stephan tanner > integrated design

3rd ANNUAL NORTH AMERICAN PASSIVE HOUSE CONFERENCE

May I invite you to the 3rd ANNUAL NORTH AMERICAN PASSIVE HOUSE CONFERENCE held this year in Duluth Minnesota between the 7th and 9th of November. For more information please click on the link.

I hope to see you there!

Time to examine the energy demand picture

POST 2B …
TITLE: Time to examine the energy demand picture.

TEXT:
Based on 2000 figures from the US Energy Department, we in the U.S. used our energy this way:
1.    Buildings 38%
2.    Transportation: 27%
3.    Industry: 25%

If you add the transportation and industry component related to buildings to that sector, then you see that almost 50% is used directly and indirectly in buildings. As an architect, that makes me feel very responsible!

Using the 2000-Watt Society as a benchmark for buildings here in the U.S., let’s look at a typical school building, one built to Minnesota building code using about 100,000Btu/sfy. According to the 2000-Watt Society, leveraging today’s available technology, this building should be using about 85% less or 15,000Btu/sfy. The first Passivhaus certified building in North America, built near Bemidji at Concordia Language Villages called the Waldsee BioHaus, has been open since the summer of 2006 and uses less than 15,000Btu/sfy.

So yes, this is possible to accomplish today! In fact it’s not only possible, but the level of comfort has been improved with even temperatures, space filled with fresh air and daylight and healthy building materials, to name just a few methods we enhanced the user experience.

Does it cost more?

In the case of the BioHaus, it did. But as the architect of the building, I have some additional insight to this question which compels me to ask, “Did it really cost more?”

If you first compare cost-per-square-feet to a typical project – then it does. But is this a fair comparison? Does a car manufacturer produce a pilot-project vehicle for the same price as the final public-use model? Since the Passivhaus is a German energy standard for buildings, then a more fair answer to this question would come from the market and there the answer is 0% to 5% additional initial cost. Put another way, if you could buy a car offering 30 miles per gallon for $25,000 or one that delivers 160 miles per gallon car for $26,250, what would you do?

Naturally you’d buy the more efficient one when you add the operating costs like energy. So let’s get back to a 5000sf school building, with say, an average of $0.06per kWh as the energy cost. This would mean that the typical annual energy cost for this school building would be either $8,790 or in the case of the BioHaus, it’s about $1.320 – a $7,470 savings or a less than 7-year payback based on a $200/sf investment cost base with a 5% premium. And we still haven’t taken into account the future energy price risk! Again, what would you do?

Of course you’d build the most efficient house when you consider the true long-term risk of global warming as defined by the Nicolas Stern report. It documents that today’s 1% global GNP investment would stabilize CO2equ in the atmosphere with a downside risk of up to 20% global GNP if we maintain the status quo. I interpret this as a very real potential loss in quality of life as we know it today and in the future lives of our children. One last time: What would you do?

My conclusion to the question about what is holding us back is that it’s NOT technology and NOT money, but OUR HEAD! We have a social/cultural issue on hand. So how do we overcome that?

What’s holding us back?

From 20 tons to 1 ton of CO2 per year, per capita in the next 40 years: it’s a great challenge for all of us!

But what does this really mean?

The most popular response to this claim is: “It’s impossible!” or “It will lower our quality of life!” Such responses may be a good way to generate fear, but not the right rational response at all.

Let’s start with the question, “Where are we in energy consumption?” … because nothing lives without energy!

If one divides the total energy use of the U.S. by the total population, we use energy about equal to over 2,880 gallons of gasoline per capita per year or 12,000-Watts of continuous energy. Another way to put it: that’s 120 100-watt light bulbs burning for each one of us 24/7, forever.

The second question that often comes up is, “Where could we be?”

But I believe the right question is: “How much energy do we need to retain our quality of live with technology available to us today?” (I actually didn’t come up with this question, it stems from a question asked and explored by the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.)

Their answer is: “2000 watts of continuous energy per person” which resulted in the 2000-Watt Society vision. This is like 20 100-watt light bulbs burning continually, equal to about 480 gallon of gasoline per capita per year. (Click here for a great brochure called: Download smarter_living_novatlantis.pdf)

I believe this would lead to the argument that TODAY, we have energy efficiency potential of 10,000 watts or over 80%, meaning we are very resource inefficient while maybe being very cost effective.

Let’s look at our energy supply picture.

On the supply side, we use about 85% fossil-based energy sources contributing directly to the climate change issue and 15% of other energy sources including nuclear, hydro and other alternative energy sources according to the US Department of Energy.

And finally, let’s close the circle to the CO2 challenge question.

The last fact to understand is that about 500 watts of continuous fossil fuel-based energy equals 1 ton of CO2. If we apply this ratio to our 12,000-watt continuous consumption argument above, wouldn’t that mean we have almost enough of a non-fossil energy supply already in place to meet the 2000-Watt Society goal? And does that not also mean the answers to the challenge of energy and climate change would be more on the demand side than a supply side? I think so.

One last question then: What’s holding us back?

I’aaam back!!!

I’ve had my personal energy focused in a lot of other places this summer … visiting Switzerland, visiting my cabin on Lake Vermilion, MN and many new projects … but now I’m recommitting to writing on my blog.

Let’s be frank: some readers may have wondered why I call this blog ‘the perfect building’ when I write so little about building design and construction issues! Well I may thoroughly answer that one of these days, but I currently feel that the world we live in has bigger issues to solve that are directly or indirectly have an effect on my passion to build the perfect building.

So this blog, at the moment, is more an outlet for my thoughts about topics I think are important on a large scale that I like to share with anybody who’s interested. Which means I’m back to energy and climate change with this perspective: If “location, location, location” are the three most important issues in real estate, then “energy, energy, energy” are the three most important issues in respect to sustainability in the US. By the way ‘energy security’ is a lame excuse but not a vision true to a global leader!

I’ll share more in upcoming posts – coming soon, I promise!

Stephan Tanner: Now speaking at a college near you!

Seems like a lot of folks are interested in my point of view these days. I think it has something to do with this situation "If you're contemplating climbing Mount Everest, wouldn't you like to hear from someone who's been there?"

We're finally starting to recognize the limitation of our planet Earth. Since change is inevitable, energy-use and global-warming issues are top of mind for everyone. We're standing at a crossroads as we face a 95% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. That's when the hard questions come up:
- “What will the future be?”
- “How will it effect the built environment?”
- “What are the challenges we will be facing?”
- ”What will building in the future be like?”

These and many other similar pressing questions have been my interest for many years. I not only have a lot of personal thoughts, I  also offer a professional perspective based more than 25 years of  global, sustainable-design, building experience. Here's what I focus on sharing ...

My Key Speaking Topics are:

- Our Current Energy Problems: The Beginning of a New Renaissance
- The 2000-Watt Society
- What’s up with Energy-use and Buildings? (2030 Vision, LEED, Passivhaus Standard, Zero Energy Buildings)
- High Performance Buildings and Integrated Planning
- The Green Bridge

Colleges and organizations at which I've presented:

- Iowa State University: "Energy Matters"
- University of Minnesota: "Energy Matters"
- Macalester College: “High Performance Buildings”
- International Passivhaus Conference in Bregenz: “ Das BioHaus”
- U.S. Passivhaus Conference: “Incrementalism is Death”
-  MN PCA Conference: “Energy and Buildings”
-  Many other professional construction gatherings and other interested organizations: “High Performance Buildings”, “Sustainable Buildings”, “Energy and Buildings”

I'd love the opportunity to share any of my presentations with your own college or organization.

My speaking experiences typically include:

- 90-minute keynote speaking event
- all-day classroom/student/faculty visits
- small-group discussions

My contact information to discuss dates and fees:

Stephan Tanner, AIA - Principal
Intep LLC
O: 612 • 339 5515
E: stanner@intep-10.com

“Unnecessary Insulation”

Please read the Eco-Structure Magazine, January/February Issue, page 14 ‘Correspondence’

The argument made in the letter is a common response to building projects we support. INTEP, the name of our company founded more than 35 years ago, is based on our "integrated planning" and design methodologies, not the traditional "value engineering" philosophy reflected in the letter. Our process of integrated planning focuses on holistically optimizing buildings on three levels: 1) Investment; 2) Life Cycle, and; 3) Sustainability Cost. Let me briefly explain by using Investment and Sustainability Cost as examples ...

First, Investment: The BioHaus, see the "Total Immersion" article in the September issue, is based on the German Passivhaus standard. This standard is rooted in the fact that, in the European climate and construction market, a building's heating system can be eliminated with a super-insulated building envelope and other measures. After 15 years of applying this energy standard, today's results can generate an energy-use reduction of 85-90% without any additional investment costs in larger building projects. We applied this standard to the BioHaus for the first time in a commercial project in the U.S. with the same energy-reduction results! My colleagues and I refer to this phenomena as "tunneling through the cost barrier" as outlined by Paul Hawken, Amory and Hunter Lovins in his book Natural Capital.

Second example, Sustainability Cost, or the cost to tomorrow’s global society. In response to the notion of “money as a resource," the words of Sir Nicolas Stern describing the global warming crisis comes to mind: It's “the greatest market failure the world has ever seen”.

The real culprit here is that traditional "value engineering" uses only the current market cost of the resource. It ignores the future cost of the resource – which is why we have a global warming crisis. Accounting for this total Sustainability Cost, I would direct the letter's author to the spring '07 edition of the McKinsey Quarterly  (Download mckinsey_quarterly_107.pdf ), “A Cost Curve for Greenhouse Gas Reduction.” The  chart from that report shows that greenhouse gas-abatement measures beyond "business as usual" (page 38) with "building insulation" leads by a NEGATIVE cost, or a payback of 150 Euros per CO2 ton by 2030.

Let me provoke future discussion with a final comment and question: We in the U.S. emit 20 tons per capita of CO2 while the global target goal by 2050 is 1 ton per capita. Since buildings contribute 38% of CO2 emissions and have a life cycle of 50 to 100 years, are we taking real responsibility with traditional value engineering approaches?

Happy New Year!

It’s a great time to catch up on reading. An email from my friend Bob Lunning with a link to Thomas Friedman’s article “What Was That All About?” then kicked me back to my blog to catch up on some writing!

I agree with Thomas’ thoughts on the outcome of Bali and especially with these two points:
-    That we Americans should become the model country in the world
-    That the outcome of Bali is incrementalism at best, and that is a dangerous hobby

It’s difficult for me to understand why we have such an issue with reaching an agreement on global warming. As an architect, I’m immersed in creative problem-solving every day, so let me share some pragmatic ideas as to how I’d approach things. For starters, we need to agree on the answers to these basic questions: What’s the problem? … Where are we now? … Where do we need/want to go?

So here’s my crack at the answers …

What’s the problem?
Global Warming. Please read the IPCC reports 1 to 4 and view Al Gore’s Oscar winning movie "An Inconvenient Truth". Their work was recognized with a Nobel Peace Price in 2007.

Where are we now?
There are international treaties defining how the data is collected. A good place to find the results is the Climate Analysis Indicators Tool (CAIT) at the World Resource Institute collecting this data from around the world or at the US’ EPA emission inventory for US data. In 2004, our CO2 equivalent emissions worldwide is 4.7 tons per capita and in the US it is 20.1 tons per capita.

Where do we need to go?
The IPCC is calling for stabilization as soon as possible. I understand with aggressive measures that this is possible by 2050 at a level of about 550 ppm with a reduction to 1 ton of CO2 equivalent emissions per capita world wide.

My mother used to say, “Sweep around your own front door before you try sweeping around another’s front door.” Maybe if we all followed her advice, we’d have a good foundation to a global agreement on climate change!

So let’s get started at home here in the US!
I understand it’s not easy when our number is 20.1 tons and we need to reduce it to 1 ton CO2 equivalent emissions per capita a year. But let’s get back to Thomas Friedman’s comment that we Americans should become the model country in the world. It’s a good time to make resolutions, right, so I therefore propose that we should start with a New Year’s Resolution – so how about:

We acknowledge the fact that we in the US do contribute over 20 tons of CO2 equivalent per capita and year and will reduce this to 1 ton by 2050!

My North American Passivhaus Conference Presentation

It was a great get-together in Urbana with exceptional people  and real privilege to get an ovation for my presentation at the 2nd Annual North American Passivhaus Conference – especially since I only had to show my first slide to raise the roof. The title of my  presentation is "Incrementalism is Death." It's a phrase I modified from Nicholas Negroponte's concept that "incrementalism is innovation's worst enemy." In my view, when it comes to taking the leaps needed to solve the climate crisis in our built environment, incremental thinking isn't just an enemy, it's death.

The technology, building materials and construction talent is all available today. What we're a little short on, however, is the courage to leap toward real, integrated, sustainable solutions instead of continuing to take baby steps that just won't get us where we need to be.

So help me spread the word. I just put my complete presentation on SlideShare where you can view it, download it, share it and help me shake things up with it.

Waldsee BioHaus Wins Minnesota Environmental Intitiative Award

BioHaus won the MEI award in the category Air Quality and Climate Protection. The presenters of the award described the BioHaus  “ as a unique Environmental Living Center for the Concordia Language Villages in Bemidji, Minnesota. The BioHaus features cutting edge approaches to energy conservation and innovations in sustainable building design. This approach resulted in a dramatic reduction in energy consumption, as well as the showcasing of a green roof system and low-emission building products such as paints, flooring materials, and cabinetry.”

Economic-based thinking and climate change

Lately I've been drawn to reports with economic-based thinking in respect to climate change.

For example, here's an interesting report about CO2 trading from the European branch of McKinsey:  Download McKinsey Quarterly_Report 2007.pdf

For more on this matter, you can also read my post titled "The Biggest Market Failure the World Has Ever Seen" about Sir Nicholas Stern and Paul Volcker.

TAGS:

Climate Change, Sir Nicholas Stern, Paul Volcker