Kyoto 2 17

[QCE]

OK the last thread was too long!

This isn't really a question but:

Talk among yourselves about emissions and global warming and Kyoto.

To get started:

Emissions: bad - The world should try to form a world wide treaty that includes the USA.

Global Warming: Noone knows so why argue.

Kyoto: We can guess how it will turn out but won't truely know until 2012.

 

[GMcD]

One of the basic problems is the need for tranformation of the building design industry in North America. Buildings (and their products that go into making them) produce on average 40% of all the pollution in North America. If you could design buildings that use half the energy, and more sustainable materials, you could meet Kyoto Targets fairly easily. But at what cost? North American builders have a bottom line/gotta build the cheapest thing mentality. The issue is one of education for the fragmented building design industry - there is really no such thing as "integrated building design" going on except for a very few practioners. It can be easily shown that a proper integrated building design can meet the 50% lower energy performance AND NOT COST ANY MORE TO BUILD THAN A CONVENTIONAL BUILDING. Had to shout that, because there is this reaction to "green buildings" having to cost more than a conventional building. It just ain't so. The problem is that the way the building design industry currently works, the designers don't have the expertise, knowledge, or experience to be able to pull it off, therefore, anything beyond the conventional approach is fraught with problems (read risk).

 

[samv]

GMcD

Interesting
Do you have examples of these types of high performance at no extra cost buildings? Any suggested reading?

 

[GMcD]

SAMV: yes I have participated in, and have tracked the costs of some very high performance green buildings in my area and have a file of Tender results and other material. However, doing a google search on keywords like "green sustainable building costs" will provide a number of studies from the USGBC and other sources. Yes, there is a design cost increase, but that only represents up to 1% of a total cost increase on the Project Costs. It is my arguement that the current design costs are NOT resulting in "good design" in the first place anyway. Witness the leaky condo and excessive energy consumption of typical North American Buildings. You gets what you pays for.

 

[jmw]

At a guess, the Centre for Alternative Technology ought to have addressed these issues e.g. building walls with straw:

http://www.cat.org.uk/index.tmpl?refer=index&init=1

http://www.alternativetechnology.org.uk/

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[QCE]

Interesting about the buildings.

I know that building an energy efficient house sure costs a lot more. The energy savings will pay for it in the end but it is certainly more expensive in the upfront costs. I'm not saying it is bad but most people aren't willing to pay upfront for down the road benefits.

 

[GMcD]

QCE- but that's my point- a "properly" designed energy efficient and comfortable house shouldn't have to cost more. Increased costs in better windows and infiltration sealing should yield savings in the mechanical HVAC system (and associated electrical connections thereto). The problem arises with how an energy efficient house is designed and built. Houses seldom have a design professional other than an Architect involved (and most times, likely not if it's a "canned design"), and the Contractors end up doing a "design-build" HVAC system. They are interested in selling product, and their financial remuneration is based on selling more/bigger product, so it is not in their interests to give you a break for smaller HVAC systems requirements in spite of the better house envelope and other energy saving features. Like I said, the building delivery system is broken.

 

[QCE]

In Canada you can get rebates from the government and energy company for putting in better windows, heat pumps, etc. I don't think that you can install triple layer argon filled windows for the same price as the cheapest window on the market. I know a guy in Saskatoon that has as he says "the best insulated house in the world". I'm sure that he paid alot more for it but he sure does save some money in the -50C/-60F winters.

That would be like getting one of those hybrid Honda Civics for the same price as a normal Honda Civic. Sure you pay more for the hybrid but it is better on gas so it is cost effective.

 

[zdas04]

Not to be argumentative, but I read a report this morning

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=3b9aa75a04cea2b57645318ec8b8ca51

that says that 17% of the greenhouse gases released to the atmosphere are from outgassing coal mines. Now 40% comes from residential housing. So all other sources make up 43%? Cow farts, termite mounds, volcano pre-eruption events, and (by the way) motor vehicles, industrial engines, and industrial heaters seem to be a pretty big emission source that may not fit smoothly into the remaining proportion.

Do you have a source for the 40% number?

David

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> but that's my point- a "properly" designed energy efficient and comfortable house shouldn't have to cost more.

Maybe they shouldn't, but in reality, they do. Home buyers will buy what they can afford, and that is based on what the financial organizations are willing to lend.

I agree with you when you say,

They are interested in selling product, and their financial remuneration is based on selling more/bigger product

We're still talking economics. Kyoto sounds good on paper, but the solution is not going to be in treaties and political arrangements. Whatever course of action is taken, it must make economic sense to the consumer, the manufacturers, and the stockholders.

