This following is not all inclusive, but it will give you an idea of what basic information is required to be input into a Manual J program.

Size of dwelling unit, volume of unit.

Orientation-North, South, East, West

Insulation:  R value of walls, foundations, slabs, ceilings

Windows: Type, u-value, Solar Heat Gain Coefficient.

Infiltration: Air Changes per Hour, tightness of house.

Approximate Duct Leakage

Indoor Dry Bulb temperatures for winter and summer

There are more than a few other factors including Latitude, Elevation, and Temperature Range, but these parameters are not necessary for you to gain a basic understanding of the concept.

The Manual J is starting to be required in many locations for a building permit.  Why is it important?  Would you rather have your HVAC system based on a rule of thumb or actual field conditions? Me–If I was building or renovating a structure, especially one I am taking pains to make energy efficient, I want my HVAC based on reality.

Why am I going to build a Sustainable, Energy Efficient dwelling to Energy Star or another verifiable building program and then just have the HVAC contractor size it depending a rule of thumb based on a leaky, minimally insulated dwelling.

I am a Technical Representative for EarthCraft Virginia.  When you get an EarthCraft certification, you also get an Energy Star certification.  The critical issue in the process is energy efficiency.  This means sizing the HVAC correctly and installing it correctly.

I know that when I look at a Manual J calculated for EarthCraft House in Virginia, where Air to Air Heat Pumps are prevalent, if I see a sizing that shows me less than 800 Square Feet per ton, that someone hasn’t inputted the correct data.  An EarthCraft or an Energy Star certified house in my part of the world should be between 800-1200 Square Feet of Living Space per ton. That mean if I have a 1600 Square Foot House, the largest HVAC unit should be 2 tons.  If I build it tight, then it should be 1.5 tons.

There are standardized inputs for the Manual J.  An EarthCraft or Energy Star dwelling unit is not standard.  What do I see the most of:  Incorrect u values and solar heat gain coefficients(SHGC) for the windows.   I see window inputs that do not even meet Energy Star requirements for the location, even though the contractor knows this has to meet Energy Star Thermal Envelope Standards and Energy Star Window specifications for the region.

I see someone who has taken the pain to upgrade their insulation, and yet standard insulation is specified in the Man J.   I see infiltration numbers included that are totally excessive. I see duct leakage specified that does not meet Energy Star minimum standards.

I could go on and on.  Bottom line: What is the result of all this?  Usually an over-sized system, that does not operate efficiently in a supposed Energy Efficient dwelling.  Oversizing of HVAC systems means the builder/homeowner/building owner spends more money for less efficiency.  In my part of the world it also creates issues with mold, mildew, humidity problems and excessive heating and air conditioning bills.  It also means that if my contractor specifies a 3 ton unit and it should be 2 tons if done right, I just spent easily a $1000 for an additional ton I didn’t need.  How is that saving me money?

When you are building an energy efficient building, do yourself a favor, specify a manual J calculation and then look at the inputs.  If you don’t know what you are looking at, find someone who can tell you.  Putting in an HVAC system without proper sizing and input data is a waste of your time and money, whether you are a Home Owner, Builder, Developer or Building Owner.  “Build it tight, and size it right.”

“Lets shelve the word Green. Let’s use a real world term–”Sustainable.” Any commercial building owner, meaning the building is theirs, lock, stock and barrel, has to look at their investment simply as initial cost, operational and maintenance costs over the life of the investment and then residual worth. While that initial cost may be somewhat higher–it doesn’t have to be–if preplanned, not reactive planned. For sure the maintenance and operational costs over say 15 years should be substantially less than a building built strictly to code. The residual value of a sustainable building should be substantially more than some cheap thing thrown up. Take them all together and you have the real reason to build sustainably–economics. It is called Life Cycle analysis and utilized with common sense, it makes economic sense. ”

“Multi-family apartment owners have been analyzing return on investment using this approach for years. Usually in order to get financing they unrealistically minimized maintenance and operational costs, especially during the years of cheap energy. They also usually ended up with a building in need of substantial repair, so their residual value was minimized. Today looking at all these things realistically screams for a sustainable approach.”

The apartments are paying close attention to sealing the thermal envelope of each unit.  The Blower Door tests showed substantial reduction in Air Changes per Hour Natural.  They were coming in below .2 ACH natural.  That is pretty impressive in a renovation.  I haven’t previously had any renovations test that low.

Here is my problem.  HUD specs stated, so I am told, that the renovation of the HVAC system, all new, just be replaced matching what was there.  Are you kidding me?  We have 1.5 ton Heat Pump air handlers in apartment units that should have 1/2 of that.  We are talking about the humid southeast.  We are going to have an Air Conditioning unit come on, super cool the air and turn off.  Where is any concern about dehumidification?  Where is there any concern about the energy efficiency of the unit, whether it be in the cooling or heating mode?

A well designed space, to a recognized third party standard(ie. Energy Star), should have a ton of coolant to approximately 800-1200 Square Foot of living space.  Here we have 1.5 tons to a unit less than 500 SF.  That doesn’t make sense to me.

Everything coming out of Washington these days is about energy efficiency, alternative energy and sustainable(Green) building practices.  We are in the process of throwing billions of dollars at energy efficiency and energy alternatives.  If HUD or any other government unit just specifies “replace what is there with the equivalent,” what kind of standard is that?  It isn’t a standard. It isn’t adhering to what HUD, Department of Energy, the GSA are vocalizing.

Another question is what about Indoor Air Quality? If affordable housing renovations are going to result in less than .25 ACH natural, the point at which most sustainable programs, including Energy Star, say you need outside air delivered, aren’t these senior citizens, in this particular project going to be breathing some funky air?  Put another way aren’t we putting them at risk? Last I looked infants, children and seniors are the most susceptible to breathing problems and resultant illnesses.  What kind of standard is “Just replace what’s there?”

To me this is the ultimate in “Don’t do as I do, but do as I say.”  This is “Green Washing” at its best.  All buildings, multi-family, houses, offices, commercial space, schools must be looked at as a system, not a collection of individual items. I mean do we design cars just based on how the tires hold up.

If this is the prescribed path of energy efficiency adhered to by a government entity, entrusted with helping to provide affordable housing for our most at risk citizens, we are in some serious trouble.  Can’t we do projects that provide solutions and jobs for the long haul, not just quick fixes that provide jobs?

In the defense of contractors doing this kind of work, their hands are tied.  They want the work, people want and need the jobs, and I don’t blame them–its tough out there in the construction business.  When they even try to voice an opinion they jeopardize their ability to get the job, so its just “Shut-up and do it.”   There is nothing sustainable about doing something 1/2 assed other than we will be doing it again and again in the future to the same buildings.

“There is never time to do it right, but there is always time to do it over.”

I kind of lost some interest in blogging and tweeting the past few weeks.  Main reason is I periodically get overwhelmed by the amount of daily information I am inundated with regarding Green Building. I have to constantly ask myself, “What are you going to do?”   I mean how and what do I contribute to the over-abundance of information out there.  Then I laugh and say I don’t know, on one day I have answers and the next day I have doubts.  Many days I feel stuck in limbo or purgatory.  The amount of information, for someone in tuned to this movement, to absorb or understand is staggering.  Someone unsophisticated to this field would be overwhelmed.

I do know this:  The only thing I bring to this field is common sense, field application and good and bad experiences of over 30 years in the building business.

Why do I feel this way?  I am a boots on the ground individual.  I work daily with affordable non-profit builders and Low Income Housing Developers trying to get them to apply Energy Efficient and Sustainable Building practices sensibly and cost effectively to their multi-family and single family projects.  Because what very few seem to understand, it is still about money and common sense applications. There just isn’t enough money laying around to go for out there ideas and product.  At the moment in the world of for-profit building, there is not only no money, there isn’t any building, by normal standards, even going on.

There are a couple of things that haunt me in this world I work in.

1.  Many urban, low income and affordable housing occupants aren’t embracing this movement.  Why?  Too technical for them.  Not being explained simply.  Not applying the Keep it Simple Stupid(KISS) rule.
This group is about reality.  What does it do for me in allowing me to survive life?  Many redevelopment and housing agencies spend thousands of dollars on upgrading apartments and building new efficient housing, but the occupants are not educated about how to live in one or what the benefits are. They are just given the keys, crank the heat up to 80 or the the AC down to 65 and go about life.

2.   The information put out by the web, magazines, social media, e-mails and newspapers is daunting to the man on the street.  It is dominated by Building Scientists, Architects, Technocrats, Bureaucrats, Engineers and the dominant organizations in the movement(USGBC, RESNET, Energy Star, DOE, EPA, NAHB, Enterprise Foundation to name a few..)
I see very little information put out by hands on people.  The people who can tell you what is right, what works, what doesn’t work, what is cost effective and what is pure baloney. The people you have to convince this makes sense, so they will support the evolving processes, and we haven’t spent all kinds of dollars just to watch this movement stagger along blindly.

I additionally see very little participation in this critical movement by Hispanics, Blacks, and Blue Collar Workers.  When I attend conventions, training sessions, classes, seminars, design charrettes, developer meetings I scan the audience to see about the ethnic mix and sad to say it is predominantly white Americans or highly educated Europeans and Asians.

I know this, until you commonize the language, the approach, the goals and relate it to the man on the street in terms they can understand, this movement will continue to be the property of an educated society.  The money thrown at it will be like a front end loaded investment fund or non-contributing non-profit, the majority of dollars will sustain the overhead and operation, but the real work will be minuscule in application because of a lack of an understanding and dedicated work force.

How can you link energy conservation, America’s Security, Veterans and America’s Greatest Generation into a blog devoted to the implementation of Cost Effective, Common Sense, Energy Efficient-Green Building? Easy–this country’s reliance on non-domestic oil and its lackadaisical approach in embracing the invisible benefits of energy conservation and energy efficiency is undermining the United States security and putting this country’s very existence in jeopardy- maybe not today, but possibly sometime in the not to distant future.

I saw a statistic two days ago in a local newspaper that just disgusted me and forced me to ask myself, just what the heck is going on here. I felt stupid and unfilled about what my life has been about the past 35 years.  The statistic showed that the United States produces 4.9 million barrels of oil a day, while it consumes 19.5 million barrels of oil a day.  What’s wrong with this picture? We are buying 14.6 million barrels of oil a day from non-US sources; many of these sources oppose this country and our way of life.  This reliance on non-domestic oil, while paying little more than lip service to energy conservation, efficiency and alternative energy choices is screwing around with our national security.

