DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Renewables
*****************************************************
#Post#: 10095--------------------------------------------------
Re: Carbon Neutral Buildings
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: June 28, 2018, 3:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: David B. link ---
>
> [quote author=agelbert link=topic=559.msg156756#msg156756
date=1530153321]
> EcoWatch
>
> By Natural Resources Defense Council
>
> Jun. 25, 2018 11:52AM EST
>
> [center]Clean Electric Heating Already Cost-Effective for Many
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418202709.png<br
/>
HTML http://cliparts.co/cliparts/Big/Egq/BigEgqBMT.png
[/center]
>
> By Pierre Delforge
>
> [center]A new report bolsters the case for widespread
electrification of heat ⚡ and hot water ⚡ in
buildings.[/center]
>
> The report
HTML https://www.rmi.org/insights/reports/economics-electrifying-buildings/<br
/>by the nonprofit Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI)
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png<br
/>finds that replacing onsite use of fossil fuels in buildings
by
efficient and flexible electric ⚡ heating is a key
component of the deep decarbonization necessary to limit global
average temperature increase to 2°C.
>
> It also concludes that if our country is to reach
decarbonization goals, it will require eliminating most or all
of the pollution generated by the burning of fossil fuels in
furnaces and water heaters, along with other measures.
>
> The report reinforces the findings of an earlier NRDC study,
which cites broad electrification of buildings, factories and
vehicles as among the ambitious but achievable actions needed to
cut greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80 percent by 2050 and
stave off the worst effects of climate change.
>
> NRDC's report, America's Clean Energy Frontier: The Pathway to
a Safer Climate Future, envisions roughly 90 percent of U.S.
residential and commercial buildings to use electric space- and
water-heating appliances by 2050, up from just under half today.
It also calls for boosting the use of electric vehicles so that
they represent about 30 percent of new vehicle sales by 2030 and
85 percent by 2050.
>
> Both reports highlight the benefits of using electricity from
an increasingly clean grid in place of fossil fuels like natural
gas for space and water heating, an often overlooked, but
critical path for reducing carbon pollution.
>
> RMI's report, The Economics of Electrifying Buildings, notes
that electrification ⚡ can deliver cost savings,
especially for new home construction, oil and propane customers,
and homes that bundle electrification with rooftop solar.
>
> When owners of existing homes install or replace an air
conditioner at the same time as they electrify heating,
electrification costs roughly the same as a new gas furnace and
A/C. And this is when home electrification is still avant-garde,
and early adopters pay premium prices for equipment,
installation and electricity use. As the market develops,
competition increases, and utilities offer electric rates that
better reflect the cost of supplying energy at different times
of day, electrification costs will come down, making it the more
cost-effective option for most Americans.
>
> Electric space and water heating also can be managed to shift
energy consumption in time, aiding the cost-effective
integration of large amounts of renewable energy onto the grid,
the report notes. This can further reduce carbon pollution and
generate utility bill savings. This is already becoming
important in states like California which have committed to
ramping up their use of clean energy like solar and wind power.
>
> Both reports are must reads for state and local officials who
have moved to pick up the slack on climate action in the absence
of Washington's leadership in confronting the crisis. The
authors have the following recommendations for utilities,
regulators and policymakers:
>
> 1. Prioritize rapid electrification of buildings currently
using propane and heating oil in space and water heating.
>
> 2. Stop supporting the expansion of the natural gas
distribution system, including for new construction.
>
> 3. Bundle demand flexibility programs, new rate designs, and
energy efficiency with electrification initiatives.
>
> 4. Expand demand flexibility options for existing electric
space and water heating loads.
>
> 5. Update energy efficiency resource standards and related
goals to account for total energy reduction across fuels (fossil
fuels and electricity).
>
> California, long a clean energy trendsetter, has already taken
steps to promote electrification in transportation and in
buildings.
>
> But more can—and must—be done.
>
> California is considering legislation that would promote
building decarbonization.
>
> Assembly Bill 3232, which has passed the Assembly and is now
before the Senate, would require the California Energy
Commission to assess how best to reduce emissions from
residential and commercial buildings by at least 40 percent
below the 1990 levels by 2030.
>
> Senate Bill 1477, which has passed the Senate and is before
the Assembly, would require the energy commission to develop two
programs: the first to provide incentives for designers and
builders to innovate and build near-zero emissions new
buildings; the second to spur the market development of clean
heating technologies such as high-efficiency heat pumps.
>
> The fossil fuels and the electricity we use in buildings are
responsible for roughly one quarter of greenhouse gas emissions
in California, and natural gas and propane burned for space and
water heating are the largest source of those emissions.
>
> Nationally, the burning of fossil fuels for space and water
heating in buildings generates 560 million tons of carbon
pollution each year, a tenth of total U.S. emissions, the RMI
study notes.
>
> Substituting electricity for fossil fuels to heat homes and
businesses could cut U.S. carbon pollution by 10 percent, the
RMI study says.
>
> But building electrification faces challenges, such as low
consumer awareness of the benefits and availability of the
technology, limited contractor expertise and higher upfront
costs for high-efficiency products.
>
> SB 1477 would help reduce costs by developing the market for
clean heating technologies in the way that California's Solar
Initiative has driven the growth of solar in the state. As RMI's
analysis points out, the cost of new heating technology such as
heat pumps will decline as the market grows.
>
> As RMI's and NRDC's reports spell out, electrification ⚡
offers significant opportunities to cut harmful pollution, and
reduce utility bills, two critical opportunities to help
mitigate California's air pollution and housing affordability
challenges.
>
> We now need to turn the opportunities into action.
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-250817121649.png
>
>
HTML https://www.ecowatch.com/clean-electric-heating-2581218126.html
HTML https://www.ecowatch.com/clean-electric-heating-2581218126.html
>
--- End Quote ---
RMI press releases are always so rosy. Its very hard to do
heating on renewables in the more northern climes. The mismatch
between sun hours and heat requirements is hard to overcome.
