Subscribe

our site status:

This week we'll get caught up on a few posts we've had in the queue for a while which focus on recent tours. Also, we updated the speaking page to include selected embedded slide shows from the past three years. We'll eventually be adding audio to each. Thanks for visiting.

our transition template:

We've created a template that defines our thoughts for a path from industrial age to sustainable age. During February we'll start discussing issues related to Energy Conservation. Click any of the boxes below to read more:

our topics:

join our site:

We just added this feature. Please become a member of our blog so we can begin to build a community around the idea of sustainable age design.

our social media sites:

Check out what we we're doing elsewhere on the web.

our schedule:

We're regularly attending conferences and events around the country, or speaking at them. Here's where we'll be in the next thirty days:


1/20/10: Kevin and Aleida will visit with John Stein, founder of Kirei USA.


1/20/10: Kevin will give a presentation about developing sustainable building material evaluation criteria at an event sponsored by the USGBC San Diego Chapter.


1/22 - 24/10: Kevin and Aleida will attend the second Go Green Expo in Los Angeles.


1/26/10: Kevin and Aleida will attend the LA screening of the PBS film Garbage Dreams.


1/27/10: Kevin will interview Carol Baumgartel, founder of American Clay at a LEED Platinum house in Venice CA.


1/28/10: Kevin will give a presentation about the state of sustainable building materials as part of a Green Building Summit webinar hosted by BrightTALK.


1/28/10: The class presents the first of three profile projects - this time, materials & resources.


2/3/10: Kevin and Aleida will attend a screening of the movie Garbage - a Burbank Green Alliance event at Woodbury University.


2/20/10 @ 11 AM PST: Kevin will again join hosts Rhonda and Johnnie for his monthly appearance on the Good Green Witch show on LA Talk Radio to discuss bottled water.


2/26/10: Kevin will present a session titled Water Wars at the second annual MiaGreen conference in Miami FL.

UCLAx class 5

InterfaceFLOR LA showroom

Our fifth class was a field trip into downtown Los Angeles to visit the new showroom of InterfaceFLOR. Having seen company founder Ray C. Anderson speak just a few weeks before (posted here), we were treated to a tour and presentation or their efforts to reduce waste from every system. We did a soft start with food and drinks, donated by Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market, and casual conversation. Our gracious hosts, Kim and Abby, gave the students a tour of the ground level showroom, demonstrated how some their carpet tile systems work, and outlined some the green design features of their  USGBC LEED certified building. Their unit was designed as a live/work configuration, so the upper level is set up like a loft apartment that functions well for a group of our size. Abby led the tour and Kim gave the students a fairly in-depth presentation of InterfaceFLOR strategies for waste reduction.

The company’s efforts fall into three categories – modularity, product design, and conversion. Although not the initial reason for designing or producing carpet tile, an excellent byproduct of modularity is reduced waste. The average broadloom carpet (sheet carpet manufactured in 12’ wide rolls) produces 13-14% trim waste. Carpet tile, on the other hand, produces only 1-4% trim waste. So for every building where sheet carpet has been installed, an additional 13-14% of materials has to be manufactured, purchased, and then disposed of. And it’s typically the disposal that’s the real environmental problem. Composed almost exclusively of petroleum derived products, made to be durable and long lasting,  and made to be chemically inert, that waste often goes to  a landfill where it may stay for thousands of years. Actually, no one is absolutely certain how long it will last, and some estimate that it could be more than 10,000 years. Carpet tile, because of its modularity can fit more unusual floor plans and configurations to minimize waste.

All InterfaceFLOR tiles have nylon fiber face material and a VCT backer. They don’t produce their own nylon, but work with their suppliers to ensure the product meets their agenda for reaching zero impact by 2020. Although the backer is made from essentially the same formulation they’ve used for years, there’s good reason for that. I’ve written many times about my own concerns with vinyl and how I’m working to rid it from any project I design, but InterfaceFLOR, after a great deal of internal debate, decided it would be better to keep the existing backer design and devise a way to recover and reuse the millions of tiles already in existence as food, or raw material, for new tile production. By maintaining the same backing material, which meets many durability requirements, they can divert existing PVC away from landfills where it will certainly do more harm. If done right, InterfaceFLOR can use this scheme to create a virtually limitless supply of raw material by tapping into the existing stock already being used. They have continued to use what would normally be considered environmentally unfavorable materials, but are doing so in order to take responsibility for product they’ve already created after decades of production and which needs to be dealt with to minimize environmental impact.