Some will say our plan is to use everybody else’s oil up, so we will be the only ones left with any.  While we pursue that policy, other countries are screaming past us in the pursuit of energy conservation, energy efficiency and alternative energy options.  That says to me when they run out of oil they will have already developed other alternatives and that places them in a more secure position then the U.S.  Not to mention the creation of new industries contributing millions of jobs and advanced energy technologies.

The statistic further fueled my rage when it showed that the Oil produced from the Gulf of Mexico provides 8% of the United States daily consumption or 1.6 million barrels a day.  So now we have to read and see daily the results of an environmental disaster, endangering some of the most beautiful and life giving ecosystems in this country in order to produce 1.6 million barrels of oil a day?  I would rather spend my efforts on developing clean coal technology, but that is another story.

Something is just plain wrong here.  I keep asking myself, has the US’s values and common sense changed that much in my lifetime?  That this obsession with oil dictates how we view the world and the majority of our foreign policy is based on this oil fanaticism?

Having served in Southeast Asia (not Vietnam) in the early 70′s and having had 3 sons serve in the Middle East and the Balkans; I started to reflect on Memorial Day, Freedom, and just why this oil statistic infuriated me.  It kept coming back to this country’s security and common sense.   I put myself in the position of being a soldier.  What would I feel if someone suddenly walked up to a individual about to do me harm and gave them a gun to shoot me with and they had used my money to buy it?  I will tell you–I would be freaking irate.  This reliance on oil, most of it now non-USA produced, does that.  It allows our enemies to arm themselves and while we pay for it.

Winston Churchill stated: “We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm” For me it burns my posterior to know I am giving the men and women, who oppose my rough men and women, the money to buy arms to kill them.  They kill our Fathers, Sons, Mothers, Daughters, Grandchildren, Aunts, Uncles, Friends, Nieces and Nephews, the very people who put their life on the line everyday for me.  All the while I am arming the very enemy we send them out to fight.  With everything I have learned in life–I can’t fit this into my moral compass.

I don’t live in a box. I am not an isolationist. I like the fact that during my lifetime the world has become smaller and more accessible. I enjoy the different countries, their geography and their varied cultures. For the most part I enjoy the people I have met from many different parts of the world.  My natural personality, many times working to my detriment, is to like and trust everyone initially.  I give everyone the benefit of the doubt, until I get a whiff of a donkey doughnut hole side or a rectal, cranial inversion.

But more than any other country on this planet I love the good ole United States of America.  I have been a lot of places, but there just isn’t anyplace like here and I don’t want to lose that feeling.  I do love it so.

For over 30 years I have lingered over the inability of this country to get a handle on its obsessive consumption of oil. If anyone in 1979 told me we would be paying less than a $1/gallon of gasoline in the 90′s, I would have thought they were barking at the moon.  I thought we were on the right course way back in the 70′s and early 80′s. I thought it was going to be like going to the moon, an exciting technological advance in energy technology.  The best brains in the business were going to be given incentives to take the United States running into the future. It was an exciting, purposeful time, but alas our commitment stalled.

That earlier movement was fueled and constantly reinforced by oil shortages, long waits in gas lines, odd-even days of being able to fill your vehicle up with fuel, cold winters, the exorbitant cost of oil to heat your home, the astronomical, overnight jump in oil prices at the start of the Arab-Israeli war in October 1973, the formation of OPEC-with its resulting control of pricing and production, the taking of American Hostages by Iran, and having paid over $3.50 cents per gallon of gas in Europe way back in 1973.  These events solidified my daily realizations of how reliance on foreign oil, and our oil dominated economy, endangered this great free country.  Then in a bit of short-sightedness, one of the men I admire most in my lifetime, made one mistake–he got rid of the incentives geared towards taking the United States on the path to conservation, efficiency and alternative energy options.

I guess I don’t think rationally at times.  I think passionately about the United States, those great men and women in uniform, this great life where you can travel 1000 of miles in either direction without a passport or change in language.   In the same thought process I think of all the beauty I see and the wonderful automobile that takes me to see it and I cherish it, all the while my twisted brain is simultaneously spending hours thinking about how to glamorize common sense, energy efficiency (it’s invisible) and energy conservation, that is so necessary to maintaining our way of life.

Unfortunately no one, including me, has figured out how to do that.  We got Gecko’s, Cave Men, long leggy women and rugged he-men marketing all kinds of things that capture the American Psyche, but we got nothing that glamorizes the most critical aspect of our daily lives, learning how to conserve what we have and still maintain progress and a way of life.

You can’t sit a beautiful woman on the back of energy efficiency and sell it. I can’t pin a murder on it, or relate it to some movie star cheating on their wife or husband.  The name, Energy Efficiency, doesn’t get anyone’s adrenalin pumping.   It doesn’t sell papers or TV advertisements.  It doesn’t affect our life much on a daily basis, only monthly when we all get a bill.  Even the thought provoking statements of saving the planet for our children and their children doesn’t motivate us.  We get motivated over disasters, big events, and tragedy.  We are usually so wrapped up in the daily grind of living that it takes the spectacular to divert our attention.  We get enraged quickly, but have very short attention spans, because life takes us back to daily reality.  We have stopped being dreamers.

