We find ourselves at a strange, unprecedented and, many would agree, pivotal point in human history. Climate change is a real threat to our future on this planet. We are seeing its effects already. The debate is over it is time to act.
Arup are not only working towards making zero carbon development a realistic option we are also making it easier to understand. The first step to change is understanding what needs to be done and more often than not it is easy to get lost in the technical jargon. Arup are developing new and easier ways to communicate the technical message. This is a sample of some of the things we are doing. Just follow the link below.
In 1946, philosopher and engineer Ove Arup set up his consulting engineering business in London.
Arup now has over 90 offices across Europe, North America, Africa, Australasia and South East Asia. It has tripled in size in the last ten years, and now has over 10,000 people worldwide.
If you require more information please feel free to visit our website www.arup.com
Thanks for posting this. It's nice to have a concrete focus to talk about climate change relative to the work we do.
I'm curious how the "standard" energy usage benchmark was determined. It seems in the 70s there were many architects applying sustainable practices to building: see Orhan's profile of Glen Smalls for a sample from that movement, or the first eco-roof I ever saw, Judith Chafee's Ramada House. Certainly the 80s office building boom saw climatically appropriate design fade away, but it also seems with improvements in standard technologies for heating and cooling in the last decade a typical building must perform better than one built even at the height of the 70s green era. Is a contemporary standard practices building a better or worse performer than one employing decades-old green technologies?
Orochi, i think you have i almost right. While calcium carbonate and sodium carbonate both go into making soda-lime glass, the end result has quicklime and sodium oxide rather than calcium carbonate and sodium carbonate, e. g. it has CaO rather than CaCO3 and Na2O rather than Na2CO3.
From wiki soda-lime glass typically used in windows has
73 SiO2, 14 Na2O,
9 CaO, 0.15 Al2O3,
0.03 K2O, 4 MgO,
0.02 TiO2, 0.1 Fe2O
which would suggest that as the input materials are heated
CaCO3 => CaO + CO2
Na2CO3 => Na2O + CO2
and the CO2 is not left within the glass
It is pretty exciting that this sort of information is relevant to the future architect
Standard practice is determined based on current building code or design benchmarks for the particular building type or mix of buildings in the development being considered for targeting zero carbon.
It is difficult to give a definitive answer without having the relevant data at hand. There is also a question about what level of amenity and services we come to expect as normal in buildings (e.g. broadband internet did not exist in the 1970s, but is now considered standard). That aside, the question should be looked at in two different aspects: passive and active design. In terms of passive design, for example orientation and insulation levels, it is possible that a building from the 1970s with good passive design could outperform a contemporary building that only just meets standards. However, improvements in active design (e.g. more efficient lighting and air conditioning) may go some way to making up the difference. Ideally, modern buildings should take full advantage of good passive design AND better performing technology.
This is not an advertisement. Yes we are trying to raise our profile in the sustainability space however we are not selling any products or services as such. The link provided is actually part of a report we delivered to one of our clients. It is an interesting new way to deliver complex information in an easy to understand format.
We would be very interested to hear what people think of the delivery method. Of course it is not a substitute for an in-depth report but more an executive summary which quickly highlights the main points.
Usually at these focus/review type groups I typically get acouple hundred bucks for my opinions, and occasionally a nice dinner and some alcohol. Whadda ya say?
The graphics and such look like a nice video game, and I guess in a 5 minute video that's about all you have. you manage to cram it all in there, but without doing any of the three things I would have wanted to see - behaviour and distribution of built space (i.e. low density planning) and exactly how much carbon is generated per square foot of building material or effective system load in a building.
great, we need more wind farms (just picking one thing from the video). unless I have a bunch of land in a wind belt or I am the head of a lobbying company with a paid for shill in congress, there's nothing I can do about it. I do design buildings however, and if you could make a handy-dandy index with breakdowns at major metropolitan areas comparing similar products (sheathing for example) which gives me a handle of the carbon created from resource gathering, manufacture, delivery, it's effect on building performance and probable method and rate of recycling and disposal, because that I can use.
If you look at our history in the context of the entire life of the earth and not just the past 100 years... we are due for an ice age any minute now. Oh yeah and the electromagnetic poles are going to flip. So North will be South and South will be North. I bet George Bush will get blamed for that. Damn you crazy liberals for making me stick up for him.
Thanks for your post. From your questions it sounds like you are looking for Life Cycle Analysis information for materials and also for the building. Emissions from operation of a building per square foot will be dependent on the activity in the building and how well the building is designed, efficiency of systems used and also the source of energy used to power the building. Rules of thumb are therefore difficult. It sounds like you are writing from the US, so you may find some of the answers to your questions by looking at Athena Sustainable Materials Institute, http://www.athenasmi.org/tools/ecoCalculator/index.html Also, www.pharosproject.net
Other useful resources are The Green Guide to Specification (GGTS) or the Green Guide to Housing Specification (GGTHS) , which are useful design tools based on LCA data as they list typical elements of construction and rate them, enabling quick comparisons between design options.
By way of example and to provide a feel for the comparative impact of carbon emissions related to energy input to the materials and operation of the building over its life, analysis for the Forum Chriesbach building for Eawag Aquatic Research, Switzerland shows that the energy contained in the construction of 43,201 GJ over a mean service life of 37.6 years accounts for around half of the energy demand.
Nov 17, 09 9:13 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.
Towards Zero Carbon
We find ourselves at a strange, unprecedented and, many would agree, pivotal point in human history. Climate change is a real threat to our future on this planet. We are seeing its effects already. The debate is over it is time to act.
