[HN Gopher] Does LEED Certification Save Energy? Evidence from F...
___________________________________________________________________
Does LEED Certification Save Energy? Evidence from Federal
Buildings
Author : throw0101a
Score : 60 points
Date : 2021-04-02 12:20 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nber.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nber.org)
| stakkur wrote:
| TL;DR:
|
| _We have two primary findings. First, our estimates show no
| effect of LEED certification on average energy consumption
| measured in kBTUs /ft2. Second, the absence ofan effect seems to
| be driven by trade-offs across LEED attributes. Buildings with
| higherenergy scores have greater energy efficiency post-
| certification. Some other attributes, no-tably higher water
| scores, decrease energy efficiency post-certification. These
| trade-offs across LEED attributes seems to account for the
| absence of energy savings on average._
| ensignavenger wrote:
| The article points out that LEED certification is about more than
| just energy efficiency, and a building can obtain LEED
| certification without being energy efficient by focusing on other
| LEED areas.
| fatnoah wrote:
| I worked in a LEED gold building. One summer weekend, I stopped
| by the office to pick something up and noticed that the AC was
| still fully operational and keeping the building cool, despite
| there being no one in the building.
| alricb wrote:
| But then we already knew that.
|
| https://www.buildingscience.com/documents/insights/bsi-007-p...
| bjt2n3904 wrote:
| The frustration I have with environmentalism is this. There's
| this enthusiasm for environmentalism that seems to be blind to
| outcome. A new standard for buildings, cars, circuit boards --
| whatever -- is met with accolades. However, the opponents of such
| a standard clearly want the planet to die and suffer. It's time
| to listen to science!
|
| Then a decade later, the program is assessed, and found to be
| ineffective, and the same people who were so enthusiastic shake
| their heads as if they've always known there would be such
| problems.
|
| Fun story! Bureaucracy doesn't solve problems, it creates them!
| specialist wrote:
| There's a reason the modern environmental movement largely
| started in California.
|
| Cadillac Desert, a history of modern water policy, will turn
| any one into a treehugger.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadillac_Desert
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadillac_Desert_(film)
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PR2BSGQt2DU
|
| The histories for air, land, and sea are similarly shocking,
| depressing.
| blacktriangle wrote:
| "There's this enthusiasm for environmentalism that seems to be
| blind to outcome."
|
| I am completely stealing this line, because it explains the
| modern environmental movement perfectly. I've argued with so
| many people about the Paris Accords and how they are a terrible
| idea. Why? Because they heap regulation on the West while
| sending money to China and India who have no obligation to
| improve their environmental policy. This will result in even
| more manufacturing leaving the semi-regulated West and moving
| to totally unregulated China which will increase net pollution,
| and that's before you factor in transit pollution.
|
| Nobody can explain to me why this is wrong and that Paris
| Accords are actually terrible for the global environment, but
| its still awful the US wouldn't sign them because "we have to
| do something!"
| roflulz wrote:
| Both China and India have lower CO2 emissions per capita than
| the US....
| throw0101a wrote:
| > _Because they heap regulation on the West while sending
| money to China and India who have no obligation to improve
| their environmental policy._
|
| Both China and India are signatories of the Paris Accords.
| They are aiming to meet their targets. The US, at least for
| the four previous years, wasn't even in the Accords and not
| trying to do much in that time.
|
| There are no regulations in the Accords, just a goal with
| regards to carbon emissions. If you want minimal regulations
| to achieve that, either introduce a cap-and-trade system
| (like Bush 41 did for acid rain), or introduce price
| signalling via carbon pricing, as recommended from four
| former Federal Reserve chairs (including Greenspan):
|
| * https://www.carbonpricingleadership.org/news/2019/1/17/form
| e...
|
| > _Nobody can explain to me why this is wrong and that Paris
| Accords are actually terrible for the global environment, but
| its still awful the US wouldn 't sign them because "we have
| to do something!"_
|
| Perhaps no one can explain why it's wrong because it is _not
| wrong_? The Paris Accords are not about "the global
| environment", they are specifically about _one thing_ :
| carbon emission. Specifically reducing them by a certain
| amount.