This is touchy, but I remember growing up in post WWII America where Veterans of that conflict refused to purchase anything from Japan, Germany and other Axis members during the conflict.  As late as the early 80′s I can remember Vets of the Pacific Campaign refusing to buy Japanese automobile’s because of their remembrance of buddy’s killed and maimed during that campaign.  I can remember their statements that , “they were not going to purchase something from anyone who had tried to kill them, let alone send money to help them gain a position in the United States Marketplace.” They weren’t paying for something that took a job away from someone in the States.

They had been to war to defend this country and its way of life.  They knew what it was to risk all and persevere.  They were action people, who had faced a depression, lack of hope, fear and death, survived and went on to try and create a United States that was safe and secure, for my generation and those that have followed. Of course they were the people that birthed my generation’s feeling of not trusting anyone over 30. My generation, who wanted to change the world, despised capitalist pigs and yet went on to become the greatest capitalist pigs of all.  Somewhere we lost our moral compass and are leaving this country in a worse state then what we inherited.  We were verbally committed to do right, but we lacked stick-to-itiveness in our pursuit of money, fueled by our reliance on oil and our belief we were smarter than anyone.

I can’t help but think that the Greatest Generation, in their heyday, when confronted with the realistic facts that they were importing 14,000 barrels of oil a day, fully 75% of their daily needs, would have suddenly made other arrangements.  They might have chosen Kennedy’s words, “We choose to go to the Moon because we can.”  Or they might have remembered Eisenhower’s warning of a military, industrial complex taking over the world.

One thing for sure, they would have never stood for sending billions of dollars to countries that put soldiers in the field to fight against their kids in defense of the United States.  I mean, come on, do you think George Patton, George Marshal, Harry Truman or Franklin Roosevelt would have authorized us to buy oil for our tanks by giving Nazi Germany millions of dollars a day for their oil or sued for peace to gain access to it.  Do you think Douglas Macarthur would have given Emperor Hirohito millions of dollars a day for oil so they could fly Kamikaze missions and attack the United States or given up the Philippines for it?  In other words where have we gone wrong in believing it’s OK to give money to our enemies, so they can kill us?  That defies any logic learned in my life.

The greatest generation would have taken that fact and done something about it.  They would have begun energy conservation methods.  They would have pursued energy efficiency.  They would have pursued alternative energy solutions.  One can argue that they had the opportunity.   Did they?  America’s obsessive love of oil developed after WWII.  It helped fuel the expansion of an economy run by a generation that had suffered through a depression and a World War.  They were ready for some good stuff and they were sitting on top of the world.

At that point in history the United States had its own capacity to produce oil sufficient to fuel our needs.   We had it and we had the technology.  At the same time our scientists and oil experts where exporting this technology to the Middle East and other countries. In those days, America and its technology was welcomed.  We weren’t the enemy.   Those feelings started to disappear in the 60′s and 70′s, brought to a head by the formation of OPEC, an organization that suddenly controlled the majority of the World’s production of oil and could dictate the amounts pumped and pricing.   The United States was still the 1000 lb Gorilla in the market because of its fantastic way of life and its consumption standards-of course these standards did help progress the world.  The U.S. would continue to be a substantial force in driving pricing and production in the 70′s and 80′s, again because of our way of life and our consumption patterns.  Now that has all changed–the United States isn’t the 1000 lb. Gorilla in the room–the world is–but we continue to act as if we are and are endangering our way of life with our refusal to conserve or embrace efficiency.

This country has given the oil and gas industries financial incentives for years.  Our whole economy is based on it–cars, trucks, construction equipment, housing, suburbs, farming, offices, manufacturing, etc.  Most Americans, when looking at today’s budgets, wonder why we would even consider going further to subsidize some Star Wars energy fantasies. The fact is in the world of reality, the greatest Star Wars concept of alternative energy is that energy you don’t use. Conservation and Efficiency are alternative energy and should be classified as such.  They aren’t as glamorous as solar or geo-thermal, but they are more efficient. How about this for a new Alternative Energy Heading–energy efficiency and energy conservation?

How do we get there?  We have to give tax breaks and provide the capital to move this alternative forward.   We have to mandate energy conservation and efficiency measures that are simple, common sense approaches.  This isn’t rocket science.   Hell even the caveman knew you had to block off drafts in the cave to stay warm, or the same cave was a cool retreat in the heat of summer.  While we are attacking these basics of efficiency and conservation, we can continue to pursue other alternatives.  After all American’s can chew bubble gum and walk at the same time. All these things create real jobs and new American industries.  So why not just pursue the glamour alternative energy solutions of solar, wind, geo-thermal, nuclear or wave action? Could it be because these alternatives only perform effectively when efficiency practices are in place?  Are we just going to produce it and waste it, like now?  That is not a solution.

Too many Americans think that all this energy conservation is about them changing their life. They want to know what is in it for them.   How is it going to benefit me in dollars?  Too many think it is a tree hugger concept.  The real gist of this is reality and our way of life that so many have died to protect.  We do them an injustice when we make the easy decisions to go on as we have, not making any changes, fat and happy, all the while jeopardizing our security and the security of those  men and women on the front lines who are trying to defend that way of life. We should keep in mind what that great common sense American Ben Franklin said: “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

I would love to return to the glory days of the United States, when it used its brilliance to help lead the world in progressive directions.  Today that critical progressive direction is one involving energy conservation, energy efficiency and alternative energy solutions.  It isn’t rocket science or an Einstein theory; it is just plain common sense.  This is the path we and the world must go down.  It may not affect many of us alive today, but it certainly will affect our children, their children and those that come after.  You have to ask yourself how many people have given their life and energy’s for that very promise, the future, to keep this wonderful planet and this wonderful country called the United States of America, heading in the right direction.

