Frequently Asked Questions
Q. To meet 2030 Challenge guidelines (in the strict sense) is it necessary to include the embodied energy/GHG emissions created during building material production?
A. Although operating energy is the majority of energy consumed by buildings, the embodied energy of the materials that compose buildings is an important consideration to designers. Embodied energy is the energy used in production and distribution of a product or material. Presently the embodied energy of building materials contributes anywhere from 15 to 20% of the energy used by a building over a 50 year period. Designers have tremendous influence as to what material are used and can specify those materials with low embodied energy, thus reducing the amount of fossil-fuel energy used during production. Also, as the operating energy is reduced through efficient design and technology, embodied energy will become more and more important in reducing a building’s carbon footprint.
canadianarchitect
See our Resources page for great resources on material selection based on embodied energy.
Q. If technology got us into this problem of global warming, what role do you see technology playing in getting us out of it? And to what magnitude?
A. Technology is definitely a solution. Efficient machinery and renewable energy technology are essential to combating climate change. However, we need to change our mentality about energy consumption. Fossil fuels have been so abundant over the past century that we have used much more than we really need. We know that we can design buildings to use 50% to 80% less energy through the use of daylighting, passive heating and cooling and other design techniques. This requires no new technology. To gain further reductions we can add technology: efficient machinery, photovoltaics, solar hot water, wind turbines, biomass, etc. And then lastly buy renewable energy. Therefore technology plays anywhere from 20 to 50% of a role, at least for buildings.
On a larger scale renewable energy technologies need to play a much larger role than they presently are if we are to put a dent in the usage of conventional fossil fuels. As of 2004, all renewables combined were only 6% of the energy market. That number is likely to go up, but it still won't compare with fossil fuels.
Energy Information Administration (EIA)
Plunkett Research
Carbon capture and sequestration is another important technology that needs to be developed. Coal is the most abundant fossil fuel, but is also the dirtiest. If the numerous proposed coal plants are built they will make avoiding catastrophic climate change unlikely if not impossible. The carbon emissions from these future coal plants must be captured and sequestered if they are not to lead to future global warming. This is a much needed technology.
James Hansen's number one recommendation to policy-makers in his testimony to Congress in March was:
"Moratorium on new coal-fired power plants until the technology for CO2 capture and sequestration is available.
The reason for this is that about a quarter of CO2 emissions will remain in the air “forever”, i.e., more than 500 years.
As a result, I expect that it will be realized within the next decade or so, that all power plants without sequestration
must be “bull-dozed” before mid-century. Thus it makes sense to give high priority to energy efficiency and renewable
energies in the near-term."
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=23642
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=23642
Hansen also states, “because CO2 is already near the dangerous level, steps must be taken to ‘draw down’ atmospheric CO2. Farming and forestry practices that enhance carbon retention and storage in the soil and biosphere must be supported. In addition, burning biofuels in power plants with carbon capture and sequestration can draw down atmospheric CO2, in effect putting anthropogenic CO2 back underground where it came from. CO2 sequestered beneath ocean sediments is inherently stable, and other safe geologic sites may also be available.
From: James Hansen’s State of the Wild: Perspective of a Climatologist 10 April 2007
Though technology is a solution we should be aware of what consequences these new technologies may bring. A question was brought up at the Teach-In that the panelists did not have an answer to:
“Will the carbon we sequester become the new nuclear waste?”
Q. A great amount of world’s population lives in developing countries. China, India, Turkey, Iran, Brazil and others are among those that contribute to global warming, or are going to contribute in near future, with huge amounts of greenhouse gases. So the question is whether it is possible to achieve The 2030 Challenge without the support of so many people? If not, how can they be motivated to action as well (and also their governments)?
A. Yes, we need everyone to participate in the Challenge. Developing countries do not want to be left behind with old dirty technologies. As more developed nations take the lead in reducing their CO2 emissions and the prices for efficient technologies and renewable energy drop it will become more affordable for nations just developing to go Green (efficient and renewable).
According to Thomas Friedman from the New York Times in a recent article called the Power of Green, it’s about meeting the "China price". "The China price is basically the price China pays for coal-fired electricity today because China is not prepared to pay a premium now, and sacrifice growth and stability, just to get rid of the CO2 that comes from burning coal. [...] The good news is that China knows it has to grow green - or it won’t grow at all. On Sept. 8, 2006, a Chinese newspaper reported that China’s E.P.A. and its National Bureau of Statistics had re-examined China’s 2004 G.D.P. number. They concluded that the health problems, environmental degradation and lost workdays from pollution had actually cost China $64 billion, or 3.05 percent of its total economic output for 2004. Some experts believe the real number is closer to 10 percent."
The New York Times, "The Power of Green," Thomas Friedman (reprinted in the International Herald Tribune)
In short if developed nations take the lead, the developing nations will follow, but we need to act quickly so that we can all phase out our dirty energy soon.
Also Chris Luebkeman and James Hansen have both said in their talks that it is cost effective to be efficient. Developing nations will not want to burn money away by using inefficient technologies. They want to use their precious natural resources in the most cost effective manner. Sustainable design of buildings is an obtainable and important step to a nation's efficiency. We are already seeing this shift towards efficiency in China with cities like Dongtan.
Q. Are there any governmental rewards or incentives for energy conserving designers, energy companies, contractors, or any other people directly involved with the construction of buildings?
A. Some states, counties, and cities provide incentives specifically targeted to builders and developers such as expedited permitting processes for green building, tax rebates and loans. Search by your state at the Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency.