GREEN HOUSE: By incorporating elements such as a solar water heater in a house built in the 1940s, the Now House Project in Toronto is aiming to eliminate energy costs and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Image: COURTESY OF THE NOW HOUSE PROJECT
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
North American homes, offices and other buildings contribute an estimated 2.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere every year—more than one third of the continent's greenhouse gas pollution output. Simply constructing more energy-efficient buildings—and upgrading the insulation and windows in the existing ones—could save a whopping 1.7 billion tons annually, says a new report from the Montreal-based Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC), an international organization established by Canada, Mexico and the U.S. under the North American Free Trade Agreement to address continent-wide environmental issues.
"This is the cheapest, quickest, most significant way to make a dent in greenhouse gas emissions," says Jonathan Westeinde, chief executive of green developer Windmill Development Group in Ottawa, Ontario, and chair of the CEC report (who admits that green building regulations would be good for his business). But "buildings are not on the radar of any governments … despite being an industry that represents 35 percent of greenhouse gas emissions."
The report echoes the findings last year of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which identified building improvements as one way to reduce global warming pollution with "net economic benefit."
"Residential is a slam-dunk, it's just a matter of applying the technology we have," says IPCC author Mark Levine, a senior staff scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California who studies these issues. "It's the biggest sector. It's the biggest savings."
Yet, "green buildings"—defined by the report as "environmentally preferable practices and materials in the design, location, construction, operation and disposal of buildings"—represents only 2 percent of the commercial edifices in the U.S. and 0.3 percent of new homes.
"In Europe, they are much ahead of us on building," Westeinde says. "As North Americans we pride ourselves on smaller government and bigger activity in the marketplace. We're not seeing the market react fast enough."
A big part of the problem, he says, is that many builders are loath to invest extra money for more efficient energy and water systems that only translate into cost savings for the eventual owners. Westeinde's company gets around this dilemma by working out long-term financing arrangements with owners, who agree share a portion of their future cost savings with the developer.
He notes, too, that the price gap between energy-efficient and conventional construction might eventually disappear as green buildings become more common. "If everyone is using a certain type of window that drives cost down," Westeinde says. "Green construction is only 4 percent of the market which means the other 96 percent are creating a volume discount for themselves. But if green becomes 50 percent of the industry, that cost differential goes away."
The report calls for the Canadian, Mexican and U.S. governments to set specific targets for green buildings as well as to adopt continental standards, such as siting buildings in a way that maximizes passive solar heating and cooling.
"There is not that great a difference between green building in Oaxaca and Ohio," says Evan Lloyd, CEC director of programs. "It is the best systems and technology that can be applied to reduce energy consumption as well as paying attention to resource inputs."
See what we're tweeting about
17 Comments
Add CommentI think the government should play a vital role in propagation and regulation of green buildings construction,especially cheer on more developer to do so by means of support either on policy level or on material level.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course you think the gov't should be involved. The green movement is inherently anti-capitalist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI guess SA missed the news flash where NASA data showed global temperatures dropped .75 C in 2007. Obviously CO2 emissions are pretty much irrelevant to global temperatures.
Dear frgough, please see http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20080116/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswhere it states clearly "Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2007 tied with 1998 for Earth's second warmest year in a century."
All the best
Nick
The same amount of money invested in generating power for a home likely would create several times the power if invested in a commercial scale alt power project. To put this in perspective, wind tubines for a home won't be located high enough (100 feet or higher) to get the higher, consistent winds that are attained by well sited commercial turbines. Why encourage the waste of capital and resources on extremely inefficient systems that will require more maintenance, more construction materials, reinforcement, and more labor? And because everyone will expect "tax breaks" the taxpayer ends up paying a heavy price.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat are the sources that are reduced. I can infer greater efficiency from reduced heating and cooling. But is that it, and what else. Why are we having to surmise or rather guess?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article completely fails to substantiate the claim in the headline. It simply repeats a report from an industry organization, and quotes an industry insider who gains to profit from his claim.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPuh-leeze. What kind of journalism is this?
Re the fellow who starts: "Of course you..."
Government regulation is not anti-capitalism. Often regulation allows markets to operate efficiently, or even exist where otherwise there would be none. Your statement is sneering and dismissive, and so is doubly unpersuasive.
In response to frgough....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHAHA!
Please note that much of the gain in green buildings is from insulation, and this efficiency is one of the cheapest. This, unfortunately, also makes for less healthy buildings for people because of reduced airflow, which is a problem recognized in the 1980's. It is sometimes called sick building syndrome.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you want more in-depth info, check the related links, particularly this story:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=combating-climate-change-building-better-wasting-less
Unfortunately, I can't cram everything into every story.
> Unfortunately, I can't cram everything into every story.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSay it ain't so! :-( ;-)
I read the link. It also does not discuss the issue of "sick building syndrome". If airflow is cut way down, chemicals from building materials concentrate indoors, mold spore concentrations rise, radon concentrations rise, etcetera. So this needs to be taken into account when "going green". I think it needs to be prominently featured so that anyone thinking of going green knows they have to ask about how this is going to be dealt with.
