Technology in Architectural Practice

This message has been cross posted to the following Discussion Forums: Technology in Architectural Practice and Committee on the Environment .
-------------------------------------------

Here we go!! the Lemmings are calling...follow Al Gore!!!!!!!!
Built my house in 1979, was to take solar panels, perfect orientation, proper slope roof, just waiting for solar to be affordable, last year PV panels were $43,000 my cost $14,000, would last 15 years before needing replacememt, my electric bill is less than $100 a month, work it out, not economically feasible YET.
As far as Mr. Gore, IT"S THE SUN, Check with CERN about high cloud formation and global cooling.
What works is proper insulating, orientation, sealing, I heat 5200 sq.ft. in my house, worst bill last winter $120, and I finally added A/C last year, cost me $10 per month to run.
I am for the environment, not fake carbon credits to make others rich and do nothing for the environment, but you can pollute and buy credits............
Sorry but it's the SUN, stupid.
-------------------------------------------
Richard Forsythe AIA
4-Most Group
Butler PA
-------------------------------------------

Bravo Richard-

Glad to hear someone tell the whole truth.  Until these "so called green" initiatives really make financial sense they will never be broadly applied.  Don't get me wrong though, I'm all for energy savings, but lets tell the whole truth as to where energy is really saved.  I wish I had Gore's millions to "play" in the energy field....
-------------------------------------------
Robert Collins AIA
Merrillville IN
-------------------------------------------

Bravo Robert and Richard,
My favorite question to all of my LCP colleagues is, "do you have a clothes line?" Of course none of them do.

My house was built in 1958. I bought it in 1971. Since then, I have managed to reduce my natural gas and electric use every year, using over-the counter and affordable upgrades. First was hot water line wraps, air duct joint sealing, then a high efficiency furnace, low-flow toilets, insulated E-glass windows, TPO roofing, weatherstripping, Energy Star appliances, CFLs and continued use of the clothes line, admitedly a device suitable to the arid Southwest. Then there are the simple physical efforts like turning off lights, unplugging chargers and not keeping the water running when you shave in the morning.

None of this is particularly easy but it is easy enough. My energy costs have declined although my energy rates have escalated. Anyone can do these things.

I object to politically based energy conservation mandates when education is a better answer.
 
-------------------------------------------
William Winkler AIA
Architect
Architectural Research Consultants
Albuquerque NM
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 09-19-2011 10:57
From: Robert Collins
Subject: 24 Hours of Reality


Bravo Richard-

Glad to hear someone tell the whole truth.  Until these "so called green" initiatives really make financial sense they will never be broadly applied.  Don't get me wrong though, I'm all for energy savings, but lets tell the whole truth as to where energy is really saved.  I wish I had Gore's millions to "play" in the energy field....
-------------------------------------------
Robert Collins AIA
Merrillville IN
-------------------------------------------

This thread is a glimmer of hope that I may not alone in my thinking, which is the general
impression I get while reading Architecture, or Record or attending continuing education
whether for licensure, AIA membership or LEED accreditation. Those last venues seem even
more isolating in that advocacy for radical systems & social change (read coercion by government)
seem (perhaps it is only my perception) to dominate approaches to "sustainability". Up until
this thread I had seen little mention of market forces as opposed to government subsidy as the
test for whether an idea or product is ready for implementation.

Innovation is a wonderful thing but recognizing my fiduciary responsibility to my clients it is
difficult to justify expenditures on approaches with little or no track record. The limited resources
of my clients do not leave a lot of room for experimentation nor am I willing to accept what could
only be an added measure of liability in order to advocate for "green stuff" that may or may not
reap tangible benefits. Much better to concentrate I think on siting, orientations &/or shading
of fenestration, insulation, infiltration, efficient equipment & lighting.

