Date published: 
Monday, June 2, 2014
Year: 
2014
Volume: 
23
Issue: 
6

Can Concrete Save Us? Locking Up Carbon in Building Materials

Feature Article

Can Concrete Save Us? Locking Up Carbon in Building Materials

Concrete is responsible for a huge proportion of global carbon dioxide emissions. A few companies want to reverse this cycle by sequestering carbon in building materials.

Driving down California’s Coastal Route 1 from Santa Cruz to Monterey, you might notice a couple of massive 500-foot smokestacks venting flue gases from one of California’s largest power plants, Dynergy’s Moss Landing Power Plant. This 2,500-megawatt (MW) facility emits 2.3 million tons (2.1 metric tons) of carbon dioxide annually, according to the California Air Resources Board—making it one of California’s largest contributors to global climate change.

Yet hidden in this complex are several research projects attempting to figure out whether carbon dioxide can be economically recovered from the flue gases of power plants and sequestered into concrete or other mineral products that could be used in the built environment. Similar projects are under way in Texas, Colorado, Canada, the United Kingdom, and elsewhere.

If it works as proponents—and researchers around the world—are proposing, one day in the not-too-distant future, the concrete we use by the billions of tons per year might provide a strategy for slowing climate change. That would be quite a switch: concrete is the most widely used construction material in the world today and, with its portland cement content, is one of our largest emitters of carbon dioxide.

Published June 1, 2014

(2014, June 1). Can Concrete Save Us? Locking Up Carbon in Building Materials. Retrieved from https://www.buildinggreen.com/ebn/june-2014

Tests Verify Airtightness of Spray-Foam Alternatives

Product Review

Tests Verify Airtightness of Spray-Foam Alternatives

With attention to installation quality, Knauf’s EcoSeal and Owens Corning’s EnergyComplete demonstrate that they can create air barriers and reduce use of SPF.

Two products—EcoSeal from Knauf and EnergyComplete from Owens Corning—have been on the market for several years as spray-applied latex sealants for making building envelopes airtight during new construction (see Spray-Applied Latex: A New Tool for Air-Sealing). Until recently, however, we haven’t had solid data on exactly how well they work—a key consideration, especially for projects that want to use them to reduce or eliminate use of spray polyurethane foam (SPF) and its health and climate impacts.

Published December 31, 1969

(2014, June 1). Tests Verify Airtightness of Spray-Foam Alternatives . Retrieved from https://www.buildinggreen.com/ebn/june-2014

Three Steps To Make Green Globes Part of the Solution

Op-Ed

Three Steps To Make Green Globes Part of the Solution

An entry-level alternative pushing LEED to get better would be great, but GBI’s Green Globes needs to start by joining the green building community.

TurboTax gets audited. Now, so does Green Globes.

The green building rating system run by the Green Building Initiative (GBI), would-be rival to the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) and its LEED rating system, has been likened to the popular income tax software because it takes a complex problem and breaks it down into a user-friendly online questionnaire.

And just as someone needs to check that TurboTax actually reflects the U.S. tax code, we at BuildingGreen felt that it was time to take a deep look at Green Globes to see how well it reflects the needs and values of the green building community.

The result? By nearly every measure, Green Globes and GBI come up lacking. We’ve uncovered the details of our audit in an on-demand webcast (coming soon). Green Globes is one or more steps behind LEED in technical rigor, its process is less likely to push projects to new heights, and, organizationally, GBI is allied with the timber and chemical industries, which spend millions each year in Washington lobbying for anti-LEED policies.

In a side-by-side comparison of LEED and Green Globes, we found a few wins for Green Globes: project teams consider its process more friendly, its lack of prerequisites means it has a lower barrier for entry, and, although its registration and certification fees are higher than LEED’s, its easier process is likely to save projects time, resulting in net cost savings.

But let’s be clear: Green Globes is not an alternative to LEED. The Living Building Challenge is an alternative to LEED. Energy Star is an alternative to LEED. These programs offer unique advantages that speak for themselves, and they help spread triple-bottom-line values to more projects. They spur competition and innovation in the green building space, ultimately making the green building tent bigger. The backers of Green Globes, in contrast, appear more interested in tearing the whole tent down.

Even with Jerry Yudelson, a LEED Fellow, at its helm, GBI has so far chosen to saw away at the tent poles.

