What is Digg?23 Comments
- brandita, on 03/08/2009, -1/+8This is a very interesting article. It is very honest about the upsides and downsides of both LEED and green buildings in general. This building is definitely on the forefront of green building. Yale and the many other colleges before it that have built green buildings need to be applauded for making buildings that are also teaching tools. I feel if you are teaching Environmental Science or anything of the like to not teach such classes in a green building is just hypocritical.
- olschool82, on 03/08/2009, -1/+6...... dugg down for using the heritage foundation as credibility
- inactive, on 03/08/2009, -1/+6How could we have missed this all along‽
/s - Skibadoweebop, on 03/08/2009, -0/+4There are a lot of tradeoffs in leed but one of the prereqs for LEED is CO2 sensors on return air ducts to make sure there is enough fresh air at all times. Yes windows contribute a lot to HVAC loads, but this is where an integrated design approach really comes into play. Correct building orientation and proper shading measures will allow sufficient light while controlling solar heat gain. The hardest part about the process is that architects and engineers need to talk to each other from day one. LED's are ok, but you are right, nothing beats natural lighting.
- greenfyre, on 03/08/2009, -0/+4Citing a 7 year old discredited article gives you credibility?
Try actual science
Yes, Global Warming is Real and it's Still Happening
http://digg.com/environment/Yes_Global_Warming_is_ ... - angryredplanet, on 03/08/2009, -0/+4Clearly, you don't understand what "pollutant" means, so let's take a look:
http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=define%3Apollutant
CO2 fits all categories described by "pollutant".
CO2 is not plant food, it represents their physical building blocks. Nitrates and phosphates are plant foods. That is not to say that dumping tonnes of plant food everywhere is good for all biotic systems. Too many phosphates ensures they make their way into sewers and into oceans, where they cause algal blooms. This strips the ocean of dissolved oxygen, causing dead zones. This also has been shown to cause coral bleaching, a far more devastating side effect.
Higher atmospheric concentrations of CO2 irrefutably causes higher temperatures. When plants move from their thermal optimum for photosynthesis, the process plateaus until eventually it stops. When photosynthesis stops due to thermal shock, the plant dies. More CO2 does not guarantee more plant growth, given it's effect on climate. You don't seem to understand that life relies on balancing these systems, not stressing them. - Skibadoweebop, on 03/08/2009, -2/+5Wow, none of you know anything about green building at all do you?
Look, all this sustainability stuff isn't just tree hugging mumbo jumbo, its just about being responsible and creating places that are comfortable and healthy to live and work. It also happens to make a serious impact on the amount of energy we use and it isn't much more expensive if you aproach it right from the beginning.
Think about this: You might be sitting in a cube, under a fluorescent light, breathing stale air, counting the hours until 5:00 when you can see daylight again, whereas if your building had been built with sustainability in mind, your light would come from the outside, the HVAC would be built around providing enough fresh air, and you would probably be a lot more comfortable, not to mention the fact that the building would not be consuming nearly as much energy.
And speaking of the economy, dont we keep hearing that this whole crisis was caused by our own overconsumtion? Lets start being responsible. We dont need to consume so much if we just use what we have more efficiently. Even if you really beleive that global warming is a sham (which I find astounding that people can still say that but I wont go there), why shouldn't we be more efficient? The people I hear arguing against sustainability tend to be the same conservatives who want to tighten up spending. Why not adopt a conservative energy policy as well as a conservative monetary policy? - sangjmoon, on 03/08/2009, -1/+3Humans will be carbon neutral when they live in mud huts, eat their food raw and produce no methane.
- jfreeman, on 03/08/2009, -0/+1Hypocritical? Science is not a political creature.
- Skibadoweebop, on 03/08/2009, -0/+1Wow, good guess. I think the whole movement is an awesome shift in the entire way we approach design. Its an exciting time to get involved.