Banked hydro and massive wind deployment but still. The new
generation of heat pumps hold promise but it locks you into a
grid dependant net metered scenario. I dislike grid tied. It
has its uses but you have to buy in to all the losses and costs
of a large grid and it does not foster conservation or
resiliency. I will be moving to solar electric hot water for
summertime usage within two years Far too much solar in the
summer so use it or loose it. For winter time heat I'll stick to
my wood stove.
Cheers, David[/quote]
As long as you do what you are presently doing to keep your
family happy and healthy, you are a credit to the human species
in regard to prudent energy use. That said, remember that most
people live in urban environments where they cannot go out and
chop some wood, as you can. I live in a wooded area and am
prohibited from touching any tree in my rented lot for any
reason.
In regard to your view that RMI likes to paint "rosy" scenarios,
I beg to differ. That group of scientists as as hard nosed as
they come. Their Chief Scientist, Amory Lovins (he is a
physicist), way back in the 1980's, designed and built his own
fluid measurement instruments, Said instrument data forced the
college textbooks on fluid dynamics to be rewritten. The math
formulas were wrong. Amory Lovins proved they were wrong.
Mechanical Engineers, because they used these faulty math
formulas to design the air conditioner compressors and radiators
and pipes that fed gasses or liquids into and out of machinery,
from giant power plants to lawn mowers, had inadvertently
reduced their efficiency by several percentage points. 👎
Please do NOT say that RMI is painting "rosy" scenarios, David.
This society owes RMI BIG TIME for many improvements in
refrigeration technology and pipe design, never mind their
massive contributions to insulation efficiency in buildings.
RMI did the reinsulating and heating and cooling efficiency
maximizing work on the Empire State Building some years back.
That building now saves well over one million dollars a year in
energy costs. That isn't "rosy", that is real. When Amory Lovins
makes the claim that our society can run with 80% less energy,
that is not based on happy talk or hopium speculation, it is
based on hard nosed scientific, real world analysis of how
energy is used and abused in our civilization. It's not "rosy
scenario" talk.
Here's what Amory Lovins says about the typical reaction to his
claims:
--- Quote ---
> Only puny secrets need protection; big discoveries are
protected by public incredulity. - Amory Lovins
--- End Quote ---
In order for you to know how serious, how detailed, how thorough
and how reality based Amory Lovins and his Associates at the
Rocky Mountain Institute are, please copy these videos and watch
them when you aren't busy. Your Expert Crafstman comprehensive
knowledge of building techniques, energy use and insulation
materials, as well as your knowledge of the level of unnecessary
energy use inefficiency our civilization operates under will get
some good, money making tips from watching these videos. Amory
Lovins knows his applied energy use science.
HTML https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/527210744178167809/z6CbCdS5.jpeg
[center] Energy efficiency 1 Amory Lovins[/center]
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/O5txQlEI7bc[/center]
[center]Energy efficiency 2 Amory Lovins[/center]
[center]Some Key points about "rocket science" t=4292[/center]
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/8kUih_t9aCs[/center]
[center]
Energy efficiency 3[/center]
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/RjcWx7U1sjQ[/center]
[center]Energy efficiency 4[/center]
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/zW6gWZD4394[/center]
[center]Energy efficiency 5[/center]
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/_H8ZHgkY8L8[/center]
[center]Bananas 🍌 at 8,000 feet in colorado without
hydricarbon heat 1982-2009![/center]
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/x-9jd2OMwJQ[/center]
[center]The next industrial revolution[/center]
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/1zfO3HW6xCw[/center]
#Post#: 10096--------------------------------------------------
Re: Carbon Neutral Buildings
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: June 28, 2018, 4:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: David B. link ---
>
> [quote author=agelbert link=topic=559.msg156812#msg156812
date=1530217491]
> [quote author=David B. link=topic=559.msg156759#msg156759
date=1530155719]
> [quote author=agelbert link=topic=559.msg156756#msg156756
date=1530153321]
> EcoWatch
>
> By Natural Resources Defense Council
>
> Jun. 25, 2018 11:52AM EST
>
> [center]Clean Electric Heating Already Cost-Effective for Many
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418202709.png<br
/>
HTML http://cliparts.co/cliparts/Big/Egq/BigEgqBMT.png
[/center]
>
> By Pierre Delforge
>
> [center]A new report bolsters the case for widespread
electrification of heat ⚡ and hot water ⚡ in
buildings.[/center]
>
> The report
HTML https://www.rmi.org/insights/reports/economics-electrifying-buildings/<br
/>by the nonprofit Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI)
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png<br
/>finds that replacing onsite use of fossil fuels in buildings
by
efficient and flexible electric ⚡ heating is a key
component of the deep decarbonization necessary to limit global
average temperature increase to 2°C.
>
> It also concludes that if our country is to reach
decarbonization goals, it will require eliminating most or all
of the pollution generated by the burning of fossil fuels in
furnaces and water heaters, along with other measures.
>
> The report reinforces the findings of an earlier NRDC study,
which cites broad electrification of buildings, factories and
vehicles as among the ambitious but achievable actions needed to
cut greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80 percent by 2050 and
stave off the worst effects of climate change.
>
> NRDC's report, America's Clean Energy Frontier: The Pathway to
a Safer Climate Future, envisions roughly 90 percent of U.S.
residential and commercial buildings to use electric space- and
water-heating appliances by 2050, up from just under half today.
It also calls for boosting the use of electric vehicles so that
they represent about 30 percent of new vehicle sales by 2030 and
85 percent by 2050.
>
> Both reports highlight the benefits of using electricity from
an increasingly clean grid in place of fossil fuels like natural
gas for space and water heating, an often overlooked, but
critical path for reducing carbon pollution.
>
> RMI's report, The Economics of Electrifying Buildings, notes
that electrification ⚡ can deliver cost savings,
especially for new home construction, oil and propane customers,
and homes that bundle electrification with rooftop solar.
>
> When owners of existing homes install or replace an air
conditioner at the same time as they electrify heating,
electrification costs roughly the same as a new gas furnace and
A/C. And this is when home electrification is still avant-garde,
and early adopters pay premium prices for equipment,
installation and electricity use. As the market develops,
competition increases, and utilities offer electric rates that
better reflect the cost of supplying energy at different times
of day, electrification costs will come down, making it the more
cost-effective option for most Americans.