|
| Why do you think reducing them is bad?
| blacktriangle wrote:
| Reducing them is great. Trusting China to self-regulate
| their emissions is the height of stupidity. Us paying China
| to then turn around and lie is even dumber yet.
|
| Want to reduce CO2? You'll need to embargo China and then
| start ramping up domestic regulation.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Reducing emissions by triggering World War Three is a
| plan, I suppose.
| throw0101a wrote:
| I've always liked the term " _not on my watch_ ". It
| probably derives from the maritime world, but is useful
| in my sysadmin career.
|
| In many (larger) organizations you cannot ensure
| everything is running smoothly all the time. But you can
| look after everything in your own (IT) wheel house.
|
| As a Canadian I cannot do much about China's (or India's)
| action, but I can do stuff about what happens in Toronto,
| Ontario, Canada, where I live.
|
| So I will push for progress where I can, with the things
| under 'my watch', because it is the right thing to do.
| Doing the right thing yourself is sometimes the only
| thing you can do.
| blacktriangle wrote:
| The thing about global pollution, it's global. The actors
| you are pushing to progress don't have to stick around,
| they can just pick up and move. If you clean up your
| house, you didn't really clean up the problem, you just
| moved it somewhere else, making the problem worse.
| [deleted]
| baybal2 wrote:
| The biggest issue I see is that LEEDs allow for a building that
| looks like a big heat exchanger, and has zero heat insulation to
| certify for high power efficiency in a cold climate.
|
| Canada, and Toronto area had tons of LEEDs certed luxury condos
| being heated like no tomorrow in Winter.
|
| Things are even worse in Vancouver, but that's offset by milder
| weather.
|
| The opposite picture is there in hot climates.
|
| Building with exposed balcony slabs, and curtainwalls in +40Cdeg
| climates, guzzling electricity for aircons.
|
| I think the West needs to look up more for economical building
| designs from nations living in extremes.
|
| Gulf countries learned how to build economically in +50Cdeg
|
| Nordic ones for -30Cdeg in Winter
|
| None of them spend as much as US, and Western Europe on heating,
| or cooling despite way more severe climates.
|
| Building operation is 40% of US total energy bill if we believe
| CTBUH https://www.researchgate.net/figure/US-Energy-Consumption-
| by... . And 40% of building energy bill in US is space heating
| https://www.epa.gov/rhc/rhc-multi-unit-housing
|
| All those vanities like PV panels, solar water heaters, rainwater
| collection, turbines, etc -- all totally pale in comparison to
| just proper thermal design of a building, and slashing its
| heating bill.
| etimberg wrote:
| I live in an apartment in Toronto that is LEED certified. To be
| honest, it's not that great but for different reasons than you
| outlines. The insulation is too good and so the building is too
| warm all year round. My unit can easily be > 24C without any
| heating running even in winter.
| thescriptkiddie wrote:
| Insulation doesn't simply make a building warmer inside, it
| keeps heat out just as well as it keeps heat in. If your
| apartment is too warm in the winter it is probably because
| you have too much sunlight coming through your windows, or
| because your downstairs neighbor lives in a sauna.
| makomk wrote:
| Keeping heat out is of somewhat limited use unless you have
| air conditioning, because there are a whole bunch of
| sources of heat (people, appliances, solar gain through the
| windows, etc) that are enough to make the inside of a well-
| insulated and well-sealed building warmer than the outside.
| Also, a lot of non-US countries strongly discourage aircon
| on residential buildings for environmental reasons; I know
| the UK certainly does and Canada is probably similar.
| julianlam wrote:
| Are you sure it's because of the insulation? Many condos are
| sweltering in the middle spring (even with heat off) because
| residents living on floors below yours crank the heat and it
| all rises.
|
| When I lived in a condo (Bloor/Yonge), the situation was so
| bad (12th floor) that if it hit 12degC outside, I needed to
| turn on the A/C, which is awful from an environmental POV.