138297258146487240

Another way they’ve attempted to reduce waste occurs with the pattern and color design of their products. They’ve launched a new approach called I2 which looks to nature for inspiration. They realize that one potential problem with carpet tile is matching one tile to another. This is especially true if you have to replace a tile due to staining or damage or wear. When doing that, you typically have to be concerned with pattern and color match. The new approach creates colors and patterns where no two tiles are the same. They look similar, but are not the same. When put together they create a unidirectional pattern not dependent on adjacent tile alignment. It doesn’t matter what order or configuration tiles are installed. This also relates into the issue raised above regarding trim. Since no two tiles are the same, trim from one tile can easily be used elsewhere without fearing pattern or color discontinuity.

To close the loop, the ultimate way to reduce waste, InterfaceFLOR case created a program called ReEntry 2.0. They now have the ability to take any carpet, from any manufacturer, tile or broadloom, separate face material from backing, and convert it into new face fiber and backing. With this system, at the end of its typically short life span, carpet can be reprocessed as food for new carpet. Combine these three core strategies plus dozens more and InterfaceFLOR is far ahead of any manufacturer of similar size. It was a good discussion and presentation that gave us a lot to think about for upcoming classes.

We then took a break and finished three profile presentations we missed the previous week. This time students presented about bottled water, coir (coconut husk fiber), and manganese. All three were informative. I hope to offer all the student shows as downloads or viewable slide shows in the coming weeks. We all learned about interesting materials and their backgrounds.

Next week we’ll continue our conversation of waste reduction strategies and start looking at ways to preserve natural resources. Come back for more.

the garbage revolution

garbagerevolution

Image from Garbage Revolution web site

For some reason, the past two weeks have been filled with garbage. Well, garbage or waste related issues. Last week Aleida and I attended a screening of the movie Garbage Dreams, then another screening for the movie Garbage! The Revolution Starts at Home, and my UCLA class focused on waste reduction. My review post for Garbage Dreams was the most visited in that two-week period, and several other blog and web sites have asked to repost it. One is a site I recently discovered called Green Building Pro. I think in the next few weeks they’ll also be doing series of waste related posts.

This past Wednesday, we attended the inaugural Environmental Film Series hosted by the Burbank Green Alliance. Each month the group will host a movie focusing on an environmental issue. This month’s movie was Garbage! The event was co-sponsored by Eco Diva TV and was followed by a lively discussion with Kreigh Hampel, Burbank Recycling Coordinator, and Ferris Kawar, Burbank Recycling Specialist.

The movie was shot in Canada and follows an average family as they agree to hold all their garbage for a three-month period. During that period, the film branches off to cover related issues such as water, transportation, energy, toxins, and others. Although I think they’re valuable ones to cover, they were too tangential and didn’t connect well to the key theme – garbage. As an example, one scene opens with an exterior shot of the family’s home during the holiday season and their house is decorated with lights. The director traces their electricity to a local power plant that gets coal from West Virginia. Quite a bit of time is spent interviewing locals from a small mining town in West Virginia. They talk about the hazards of coal mining, the effects of mountain top removal, the impact on ground water quality, the amount of air pollution in the region, and their efforts to change mining company behavior. It was all good information about a subject that most of us are oblivious to, it was entertaining, and completely compelling, but what did it have to do with the bags of garbage collecting in the garage? I couldn’t figure out the direct link.

Another section of the movie presents issues related to transportation and how pollutants from cars end up in waterways through runoff from roads. In what seemed to be only a symbolic gesture, the director takes his old Jeep to a recycling center. I was excited to see how this would work, but all they did was drain the fluid and crush the car, and stack it among hundreds of others. The recycling center operator said they would eventually shred the vehicle and separate the various materials. And that’s what I wanted to see. It was a serious letdown and terribly anticlimactic. In the end, it didn’t really contribute to the story line and seemed like it was included only to fill air time. There was a little time dedicated to a municipal waste recycling center, but hardly enough to tell a comprehensive story of recycling issues.