Climategate was not inconsequential to my way of thinking, nor was it to many scientists who
object to what they term the corruption of science by big government money. The departures of
physicists Dr. Hal Lewis (now deceased) & most recently Nobel Laureate Dr. Ivar Giaever from the
American Physical Society (APS)were prompted by its use of the term "incontrovertible" in a statement
with regard to the "science" of global warming & subsequent high handed (to them & others)handling
of the controversy by APS leadership. Given these developments difficult to sit thru continuing education
lectures on the necessity of spending trillions to reduce CO2 levels in order to "save the planet". Especially
when even the advocates acknowledge that these efforts might end up, maybe, reducing warming by
something less than one degree F worldwide.

Dr William Happer, Princeton, said in testimony before Senator Barbara Boxer's committee in 2009
that there is little in the physical evidence to suggest that current levels of CO2 in the atmosphere
are even optimal for human or other forms of life, while there is an abundance of physical data
indicating three times the current levels of CO2 caused flora & fauna to florish in the geologic past.
Laughter erupted when someone on the committee said yes doctor but that was a long time ago.
The laughter was quickly silenced when Dr. Happer replied yes but the laws of physics have not
changed in the interrim, to my knowledge. That last caused me to laugh when I watched it. Boxer's
reply was well doctor you have said things today that we have not heard before. Indeed. One wonders
whether a physics department receiving millions in grants to study the effects of warming would perceive
any advantage in offering a contrarian view; something Dr Lewis pondered in his letter of resignation.

Scientists who are willing to face "official" ridicule (manmade global warming deniers are flat earthers per Al Gore)
debate conclusions based upon the evidence. It is not new that some of those studying the data have seen what
appears to be a 1500 year cycle of warming (even mentioned years ago in a spread on global warming by
National Geographic) which may be linked to sunspot activity. Others have noted that periodicity
is matched by occurrences of increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere FOLLOWING the warming. Their
conclusions were not received "warmly" in East Anglia.

It is good business (& stewardship) to use all the tools available to reduce energy consumption in buildings.
However, when government gets in the business of subsidizing one technology or another, funny (not haha)
things begin to happen in the market place (GM, LightSquared, Solyndra etal). The resulting government caused
chaos is inevitably "fixed" by yet more government intervention as hearings are held to search for & punish the
innocent while the guilty receive praise & honors & more positions of responsibility.

Thanks for a heart warming discussion.

-------------------------------------------
Lloyd Goldrick AIA
Albuquerque NM
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 09-20-2011 01:26
From: William Winkler
Subject: 24 Hours of Reality

Bravo Robert and Richard,
My favorite question to all of my LCP colleagues is, "do you have a clothes line?" Of course none of them do.

My house was built in 1958. I bought it in 1971. Since then, I have managed to reduce my natural gas and electric use every year, using over-the counter and affordable upgrades. First was hot water line wraps, air duct joint sealing, then a high efficiency furnace, low-flow toilets, insulated E-glass windows, TPO roofing, weatherstripping, Energy Star appliances, CFLs and continued use of the clothes line, admitedly a device suitable to the arid Southwest. Then there are the simple physical efforts like turning off lights, unplugging chargers and not keeping the water running when you shave in the morning.

None of this is particularly easy but it is easy enough. My energy costs have declined although my energy rates have escalated. Anyone can do these things.

I object to politically based energy conservation mandates when education is a better answer.
 
-------------------------------------------
William Winkler AIA
Architect
Architectural Research Consultants
Albuquerque NM
-------------------------------------------

Mr. Goldrick:

You are certainly NOT alone in your thinking, and want to congratulate you on a well written, well considered addition to the discussion of the topic.

I'm rather tired myself of having "green" and "sustainability" thrown in my face from almost every ad and article in an architectural magazine.  It's as if all the other aspects of architecture have to be subjugated to a pinchfart energy usage.  As you say, reduced energy usage is good stewardship - but good architecture is more than just that.

-------------------------------------------
Klaus Steinke AIA
Las Vegas NV
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 09-21-2011 16:50
From: Lloyd Goldrick
Subject: 24 Hours of Reality

This thread is a glimmer of hope that I may not alone in my thinking, which is the general
impression I get while reading Architecture, or Record or attending continuing education
whether for licensure, AIA membership or LEED accreditation. Those last venues seem even
more isolating in that advocacy for radical systems & social change (read coercion by government)
seem (perhaps it is only my perception) to dominate approaches to "sustainability". Up until
this thread I had seen little mention of market forces as opposed to government subsidy as the
test for whether an idea or product is ready for implementation.

Innovation is a wonderful thing but recognizing my fiduciary responsibility to my clients it is
difficult to justify expenditures on approaches with little or no track record. The limited resources
of my clients do not leave a lot of room for experimentation nor am I willing to accept what could
only be an added measure of liability in order to advocate for "green stuff" that may or may not
reap tangible benefits. Much better to concentrate I think on siting, orientations &/or shading
of fenestration, insulation, infiltration, efficient equipment & lighting.

Climategate was not inconsequential to my way of thinking, nor was it to many scientists who
object to what they term the corruption of science by big government money. The departures of
physicists Dr. Hal Lewis (now deceased) & most recently Nobel Laureate Dr. Ivar Giaever from the
American Physical Society (APS)were prompted by its use of the term "incontrovertible" in a statement
with regard to the "science" of global warming & subsequent high handed (to them & others)handling
of the controversy by APS leadership. Given these developments difficult to sit thru continuing education
lectures on the necessity of spending trillions to reduce CO2 levels in order to "save the planet". Especially
when even the advocates acknowledge that these efforts might end up, maybe, reducing warming by
something less than one degree F worldwide.

Dr William Happer, Princeton, said in testimony before Senator Barbara Boxer's committee in 2009
that there is little in the physical evidence to suggest that current levels of CO2 in the atmosphere
are even optimal for human or other forms of life, while there is an abundance of physical data
indicating three times the current levels of CO2 caused flora & fauna to florish in the geologic past.
Laughter erupted when someone on the committee said yes doctor but that was a long time ago.
The laughter was quickly silenced when Dr. Happer replied yes but the laws of physics have not
changed in the interrim, to my knowledge. That last caused me to laugh when I watched it. Boxer's
reply was well doctor you have said things today that we have not heard before. Indeed. One wonders
whether a physics department receiving millions in grants to study the effects of warming would perceive
any advantage in offering a contrarian view; something Dr Lewis pondered in his letter of resignation.

Scientists who are willing to face "official" ridicule (manmade global warming deniers are flat earthers per Al Gore)
debate conclusions based upon the evidence. It is not new that some of those studying the data have seen what
appears to be a 1500 year cycle of warming (even mentioned years ago in a spread on global warming by
National Geographic) which may be linked to sunspot activity. Others have noted that periodicity
is matched by occurrences of increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere FOLLOWING the warming. Their
conclusions were not received "warmly" in East Anglia.

It is good business (& stewardship) to use all the tools available to reduce energy consumption in buildings.
However, when government gets in the business of subsidizing one technology or another, funny (not haha)
things begin to happen in the market place (GM, LightSquared, Solyndra etal). The resulting government caused
chaos is inevitably "fixed" by yet more government intervention as hearings are held to search for & punish the
innocent while the guilty receive praise & honors & more positions of responsibility.

Thanks for a heart warming discussion.

-------------------------------------------
Lloyd Goldrick AIA
Albuquerque NM
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 09-20-2011 01:26
From: William Winkler
Subject: 24 Hours of Reality

Bravo Robert and Richard,
My favorite question to all of my LCP colleagues is, "do you have a clothes line?" Of course none of them do.

