Passive House, Green Building Technology: Not practical or cost effective for building affordable housing!
July 10, 2011
I could probably blog every day, if I took the time, about sustainable building, energy efficient building techniques and something about the “Green Building” movement. Unfortunately while I have done my best to keep up with it, I am inundated with the much the same information each day. There is nothing revolutionary out there, but there is a lot of pie-in-the-sky rhetoric. There is no “magic wand,” or “new weight loss” pill we can take to make energy efficiency or sustainable building the law of the land.
Every day I glance at the myriads of e-mails, blogs and information I get on my reader in anticipation of something revolutionary that will tip the scales and make everyone get on board the energy conservation movement. I anxiously await new announcements by HUD, RESNET, Energy Star, The Enterprise Foundation, USGBC and other organizations dedicated to creating the new mousetrap in building. Each day I keep reading basically the same stuff over and over again, with new words, but very few new ideas. I get reminded of the lines in the “Right Stuff” stating we are not saying anything new here, but the same things over and over again, only with a lot of technical mumbo jumbo. I get disgusted as we continue to inundate consumers, builders, developers and government with information that lacks a common sense approach, combined with economic realities.
I have to reach deep and question, at times, my commitment to this industry. I have believed in energy efficiency in building since coming home from Europe and the Middle East in the 70′s and seeing 1st hand what fuel shortages and dramatic increases in the cost of oil products can do to an economy. I saw the mass panic that fuel shortages caused in the United States in the late 70′s and it wasn’t pretty. I get myself pretty down, reflecting on this issue, carried over from my youthful exuberance. I still believe in it, but unfortunately I believe in common sense and reality more. I want to see this stuff accepted by all because it makes sense-economic and common.
Over the past few years I have been involved with a wonderful program called EarthCraft Virginia. I was attracted to it because of its common sense approach and its ready adaptation to builders of single and multi-family housing. It has been a great program to watch progress. I am still the believer that all the building dreams in the world have to be accomplished by two groups, Builders and Developers, without them there are no sticks or bricks.
My specialty is affordable housing in both single and multi-family housing. I have watched dramatic energy conservation results take place by paying attention to the building blocks of energy efficiency, meaning you do the basics first and then, as economics dictate, you can apply other applications that have some justification. When I say the basics I mean the thermal envelope and the HVAC systems. You got to get them right, or everything else is just throwing money away. There is such a thing as the “law of diminishing returns,” which very few “Green Dreamers” ever bring into the conversation.
It is that law that explains a segment of the market place that I have seen grow disproportionately during the past few years in regards to affordable housing and that is the dramatic economic advantages afforded non-profit’s in contrast to for-profits. What most building scientists, green guru’s, and consumers don’t grasp is that for-profit builders must economically justify every stick, brick and system in what-ever they are building and insure those items can contribute to the bottom line called profit. No profit, no builder, no buildings and no jobs.
Non-Profits building affordable housing have a distinct advantage. That advantage is called grants, subsidies and cheaper money programs. I love non-profits and what they do by building in economically disadvantaged locations. Most of my clients are non-profits. More so in the past few years than at any time previously. I love the ones that want to learn about doing it right. Several come to mind, but this isn’t about promotion this is about reality.
For profit builders and developers have had it harsh over the past few years. They get looked down upon constantly by “Green Guru’s” because they don’t incorporate the latest evolving technology into their products. You know why? It is called “Economics 101.” If home owners, apartment owners and renters shop their pocket book, the for-profit builder-developer can’t afford to throw in expensive systems as a gift. I mean when was the last time your grocery store gave you a free shopping cart full of food because you shopped there the past year or they wanted you as a new customer?
I lose my passion from time to time and think many times I have become a negative person in constantly finding faults with the “Newest Daily Green Building” approach. I question myself for not jumping on the hype of the newest and best “Green Technology,” but then I thank God I have some common sense or as one of my favorite quotes says, “Good judgment comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgment.”– Barry LePatner. Thank Goodness I have Good judgment and making a somewhat arrogant statement, I can be a realistic, boots-on- the-ground voice in the well intentioned mix of unrealistic do-gooders.
In keeping within that common sense approach, I am lucky that every week something sets me off and makes me realize I continually look at Green Building from a builder or for-profit entity’s economic perspective. This is in spite of the fact that I am an Engineer by education and should be looking at it without economics involved. Yeah right.
A particular quote set me off on this blog: It happen to come from a groundbreaking for Solar-on-the-Mall in Washington, DC. Solar on the Mall is a great event. The event is phenomenal for pushing the envelope of sustainable building and alternative energy options albeit not with economic justification in mind. The Quote:
“The house is an extension of the progression that Habitat has made over the last several years,” Kent Adcock, president and CEO of Habitat for Humanity of Washington, D.C., said at the ground-breaking ceremony on June 29. “A number of years ago Habitat built with conventional construction, and then a few years after that we went to Energy Star construction. And then a few years after that we went a little further to EarthCraft certification.” Building to Passive House standards, he added, “is the next sustainable answer for affordable housing.”
I advise more than a few Habitat for Humanity Chapters on building with energy efficiency and sustainablility__what most call Green Building. The DC Habitat chapter is a great entity and does great things, how can it not, it currently builds to the common sense, practical EarthCraft Standard, but for its CEO to make the statement that building to Passive House standards is the next sustainable answer for affordable housing is as out there as it gets. Without grants, government subsidies and specialty programs, no creator of affordable housing can build to these standards. It doesn’t make economic sense.
With all American Government in a crunch for money, scouring for money sources, how can affordable housing providers, developers and builders meet these standards and fill the astronomical void in affordable housing creation in this country economically. Not with Passive House! Speaking economically it will be a challenge for builders to implement the new Energy Star 3.0 standards, let alone the German Passif House standard for affordable housing construction.
