Why We Don't Build Green

There seems to be a natural inclination towards green building practices yet traditional building methodologies continue to dominate in the United States today.  Green building is about reducing waste in the construction and operation of the building, proper site selection with respect to local ecology along with enhancing the health and quality of life of the occupants.  All seemingly good design goals but still usually prioritized lower than ROI calculations by developers.  The World Green Building Council released a report recently addressing ROI in that it is also superior in structures built with sustainability in mind.  Maybe this will be helpful in continuing the trend towards better building, but I think addressing a few of the reasons why we haven't adopted green building so far will be even more helpful in spurring change.

I've written before about how we are cursed with abundance here in the US.  My point was that we don't have to innovate on the energy front because we have significant traditional energy resources that feed an energy generation infrastructure that still works (albeit typically near the end of its design life).  Dan Burris in Flash Foresight makes a similar observation about how developing nations have the ability to skip the incremental technology gains that we've had to slog through and just adopt the latest and greatest stuff.  I still think this situation is the primary reason (i.e. we don't have to change) we don't see more growth in green building or in clean energy system development.

Here are a few of my observations about why green building continues to languish in the margins:

Construction professionals have years of experience building and designing in a particular way.  Without formal training, many are unwilling or unable to do things differently and formal training is costly in time and money.  Often local building code is too restrictive and government bureaucracy too slow to meet the speed of change.  Since building construction is a such a collaborative process involving so many people like architects, engineers, code officials, product manufacturers, skilled trade workers, building management companies, and the owners/occupants, any new techniques that would be innovative enough to make a significant impact in terms of sustainability are usually too complicated to pass through the gauntlet of these disparate stakeholders.  The end result is that we seldom bother with innovation and build buildings the way we always have.

Another problem is that green buildings seldom seem any different than a non-green one.  The key stakeholders may not see much reason to go through the effort without an end result that wows them or their clients.  Incremental enhancements in air quality, lighting, or energy savings often goes unnoticed.  No one can see where building materials were sourced without explicitly stating this with signage.  Local environmental amelioration is also hard to tell without educational efforts.  To encourage more green building people have to see and feel that they are getting something more for the struggle.

A third big reason that green building is held back in the US is the stagnant building market as a whole.  In parts of the world where any significant building activity is occurring, green building principles are at least considered if not completely implemented.  Developers here feel lucky to get any projects going so pushing the envelope with respect to innovative design or cost constraints is dead on the drawing board.  Developers typically give the customer what they want anyways and lowest cost is what almost all the customers want. Without an external force mandating better design features and building products, the US market will continue to see green building as merely an academic exercise for a small group of idealists with deep pockets.

Timing is key to getting good ideas off the ground.  Green building is a great idea.  The speed of technological change across industries we are seeing means that we can't afford to adopt innovation in a merely incremental way though.  We need to develop an ability to discard old practices before they are obsolete.  If we don't, our building practices and construction professional talent pool will fall behind other parts of the world and we won't be the innovative nation that got us to the point where we are today.

Solar a Mortal Threat to Utilities

It appears that the public is waking up to the obvious threat that solar is to the status quo energy providers.  We live in an age of accelerating change and disruption.  I wrote last year about how solar will continue to expand rapidly into the general market regardless of what the utilities do to discourage it.  What today's Wall Street Journal piece means to me is that the national dialog will start to become even more rancorous with respect to clean energy issues.

David & Goliath -- Distributed Generation vs Traditional Utilities

Unfortunately, there is some truth to the fact that solar is currently only feasible for the wealthy and that federal tax credits could be seen as a transfer payment from average tax payers who can't afford solar to wealthy ones who can. The consequence of this dialog will be the elimination of federal and state incentives for distributed generation systems. Solar already has unsubsidized grid parity in many markets so growth their will continue to drive down the global costs for installing solar.  Companies like Solar City & Sun Run will have to re-model their current business plans, and I doubt they will weather the storm very well since their profitability is so tied to the current incentives.  New installation company concepts will emerge though and I think more traditional contractors will finally get into the game.

http://greenzu.com/solar-energy-political-cartoon

Utilities may go further and try to ban the connection of solar systems to the grid. Standalone solar with back up systems will be ready for the market by the time this happens though. Essentially this will be the last arrow in the utility's quiver to stop the rising tide of distributed solar. At that point, we'll probably cross the tipping point where they don't have enough rate payers to maintain affordable rates. Then things get really ugly.

While I am advocate for progress and technological innovation, crippled utilities will be a major issue for an already crippled political system to address. Add this difficult situation to the already huge list of complex issues that we don't seem to be able to effectively address (national debt, climate change, social security insolvency, resource depletion, population growth). The brinksmanship games we are playing will take on an entirely new dimension when we start to have daily brown outs and extended power outages.