| reedjosh wrote:
| This and most modern buildings are heated and cooled via a
| central heating/cooling system which distributes the
| hot/cold via water.
|
| So, it may be even though you don't have the heat 'on'
| there is still hot water running through your apartment's
| heating system.
| baybal2 wrote:
| Yep, and this is why central control, along with
| temperature sensors make a giant lot of sense to prevent
| such situation.
|
| A simple thermostat is not enough, and even a PID one
| will not do the job if external thermal influx is not in
| the model.
|
| I once worked on a HVAC controller for hotels in
| Singapore, and other commercial venues which helped the
| hotel operator to save on HVAC by packing visitors more
| closely depending on occupancy.
|
| This avoid paradoxical situations of it being chilling
| cold in some suites with zero aircon use when it is +30
| outside because of an unlucky combination of HVAC
| settings in neighbouring suites.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Doesn't all this imply there should be more focus on
| inter-floor and inter-room insulation, to effectively
| isolate floors/apartments/suites thermally from each
| other?
| Scoundreller wrote:
| Quite possible parent was heating the loop water with
| their a/c which the North-facing residents extracted
| running their system in heat mode.
|
| Which makes it all an incredibly inefficient system to
| move heat from the sun-facing side to the north side
| because you're not allowed to prop open the damn doors.
| [deleted]
| chrisabrams wrote:
| Is it possible that all of your neighbors in your building
| have their heater on? This is what happened to me in a
| building in NYC. It would actually get so warm in the winter
| I would have to crack the window open or I would get a nose
| bleed.
| fortran77 wrote:
| That's by design!
|
| See:
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-05/the-
| curio...
| throw0101a wrote:
| As someone who also lives in Toronto: most things being
| built now are giant class towers.
|
| Now, glass sucks at insulation (even triple glaze), but--
| depending on the coatings--it lets in a lot of sun light
| and with that potentially heat.
|
| While in a perfect world there would be no / minimal
| exchange between the inside of the structure and the
| outside,+ being too warm may be better than being too cold,
| as I'm guessing that it's easier to throw away the 'free'
| heat of the sun away than introducing it in winter.
| Certainly heat pumps can go either way, but I figure that
| it's easier to dump it.
|
| + The entire point of "buildings" are to be environmental
| separators after all.
| UI_at_80x24 wrote:
| >giant class towers.
|
| That is an excellent typo.
| gruez wrote:
| >or I would get a nose bleed.
|
| Are nose bleeds associated with high temperatures?
| will4274 wrote:
| Yes. I'm not completely sure the mechanism, but I
| attended elementary school in a warm climate, at a school
| in which the hallways were exterior and only classrooms
| air conditioned. I reliably got nosebleeds on the three
| or four hottest days of th year in line for class.
| kbelder wrote:
| I think dry air is a larger driver, but that often comes
| with excessive interior temperatures.
| baybal2 wrote:
| Yep, but probably it has nothing to do with LEEDs, but just
| Canadian own construction experience that is not even code
| mandated.
|
| LEEDs for example allows for buildings with completely
| catastrophical thermal design to get certified: https://uploa
| d.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Aqua_Tow... (Chicago)
| [deleted]
| lupire wrote:
| Problem is once someone built a cheap building 30 years ago,
| it's not worth $200K to tear it down and rebuild for thermal
| efficiency.
|
| And new build buyers want homes that look "normal" or
| "classic", not experimental (even if experimental is based on
| proved designs elsewhere.)
| baybal2 wrote:
| From my experience on short stints in Dubai, and Qatar,
| single house residentials can well be both. Lots of villas
| there built with foam concrete exterior walls, in which you
| are living like in a thermos, and which still look rather
| conventional.
|
| Their highrises are probably a bit more avant-garde than
| American ones, but nevertheless they sell like cookies.
| [deleted]
| duxup wrote:
| I don't know much about LEEDs and maybe that should be updated,
| but I live in a cold climate and I see a lot of focus on
| insulation and insulation efficiency, both in new construction
| and updating old buildings.
|
| This idea that there's not a focus on insulation in the west
| seems kinda strange to me.