Yes, it is nice to dream. Yes, Passive House is a great concept, in certain situations, but to hail it as the one building specification that affordable housing providers should strive towards is la, la land. In order to fill the Affordable Housing void in this country, practical energy efficient building implementations are the order of the day, not over priced standards that definitely feed the “Law of Diminishing Returns.” We need to keep in mind another axiom of the practical building science, emphasized by my Guru, Chuck Bowles of EarthCraft VA and the esteemed, irreverent, great Joe Lstiburek of Building Science Corporation, “Build Tight and Ventilate Right,” with an added emphasis on common sense and economic justification, not “pie in the sky” grasping.
See Joe Lstiburek’s article in The ASHRAE Journal, May 2011, “Just Right and Airtight”, for some more common sense information.
The Human Factor: Zero Energy Buildings(ZEB) and Common Sense
June 2, 2011
A blog on Building Green.com regarding people and the creation of Zero Energy Buildings(ZEB) really started me thinking about some personal experience, our results and how to apply some Common Sense to what we learned.
About 3 years ago we completed a 3 Bedroom Modular Home certified to Energy Star–EarthCraft House Virginia Standards for an Inner City Affordable Housing(CHODO) program.
We were interested to see what kind of energy it used relative to a home built strictly to the “Building Code.” In other words would it use less energy? To accomplish this for the first year of occupancy we paid the owner $100/month for original copies of their energy bills. If the home used less than a $100/month they made money, if more, the $100 supplemented the bill. We were expecting energy bills in the neighborhood of $50-60/month, with a spike above $100.00 in Air Conditioning Season.
Without getting into boring details, the house didn’t use less energy, it used more. Personally I was flabbergasted. My theory of building was disproved. As a HERS rater, engineer, builder I was out to prove this was the only way to build “Affordable Housing.” What had we done wrong?
Nothing! That’s right, we had done nothing wrong in trying to construct an energy efficient, affordable, modular home within a strict budget. What we hadn’t figured on was the occupants.
The home owners were a military family. They were originally from a very warm environment. They liked a warm house in winter, and a cold house in summer. They pushed the heat pump high in the winter, forcing the back up strip heat to engage, and spin the old electric meter. In the summer they cranked that dial down into the 60′s.
Now another factor kicked in. The family had 2 young children and a third one born shortly after moving in. That meant lots of loads of wash. This meant lots of electric hot water and dryer usage. You factor in all of those issues and the electric usage was way above projections.
For me it proved a point that all affordable housing providers, including for-profit, non-profit and government agencies should be doing after they build these homes: Secure the monthly utility bills. It should be mandatory in any type of project using grants or government funds helping to build a project to an energy efficiency standard. It should be mandatory for any homeowner/renter receiving subsidies or grants or any type of financial help to allow them to afford living there.
Why? We need feedback and documentation to see where the rubber meets the road between projections and reality. We need it to educate the occupants using some good old fashioned common sense.
The recent posting on BuildingGreen called:”Net-Zero Does Not Live by Design Alone: The Human Factor”by Paula Melton gives a realistic viewpoint regarding the creating of Zero Energy Buildings(ZEB) and how people, occupants, are the wild card between the projections and the reality. This posting makes a lot of common sense, something sorely lacking in the majority of Never-Never Land projections. It should be read by anyone working on a Zero Energy Building Concept.
Duany Predicts Decline of LEED Standard.
May 10, 2011
March/April: 2011, Sustainable Communities, “Duany Predicts Decline of LEED Standards.” www.p4sc.org
“Decrying the high cost of “optimization” of development in a lean time” Andres Duany, principal in the visionary firm of Duany Plater-Zyberk and Company(DPZ) and co-founder of the Congress for New Urbanism, “called for a return to commons sense development principals that harken back to the 19th Century and predicted declining use of the LEED standards for building efficiency.”
Mr. Duany was speaking at the “New Partners for Smart Growth” conference held in California. The article highlighted Mr. Duany’s comments regarding the “the excessive regulation of development and the high cost of certification of building under the U.S.Green Building Council’s LEED rating system.”
Amen!Amen!Amen! The key words above are “common sense.” One of the unfortunate effects concerning popular trends in the United States is the swing of the pendulum. When we get onto something, we throw common sense implementation right out the window in a rush to swing the pendulum 180 degrees in another direction. No creeping along for us. We want and we want it now.
The fact remains that many planning boards are staffed by over zealous, inexperienced, community activists and concerned “citizens,” who view builders and developers as rapers and plunderers of the earth. In trying to make up for perceived past flaws, the approving authorities haughtily feel these plunderers of the Earth need to be shown the proper path and to hell with the fact that they have to make a profit and people have to pay a higher prices for building and home construction. It isn’t their money and they have the power. Much like religious fanatics they want 100% implementation today, not tomorrow and to hell with common sense.
What the majority of people forget is that without builders and developers there are no buildings. We would all still be living in caves without them. There would be no built environment. Keep that in mind, “No Builders, No Developers, No Buildings.” Keep in mind also, “No Money, No Profit, No Builders or Developers.” Even non-profit builders and developers have to make a profit or they to go out of business when the grants and specialty money dry up.
The reality of the situation is the more education we have, the more knowledge we gather, the more we lose touch with reality and common sense. Without common sense approaches we will see the vast majority of people in the United States turn there backs on the “Green_Sustainable Building” movement, much as they did in the 80′s. No matter how hard one tries, consumers still shop their wallet and if it doesn’t make economic sense, they can’t afford to do it. As the old saying goes, “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make them drink.” Common Sense has to rule the day. Sometimes as Duany states, “There are many low cost ways to get 85% of benefit of today’s standards,” and 85% of something is better than 100% of nothing.