US lab aims to build better, cheaper, zero-energy buildings

Reposted from Greenbang
While cars, trucks and planes might come to mind first as carbon emissions Enemy No. 1, all our buildings aren’t quite as environmentally innocent as they might appear.

In the US, for example, buildings account for 40 per cent of the country’s carbon dioxide emissions. In the UK, that figure is even higher: around 44 per cent. Much of those emissions are related to the energy needed to keep our buildings liveable, heating and cooling in particular.

In an ideal world, our buildings should be able to generate all the energy they need all by themselves, both cleanly and on-site. And that kind of “net-zero energy building” is exactly what a new test facility in the US aims to develop.

Using $15.9 million in stimulus funds from the US Department of Energy (DOE), the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory plans to build and operate a new National User Facility for Net-Zero Energy Buildings. The facility will contain all sorts of testing systems to figure out how best to tackle the technical challenges of building net-zero energy buildings.

“This facility will serve a national audience — and need — in an aggressive pursuit of DOE’s energy efficiency goals for widespread implementation of affordable net-zero energy buildings by 2030,” said Stephen Selkowitz, head of the Building Technologies Department of Berkeley Lab’s Environmental Energy Technologies Division.

Berkeley Lab researchers plan to tackle the effort with a broad base of users in the building design and construction communities, as well as manufacturers, building owners and operators, and the academic community.

“We will also take maximum advantage of Berkeley Lab’s proximity to Silicon Valley and the growing interest in ‘Greentech’ innovation and investment to draw on experts there, as well as our location in a state that leads the country in applying research and advanced technology, supported by aggressive policies, toward reducing greenhouse-gas emissions,” Selkowitz added.

Net-zero energy buildings generate as much energy as they use on an annual basis through highly aggressive energy efficiency and on-site renewable energy generation, making them a key element in the effort to cut carbon emissions. The new laboratory facilities will help researchers develop, test and validate the technologies, systems and design approaches that will allow net-zero energy buildings to be built and operated affordably.

The new test facility will feature a series of unique energy-efficient building systems testbeds to be located in new and existing buildings at the lab. Researchers will be able to change out prototype building systems such as windows, lights, heating, ventilation, air conditioning, energy control systems, roofs and skylights.  The idea is to measure initial energy use and environmental conditions to understand how the systems perform, and then to redesign and optimise their capabilities and performance.



An exciting use of stimulus funds to help push the envelope (here in the US) on products to make projects like ours a bit easier in the future.

Have a great weekend.  I am off to look at electric cars at the LA Car Show :-)

Jay

So Much Confusion, So Little Time

Since the press release last week, publically announcing Redhook Green, there has been so many questions, comments, criticisms and confusion regarding the project that I thought I would devote a few posts to clearing up some of them.

There seems to be a general lack of clarity on the relationship between “Zero-Energy Building (ZEB)”, “Carbon-Neutral”, and “Sustainable” when it comes to construction as a whole and specifically as it relates to this project.  Each of these very important strategies are tools in helping the way we live fit more cohesively with the needs of others and our planet in general, but practicality needs to play a role as the various objectives are weighed and implemented.  For me they include feasibility, environmental impact, upfront cost, long term cost, availability and reliability.

There are three primary concerns relating to the energy consumption of Architecture:

1.  Energy to construct

2.  Energy to heat and maintain

3.  The total of both over the lifespan of the structure

From my simpleminded perspective, a net zero energy building is a great place to start.  It seemed to me if we could design a home that based on the nature of it’s construction, could consume significantly less electricity heating and cooling and then generate the power we needed using the sun and trade the rest for times we can’t, we would have to be a great start.  I like the fact that it’s reasonably easy to measure success here, if I sell ConEd as many kilowatts of electricity as I buy, then I am net zero energy.  Cool.  Right?

Next if you do a search on the web for a definition of “carbon-neutral”, in many cases it defaults to the ZEB definition and discusses renewable sources.   As I understand it, a building that is carbon-neutral uses no fossil fuels in its operation, creates no direct greenhouse gases, and, as a result, does not contribute to global warming. Also power drawn from the utility grid but it must be “clean,” produced by wind turbines, photovoltaic, or other renewable energy system. So, a building that is both Carbon Neutral and Net Zero Energy produces at least as much renewable energy as it uses each year.   But (big BUT) most definition neglects to discuss a very important use of energy that must be taken into consideration for a true carbon neutral structure.  That is embodied energy or as I mention above the energy to construct.

The Wikipedia defines “embodied energy (or emergy) is defined as the available energy that was used in the work of making a product. Embodied energy is an accounting methodology which aims to find the sum total of the energy necessary for an entire product lifecycle. This lifecycle includes raw material extraction, transport, manufacture, assembly, installation, disassembly, deconstruction and/or decomposition. “   Basically all the materials used in the house consume energy during manufacturing, delivery and installation on site.  Would you imagine that aluminum requires more energy than steel to be manufactured?  Or that recycled aluminum and steel use half of the energy to fabricate (just a few fun facts from a discussion with Jim)?  There is embodied energy in any processed product, from a drinking cup to a car. In embodied energy terms, buildings represent a huge, relatively long-duration energy investment.

Material	Unit	Energy Coefficient Mj per unit
Timber, rough	m3	848
Timber, air-dry, treated	m3	1,200
Timber Glulam	m3	4,500
Timber, kiln-dry, treated	m3	4,692
Timber, form work	m3	283
Plywood	m3	9,440
Building paper	m2	7.5
Gypsum board	m3	5,000
Glass	kg	31.5
Structural steel	kg	59
Aluminum	kg	145
Fiberglass	kg	150
Asphalt, strip shingle	m2	280

It seems to me that as the operating energy required for buildings declines, the embodied energy they represent becomes a more significant percentage of the total energy buildings use. In coming years more efforts will probably be directed toward measuring and reducing the amount of embodied energy in buildings.

So as you can see, this all gets very difficult to measure accurately. Measuring embodied energy is still in an early phase, but is very important.  But from my perspective for this project (right now) while I think that it is an important objective to build carbon-neutral buildings,  it might be less practical to get 100% there.  Remember ability to execute is everything!  So we move forward to reach our net zero goal while keeping our carbon footprint to a minimum via the materials we choose and construction methods employed (modular really helps).

If you want to learn more about what you can do, or how much embodied energy is used in different popular products visit, WattzOn.  It is an early stage online tool to quantify, track, compare and understand the total amount of energy needed to support all of the facets of your lifestyle with the goal of helping you find ways to reduce your personal power consumption.

More to come, including my thoughts on sustainability.