My house was built in 1958. I bought it in 1971. Since then, I have managed to reduce my natural gas and electric use every year, using over-the counter and affordable upgrades. First was hot water line wraps, air duct joint sealing, then a high efficiency furnace, low-flow toilets, insulated E-glass windows, TPO roofing, weatherstripping, Energy Star appliances, CFLs and continued use of the clothes line, admitedly a device suitable to the arid Southwest. Then there are the simple physical efforts like turning off lights, unplugging chargers and not keeping the water running when you shave in the morning.

None of this is particularly easy but it is easy enough. My energy costs have declined although my energy rates have escalated. Anyone can do these things.

I object to politically based energy conservation mandates when education is a better answer.
 
-------------------------------------------
William Winkler AIA
Architect
Architectural Research Consultants
Albuquerque NM
-------------------------------------------

No matter which side you lean toward, you can say the government is unfairly manipulating markets through subsidies. No one is mandating the use of green gadgets such as solar panels, but energy efficiency is something we as a society have realized is important for many reasons. If you'd rather cut down a tree than hug it, you can at least appreciate the fact that foreign competition in energy technology is leaving us in the dust. Those horrible Socialist Europeans have been proving to the world that sustainability is economically viable and necessary for a future. Believe what you want, fossil fuels are a dead end. You can claim they have no impact on our climate and you can claim the climate is just going through a phase, but I triple dog dare you to suck on an exhaust pipe for a minute and tell me that ain't poison. This dirty energy is a 19th century technology and is becoming antiquated for economic reasons. How long do you think we're going to afford shipping raw materials half way around the world, have them assembled into products, and then ship it back again? This only makes sense economically as long as the Federal Government continues to reward outsourcing with unlimited, tax free, off shore bank accounts. A product manufacturer's subsidy if you will.

I think many people would just like to see market fairness so that energy production devices can be affordable. When the Federal Government spends $5 Billion a year on Oil Industry subsidies you have to ask why? Why does the most profitable industry in the US, made up of five whole companies, need tax dollar help and you look at what green initiatives get, it's not even close. Not only does Oil have all of the money from a monopoly on personal transportation fuel, zoning forces us to use it, AND they get help from our tax dollars to boot. Ask yourself why zoning ordinances segregate 1000s of acres of land into residential only and 1000s of acres miles down the road as commercial only? Never in the history of human civilization have we separated the residence from goods, services, and work like zoning has in this country. It's as if they deliberately wanted to make us drive everyday just to survive. 

Don't act like the green industry is forcing something on your life and your right to pollute and kill trees. The government has been forcing us to choose oil, whether the marketplace really wants it or not. We can't get an accurate gauge on what the market and the people want as long as the Government continues to give preference to dirty energy. Eliminate all subsidies and then see what the people choose. The Building Industry is the only industry leading energy technology and I get a little burned out too. This is a changing world and the markets are looking toward the future. We shouldn't be look to the past.

-------------------------------------------
Eric Rawlings AIA
Owner
Rawlings Design, Inc.
Decatur GA
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 09-21-2011 16:50
From: Lloyd Goldrick
Subject: 24 Hours of Reality

This thread is a glimmer of hope that I may not alone in my thinking, which is the general
impression I get while reading Architecture, or Record or attending continuing education
whether for licensure, AIA membership or LEED accreditation. Those last venues seem even
more isolating in that advocacy for radical systems & social change (read coercion by government)
seem (perhaps it is only my perception) to dominate approaches to "sustainability". Up until
this thread I had seen little mention of market forces as opposed to government subsidy as the
test for whether an idea or product is ready for implementation.

Innovation is a wonderful thing but recognizing my fiduciary responsibility to my clients it is
difficult to justify expenditures on approaches with little or no track record. The limited resources
of my clients do not leave a lot of room for experimentation nor am I willing to accept what could
only be an added measure of liability in order to advocate for "green stuff" that may or may not
reap tangible benefits. Much better to concentrate I think on siting, orientations &/or shading
of fenestration, insulation, infiltration, efficient equipment & lighting.

