HIGH PERFOMANCE BUILDINGS -- THE REALITY OF THEM
Drury B. Crawley form the Department of Energy (DOE) gave a presentation in New York City dealing with the question of High Performance Buildings and how they are doing at the present. While Dr Crawley was supposed to speak on the question of whether High Performance Buildings are really "performing as designed," he really gave an update on several Federal buildings that were retrofitted with renewable energy sources, had lighting and other energy upgrades.
It was my impression that communications were crossed, and Dr,. Crawley was not aware that the discussion was to go further into the reasons as to why High Performance Buildings often do NOT meet their expectations.
Dr. Crawley DID mention in his presentation that we have goals that will require Net Zero Energy Buildings at the Federal level by 2025, and that the pay back for initial investment on these improvements must come within five years. He also gave us a run-down as to the efforts made so far, and showed us that they all fell short of expectations, some significantly.
Net Zero Energy Buildings are defined as being capable of being able to generate all the energy that use over a set period of time, by using a combination of renewable energy sources, such as solar voltaic panels, wind generated power, lighting and other energy conservation processes to balance out what the purchase from the grid or fossil fuels. This means that while they actually do purchase power from the grid or use fossil fuels for a portion of the their operations, they make up for this by generating back what they use at other times.
It is important to get energy use down, not only because of the constant concern about global warming, but also the fact that energy use has increased by 70% since 1980. Here are some facts:
Dr.Crawley touched upon the issue of whether we can get to Net Zero. He said that 5000 buildings were studied during two separate studies, and it was found that for a one story building, it was possible to achieve 100% net zero electricity use. However, as the number of stories increased, this number fell significantly, meaning that New York City would have an almost impossible chance of obtaining 100% net zero electric use for its tall buildings.
As mentioned above, most of this Net Zero effort focuses on the use of renewable energy, mainly solar generated electricity that is generated on site. Dr. Crawley said that we need to reduce energy consumption by 60 to 70% to have a chance to obtain net zero energy use.
For example, site use is now averaging 90 KBTU's per square foot per year. We could get that down to 70% by codes, to 40.3% by use of new technologies, such as LED lighting, and down to 12% by using renewable energy sources.
Many buildings in the studies did NOT meet any of these goals, especially those in the health care and food service areas that have high energy use foot-prints.
The first steps towards Net Zero Energy Buildings include:
Getting back to the DOE, their labs are working on designs for buildings that use less than 50% of the current ASHRAE 90.1 standard, and retrofits for existing buildings that will use less than 30% of Standard 90.1
Dr. Crawley did mention one factor as to why High Performance Building often fall short of their goals. He saw where a hotel had a very high natural gas consuming item that was completely missed when the building design energy calculations were made: the natural gas-fired hotel sheet irons.
LED lighting can play a big factor here, especially in the outdoor application area, such as parking lots and garages. For example, a 480 watt Metal Halide lamp can be replaced with a 280 watt or less LED lighting system, that in many cases will provide more light for up to 50% savings in electrical consumption.
A set of metrics was listed:
In summary, Dr. Crawley said that a 50% reduction in energy use is very easily obtained, and is the goal for now. It is not totally about technology, but how we use it. In order to reach Net Zero, we will need a combination of incentives, improvements in technology, as well as cost reductions. Many of these renewable energy applications and LED lighting are still too costly to achieve a five year pay-back on the initial investment costs.
As I said early in the entry, the audience was surprised that more emphasis was not made toward why these High Performance Buildings are not performing as to what they were designed to. One member of the audience questioned the need for more of an emphasis on the applications of principles rather than the prescriptive approach that is currently the basis for design. He felt that we need to know why and how things work, before we can set down a code or design guideline.
I asked why we do not make greater use of Real Time Metering to see when and where the energy is being used. This would make it easier to target large loads and address their impacts. In addition, I asked why the buildings were not undergoing more intensive commissioning both during design and construction and post occupancy. I said that it makes no sense to have an array of solar panels on the roof that generates 100% of electrical needs, if the building, during night hours leaks excessive amounts of heat due to improperly installed windows and insulation or controls that are not programmed correctly.