First, there was the honeymoon in the green building media, where Yudelson seemed more intent on getting in digs at LEED than in making a strong case for why designers, builders, facility managers, and owners should consider Green Globes. His line that Green Globes is “better, faster, and cheaper” than LEED sounded good until we actually asked him about it, and he admitted it was an overreach.

Yudelson says he doesn’t want to say anything negative about LEED, but in likening LEED rules to “fatwahs” and “holy writ,” he seems to enjoy insulting not only USGBC but also major religions.

Yudelson and GBI had some great opportunities recently to stand up for accountability and fair competition in the green building space—and they passed them up.

A recent resolution in Ohio has raised the potential—in unusually specific language, even by the bizarre standards of anti-LEED legislation—of banning LEED v4 from public projects in that state. As documented by EBN, the Ohio bill is laden with language pulled from GBI and American Chemistry Council talking points—that it doesn’t follow consensus-based development standards and that its approach to material safety would hamper industry and green building development.

Would Yudelson step forward and criticize legislation that would artificially limit the very kind of competition in the green building industry that he says Green Globes stands for?

No. In a written statement to EBN, Yudelson apparently created a “policy” on the spot that GBI doesn’t “comment on legislation, actual or pending, or on existing laws.” Strangely, his logic was that GBI is not a “lobbying organization.” Yudelson knows that lobbying has a specific legal definition in this country; he virtually quoted it to EBN when we asked him if GBI engaged in political influence. A public figure like Yudelson is perfectly capable of publicly stating an opinion on a political process without engaging in lobbying.

Given another opportunity to distance himself from LEED’s attackers, Yudelson sided with them again when Treehugger exposed the “LEED Exposed” website as the work of professional smear artists. Asked via Twitter by Treehugger’s Lloyd Alter to comment, Yudelson replied, “Why is it a ‘smear’ to ask that LEED bldgs perform?”

Yudelson’s attitude would be amusing if it weren’t so insidious. Of course LEED buildings should perform, and USGBC should share more data on how they’re doing. We’ve written as much. But to imply that the LEED Exposed website—which includes a Green Globes pitch—is a credible critique of LEED is unscientific and unethical. Even John Scofield, the Oberlin physics professor who regularly publishes studies criticizing LEED for falling short on energy performance, objected to the LEED Exposed lies. He looked at the same data behind the LEED Exposed claim (now being repeated in op-eds in major news outlets) that LEED buildings in D.C. perform worse than average buildings and found through his own analysis that LEED office buildings are using 16% less source energy than other office buildings in D.C. Scofield wasn’t too impressed with that figure, but he didn’t let the lie stand.

Why would Yudelson?

Green Globes was introduced in the U.S. by a timber-industry lobbyist specifically to undermine LEED. As Yudelson noted in a January 2014 interview with EBN, “Clearly there was a history of wanting another form of wood certification. I’m not going to look at the history and say it wasn’t what it was.” In the same interview, he promised things would be different under his leadership: “It’s a new beginning; we pushed the reset button.” Yudelson’s subsequent Nero impression demonstrates that nothing has changed—that Green Globes and GBI are more intent on tearing down LEED than on joining the green building community that millions have worked to build.

To join that community, GBI needs to do three things:

  1. Run a software update. If Green Globes were an operating system, it would be Windows 95. Giving full credit for using Target Finder for energy points, with prescriptive credits for envelope and equipment improvements on top of that, is just odd. Green Globes is unconscionably behind on VOC emissions standards, and its daylighting credit references a rule-of-thumb metric that the best designers abandoned years ago. Green Globes should at least meet baseline green building expectations in terms of relevance, rigor, and credit weightings.
  2. Be yourself. Green Globes says nothing about avoidance of toxic chemicals and is generally weak on human health concerns. If Green Globes wants to continue to be industry-friendly and stay on the sidelines with some issues—fair enough. The market will decide what it wants. But don’t pretend to be the same as LEED, as Yudelson recently did when he said that LEED and Green Globes were “basically the same” in a ClimateWire article titled “Enviro groups slam building standard initiative.”
  3. Be a better influence. By looking the other way while his allies in the forestry, chemical, and vinyl industries tell lies about one of the most respected, most rigorous, and most grassroots-driven green building standards on Earth, Yudelson is acting like a pawn broker who receives stolen goods with a shrug. Even if they don’t dirty their hands with direct lobbying and public smearing, GBI and Yudelson are complicit if they do nothing to stop them. LEED is under attack from powerful interests—the same interests that have invested millions in supporting GBI and Green Globes. Many of these groups exist primarily for the purpose of blocking environmental regulations. Yudelson as well as GBI staff, board members, and other Green Globes associates should let their friends know that attacking LEED—not to the benefit of future generations, but just to take LEED down—is out of bounds. The stakes for the planet are too high.