Climategate was not inconsequential to my way of thinking, nor was it to many scientists who
object to what they term the corruption of science by big government money. The departures of
physicists Dr. Hal Lewis (now deceased) & most recently Nobel Laureate Dr. Ivar Giaever from the
American Physical Society (APS)were prompted by its use of the term "incontrovertible" in a statement
with regard to the "science" of global warming & subsequent high handed (to them & others)handling
of the controversy by APS leadership. Given these developments difficult to sit thru continuing education
lectures on the necessity of spending trillions to reduce CO2 levels in order to "save the planet". Especially
when even the advocates acknowledge that these efforts might end up, maybe, reducing warming by
something less than one degree F worldwide.

Dr William Happer, Princeton, said in testimony before Senator Barbara Boxer's committee in 2009
that there is little in the physical evidence to suggest that current levels of CO2 in the atmosphere
are even optimal for human or other forms of life, while there is an abundance of physical data
indicating three times the current levels of CO2 caused flora & fauna to florish in the geologic past.
Laughter erupted when someone on the committee said yes doctor but that was a long time ago.
The laughter was quickly silenced when Dr. Happer replied yes but the laws of physics have not
changed in the interrim, to my knowledge. That last caused me to laugh when I watched it. Boxer's
reply was well doctor you have said things today that we have not heard before. Indeed. One wonders
whether a physics department receiving millions in grants to study the effects of warming would perceive
any advantage in offering a contrarian view; something Dr Lewis pondered in his letter of resignation.

Scientists who are willing to face "official" ridicule (manmade global warming deniers are flat earthers per Al Gore)
debate conclusions based upon the evidence. It is not new that some of those studying the data have seen what
appears to be a 1500 year cycle of warming (even mentioned years ago in a spread on global warming by
National Geographic) which may be linked to sunspot activity. Others have noted that periodicity
is matched by occurrences of increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere FOLLOWING the warming. Their
conclusions were not received "warmly" in East Anglia.

It is good business (& stewardship) to use all the tools available to reduce energy consumption in buildings.
However, when government gets in the business of subsidizing one technology or another, funny (not haha)
things begin to happen in the market place (GM, LightSquared, Solyndra etal). The resulting government caused
chaos is inevitably "fixed" by yet more government intervention as hearings are held to search for & punish the
innocent while the guilty receive praise & honors & more positions of responsibility.

Thanks for a heart warming discussion.

-------------------------------------------
Lloyd Goldrick AIA
Albuquerque NM
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 09-20-2011 01:26
From: William Winkler
Subject: 24 Hours of Reality

Bravo Robert and Richard,
My favorite question to all of my LCP colleagues is, "do you have a clothes line?" Of course none of them do.

My house was built in 1958. I bought it in 1971. Since then, I have managed to reduce my natural gas and electric use every year, using over-the counter and affordable upgrades. First was hot water line wraps, air duct joint sealing, then a high efficiency furnace, low-flow toilets, insulated E-glass windows, TPO roofing, weatherstripping, Energy Star appliances, CFLs and continued use of the clothes line, admitedly a device suitable to the arid Southwest. Then there are the simple physical efforts like turning off lights, unplugging chargers and not keeping the water running when you shave in the morning.

None of this is particularly easy but it is easy enough. My energy costs have declined although my energy rates have escalated. Anyone can do these things.

I object to politically based energy conservation mandates when education is a better answer.
 
-------------------------------------------
William Winkler AIA
Architect
Architectural Research Consultants
Albuquerque NM
-------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------
Richard C Scott AIA, Owner
AQUATIC EXCELLENCE
AUSTIN, TEXAS
-------------------------------------------
I would also like to congratulate Richard who emphasizes "insulation, orientation, sealing . . ." I designed custom homes and HUD Indian Housing for five different Native American groups in NM, AR and UT twenty-five years ago. Some were adobe with trombe walls and clerestory windows, letting the sun do its job in the Pueblo areas, using references like Ed Mazria's Passive Solar book. In other Apache and Navajo areas I relied primarily on an article by Sandia National Lab's Ray Bliss who said "Why Not Just Let the Sun In?", emphasizing orientation, window placement and insulation. On skin dominated buildings, this works very well. A footnote to that would be the operating environment, which as homeowners we can address, but are less effective in as architects. One of my Mexican friends lowered her monthly electric bill 85% by unplugging everything in the house except the refrigerator. Do we really need Instant On Everything?

