|
Jun 30th 9:00am |
Washington Grove Forest Nature Walk and then Coffee and BrunchJoin us and meet some of the staff and volunteers from our Albany-based state-wide Atlantic Chapter! All are invited to enjoy the tranquility and mystery of a beautiful old growth forest at Cobb’s Hill Park in the city of Rochester. |
A U.S. government-supported project in Tennessee seeks to launch a new kind of nuclear plant—a “small modular reactor.” Can downsizing address both cost and safety concerns?
From swapping in smarter lighting to installing solar panels, many homeowners are seeking energy efficiency boosts that can cut bills and lower their carbon footprint. But just how green can a home get? Julie Torres Moskovitz offers an answer in The Greenest Home, a just-released visual and practical guide to some remarkable passive houses around the world. (See related posts: “Green Fridays, Smart Lighting and More: How National Geographic Cuts Its Energy Use” and “A Model Net Zero Home by the Numbers.”)
What is a passive house? “Simply said,” Moskovitz writes, “a Passive House is a building that is very well insulated, virtually airtight, and primarily heated by the sun.” The interior temperature is designed to stay at 68 degrees Fahrenheit, and to bring in fresh air while removing exhaust air.
In order to meet the passive house standard in the United States, the book says, a home must be tested for airtightness, and caps are set on energy demand for heating and cooling.
The energy savings these homes can achieve are remarkable (reductions of up to 70 percent, according to the book), but what’s really striking about the homes in the book is just how modern, airy and inviting they look. Moskovitz answered our questions via e-mail.
How did the idea for this book come to you? What did you hope to achieve?
I was working on a Passive House retrofit project in Brooklyn and networking with people in the NYC Passive House scene. I realized that not only was there a lot of very current work happening that wasn’t yet captured in a book, but that it could be tremendously useful to collect information and present it in a way that would allow the public to better understand what Passive House is. I also insisted on adding an appendix with technical data, drawings, and construction photos that would help architects, builders, and students learn about meeting the Passive House standards.
I committed to writing a book that shows how integral the Passive House philosophy is through all stages of a project. I find that a lot of green design books are confusing for readers. For example, a text that describes an efficient technology in one sentence while dedicating the next to a concern like importing rare stone slabs from Italy for a kitchen counter, that runs contrary to green thinking. Passive House is green through and through and enables a homeowner to conserve energy without sacrificing comfort.
Is there a house (or houses) in the book that stands out to you in particular, either aesthetically or in terms of its energy-saving features?
My favorite project in the book is by BLAF Architecten in Asse, Belgium. I just love how congenial the design is with features like a basketball court in the yard, an ever-morphing chalkboard façade, and interior spaces that are so optimistic. It seems like a fun playhouse for a family to enjoy year-round. On top of all this, it’s Passive and Energy Plus that feeds power back to the grid with its 20 solar photovoltaic panels.
You display the latitude and longitude with each house listing in the book. Why is that?
This infographic came about when we were looking at how to order the case studies in relation to one another. Since location and performance are corollary in Passive House, we felt this to be a natural way to present the data. The coordinates reiterate that we are on one planet together and that orientation is integral to Passive House.
It matters how the sun affects each façade of your building, as windows and glass doors are part of the energy balance in the home. I combined the use of latitude with a graphic of Buckminster Fuller’s Dymaxion map, which envisions the continents as one island, and makes the point of how vulnerable we all are to climate change but also how interconnected.
What are some of the challenges one encounters when designing a passive house? Are retrofits harder?
The main challenge is getting buy-in from everyone involved so that there is comprehensive problem-solving at each phase of the project, especially during construction, when hasty decisions can negatively impact the stringent Passive House requirements, particularly airtightness.
Retrofits should theoretically be harder because you are working with elements that were inherited from the previous builder. However, I know it’s doable. Having completed a certified retrofit project, I know that the speed bumps are not likely to dissuade those committed to the Passive House model.
The book features homes from all over the world, but is there one country or region where you would say great progress is being made in green home design?
Well, I am going to give it to North America—precisely I am thinking of BC Passive House in Canada, founded by Matheo Durfeld. Passive House in Europe has a 15-year lead with established component manufacturing. In North America, the opportunities are limitless, as business-minded individuals begin to develop Passive House products for our market. For example, Durfeld founded a manufacturing plant that prefabricates building envelope panels that meet rigorous Passive House standards.
