Students at Explore Charter School in Brooklyn

Recently, Director of Programs, Tiffany Broyles Yost and I were invited to speak about sustainability in the classroom at Explore Charter School, a K-8 public school in Flatbush, Brooklyn. At Urban Green Council, most of our educational events are geared towards building professionals, so it was a nice change to meet with middle school students newly introduced to the world of green building.

We took the opportunity to speak with the students about USGBC’s Center for Green Schools’ Green Apple initiative to provide healthy and environmentally responsible schools. We wanted to discuss how schools with clean air and plentiful access to daylight have more engaged students and that better acoustics and more comfortable classrooms enhance productivity and alertness.

This information was not news to the 7^th and 8^th graders at Explore. Our first question to them was, “Why does it matter if your school is green?” The first student to answer said it mattered because schools need to be a healthy environment, so children can learn and take care of the planet for the future. I was impressed! As we presented images of “green” schools, the students immediately recognized the sustainable features, including everything from skylights to bicycle racks. The students also spoke of the difference between their school’s current location, in a large building with plenty of operable windows, and its previous location, inside an “old warehouse” with fewer and smaller windows. They described how hot it had been, which made it difficult to concentrate, or worse, made them tired.

Throughout our presentation, Tiffany and I emphasized the importance of conserving resources and how “using less” is really the first step to going green. By simply turning off lights, students can help lower the school’s energy use. The students also offered several ideas for renewable energy sources, citing biomass and geothermal among the more common solar and wind. To end our discussion, we talked about some innovative systems, such as soccer balls that generate power, solar backpacks, and energy producing sneakers. The response was fantastic!

In addition to being a nice change from the office, our visit to Explore was an extremely encouraging experience. The students already had a firm grasp on sustainable practices and how they can positively impact their environment. They are now more aware of the benefits of green buildings and will inevitably bring that knowledge home to their families. As they continue through school, they’ll want to attend green colleges and eventually work in green offices, creating a demand for sustainable building. That’s a good sign.

On January 15 I had the bright idea to attend Let There Be Daylight, an event discussing a report (of the same name, released in December) showing that at least 114 million square feet of New York City office space can easily be retrofitted with advanced daylighting controls. The presentations and discussions took place at the New York Times Building, which actually uses this technology to cut both energy use and peak electric demand.

The report makes a persuasive case: since daylight is often strongest when needed most to cut building energy peaks (summer afternoons), and prices have dropped substantially (from ~$100/ballast 10 years ago ~$30/ballast now), daylighting can be accomplished cost-effectively. NYSERDA and Con Edison incentives can shorten paybacks further, reportedly in the 4-5 year range for new construction. Wireless sensors can help overcome the obstacles of working in existing buildings, where entering the asbestos- or insulation-laden ceiling cavity is to be avoided if possible. Since New York’s central business district has more office area appropriate for daylighting than Chicago and San Francisco’s central business district areas combined, this is a major opportunity that cut could NYC peak demand by 160 megawatts.

The report contains a fantastic roadmap for future installations. By focusing on occupant comfort first, mostly by reducing glare, buildings maintain light quality and views while managing heat gain and energy savings. Best of all, the research included actual energy monitoring of existing installations to prove the savings, and polled occupants to ensure satisfaction with their daylighting systems. Since New York City buildings will have to upgrade their lighting in accordance with Local Law 88, it’s worth considering cost-effective additions to basic upgrades at the same time.

While daylighting control may be near-future technology, it still takes commitment, capital, and good design and installation. That makes it worthwhile to consider some easier and cheaper strategies that don’t include daylighting controls: implementing lighting schedules, reducing overlighting through retrofits and task lighting, and installing simple occupancy sensors. In fact, the report’s results show that daylighting controls play a smaller overall role in savings than these inexpensive, straightforward, and proven ways to greatly reduce lighting loads. Don’t wait for advanced controls to hit your block to start staring at the lights!