| nraynaud wrote:
| Same in France, I'm buying a condo and looking into all this
| for the renovation, and everybody is screaming "insulation by
| the outside".
| throw0101a wrote:
| If you want to make sure things are built properly, look
| into the topic of "building science":
|
| * https://www.buildingscience.com/documents/insights/bsi-00
| 1-t...
|
| Matt Risinger, a general contractor in Austin, Texas, has a
| lot of good videos on the topics:
|
| * https://www.youtube.com/c/MattRisinger/videos
|
| Even if you can't use the same techniques that he does (and
| pay for some of the premium products), it may be possible
| to still use some of the general theory / principles.
| CalRobert wrote:
| Risinger makes great videos. Doing a 150sqm extension now
| and plan to apply perfect wall concepts.
| evanlivingston wrote:
| Matt's videos are worth watching, but it's important to
| note most his videos are motivated by his sponsorships
| and it's often hard to parse out when he's shilling and
| when he's not.
|
| Betters resources with real science can be found at
|
| * https://www.energyvanguard.com/blog/
|
| * https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/
| throw0101a wrote:
| Just because he's sponsored does not necessarily mean
| he's wrong: he's been beating this drum for many years
| before the sponsorships came. Sort by date and check out
| the potato quality videos from long ago, and you'll see
| the same principles being talked about.
|
| Though certainly, if you're going to do a build yourself,
| research any specific products to see if they meet your
| needs, functionally and monetarily.
|
| * He tends to build on the higher end of things, and has
| clients that are willing to pay. Of course he's currently
| building his own new home, and doing things the _way_ he
| 's talked about.
|
| * He's in a warm-humid climate (US Climate Zone 2).
| Plenty of things I wouldn't do exactly the same since I'm
| in Canada.
|
| But Joe Lstiburek was born and raised in Canada, and
| lives in the north-east, and he's saying many of the same
| things when it comes to building science:
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Lstiburek
| evanlivingston wrote:
| Yah, I'm not arguing that Matt is saying incorrect
| things, I'm saying his videos need extra scrutiny because
| he is sometimes using his videos for advertising and
| gives less than accurate portrayals of certain products.
| It looks like one his more egregious videos has been
| removed wherein he's reviewing types of siding and has
| some pretty laughable "tests" that he recreates
| inconsistently in order to prove fiber cement siding is
| superior to all other siding.
|
| Additionally, to my knowledge, Matt isn't originating any
| of these ideas, he's just implementing them.
|
| I don't mean to be so hard on Matt, I excitedly watch
| almost every new video of his and I'm excited there are
| people out there making building science more accessible.
| I just wish he'd so a slightly better job differentiating
| between shilling and presenting information.
| throw0101a wrote:
| > _Additionally, to my knowledge, Matt isn 't originating
| any of these ideas, he's just implementing them._
|
| He's fairly open about this. He was recently on the
| _Essential Craftsman Podcast_ and he talks about trying
| to educate and pass on knowledge:
|
| * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYG63Cb83sc
| Spooky23 wrote:
| The problem is engineers look at this like engineers and make
| assumptions and decisions based on the objectives given and
| their toolkit. When you hire an ASHRAE certified engineer,
| he's going to be all about HVAC, based on whatever the
| architect produced.
|
| Usually that means a focus on less energy usage. That
| frequently doesn't align with lower cost or optimal solution.
| For example, buying a 95% efficient boiler for my home would
| cost significantly more over its useful life when you account
| for capital costs, retrofit for exhaust, and
| operational/maintenance expense (efficient units require
| annual inspection and maintenance via service contract). 80%
| results in more fuel consumption, but significant lower TCO.
|
| In commercial or larger buildings, the obsession with sealing
| windows introduces lots of waste. The cost of more heating
| efficiency is more A/C days.