On buildings that are not skin dominated, the usage of energy is in the systems, focusing here on commercial buildings:
-Low cost instrumentation and monitoring gives operators out of range alarms on systems, reducing waste.
-People problems, such as using the wrong set points, lack of response to broken equipment and accountability is huge, usually 10 to 50%.
-Saving energy in manufacturing, recreation centers and most building types is a daily battle that must be fought 24/7. An energy audit might be a starting point, but it is not going to hack it any more than looking at your energy bill at the end of the month. Can you imagine managing your cash flow by looking at your monthly bank statement? Yet that is the kind of information that most building owners have now.
-Even low rise office buildings that are skin dominated can reduce utility costs 20 to 30%.

As architects who are more focused on building skins than on operations, why do we ignore this potentially lucrative consulting area?








Original Message:
Sent: 09-19-2011 10:57
From: Robert Collins
Subject: 24 Hours of Reality


Bravo Richard-

Glad to hear someone tell the whole truth.  Until these "so called green" initiatives really make financial sense they will never be broadly applied.  Don't get me wrong though, I'm all for energy savings, but lets tell the whole truth as to where energy is really saved.  I wish I had Gore's millions to "play" in the energy field....
-------------------------------------------
Robert Collins AIA
Merrillville IN
-------------------------------------------

I just signed on for a for a 20-year lease for solar panels to generate and cover all of my electrical energy requirements.  Based on my average usage last year (which came to $150/mo avg.) I sized my system to produce the same amount of energy.  The lease payment for the panels will be $140/mo with no up front costs.  I will be paying our electricity company a minimum of $5/mo if I keep my usage level the same as this past year.  The real savings of course will be over time when each year my electicity company raises its rates by 7-20% and my lease payment remains constant. 

The company that manufactures the panels is SunPower out of California and has been in business making solar panels since the 1970's.  They now manufacture the most efficient solar panel and they provide a 25yr warranty.  The installers are a local company that has been in business for 70yrs.  It now looks like the climate is not only feasible but economically better to rely on solar power...and it's clean.  

So it does not take millions to "play" in the energy field.  All lemmings are welcome to follow.

-------------------------------------------
David Parker AIA
MiraCosta College, Architectural Technology Program
Oceanside CA
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 09-20-2011 11:52
From: Richard Scott
Subject: 24 Hours of Reality



-------------------------------------------
Richard C Scott AIA, Owner
AQUATIC EXCELLENCE
AUSTIN, TEXAS
-------------------------------------------
I would also like to congratulate Richard who emphasizes "insulation, orientation, sealing . . ." I designed custom homes and HUD Indian Housing for five different Native American groups in NM, AR and UT twenty-five years ago. Some were adobe with trombe walls and clerestory windows, letting the sun do its job in the Pueblo areas, using references like Ed Mazria's Passive Solar book. In other Apache and Navajo areas I relied primarily on an article by Sandia National Lab's Ray Bliss who said "Why Not Just Let the Sun In?", emphasizing orientation, window placement and insulation. On skin dominated buildings, this works very well. A footnote to that would be the operating environment, which as homeowners we can address, but are less effective in as architects. One of my Mexican friends lowered her monthly electric bill 85% by unplugging everything in the house except the refrigerator. Do we really need Instant On Everything?