Many thanks to Richard Yancey of Green Light New York (which hosted the presentation and panel, co-sponsored by Urban Green) and his co-authors Stephen Selkowitz (Berkeley Labs) and Adam Hinge (Sustainable Energy Partnerships) for a great event.

Friends tipped us off to a study recently featured by the Garrison Institute. Researchers from Fraunhofer’s Center for Sustainable Energy Systems found that user-friendliness and energy savings don’t necessarily go hand-in-hand with programmable thermostats. They called these results “both surprising, and suggestive.” (The presentation can be found here.)

Surprising? Not really. Anyone who has every tried to convince their family to try CFLs, or heard their friends discuss how they leave the AC on all day so their home will be cool when they return in the evening, knows that the ease of making a simple change often has little effect on getting people to do it. . Even when people care about and understand the importance of energy savings, they still forget to turn things off when they leave the room. It’s not at all surprising that they don’t set a programmable thermostat, no matter how intuitive it may be.

But suggestive, yes. The presentation covers the three basics of behavior change: motivation (the user wants to change something), ability (the user has the power to change it), and a trigger (they are reminded to actually do it). Programmable thermostats supply the ability, but not necessarily the motivation or the trigger.

In the end, the authors come to the correct conclusion themselves, in the very last bullet point of a 25-slide presentation: “Have technology replace motivation and triggers.” Automation. That’s right, humans, you’re being taken out of the loop and replaced with a computer. Nowadays, occupancy sensors can tell a smart thermostat when a room is empty, and the thermostat can use that information to control AC units, radiators, and lights.

While convincing occupants to manually program their thermostats is a long shot, using occupancy sensors successfully is a slam dunk; current technology can automatically set back heating and cooling temperatures when spaces are unoccupied. These devices originally came from the hotel industry, but are well suited to offices, dorm rooms, small apartments, and any space with single-room HVAC zones, making them a great fit for vast swathes of New York City real estate.

For wall- and window-mounted AC units and for radiators, these devices have been shown to have a 2-3 year payback in NYC. About half the savings is in the heating bill and half in the cooling bill – savings that can amount to up to 30% of the total in the first year after installation.

Using a passive infrared sensor to detect when the room is occupied, the devices don’t turn off accidentally when an occupant is sleeping or still. When a room is empty for a certain time, perhaps 15-30 minutes, they set back the temperature for energy savings. Good ones can also be programmed for an even deeper setback after 24 hours of vacancy, assuming the occupant is gone for the weekend or on vacation. Savings are guaranteed, regardless of occupant behavior or whether they care about energy use.

When the room is reoccupied, the control turns the heating or cooling on again to return the space to the desired setpoint. In summer, occupants may notice the temperature is not what it was when they left, but since the AC is already blowing cold air, they are generally satisfied. The AC may cycle on occasionally to prevent humidity from building up that could cause mold or other issues. In winter, the heat turns back on again as soon as a person comes into the room, and the unit maintains a specified minimum temperature even during long vacant periods.

Three things to look for when you’re shopping for occupancy-based HVAC controls:

1)   Recovery-time based setbacks. Rather than set back a fixed amount (say, 10°F), a good system will let you set the amount of time it will take for the room to reach a setpoint after it’s reoccupied (say, 10 minutes). A microprocessor decides how much to let the temperature “drift” during vacancy periods, so that a shaded room on the north side of a building might be set back more deeply than a sunny south facing room. This allows for the greatest energy savings – and the least discomfort for the people in the space.

2)   Networked controls. Modern units will “talk” to a central system, with a dashboard allowing analysis and control of units remotely. This allows management to troubleshoot problems before tenants complain, for even greater energy savings and fewer maintenance headaches. For example, AC units that run 100% of the time but can never bring the room to setpoint probably need maintenance. (Or, the window might be open. Luckily, these systems can be “interlocked,” so that the AC turns off automatically if the window is open).