The Dirty Side of Deregulated Energy

I've written about deregulated energy markets in a previous post.  While every deregulated state is not the same in how they run their energy programs, most often clean energy development needlessly suffers when clean energy tariffs are integrated with generation fees.

Distribution is not the same as generation--this matters to clean energy

To drill into this a little bit, we pay separate charges on our bills based on our consumption for generated energy and for the distribution of that energy to our location (there is also a flat metering charge).  Taxes and green energy tariffs are assessed on top of these fees based on the amount of energy consumed.  In a deregulated market, consumers have a choice of purchasing the generation portion of their bill from companies other than their local utility.  The local utility provides the distribution services (power line maintenance, service for power outages, billing, etc) regardless of where the power is purchased from.  This is good for consumers in that they can get the best price for their electricity and even get added value from companies like Power2Switch.

When clean energy tariffs originally went into effect, legislators associated them to generation which was logical since the clean energy fund was intended to mitigate environmental issues with coal, oil, gas, and nuclear generation plants.  As a consumer used more electricity, they would pay more into the fund to encourage better energy (seems fair to me).  Clean energy funds came about in the context of Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) which are self-imposed mandates requiring clean energy to make up a portion of total electrical generation.  With an RPS and clean energy fund, the idea is that more local clean energy systems would pop up to meet the RPS over time.

The sun is setting unnecessarily on some clean energy incentives

The wrinkle in this good plan is that with deregulated electricity, consumers pay money to companies outside of the original clean energy tariff structure for their generation so these tariffs don't get collected.  The consequence is that the funds for local solar and wind projects dry up as is happening in Illinois right now.  The easy fix is to shift the clean energy tariffs to the distribution portion of the electricity bill since that money is paid to utilities within the RPS umbrella.  Rate payers don't pay anymore on their bills than they originally would have and local clean energy gets the boost it was intended to get.

Legislation, like making sausage, is typically an ugly process.  This is a unique example of a simple fix that will have significant positive benefits for us all.  I encourage my fellow Illini to support the bill to fix the Illinois RPS.

Embedded Computers and Solar

The Raspberry Pi a small, inexpensive, full-featured computer  

Lately, I've been going down the rabbit hole of learning about embedded computers and it got me thinking about how these cool devices might benefit solar energy systems.  Embedded computers are essentially modern desktop computing power in a much smaller size (i.e. deck of cards) and priced in such a way that they could be almost be viewed as disposable (>$25).

My first thought was that embedded computers might control solar systems or aid with the reporting of data. Any decent residential inverter does this pretty well already with a variety of data input and outputs pre-loaded.  On the solar thermal side of things, energy metering packages could be built for well under $100 in parts which could reduce the cost of these types of add-ons for a small residential system so there could be a solid application there competing with products like the Apollo package.

A solar toaster?  Maybe not, but solar powered entertainment equipment is likely

Turning this computer-to-solar relationship on its head, solar PV might actually help make these little computers even more autonomous by cutting their power cord tether and keeping them in action almost continuously.  Think of little Roomba-like robots at home that don't need a charging station anymore.  Embedded computers don't only relate to robots but have all sorts of other applications like in home automation & entertainment systems.  PV built into these devices would not add any new load to the existing building.  Even better, these new devices could interact with energy management systems and even provide additional power back to the house when the devices aren't in use.  Quality of life continues to improve while our buildings continue to get smarter.

Whole building PV versus task-oriented, embedded solar?  Both have their applications and both versions of solar may end up working along each other very soon.

Think Waste Before New Technology

In a natural ecosystem, energy flows from organism to organism.  Plants feed animals which feed other animals in the food chain.  Decomposition replenishes plants and the cycle continues in a closed loop.  There is no waste in nature, only different forms of useful energy that is shared and transferred.

Man is not separate from nature but we have struggled to be separate in some sense.  We struggle to keep the elements, predators, hunger, disease and decay at bay in an effort to extend our lives as long as we can.  We build things to endure the destructive forces which play such a key role in making the ecosystem of planet Earth work so well.  We are self-aware and we can anticipate threats--because of this we have thrived.

Our success is becoming our undoing however.   In the spirit of progress, we've created materials, chemicals, structures and even new elements with little regard for how these new things fit into the balance of life on Spaceship Earth. In fairness to us humans, we don't view ourselves as a hive of interchangeable or even disposable units working for the greater good.  We struggle individually in a symbiotic relationship with other humans but ultimately for our own welfare.  We now know that our relationship with other Earthlings is much less mutually beneficial and our own survival is now at stake due to natural corrections.

http://nickandzuzu.com/2010/06/symbiosis/symbiosis-06-27-10/

My point to this post is to highlight that a single-minded focus on new technology to solve our environmental, economic, and social issues we face today needs to be balanced by paying even more attention to the waste stream that we create.  Heat escaping from a building in the winter, concentration of toxins from the exhaust pipe on vehicles, creation of single use, disposable items and the harvesting of vital materials faster than the replacement rate are examples of in-balances where new technology may not be the best solution of the problem.