We have to emphatically retool and force our economy in new directions by whatever practical, committed means necessary.  We are at a fork in road and as the linguistic Yogi Berra says, “When you come to a fork in the road, you take it.” We have to pursue a new direction in the hopes of preserving Freedom.  Abraham Lincoln said it best: “Freedom is the last, best hope of earth.”

This Memorial Day blog sprayed in many different directions from my original premise of energy and security, but I am going to put it out there anyway.  These are my thoughts.  I pray everyday for the protection of those tough people who defend me and this country.  My prayers today are with those great Americans who came before us and gave their all in the pursuit of this concept of freedom called the United States of America.  I thank God they did.

Like any pioneering program, whether it be the Gemini Space Missions of the 50′s and 60′s, taking us to the moon and its evolvement into the space shuttle, LEED has bugs to be worked out during its own evolution.   I believe people are starting to come to grips with the fact that the occupancy operations of a building need some focused attention  in order to close the gap between projections and reality.  I believe people are realizing no two enclosed environments are operated the same way, no matter how good the projection program.  You can standardize operational procedures, but you can not standardize the people operating them.  The human element will always deviate from the model.   This is where the collection of actual operations data is going to help close the gap between theory and performance.

Another point of the article gives credit to LEED for pioneering the change in the building industry forcing us to pay attention to Sustainable Building practices.  Hear, Hear.  It is true.  It has been a highly visible, well-publicized catalyst and deserves a multitude of credit for that.  LEED and Energy Star have brought national branding to the energy efficiency and sustainable building movement.  As has been said, “Any publicity is good publicity.” Not necessarily so, but pro or con, LEED and the USGBC has forged that brand recognition.

The article statement that I disagree with is:

“To be fair, the council(USGBC) never meant for its system to be a seal of green approval. Rather it was to be a set of guidelines for architects, engineers and others who want to make buildings less wasteful.”

The majority of my experiences don’t reflect this in actual applications. It is not used as a guideline, it is used as a points system, and too often combined with ambivalent planning.  Get the points and screw the results and the cost.  Too many organizations in the design and engineering business get hung up on the points, not the goals LEED or other programs are meant to achieve.  In reality the better the designation, the better the publicity, the better the reputation and the better the pay.  Too many inflated track records and reputations have been built on the achievement of a higher LEED rating, without the results promised–all the while costing truckloads of money to accomplish.   The LEED designation is a money making opportunity for many entrenched professional entities and unfortunately can be based on “The Emperor’s New Clothes” concept–magical, but invisible.”  This excessive concentration on points has caused the High Performance Building movement to suffer some credibility gaffs and establish the generally held  opinion that the process is  “Too Expensive.”

Many professional entities, especially those with long term contractual relationships with National, State and Local Government, do whatever it takes to get a building certified, so as to maintain their continual contractual(money) relationship.   The sustainable concept is being forced upon many firms, who have no experience with it, and worse, do not believe in it.  They just do what is necessary, which usually means reactive planning, not proper planning or diligence.  Many of these firms obstinately refuse to solicit experienced, expert advice from other professionals.  Many times these firms have a fear of their clients coming into contact with other, more knowledgeable professionals, who, in their mind, could potentially take some municipality or government contracts away from them and the loss of continued revenue.  Nor do they spend time educating themselves or their staff, they just specify whatever it takes to obtain the points necessary and the heck with using it as a guideline for energy and operational efficiencies.

For example: I have recently seen a specification involving water heaters, specifying Energy Star Electric Resistant Water Heaters–none existant.  This will cost  a LIHTC apartment project an additional $120,000.00 to fulfill by substituting Heat Pump Water Heaters.  Hey, I prefer the Heat Pump water heater in this instance, but it is a little much to swallow when the municipal project has received the award for the project based on the cheaper specification.   In another LIHTC seniors project, the architectural firm caused over $500,000.00 in added costs, resulting in delays, investor lament and difficulty in obtaining funding for the next LIHTC project, even thought it was awarded an allocation of credits.

The point is:  Whether these sustainable, points focused buildings work is irrelevant to many.  What could have been cost effective, sustainable building projects instead become an exorbitantly expensive building or buildings that do not operate as promised, yet meet a points requirement.  The categories the points are awarded for are not being used as guidelines, but rather a means towards an end–certification.  Unfortunately once a firm gets a building certified, many stake out the high ground as an expert with a track record and learn nothing from the experience.  The expensive blunders are soon forgotten at the glad handing, politically correct  Ribbon Cutting Ceremony.

These long term relationships are not subject to RFPs, but rather are automatically renewed annual contracts, regardless of competence.  Many are political rewards and don’t have a thing to do with expertise or practical service.    Until we come up with a system that forces government and municipalities to do their due diligence and not rely entirely on long term relationships, the difference between the snapshot and operational costs will stay miles apart in this particular building sector.

Any system based on points will always have those firms who’s measure of success is points, not results.   Unfortunately I don’t have the ultimate solution at the moment, but overtime results will gradually take the day.  The program is a gigantic step in the right direction from what we had previously and with continued national attention and financial incentives will become the standard of comparison.

