Want to Cut Your Building’s Energy Costs? Get Out Your Camera

Many of today’s buildings suffer from what we’ll call the “leak-guzzle-hide” phenomenon:

They leak billions of dollars through poor moisture, temperature and air pressure control — akin to driving around with a massive leak in your gas tank.

They guzzle energy to satiate inefficient and often over-sized lighting, heating and cooling equipment, even when building occupancy is low. This is like commuting solo every day to work in an RV purchased for that once-a-year camping trip.

And they hide energy performance information due to poor metering and byzantine building management systems. Think about this as driving with your car’s dashboard blackened out.

In fact, in its 2010 Annual Energy Outlook, the U.S. Department of Energy forecasts that buildings will soon become the fastest-growing source of demand for increasingly expensive electricity. In many countries, buildings are already the leading global cause (pdf) of greenhouse gas emissions.

While building owners struggle to tackle this trend, they also face the added challenges of high vacancy rates and tenants demanding better building performance (pdf), healthier indoor air and reduced utility bills.

The increasing number of regulatory energy mandates means that many existing commercial buildings — which typically have life spans of 50 to 70 years — will be legally required to reveal energy data and meet new laws that forbid continued “leaking,” “guzzling” and “hiding.”

Without significant renovation, today’s commercial buildings may be unable to compete for tenants, financing or insurance. And if bringing them up-to-code is cost-prohibitive, some may even be left to crumble. In other words, today’s asset may become tomorrow’s albatross.

In fact, when we consider the fact that existing buildings far outnumber new construction (for example, the U.S. commercial building stock is 70 billion square feet as compared to annual new construction of 2 billion square feet) and is retrofitted quite rarely (for example, fewer than one third of U.S. commercial buildings have undergone heating, cooling, lighting, windows or insulation upgrades), we might be looking at a whole flock of albatross!

Unfortunately there aren’t enough building engineers — or in our analogy, car mechanics — on the planet to deal with the sheer amount of redesign and renovation that’s required. And at this scale, traditional techniques such as energy audits prove prohibitively expensive.

For example, ICF International estimated that if every commercial building owner in the U.S. did an energy audit of their buildings, it would take 1,000 auditors more than 13 years, working 365 days per year, to deliver recommendations on upgrades for 5 million buildings. So where should a savvy building portfolio owner put his next dollar?

When Autodesk faced the same question, we did what tourists do: We got out our camera.

Next Page: How rapid energy modeling works.
!–pagebreak–

In only a few days — with zero travel budget, a few pieces of our own software, a novice user named Aniruddha Deodhar was able to convert digital photos of our office buildings to a building energy model that analyzed building energy consumption (within a few percentage points of our utility bills), as well as the building’s carbon neutral potential.

“I was surprised at how little data was required to get a good snapshot of the six buildings’ energy profile,” said Deodhar.

We call this process “rapid energy modeling” and it involves these basic steps:

1. Capturing the existing building conditions. In this step, you collect basic information about your building: the street address, five to six photos of its exterior, reference measurements like height and window area, the square footage of interest (for partial tenants) and anomalies not visible from the outside, like a large atrium or basement. An elementary school student could do this part.

2. Modeling a simplified 3D representation of the building. To assess the internal volumes of your building, you use software to draw a rough model of your building based on the digital photographs and the other data captured during step 1. A middle-school student could do this part.

3. Analyzing the energy consumption of that model. Using software that draws from highly-detailed weather, electric utility and building equipment databases, you simulate your building’s energy and carbon profile. The software will also report the buildings’ onsite solar, wind and natural ventilation potential. A tech savvy college student could do this part.

So while it’s hardly a panacea, we believe rapid energy modeling can be of enormous benefit to building owners and their providers, helping them evaluate numerous design alternatives with less time and cost. Rapid energy modeling provides a:

• Screen for identifying high potential buildings for further investigation and investment, helping to target facilities that would benefit from on-site building audits and renewables assessments, activities that can be very time and resource-intensive.

• Stepping stone between a cheap-but-basic building benchmark and a pricey energy audit by providing a quick, sophisticated way of modeling and comparing energy consumption between buildings, and pointing to opportunities for improvement.

