Three Simple Questions:

Al Gore asks three simple questions about carbon and climate change: Do we have to change? Can we change? Will we change?

Not surprisingly he answers yes to all three questions. However, what is remarkable is his thorough, deep, holistic, and grounded response in a brief yet impeccably documented, inspiring talk. The presentation left me with great optimism that we are already on the path to success and that we will continue in that direction.

He begins with disturbing evidence which articulates the extraordinary magnitude of our climate change problem and the deepening impacts of our continued fossil fuel consumption. While not surprising to most, it does demonstrate the necessity and urgency for action. Climate change and its impacts are happening faster and with more serious consequences than anyone had predicted.

In answering the question: Will we change? Gore has the shortest and clearest summary of how the revolutionary and mind boggling transition to renewable energy is already happening—we are beyond the tipping point. The closing of fossil fuel power plants, the incredibly rapid decrease in the cost of solar and wind, the beginning of rapid decreases in battery storage costs, and the substantial growth of renewables in meeting demand for new generating capacity, all indicate this. The simple bottom line is that renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuels—even without considering the huge environmental cost of fossil fuels or the 40 times greater subsidies for fossil fuels.

Similarly, in our work as architects, and as we have documented in our book, The New Net Zero, we are finding that we are at the tipping point where renewable buildings are less expensive than fossil fuel buildings to own and operate. It is a remarkable game changer at a more mundane level since buildings are the cause of about 40% of all carbon emissions on the planet. Buildings are a critical arena for change if we are going to solve carbon emissions and associated global climate change. Additionally, net zero and net positive energy buildings are healthier, more durable, more beautiful, and generally nicer to be in than fossil fuel buildings.

Lastly, Al Gore shows how change typically happens where it is very slow at first and then viral—a tipping point is reached and the world changes. This has happened in the past with technology such as automobiles, cell phones, the internet, computers, and most other major changes, including past energy transitions. He quotes a great poet of the 20th century, Wallace Stevens: “After the final ‘no,’ there comes a ‘yes,’ and on that ‘yes’, the future world depends.” Finally, he reminds us of the victories in civil rights, women’s rights, LGBT rights, and other successful movements that seemed impossible when they began, but with passionate leaders, integrity and strong momentum, changed. The change necessary to positively impact climate change is the only moral and ethical choice we have and Gore believes that we will win.

You can see this inspiring presentation at: http://www.ted.com/talks/al_gore_the_case_for_optimism_on_climate_change?utm_source=newsletter_weekly_2016-02-27&utm_campaign=newsletter_weekly&utm_medium=email&utm_content=talk_of_the_week_image

The post The Tipping Point in the Transition to Renewable Energy is Here Now! first appeared on Net Zero Energy Vermont.

I was fortunate to attend the Getting to Net Zero National Forum in Washington, DC on February 1-3 which was promoted as “A gathering to share perspectives on the growth of zero energy buildings, learn about best practices for successful projects and collaborate on opportunities for zero energy to transform the built environment.”

Opportunity for Change

While I found all of the presentations, sessions, and networking informative, broad and deep in content, as well as inspiring, I was particularly struck by the interest, commitment, and seriousness of national and global design, construction, and real estate companies; utilities; governments; and non-profits in making net zero happen now. They see that our culture is at the tipping point of permanent change and in a transition of energy sources for our future. Also they see a significant opportunity in diversifying portfolios, avoiding risk, and being the leaders in what will become the standard practice for the future. Across the board, participants and speakers stated that net zero energy (NZE) buildings are game changers that support and inspire donors, investors, and occupants far beyond the immediate economic benefits.