>
> Electric space and water heating also can be managed to shift
energy consumption in time, aiding the cost-effective
integration of large amounts of renewable energy onto the grid,
the report notes. This can further reduce carbon pollution and
generate utility bill savings. This is already becoming
important in states like California which have committed to
ramping up their use of clean energy like solar and wind power.
>
> Both reports are must reads for state and local officials who
have moved to pick up the slack on climate action in the absence
of Washington's leadership in confronting the crisis. The
authors have the following recommendations for utilities,
regulators and policymakers:
>
> 1. Prioritize rapid electrification of buildings currently
using propane and heating oil in space and water heating.
>
> 2. Stop supporting the expansion of the natural gas
distribution system, including for new construction.
>
> 3. Bundle demand flexibility programs, new rate designs, and
energy efficiency with electrification initiatives.
>
> 4. Expand demand flexibility options for existing electric
space and water heating loads.
>
> 5. Update energy efficiency resource standards and related
goals to account for total energy reduction across fuels (fossil
fuels and electricity).
>
> California, long a clean energy trendsetter, has already taken
steps to promote electrification in transportation and in
buildings.
>
> But more can—and must—be done.
>
> California is considering legislation that would promote
building decarbonization.
>
> Assembly Bill 3232, which has passed the Assembly and is now
before the Senate, would require the California Energy
Commission to assess how best to reduce emissions from
residential and commercial buildings by at least 40 percent
below the 1990 levels by 2030.
>
> Senate Bill 1477, which has passed the Senate and is before
the Assembly, would require the energy commission to develop two
programs: the first to provide incentives for designers and
builders to innovate and build near-zero emissions new
buildings; the second to spur the market development of clean
heating technologies such as high-efficiency heat pumps.
>
> The fossil fuels and the electricity we use in buildings are
responsible for roughly one quarter of greenhouse gas emissions
in California, and natural gas and propane burned for space and
water heating are the largest source of those emissions.
>
> Nationally, the burning of fossil fuels for space and water
heating in buildings generates 560 million tons of carbon
pollution each year, a tenth of total U.S. emissions, the RMI
study notes.
>
> Substituting electricity for fossil fuels to heat homes and
businesses could cut U.S. carbon pollution by 10 percent, the
RMI study says.
>
> But building electrification faces challenges, such as low
consumer awareness of the benefits and availability of the
technology, limited contractor expertise and higher upfront
costs for high-efficiency products.
>
> SB 1477 would help reduce costs by developing the market for
clean heating technologies in the way that California's Solar
Initiative has driven the growth of solar in the state. As RMI's
analysis points out, the cost of new heating technology such as
heat pumps will decline as the market grows.
>
> As RMI's and NRDC's reports spell out, electrification ⚡
offers significant opportunities to cut harmful pollution, and
reduce utility bills, two critical opportunities to help
mitigate California's air pollution and housing affordability
challenges.
>
> We now need to turn the opportunities into action.
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-250817121649.png
>
>
HTML https://www.ecowatch.com/clean-electric-heating-2581218126.html
HTML https://www.ecowatch.com/clean-electric-heating-2581218126.html
>
--- End Quote ---
RMI press releases are always so rosy. Its very hard to do
heating on renewables in the more northern climes. The mismatch
between sun hours and heat requirements is hard to overcome.
Banked hydro and massive wind deployment but still. The new
generation of heat pumps hold promise but it locks you into a
grid dependant net metered scenario. I dislike grid tied. It
has its uses but you have to buy in to all the losses and costs
of a large grid and it does not foster conservation or
resiliency. I will be moving to solar electric hot water for
summertime usage within two years Far too much solar in the
summer so use it or loose it. For winter time heat I'll stick to
my wood stove.
Cheers, David[/quote]
As long as you do what you are presently doing to keep your
family happy and healthy, you are a credit to the human species
in regard to prudent energy use. That said, remember that most
people live in urban environments where they cannot go out and
chop some wood, as you can. I live in a wooded area and am
prohibited from touching any tree in my rented lot for any
reason.
In regard to your view that RMI likes to paint "rosy" scenarios,
I beg to differ. That group of scientists as as hard nosed as
they come. Their Chief Scientist, Amory Lovins (he is a
physicist), way back in the 1980's, designed and built his own
fluid measurement instruments, Said instrument data forced the
college textbooks on fluid dynamics to be rewritten. The math
formulas were wrong. Amory Lovins proved they were wrong.
Mechanical Engineers, because they used these faulty math
formulas to design the air conditioner compressors and radiators
and pipes that fed gasses or liquids into and out of machinery,
from giant power plants to lawn mowers, had inadvertently
reduced their efficiency by several percentage points. 👎
Please do NOT say that RMI is painting "rosy" scenarios, David.
This society owes RMI BIG TIME for many improvements in
refrigeration technology and pipe design, never mind their
massive contributions to insulation efficiency in buildings.
RMI did the reinsulating and heating and cooling efficiency
maximizing work on the Empire State Building some years back.
That building now saves well over one million dollars a year in
energy costs. That isn't "rosy", that is real. When Amory Lovins
makes the claim that our society can run with 80% less energy,
that is not based on happy talk or hopium speculation, it is
based on hard nosed scientific, real world analysis of how
energy is used and abused in our civilization. It's not "rosy
scenario" talk.
Here's what Amory Lovins says about the typical reaction to his
claims:
--- Quote ---
> Only puny secrets need protection; big discoveries are
protected by public incredulity. - Amory Lovins
--- End Quote ---
In order for you to know how serious, how detailed, how thorough
and how reality based Amory Lovins and his Associates at the
Rocky Mountain Institute are, please copy these videos and watch
them when you aren't busy. Your Expert Crafstman comprehensive
knowledge of building techniques, energy use and insulation
materials, as well level of unnecessary energy use inefficiency
our civilization operates under will get some good, money making
tips from watching these videos. Amory Lovins knows his applied
energy use science.
HTML https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/527210744178167809/z6CbCdS5.jpeg
[/quote] You misunderstand. I love RMI, get all the emails,
watch the videos etc. That is not what I mean by rosy. Their
numbers always work they are always right on. This would be a
long drawn out series of posts so I won't go into it if you do
not see it yourself. No time, no energy.
cheers, David
[/quote]
Sorry David, but the term "rosy" has a connotation of not being
real world. Why do you think I would assume otherwise? I do not
get it.
I too love RMI. I am glad you share my respect for all the
solutions they propose. I apologize if I misunderstood you. They
want everybody to go electric. I do too. You said that was a
"rosy" scenario. You then said you were going to follow a
different path. What, exactly did I miss?
#Post#: 10097--------------------------------------------------
Re: Carbon Neutral Buildings
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: June 28, 2018, 4:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]Bananas 🍌 at 8,000 feet in colorado without
hydrocarbon heat 1982-2009![/center]
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/x-9jd2OMwJQ[/center]
#Post#: 10128--------------------------------------------------
Re: Carbon Neutral Buildings
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: June 30, 2018, 8:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: jdwheeler42 link ---
>
> [quote author=agelbert link=topic=559.msg156815#msg156815
date=1530220566]
> Sorry David, but the term "rosy" has a connotation of not
being real world. Why do you think I would assume otherwise? I
do not get it.
>
> I too love RMI. I am glad you share my respect for all the
solutions they propose. I apologize if I misunderstood you. They
want everybody to go electric. I do too. you said that was a
"rosy" scenario. You then said you were going to follow a
different path. What, exactly did I miss?
>
--- End Quote ---
Regarding heating in the winter, my wife really likes our wood
pellet stove.
You do not understand how radical that statement is.
When we got the house, it also came with electric baseboard
heating, so the understanding was, we would be using that, and
the wood pellet stove would get torn out eventually. But she
agreed to give it a try, and we ended up never using the the
baseboard heating, only using a couple plug-in electric space
heaters for a few hours about a dozen times when we would wake
up to find the stove had gone out in the middle of the night.
[/quote]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-300618124425.png
Oh, I understand how "radical" it seems to most people, all
right; So does Amory Lovins.
Amory Lovins on Energy Efficency Breakthroughs (real world 90%
plus waste reduction) that seem hard to believe:
--- Quote ---
> "Only puny secrets need protection; big discoveries are
protected by public incredulity."
--- End Quote ---
JD, I have never had a baseboard spaceheater in my present 70'
X 14 ' extremely well insulated and energy efficient Pine Grove
Manufactured home. It came with a kerosene fired furnace. That
furnace was a cash cow for the maintenance people that had a
"silver" or a "gold" contract which included the "inspection"
annually and lowered rates for (Help! NO HEAT!) home visits in a
winter emergency. Those contracts were ignored by yours truly.
Those contracts, as far back as the year 2000, were a MINIMUM of
$200 a year. Those contracts DID NOT include fuel costs or
routine electrode replacements, though they did include labor.
BFD. They would punish you for not taking their contracts by
charging you $90 just to come to your home in winter (NO HEAT!)
BEFORE parts and labor. And THAT was if it was during a weekday
during the day. Nights and weekends were, OF COURSE, extra.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013201314.png
I considered that highway robbery.
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418202709.png<br
/>I still do. I shudder to think what that pack of furnance
maintenance crooks charge now.
And then there were those nice folks from Rowley Fuels who
wanted my social security number so they could establish an
account for me where coulld pay within 30 days of receiving the
bill so I did not have to pay when the Kerosene was delivered. I
had been their customer in the home I had rented right next to
this one (before this one existed) for two years. I was not
having any of that. So, I continued to pay on delivery with a
check, even though it was a hassle when the weather was really
bitter cold and snowy.
Since you do not understand how not having white privilege
works, I won't bore you with details about how every dumbassed
ignorant local yokel here is NOT asked for a social security
number to be billed monthly for his fuel.
Any IDIOT can tell that the fuel company MUST be paid, or they
won't keep providing you with fuel. So, you can pretend Rowley
fuels was acting reasonably if you wish. They weren't. As I said
before, since you have never been in my shoes, you cannot
understand how clever Vermont style prejudices are directed
towards brown folks like me and my wife. You and I have been
down this road before. Believe what you will. I willl not argue
with you. The irony for Rowley Fuels' selective social security
requests Vermont fun and games "procedure" is that the dude with
the "right color" that bought that trailer after I left
eventually stiffed Rowley Fuels (I observed fuel deliveries when
no one was home. The guy would leave the bill at the door). I
know he eventually stiffed them because one winter (a few years
later) the Rowley Fuels truck showed up at his home three times
within a month after fuel delivery, without delivering fuel. No
one would answer the door. A few months later a different outfit
delivered the fuel. LOL
Now I will return to the cost issue.
After the cost of Kerosene went to the moon (around 2003), PLUS
some ungodly gauging by the furnance maintenance people, I
decided that the furnace was not economically practical, when
compared with small electric heaters.
Some background is in order. I had baseboard space heaters a
long, long time ago in a two story Colonial (5357 Fortuna
Parkway, Clay, New York - you can see it with Google Earth) I
owned when I worked at Syracuse TRACON (1978-1982). They've got
a pool now. I didn't, but I planted those trees 🌳
🌳in the back
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113185047.png.<br
/> I also planted two blue spruce 🌲🌲 in the
front
as wind breaks but the new owners chopped them down around 2002
👎. I supplemented that incredibly expensive (0.11 per
kWh back THEN!) electrical heat with a couple of cords of wood
(I would buy annually as logs and saw and split myself) with
fireplace heating.
Before anybody jumps in and tells me how fireplace heating is
"inefficient" because you actually lose more heat up the chimney
than you get from the wood while you are faked out into
believing otherwise by the radiant heat from the flames, let me
explain that I had an insert in the fireplace with pipes and and
tempered glass doors. The heatilator gizmo convected cooler air
from the family room into the pipes that fed the air out the
upper part of the unit back into the room.
I know how to make a fireplace efficient, even if most people
don't. I know how to avoid creosote issues and chimney hot spots
too.
Where were we? Right, the kerosene furnace is more
thermodynamically efficient than electric heating (WHEN
MAINTENANCE, LABOR, PARTS AND BUSH FUEL PRICE SHOCKS ARE
IGNORED).