On buildings that are not skin dominated, the usage of energy is in the systems, focusing here on commercial buildings:
-Low cost instrumentation and monitoring gives operators out of range alarms on systems, reducing waste.
-People problems, such as using the wrong set points, lack of response to broken equipment and accountability is huge, usually 10 to 50%.
-Saving energy in manufacturing, recreation centers and most building types is a daily battle that must be fought 24/7. An energy audit might be a starting point, but it is not going to hack it any more than looking at your energy bill at the end of the month. Can you imagine managing your cash flow by looking at your monthly bank statement? Yet that is the kind of information that most building owners have now.
-Even low rise office buildings that are skin dominated can reduce utility costs 20 to 30%.

As architects who are more focused on building skins than on operations, why do we ignore this potentially lucrative consulting area?

-------------------------------------------
John Kedzierski AIA
Project Architect
Dimensions, Inc.
Kokomo IN
-------------------------------------------

That sounds great.  However we all tend to think that what is great for me is great for everyone.  What works for you in sunny California will not work in rainy Seattle.  We have good wind here in Indiana (northwest Indiana) but that will not work in other areas.  I personally believe that wave energy (I spent my summers at the Jersey shore) has a lot of untapped potential in that waves never stop along our coasts.

 

I am all for green energy as an arrow in the quiver of energy independence and planet saving.  Unfortunately, overall, green energy costs are roughly 50% higher than traditional energy sources (i have been involved in green energy projects).  The prevailing think is that the cost of traditional energy needs to be raised to make green energy become viable.  My belief is that some very smart people need to bring the cost of green energy down to the price of traditional energy through innovative thinking and/or efficiency gains.  Then green energy will be viable.  We seem to have lost our traditional sense of practicality in the quest of green.  Our definition of green has been distorted by those that have put personal gains above the needs of the nation. My sense of green is more on the lines of  http://www.originalgreen.org/ .  And by the way I have no relationship with Steve, professional or personal.  My endorsement is clean which can not be said of other green proponents.  Just my thoughts.

Original Message:
Sent: 09-21-2011 14:52
From: David Parker
Subject: 24 Hours of Reality

I just signed on for a for a 20-year lease for solar panels to generate and cover all of my electrical energy requirements.  Based on my average usage last year (which came to $150/mo avg.) I sized my system to produce the same amount of energy.  The lease payment for the panels will be $140/mo with no up front costs.  I will be paying our electricity company a minimum of $5/mo if I keep my usage level the same as this past year.  The real savings of course will be over time when each year my electicity company raises its rates by 7-20% and my lease payment remains constant. 

The company that manufactures the panels is SunPower out of California and has been in business making solar panels since the 1970's.  They now manufacture the most efficient solar panel and they provide a 25yr warranty.  The installers are a local company that has been in business for 70yrs.  It now looks like the climate is not only feasible but economically better to rely on solar power...and it's clean.  

So it does not take millions to "play" in the energy field.  All lemmings are welcome to follow.

-------------------------------------------
David Parker AIA
MiraCosta College, Architectural Technology Program
Oceanside CA
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 09-20-2011 11:52
From: Richard Scott
Subject: 24 Hours of Reality



-------------------------------------------
Richard C Scott AIA, Owner
AQUATIC EXCELLENCE
AUSTIN, TEXAS
-------------------------------------------
I would also like to congratulate Richard who emphasizes "insulation, orientation, sealing . . ." I designed custom homes and HUD Indian Housing for five different Native American groups in NM, AR and UT twenty-five years ago. Some were adobe with trombe walls and clerestory windows, letting the sun do its job in the Pueblo areas, using references like Ed Mazria's Passive Solar book. In other Apache and Navajo areas I relied primarily on an article by Sandia National Lab's Ray Bliss who said "Why Not Just Let the Sun In?", emphasizing orientation, window placement and insulation. On skin dominated buildings, this works very well. A footnote to that would be the operating environment, which as homeowners we can address, but are less effective in as architects. One of my Mexican friends lowered her monthly electric bill 85% by unplugging everything in the house except the refrigerator. Do we really need Instant On Everything?

