I think it may be a good idea to make it the law in all countries that ALL new buildings built for now on must be designed to “zero energy buildings” (which means “a building with zero net energy consumption and zero carbon emissions annually&rdquo😉 or, at the very least, “ultra-low energy buildings” to force all architects to design buildings to waste very little energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_energy_building
“…All the technologies needed to create zero energy buildings are available off-the-shelf today…”
-so it would be practical to make this happen even today.
I have tried to get actual figures to compare costs but couldn’t find any but, even if the initial cost of building a zero/ultra-low energy buildings is generally a bit higher that of conventual’s buildings then this extra cost would eventually be paid back in the form of the energy savings.
I have heard that sometimes the initial cost of building a zero/ultra-low energy buildings is actually lower than that of conventual’s building! -surely where and when that it is the case it is a non-brainier? -surely when it IS cheaper then it is in EVERYBODY’S interest (even just looking at it in pure economic terms and ignoring all the environmental issues!) to make laws that force all architects in all countries to only design the buildings to be zero/ultra-low energy buildings? -I think so.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra….the large bureaucratic force
Maybe. Simply taxing energy consumption makes the market do all the work, without the need for regulation and the large bureaucratic force which would be required to implement this.
...…
The “large bureaucratic force”? -surely that wouldn’t be necessary to have a “large bureaucratic force” to make sure that all architects design buildings that way if they must make them that way by law? -just the occasional inspection of the building’s blueprint/construction would do?
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonBe careful what you believe. There are additional costs, while at the same time we have huge office towers with their lights left on all night and we light motorways and other external spaces.
I think it may be a good idea to make it the law in all countries that ALL new buildings built for now on must be designed to “zero energy buildings” (which means “a building with zero net energy consumption and zero carbon emissions annually&rdquo😉 or, at the very least, “ultra-low energy buildings” to force all architects to design buildings to waste ve ...[text shortened]... n all countries to only design the buildings to be zero/ultra-low energy buildings? -I think so.
Architects are already subject to ever increasing regulations and tightening standards on insulation and energy efficiency.
Imposing draconian standards is a tempting but simplistic approach, it is not the answer.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonExcept when the materials that might make it so are plasterboard made out of hemp, and you only have to mention hemp to get the establishment breaking out in spots.
I have heard that sometimes the initial cost of building a zero/ultra-low energy buildings is actually lower than that of conventual’s building! -surely where and when that it is the case it is a non-brainier? -surely when it IS cheaper then it is in EVERYBODY’S interest (even just looking at it in pure economic terms and ignoring all the environment ...[text shortened]... n all countries to only design the buildings to be zero/ultra-low energy buildings? -I think so.
Originally posted by eamon o…There are additional costs
Be careful what you believe. There are additional costs, while at the same time we have huge office towers with their lights left on all night and we light motorways and other external spaces.
Architects are already subject to ever increasing regulations and tightening standards on insulation and energy efficiency.
Imposing draconian standards is a tempting but simplistic approach, it is not the answer.
..…
Can you give a specific example on one of these “additional costs” for constructing ultra-low energy buildings that does not exist for constructing conventional buildings?
….while at the same time we have huge office towers with their lights left on all night and we light motorways and other external spaces.
...…
Not sure of your point here -how much we unwisely waste energy on unnecessary lighting seems to be a separate issue here to how we design and construct our buildings. I cannot see how we can do much to cut down on unnecessary lighting by careful building construction -I would guess the best way to cut down on unnecessary lighting is for the governments to either regulate energy consumption more tightly or to at least give greater economic incentives not to waste energy.
….Architects are already subject to ever increasing regulations and tightening standards on insulation and energy efficiency.
…
Would you also say that this is a bad thing?
…. Imposing draconian standards
…
“draconian”? you mean insisting that all buildings constructions should be of ultra-low energy buildings only would be an act of cruelty? -surely you don’t mean that like that?
…is a tempting but simplistic approach
… (my emphasis)
How would it be any more of a “simplistic approach” than, say, insisting that all houses should have cavity-wall heat insulation (like in the UK)? -or be constructed to be not prone to spontaneous collapse?
….it is not the answer. …
Answer to what?
The main goal here is to cut down on unnecessary waste on energy mainly for economic reasons but, just as a side benefit, there are some environmental benefits from doing this because it will reduce our CO2 emissions.
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“…All the technologies needed to create zero energy buildings are available off-the-shelf today…”
A wikipedia article has surely set you a’whirl. It’s best to step back a mo’ and apply logic and reason before charging out trumpets blaring.