The July/August 2009 issue of Green Source has an article entitled: "The Gray in Green." The article highlights that as the green and sustainable building practice becomes more common, so are failures to achieve the goals. Also discussed is just how serious the implications can be, as many municipalities have enacted green building laws, such as New York City, failure achieve a specific goal, such as LEED silver certification will lead to code violations and major lawsuits. The article mentions the Captain's Galley Condominium in Crisfield, Maryland as the first green certification lawsuit, as it did not receive the LEED Silver certification that it was designed to get.
At issue here, is often the lack of definition as to what "green building" is in the contract, as well as who is responsible for developing the standard. In addition, it is often unclear as to who is responsible for the building's performance. While a project may be designed to be "green," it is often a third party, such as Green Building Certification Institute (GBCI) that actually certifies the building.
This, in my opinion, comes back to my main objective in serving the green and sustainable building effort: Integrated Building Design, or Integrated Project Delivery, where all involved parties are kept in step with each other, from the earliest design phase to post-occupancy of the building.
At the meeting, other members did ask the question of the need to make sure that all are properly trained and certified to deliver a green building. Unqualified contractors and consultants will need to be addressed.
Along with these issues, comes the insurance matter, which is only now being to barely understood as a problem.
If one has never done a green building before, this can raise issues that would need to be dealt with in the contract. Adding to the issue, what happens if the original contractor goes bankrupt, or the warranty expires?
These issues are on the way to being addressed by year's end. The Associated Builder's and Contractors (ABC) is developing and addendum to its ConsensusDOCs that will create a green building facilitator, who will be responsible for overseeing and carrying out the green building project from design through completion. The need here, is to establish who is responsible. I also believe, as I have said all along, this lead person will need to employ the Integrated Building Design Process from the start and continue through post occupancy, and be in constant communication with all involved parties.
It was my impression that communications were crossed, and Dr,. Crawley was not aware that the discussion was to go further into the reasons as to why High Performance Buildings often do NOT meet their expectations.
Dr. Crawley DID mention in his presentation that we have goals that will require Net Zero Energy Buildings at the Federal level by 2025, and that the pay back for initial investment on these improvements must come within five years. He also gave us a run-down as to the efforts made so far, and showed us that they all fell short of expectations, some significantly.
Net Zero Energy Buildings are defined as being capable of being able to generate all the energy that use over a set period of time, by using a combination of renewable energy sources, such as solar voltaic panels, wind generated power, lighting and other energy conservation processes to balance out what the purchase from the grid or fossil fuels. This means that while they actually do purchase power from the grid or use fossil fuels for a portion of the their operations, they make up for this by generating back what they use at other times.
It is important to get energy use down, not only because of the constant concern about global warming, but also the fact that energy use has increased by 70% since 1980. Here are some facts:
- 40% of energy use is from buildings
- 73% of electricity use is from buildings
- 34% of natural gas is consumed by buildings
- 9% of CO2 emissions is directly related to buildings
- 45% of water consumption is used by buildings
- 30% reduction from that defined by ASHRAE 90.1 - 2007 now.
- 50% reduction from ASHRAE 90.1 - 2007 by 2016
- Incentive-based retrofits
- Building Label System that is far more informative than that of the present Energy Star System.
- Codes will provide enforcement of these initiatives
- Cap and Trade allowances for CO2 emissions.
Dr.Crawley touched upon the issue of whether we can get to Net Zero. He said that 5000 buildings were studied during two separate studies, and it was found that for a one story building, it was possible to achieve 100% net zero electricity use. However, as the number of stories increased, this number fell significantly, meaning that New York City would have an almost impossible chance of obtaining 100% net zero electric use for its tall buildings.
As mentioned above, most of this Net Zero effort focuses on the use of renewable energy, mainly solar generated electricity that is generated on site. Dr. Crawley said that we need to reduce energy consumption by 60 to 70% to have a chance to obtain net zero energy use.
For example, site use is now averaging 90 KBTU's per square foot per year. We could get that down to 70% by codes, to 40.3% by use of new technologies, such as LED lighting, and down to 12% by using renewable energy sources.
Many buildings in the studies did NOT meet any of these goals, especially those in the health care and food service areas that have high energy use foot-prints.
The first steps towards Net Zero Energy Buildings include:
- 30% reduction by Advanced Energy Design, as set forth by ASHRAE, IESNA, AIA, USGBC, and DOE standards and guidelines.