I noticed that many of the houses in the book have what seems to be a similar look: simple, smooth, a lot of dark wood on the exterior, irregularly placed windows, often rectangular. Is that just a function of the modern aesthetic now, or are there more practical reasons for this style?
It primarily speaks to a contemporary aesthetic but also to the fact that the homeowners aren’t over-doing it with materials and finishes that would contradict the greenness of what they created at the airtight thermal building envelope. In the book I was actually trying to highlight that these homes are inspiring modern designs, yet are super-high performance; they are models for 21st century living and show that green, formally speaking, can be anything.
What misperceptions do you think people have about passive houses?
The worst one is when people think that the windows don’t open and that there isn’t fresh air.
How does cost compare? Have you evaluated (or been asked about) payback times in terms of saved energy versus any additional cost required to make a house passive?
It’s very hard to do a cost comparison because there are so many varying factors. I have heard varying percentages but somewhere between 5 percent to 7 percent more for a Passive House is probably accurate. I am hesitant to give a definitive though because so many things factor in. If I am working with a client we work on other aspects of designing a comfortable and desirable home and this takes into account their programming needs. It’s very hard to separate those costs from what costs are the ones specific to a Passive House. Yes I am often asked about evaluating payback but it’s usually a developer wanting to know the bottom-line dollar investment. Clients realize there is more than a straightforward payback. For example, there is the stability of not being so dependent on volatile energy pricing, and the comfort of knowing that they have significantly reduced their carbon footprint.
How do you see the future evolving for passive house design and the market for it?
Well I am eagerly awaiting that tipping point where Passive House is in the vernacular and more people consider it for themselves. I hope my book will help familiarize the public about it. I am starting to receive calls from developers interested in Passive House. This is a good sign, as it suggests that they have market pressures to consider, not merely “green” design, but the deep potential impact of the Passive House model.
Browse the book:
This post has been updated from the original to remove references to energy consumption for the passive house standard, as cited in the book, and a misleading comparison with average energy consumption in American homes based on government data. Each figure was based on very different methodology.
In the financial community, the conventional wisdom holds
that businesses will continue investing in fossil fuels, despite the damage
they do to the climate, because they’re profitable. Last month, financial-services
company The Motley Fool held a symposium challenging the idea that
fossil fuels are a wise investment, even when you exclude environmental harms.
Staff from EarthShare member organizations including The
Union of Concerned Scientists and Green America joined other guests to show how
companies are thriving by addressing climate risk in their portfolios and
operations. If you’re an investor or business owner, you’ll want to take their
lessons to heart.
Rachel Cleetus,
an economist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, introduced the audience to
the concept of the Carbon
Bubble. The idea is
simple: because we can’t burn most of the fuels that energy companies have in
their reserves without causing catastrophic warming, those reserves are
currently overvalued by the market. In other words, companies are placing
“unburnable carbon” in their portfolios.
“We’re in a new
normal now,” Cleetus said. “And we’ve got to start taking climate change as a
base issue for everything we do, including the way we invest.”
The insurance
industry is preparing more than most, particularly those companies that insure
other insurance companies (“reinsurers” like Munich Re and Swiss Re). That’s
because they have to pay out when towns get swept away by floods or crops
wither from sustained droughts. Private insurers are so cognizant of climate
risk that they no longer provide flood insurance in the U.S., leaving the
federal government to provide that service.
“That means
every time one of these events happen, every single taxpayer is on the hook,
whether we’re talking about disaster relief or paying insurance claims. So this
is not just about the people getting flooded,” Cleetus said.
Stu Dalheim, Vice President of
Shareholder Advocacy at Calvert Investments has also witnessed the direct
impacts of climate change on businesses:
“We’ve seen
companies like VF Corporation [an apparel company] have earnings impacts due to
floods in Pakistan which caused cotton prices to go up. [They’re already]
dealing with very thin margins in their supply chain.”
How can you find out if a company you
invest in is truly addressing climate change? Find out if their sustainably goals are integrated
into everything they do, said Joe Cosola of the Center for Climate and Energy
Solutions. And look at their 10-K
filings with the Security
and Exchange Commission (SEC).
“You can often
tell quite quickly how seriously they take their [climate] risks,” Cosola said.
Addressing
climate change in one’s business plan helps companies avoid risk on one hand,
and also opens up opportunities on the other. Organizations like Opower and
National Geographic are making and saving money by making sustainability a core
part of their businesses.