3)   Good smart thermostat design. Yes, the study shows that people don’t use their programmable thermostats, even if they are easy to use. But in occupancy-based systems, the automatic controls do the energy-saving heavy lifting. A clean interface and easy-to-understand controls make it easier for a tenant to turn the AC and heat on and off, and set their desired temperature. That saves everyone headaches.

This technology might be difficult to implement in single-family homes, large apartments, or anyplace with a central system serving the whole space. In that case, homeowners might use something like the Nest Learning Thermostat, and commercial owners might try a computer-based Building Management System (BMS) or Energy Management System (EMS).

But for simple spaces with simple heating and cooling systems, bring on the robots.

I was working on my income tax return last spring when I noticed something new: the banks in which I had stuffed my pitiful savings were not bothering to send me forms indicating how much interest I had earned. It was so little it was not worth reporting!  Look at any savings account and you’ll see you are getting 0.02% annual interest (or something like that). Even CDs and most T-bills are around 1%. What’s a thoughtful, savings-minded person to do? You can go into the stock market and see higher returns, but you can also lose your shirt, which will make retirement chilly.

For homeowners and coop and condo boards, as well as solvent building owners, there is a reasonably secure alternative, and (of course) it’s energy efficiency, which amounts to a CD returning real interest, just like the old days, of 3% to 10% or more.

To see how this works, think about a CD.  You invest some amount of capital, say $1000, at some specified interest rate, for some fixed period of time, normally a few years. You can’t touch the money during that time without penalties, but at the end you get back your capital plus the earned interest. The only problem is that these days the earned interest isn’t worth your time going to the bank.

With energy efficiency, the structure’s a little different, but the result is much better. You invest some amount of capital, say $1000, in better lighting that will use less electricity. Because it uses less electricity, you save money on your electric bill every year. If your bill is $200 less than it would have been without the improvement, we say there was a simple payback period of $1000/$200 or five years.   So after five years you have gotten your investment back. But the new lights are still working and still saving $200 per year (or more if the electric rates go up). Suppose the lights will last for ten years – you will pick up another $1000 in the second five years of their life, for a total of $2000 in savings on a $1000 investment.  Ask your banker (or check the equations below) and you’ll see you got a 10% return on your investment over the ten years.  It’s not taxable, and you can’t get a return like that anywhere without selling your immortal soul.

Here’s the general formula: suppose you have an energy efficiency investment that pays for itself in P years. (P= payback period.) And suppose the installed system has a life expectancy of at least L years. (L = minimum system life.) Then the equivalent after tax interest is I = 1/P – 1/L.  This includes the obvious requirement that you get your capital back, just like with a CD.

Got CFLs? Payback P = 1 year, often. Lifetime L = 3 years. The interest rate on these 3-year CD equivalents is 67%!!  (I = 1/1 – 1/3 = 0.67.)

Of course, to actually end up with money, the way you do with a CD, you must have the fortitude to stick the savings into a bank and let them add up over the “L” years of the technology you have chosen. Even better, take the savings and invest them in some other energy efficiency improvement, and you will be compounding your interest in a way CDs can’t possibly duplicate. But I digress.

Again, maybe the nicest feature is that there is no 1099-INT, despite the serious levels of interest being earned!

The math:

K = capital cost ($)

A = Annual savings ($/year)

P = Payback period (years) = K/A

L = System lifetime (years)

Total income = L x A = L x K/P

Net income after capital = L x K/P – K

Net income after capital per year = (L x K /P – K)/L = K/P – K/L

Interest = net income after capital per year as fraction of capital

Interest = (K/P – K/L)/K = 1/P – 1/L

Brian Wennersten, LEED BD+C, O+M, GPRO:CM is an Instructor and Principal of SKYed Eco Education & Consulting, and a certified GPRO Instructor. The following is derived from an interview with Anthony Brower, LEED AP BD+C, ID+C, Sustainable Design Director at Gensler.

GPRO continues to expand its reach in teaching green building practices to those working in the construction field with its recent release of GPRO Electrical Systems course.