- Prescriptive tabular approach
- Small office, residential, schools need to be included
- Use of the LEED system
- engaging small health-care facilities to participate
Getting back to the DOE, their labs are working on designs for buildings that use less than 50% of the current ASHRAE 90.1 standard, and retrofits for existing buildings that will use less than 30% of Standard 90.1
Dr. Crawley did mention one factor as to why High Performance Building often fall short of their goals. He saw where a hotel had a very high natural gas consuming item that was completely missed when the building design energy calculations were made: the natural gas-fired hotel sheet irons.
LED lighting can play a big factor here, especially in the outdoor application area, such as parking lots and garages. For example, a 480 watt Metal Halide lamp can be replaced with a 280 watt or less LED lighting system, that in many cases will provide more light for up to 50% savings in electrical consumption.
A set of metrics was listed:
- Energy
- Demand
- Cost
- Water use
- Indoor Environmental Quality
- Carbon Footprint
- Business Impacts, such as from occupants and retail use
In summary, Dr. Crawley said that a 50% reduction in energy use is very easily obtained, and is the goal for now. It is not totally about technology, but how we use it. In order to reach Net Zero, we will need a combination of incentives, improvements in technology, as well as cost reductions. Many of these renewable energy applications and LED lighting are still too costly to achieve a five year pay-back on the initial investment costs.
As I said early in the entry, the audience was surprised that more emphasis was not made toward why these High Performance Buildings are not performing as to what they were designed to. One member of the audience questioned the need for more of an emphasis on the applications of principles rather than the prescriptive approach that is currently the basis for design. He felt that we need to know why and how things work, before we can set down a code or design guideline.
I asked why we do not make greater use of Real Time Metering to see when and where the energy is being used. This would make it easier to target large loads and address their impacts. In addition, I asked why the buildings were not undergoing more intensive commissioning both during design and construction and post occupancy. I said that it makes no sense to have an array of solar panels on the roof that generates 100% of electrical needs, if the building, during night hours leaks excessive amounts of heat due to improperly installed windows and insulation or controls that are not programmed correctly.
The July/August 2009 issue of Green Source has an article entitled: "The Gray in Green." The article highlights that as the green and sustainable building practice becomes more common, so are failures to achieve the goals. Also discussed is just how serious the implications can be, as many municipalities have enacted green building laws, such as New York City, failure achieve a specific goal, such as LEED silver certification will lead to code violations and major lawsuits. The article mentions the Captain's Galley Condominium in Crisfield, Maryland as the first green certification lawsuit, as it did not receive the LEED Silver certification that it was designed to get.
At issue here, is often the lack of definition as to what "green building" is in the contract, as well as who is responsible for developing the standard. In addition, it is often unclear as to who is responsible for the building's performance. While a project may be designed to be "green," it is often a third party, such as Green Building Certification Institute (GBCI) that actually certifies the building.
This, in my opinion, comes back to my main objective in serving the green and sustainable building effort: Integrated Building Design, or Integrated Project Delivery, where all involved parties are kept in step with each other, from the earliest design phase to post-occupancy of the building.
At the meeting, other members did ask the question of the need to make sure that all are properly trained and certified to deliver a green building. Unqualified contractors and consultants will need to be addressed.
Along with these issues, comes the insurance matter, which is only now being to barely understood as a problem.
If one has never done a green building before, this can raise issues that would need to be dealt with in the contract. Adding to the issue, what happens if the original contractor goes bankrupt, or the warranty expires?
These issues are on the way to being addressed by year's end. The Associated Builder's and Contractors (ABC) is developing and addendum to its ConsensusDOCs that will create a green building facilitator, who will be responsible for overseeing and carrying out the green building project from design through completion. The need here, is to establish who is responsible. I also believe, as I have said all along, this lead person will need to employ the Integrated Building Design Process from the start and continue through post occupancy, and be in constant communication with all involved parties.
Posted by Alan L. Englander at 9/20/2009 1:12 PM 
Categories: Cap and Trade, Target Dates, Net Zero Energy Buildings, Retrofitting of Existing Buildings, Renewable Energy, CO2 Emissions, Climate Zones
Categories: Cap and Trade, Target Dates, Net Zero Energy Buildings, Retrofitting of Existing Buildings, Renewable Energy, CO2 Emissions, Climate Zones
Comments