That’s where you—the green building community at large—come in. GBI wants your business. Don’t give it to them until it has met these conditions. If your client asks you about Green Globes, give them all the information and suggest a credible system—LEED, Energy Star, Enterprise Green Communities, the Living Building Challenge, Passive House, or, if you’re outside the U.S., a system used in that region, like BREEAM or GSAS.

Cheaper plaques delivered more quickly at the expense of quality and integrity are not what the industry needs. We need better buildings, and that starts with true alternatives, honest information, and constructive dialogue.

Disclosure: BuildingGreen has worked closely with both USGBC and LEED over the past two decades. Several BuildingGreen employees are accredited LEED professionals, and BuildingGreen is a member of USGBC. BuildingGreen is a USGBC Education Partner, and USGBC and BuildingGreen have an ongoing contract supporting our LEEDuser website, which EBN editors have also worked on.

One BuildingGreen employee is an accredited Green Globes Professional (GGP), and two have applied to join the Green Globes consensus body.

Published December 31, 1969

(2014, June 1). Three Steps To Make Green Globes Part of the Solution. Retrieved from https://www.buildinggreen.com/ebn/june-2014

Add new comment

To post a comment, you need to register for a BuildingGreen Basic membership (free) or login to your existing profile.

Cost Premium of Net-Zero Not Far from LEED Platinum

News Analysis

Cost Premium of Net-Zero Not Far from LEED Platinum

Finding cost premiums as little as 5% over LEED Platinum, a new report highlights how D.C. can incentivize net-zero and Living buildings.

A recent analysis suggests making the jump from LEED Platinum to net-zero energy costs less than one might think, requiring just a 5%–10% first cost premium for a new commercial building. The study also evaluated premiums associated with net-zero water and Living Building Challenge certification and recommended policy changes that could make these standards more achievable.

Reaching for higher levels of performance

Tasked with investigating how to improve building performance in the District of Columbia, which already leads the nation in the number of LEED buildings per capita, researchers from Skanska, the New Buildings Institute, and the International Living Future Institute conceptually transformed three LEED 2009 Platinum buildings in Washington, D.C., to net-zero-energy, net-zero-water, and Living Building Challenge certification. The results show that even in buildings designed to achieve LEED’s highest rating, there is room to cut predicted energy use intensity (EUI) and water use dramatically. For example, applying added energy conservation strategies—such as ground-source heat recovery, plug load circuit separation, and adding insulation to the roof—reduced the modeled EUI of a LEED Platinum renovated office building from 67 to 31, according to the report.  

Published December 31, 1969

(2014, June 1). Cost Premium of Net-Zero Not Far from LEED Platinum. Retrieved from https://www.buildinggreen.com/ebn/june-2014

Code Becoming Friendlier to Kitchen Heat Recovery

News Brief

Code Becoming Friendlier to Kitchen Heat Recovery

Building codes restrict the use of many heat-recovery technologies from commercial kitchens due to fire risk, but recent code updates should make it easier to specify Halton’s Heat Recovery Unit.

Even though ASHRAE 90.1 requires heat recovery for exhaust exceeding 5,000 cubic feet per minute (cfm), commercial kitchen ventilation is exempt from these requirements due to fire risk from accumulated grease. International Mechanical Code (IMC) 514 also prohibited heat and energy recovery in commercial kitchens, but the International Code Council is getting set to change that with an amendment to the 2015 version of IMC section 514.

Commercial kitchens are among the most energy-intensive commercial spaces—with high-volume ventilation systems that operate constantly for long shifts to remove heat and fumes from open flames, ovens, deep fryers, and other equipment. Capturing the staggering amount of lost energy to heat make-up air and domestic hot water could be valuable if the fire hazard can be managed.

Jeff Martin, the developer of Halton’s Heat Recovery Unit (a 2010 BuildingGreen Top 10 product; see Recovering Heat from Commercial Kitchen Exhaust), argues that his closed-loop system, which removes grease from the exhaust before it can become a problem, should not fall under the same code rules as standard energy-recovery ventilation. Officials agreed, and IMC section 514 will allow use of the company’s system when the amendments become official sometime before 2015.