Political pressure can be brought to bear with tax breaks and incentives for the manufacturers. Maybe you can get clever with mortgage rates so the banks will lend the needed money to the home buyers. I'm sure there a creative opportunities, but ultimately, at least for now, I see this as an economic issue.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[GMcD]

ZDAS04/David: here is a weblink to the US Sustainable Building Office:

http://www.sustainable.doe.gov/buildings/gbintro.shtml

Here is another link to my local municipal governance office:

http://www.betterbuildings.ca/

Note that the pie chart is for a benign coastal climate that does not represent the rest of Canada.

In the US the figure is about 35% from buildings. In Canada it's more, due to the heating dominated climate (more heating fossil fuel use). Generally the greenhouse gas emissions are spread over buildings at 35%-40%, automobiles (including transport trucks, buses etc) at around 40%, and around 10% from industrial sources, and the rest is spread out from the "other" smaller emitters. Note that a significat part of the "industrial" use are factories that product building materials. Thermal electrical generating plants fall into the "industrial" sector.

 

[QCE]

I would guess they mean space heating and cooling, water heating and electricity for a building give 40% of the emissions in Canda and the USA.

It is little things like:

Replacing just ONE 60-watt incandescent light bulb with a 20-watt compact fluorescent in every Canadian household (more than 12 million of them) would save up to $73 million a year in energy costs. It would also reduce emissions by almost 400,000 tonnes-the equivalent of taking more than 66,000 cars off the road.

That could help but will it be done?

 

[zdas04]

GMcD,
If I'm reading these things correctly, residential accounts for 18% of the energy consumption and 49% of the pollution? They have to be double dipping here (i.e., counting the emissions from electric generation of power consumed in housing as "residential pollution" and as "industrial pollution"), don't they?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for energy effeciency in construction and use of housing. I'm with Cajun that it would make good public policy to implement large tax credits for doing energy effectiveness properly (as long as the tax credits don't have so much "pork" added that no one can understand them).

My only issue is that the emissions in the references you posted seem like housing is a disproportionate share of the total.

David

 

[QCE]

David I think we are talking about human emissions not natures.

I think that 40% of the emissions I create would likely come from the buildings i live and work in. Although I'm not a lead smelter or a coal fired power plant sans scrubber.

 

[GMcD]

David: Read the posts and the weblinks again: It's all about "buildings", not just "houses". Buildings include residential dwellings, apartments, high rise condos, hotels, office buildings, shopping malls, etc. The emissions/pollution/greenhouse gases attributed to "buildings" specifically includes the heating/cooling and domestic hot water energy uses. Many of the statistics are unclear as the what, exactly is included in the "buildings" contribution to greenhouse gases. If you look at the electrical use for air conditioning as an example, the normal ratio (on a good day) is about 10% of the thermal energy actually gets used at the plug in the form of electricity due to line losses, electrical plant inefficiencies, etc. all the way down the line. So, if you account for 1000kwh worth of burned coal or natural gas for 100kwh of actual electricity used, that can really skew the total emissions used directly for "buildings". I don't have access right now to specific emissions directly due to "residential housing".

 

[CajunCenturion]

Not only is the statistic unclear as to what is included in the buildings' contribution, the statistic is not exactly clear as what constitutes a building. I think you list is accurate, but do buildings also include factories, refineries, and other industrial plants?

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[GMcD]

Cajun: there are plenty of other sources for "greenhouse gas emissions from buildings" on the web, and in peer reviewed journals. Those two sources I posted above were quick to hand. Yes, one needs to be clear about what is included in "buildings" depending on the source, but it is clear to me from the bulk of the published data that commercial buildings (offices, warehouses, residential, mercantile, and the like- excluding "factories, refineries, and manufacturing plants") DO create a significant chunk of air pollution and greenhouse gases.

Interesting article in the latest Canadian Consulting Engineer magazine at:

http://www.canadianconsultingengine...65154&story_id=83252152316&issue=06012005&PC=

for more reading pleasure.

 

[QCE]

OK so if we replace all houses with energy efficient houses and replace all the coal fired power stations with nuclear or hydro or wind then emissions would go down.

We know this. We have known this for years but why does it not happen?

What if we all drive small hybrid cars that get 4X the efficiency of large trucks? Then what?

Should we do this? Is it possible? Why does it take so long? What are engineers doing about it?

Can engineers do more then politicians?

 

[jmw]

Ultimately, when we have eliminated all chemical emissions we will still not be pollution free since the one thing we do well is generate heat; our bodies and our machines.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[CajunCenturion]

I don't think anyone is advocating that we should be pollution free. As you said, that is impossible. However, we can be more responsible and less wasteful.

All it takes is time and money. The question is not what to do, it's who's going to pay for it.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein