I've been reading a report by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development called "Energy Efficiency in Building: Business realities and opportunities". It's a 38-page report on... well, energy efficiency in buildings. (Summary reports tend not to be very creative with their titles) Most importantly, though, it provides insight on why the building industry is slow to move forward into sustainability. To cite some comments:1. Building is too multi-disciplinary and the key players tend not to interact. Local authorities work with developers and owners; the owners work through agents with the end users and the developers. The developers commission designers, engineers and contractors. The capital providers talk to the developers. Most have short-term interests, the end-users have very little say in decisions, those commissioned by the developer only communicate if they are integrated, and those that foot the bill for energy-efficient measures perceive that they're not receiving the benefits. All this results in decision-making "islands" which means ineffective communication and overall inefficiency.
2. Fully integrated design-build projects are perceived as more costly. Developers believe competition results in lower bids and tend not to be interested in a cooperative design/build approach, though DB often results in improved building performance, lower costs, and fewer disruptive changes.
3. Actual cost v. perception: When asked "how much more do you think a certified-green building would cost relative to a normal building", respondents from around the world answered approximately 17% more. The actual cost around the world? Closer to 5%.
4. Overheard from an academic in Japan: "The biggest barrier is that investors have the final decision-making authority on buildings and, under current circumstances, they are pursuing profit maximization. Sustainable building options conflict with profit maximization."
5. Four main barriers for decision-makers in the building industry: Personal know-how, business community acceptance, supportive corporate environment, and personal commitment.
6. When asked about driving change, most leaders suggested they were somewhat willing to drive change, but only if the measures prove to be "tried and tested". Very few business leaders were willing to step up and be risk-taking leaders in the industry.
7. 84% of total building energy is typically consumed during the use phase, assuming a building life of over 50 years. Buildings with a shorter life therefore consume more embodied energy. Buildings need to last longer and utilize higher-performing systems to make this possible.
8. Despite stated interest of real estate managers in energy efficiency, a 2007 study found that only 2/3 of companies tracked energy data, only 60% tracked energy costs, and only 30% included energy efficiency requirements in RFPs.
9. Levers for change: Adopt a holistic building approach, Make energy in buildings more valued, education and motivate.
Here's a light at the end of the tunnel... Cast studies and success stories are often the pivotal piece of information required to tip someone to build green. Here's a wonderful one:
Council House 2 in Melbourne Australia:
It's a ten-story office building for the City of Melbourne's staff opened in 2006. It was designed to copy the planet's natural ecology, using the 14-hour solar cycle and uses rainwater to power, heat, cool and supply water to the building.
"The north facade has 10 dark-colored air ducts that absorb heat from the sun. The hot air rises, taking the stale air up and out of the building. The south facade has light-colored ducts that draw in fresh air from the roof and distribute it down through the building. The west facade has louvers made from recycled timber that move according to the position of the sun and are powered by photovoltaic roof panels."
Here's the best part:
The building consumes approximately 35kWh/m/year. Compared to the previous Council building (c1970), this equals savings of:
- 82% electricity consumption
- 87% gas consumption
- 72% mains water supply
Financial savings of $1.96 million dollars annually.
Spread the word!
2 comments:
All great points Ellen. I certainly hope this report can be used in conjunction with efforts to move sustainable ideas and projects through the halls of St. James (aka City Hall)here in Jax. It is critical that the "team" be all inclusive from the beginning to achieve the results such as demonstrated on the building you highlighted and so many other success stories we see right here in the U.S. It will take some out-of-the-box thinking by our elected and appointed officials as well as a great deal of courage. I look forward to the success stories of long-term cost savings for taxpayers, a healthier community and a more informed community as our lawmakers lead us to the next level. They will need all our support. I hope those of us in the community committed to this ideal will continue to work together in this effort and look at this issue as more than just an opportunity for our own organizations, but as an opportunity for economic growth and long range sustainability for all of our community. The results could be transforming. My optimism is great!
It's also a real shame that, all too often, insufficient importance is given to the future savings that will result from the reduced running costs of a green building. As energy prices rise, a reduction in running costs resulting from energy-efficient design will become more and more important in financial terms.
The 2007 study that is mentioned also sounds interesting (2/3 of companies track energy consumption) - if anyone has a link to the source study, please post. I work for a company that sells an piece of software for analyzing energy consumption, and, in my experience, the proportion of companies that do any really useful analysis of their energy data (analysis that will help them to find where they're wasting energy, and to see if they're improving as time goes on) seems much lower than the 2/3 quoted.
Post a Comment