Published December 31, 1969

(2014, June 1). Code Becoming Friendlier to Kitchen Heat Recovery . Retrieved from https://www.buildinggreen.com/ebn/june-2014

Add new comment

To post a comment, you need to register for a BuildingGreen Basic membership (free) or login to your existing profile.

Researchers Link Miscarriage Risk to BPA Exposure

News Brief

Researchers Link Miscarriage Risk to BPA Exposure

A new study adds evidence that bisphenol-A may affect human reproduction.

In a recent study conducted at a Stanford University fertility clinic, women with high levels of bisphenol-A (BPA) in their blood had an 83% greater risk of miscarriage than women with the lowest levels. Although further research is needed to tell whether the correlation extends beyond those already at high risk for reproductive issues, the study’s authors say women suffering from recurrent miscarriages “would best be advised to reduce BPA exposure because it has the potential to adversely affect fetal development.”

The findings of the study, which was published in the journal Fertility and Sterility, were based on blood tests administered to 115 women early in their pregnancies. The women were divided into four groups based on their BPA levels; the group with the highest levels had an 83% higher risk of miscarriage than the group with the lowest levels, and those in the second and third groups had an increased risk of 30% and 58%.

In a prepared statement, Kathryn St. John, a spokesperson for the American Chemistry Council, argued that one or two blood-level readings are too few to draw conclusions because BPA levels can go up or down based on exposure. “This study has the same flaw as other studies that attempt to measure BPA in blood at a single point in time and statistically associate that limited data with a health effect—in this case, miscarriage.”

Although other studies have also suggested that BPA poses health risks as an endocrine disruptor (see Fears Grow with Polycarbonate Chemical Bisphenol-A), a U.S. Food and Drug Administration study released earlier this year found BPA did not affect the health of rats fed low doses—though that study was criticized because BPA was also discovered in rats that were in the control group.

Published December 31, 1969

(2014, June 1). Researchers Link Miscarriage Risk to BPA Exposure. Retrieved from https://www.buildinggreen.com/ebn/june-2014

Add new comment

To post a comment, you need to register for a BuildingGreen Basic membership (free) or login to your existing profile.

U.S. Maps Untapped Hydropower Potential

News Brief

U.S. Maps Untapped Hydropower Potential

The U.S. could double its hydropower production, according to a recent DOE study.   

All of the nation’s rivers and streams have now been evaluated for their hydropower potential as a part of the New Stream-reach Development Resource Assessment (NSD). This data, released by the U.S. Department of Energy, is meant to help developers identify areas of high generating capability and avoid those with environmental conflicts.

Untapped hydropower capacity totals 65 gigawatts in the U.S. if you discount federally protected areas like the Grand Canyon, according to the assessment. Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington have the highest potential, each with at least 3,300 megawatts of untapped potential. Although a DOE statement says the assessment “demonstrates one of the ways the United States can further diversify its energy portfolio” and advertises that a full build-out could nearly double hydropower’s 7% share of total U.S. electricity production, the study emphasizes the importance of the environmental attributes compiled alongside the energy-density data. In theory, this stream-specific information, which includes critical habitat, landscape disturbance, and water quality, will help energy developers avoid ecologically sensitive areas.

Datasets by region can be downloaded from the National Hydropower Asset Assessment Program website.

Published December 31, 1969

(2014, June 1). U.S. Maps Untapped Hydropower Potential . Retrieved from https://www.buildinggreen.com/ebn/june-2014

Add new comment

To post a comment, you need to register for a BuildingGreen Basic membership (free) or login to your existing profile.

County-Wide Energy Reporting Law Passed in Maryland

News Brief

County-Wide Energy Reporting Law Passed in Maryland

In a first for the U.S., Montgomery County in Maryland has enacted a mandatory benchmarking law with third-party data verification.

Montgomery County, Maryland, recently became the first county in the U.S. to require energy benchmarking for large nonresidential buildings. Following in the footsteps of nine major cities, the county’s new law makes annual energy tracking and disclosure mandatory for both public and private commercial buildings (for background, see Energy Reporting: It’s the Law).      