When you look at the cost of an HVAC system, the sensors dont make that big of a dent. - nikimedia, on 03/11/2009, -0/+0I hope that more research is done into the carbon offset capabilites of substances like activated carbon and activated charcoal by companies like http://www.carbonresources.com/activated-charcoal. ... . i know this is a novel idea but initial research has been positive especially since these substances have such widespread use in water filtration, treating poison, etc. here's a blog with more info on activated carbon in general but good info on carbon and environment responsibility http://www.activatedcarbonblog.org
- rd1010, on 03/08/2009, -4/+3unless this is somehow going to lead to a profitable business I think this is definitely the wrong time for this sort of thing considering the economy
- murrdpirate, on 03/08/2009, -1/+0Haha, well you must be an engineer if you know the hardest part of the process is getting architects and engineers to communicate from day one. I hope this focus on energy efficiency brings the relationship up to more of a partnership instead of engineers being architects' bitches.
I don't really know much about the economics of CO2 sensors. I guess it would be good to at least have one at the main return, but it seems you really need to have one in all the critical zones like conference rooms. I don't know exactly how much CO2 detection costs, although I know it's pretty expensive, but with how much we have to over-design the outdoor rate in my county, I'd be surprised they don't pay for themselves very quickly. - murrdpirate, on 03/08/2009, -1/+0Actually, meeting LEED requirements often means lowering the amount of fresh air brought into the building, since the more outside air you bring in, the more energy you have to use to bring it to an acceptable temperature. I wouldn't worry about it though. There has been a lot of research in balancing energy consumption and ventilation. It's been found that previous mandated outdoor air rates were higher than necessary, and many jurisdictions have lowered the requirements.
Also, windows are typically the single largest contributor to A/C requirements. The light itself helps heat the building in the winter, but windows are not good insulation. In every other season, it's even worse. The thinness of windows and the heat from the light both contribute to the amount of cooling you need. LED's will become standard in the not-too-distant future, but I think people will always want natural lighting. - murrdpirate, on 03/08/2009, -2/+0Please tell me "teaching tools" was a pun.
- FresnoRog, on 03/08/2009, -3/+1I wonder if they used green cranes and green earth movers to build it?
- ObamaYouth, on 03/08/2009, -3/+1if they don't build a building, there wouldn't be any carbon emission.
if they do build it, it involves millions of dollars of complex social and economical activities where lots of carbon will be burned beyond builder's control. are they sure they neutered all that? how? some trees were planted? meh. - heatherwight, on 03/08/2009, -3/+1Has anyone else noticed that a lot of "green" projects are ugly? I am all for sustainable living and not wasting resources. (I'm also 100% for being able to use those resources too.) But why does going green have to be not asthetic?
- murrdpirate, on 03/08/2009, -3/+0As an HVAC engineer, I would personally like to thank all you tax payers for paying to increase the efficiency of federal buildings, as mandated in the stimulus bill.
I think it will be a while before this really takes off in the commercial sector. A lot of companies are willing to pay a premium for LEED certification just for the accolades, but it will be a while before there is a real economic incentive. I have no idea where they got the "unofficial figure" of an only 5.7% construction premium for this building. Maybe that is only the cost of actually building the building and not the cost of materials and equipment, because it's probably quite a bit more total. I think we're close to the point where designing for LEED certification will pay for itself over the entire life cycle of the building, but since many owners don't often intend to own the building for that long, they don't benefit economically. - Skibadoweebop, on 03/08/2009, -4/+0Are you serious?
- inactive, on 03/08/2009, -8/+4I made my Coke carbon-neutral and now it tastes like *****. Thanks enviro-freaks!
- inactive, on 03/08/2009, -11/+5I guess they never got the memo that CO2 is not a pollutant, eh?
In fact...it's plant food.
doh - patchydapirate, on 03/08/2009, -13/+4The building has also achieved the elusive goal of being a 100% waste of time and money.
Global warming is s sham
http://www.heritage.org/research/energyandenvironm ...
I don't expect anyone to read all of that, just wanted to add credibility to my claim.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is