burbs) but i have a feeling none of them will meet the ZEB mark.

what exactly are you looking for? technical info? previous projects? that might help 'nectors provide links and info...

Zero Net-Energy Building Design (I would almost refrain from using architecture) is a myth... at least in an urban context.

Urbanity relies on interaction between the user, the pathway (the street) and the building. Part of the economy of a heavily urbanized area is the constant micro trade happening between different entities at any given time.

That being said... something is always going to justly need an energy input to provide an energy output. The problem with Zero Net-Energy is that it disrupts the give-take nature of an urban area. There's that but also the idea that it is fundamentally selfish. It's a big "fuck you" to the people who don't have the credit nor income nor the desire to dramatically modify the way a building, pathway or user works. In a sense, it actually divert money away from projects that provide public good and it says to the occupants of other buildings in the immediate area, "we think we don't need to use your utilities."

In anything, I wouldn't look for building design touting zero-net energy.

What would probably be better is finding design theories that are based off mitigation rather than prevention.

And for this, there's actually a 30-year old concept called "industrial waste symbiosis" or "waste symbiosis." Basically at macro levels, all waste is of some value. That being said, urbanity plays an important part here reducing the linear feet traveled for a waste to be exchanged for another waste... it's a crucial cost aspect.

This minimizes mitigation systems necessary for certain uses and reduces cost for one party while increasing profits for another-- a good example would be putting a plaster factor next to a gas or oil power plant. Plaster need SOx compounds (to produce sulfuric acid) to modify gypsum into whatever formulation necessary. And a gas fired power plant needs a large amount of gypsum for its scrubbers to remove SOx compounds.

They're in this method minimizing material and energy consumption by not importing, by minimizing unnecessary equipment and by utilizing waste reclamation.

Throw in a ammonia heat pump exchange and this three facility scheme would operate at a higher efficiency than detached zero-energy buildings could ever operate.




This is where my book recommendation comes in (and it is pretty basic)...

Green urbanism: learning from European cities
By Timothy Beatley
Edition: illustrated
Published by Island Press, 2000
ISBN 1559636823

i'm confused - are you saying that ZED is not possible in an urban condition?

i'd see it being extremely valuable in a place like cali where water and energy prices are variable, as being a positive thing. especially if surplus energy can be "sold" to the power company in summer and "purchased" in winter to offset the meter.

i also don't see how a buiding that is detached from utilities is detached from the urban condition. nor how it disrupts cost. my understanding is it does the opposite.

It's detached because economically, it's not really doing anything past the initial investment that it took to construct.

The other issue is that part of purchasing a utility is that you're paying for part of the transmission system (the pathway). If more and more buildings were to become "off-grid," how do you sustain the cost of transmission when it becomes necessary? Mind you much of our sewer, water and electrical systems are heavily government subsidized, this sort of model would make them increasingly more expensive.

One would have to do a cost breakdown to see whether or not the savings from producing your utilities would outweigh the costs of increased taxes to completely subsidize the cost of a back-up under-utilized system.

I'm only arguing this on the point that the term "energy" is ambiguous. Zero-Electrical Demand is probably more likely. For a single building to produce all of its "energy" needs would have to have a minimum of 4 acres per person and it would have to encompass 5-10 different ecological areas to provide a combination of the most basic parts to sustain modern living (alpine forests, deciduous forests, magma-bearing rocks, lime-bearing rocks, hypersaline lakes, alluvial fan deposits, acid bogs, sub-tropical savannas, sub-tropical forests, tropical forests, brackish estuaries, shelf oceans et cetera).

It would make more sense to approach the issue in terms of building complexes. It would be redundant and a waste of space to have individual buildings trying to provide every individual need-- it would be better off to have a single building producing chilled water, a single building producing reclamation water, a single building providing shade, a single building providing electricity and interchange each product between entities.

ok sorry, i keep confusing living building challenge and ZED.

ZED is strictly measured in power energy. issues of rainwater harvesting, grey water and blackwater don't (neccesarily) apply.

Yeah, I still hate the term "zero energy design" because buildings require people which require food at the most basic element.

I wasn't trying to be a douche necessarily but I dislike the idea of 'man as an island' as it discounts the non-special, non-sentimental but necessary relationships humans have to one another-- like everyone pooping in the same hole.

The question was about zero NET energy: that is grid-tied systems, which become small producers and are especially effective in an urban environment, where transmission distances and losses are short. If you build efficiently you can offset the embodied energy in the building over time by putting more power into the grid than you take. Agreed with anti that the best resources for figuring this out are on the web, but the technology has been around and in use for 5-10 years. Check out the electrical engineers IDeAS office in San Jose.

This is not the "off-grid" approach that hilland... declaims. Read before raving, please.

(and further, buildings don't require people, people require buildings)

Okay then, when I am an official government planner and your buildings claim zero "net" energy... I will give all over your projects a single 120v 150 amp power connection because I don't see any reason to not give you anymore capacity out of the government's pocket.

@H&R
5-10 different ecological areas to provide a combination of the most basic parts to sustain modern living (alpine forests, deciduous forests, magma-bearing rocks, lime-bearing rocks, hypersaline lakes, alluvial fan deposits, acid bogs, sub-tropical savannas, sub-tropical forests, tropical forests, brackish estuaries, shelf oceans et cetera
- can you provide a citation backing up your statement?

i am not sure, but if someone claimed a building was zero net energy, who assumes we are talking about any energy demands of each individual person who ever walks in the building?
it would normally be assumed that we are talking about demands of the building


that seems to be arguing just for the sake of arguing when its all semantics

Here is a source of some video discussions of the issue from a recent conference on the topic: ASHREA Conf