Local Union 3, I.B.E.W NYC, longstanding supporters of GPRO, will continue their commitment to green building practices by teaching GPRO Electrical Systems and Operations & Maintenance Essentials to their apprentices and journeymen this fall. Topics will include: fundamentals of green building and sustainability in electrical systems, lighting, heating and cooling, renewable energy, green job management and other work practices that will assure high building performance.

The electricians union will also soon begin construction on their new Electrical Industry Training Center (EITC) building in Long Island City, which is aiming for LEED certification.  The space will provide an innovative and technologically advanced learning environment for union members to continue their professional development. In addition to GPRO courses, Local 3 will offer hands-on training for solar and wind power at their custom designed training installation on the roof of the new building.

Local 3 electricians joined in the integrated design process with the architects at Gensler which enabled the team to provide a more holistic approach to the project.  We had the opportunity to speak with Anthony Brower, Sustainable Design Director at Gensler.  Mr. Brower said that from an electrician’s perspective, reducing energy consumption was at the forefront in the design of the building.  He noted that the training center will allow end users to learn about the latest technology in Advanced Lighting Control systems as well as benefitting from improved indoor environmental quality.   With all of these energy efficient features, GPRO students will not only be able to learn in an amazing setting, but they will be taught by example from how the building was designed and constructed while continuing to meet the increased demands to train electrical professions in energy efficient technologies.

Credit: Pro Europa

It would seem that I owe Frank Gehry an apology or, since it is unlikely that Mr. Gehry is aware of my existence, that I at least owe our readers a follow up to my post last year in which I condemned certain aspects of his work.  You may recall that Gehry was quoted last year in Business Week, disparaging both the cost and effectiveness of LEED.  I had a pretty strong reaction to this, and I wasn’t the only one.  More recently Gehry tempered his stance on LEED in an interview with PBS. It’s worth reading the whole thing but he basically says that he would prefer increasing the thresholds of codes rather than legislating the point-based system of LEED.  It’s a fair point, though I would argue we need voluntary standards like LEED or the Living Building Challenge to demonstrate what is possible before we can begin to mandate individual elements within codes.  In any case, what caught my eye in this interview was his reference to his Novartis building in Switzerland.  He is quoted as follows:

Continue Reading

Credit: Flansburgh Architects

If LEED is a careful balance between the pressing need to reduce our environmental footprint and the harsh reality of our risk-averse real estate culture, the Living Building Challenge (LBC) can be seen as an effort to simply look past the hurdles of reality to the ideal buildings.  It’s an inspiring exercise to imagine buildings that produce energy, water and nutrients rather than consume them; buildings that are largely devoid of the toxins and carcinogens that typically foul the air and soil in and around any human development.  Where LEED measures how much you’ve reduced your estimated energy use, LBC tells you not to use any at all.  Where LEED gives credit for using percentages of recycled materials, LBC has a long, long list of toxic materials (materials commonly found in virtually everything we purchase) that you simply can’t have anywhere in your building.  Of course, setting such high standards means that only a very few projects can even attempt to meet them, which leads some to ask: What’s the point?

Continue Reading

Most discussions of green design these days revolve around the need to think holistically.  In the case of lighting it is important not to view the discipline in it’s own silo- but to consider it’s role in a system that includes site energy, information technology, and even the power grid itself.  The folks at Redwood Systems aim to make all of this much easier by developing an LED lighting system that receives power from not from electrical wiring but from data cabling.  Learn more over at MIT’s Technology Review.

Time magazine on interactive solutions to environmental issues.

The extremely cool “Living Light” project, image left, maps real time air quality in Seoul, Korea. Official website here.  Design, fabrication and operation video available here.

Kieran/Timberlake’s winning design for the US Embassy in London features an elaborate facade of ETFE and thin-film photovoltaics to control daylight and produce energy.  The thin-film PV of the facade is supplemented with a traditional PV array on the roof.  Among other green features the design includes interior vertical gardens that spiral through the volume adjacent to vertical circulation.  Pictures at ArchDaily here.