The law takes effect in stages, with County-owned buildings facing a reporting deadline of June 1, 2015, and all privately owned nonresidential buildings over 50,000 ft2 reporting by December 2017. The results will then be made available to the public. In other states, similar benchmarking laws have successfully encouraged building owners to invest in efficiency measures (see NYC Buildings Gain Three Energy Star Points in Year Two). Hoping to spur this kind of investment, the county also instituted a commercial PACE program, which allows energy investments to be paid back along with tax bills for the property.

The energy tracking can be performed using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s free Portfolio Manager tool, but a licensed professional must also verify the data for the first submission and every three years thereafter. Montgomery County is only the second jurisdiction to require this verification provision, behind Chicago—signaling that “these jurisdictions are taking data quality seriously,” according to Amanda Hurley of the Institute for Market Transformation.

Published December 31, 1969

(2014, June 1). County-Wide Energy Reporting Law Passed in Maryland. Retrieved from https://www.buildinggreen.com/ebn/june-2014

Add new comment

To post a comment, you need to register for a BuildingGreen Basic membership (free) or login to your existing profile.

Feds Complete First National Wetlands Inventory

News Brief

Feds Complete First National Wetlands Inventory

The “wetlands mapper” is now available for more accurate site assessments that include the size and value of wetland areas.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) recently completed a 35-year effort to map the extent of the nation’s wetlands and make the data available to the public.

Researchers created the maps by using high-altitude images to identify the location of wetlands based on vegetation, visible hydrology, and geography. Data is available for the conterminous 48 States, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, the major Northern Mariana Islands, and much of Alaska. Information about wetland types, vegetation, regional and temporal conditions, and geographic features are available in a “historic map document” available by geographic region.

The new data may facilitate more accurate site analysis by identifying the most sensitive areas to preserve and helping architects and planners evaluate the ecological services that specific wetlands provide. Despite growing awareness and more legislation protecting wetlands, the reported average annual rate of coastal wetland loss was 80,160 acres between 2004 and 2009 (see Coastal Wetlands Disappearing Faster Than Before).

“The completion of this wetland dataset marks a significant milestone in national efforts to conserve wetlands in the United States,” stated Gary Frazer, assistant director for ecological services at FWS, in a press release. “This online mapper is a key tool in the ever-more-challenging quest to maintain the health of our wetland habitats and the biodiversity they sustain.”

Published December 31, 1969

(2014, June 1). Feds Complete First National Wetlands Inventory . Retrieved from https://www.buildinggreen.com/ebn/june-2014

Add new comment

To post a comment, you need to register for a BuildingGreen Basic membership (free) or login to your existing profile.

Companies Slow to Act as Water Issues Erode Profits

News Brief

Companies Slow to Act as Water Issues Erode Profits

A survey found 60% of U.S. companies expect water issues such as extreme weather to hurt their business, but few plan to invest more in risk management.

A recently published survey by the Pacific Institute and VOX Global finds that, although many companies report currently facing water challenges and expect these issues to begin negatively impacting their bottom lines, few have developed plans to deal with future water risks.

Researchers distributed an online survey to businesses across the U.S. spanning different industry sectors. Of 51 that responded, including several Fortune 500 corporations, 79% reported currently facing water challenges, and 84% expect they will in the next five years. 60% expect water-related issues will negatively impact their businesses moving forward—a response that has tripled from five years ago. The majority of these companies recognize a broad range of water risks that could impact their businesses, from supply issues that could affect profitability to reputational risks that could affect their ability to market products (if the media uncovered a water pollution scandal, for example). Nearly 80% of respondents said water issues will affect where they locate facilities in the future, referencing both water scarcity and vulnerability to extreme weather as prominent considerations.

Despite the growing awareness, according to the report, there exists a large gap between concern and action. Nearly 70% of responding companies said their current level of investment in water management is sufficient. The authors suggest this is because companies need more time to raise awareness, and mitigating other risks is currently a higher priority. However, the report concludes that water is no longer a peripheral concern, and companies would do best to consider it an essential part of business strategy.

A 2011 report from the Natural Resources Defense Council examined municipalities’ water-related vulnerability, finding a similar lack of preparedness among city governments (see Warm Globally, Flood Locally: Water Crises Loom for U.S. Cities).

Published December 31, 1969

(2014, June 1). Companies Slow to Act as Water Issues Erode Profits . Retrieved from https://www.buildinggreen.com/ebn/june-2014

Add new comment

To post a comment, you need to register for a BuildingGreen Basic membership (free) or login to your existing profile.