|
| Also, the practices around construction have changed, driven
| partially by "efficiency" to build boxes with no passive
| ventilation. If you go into a well-designed circa 1910
| building like a school, office and other inhabited spaces had
| higher ceilings, higher windows, etc that permitted passive
| ventilation. My house in upstate NY is like this... we use
| air conditioning for <20 days a year, and our extra heating
| costs are negligible. My neighbor's circa 1995 house is a
| modern series of interconnected boxes -- they have to run AC
| from June-September because there is no effective
| ventilation.
| leetcrew wrote:
| I know you only said "partially by efficiency", but the
| other part is pretty important. another goal of sealing the
| building is to align the moisture and thermal barriers with
| each other. this is important, because this is how you
| control humidity inside the envelope. in theory, this makes
| it much less likely that you get mold, rot, etc. if you're
| going to heat/cool your house at all, you really don't want
| heated inside air getting cooled down in the winter or warm
| outside air getting cooled in the summer. if you have
| significant passive ventilation, you don't really have a
| moisture or thermal barrier.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| Agreed -- I was trying to capture a lot in a small space
| without being hand-wavy. (Not sure if I succeeded)
|
| My big "beef" is that assumptions that require active,
| intelligent building management and maintenance have
| their own risks. These are hard to quantify and thus
| discounted.
|
| Case in point: I worked for a decade in a building with
| professional management and all sorts of efficiency
| programs where chronic issues like a leaking roof were
| ignored for 30 years. In theory, the HVAC did a great job
| of moisture control. In reality, there was 3 feet of
| water on the roof. (Water wins) Point being, budgets
| drive suboptimal behavior.
|
| In my personal case, my house was designed with features
| that permit user-controlled airflow and thermal flow. It
| has modern windows, enhanced attic ventilation, etc that
| improve performance. Many buildings are not and are
| dependent on active ventilation to be livable or mold-
| free.
| dirkf wrote:
| Can concur here in Western Europe. For more than a decade
| we've had a regulation where you have to run your plans for a
| new building through a tool that calculates a score
| reflecting the projected energy consumption in a broad sense.
| The maximum allowed score has been adjusted down every few
| years.
|
| The effect is indeed that all new buildings (and renovations
| that involve some kind of constructing new volumes) have
| improved massively in energy consumption. Still, we have such
| a massive amount of old buildings with next to none
| insulation that get renovated so slowly that it will take a
| long time to actually make a decent dent in reducing our
| climate footprint.
|
| But there's definitely a good focus on improving our
| buildings. Main issue with these new buildings is no longer
| having decent insulation to keep heating costs down but
| making sure they don't overheat when there's good weather,
| and ventilating them properly. This is also part of the score
| calculation but in my experience not sufficiently
| highlighted.
| wcunning wrote:
| Joseph Lstiburek talked about this(1) in talks going back to
| the early 2010s. He bitched about bike racks being worth a LEED
| point whereas good insulation wasn't really...
|
| (1)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkfAcWpOYAA
| mjevans wrote:
| Good insulation and isolation can also help substantially
| with privacy and tranquility. Good airflow can help human
| health and reducing externalizes that aren't well measured by
| a single building's certification.
| throw0101a wrote:
| The focus of buildings should be:
|
| 1. Keeping dry and bulk water out/away.
|
| 2. Being as air tight as possible.+
|
| 3. Controlling vapour.
|
| 4. Being well-insulated.
|
| * https://www.buildingscience.com/documents/insights/bsi-001-t...
|
| + Air is exchanged in a controlled fashioned: filtered for pollen
| and other things, and then tempered with an HRV/ERV. Buildings do
| _not_ need to 'breathe':
|
| * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIcrXut_EFA
| intrepidhero wrote:
| The problem I have with this is if #1 _ever_ fails, and lets be
| honest, it will eventually, then #2 means you 'll get mold and
| its game over.
|
| Heat transfer mechanisms, in order of amount of heat moved
| typically follow: conduction, convection, and radiation and
| should be addressed in that order while not ignoring moisture
| content. Mitigation strategies should default to passive
| measures. Or at least that's my plan if I ever get around to
| building a house.
| throw0101a wrote:
| The order of importance is not the order in which they are
| layered:
|
| * https://www.buildingscience.com/documents/insights/bsi-001-
| t...
|
| If you wish to argue against Joe Lstiburek, a PhD who has
| been doing building science for probably over thirty years
| (both academic research and field work/consulting), go right
| ahead.
|
| He has taken failures into account because a good portion of
| his career has been studying / consulting on failures:
|
| * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkfAcWpOYAA&t=25m26s
| abakker wrote:
| Certain building materials need to breath. Buildings built with
| green wood which has more moisture than ambient, and buildings
| with cast concrete will shed water vapor for some time. If this
| can be managed, it is fine.
|
| Additionally, through all insulation there is an internal
| temperature gradient. If the there are discontinuities it is
| possible to get condensation when the temperature / dew point
| align just wrong. This can happen in in humid climates with
| inadequate insulation - especially fiberglass where moisture
| can easily penetrate the fiberglass to reach the colder outside
| walls.
|
| I agree, though. Air tightness and continuous insulation
| coupled with well-engineered ventilation is best.
| throw0101a wrote:
| > _Certain building materials need to breath._
|
| As explained in the linked video, they actually need to
| _dry_. This does _not_ need to happen to the outside
| environment. IMHO, using the two terms (dry /breathe)
| interchangeably is causing confusion, as each has certain
| connotations in many people's minds.
|
| The person in that video lives in Austin, Texas, and when he
| builds or renovates structures he has a stand-alone, whole-
| house dehumidifier designed into the HVAC system (the client
| can of course reject the suggestion):
|
| * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKJnP_6uxcg
|
| > _If the there are discontinuities it is possible to get
| condensation when the temperature / dew point align just
| wrong._
|
| Which, as explained in the first link (BSI-001), is why you
| want external insulation (if possible); some portion of the
| insulation being continuous is code in many places nowadays.
| That way the condensation occurs on the outside of the
| water/vapour control layer. Joe Lstiburek:
|
| * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkfAcWpOYAA&t=25m26s
|
| This is harder to do with renovations, but is code in most
| places. In Ontario, Canada the code (IIRC) also specifics
| what _minimum portion_ of the insulation that should be on
| the 'outside' of the vapour control layer: the colder the
| region the more has to be external, so that condensation
| happens on the outside of the structure.
|
| Having it 100% external is ideal, but would cause trade-offs
| in other aspects of the building, which may not be desirable.
| An example of such a structure:
|
| * During construction:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8i-93ABo3I
|
| * Finished: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTwq-qUnr9I
|
| Sadly, last time I checked, there was still no mandatory air
| tightness test for new builds in Ontario.
| abakker wrote:
| Here in Boulder County, new BuildSmart regulations will
| require new and renovated structures to pass a "Blower Door
| Test" Does Ontario not have any of those requirements for
| commercial or residential?
|
| Agree on the continuous insulation. Very hard to do for
| Renovations. Fortunately in Colorado, it is so dry that the
| vapor barrier is slightly less important than in places
| like new england.
| throw0101a wrote:
| > _Does Ontario not have any of those requirements for
| commercial or residential?_
|
| Last time I checked it no air leakage testing is
| mandated:
|
| * https://www.barriersciences.com/blog/potential-changes-
| ontar...
|
| * https://www.reminetwork.com/articles/canada-wavers-on-
| airtig...
|
| I'm not in the industry, so only know about the rough
| outlines through casual interest.
| jchrisa wrote:
| The problem with buildings with windows that don't open, is
| that the windows don't open. What do you do if you want to open
| the window?
| hristov wrote:
| It is comforting to see this discussion continues the great HN
| tradition of having a lively and wide-ranging debate about a
| complex scientific article or paper without ever bothering to
| read the article and paper.
|
| This is a rather complex paper, so I perused it for about five
| minutes. As such I consider my self a one eyed man among a hoard
| of shouting extremely opinionated blind people, so you should all
| listen to me carefully and follow me as your leader.
|
| And now that I have your attention I shall carefully summarize
| the paper so none of you have to undergo the indignity of
| perusing it for five minutes.