Landfill_compactor

One part that was fascinating and horrifying related to tracking Toronto’s export of trash to a landfill in Michigan, one of the largest in the nation. It wasn’t covered in the film, but few know that the largest export from Canada to the U.S. by volume is garbage. Dump fees in Canada tend to be higher making it an easy economic decision for many companies. It’s far less expensive to ship their waste across the border. Toronto, where the film was set, is a city of 4 million. That’s roughly the size of Chicago. The city not only sends its garbage to Michigan, but also its raw human sewage.

Within the U.S., several states are net exporters and others are net importers of garbage. Even though your first reaction might be revulsion that one state may import garbage from others, or other countries, it’s becoming big business. States that import the most waste are Pennsylvania (by a margin of nearly 2 to 1), Illinois, Virginia, Michigan, and Ohio. States that export the most waste are New York (by a margin nearly 3 to 1), New Jersey, Missouri, Maryland, and Massachusetts. Garbage is becoming a valuable commodity.

Where I felt the movie was a real let down was in presentation and style. It seemed like the director was going for a home-made amateur look, but took it too far. It was too rough and difficult to watch. Some of the graphics were appallingly bad. But the real disappointment was how the family involved didn’t seem to learn anything from the experience. And in the end, I’m not sure the audience does either. After three months the family collected 83 bags of dry waste and recycling. They separated dry waste from recycling but didn’t show a count for each individually. They also generated 320 pounds of wet waste. In Toronto that’s food scraps and other compostable material processed as green waste. But no conclusions were drawn and I left with a bit more knowledge but no suggestions for actions to take if I want to reduce my own waste production.

Although flawed, this film does present some important issues to ponder and ones that will likely become more critical in the future if we change nothing in our wasteful behavior. I agree with the tag-line that the revolution begins at home, but this film provides little to consider for what we can do at home to kick start that revolution. Have you seen the film? Let us know what you think.

BrightTALK Green Building – Review 3

session 6

Image from BrightTALK web site

This post will review BrightTALK Green Building Summit sessions six and seven. Yes, I’m skipping session 5, primarily because Kevin presented it. If you would like to see it, please go here. We’d love to hear your feedback.

The sixth webcast in the series was presented by Ralph DiNola, Principal at Green Building Services, Inc. and it was titled LEED 2009: Advanced Project and Professional Performance. He focus specifically on reviewing LEED v. 3 and on the future of accreditation and certification. For the rating system itself, here are some things practitioners can expect to see:

  • a harmonization of the point system: all the rating systems will have the same 0-100 point scale with the possibility for 10 bonus points, and will be broken down like this:
    • Certified – minimum of 40 points
    • Silver – minimum of 50 points
    • Gold – minimum of 60 points
    • Platinum – minimum of 80 points
  • a credit alignment endeavor that will result in fewer reference guides
  • a weighting of relative impacts, where the number one concern is climate change followed by issues such as resource depletion, human health impacts, eutrophication, smog formation, and acidification.

He reminded listeners that LEED accreditation and certification are handled by the Green Building Certification Institute and that, going forward, there will be a sort of caste system for accredited professional and that these individuals will face credential maintenance requirements.

The accreditation breakdown looks like this:

  • LEED Green Associate: this is the entry level
  • LEED AP: this designation will now identify individuals who enrolled in and tested for a specialty, either Building Design + Construction (BD+C), Interior Design + Construction (ID+C), Operations + Maintenance (O+M), Homes, and Neighborhood Development (ND).
  • LEED Fellow: this is essentially the elite class of accredited professionals. The application process for this one is still under development, but it will be used to designate individuals who, for example, actually contribute to the standards of practice.

For LEED APs to hold on to their accreditation, they will be required to accrue 30 hours of continuing education (CE) and six hours of LEED-specific CE within a two-year reporting period. There are various ways in which individuals can log in these hours, but, at a minimum, it seems reasonable to expect that the annual Greenbuild International Conference and Expo will begin assigning CE values to their sessions. Anyone attending the conference will likely be able to meet these requirements without much trouble.

session 7

Image from BrightTALK web site

The final webcast of the day came from Barry Hooper with the San Francisco Department of the Environment, and titled Greening the Built Environment in San Francisco. He started off by saying that the city is really leading by example. It is encouraging and helping its staff to become LEED accredited professionals. To date, it has over 135 LEED APs across more than twelve city departments, and as of January 1, 2010 there were 16.9 million square feet of LEED certified space. Recreation centers, transit terminals, museums, hospitals, libraries and offices have to be LEED Silver certified, at a minimum.

