New Blog Address

To all those "following" me on this blog - I have a new site: www.buildopt.com

Comprehensive US Building Energy Data and Forecasts at your fingertips!

The 2009 Version of the Building Energy Data Book was released last October. I'm surprised that I missed it!! It is a one stop source for tons of good USA building energy data. The chart below taken from the document is a good example of the information contained

Emerging Technologies and Practices for the Building Sector

I just stumbled upon a nicely comprehensive listing and analysis of emerging, promising HVAC technologies that was compiled and posted on the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy organization's website:

Summary of HVAC Emerging Technology Results

Advanced Rooftop Packaged Air Conditioners  Advanced "Gas Pack" Rooftop Packaged Air Conditioner  Commercial Energy Recovery Ventilation Systems  Residential Hot-Dry Air Conditioners  Smart Premium (Robust) Residential Air Conditioners  Advanced Northern Heat Pumps  Commercial Ground-Source Heat Pumps  Residential Ductwork Optimization  Active Chilled Beam Cooling  Advanced Modulating HVAC Compressor  Automated Fault Detection and Diagnostics for Rooftop Units  Liquid Desiccant Air Conditioner  Residential Boiler Controls  Dehumidification Enhancements for Air Conditioners in Hot-Humid Climates  Air-Side Economizer Control Strategies

The Enemy Within: Tom Hartman's Suggestions for Building Performance

I have always been a big fan of the Building Energy Operations guru, Mr. Tom Hartman. I ran across this article a while back in AutomatedBuildings.com which outlines some unconventional concepts regarding building design which could shake up the industry.

In a nutshell, Hartman suggests that the construction industry switch to a "“Performance Based” Building Design and Operations" strategy. The strategy addresses the main need of ACCOUNTABILITY for energy performance within the design and construction process.

LEED Buildings: How energy efficient are they? - Part II

After reflecting for a few weeks on my last post, I did a bit more research. I received a bit of feedback for and against the comments expressed by Mr. Gifford and I wanted to take a step back with a more impartial look at th energy consumption data analyzed by the NBI study. As is usually the case, I "stumbled" upon the information I was looking for (there are many others out there with the same questions as myself) in another study recently published in Energy and Buildings Journal which specifically reanalyzes the data used in the New Buildings Institute LEED study which was so heavily scrutinized.

The study, appropriately titled "Do LEED-certified buildings save energy? Yes, but..." was completed by a group from the National Research Council Canada in Ottawa. The team did a very thorough and more scientific analysis of the data, carefully outlining the conclusions made by the NBI, the complaints made regarding the presentation of such data (by Gifford and others) and the reasoning and methodology behind the new analysis. All of these effort are especially important to clarify the "motivation" and transparency of the report - which I found to be more dependable than previous analysis.

To spare you the details, the report found three main conclusions (color-coding for dramatic effect):

1. On average, LEED buildings use 18–39% less energy per floor area than their conventional counterparts.
2. However, 28–35% of LEED buildings use more energy than their conventional counterparts. 
3. Further, the measured energy performance of LEED buildings has little correlation with certification level of the building, or the number of energy credits achieved by the building at design time.

The study further goes on to state: "Therefore, at a societal level, green buildings can contribute

substantial energy savings, but further work needs to be done to define green building rating schemes to ensure more consistent success at the individual building level."

I would like to clarify that I want to emphasize the critical views of LEED not because I want to discredit its system or intent, but to bring to light where improvements can be made. The system is not perfect and there are obviously flaws which need to be addressed in order for LEED buildings to actually make an impact on building energy consumption!

Even though it isn't directly mentioned, this study summarizes what almost everyone in the building industry realizes: Green design is only one part of the equation; construction practices and actual operations and maintenance are the real indicators of efficient energy consumption.

LEED Buildings: How energy efficient are they??

So far in my career, I have been exposed to a few decent examples of the "way things really work" in the building industry. I've learned that building energy simulations and early design analysis can be tweaked to produce figures which will please the client all while staying within commonly accepted assumption boundaries. I've learned how and why the ignorance regarding the actual science behind green buildings is exploited as everybody rushes to jump on the bandwagon. And now, after stumbling upon the website created by a veteran in the building energy efficiency industry, Henry Gifford, I've begun to take a more critical look at my once flawless view of the LEED Rating System.

LEED is almost a household term these days after the US Green Building Council established it as the pioneering method for benchmarking the performance of buildings which fit the characteristics of good energy and environmental design. LEED has truly been a very successful program; the environmentally-conscious education of literally thousands of building industry professionals and construction of millions of square feet of new buildings has been guided by its good intentions. But now, it is becoming more evident that good intentions and solid marketing value of LEED is not enough to actually make a significant impact on the energy consumption of buildings.

A 2008 study that was prepared by the New Buildings Institute with funding from the USGBC and the EPA shows that the median of the 121 LEED Buildings tested perform at 24% better than than the national mean of US Building stock. Sounds great, right? Well, a more critical look by Mr. Gifford exposed flaws in the way the data was presented which shows actually that LEED buildings perform worse when the mean of their values of consumption is compared to the mean of the recently constructed building stock (2000-2003).  The "gist" of this contradicting study can be found from Henry's presentation at the Westford Symposium for Building Science:

This must be embarassing for the USGBC - however they need to stop getting defensive about it and take it as a call to action to make the system more legitimate! I think in many ways this is occuring based on a press release sent out to USGBC members on Sept 25. In it they say that they are "Tackling Building Performance Head On!!". This sounds very hopeful in my opinion however it must be done right in order to be effective. The building owner and maintenance personnel must truly be held accountable for the energy performance of the building and as Henry eloquently states "the plaque should be attached with removable screws".

A very thorough paper outlining Gifford's approach to rating buildings can be found here.

Sun? Wind? No! We need Conservation and Efficiency!!

Just this last week, I had the opportunity to attend the Asian Youth Energy Summit at the National University of Singapore. There were many very riveting speakers at this event including a number of solar, wind, biofuels (from algae even!) and other various types of renewable energy proponents. However, one thing that struck me as odd and even frightening was the virtually complete lack of discussion about the DEMAND side of the energy issue. I believe that everyone left the event believing that solar and wind power is going to save the human race... the issue that we face is that for every wind turbine that is put up in the world - there are hundreds of poorly constructed buildings that will excessively consume the clean energy produced and then some.

This issue has prompted me to change my banner to reflect a few simple statistics that I quickly found in the Building Energy Data Book and the Dept of Energy's Energy Information Administration (simply two of the greatest sources of world energy statistics). One can see the scale by which the PROJECTED energy production and consumption differ with regards to the two most touted renewable energy schemes as compared to the actual building energy consumption. I have no beef with the sun and wind people - I just think that we're hyping that portion of the solution up way too much.

How can we bring conservation and efficiency to the forefront of the energy debate?! How can we make it as "sexy" as solar panels and wind turbines? How can we actually achieve a 5-10% energy efficiency reduction for the 2030 building energy predictions? And how do we get designers and owners to value ACTUAL energy savings as opposed to just those on paper or in a simulation program?

I have some ideas. I'm sure you have some ideas. Let's figure it out!!

Below I've created a few simple graphs giving some breakdowns of the supply vs demand comparisons: