Committee on the Environment

 View Only
  • 1.  net zero and carbon neutral buildings

    Posted 08-23-2011 08:57 AM

    Shouldn't Carbon Neutral or Net Zero also include energy/resources used in building materials and construction instead of just focusing on energy used in building operation?


    What is a net zero or carbon neutral building?
    A net zero building produces as much energy (or more) than it uses in a year. A carbon neutral building on the other hand does not use any fossil fuels in its operation. 

    A lot of energy goes in producing and transporting building materials. Net zero building should be defined more broadly as a building or system that offsets the resources used in production/construction as well as operation.

    Read my entire blog on the subject here: http://www.archisage.net/profiles/blogs/carbon-neutral-or-net-zero

    This discussion may not lead us anywhere but it's worth talking about. What do you think?
    AIA26 San Diego June 10-13


  • 2.  RE:net zero and carbon neutral buildings

    Posted 08-25-2011 11:19 AM
    Hello Vishal,

    Eventually, I believe, carbon footprint considerations will reach resources used in the process and make up of buildings. Reducing operational carbon footprint is more tangible now because of existing widely accepted metrics and methods (even though there is more room for improvement here) and declining operational budgets (at least in the public sector).

    With the advent of Architecture 2030 Challenge for Products and collaboration of many industry leaders like Athena Institute, the global warming potential of everything that goes into a building will hopefully be part of the equation soon!

    -------------------------------------------
    Premnath Sundharam AIA
    Senior Associate
    DLR Group, Inc.
    Phoenix AZ
    -------------------------------------------






    AIA26 San Diego June 10-13


  • 3.  RE:net zero and carbon neutral buildings

    Posted 08-26-2011 12:39 PM
    I think Vishal is picking up on a good point, that calling buildings "net-zero", for energy or carbon impacts, has never meant having zero net energy or carbon impacts.   It's always been an obviously misleading term.  

    That they neglect to count the energy costs of the building materials and construction process, etc, is only part of the problem, though.   In the worst cases net-zero buildings would have even higher impacts than ordinary buildings, in actual fact.  

    The problem is how energy accounting generally overlooks large amounts of energy and carbon impacts, which are just hidden from view.   The main way that happens is when people outsource the services those energy uses provide, and then do not count the energy and carbon content of the supply chain delivering the services.  So when we spend money in general, we erase the appearance of the service obtained costing any energy!  

    All business services, for example, have long supply chains, and consume quite large amounts of energy, but have ended up being counted as zero by most people.  I have an important research paper on the subject coming out with a group of others soon, mine called Systems Energy Assessment (SEA)   

    This also exposes a defect in what, unfortunately, are widely accepted standard methods of calculating the energy content of things.   The widely adopted methods don't count outsouced energy services, except the recorded energy uses of business equipment.   So, I think an expensive net-zero building will most likely be an energy and carbon hog, instead of as advertised, just because people so often choose to call things a name that "sounds nice" rather than what it is.


    -------------------------------------------
    Philip Henshaw AIA
    New York NY
    -------------------------------------------



    AIA26 San Diego June 10-13