The city has also mandated that all new and existing facilities must receive services for waste, recycling, and composting. Additionally, there is now mandatory recycling of construction demolition waste, and across the board water harvesting is being encouraged. City officials actually set up a priority permit incentive, where, instead of the typical 6 – 9 month permitting process, any project shooting for LEED Gold would be reviewed within one month. However, and unfortunately, the incentive wasn’t really used in 2009 due to the building industry bust.

In December 2009, Mayor Newsom’s Task Force on Existing Commercial Buildings issued recommendations for the city and county of San Francisco (read it here). It recommended the adoption of a voluntary goal to reduce total energy use in existing commercial buildings by 50% by the year 2030. In order to achieve that goal, the city will need to design effective energy efficiency policies, so it will be very interesting to see how the city tackles this impressive goal.

Hooper mentioned two cool sites to check out to learn more about what is happening in the city: the first is the Urban EcoMap which actually tracks greenhouse gas emissions by ZIP code in the city of San Francisco (and Amsterdam). Of the 25 SF ZIP codes, ten are already producing less emissions per household than the city’s goal. The second is the San Francisco Solar Map which identifies all the solar installations in the city and tracks their activity.

All in all, the Green Building Summit was a very educational single day event. Remember that all of these webinars were recorded and are available for viewing at any time here. And take a look at their programming for April 22, 2010. Four sessions dealing with green building topics are already on the schedule for that day.

BrightTALK Green Building – Review 2

session 3

Image from BrightTALK web site

The third session on the BrightTALK Green Building Summit line-up was Do Green Buildings Make Dollars and Sense? presented by Dave Pogue, National Director of Sustainability for CB Richard Ellis, Inc. Pogue presented the results of a nationwide study conducted over the last year which included 154 buildings, all ENERGY STAR rated at an average score of 83. The study sought responses from property managers, and approximately three thousand tenants, 800 of which actually participated. Also involved in the study were the information management team of CBRE and a research team at the University of San Diego. Just some key findings were: these green buildings don’t have lower operating expenses (because they are usually intensively managed, their expenditures are equivalent to non-green buildings)

  • on average, the buildings have higher occupancy than the market norm
  • on average, the buildings also have higher rental rates
  • from an operations perspective, buildings saw only a 0.8 – 1% energy savings… but
  • buildings that instituted separate metering for their tenants saw a 21% savings in energy costs
  • tenant respondents agreed that their employees are more productive and take fewer sick days

Interestingly, the study found no evidence that the tenants chose to have their offices in those buildings because of their green characteristics.

session 4

Image from BrightTALK web site

Then came the session Green Building Legal Issues on the Horizon, presented by Chris Cheatham with the legal firm Crowell & Moring. He basically said that, when it comes to constructing and operating green buildings, there are four things to learn:

  1. think twice before making guarantees about your green building projects
  2. guarantees of certification are risky
  3. insurance is hard to get
  4. energy efficiency is hard to control

First he addressed the issue of “LEEDitigation” with the example of Shaw Development v. Southern Building. Shaw, claiming a loss of $635,000 in tax credits when one of its condo projects failed to achieve LEED Silver Certification in a timely manner, sued the contractor, Southern Building, for negligence and breach of contract. The contract stipulated that the project had been “designed” to comply with LEED Silver requirements. We don’t really know what happened because the parties reached a settlement, but this exemplifies the dangers that can exist when contracts fail to be very specific. As a hypothetical, Cheatham wondered what the repercussions would have been if the contract had said that the project should be “constructed” to comply with LEED Silver, or even if it went further to say that the project “will” comply.

Then he went on a quick review of problematic regulatory schemes, citing a problem in Vancouver where the city mandated green roofs on new residential developments. These projects also had to obtain home-owners insurance. The problem arose when insurers refused to issue insurance to these buildings with green roofs. So the developers were in a catch 22: if they adhered to the city mandate and added a green roof, they wouldn’t be able to get insurance. And if they didn’t install a green roof in order to get insurance, they were violating the city mandate.