National
Geographic saves $500,000 per year on utilities through energy saving measures
in its buildings. Opower is in the business of helping companies and homeowners
reduce their energy costs – nearly $300 million since they launched in 2007.
One of Opower’s
clients, an energy utility called National Grid, is banking on efficiency.
“National Grid
can… make as much money investing in energy efficiency as they would investing
in other types of transmission, distribution, and power generation – sometimes they
make even more,” said Opower’s Senior Director of Market Development Jim
Kapsis. “You’re aligning the incentives
of the private sector with what is in the social interest and what’s also,
frankly, in the economic interest of the country because we’re wasting a lot of
resources that would be better used to stimulate other parts of the economy.”
Green
America, an EarthShare organization that certifies small businesses on
sustainability measures, has found that consumers, too, are more apt to support
businesses that are good to the environment. This is backed up by the results
of a recently released Cone Communications/Echo
Global CSR study, which indicated that consumer
affinity surges when companies support social or environmental issues: 96% of global citizens reported
having a more positive image of a company; 94% will be more likely to trust
that company; and 93% will be more loyal to the company (i.e., continue buying
products or services).
“If you provide a product that’s genuinely
green, and not greenwashed, then people can see that your company is actually
walking the talk and are more likely to buy the product,” said Todd Larsen,
Green America’s Corporate Responsibility Director.
Slowly, the
business community is finding that their continued existence is dependent on addressing
climate change. Investors can play a role in encouraging this shift by
supporting companies that have an eye on the future and using shareholder
activism or removing support from those that aren’t.
Change
may be difficult, according to Cleetus, but “’Let’s not do anything’ is not
pragmatic”.
To learn more about climate change
impacts on investing, visit:
Investor Initiatives, Carbon Disclosure Project
Social Investing, Green America*
Investor Network, Ceres
Clean Technology: A Smart Investment for the United
States, Union of
Concerned Scientists*
On a recent late night at the office, I got a warning from the cleaning woman: “You know the lights all shut off at 10 o’clock, right?” Fortunately, I had never stayed at National Geographic late enough to learn that fact. But I had noticed before that at 8:00 p.m., my computer sends a message saying it is going into sleep mode unless I click a button to keep it on.
Those automatic shut-offs are one of many small measures that have added up to big energy savings for the National Geographic Society. In fact, the Society’s facilities department announced earlier this year that NG achieved a record for energy conservation last year, hitting its lowest-ever level of energy use at 13,947,932 kilowatt hours. That’s 25 percent less energy than the Society used at its peak in 2000. Frank Candore, chief engineer for NGS, says each kilowatt hour saved amounts to 15.5 cents — at that rate, the Society has shaved nearly $700,000 off its annual energy bill.
The lights across National Geographic’s LEED-certified headquarters here in Washington, D.C. are shut off anywhere between 6 p.m. and 10 p.m. on weekdays, depending on the location, and automatically come on at 7:15 a.m. The engineering staff also took one fluorescent bulb out of each fixture and replaced the remaining ones with higher-output bulbs, which cut the building’s lighting use almost in half, according to Candore.
Other ways NG cuts energy use:
- building temperature adjustments and improved heating/cooling systems
- smart printers that print only when you’re there to pick up the job, reducing paper waste
- Low-flow toilets and faucets in bathrooms
- Discounts and subsidies for Metro commuters and carpoolers
- Ample recycling and composting bins; compostable cups and containers in the cafeteria (and a discount on coffee if you bring your own mug)
- Green Fridays
What’s a Green Friday, you ask? For nine or ten days each year in warmer months, the Society shuts down most of its offices and cafeteria. If work needs to be done, employees do it remotely. According to Candore, every Green Friday saves 15,000 kilowatt hours, and this year, Green Fridays will add up to $21,000 in energy savings.
“We used to be 100 percent customer-oriented,” Candore said of his department. “If you called me and said, ‘I’m going to come in Saturday. Could you turn the air on for me?’ No problem.” Because of the way the building operated, that meant turning on the air conditioning for several floors on half of a whole building all day for one person—who may or may not have ended up coming to the office after all.
“About 10 years ago, we started saying, you know, we can’t keep running the equipment for one or two or three or four people. So we get people fans now if they want to come in on a Saturday or off hours,” he said.
Operators of large buildings like National Geographic have a significant role to play in increasing energy efficiency, and it’s clear to anyone who has passed a fully lit, empty office building at night that there is widespread room for improvement. Buildings account for about 40 percent of domestic energy use, and commercial buildings account for nearly half of that amount. As part of a larger effort to boost American energy efficiency, President Obama created the Better Buildings Initiative two years ago with the goal of making commercial buildings 20 percent more efficient by 2020.
