NET ZERO: Some new buildings aim to produce as much energy as they would otherwise consume.
Image: Jerchel via Wikimedia Commons
A few years ago in central Florida, John Santarpia had an idea. He was the president and CEO of a credit union and felt he needed to do something to improve its image.
"We're a medium-sized credit union and there's a lot of competition," Santarpia said. "We wanted to stand out."
He and his colleagues had found a lot in Lakeland, a city of about 100,000 residents, with an ice cream shop on it. Knowing the community wouldn't be in favor of losing the ice cream shop, Santarpia decided to build a flagship building for his credit union around it. Whatever it was, he wanted to make it green. What resulted was the state's first commercial net-zero-energy building.
"Financial institutions oftentimes are hesitant to try something new," said Tim Hoeft, a sustainable designer at Straughn Trout Architects, which designed the building.
The difference is that Santarpia was interested in new technology and was attracted by the fact that there were no net-zero commercial buildings in Florida yet, Hoeft said. Santarpia wanted his to be the first.
Although it is still loosely defined, net-zero usually means a building that produces as much energy as is consumed. The Department of Energy's website lists eight net-zero-energy commercial buildings up and running in the country. Most are small and in mild-weather environments. But the DOE number could be misleading because it relies on owners to voluntarily submit their building's information. At the New Buildings Institute, Technical Director Mark Frankel estimates the real number could be closer to 25, with about 50 more in construction.
Santarpia's building is among those not listed by the DOE. Through the construction and rebranding process, the credit union's name changed from Community First to Magnify, in part to reflect a new, green identity. The decision to make the building net-zero evolved on its own. First, Santarpia and his colleagues looked into certifying the building under the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design program. Once they figured out how to do that, they looked into putting solar panels on the roof.
"Then we asked, 'How many solar panels would it take to go net-zero?'" he said.
During construction, Santarpia sought help from local design and construction professionals as well as the local utility company. They ended up with a rectangular-shaped building with just over 4,000 square feet of space, high ceilings and an upward-sloping roof. It opened in August 2009.
The building combines control systems with its "double roof" concept. Its top layer of solar panels shades it from direct heat gain. The space between the roof layers, along with its slope, helps the hot air convect, or rise and disperse, instead of raising the temperature in the building.
Solar panels on the roof generate energy, although the building still draws from the grid when it needs to. Other energy-saving mechanisms include using Energy Star-labeled appliances, using equipment to shade the inside from Florida's hot sun and applying high-performance insulation to further reduce solar heat gain. A utility bill in October of last year confirmed the net-zero claim when it found that the building was generating more power than it was using. Forty-five percent of the energy produced in the panels goes back into the grid.
One side of the credit union building lies 3 inches from the ice cream shop, with a window peeking into it. Sometimes, people can buy ice cream right there.
The ice cream shop's energy consumption isn't included in Magnify's utility bill.
Net-zero has potential in a booming industry
In theory, at least, there is a big pot of money that entrepreneurs with net-zero ambitions can draw from. Each year, more than $600 billion is spent on new construction and renovation of commercial buildings, according to the Commercial Buildings Consortium (CBC). But adding the technology to commercial buildings -- which use 40 percent of the country's energy and make up 40 percent of its greenhouse gas emissions -- is a challenge.
See what we're tweeting about
6 Comments
Add CommentHow sad it is that it "costs" so much money to improve !!! Now if there were a program that would assist with this type of improvement how quickly we could turn this around!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven the increased efficiency of private individuals buildings could benefit if it weren't so expensive!!!
Perhaps if we didn't "give away" so much mney as "aid" to corrupt dictatorships and kept the money for innovation and assistance 'here at home' we could overcome such obsticles!!! I would LOVE t6o have a more efficient home here in northern NY but cannot afford the fenominal cost! And add to this the cost of $10,000 to insulate a 1500 Sq Ft home that the owner and realestate company 'proviede proof' that it was "fully insulated" and cannot be held accountable because they notated it as "as far as we know"!!!
Lovely LIEs !!!!
Ear1911
How sad it is that it "costs" so much money to improve !!! Now if there were a program that would assist with this type of improvement how quickly we could turn this around!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven the increased efficiency of private individuals buildings could benefit if it weren't so expensive!!!
Perhaps if we didn't "give away" so much mney as "aid" to corrupt dictatorships and kept the money for innovation and assistance 'here at home' we could overcome such obsticles!!! I would LOVE to have a more efficient home here in northern NY but cannot afford the phenominal cost! And add to this the cost of $10,000 to insulate a 1500 Sq Ft home that the owner and realestate company 'proviede proof' that it was "fully insulated" and cannot be held accountable because they notated it as "as far as we know"!!!
Lovely LIEs !!!!
Better idea. Instead of taxing me blind to give billions in subsidies to oil companies, how about cutting taxes, eliminating the spending, and then I can afford to install my own solar panels. This is not a job for the government: I want it done well.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd why in the world when Sci Am does these stories do they use some stock photo? How hard would it be to get the guy they interviewed at that bank to go out front and take a picture of the Net-Zero building he's so proud of? But no, instead of the small 4,000 sq. foot. building that's the entire subject of the story, we have a stock photo of some anonymous skyscraper. Nice journalism.
Right on all counts. Let's get the government out of the equation, level the playing field, and the rest will work itself out.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInstitutions, including government are how we come together as a society. Government is not evil when it consists of "us." Most of the r&d in this country was overtaken by military projects like at DARPA; and corporations have sought to externalize costs for decades. Those externalized costs manifest in government spending and health care costs. Obama is making inroads on improving both equations. Finally, basic research for alternative energy is being conducted both by the military and the private sector, because of his administration. Carbon taxes would help to reduce externalized costs of the fossil fuel industries.The free market has proven itself many times to be the tool of elitists, and the bane of the public (and safety). If you didn't learn that under bush, when 8 million jobs vanished, you probably get your news from entertainment pervayors like limbaugh, hannity, and similar pundits.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDistributed power generation has been a long time coming, and overdue. I applaud efforts like net-zero commercial buildings, and hope more residential consumers become net producers. If it takes Obama to grow subsidies that create jobs while creating an alternative energy economy, then I support those efforts.
Regan took the solar panels off the White House that were put up at the end of Carter's admin. to not only kill Carters solar initiative funding, but to kill the message of solar. At that time solar was said to not be competitive until $9/barrel oil reached $30. How far we have come in throwing those subsidies to centralized nuclear instead of making that turn in the 1980's.
Any move towards net-zero buildings is far better than any move towards free markets.
How about we take back the $6B Obama just gave Petrobras to drill for oil to sell back to us (among others) and instead put it into alternative energy R&D here, or even startup funding for companies here in the US.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd I don't mean like the millions the government just gave Phillips towards green energy, just so they could close one of their oldest and most profitable plants in Tennessee to build one overseas where labor is cheaper.