On buildings that are not skin dominated, the usage of energy is in the systems, focusing here on commercial buildings:
-Low cost instrumentation and monitoring gives operators out of range alarms on systems, reducing waste.
-People problems, such as using the wrong set points, lack of response to broken equipment and accountability is huge, usually 10 to 50%.
-Saving energy in manufacturing, recreation centers and most building types is a daily battle that must be fought 24/7. An energy audit might be a starting point, but it is not going to hack it any more than looking at your energy bill at the end of the month. Can you imagine managing your cash flow by looking at your monthly bank statement? Yet that is the kind of information that most building owners have now.
-Even low rise office buildings that are skin dominated can reduce utility costs 20 to 30%.

As architects who are more focused on building skins than on operations, why do we ignore this potentially lucrative consulting area?

...and as far as lemmings have to do with it, check this a out for starters:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v456/n7218/full/nature07442.html

-------------------------------------------
Paul Kane AIA
Freeport ME
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 09-21-2011 14:52
From: David Parker
Subject: 24 Hours of Reality

I just signed on for a for a 20-year lease for solar panels to generate and cover all of my electrical energy requirements.  Based on my average usage last year (which came to $150/mo avg.) I sized my system to produce the same amount of energy.  The lease payment for the panels will be $140/mo with no up front costs.  I will be paying our electricity company a minimum of $5/mo if I keep my usage level the same as this past year.  The real savings of course will be over time when each year my electicity company raises its rates by 7-20% and my lease payment remains constant. 

The company that manufactures the panels is SunPower out of California and has been in business making solar panels since the 1970's.  They now manufacture the most efficient solar panel and they provide a 25yr warranty.  The installers are a local company that has been in business for 70yrs.  It now looks like the climate is not only feasible but economically better to rely on solar power...and it's clean.  

So it does not take millions to "play" in the energy field.  All lemmings are welcome to follow.

-------------------------------------------
David Parker AIA
MiraCosta College, Architectural Technology Program
Oceanside CA
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 09-20-2011 11:52
From: Richard Scott
Subject: 24 Hours of Reality



-------------------------------------------
Richard C Scott AIA, Owner
AQUATIC EXCELLENCE
AUSTIN, TEXAS
-------------------------------------------
I would also like to congratulate Richard who emphasizes "insulation, orientation, sealing . . ." I designed custom homes and HUD Indian Housing for five different Native American groups in NM, AR and UT twenty-five years ago. Some were adobe with trombe walls and clerestory windows, letting the sun do its job in the Pueblo areas, using references like Ed Mazria's Passive Solar book. In other Apache and Navajo areas I relied primarily on an article by Sandia National Lab's Ray Bliss who said "Why Not Just Let the Sun In?", emphasizing orientation, window placement and insulation. On skin dominated buildings, this works very well. A footnote to that would be the operating environment, which as homeowners we can address, but are less effective in as architects. One of my Mexican friends lowered her monthly electric bill 85% by unplugging everything in the house except the refrigerator. Do we really need Instant On Everything?

On buildings that are not skin dominated, the usage of energy is in the systems, focusing here on commercial buildings:
-Low cost instrumentation and monitoring gives operators out of range alarms on systems, reducing waste.
-People problems, such as using the wrong set points, lack of response to broken equipment and accountability is huge, usually 10 to 50%.
-Saving energy in manufacturing, recreation centers and most building types is a daily battle that must be fought 24/7. An energy audit might be a starting point, but it is not going to hack it any more than looking at your energy bill at the end of the month. Can you imagine managing your cash flow by looking at your monthly bank statement? Yet that is the kind of information that most building owners have now.
-Even low rise office buildings that are skin dominated can reduce utility costs 20 to 30%.

As architects who are more focused on building skins than on operations, why do we ignore this potentially lucrative consulting area?