And there is the chance for even further room for litigation related specifically to LEED. The LEED 2009 Minimum Program Requirements make it possible for certifications to be revoked if a project fails to comply with those requirements. Property owners have to be especially careful if selling their buildings, because if they don’t  specify in the sale contract that the new owner must continue to report energy and water usage, etc., and the certification is revoked on the new owner due to this lapse of communication, the seller could be held responsible.

His presentation was followed by a lively Q+A period; it’s very worth checking out.

As a reminder, these webinars were recorded and are available for viewing at any time here.

BrightTALK Green Building – Review 1

session 1

Image from BrightTALK web site

The 2010 BrightTALK Green Building Summit on Thursday, January 28 was incredibly informative – hopefully the webcasts attracted a sufficiently large listenership. I joined all seven webinars and arrived at the end of the day with over a dozen pages of notes. While I will not post even a fourth of all those notes, I hope to give a few nuggets about each of the sessions. If my few points pique your interest, all of these webinars were recorded and are available for viewing at any time here.

Programming started bright and early with a presentation by Steven Jurovics titled Responding to Climate Change Imperative: Reducing Energy & Costs. Jurovics works for The Cadmus Group, Inc., an EPA contractor, and his session focused on the EPA’s ENERGY STAR rating for buildings which focuses on the energy performance of the built environment. Buildings that are submitted for evaluation are rated on a scale of 1 to 100, and those that score 75 or higher can actually receive EPA recognition under the rating system. The process, as described in the presentation, goes like this:

  • set an energy target during preliminary design;
  • once in the schematic design phase, identify the key energy performance of the building (using BIM or other tools) — and don’t move to design development until you know how to meet these targets;
  • once in design development, design the mechanical system to be “the right size” — not too large, not too small, but just perfect to meet the energy performance targets;
  • once the building is complete, and has been in operation for at least twelve months, you can then use the portfolio manager to analyze its energy performance — and if the score is 75 or higher, the building can then earn EPA recognition.

Since 2007, approximately seven billion square feet have been evaluated under the EPA’s ENERGY STAR system, and, to date, more than 200 projects have actually earned recognition. While I couldn’t tell how many listeners were in on this webcast, the questions at the end revealed that 62% of listeners already knew about EPA’s resources for improving the energy efficiency of buildings still under design, so it does appear to be gaining a little bit of traction.

session 2

Image from BrightTALK web site

Next in the series came the webcast titled Nanotechnology: Meeting the Green Building Challenge presented by George Elvin, the director of Green Technology Forum and associate professor of Ball State University. Nanotechnology is big business. Already, it has penetrated markets as diverse as sports, electronics, medicine, automotive, and, naturally, the building industry. Currently, nanotech is used in: solar; insulation; coatings; nanosensors; energy storage; materials; lighting; air and water filtration; low-emitting materials; chemical and pollutant control; controllability of systems; thermal comfort; energy performance; and measurement and verification. In the construction industry, nanotech was a sector of about $20 million in 2006, but is estimated to grow to $400 million in 2016. It is providing super light, super strong, super flexible, and super repellent products. For those products that will inevitably sustain damage, nanotech can make them self-cleaning and self-healing. Elvin gave the following as examples of what nanotech products are coming to market:

  • self-healing concrete
  • coatings that eliminate the need for heat curing
  • a plastic that, when burned, actually releases water vapor
  • photochromic glass which reacts based on light intensity and can reduce heat gain and glare
  • thermochromic glass which reacts based on temperature
  • electrochromic glass which, when a low-voltage current is applied to it, becomes opaque and is dim-able
  • OLED (organic light-emitting diodes) that can be integrated into thin flexible panels that can be transparent when turned off (leading to the possibility of windows acting as light sources at night)

A big unanswered question that Elvin did address is the potential negative impact of nanoparticles on human health. He mentioned that it is difficult for the EPA to monitor nanoparticles, and that there are currently no exposure limits for engineered nanomaterials. There are only eleven studies looking at occupational exposure, but zero on consumer or environmental exposure. Considering the exponential grown of this sector, it seems poised to grow without much information on the safety, or lack thereof, of these technological wonders. There is already a nano scale retinal implant similar to a solar panel that can collect light and send it into the eye to repair macular degeneration, but will this “fix” lead to unintended consequences?

My next post will take a look at sessions three and four. Thanks for reading!