A driving force and the competitive edge

The New Buildings Institute (NBI), “a driving force for advancing the energy performance of commercial buildings”, is also a leader in documenting the growth of NZE buildings. They published the 2015 List of Zero Energy Buildings with 29 verified net zero buildings and over 50 emerging buildings—buildings that are in planning, design, construction, or operation for less than a year so do not yet have one year of verified energy data to show NZE performance. Maclay Architects has two projects that have been verified NZE, The Putney School Field House and the Bosarge Eduction Center at the Coastal Maine Botanical Gardens. From the conference, it was clear that this is not a fringe movement, but in fact, where all real estate is headed—and those at the forefront will gain a competitive edge in this immense, emerging global market. It was interesting to me that the larger players in real estate are even more interested in NZE buildings and projects than smaller players, as they seemed to see the benefit in pursuing a unique and rapidly growing market segment.

Resources and More Information
For more information, visit the NBI website, which offers much valuable information on energy efficiency in general and NZE buildings specifically.

The keynote speaker was Ed Mazria who is the founder and CEO of Architecture 2030, a non-profit research organization promoting planning, policy, and design solutions for low-carbon, resilient built environments worldwide. For more information on Architecture 2030 visit http://www.architecture2030.org.

Amory Lovins and many others from the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI at rmi.org) also contributed to many sessions of the conference in support of RMI’s mission to scale market-based solutions to climate change.

The post Getting to Net Zero National Forum, Washington D.C. first appeared on Net Zero Energy Vermont.

The rapid transformation in renewable energy technologies and plummeting costs for renewables, generation, storage, and distribution systems is now revolutionizing the global energy sector as powerfully as the Internet, social media, and other recent high technology sectors. It is also transforming our energy infrastructure and delivery to the greatest degree in the last century. The shift to renewables with the decentralized generation of renewables is changing the century old energy utility model with centralized power generation. While power companies have been trying to stop this trend, market forces continues to drive the evolution to a global decentralized energy system.

Global examples and trends

By way of example, the German government has subsidized the wind and solar industries to the extent that China has entered both markets and has led to the drop in renewable costs below fossil fuels. Importantly, Germany has accomplished this solar benchmark while maintaining the most competitive energy rates in the European Union – disproving the argument that renewable subsides increase energy costs. As is summarized in the September 13, 2014 NY Times article, Germany is only third globally when looking at percentage of renewable production of power from renewables. In recent years, renewables account for over 20% of German’s energy production. Brazil is first with over 80% and Canada is second with over 60% renewable generation. The US is in 9^th place globally with about half the percentage German renewable power.  However, even in the US, states like California have renewable energy goals of 33% by 2020 and appear to be headed towards that goal. The second largest US homebuilder, Lennar Corporation, has picked up on this opportunity and is providing solar photovoltaic on all of their new homes with a 20 year contract guaranteeing a 20% discount from utility rates. This is a further demonstration that net zero and renewables are financially prudent today. (Gillis) For further details on these US, German, and global trends follow this NY Times article. While this decentralized renewable trend gains momentum, most US utilities are trying to buck the trend by controlling the market under the old and outdated centralized model.

Renewables and Vermont

However, in Vermont, as the Burlington Free Press reported on in these two articles (September 4, 2014 and September 14, 2014), the city of Burlington is moving with the times by supplying 100% renewable powered electricity to the entire city of 42,000. The Burlington Electric Department will source 1/3 of its power from wind contracts, 1/3 from hydro (including a new local 7.4 megawatt plant and Hydro-Quebec), and 1/3 from a city owned biomass electric generation plant. Burlington is likely the largest community to reach 100% renewably sourced electricity. Burlington joins the likes of the Washington Electric Cooperative, which became 100% renewable this year and has about 11,000 customers. In addition, Vermont’s largest utility, Green Mountain Power has been a national leader in encouraging renewables such as wind, solar, hydro, biogas and biomass. The renewable future is increasingly obvious in all of this, but who the winners and losers will be in this “disruptive” transition is yet to be seen. That said, utilities in Vermont are leading the way.

Reference article:

Gillis, J. (2013). Sun and Wind Alter Global Landscape, Leaving Utilities Behind. The New York Times

The post Energy Transition and Disruption first appeared on Net Zero Energy Vermont.