|
| 1. Leeds is not solely for energy efficiency but also for solving
| other environmental problems such as water use.
|
| 2. In buildings where the energy efficiency was the main problem
| to be solved, the leeds overhaul was actually effective at
| improving energy efficiency.
|
| 3. In buildings where water use was the main problem to be
| solved, the leeds process was also successful in reducing water
| use, but actually increased energy use. This is because the water
| reduction process invariably included complex electrical systems
| with a lot of sensors and control circuitry that ate up extra
| power.
|
| 4. Considering points 2. and 3. above when you add all the
| buildings up as a whole, on average energy use did not decrease
| after a leeds overhaul and certification.
|
| My thinking here is that this does not mean LEEDS is a failure.
| The study shows that there was improvement in every building that
| underwent the certification, it is just that for some buildings
| energy wasn't the highest priority. In many parts of the US water
| use is much more important than energy efficiency.
|
| So I am sure for many parts in the US it is a very good trade off
| to increase energy use for lower water use. (This would certainly
| be true for the entire southwest, at least).
|
| But there is still a lot of room for improvement. The water
| preservation systems can themselves be made more energy
| efficient. At first glance, these systems do not do something
| that requires a lot of energy -- all they do is communication,
| sensing and opening or closing small water valves.
|
| Generally speaking there is a lot to be desired of analog circuit
| design. Now that we are surrounded by always on always connected
| electrical devices, this is something we as a nation should start
| paying attention to. There are a lot of always on circuits that
| use 10 or 100 times the power they should, just because someone
| wanted so save 50c on parts or they simply did not how to
| properly design the thing.
| rdtwo wrote:
| Leed gold is all about gaming metrics by not making enough
| bathrooms and then building them on after the certification
| arbitrage wrote:
| a building i used to work in got retrofitted to be leads
| certified. it got a new front door vestibule. the doors don't
| hang right, it's obstructive for people with different mobility
| needs. it leeks air like a tattered balloon. none of the glaring
| issues in the basement were fixed. it got a leed certification.
|
| nobody really cares, it's just all a sham. no real point to leeds
| certs other than polishing a turd.
| wussboy wrote:
| "I found a flaw in a LEED certified building, I ignored any
| other possible beneficial knock on effects of that flaw or
| other enhancements. Therefore LEED has no beneficial effect,
| either here or anywhere else."
| omosubi wrote:
| LEED is a joke. My dad used to manage a large office building in
| chicago and the certification was done by the building management
| itself. The guy collecting the data asked all the tenants for the
| info and threw out all the reports that made the building look
| bad. They got leed certification.
|
| I'm also for more efficient use of resources but I'm skeptical
| LEED actually improves this. Also, all those curtain walled
| buildings are hideous and destroy the built environment.
| maxkwallace wrote:
| LEED sucks. This has been known for a long time. But instead of
| bashing it, we should be asking: is there an alternative? If not,
| how could we create one?
| evanlivingston wrote:
| Passivhaus
| specialist wrote:
| The Correct Answer(tm) is performance standards, which are
| incrementally improved over time.
|
| How California became far more energy-efficient than the rest
| of the country
|
| https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/5/31/1864690...
| nerdponx wrote:
| The article authors aren't bashing it:
|
| > Trade-offs across LEED attributes account for the absence of
| energy savings on average. If energy efficiency is the primary
| policy goal, LEED certification may not be the most effective
| means to reach that goal.
| andrewla wrote:
| It is interesting that this is surfacing just as another similar
| scam is making the rounds[1], Well [2]. An older product,
| apparently, that has now been rebranded and updated to take
| advantage of fears around COVID. They purport to be a
| certifications company, like LEED, that can evaluate a business
| or building and determine if it meets certain arbitrary standards
| around being "safe" in the health sense.
|
| If they can get an insurance company to give a break on liability
| insurance based on the certification, then they're ready to make
| bank off of companies looking to attract customers in the wake of
| COVID.
|
| [1] https://twitter.com/WELLcertified/status/1353757841459449857
|
| [1] https://wellhealthsafety.com/
| mistrial9 wrote:
| I did a small project for one of the founders of the LEED
| standard. I am in favor of the project and lacking details right
| this minute so I won't argue its merits BUT I can say that ...
| building specs are super useful, at the right time. Changes to a
| building can be very difficult, time-consuming and expensive,
| amidst a business model in West that emphasizes short-term money
| flow constantly. It is hugely difficult to get building owners
| and their insurance companies, to agree to anything. So this
| fellow who happens to strongly identify with Stanford University,
| was a basket case of nerves and ego, with expensive office suite
| and lots of helpers who appear nervous. I myself laid out a
| technical argument for a proposed software design, and less than
| ten minutes in to it, it was clear that the guy was not
| listening, and then interrupted me to start basically having a
| fit about different project pressures.
|
| My impression after the whole, small project was over was that
| this is a person who lives in a world of wealth and status, and
| has to interact with others like that, who do not get along, or
| are constantly "jousting" .. I believe this fellow means well in
| the largest ways, but really the feeling overall was more like
| some kind of Arab Sheik than tech business.. I want LEED and
| things like it to succeed. I think this is a terribly hard thing
| to get going in reality. I feel this guy had too much pressure
| and was sort of losing it in a way ..
| peytn wrote:
| Normal people worry about having a good job and saving for
| retirement. People in that world worry about things like UN
| Sustainable Development Goals. It's a weird status thing they
| do, and I'm not sure we're better off for it. I guess it beats
| the castle-building days of yore.
| throw0101a wrote:
| RESNET's Certified Home Energy Rating System may be a better
| system, though I don't think it applies to commercial buildings:
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_energy_rating
| macinjosh wrote:
| I once lived in a LEED certified apartment complex.
| Unfortunately, I do not recall the specifics of their
| certification. My hot water would never get hot enough. I
| realized the hot water heater had a device on it to limit how
| often heating occurred. I promptly disabled it and had normal hot
| water again.
|
| One of the other "green" aspects of the complex was that it only
| had compact car parking. However, the area I live in is
| rural/suburban and a very large portion of renters here work in
| the shale oil fields of the area. These workers drive trucks. Big
| trucks. The parking lot was always cramped mess. I often pondered
| the irony there and also how much more carbon was emitted by the
| body shops fixing all the dented doors.
| ishjoh wrote:
| > One of the other "green" aspects of the complex was that it
| only had compact car parking.
|
| I think this is one of the things that as I get older gets more
| and more grating. This 'nudge' is supposed to encourage you to
| use and buy a smaller car, but instead of you as an individual
| selecting the car most suited for your needs they've decided
| that only compact cars should be driven. So now if you have a
| big family (which in today's age is only 3 kids), or you need
| your vehicle for work (hi work trucks), or a host of other
| reasons to have a bigger vehicle, they've intentionally made
| your life just a little bit worse, and they've done it
| intentionally.
| andys627 wrote:
| You're free to rent somewhere with larger parking spaces.
| dashundchen wrote:
| That may not have been for LEED, many areas in the US have
| anti-scalding regulations for buildings or landlords/operators
| - typically not to exceed 120F at the tap. May have been set
| low depending on how many taps, distance between the different
| taps etc.
| macinjosh wrote:
| Interesting. The water never got warmer than about 100-105
| with the device on. Perhaps it was defective.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > My hot water would never get hot enough. I realized the hot
| water heater had a device on it to limit how often heating
| occurred.
|
| My tankless water heater has a temperature limit (120
| Fahrenheit), but it's to prevent children from getting scalded.
| orzig wrote:
| Summary: Operational energy efficiency is one of several goals of
| LEED, and in practice it's not high priority enough to be
| (statistically significantly) improved, in the sample of
| buildings they have data on, in the time period they took the
| data.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| The usual caveat: Any headline that ends with a question mark
| should be answered with "No"; which is pretty much exactly what
| the summary says:
|
| _> If energy efficiency is the primary policy goal, LEED
| certification may not be the most effective means to reach that
| goal._
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-04-02 23:01 UTC)