As of 2004, after a winter where a (Help! NO HEAT!) rather
expensive maintenance guy almost killed us by setting the
electrodes so poorly that some unprejudiced Vermonter with a
conscience on the street (DAYS LATER!) stopped and warned us
that our stack was all black and billowing black smoke (NO,
complaining to the maintenance people did not help. NO, they did
not reimburse us for the cost of that visit.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-120716190938.png<br
/>YES, we had to pay for ANOTHER visit where a different dude
set
the electrode gap properly.
HTML http://www.smilies.4-user.de/include/Spiele/smilie_game_017.gif<br
/>
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp).<br
/>I said, THAT'S IT! I'M DONE WITH THIS CRAP!
We went electric with portable heaters.
HTML http://us.cdn2.123rf.com/168nwm/lenm/lenm1201/lenm120100200/12107060-illustration-of-a-smiley-giving-a-thumbs-up.jpg<br
/>We heated more ourselves than all 980 square feet of the home.
Yeah, it's not as comfortable as the WASTEFUL PIG HABIT of
keeping he house toasty, which is the customary American way.
Yeah, I used to do that. Yeah, it should not be done. Yeah, we
need to reduce ourselves. Yeah, though it turned out to be more
efficient (used LESS ENERGY) than the Kerosene CRAP furnace, I
switched so I could save MONEY, not energy.
We do not DO long baseboard space heaters. They are STUPID. They
are INEFFICIENT. If you have them, THROW THEM AWAY.
JD, you are a permaculture guy. I suggest you take a HARD LOOK
at WHERE those wood chip pellets, that you THINK are coming from
waste shrups of shavings or whatever, are REALLY coming from.
THAT IS, they are DESTROYING old growth forests for those
"efficient" wood pellets! If your supplier has sworn on a stack
of Bibles that they do not get their wood from virgin or old
growth forests, they are LYING to you.
Now, with the Vornado use a phenomenon that they poorly
understood in the past, a type of air swirl is created that
electrically heats with much LESS energy than before.
Go 100% ELECTRIC ZONE Heating, JD. If you can get that juice
from solar panels, so much the better, but stop using wood for
heat and/or gas for cooking. It's BAD for the biosphere. It
provides profits to people that do not give a rat's ass about
future generations.
The only one that can claim a lick of sense in continuing to
burn wood for heat here is David B. because he harvests it
himself, PERIOD.
Anyone that tells you that hydrocarbon heating is more energy
efficient than ZONE electrical resistance heating is cherry
picking convenient facts and ignoring inconvenient realities of
the VAST amount of energy required just to GET THAT HYDROCARBON
FROM THE WELL TO THE REFINERY TO STRIP OUT THE OXYGEN TO THEN GO
THROUGH THE CRACKING TOWERS TO THE STORAGE TANKS TO THE TRUCK TO
THE SUPPLIER TO YOUR HOUSE where, of course, Amerikans bask in
high energy density/enthalpy of hydrocarbons for heat and
poo-poo those ugly, inefficient, fire hazard, baby killer (you
get the idea) electric heaters. ::)
The fact that ONE furnace requires MUCH MORE energy to
manufacture than that needed to manufacture the TOTAL amount of
ZONE electric heaters you will need for about FIFTY YEARS OR SO,
is somehow not part of the "efficiency" calculations. ::)
The fact that ONE furnace costs MUCH MORE MONEY than the TOTAL
amount of ZONE electric heaters you will need for about FIFTY
YEARS OR SO, is somehow not part of the "cost" calculations.
::)
The FACT that electric heaters are maintenance free versus
furnace ANNUAL maintenance inspection costs plus $100 (plus $)
winter visits for NO HEAT and labor and parts, are not part of
the "cost comparison" calculations. ::)
Finally, there is one DETAIL that I love to bring up. If the
igniter/electrode assemply is not tuned EXACTLY RIGHT, you don't
get complete combustion. The electrode gap gets out of spec
regularly. Most people don't get it adjusted (unless black smoke
is billowing out your stack, of course :P) more than once a
YEAR, if they are thorough. Many have them checked only when the
smoke looks strange, NOT even annually.
THEREFORE, any fossil fueler
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013201314.png<br
/>that parades the enthalpy of Kerosene as a justification for
using that hydrocarbon CRAP over electric resistance heating is
pushing ERRONEOUS energy density figures. Those Infernal
electrodes start losing spec within two months of having their
gap set. I KNOW. I watched my stack often (experience is the
best teacher. :P). Those electrodes WEAR from HEAT in the
combustion chamber of the furnace. Those electrodes have to be
changed.
You NEVER have to change an electrical resistance on an electric
heater unless your dog ate a portion of it.
Burning Kerosene is STUPID. Using electric ZONE small heaters
with Vornado swirl technology is SMART.
I have done ALL the math on furnaces. They are NOT cost
efective. The defenders of that hydrocarbon burning CRAP will
argue until the cows come home about hydrocarbon high energy
density/enthalpy and the "horrendous" efficiency losses using a
resistance to heat with entail. They will yaba-daba-doo about
how electricity is mostly produced by burning hydrocarbons, as
if the OBVIOUS solution to that was not simply getting MORE
electricity from Renewable Technology, NOT keeping on with the
hydrocarbon horseshit!
I am SICK AND TIRED of the DUMBASSED GAME the proponents of this
insane, unsustainble clusterfuck called hydrocarbon based
civilization keep trying to play by defending the abysmal
stupidity, as well as totally unjustified INEFFICIENCY, never
mind the POLLUTION added on, of this SUICIDAL use of
hydrocarbons. These IDIOTS are quiet as DEATH about the 174,000
PLUS gasolene fires in cars each year PLUS the 500 or so deaths
each year, just in the USA, from CO poisoning CAUSED by using
hydrocarbons for heat.
--- Quote ---
> CO poisoning is the nation's leading cause of accidental
poisoning deaths ☠️. The U.S. Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention estimate that about 500 people die due to
CO poisoning annually.