What are the metrics that will move us toward our net zero goal and future?

When we purchase a car we generally know what the fuel mileage is. When we buy, own, renovate or build a new building there isn’t a simple metric to compare buildings. To accomplish this goal the critical questions are:

• How do we compare different sized buildings?
• What is a simple and easy standard that is as intuitive as miles per gallon so it is understandable, applicable and useful?
• What is the typical energy consumption?
• How do we compare different building occupancies and uses (like office, residential, retail, dining)
• What is a standard that is appropriate for a net zero building?

To compare different sized buildings we can total annual energy consumption and divide by the size of the building. This metric is called energy use intensity or energy utilization index (EUI).  For a step by step method to accomplish this, you can use this EUI Calculator that we’ve developed.  This resource can also be found through the Maclay Architects Resources page on our website.

Benchmarking

We can benchmark typical existing building EUI’s by checking the EPA Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) data at http://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/reports/2012/preliminary/index.cfm. We can estimate typical new code complaint building EUIs. Also, ten US cities have required that large commercial, institutional, and residential projects disclose their EUIs, so those can be used for comparison.

For net zero buildings we can establish recommended EUI metrics. For cold climates, the chart shown here identifies our recommended EUI metrics for net zero ready (NZR) buildings and compares them to existing and code compliant buildings without excessive process loads like kitchens, manufacturing, labs, etc.

This benchmark, metrics, and goal process is not perfect. It does not fully account for density of use, different building occupancies, capacity of people served and other variables. It is a metric that buildings can be designed to and then measured with past occupancy monitoring. Comments on our recent GBA article (Aug. 26) have offered useful considerations. Related to that, in Chapter 2 of The New Net Zero we have also offered additional considerations. However, in summary, we think EUI most effectively serves the need to have a simple, comprehensive, and easy metric that is similar to gas mileage for cars that can be implemented and used today to move toward a net zero world and future.

The post Getting to Net Zero: Fuel mileage for buildings first appeared on Net Zero Energy Vermont.

Five reasons why net zero buildings are affordable today:

1)      Renewable Energy Costs:

Renewable energy is less expensive (and less volatile) than fossil fuel energy.  With Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs), we can be using renewable energy with NO capital outlay and with energy prices equal to or less than fossil fuel and nuclear energy.

2)      Energy Conservation Costs:

We can build very high performing buildings that we call net-zero-ready for $5-$10 per square foot additional cost

3)      Advanced Heat Pump Technology:

New air-source heat pump (ASHP) technology provides reduced operating costs compared to fossil fuels, including cheap natural gas.  While capital costs are more for ASHP systems, leasing programs offer options to reduce the initial capital requirements.

4)      Low Interest Rates:

Envelope efficiency, heat pumps, and even renewable energy systems, can offer higher than 10% return on investment, particularly given the current low interest rates and the rising costs of fossil fuel energy.

5)      Lowest Operating Costs:

The bottom line is reduced cash outflow when combining cumulative energy and financing costs of net-zero-ready buildings over code-compliant buildings.   Simply put, it saves you money!!

The post Net Zero – the only economical choice first appeared on Net Zero Energy Vermont.

The International Living Futures Institute, the parent organization for the Living Building Challenge, hosted an “unConference” on May 23^rd  Portland, OR.   Among the highlights, Maya Lin, renowned international architect, and Lance Hosey the author of The Shape of Green: Aesthetics, Ecology, and Design both spoke.  I presented as a part of a panel with Mark Biedron, the co-founder of the Willow School and Marcus Sheffer of 7Group.  Our session “Exploring an Integrated Path to Replicable Net Zero Energy Projects” used our recent work as the net zero envelope architect at the Willow School’s new Health, Wellness and Nutrition Center as a case study to highlight the integrated design process and provide recommendations for replication on prospective Living Building and net zero projects.  We highlighted the specific challenges of net zero energy projects in cold climates and potential challenges with red list materials and the creation of beautiful and inspiring buildings. This project is currently under construction and on track to become a Living Building.  As a part of this project we supported a larger team led by Farewell Architects, the Architect of Record.  We served as a consultant for the Willow School directly and are the net zero envelope architect for the project.

More on Living Building Challenge and the unConference

Living Building Challenge was launched in 2006 and registered projects have grown to 201 in twelve countries by the time of the conference.  All of these buildings are required to be net zero energy to meet the LBC.  One of these projects is the Health, Wellness and Nutrition Center at The Willow School in Gladstone, NJ. The conference, or unConference, rather, was a great experience to learn about innovative approaches and projects related to the Living Building Challenge, share our experiences and recommendations for success with Living Building projects as well as a wonderful opportunity to meet other great thinkers and do-ers in the field and across the country. It is an inspiring and energizing event sharing experiences and expertise with some of the most leading edge energy and ecologically focused projects on the planet.

The post Exploring an Integrative Path to Replicable Net Zero Energy Projects first appeared on Net Zero Energy Vermont.

The New Net Zero book, June 10, 2014

Where shall I start? After three years, much has changed in building design, energy efficiency and emissions control, while much has stayed the same. Debating the definition of terms has not changed, although the definitions themselves have evolved.

What is Net Zero? Defining the rules of the game.

This seems like a simple enough and straight-forward question that should garner a concise answer, but if you’ve asked the question or been in the room among professionals discussing Net Zero strategies or projects, you likely have witnessed the significant discussion and even heated debate the can arise due to the lack of clear definitions around Net Zero projects, goals and strategies.

Why is defining the term important?

Like the old adage states, if you’ve got a hammer, everything looks like a nail.  More specifically, as Architects we find that the definition or understanding of a problem or opportunity  can directly inform how it is addressed, designed, and resolved.  So depending on the players and their priorities the answers (and their definition of net zero) may differ.

To further reinforce the notion that defining and understanding Net Zero projects and strategies can be complex within a larger context, there are a number of industry resources offering their definition of these terms.

So, why is it so complicated?

The complexity often comes from different assumptions related to energy use quantification and accounting.  In general there are four main Net Zero Energy terms; Net zero site energy building, net zero source energy building, net zero energy cost buildings and net zero energy emissions buildings.

To gain a better understanding of how some of the industry players are defining these four terms, here are two examples for you:

National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) in June of 2006, published a 15 page report, Zero Energy Buildings: A critical look at the definitions, aimed at clarifying these terms.

The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Condition Engineers (ASHRAE) in their Vision 2020 report from January 2008, also offers definitions of these terms.

How does Maclay Architects define Net Zero?

To us, the definition of a net zero project at any scale—a building, a community, a country, or a planet—is simple: it produces more energy than it consumes on an annual basis using only renewable energy in the process. – The New Net Zero

Simply put, that’s my working definition. Don’t be fooled though, I agree that it can be complicated and difficult to define the terms.  To that end, Chapter 2 in The New Net Zero is dedicated to a discussion of the terms and definitions we use to inform, guide, and direct our work. I invite you to add your own voice and definitions to the discussion below.

The post New Net Zero: Explaining the hiatus first appeared on Net Zero Energy Vermont.

Image copyright of Robert Benson Photography

The grand opening ceremony provided an opportunity for those in Maine to collect over the idea of net-zero and high-performance building. With representative attending from all of Maine’s governmental branches, ample discussion moved towards the challenges of high-performance building and the goals achievable in building and energy policy in the future. It is my hope that these relatively small building can have a wide reaching audience and begin to change minds in Maine and New England about green building practices and the ability to build net-zero.