• Shortcut to estimating actual energy consumption, when utility data is unavailable or of low quality.

• Sketch of your ROI for proposed retrofits using local energy prices.

• Scaling technique for assessing an entire portfolio quickly, allowing for bundled investments.

So to patch the leak, slow the guzzling and reveal the true energy performance of your buildings, it may seem counterintuitive, but we recommend you get out your camera.

Emma Stewart is the senior program lead for sustainability and Rick Rundell is the senior director of AEC Simulation Products at Autodesk.

KPMG Hits Carbon, Paper Reduction Targets Early

Audit, tax and consultant firm KPMG has exceeded its carbon footprint reduction goal a year ahead of schedule.

The U.S. arm of global consultancy KPMG launched its Living Green program in 2008 with a range of goals centered on cutting carbon, resources and waste.

Originally planning to reduce its carbon footprint by 25 percent by 2010, KPMG lowered it by 26 percent by the end of 2009. Specifically, it cut its footprint by about 7 percent between 2007 and 2008, and by about 20 percent between 2008 and 2009.

The firm is also planning to reduce waste by 10 percent, reduce paper consumption by 15 percent, increase alternative transportation by 5 percent and have all of its new construction achieve LEED certification by 2010.

Since the start of the program, KPMG has lowered its electricity use by 9 percent, cut paper consumption by 33 percent and increased use of recycled paper by 85 percent. It also has five LEED certified offices, in Nashville, Boston, Charlotte, San Diego and Orange County, Calif.

As part of the program, the company set up local Living Green Teams in offices around the U.S. The teams created recycling programs, got involved in local environmental programs and hosted volunteer events around Earth Day.

How Public-Private Partnerships Can Boost Green Building

States are facing significant budget gaps. These budget gaps are going to negatively affect the green building industry. States looking to shore up budgets will cut new construction and maintenance of existing buildings in the coming years.

But there is a solution: public-private partnerships.

Just prior to the economic downturn, the phrase “public-private partnerships” – or P3s – was on the tip of everyone’s tongue. Then the Great Recession hit, and billions of dollars were injected into the economy via the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). Suddenly, states were flush with cash to pay for infrastructure projects and seemed to forget about P3s. However, the ARRA funding is running out and states will be looking for innovative ways to finance new construction and major rehabilitations of existing buildings.

P3s are the answer. What is a P3? According to the National Association of Public-Private Partnerships

“A Public-Private Partnership (PPP) is a contractual agreement between a public agency (federal, state or local) and a private sector entity. Through this agreement, the skills and assets of each sector (public and private) are shared in delivering a service or facility for the use of the general public. In addition to the sharing of resources, each party shares in the risks and rewards potential in the delivery of the service and/or facility.”

The classic example is a toll booth that is either constructed, maintained or operated by a private entity in exchange for some of the toll revenues.

But P3 practices are also being used for green building projects. For example, the General Services Administration recently entered into a P3 lease agreement for a new campus to house the National Nuclear Security Administration’s Kansas City manufacturing operations, which are seeking LEED Gold certification:

“The Heartland Region of the General Services Administration on Monday signed the final lease agreement with CenterPoint Zimmer LLC for a new campus to house the National Nuclear Security Administration’s Kansas City manufacturing operations. . . .

CenterPoint Zimmer, a subsidiary of CenterPoint Property Trust of Oak Brook, Ill., will receive annual rent of $61.5 million through the 20-year lease for a total contract amount of $1.23 billion. Stephen Stanberry, the GSA contracting officer who worked on the lease, said it is a “net of utilities” leasing, meaning the NNSA will pay its own utility costs.

In return for the NNSA lease payments, CenterPoint Zimmer will develop the new campus. . . .”

How to Handle Challenges to LEED Certification

[Editor's Note: Attorneys Shari Shapiro and Chris Cheatham have been following developments in the first third-party challenge to a LEED certification award. GreenerBuildings.com ran observations by Shapiro earlier this month. Here is Cheatham's most recent post.]

I thought I would end my discussion of the Northland Pines High School LEED certification challenge with some constructive suggestions. The LEED challenge issue is not going away anytime soon and clearly requires some fixes:

1. Appeals of LEED certification must go to an independent body. It is not appropriate for the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) or the Green Building Certification Institute (GBCI) to review and decide LEED certification challenges when these two parties are responsible for deciding certification initially. There may also be constitutional authority issues if a party is forced to challenge a federal project’s LEED certification to the USGBC/GBCI.

2. The LEED Policy Manual absolutely must be incorporated into the LEED reference manuals. This is a no-brainer.

3. Energy modeling is fuzzy math. LEED certification for new construction must be tied to actual energy usage as quickly as possible. I realize it takes years to change the LEED rating system, but the next version that comes out should include a re-certification requirement based on actual energy use.

4. Standing and timeliness requirements must be created for the LEED challenge process. Otherwise, the USGBC/GBCI will be overwhelmed with challenges.

5. Most importantly, if you are a contractor, architect or engineer, you absolutely must consider the implications and liabilities created by the LEED certification challenge process. If you guarantee some level of certification, you may be responsible if a subsequent LEED challenge proves successful. Will you be responsible to defend against the challenge?

Do you have any more thoughts on the LEED challenge process? How do we fix it?

Chris Cheatham, J.D., LEED AP, is a construction attorney in the Washington, D.C., Metro Area. He writes the blog Green Building Law Update, where this post originally appeared.

Concrete may absorb more CO2 than previously believed

Washington, May 19 (ANI): A new study has determined that concrete may absorb more carbon dioxide (CO2) than earlier estimates suggested.

Many scientists currently think at least 5 percent of humanity’s carbon footprint comes from the concrete industry, both from energy use and the CO2 byproduct from the production of cement, one of concrete’s principal components.

Yet, several studies have shown that small quantities of CO2 later reabsorb into concrete, even decades after it is emplaced, when elements of the material combine with CO2 to form calcite.

A new study suggests that the re-absorption may extend to products beyond calcite, increasing the total CO2 removed from the atmosphere and lowering concrete’s overall carbon footprint.

While preliminary, the research by civil and environmental engineering professor Liv Haselbach of Washington State University re-emphasizes findings first observed nearly half a century ago – that carbon-based chemical compounds may form in concrete in addition to the mineral calcite.

“Even though these chemical species may equate to only five percent of the CO2 byproduct from cement production, when summed globally they become significant,” said Haselbach. “Concrete is the most-used building material in the world,” she added.

Researchers have known for decades that concrete absorbs CO2 to form calcite (calcium carbonate, CaCO3) during its lifetime, and even longer if the concrete is recycled into new construction, and because concrete is somewhat permeable, the effect extends beyond exposed surfaces.

While such changes can be a structural concern for concrete containing rebar, where the change in acidity can damage the metal over many decades, the CaCO3 is actually denser than some of the materials it replaces and can add strength.

Haselbach’s careful analysis of concrete samples appears to show that other compounds, in addition to calcite, may be forming.

Although the compounds remain unidentified, she is optimistic about their potential.

“Understanding the complex chemistry of carbon dioxide absorption in concrete may help us develop processes to accelerate the process in such materials as recycled concrete or pavement,” she said.

“Perhaps this could help us achieve a nearly net-zero carbon footprint, for the chemical reactions at least, over the lifecycle of such products,” she added. (ANI)

Canon to delay toner cartridge plant for 2nd time

TOKYO, April 16 (Reuters) – Canon Inc (7751.T) said on Thursday it would delay the construction of a $1 billion toner cartridge components plant in western Japan for a second time due to a prolonged downturn in sales and usage of office equipment.

Canon, which competes with Xerox Corp (XRX.N) and Ricoh Co Ltd (7752.T) in copiers and printers, said in November it was delaying the start of construction to June 2009 from December 2008 amid sluggish demand.

The company will decide the new construction schedule after monitoring market conditions.

Consumable items such as toners and related services are an important source of profit for office equipment makers as they generally fetch high margins and provide a constant revenue stream.

Canon shares were up 2 percent at 3,090 yen in late morning trade, underperforming the Nikkei average .N225, which gained 3 percent. (Reporting by Kiyoshi Takenaka; Editing by Michael Watson)