HTML https://sf-fire.org/carbon-monoxide-facts
HTML https://sf-fire.org/carbon-monoxide-facts
--- End Quote ---
INSTEAD, these hydrocarboon hustlers wail and moan about those
electric space heaters burning down houses and killing all those
poor people that didn't use hydrocarbons to heat their home,
like all good Germans Americans should. 😇
BULLSHIT! Vornado, and other types of top notch small area
electric heaters have all sorts of failsafes now. They use air
swirl fluid dynamics physics (NEW scientific knowledge pioneered
by AMORY LOVINS!) that vastly improved efficiency. In addition,
there are some other high tech type electric heaters, that,
though above my budget, are even more efficient.
Yeah, I know I'm not going to convince that pack of stubborn
hydrocarbon loving mules here of going fully electric. I get
that. They are married to the past. That past is killing us.
They DO NOT get that. I do.
The only downside, which I DO NOT consider a downside, but some
bright bulb here certainly may consider it as a downside, is the
water pipe risk of freezing. The furnace has ducts under the
floor, next to the water pipes. The ducts, though insulated,
stlll lose some heat that keeps the pipes well above freezing.
So, since we switched to all electric nearly 15 years ago ;D,
we have to open the faucet a bit during the two most bitterly
cold months here (January and February).
Anyone that claims hydrocarbon heating is more efficient than
electrical resistance heating is married to the past and quoting
inaccurate figures from old electrical use technology, as well
as furnace efficiency figures based on complete combustion,
something that does NOT happen for ten months out of the year,
in addition to all the other vast amount of energy required to
get that crap to your house.
Amory Lovins HAS DONE ALL THE MATH. Electric heating is NOT
"radical". Electric heating is the only truly sustainable way to
heat, as long as we get that juice from Renewables. See below
how the Rocky Mountain Institute has PROVEN that electrical
resistance heating is the tecchnology everyone should embrace
NOW.
--- Quote ---
> The Innovation Center redefines how occupants experience and
control their individual comfort. Integrative design eliminated
mechanical cooling and reduced the heating system to a small,
distributed electric-resistance system.
>
> Most buildings rely on blowing hot or cold air using large
combined HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning)
systems to maintain a set temperature, which wastes energy and
actually has little impact on how comfortable a person feels. In
contrast, the Innovation Center addresses all six factors that
impact individual comfort, requiring dramatically less energy.
>
> Six Factors that Influence Comfort
>
> The Innovation Center’s comfort strategy is guided by the
following factors, which were delivered according to listed
design strategies:
>
> Air velocity: Fans overhead, USB and standing fans, and fans
in personal heating and cooling chairs
>
> Surface temperature: Superinsulating windows and envelope,
thermal mass, bio-phase-change materials in walls and
lightshelves, predictive preconditioning by charging thermal
mass with a night flush, and personal heating and cooling chairs
>
> Air temperature: Natural ventilation, operable windows,
distributed, radiant heating mats in floors, and aggressive heat
recovery (90% efficient) to preheat ventilation air
>
> Clothing level: Adaptive dress code for staff and event
attendees
>
> Metabolic rate: Stand-up desk options
>
> Humidity: Not actively controlled
>
> Technologies to Deliver Comfort
>
> Several technologies are used in the Innovation Center to
deliver thermal comfort, using the least amount of energy
possible including:
>
> Electric floor mats provide targeted, radiant heat to
occupants and are only used on the coldest mornings.
>
> Personalized heating/cooling chairs provide occupants with
individual thermal controls by delivering heating and cooling
directly to their body with only 14 watts in heating mode, and
four watts in ventilation mode.
>
> Personal USB fans that plug into computers for each occupant.
Good airflow, (>120 fpm) enables air temperatures to be four
degrees F warmer without making occupants uncomfortable.
>
> High-efficiency ceiling fans that use only two to 30 watts
depending on speed settings, exceeding ENERGY STAR requirements
by 450–750%
>
>
HTML https://rmi.org/our-work/buildings/pathways-to-zero/scaling-zero-net-carbon/rmi-innovation-center/thermal-comfort/
HTML https://rmi.org/our-work/buildings/pathways-to-zero/scaling-zero-net-carbon/rmi-innovation-center/thermal-comfort/
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 10177--------------------------------------------------
Re: Carbon Neutral Buildings
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: July 3, 2018, 1:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: David B. link ---
>
>
> I will do a bit of shameless plugging for the company. Here
is a testimonial to one of our showcase systems. There is
nothing modest here to see but it is the reality of what is
pushing solar forward. 3 panels on a cabin might be noble in its
austerity but those systems do lights some water pumping and a
bit of refrigeration at best. This one is a grid zero system
which uses the grid when it needs a boost but does not feed back
to it. Enjoy
>
> [center]
HTML https://youtu.be/1QGH-VEo1Vg[/center]
>
--- End Quote ---
[center]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-280917164227.png<br
/>[/center]
#Post#: 10178--------------------------------------------------
Re: Carbon Neutral Buildings
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: July 3, 2018, 1:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Eddie link ---
>
> [quote author=David B. link=topic=11265.msg157097#msg157097
date=1530624465]
> I will do a bit of shameless plugging for the company. Here is
a testimonial to one of our showcase systems. There is nothing
modest here to see but it is the reality of what is pushing
solar forward. 3 panels on a cabin might be noble in its
austerity but those systems do lights some water pumping and a
bit of refrigeration at best. This one is a grid zero system
which uses the grid when it needs a boost but does not feed back
to it. Enjoy
>
> [center]
HTML https://youtu.be/1QGH-VEo1Vg[/center]
>
--- End Quote ---
Nice system, and what a nice testimonial! What's the output?
And the house. Wow. I'll never own anything that nice, I don't
expect.
Investment banker? Gold miner?
[/quote]
--- Quote from: Eddie link ---
>
> [quote author=David B. link=topic=11265.msg157058#msg157058
date=1530580523]
> [quote author=Eddie link=topic=11265.msg157053#msg157053
date=1530578790]
> I wrote this and lost it, so this is the Cliffs Notes version.
>
> I picked this installer because I know someone who works
there. Turns out they are a local company but are 100% Sunpower.
The Texas franchise, entire state. They do Whole Foods and UT.