“Payback is a term that makes me mad. The driver for the fitting of energy saving measures to existing building stock is to payback to the earth some of the resources that we have wasted and stolen from our children. Surely we need to consider what is the most cost effective ways of reducing our energy addiction. ”

This discussion is particularly close to my heart having restored numerous historic structures and renovated many others, both residential and commercial, always paying attention to energy efficiency and maintenance issues besides a slew of other important things—like cost.

In Nirvana or the Kingdom of Heaven compensating for the waste of resources and the polluting of the world might be the soul justification for incorporating sustainability measures into an existing building, but in the real world it is about that “dirty ole money.”

It is about “What’s in it for me, the building owner?”  If an existing building is to justify sustainable or energy efficient measures being incorporated into a retrofit–it has to make economic sense.  To me, as well as others, it has to have practical, common sense, economic justification.  It may not be in terms of payback within 6 years, but it is certainly about the expenditure and what it is going to provide.

If one decides to replace the exterior shell or cladding, the decision is going to be made on initial cost plus what it is going to save the owner in maintenance and replacement costs over a time period.

If one decides to upgrade the thermal envelope, it is going to be based on what it is going to save on the utility bill or by reducing operational costs including maintenance. It does not matter whether the building is a 200,000 SF industrial building or a 2000 SF home.

Example: Say a building owner is going to upgrade their roof/ceiling insulation and its initial cost is $100,000.00 for an environmentally friendly material. This is going to save them $1000/month in utility costs for a payback in 8.5 years, based on today’s energy costs

They find a substitute product that is detrimental to the environment, but it isn’t against code or regulations.  This product is going to cost them $75,000.  It too is going to save them $1000/month in utility costs for a payback in 6.25 years.  Which one do you think the building owner is going to take?

Now if the government is going to give them a tax break or a grant to install the good stuff, then they will install the environmentally proper material.  Unfortunately unless you have astronomical dollars at your disposal, allowing you to do right without economic justification, the decision is going to be based on the initial cost in dollars, pounds, lyre, baht, etc. and what the savings are going to be over a time period.

The proper fiscal argument regarding government incentives would be “Why do we have to spend more government money or rely on them?  The fact is without incentives it won’t get done.  The governments of the world have been subsidizing oil and gas interests since almost the beginning of time, or at least since I was born.  If we are ever going to get this world on the right path, the government and its money and its laws have to force it to be done.

I didn’t write the rules. No one believes in upgrading energy efficiency and sustainable building measures into an existing structure more than I do, but I live in the real world of building, both as a builder and a technical consultant.   Without financial justification or incentives, be they government grants, tax write off’s, or substantial savings in operational costs, it isn’t going to get done for the sake of the planet.  It is about money and its cost effective, common sense application to the project at hand.

Evacuated Tube Collectors

Flat Plate Solar Collectors

Over the past 12  months I have taken the time to diligently re-educate myself about the practical use of Solar applications.  I began in earnest with Solar 2009 held in Buffalo, New York.  I went there specifically to get a handle on what is new or practical in the industry and what is hype or spin.  I was specifically interested in the evolvement of Solar Thermal applications. I had installed Solar Hot Water and Radiant Floor Heat in the late 70′s and early 80′s and believed them to be cost effective and practical.   After a year of studying their applications and being a technical adviser to projects where solar thermal was installed–I still do with caveats.  I believe you have to differentiate and define the parameters of how much water you need to heat and to what temperature.  Hence the word “OverKill Solar.”

I had visited the Henry Gifford’s Web Site, www.energysavingsscience.com, during the early  winter of 2009 and was turned on to a book called Solar Hot Water Systems, Lessons Learned 1977  to Today by Tom Lane. Henry Gifford is a former heating systems contractor and an energy efficiency expert who believes that results tell the story, after occupancy, not the awarding of a designation.  He is especially harsh on LEED accreditation.   In defense of the LEED program, it hasn’t even reached its teenage years, so it has a lot to learn.  You have to start somewhere and USGBC had the guts to develop LEED and it is still evolving–not part of this blog.

On Henry’s site he referenced  Tom Lane’s book as the only book you will need on Solar System Design.  What he should have said was Solar Thermal Design-meaning the use of solar to heat water for various applications.  I ordered the book and then went to Solar 2009 to take a course from Tom.  It was worth the time, travel and expense.  Tom Lane was my kind of teacher, practical with common sense.  I respected what he had to say to the point of taking his recommendation to attend a Solar Instruction Seminar in Florida being put on by a manufacturer of Solar Thermal Panels.

First a quick explanation of Solar differences.  Solar Photovoltaics, the glamor child of the alternative energy field, is about generating electricity.  Solar Thermal is about heating water.  Solar Thermal has been around the United States since first commercially introduced in the 1890′s in California.  It is a system that has gotten the bugs out.  It is economically justified for commercial and multi-family(apartment, condo’s, townhouses)applications without subsidies.  Depending on what state you are in, and other contributing factors, Solar Thermal can be cost justified, when applied with common sense to single family residential applications.

When I say common sense I mean defining what it is you want to accomplish and then proceeding to plan accordingly.  Too many times in the United States we jump on the glamor product without doing research.  In the Solar Thermal Industry one of those is evacuated tube collectors.  To heat water for applications that require temperatures of 150 degrees or lower, Flat Plate Collectors have it all over vacuum tubes in cost, durability and effectiveness.  If you need water hotter than 150 degrees in winter and 180 degrees in summer, vacuum tubes may be a good fit. But the majority of applications in this country can be economically accomplished with Flat Plate Collectors, besides being safer and many produced in the United States.