Arup are not only working towards making zero carbon development a realistic option we are also making it easier to understand. The first step to change is understanding what needs to be done and more often than not it is easy to get lost in the technical jargon. Arup are developing new and easier ways to communicate the technical message. This is a sample of some of the things we are doing. Just follow the link below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qk7opAQE2qs
If this was of interest to you why not follow us on twitter http://twitter.com/ArupAustralasia
What does ARUP stand for? I would Google it but my brain isn't functioning 100% at the moment.
In 1946, philosopher and engineer Ove Arup set up his consulting engineering business in London.
Arup now has over 90 offices across Europe, North America, Africa, Australasia and South East Asia. It has tripled in size in the last ten years, and now has over 10,000 people worldwide.
If you require more information please feel free to visit our website www.arup.com
Thanks for posting this. It's nice to have a concrete focus to talk about climate change relative to the work we do.
I'm curious how the "standard" energy usage benchmark was determined. It seems in the 70s there were many architects applying sustainable practices to building: see Orhan's profile of Glen Smalls for a sample from that movement, or the first eco-roof I ever saw, Judith Chafee's Ramada House. Certainly the 80s office building boom saw climatically appropriate design fade away, but it also seems with improvements in standard technologies for heating and cooling in the last decade a typical building must perform better than one built even at the height of the 70s green era. Is a contemporary standard practices building a better or worse performer than one employing decades-old green technologies?
does this mean ARUP will only work on projects that reduce energy consumption by 90+%? otherwise, it just seems like a feel-good marketing push...
If you build a tower out of aluminum and glass, is it 100% carbon free?
not if anyone is breathing inside ..
(That was trolling.)
Plate glass is about 25% calcium carbonate and about 30% sodium carbonate.
Hard to believe that glass is organic!
Orochi, i think you have i almost right. While calcium carbonate and sodium carbonate both go into making soda-lime glass, the end result has quicklime and sodium oxide rather than calcium carbonate and sodium carbonate, e. g. it has CaO rather than CaCO3 and Na2O rather than Na2CO3.
From wiki soda-lime glass typically used in windows has
73 SiO2, 14 Na2O,
9 CaO, 0.15 Al2O3,
0.03 K2O, 4 MgO,
0.02 TiO2, 0.1 Fe2O
which would suggest that as the input materials are heated
CaCO3 => CaO + CO2
Na2CO3 => Na2O + CO2
and the CO2 is not left within the glass
It is pretty exciting that this sort of information is relevant to the future architect
i suppose this is an ad?
Standard practice is determined based on current building code or design benchmarks for the particular building type or mix of buildings in the development being considered for targeting zero carbon.
It is difficult to give a definitive answer without having the relevant data at hand. There is also a question about what level of amenity and services we come to expect as normal in buildings (e.g. broadband internet did not exist in the 1970s, but is now considered standard). That aside, the question should be looked at in two different aspects: passive and active design. In terms of passive design, for example orientation and insulation levels, it is possible that a building from the 1970s with good passive design could outperform a contemporary building that only just meets standards. However, improvements in active design (e.g. more efficient lighting and air conditioning) may go some way to making up the difference. Ideally, modern buildings should take full advantage of good passive design AND better performing technology.
aspect....
This is not an advertisement. Yes we are trying to raise our profile in the sustainability space however we are not selling any products or services as such. The link provided is actually part of a report we delivered to one of our clients. It is an interesting new way to deliver complex information in an easy to understand format.
We would be very interested to hear what people think of the delivery method. Of course it is not a substitute for an in-depth report but more an executive summary which quickly highlights the main points.
Usually at these focus/review type groups I typically get acouple hundred bucks for my opinions, and occasionally a nice dinner and some alcohol. Whadda ya say?
The graphics and such look like a nice video game, and I guess in a 5 minute video that's about all you have. you manage to cram it all in there, but without doing any of the three things I would have wanted to see - behaviour and distribution of built space (i.e. low density planning) and exactly how much carbon is generated per square foot of building material or effective system load in a building.
great, we need more wind farms (just picking one thing from the video). unless I have a bunch of land in a wind belt or I am the head of a lobbying company with a paid for shill in congress, there's nothing I can do about it. I do design buildings however, and if you could make a handy-dandy index with breakdowns at major metropolitan areas comparing similar products (sheathing for example) which gives me a handle of the carbon created from resource gathering, manufacture, delivery, it's effect on building performance and probable method and rate of recycling and disposal, because that I can use.
If you look at our history in the context of the entire life of the earth and not just the past 100 years... we are due for an ice age any minute now. Oh yeah and the electromagnetic poles are going to flip. So North will be South and South will be North. I bet George Bush will get blamed for that. Damn you crazy liberals for making me stick up for him.
Reverse the polarity... It's just crazy enough to work!
crowbert ....
Thanks for your post. From your questions it sounds like you are looking for Life Cycle Analysis information for materials and also for the building. Emissions from operation of a building per square foot will be dependent on the activity in the building and how well the building is designed, efficiency of systems used and also the source of energy used to power the building. Rules of thumb are therefore difficult. It sounds like you are writing from the US, so you may find some of the answers to your questions by looking at Athena Sustainable Materials Institute, http://www.athenasmi.org/tools/ecoCalculator/index.html Also, www.pharosproject.net
Other useful resources are The Green Guide to Specification (GGTS) or the Green Guide to Housing Specification (GGTHS) , which are useful design tools based on LCA data as they list typical elements of construction and rate them, enabling quick comparisons between design options.
By way of example and to provide a feel for the comparative impact of carbon emissions related to energy input to the materials and operation of the building over its life, analysis for the Forum Chriesbach building for Eawag Aquatic Research, Switzerland shows that the energy contained in the construction of 43,201 GJ over a mean service life of 37.6 years accounts for around half of the energy demand.
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.