Lots of high end installs. Their panels are engineered
differently than any panel I've ever seen. Design improvements
according to them. They claim almost zero hail problems in this
hail prone area, which is impressive.
>
> 100% Micro-inverters. He said they just bought Enphase and
would be using Enphase inverters going forward.
>
>
> Any feedback on Sunpower?
>
> The deal is excellent. But they have to achieve a certain
efficiency level to get me the city rebate. That means I can't
immediately put panels on the east facing roof. Because it would
lower the efficiency of the entire system.
>
> I'd have to do 43 panels on the south and west faces to max
them and get the rebate. That's a 13.8 Kw system and it should
cut my grid bill by about half, according to their estimate, and
he says they hit it pretty close. I still get the federal tax
credit too. That's much more of a subsidy (30%).
>
> I can also get a federal tax credit on adding the additional
lower output east-facing panels, which I can add as soon as I
collect the rebate on the first install. I haven't yet seen
numbers on how much that would add to the output.
>
> They have stellar financing (2.9% for 12 years), so I can buy
the 13.8Kw system with the same dollars I'm using to buy power.
That seems like a no brainer. I'll max the east roof too, I
think. I want to see how much it adds to the bill.
>
> Stellar warranty from Sunpower, which also warrants the
install (roof leaks included). They use Invisimount racking. 25
year warranty on everything, 92% efficiency guaranteed in 25
years.
>
> And once again, the federal tax credit is going away. Not for
a couple of years I think, but with the cost of borrowing almost
guaranteed to go up too, it looks like a good time to make this
happen.
>
--- End Quote ---
sounds good. Do a websearch on the reviews of the enphase model
they are selecting. They had some duds. I'll admit I'm biased as
I had to replace 23 of them out of 40 on a nice old ladies roof
this spring. That was 3 years ago though I'm sure they are back
on their game now. Split roof partial shade micros are the way
to go...
[/quote]
Will do. Thanks for your advice. It is greatly appreciated.
[/quote]
#Post#: 10333--------------------------------------------------
Re: Carbon Neutral Buildings
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: July 14, 2018, 4:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]
HTML https://media.architecturaldigest.com/photos/5b3a8684b340272f7d99310c/16:9/w_1280/Modern-Green-Home-001.jpg[/center]
HTML https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/527210744178167809/z6CbCdS5.jpeg
THE REPORT
[center]Designers vs. Climate Change[/center]
Leading architects, designers, and urban planners are devising
plans to help mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. Are they our
best hope for a brighter future?
Posted July 4, 2018
text by Meaghan O'Neill
SNIPPET:
For professionals like these, business as usual is simply
outdated. In the U.S. today, buildings consume 39 percent of
total energy used—higher than both the transportation (29
percent) and industrial (32 percent) sectors. But what if
buildings—or even entire cities—could generate more energy than
they used, clean the surrounding air and water, and even
sequester carbon dioxide? The idea isn’t too far-fetched.
Technology to mitigate emissions already exists, is accessible,
and can even be cost-effective. And small course corrections in
our approach to the built environment could make a big a
difference in emissions industry-wide. (Designing for
resilience—that is, creating and protecting built environments
that will withstand rising seas, more frequent and severe
storms, and other effects of climate change—is also paramount.)
According to Paul Hawken’s 2017 book Drawdown, if just 9.7
percent of new buildings were net-zero energy by 2050, global
greenhouse gas emissions would be 7.1 gigatons lower. That’s
equivalent to eliminating annual emissions from all livestock
worldwide. Yet the biggest barrier to building greener buildings
and cities may not be cost or political will, but simply
inertia.
[center]
HTML https://media.architecturaldigest.com/photos/5b3a86d68c7e812ffa8b14bb/master/w_806/Rye-Barn-007b.jpg[/center]
[center]Top: A modern home by ZeroEnergy Design; Above: The
interior of a barn renovated by ZeroEnergy Design. Photo: Eric
Roth [/center]
“Designing a building to code is the worst possible building you
could build,” says Horowitz. “We need to do
better.”
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418202709.png<br
/>Considering fuel inputs, the entire lifecycle of a building
and
the future of the grid are essential factors, says Horowitz, a
self-proclaimed “data literacy” advocate who joined the
Architecture 2030 Challenge (a group with the goal to make all
buildings and major renovations carbon-neutral by 2030) as a way
to stay publicly accountable for all projects in her portfolio.
It’s also worth mentioning that building smaller, more efficient
spaces would go a long way toward reducing our collective carbon
footprint. In the 1950s, for example, the size of the average
American home was about 1,700 square feet; today, it’s closer to
2,500 🐷 🐖.
[center]Designing for Low Carbon Impact—and Human
Beings[/center]
“Decisions we make as architects and engineers impact the land
we build on for the next 100 years,” says Cara Carmichael, an
engineer and environmental designer at the Rocky Mountain
Institute, a nonprofit organization that works to dissuade the
use of fossil fuels. With the help of ZGF Architects, RMI
recently built its 15,610-square-foot Innovation Center in
Basalt, Colorado, to be a showcase of net-zero energy
efficiency.
[center]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-140718181011.png[/center]
By using high-end windows and insulation, an airtight envelope,
passive solar design, natural and efficient artificial lighting,
automation and metering, natural ventilation, and photovoltaics,
the building can produce more energy than it uses in a year. In
cooler months, radiant heating delivers warm air where people
need it most, instead of overheating low-use spaces (like
ceilings and transitional areas). The result is a building
that’s 74 percent more efficient than its average counterpart.
While advanced systems react to external weather and lighting
conditions, people who occupy the building retain precise
control over their micro-environments. Desk, ceiling, and even
in-chair fans allow for personal adjustments. And while a
sophisticated louver system creates shade as
necessary—eliminating the need for air conditioning—individuals
can open windows when they want fresh air. Because buildings
like this champion low-tech methods (tight envelopes and LED
lighting, for example) rather than high-tech mechanical systems,
they can often be built at or near the same cost as a
traditional building.
One key to success is the early integration of
cross-disciplinary teams who can accurately predict how a
building will perform over its lifecycle. “It’s not just a
check-the-box thing,” says Carmichael, who collaborated with
architects, engineers, land planners, solar and lighting
experts, and contractors to crunch numbers from the get-go.