You submit ‘zero’ energy construction is now developed and readily available. Obviously, this means builders are rejecting construction materials which would not increase costs but add the grand benefit of advertising to potential buyers ‘zero’ or ‘near zero’ energy cost.
Accepting this thinking means builders have been looking at technology/materials you mention and are saying to themselves:
“Hmmm, if I construct buildings in this fashion I will be able to advertise them to buyers at:
1- Same initial purchase price.
2- Drastic savings of energy costs.
3- I COULD CORNER THE MARKET!!
But no! I bloody well will not do that! Just think of it…that would make me stinking rich….NO WAY WILL I DO THAT!”
Obviously you think construction firms are so stupid; a law must be created to make them adopt something that will increase their wealth …I suppose if you walked down street with £100 notes lying about, a law would need passing before you would bend your back to pick them up. I don’t think so. Neither do I believe laws will need creating before builders will take advantage of developed technologies which will line their pockets. When it’s feasible it will be used.
Originally posted by MacSwain-or could it be that many architects haven’t fully studied the better alternative? Or are often not fully aware of the better alternatives? Or are sometimes suspicious of the alternatives because they can sometimes have a misperception that they haven’t adequately been ‘tried and tested’ because they are sometimes over conservative ( ’conservative’ with a small ’c’ ) ?
[b]Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“…All the technologies needed to create zero energy buildings are available off-the-shelf today…”
A wikipedia article has surely set you a’whirl. It’s best to step back a mo’ and apply logic and reason before charging out trumpets blaring.
You submit ‘zero’ energy construction is now developed and r ...[text shortened]... age of developed technologies which will line their pockets. When it’s feasible it will be used.[/b]
I never said nor implied nor meant that they are generally stupid and I don’t believe they are.
Can we expect most architects to be experts on all the environmental and economic issues surrounding building designs or are such things normally outside their area of expertise because they are trained just to design them?
If they are forced to use the better alternatives then they would be forced by necessity to study and become fully aware of the better alternatives -this would be of great long-term benefit to us all.
There has been a recent change in the law in the UK making certain energy inefficient light bulbs unavailable to consumers thus forcing then to buy the better alternatives and, although the main reason for this was environmental, it was in part done because it isn’t even in the consumers best economic interest to buy many of these old energy inefficient light bulbs!
Point: -was that done because the UK consumers are generally stupid? Or could many of them just happen to be not fully aware of the better buy because we cannot expect everybody to know all these things?
We cannot expect the typical UK consumer to have relevant expertise in all the alternatives along with the environmental and economic issues surrounding each and every one of those alternatives when making choices so why should we expect this from architects?
I am guessing here that architects are usually mainly trained to design buildings using conventional materials and conventional techniques? -please would any architect reading this either confirm or refute this.
P.S. I believe the above reasoning applies to nearly all professions and not just architecture -thus I believe this proposed policy of forcing members of a profession to do what is in everybody’s best economic and environmental interest should be applied to virtually all professions involving making economically/environmentally significant choices.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonSince you mention CFL's:
There has been a recent change in the law in the UK making certain energy inefficient light bulbs unavailable to consumers thus forcing then to buy the better alternatives and, it was in part done because it isn’t even in the consumers best economic interest to buy many of these old energy inefficient light bulbs!
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=93442
“In the program's 2007-8 tests, however, 5 of 29 models failed to meet the promised lifespan, luminosity and on-off cycling, prompting their removal from Energy Star's list of qualified products.”
Of additional interest:
“On the U.K. Yahoo! Answers forum, posters complained of dogs barking at the ceiling and growing agitated in rooms that use CFLs. My wife and I put a new fluorescent bulb in our ceiling light, and our 10-year-old dog literally jumped up off the floor and starting screaming," Hetzman said. "She was moaning and growling and barking and looking up at the ceiling.
"I figured out what was happening and took the bulb out," he continued. "Then I put it back in a second later to test the theory. Again, she started making noises I've never heard her make and running around in a circle moaning and whimpering."
I agree here. there should be laws on buildings and consumer appliances
It is quite possible to have energy effecient ones cheaply... the govt should ban new ones that are not good enough...( i don't think people would care... infact would probably agree if a hair dryer / kettle had to have x level of effeciency to be sold)
I think this is a bit like the smoking ban in bars ... a big change but beacuse people back it would probably work quite smoothly.