This Over-Kill was demonstrated to me first hand a couple of months ago.  I saw an over-designed commercial system that couldn’t be installed as designed because there was no room for the specified 550 gallon storage tank.  The system uses vacuum tubes(evacuated tubes) when flat plate collectors would have done the job just as efficiently and would have been a better economic approach.  Plus the system could have been designed to utilize the area allocated for storage or pre_heating while taken full of advantage or REC’s and other credits.  As it turned out, two 120 gallon hot water solar storage tanks were substituted as pre-heaters to the main unit.  A serious problem developed after installation, as the evacuated tubes heated the water so hot(over 190 degrees), that the glue used on the CPVC (wrong) pipe used to take the heated water from the storage tank to the primary water heating unit loosened and the system piping exploded and super heated water went everywhere.  Luckily no one was hurt!  There were no heat dissipators on the vacuum tube system and copper piping should have been used, but that is a story for another day.

I had observed during this same time period, three single family residential systems utilizing vacuum tubes and had seen excessive heat generation for domestic water provisions, even with heat dissipators.   I opened the storage closet where the solar thermal hot water tank was located.  I was blown over by the heat.  I then looked outside and saw this ugly black box sitting on the siding___it was a heat dissipator__to get rid of excess heat.  Why would anyone pay additional costs to heat up something that you have to discharge the heat from.  To me that is like paying for 10 gallons of fuel and running 2 gallons of it on the ground because the tank won’t hold it.  I am reminded of using a hammer to drive a thumb tack–over kill solar.

We will discuss this evolution of solar thermal more, but seeing first hand the overkill of a vacuum tube system, when applied to common residential water heating,  convinced me again of the need for common sense, practical designs when using solar applications.  I am a great believer in Solar applications.  I applaud the efforts, but I am more a believer in applying it using (CECSEE)  Cost Effective, Common  Common Sense, Energy Efficient___Green standards.

A few weeks ago I had the opportunity to attend the National Capital Contractor Forum in Manassas, Virginia.  I attended to get some insight into the Home Performance by Energy Star pilot program being introduced to Northern Virginia.  It had some great sponsors and some people who really care about what is happening in the Energy Efficiency business around Washington, D.C.

The Forum, as with many national home energy symposiums, conventions or conferences lately,  pushed and discussed the Home Star initiative making its way through Congress.  It is being hailed as the Nirvana for jump starting home energy efficiency upgrades.  In February I was inundated with Home Star at the RESNET conference in Raleigh.  Why?  For those in the Energy Rating business it is a job creation bonanza.

Until the Contractors Forum I was assuming that Home Star was an energy efficiency program.  I was wrong. I happen to ask about monitoring utility bills after the improvements and was brought up short by the speaker.  I was told outright, “This isn’t about results, this is about creating jobs.”  Well, results are my primary reason for being involved in the Sustainable, Energy Efficiency movement (I prefer this description to “Green” Building–a totally overused word describing everything from diapers to windows).

Nobody wants to see the building economy recover more than I do.   But I don’t want the United States to create an entire contractor base focused on a government program requirement, all the while knowing nothing about what the program is meant to accomplish(measurable reductions in energy use–energy efficiency).  Creating jobs in one thing, creating a skilled workforce that can improve American lives is another.   I want contractors  who know not only what they are doing, but why they are doing it, which is to get energy efficiency results that save consumers, builders and businesses money.  When contractors know this and can take some pride in what they accomplish, they might actually stick with it as a career and the U.S. becomes better for it.

The Home Star program has incentives built in and two different tiers.  One tier, Silver, would give a homeowner up to $3000.00 back on a $6,000.00 investment.  There was a speaker, Ray Walsh, who related the situation to disposable income.  Good analogy.  His comment was if one had a choice to spend $6000.00 on their home, and they would get $3000.00 of it back or rent a home at the beach for their family for a couple weeks and take a vacation, what would they choose?  Energy Efficiency expenditures compete directly with disposable income, which in this down economy is substantially reduced for the average working family.

Say I was going to spend $3000.00 out of my own pocket to improve my homes energy efficiency and save $50/month in my utility costs by doing so.  This equates to $600/year, or a 5 year payback, a 20% return on my investment.  That’s a nice return.  But unfortunately I am probably not going to reach into my pocket and spend $3000.00.  I will probably spend some of that money on a vacation,  a car, something I want and need, and continue to pay the utility bill of $50 more, or $600.00 for the year.  Why?  I want some higher prioritized things for my family or me, then energy efficiency, which I can’t see, feel or touch.

That is the problem with any program at this point that requires a homeowner to reach into their pocket.  Many of them don’t have it and if they do, they might think of many better things to do with the money.  No overhaul of the existing buildings infrastructure is going to get anywhere unless it puts money in the consumer’s pocket.  A business owner or high income individual may be attracted to tax credits offered and can afford to look at the expenditure as an investment, but the common worker, struggling to make ends meet, is not spending money on energy efficiency unless there is something in it for them and that something is not usually a savings of $50 a month after spending $3000.00 out of pocket.