“It’s a powerful tool to shape design.”
[center]Net Zero, Passive House, and Living Buildings[/center]
Since the 1990s, various certifications, like the U.S. Green
Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design, have emerged for healthier buildings with lower carbon
impact. Now, Net Zero, Passive House, and Living Buildings
labels are also helping designers create better spaces. Though
specific criteria vary, they ultimately share several common
goals: The design of built environments that use less fossil
fuel energy, produce less pollution, and improve the well-being
of people who use them.
Built in collaboration with the Miller Hull Partnership, the
Bullitt Center in Seattle, a designated Living Building, is a
net-positive energy building that uses photovoltaics to generate
power. There’s no cooling system—windows automatically open and
close—and it even employs six stories of composting toilets. In
short, it operates like a natural system—always responding to
its conditions.
[center]Designer Jason McLennan explains Living Buildings in a
TEDx talk.[/center]
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/gSMecC6pcGo[/center]
To reduce their impacts significantly, such buildings implement
these and other tools, including ground source heat pumps, smart
thermostats, green roofs, and closed-loop water systems. While
some features remain expensive to install, all are easy to
acquire.
Several public and multi-unit Passive House projects are also
pushing the efficiency envelope. In New York, the Perch Harlem,
designed by architect Chris Benedict, consumes 90 percent less
energy than a standard building and 75 percent less than similar
new construction.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.pnghttp://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113185701.png<br
/>“Making these projects happen—and quickly—at scale is really
exciting,” says Horowitz, who has also worked on several
multi-unit spaces. Elsewhere, entire communities are working
toward net-zero energy goals. In Cambridge, Massachusetts, for
example, plans are underway for all new buildings to be net-zero
by 2040.
FULL ARTICLE:
HTML https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/304fa75d7ed32d56ae1ff3a796933cb65eac738511bb960bc4a77bb2f67c0af6.gif
HTML https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/designers-architects-take-on-climate-change
#Post#: 10823--------------------------------------------------
Re: Carbon Neutral Buildings
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: October 4, 2018, 1:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/527210744178167809/z6CbCdS5.jpeg
[center]RMI RELEASES NEW VIDEO ON CARBON-FREE CITIES
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-120818185038-16442135.gif[/center]
Cities are at the forefront of climate change risk and
opportunity. Over 9,000 cities are making climate commitments,
but they will only get us so far and must be substantiated with
on-the-ground solutions that enable cities to make rapid
progress toward near-term decarbonization and put them on a path
to full climate neutrality. RMI’s new Carbon-Free Cities video
highlights work in four cities in Europe, China, India, and the
US that are leading the efforts against climate change with
innovative on-the-ground projects.
WATCH NOW:
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/7dQo-iT5T_c[/center]
Rocky Mountain Institute
Published on Sep 28, 2018
Cities are at the forefront of climate change risk and
opportunity. Nearly 600 cities are making climate commitments,
but they will only get us so far and must be substantiated with
on-the-ground solutions that enable cities to make rapid
progress toward near-term decarbonization, and put them on a
path to full climate-neutrality.
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418203111.png
The Carbon-Free City Handbook helps city staff implement climate
policies and actions that resolutely place their communities on
an aggressive path toward sustainable, low-carbon economies.
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-060518153110.png
#Post#: 10824--------------------------------------------------
Re: Carbon Neutral Buildings
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: October 4, 2018, 1:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://ci5.googleusercontent.com/proxy/lLqKvXnlZ6Cbtf3jDN8jitwRnsnX__SS9dROr4VBbCKsCKnIhW9HhoCummvXEWtPF_S401qSnQsO0K8sXor7EjmxlPR9adjQR6OCUk_Ktf4n-Kcy15UkAKbi402I_Wny=s0-d-e1-ft#https://info.rmi.org/l/310101/2017-05-03/353d/310101/4811/Spark_header.jpg
[center]Zero-Energy Homes Are Ready for Mainstream Markets
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-120818180835-1624479.gif[/center]
October 2, 2018 | By Alisa Petersen Michael Gartman
SNIPPET:
Zero-energy (ZE) homes—efficient homes that produce or procure
as much renewable energy as they consume over the course of a
year—are often marketed as luxury homes, only available to the
select few that are willing to pay a significant premium to do
the right thing for the environment. In keeping with this luxury
perception, research shows these homes are often more
comfortable and healthier than conventional homes for a variety
of reasons. Mainstream media outlets have suggested cost
premiums as high as 40 percent for sustainable real estate.
However, the economics for these homes have changed: ZE homes
have quietly passed cost thresholds that make them not only good
for the environment but also cost-effective. As the underlying
technologies and design elements continue to improve and scale,
these costs will continue to decline.
Read more:
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-120818184310-1635923.gif<br
/>
HTML https://www.rmi.org/zero-energy-homes-are-ready-for-mainstream-markets/
#Post#: 11225--------------------------------------------------
Re: Carbon Neutral Buildings
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: December 1, 2018, 2:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]Turning Taiwan's Trash Into Treasure
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-250718210628.gif<br
/>[/center]
[center]We have seen buildings made from recycled materials--
but this is 3 stories high! :o 👍[/center]
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/uYci63xhlbg[/center]
The EcoARK Pavilion in Taiwan is built largely out of recycled
plastic bottles, about 1.5 million of them, making it the
world's first fully functional large scale plastic building.
It was the centerpiece for the Taipei International Flora
Exposition that ran from November of 2010 until April of 2011.
It weighs 50 percent less than a conventional building, yet it
is strong enough to withstand hurricanes, typhoons -- even fire!
The EcoARK pavilion is hailed as a new benchmark for the future
of green buildings. It is astounding to see an experimental
building on this massive scale, and consider the engineering and
imagination that went into making this a viable and safe
structure for the public.
If they make it work at this scale, imagine how much else can be
done with these building techniques?
--Bibi Farber
This video was produced by the BBC during the construction
phase.
HTML http://www.nextworldtv.com/page/5702.html
*****************************************************
Page 8 of 10
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page