This unique project didn’t become a net-zero building by accident. From the very beginning the board at the Coastal Maine Botanical Gardens set out strict environmental goals for this project. Compared to many other projects, where Maclay Architects has spent time bringing the client and team on board with high-performance design practices, this project hit the ground running with goals of both net-zero energy and LEED Platinum. I believe it is because these goals were understood clearly from the beginning by the entire project team that the design was able to morph quickly into the construction of the building, even allowing for a shortened construction schedule, which was required by the Gardens to preserve their visitor’s experience during the busy summer season.

With thousands of visitors each year to the Coastal Maine Botanical Gardens, in addition to the programs to be housed in the new Bosarge Family Education Center, there is a great opportunity for this building to teach many about the process and advantages of building net-zero. Solar panels cover the south-facing roof, which can be seen from the parking lot, prominently displaying the building’s green energy features. High-performance characteristics of the building that are not as readily visible to the visitor’s eye are highlighted throughout the Education Center by signage and an interactive building dashboard. These educational tools provide opportunities for visitors to learn about the design process and green features installed in the building, as well as interact with the building to understand energy production, energy consumption, water consumption and daily use patterns.

Image copyright of Robert Benson Photography

The Garden’s ultimate vision of creating a building that both meet the goals of being net-zero energy and achieving LEED Platinum has been met, but the further vision, and I believe more important vision,  of communicating to visitors the importance of resource and energy conservation still continues to be developed. A teachable mantra brought forth at the building’s grand opening, one that describes the finished product, “If a plant designed a building…” continues to grow this learning experience. Visitors to the Gardens can now complete that sentence with firsthand experience, “It would be powered by the sun,” “It would use natural materials as its building blocks,” and “It would harness the daylight.”

If you find yourself in the Boothbay region, I invite you to come visit and explore the building, the larger site and the gardens.

The Bosarge Family Education Center at the Coastal Maine Botanical Gardens was designed by Maclay Architects of Waitsfield, VT and Scott Simons Architects of Portland, ME.

The post Net-Zero Building Design Comes to Maine first appeared on Net Zero Energy Vermont.

Lessons from Across the Border

The Canadian group, which presented a study on high-performance Canadian buildings, i.e., those consuming less than 60% of Energy Code baseline, identified the fact that though there are a significant number of high-performance projects there are only a few of these that are close to net-zero and there are no existing net-zero commercial projects in the country. The presentation highlighted three of these close to net-zero buildings: the Creek Side Community Center in Vancouver, a material testing lab in Hamilton, Ontario and the Earth Ranger Center in Woodridge, which is north of Toronto. What was apparent through the description of these projects is though they were utilizing many of the strategies that we  also utilize in our building projects — such as daylighting, low energy equipment and heat recovery technologies — they were definitely missing pieces too. These projects focused quite a bit on the visible technologies of energy efficiency, but through this focus missed some of the places where we see the largest reduction in loads, such as envelope design, including high insulation levels and low air infiltration readings.

Lessons from Across the Ocean

The Italian group focused on a single project, the Leaf House located in Anacona, Italy. This project focused on the goal of its team to analyze the net-zero building process in an effort to better define the term “net-zero energy buildings,” and to inform the process of the International Energy Agency (IEA). An IEA work group has been established to study Net-Zero Energy Buildings to inform international actions related to energy and greenhouse gas requirements in the building industry. To optimize energy use, the Leaf House project uses the most advanced available technologies for the processes of distributing heat and producing electricity from renewable sources. Built as somewhat of a test facility for high performance design, where the major focus of the design was the reduction of CO2 emissions, this house has over 1000 sensors to monitor performance. Even after the installation of this advanced monitoring, this group determined that a more effective strategy of monitoring and a better building automation system could make significant improvements to the energy performance of the building. All in all, the project highlighted a very expensive way to achieve high-performance building design.

Lessons to Bring Back to Vermont

It has always been my point of view that the best high-performance and net-zero building projects are the simplest; They are the ones that take into account beauty in the living condition and contribute to a better way of life for the users. From the experience at the ASHRAE conference, this point was hammered home. What we are doing in Vermont, in a colder climate than any of these other projects were located, is making net-zero work.