Making such an improvement, however, isn’t as simple as just shutting off more lights. National Geographic’s progress is the product of several smaller changes that add up to large savings, and it’s countered somewhat by the cost associated with testing different approaches and new-to-market equipment.
“A lot of it’s all educating us, too,” Candore said. “We’re on the cutting edge of this, and not everything we do is a success.” He says, for example, that it took time to recognize energy savings from new, smaller boilers that were installed a couple of years ago. “We were thinking maybe we had a flop there,” he said. Changes to the way the boilers were being operated eventually resulted in improved performance.
The Society continues to look for improvements on energy use, and the engineering department is evaluating smart panels that would help fine-tune control over the building systems. As efforts to lower the Society’s carbon footprint continue internally, the new goal for 2015 is to achieve a 10 percent reduction in electrical use, 10 percent reduction in water use, 25 percent reduction in landfill waste, and 5 percent reduction in greenhouse gases for NG’s vendors and suppliers.
Many of the Society’s efforts at sustainability are also powered by a “green team” of employees who volunteer their time to help put ideas into practice and to bolster energy awareness across divisions. Candore said that citing the environment, rather than savings, as the impetus for occasionally jarring changes tends to elicit support from coworkers. But, he said, “We’d rather not even call it the green initiative. We’d rather just call it best building business practices, because that’s what it is.”
The countries that have made the most progress still have far to go to bring electricity and clean energy to their populations, a World Bank-led report details.
U.S. Department of State photo
We generally complain that action on climate change is mired in polarized partisan politics and thus nothing can be done. True to an extent, but let’s hold on a bit.
In terms of generating important discussion about the clarity that exists around the conclusion that the scientific debate over climate change as an anthropogenic process is over, the political bully pulpit can be incredibly powerful.
A case in point is the paper published last week in Environmental Research Letters, where I am the Editor-in-Chief: “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature” John Cook, of the Global Change Institute, University of Queensland, Australia, was lead author of the paper, which begins with this abstract:
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11,944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics “global climate change” or “global warming.” We find that 66.4 percent of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6 percent endorsed AGW, 0.7 percent rejected AGW and 0.3 percent were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1 percent endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5 percent.) Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2 percent endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors’ self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
The paper came out, and President Barack Obama’s Twitter account weighed in:
Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous. Read more: http://t.co/4lEEBYtVqf
— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) May 16, 2013
That high-profile tweet (not directly from the president, but like all his tweets, from the campaign group formed to support his political agenda) drove a wave of attention to the research. Follow-on tweets came from Vice-President Al Gore and U. S. Congressman Henry Waxman. Television coverage followed in: ABC Lateline, Al Jazeera (Inside Story), CNN International, Democracy Now, and NRK. At last count there were over 200 newspaper and magazine pieces, and a number of radio segments. At last count there were several hundred blog posts on the findings of this paper and the Obama Tweet. A link to the ever-growing set of media coverage is: http://sks.to/tcpmedia.
The article has been downloaded over 21,600 article downloads in just a few days of having the paper published online.
What this story highlights – beyond the excellent data collection, analysis and scholarship in the paper itself – is the value of thoughtful comments and recognition of these findings.
Daniel M. Kammen is the Distinguished Professor of Energy at the University of California, Berkeley, where he founded and directs the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory (http://rael.berkeley.edu). Kammen is a Coordinating Lead Author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Kammen the Lead Scholar for the Fulbright NEXUS program in energy and climate for the U. S. Department of State.
In the valley that once lured gold seekers, oil prospectors are converging on the Monterey shale—a sharp new twist in California’s path to cleaner energy.
|
Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative Seeks to preserve and maintain the wildlife, wilderness and natural processes of the mountainous region from Yellowstone National Park to the Yukon Territory. |
|||
|
Combined Federal Campaign (CFC) Number: 49235 |
|
||
|
NatureServe Provides scientific basis for effective conservation action for conservation groups, government agencies, corporations, academia, and the public in order to manage natural resources. |
|||
|
Combined Federal Campaign (CFC) Number: 10299 |
|
||
|
LightHawk Conserves land, water and wildlife in North and Central America by providing flights to collect environmental data, monitor changing conditions and provide education. |
|
|
Combined Federal Campaign (CFC) Number: 10424 |
|
|
|
|