I think we are forgetting something of greater importance and I have recently written an article stating my opinion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGlobal Warming, truth or consequences. Please pass
on to your friends. Thanks
http://www.quazen.com/News/Opinions/Al-Gores-Decree-on-Global-Warming-is-Not-Our-Only-Crisis.51904
Al Gore's Decree on Global Warming is Not Our Only Crisis
We have to get off of oil! The callous cash thirsty OPEC boys really don't give a damn if your ass freezes this winter, they sell oil to the highest bidder. We in Canada have cut all the wood, mined all the practical coal, and sold the best of our oil. We are in dire straits indeed, and our US friends are not able to bail us out this time. Ontario has opted for nuclear power as a last desperate move to keep its people warm at night - they have no coal, no wood, no oil and a Chinese-challenged manufactury that is about to crumble. Thank God we Canadians had the good judgement to socoalize medical help and re-enforce unemployment insurance, otherwise they too would be gone with the GM jobs to Mexico or even China. God Bless!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo combat 'sick building syndrome' for a house costs about 2,000 to 3,000 for a heat/air exchange system and will save some bucks too.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have a pre energy star modular home. it has one. built into the heat/ac system. Though the house is all electric and had plenty of air leaks, which I have found most and sealed we have radon and smoke detectors and we do smoke, it does make a huge difference, even though it is undersized for a 2100sq ft house. When we moved in almost 3years ago the power bill was 450 per mo for high energy use times winter and summer, spring and fall we open windows. It has a shingle roof which is about due for replacement, but we can't afford 20g for a reroof, so I have sealed it with a roof primer and white reflective sealcoat. Since I am partially disabled I can't do it all at once, but what I have gotten done makes a 10 degree difference from the half of the house that is done from the half that is not. We have spent about 2800$ over 3 years Energy star dw and clothes washer and deep freeze, plus Great Stuff in pipe/wire penetrations and around the floor registers where the ducts meet the floor had 1/4 to 1/2 gaps, insulated curtain liners and double blinds, I open or close to take advantage of heat gain and heat loss at night.
We have reduced our power usage from last tenants 4,000kwhrs to 2200(winter summer) 1200 spring and fall, the house is more comfy, we swapped all the lights frm indcand to CFL and replaced 11 of those for LEDs that give 45w for 3.5(used in fixtures that take pairs).
I use a toaster oven for small meals, covered pots. We plant to put a larger heat/air exchange unit in too, if anyone does not know what they do, they vent stale but warm air and use the heat from the stale air to warm the fresh air. I forget the efficiency numbers but I think its on the order of 85%.
There is a bunch of small things we all can do. Most of what I have done here is simple gaskets in switch and outlet covers 50cents each, turn the water heater from 135 to 125, the front load washer was the largest expense, but one of the best investments as it saves on soap, water and wear and tear on clothes.
look under tubs if you can get at them they usually have large air leaks, insulate the foundation walls. We are putting in a solar water heater, that will cut another 40$ off our power since we have a well pump that will go solar when we can scrape up the cash. We will try to get the tax breaks, besides if the power is out(it happens too much) we will still have running hot water. Everything is not always about $$.
I neglected to mention that the heat exchanger itself costs about 1,500$ the rest of expense depends on if you can install it or if you have have it done. We plan to install a second unit in the other end of the house which I can do myself they run on 110-v power being a retired electrician and some experience with heat and air systems set ups it should not be a big deal to install in the laundry room.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFolks make too much of the expense of retrofitting the house with some insulation , caulk and gaskets or weather strip. I realise that windows and doors are expensive and we are going to have to replace ours sooner or later, but double blinds and insulated curtain liners are almost as good. When the temp outside got down to 25 last year we like to have froze with the heat , fire place and a kero heater going it got to 55 in here, since I did a lot of sealing over last summer, it got to 2 degrees one night this winter but we only needed the kero heater. We plan to use the solar water heater to drive a radiant system and eventually we will only need the kero at the coldest times.
We plan on new metal siding and roofing with extra insulation as we can afford to do that. We plan to be nearly fossil fuel free in the next ten years. It ain't gettin any cheaper in dollars or cost to the environment. I live 140 miles from the nearest coal fired electric plant up wind and even get allergic asthma from it when it blows this way. Also the cost to the Appalachian states is a horrible cost , people live on those mountains some for generations but I guess that doesn't matter to folks who don't live there. My family has been in the same area for 8generations. Mountain destruction does not employ very many people so its not a money making enterprise for locals, only destruction of the mountains, water ways and drinking water , then you got that sludge that escapes the ponds and poisons more air water and land.
Vacuum insulation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou may know , your coffee thermos flask is using vacuum insulation combined with rediation reduction using a reflective coating.
Vacuum insulation can provide for 10 times better building insulation compared to current good insulation materials.
For flat panels, the ambient pressure has to be offset by a filler material, the outside has to be a flexible foil.
Current state of the art:
The filler material (any gas-open insulation material) is no problem. The outside (array of) plastic foil is not very long term vacuum tight.
Metals or glass would do the job, but metals conduct to much heat at the edge and there are no cheap glassfoil/plastic laminates (the glass has to be less than 0.05mm for the desired flexibility, think of glass fibers) to do the job.
For the time being , you could manufacture large , tailor made panels, evacuated after mounting and coupled together and to a small vacuumpump to restore the vacuum once every 3 months.
The inside and outside parts of the panels can be metalized, the edge has to be metal-free.
Together with double and radition reducing coated glazing, you need hardly any heating for such buildings.
Succes.
whilst I appreciate the technology of heat exchangers to bring fresh air into superinsulated houses, even here in Sydney Oz temperate climate the fed.govt. has just funded heaps of roof insulation to typically save something like 20-30% of summer cooling, 40% of winter heating costs, at a fraction of the cost of similar performing alternatives.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hold-the-accolades-on-chinas-green-leap-forward/2011/04/19/AFLdZMEE_story.html
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this