Projects such as the Putney School Field House work because they take into account the high-performance building technologies and strategies that are readily available in the marketplace, but in addition, they are designed for a specific place, to integrate into the human experience and to make a better place for the users. Using technologies that are already commonly available in the marketplace means these buildings can work, and they can work cost effectively.

In order to make the best high-performance buildings a reality, the focus of our profession needs to be on design, on building the best teams possible, and on determining when simple out of the box strategies are more cost effective than their advanced technology counterparts.

Related articles

• Net Energy vs Net Zero Energy (brighthub.com)
• IEA will publish new energy projection where Nuclear build to 2035 will only by 180 GWe (nextbigfuture.com)
• Latest Free Publications and Papers from IEA (talkenergy.wordpress.com)

The post Net-Zero: Lessons from the Field first appeared on Net Zero Energy Vermont.

There are many measures used for building energy efficiency: total kBtu, kBtu/sf/yr, kWh/yr, therms/yr, kWh/sq.m/yr, $/yr or kBtu/person, and more. But determining when to use which metric, and even more importantly, how to make sense of a comparison of the energy efficiency of two different buildings, is no easy task.

An Example

Let’s use two glasses of water as an example. Some comparisons seem black and white – such as the question of which of the two cups of water sitting in front of us is hotter. Obviously the one that burns your finger is hotter than the one with the ice cubes floating around the rim. But the comparison becomes much more difficult when we start looking at which building performs better. Not only is there much more information required in making this decision, there is also the question of how you look at the numbers.

Variables

Let’s return to the example of the two cups of water. Our first question was pretty easy, but now let us look at the question of which cup of water requires less energy to maintain a temperature of 90 degrees. At this point quite a few more variables come into play. First, how much water is in the cup? If one cup has more water, it will require much more energy to maintain its temperature. Second, what type of cup is the water held in: glass, plastic, ceramic, or maybe a covered, insulated coffee mug? Third, how are the cups being heated — maybe one is being heated efficiently in the microwave, while another is being held over an open campfire. The cup over the open campfire will require much more energy to be used to keep it at temperature because the heating source is extremely inefficient. Another consideration might be where are the cups sitting while not being actively heated? If one cup is sitting on a sunny window ledge while another sits in a dark closet, it would make a dramatic difference. These are simple examples of the types of questions that have to be dealt with when measuring buildings and their energy performance, though building variables are even more varied and complex.

Making Sense of the Numbers

Now let us look at the second challenge – how to make sense of the numbers. The best way to look at energy utilization is to have an actual measured number for the amount of energy used during a defined period of time. For a building, this would be the total btus or kWhs used by all energy sources for a year, though in our example of the two cups of water this would likely be in btus per hour. For the sake of example, let’s say that cup 1 required 100 btus per hour to maintain temperature, while cup 2 used 150 btus per hour to maintain the same temperature. At first glance, you would say that cup 1 was more energy efficient. But here is where it gets complicated. What if cup 1 contained only 10 ounces of water while cup 2 contained 30 ounces of water. Therefore cup 1 requires 10 btus/hr/ounce while cup 2 requires 5 btus/hr/ounce. Looking at the numbers this way, it seems as if cup 2 is more energy efficient. So what really is the standard that we should be using? When looking at buildings what really makes sense?

A Solution?

I don’t have a definitive answer. The purpose of this discussion is not to decide on an unit of energy measurement that should always be used, but to outline the inherent challenges in comparing these metrics. Trying to understand how one building compares to anther in terms of energy usage is an enormous task, and different answers emerge based on how the numbers are manipulated and reported. Making it easier to make sense of building energy statistics is a challenge that needs to be addressed if we want to change the status quo and move toward increasing the stock of net-zero energy buildings. Do you have a suggestion? Please comment below.

The post Building Energy Statistics – Do they make sense? first appeared on Net Zero Energy Vermont.