Linear design philosophy created plastic water bottles; the producers of the bottles had no concern for what happened to the bottles once they served their purpose.  Under a growth economic paradigm, linear design is preferred since it encourages consumption and economic activity.  Cradle to Grave design accounts for all the energy inputs required to make something and considers how these inputs will be recovered at the end of its useful life.  Not only is energy conserved but externalities like pollution & solid waste are mitigated.

Unfortunately life-cycle analysis does not fit well with our current economic model.  The very nature of money relies on growth.  Einstein may have called compound interest the "most powerful force in the universe" but we are now realizing that economic forces invented by humans don't trump the finite physical resources that we have to work with here on Earth.  We can't unlearn what we now know about human impact on our ecosystem.  We need to tap into our self-awareness and ability to plan ahead to modify our social structures to accommodate better ways to mitigate our impact and not just wait for a new gadget to come along to save the day.  More solar panels are great but not needing more solar panels is even better.

http://cartoonstudio.co.uk/cartoonist-for-hire/tag/total-quality-management-cartoons/

Energy Deregulation Explained

If you live in one of the dozen or so states that has voted to deregulate the supply of electricity to its citizens, you probably pay more for your power than necessary. Energy deregulation means that you can choose who supplies electricity to you so power producers have to bid to earn your business. In states like mine (IL), the local utility was required by law to send out letters to all its customers informing them that they had the option to purchase power from alternate Retail Electric Suppliers (RES). What the utilities did not say in the letter was that choosing to select an alternate RES would probably save them 20-30% on their power bill.

Electricity generation is a huge and rather complicated business so you might not be aware that your local electric utility (who you pay each month) may not be the same company who actually generates the energy you are paying for. We don't have the choice in local utility companies but we do have the option to choose from different producers. In my case, ComEd is the local utility that delivers power but other companies supply electricity to me through ComEd. Opting for an alternate RES won't change anything about the quality of your electric power or the service receive--you just pay less for it.

States like TX, IL, OH, PA, NY, CT, MA, RI, NJ, DE, MD, and Washington D.C. are deregulated electricity markets 

I recently enrolled with an alternate RES through a local company. My wife and I live in a small condo so we use relatively little electricity (only 3,869 kWh last year). Most homes use significantly more energy than this, but I still save over $100 a year after signing up. Many businesses like restaurants or convenience stores use 250,000 kWh or more in a year so these companies see thousands of dollars in savings each year going with an alternate RES. I still receive a single bill from ComEd but the portion under Electricity Supply Services is now a single line item with my new kilowatt-hour (kWh) rate listed along with how much we used last month. I was told this is the same for corporate account holders too.

I encourage you to read up on energy deregulation and decide if choosing an alternate RES makes sense for you. Let me know if you have any questions about my experience.

Water heating is bigger than ever

A lot has changed in energy since the 70's, but we still use a lot of it.

We do have a bit of good news on the residential energy efficiency front.  The average American home uses just about the same amount of total energy as it did 30 years ago despite a rising standard of living and more plug-in creature comforts than ever before.  It's actually trending down on a per household basis.

I see two problems with this however.  First of all, we have a whole lot more homes today than in 1978.  We're around 115 million households today where we were only at 68 million in the 1970s.  While flat or even slightly declining per household energy consumption is great, 47 million new households means that we're using a lot more energy on the whole than ever before.

Where we use energy in our homes--1978 and today.

The second problem I see with this data is highlighted in the two pie charts above.  Where we use energy has shifted rather dramatically.  Due to key improvements in building technology and code, space heating accounts for much less of our homes' energy budget.  Air sealing, insulation, and mechanical system efficiency enhancements have worked.  This was low hanging fruit though and further total efficiency gains are going to be harder to achieve.

Take a look at the water heating portion of the chart.  20% of our residential energy goes to heating up water for showers, cooking, and cleaning.  This is a very predictable energy load that is completely unrelated to any other mechanical system in the house or to the quality of the building envelope.  As we look to make further cuts in per capita and total energy consumption, the water heating load is an excellent place to focus.

Germany has far less sun & far more solar than the US.  No one thinks the Germans are flaky environmental nuts either.

This is where solar water heating can make a big impact.  We have more than enough sun anywhere in the US to offset the water heating energy requirement with existing solar collector technologies commercially available today. Despite the cyclical ups and downs on the prices of specific types of energy, energy efficiency strategies enacted today will pay for themselves over the long run.

The answer to our energy problems rises every morning.