I am not talking about new construction here.  Anyone who doesn’t pay diligent attention to cost effective energy conservation, energy efficiency or sustainable building practices when building a new structure barks at the moon.  They are loony.  But an existing home owner(they are different then an existing building owner), no matter how much common sense it makes, is not reaching in their pocket to do it, unless they are forced to or can see some substantial jingle in their pocket.

If Home Star was set up with a financing package, meaning the $6,000.00 that is spent is entirely financed, and the homeowner still got their $3000.00 back from Federal Government, you might see some of this actually working.  For example I spend $6,000 on energy efficiency upgrading and that entire $6,000.00 is financed.  Now I get $3000.00 back from the government.  I got three grand in my pocket that I can use–I like that.  Going a step further I have say a low interest loan(3%)for the $6,000 that has to be paid back in 6 years.  My payments would be approximately $92/month for 6 years.  I am now saving $50/month on my energy bill or net out of pocket of $42/month for 6 years.  This totals approximately $3000.00 out of pocket, or nothing, because I got that $3000.00 up front to use.  And if the appraisers and the banks of the United States counted in my energy efficiency upgrades by increasing the value of my house, I know have something more when I sell or refinance.

This is just a hypothetical example and some out of the box thinking.  It may seem fiscally irresponsible getting the government involved, but new thinking is what it is going to take to get Americans to upgrade the energy efficiencies of their homes, when they don’t have to.  Frankly I believe the government should hold lending institutions feet to the fire to provide this type of loan.  It is the very least they could do and it would go a long way towards removing this foul taste I have in my mouth from the government’s bank bail outs and creeps pocketing huge bonus’s when they still haven’t done squat to help Americans pull us out of this recession.

Energy efficiency is invisible, it only shows up on a utility bill in savings.  Americans usually invest for an income or appreciation, they just don’t look at utility savings as income, try as we might to convince them otherwise.  Until we figure out how to put money in building owners or homeowners pockets, they aren’t inclined to fork out the cash and in this economic climate, they are less inclined to do so.

We have subsidized bankers, car manufacturers, big oil, every one and almost anyone lately, but if America is going to change in totality the existing homes in this country, we are going to have to finance it, not just subsidize it. The Federal Government can mandate it for their existing buildings, they have the money and the control, but to force homeowners or building owners to do the same they gotta get some money in their pocket, not ask them to spend some.   A financing program like this would go a long way towards getting the existing built environment more energy efficient and create jobs at the same time.

The above is strictly my opinion.  The numbers were based on the Silver Star prescriptive path of the Home Star initiative.  To achieve Gold Star performance path incentives, the homeowner has to spend more to get more and the same principles would apply.

Daily we in the “Green” building business are inundated with messages invoking Green principles.  So much so that a normal layman having minimal knowledge of the purpose of “Green” building, or as I call it, Energy Efficient-Sustainable Building, would be hard pressed to understand what this movement or trend is about.  Everything all of a sudden is Green.  It’s kind of like a pendulum where one day we are minimally aware of Green Building and the next day it has swung 180 degrees to the point of everyone being aware with a proliferation of  experts.  In this day of Green expertise you can be a shoe salesmen one day and a solar expert the next.   The real problem is who do you believe or what do you believe?

One of the greatest sources of confusion is the lack of a recognized, all encompassing standard to begin with and venture from there.

If you work in the residential field, you have Energy Star for New Homes, Home Performance by Energy Star, Department of Energy’s Build America and Builder’s Challenge, LEED for Homes, the National Association of Home Builders Green Building Program, EarthCraft House,  Passive House, along with many other local and regional Green Residential Building programs.  This does not even include the new program working its way through Congress–the jobs/energy efficient homes bill called HomeStar.

If you work in the commercial field, the 1000 lb Gorilla in the field is the United States Green Building Council’s(USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design(LEED).  Now under LEED you have LEED for New Construction and Major Renovations,  LEED for Core and Shell, LEED for Schools, LEED for Existing Buildings: Operations and Maintenance, LEED for Commercial Interiors, LEED for Retail, and LEED for Healthcare.

Besides LEED in the commercial field you have Standard 189 or 189.1 shortly, GBI America’s National Standard for Commercial Green Buildings and Energy Star’s Commercial Building Design.  These are just a few.

To tell you the truth, I am confused–I get overwhelmed.   I spend hours daily trying to keep up.  Thinking that maybe someone has discovered the missing link, but whoa, it is usually just a spin on what we already know.

I got involved in this energy efficiency business back in the 70′s.  To me it was about improving energy efficiency in buildings.  Then I expanded to Solar thinking– this was an alternative path to weaning the US off of foreign oil or oil period, over a period of time, kind of like going to the moon.   Then I started thinking about buildings that last without substantial yearly maintenance.  Now I look and see a rush for designations by some third party standard, that costs additional money, but at times adds no overall benefit, just the designation and I lose sight of why I am involved.

To get my bearings and focus back I have to constantly reread an article by the super hero of buildings scientists, my idol, the highly respected, practical, irreverent, tell it like it is,  Dr. Joe Lstiburek of Building Science Corporation entitled “Prioritizing Green, It’s the Energy Stupid!”  He credits the quote to Edward Mazria, the noted architect.  But reading that article by Dr. Joe brings me back to reality and why I am involved.  Frankly we are losing the practically minded people by not focusing on the real issues that started this:  Energy Efficiency and Building Buildings that are healthier, operate better and don’t fall apart in a few years.