LEED, green, building

Powered by ScribeFire.

Remember the big push for prefabs? There have been several iterations of the “Structural Insulated Panel” idea. Then there was the house delivered prebuilt on several trucks. All you had to do was plop it down on your foundation, hook up the utilities and sewer, and you were done.

Great idea, right? Well… Not so much. Despite the entrance of famed architect Daniel Libeskind into the prebuilt fray, Build LLC is declaring the whole prefab fling dead.

Read the whole article and their 10 reasons why: here.

architecture, rural, suburban, urban, prefab, house, home

Powered by ScribeFire.

While there are plenty of inexpensive ways to save energy in homes and businesses, the coming of the Obama administration seems to have piqued interest in alternative power. Tax benefits and rebates from power companies are sprouting up all over the country.

In California, for instance, public utilities are required to purchase power back from customers. This is called a “grid-tie” system. Businesses sell all the power they generate to the power company and then buy their power back as per normal, ensure a steady flow of reliable electricity. If properly designed, the alternative generation system can be a money maker for the company. Consumers, on the other hand, get offsets for power generated. Generation surpluses are carried forward to offset  future deficits. A properly designed system can reduce a home’s utility bill by 90% or more.

Financial incentives for alternative energy generation

Beyond just the straight reduction in utility bills, there are a number of programs available to help offset the cost of installing an alternative power system. While these programs are changing all the time, here’s a short list:

• Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency (DSIRE) is a “comprehensive source of information on state, local, utility, and selected federal incentives that promote renewable energy”: (www.dsireusa.org)
• U.S. Dept. of Agriculture’s 2002 Farm Bill Initiative—”Renewable Energy & Energy Efficiency Program” provides information on USDA grants “available for eligible agricultural producers and rural small businesses to purchase renewable energy systems and make energy improvements”: www.rurdev.usda.gov/rd/farmbill/9006resources.html
• California Energy Commission (CEC): Emerging Renewables Program Rebates: www.consumerenergycenter.org/erprebate/index.html
• NYSERDA Rebate Program: www.powernaturally.org/Programs/Wind/Installers_all.asp?i=8
• The Energy Trust of Oregon is an organization funded by “Public Purpose Funds” which supports Oregon renewable energy and energy efficiency projects through grants: www.energytrust.org/RR/wind/index.html

In California specifically there is also:

• The Net Metering program
• The Feed-In Tariff
• In San Bernardino County, the Green Building Incentive
• In Santa Monica, the Green Building Grant Program
• And the Self-Generation incentive Program

And Federally there are also the:

• Residential renewable Energy Tax Credit
• Business Energy Tax Credit

It’s Cool But Not Cheap

As with all things new and or in vogue, alternative energy is still not cheap. Well designed systems start at $10-$12 per watt and go up from there, depending on individual choices for generation systems, additional systems desired (such as battery backup or completely “off-grid” systems) and so on. Home owners can expect their new alternative power system to pay for itself in 10-15 years, depending on local utility costs.

A business system can take significantly longer depending on the size of the system and how it is used. This is because, in California anyway, businesses must sell their power to the utility company at wholesale rates, which is about half of what they pay to purchase that power back.

Solar

The best known alternative source of power is, of course solar. It’s the great granddaddy of alternative energy and has long been the darling of alternative energy enthusiasts. Things have changed since the early days of solar power. Now not only are the familiar crystalline panels more efficient than ever before, solar roofing systems are also available. Some of them don’t even look like solar panels!

As with all alternative power systems, there are many do-it-yourself kits out there for those who are handy. But the best systems are always professionally designed for the specific application and location.

Wind

Small scale wind power is the new kid on the block. As such, it’s poorly understood. Companies are sprouting up all over the place touting their product’s abilities, taking advantage of consumer ignorance.

Wind energy functions on a very simple principle of physics: The amount of wind a turbine can generate is equal to the cube of the wind speed. Therefore the holy grail of wind turbines is rotor size. (Laymen refer to the “rotor” as the “blades”.) The larger the rotor—or more accurately, the more surface area available to catch the wind—the less wind it takes to generate a given amount of power. It’s that simple. It’s also why commercial wind turbines are well over a hundred feet tall with rotors a hundred feet in diameter. The power company wants maximum power generation at the average (or “rated”) wind speed for the locale.

So don’t be fooled by manufacturers touting the energy output potential of their products. You’ll never hear an expert in wind energy talk about a turbine’s power “size”. What you’ll here them discuss—at length—is it’s rated power at its rated wind speed. In other words, how much power the turbine will produce at the speed the wind blows most of the time at that location.

Of course, there are many different ways to increase surface area on a turbine, and all seem work equally well.

Consider the turbine show at right. While the manufacturer didn’t have a spec sheet available at the time this was written, according to the faq, at a speed of 28 mph this turbine  produces half its rated power of 10kw. And at 14 mph, it outputs 2kw. Not significantly lower than the 2.4kw produced by the more traditional tower shown above with it’s 12 foot rotor.

The Ideal System

Beauty, they say, is in the eye of the beholder. Likewise with alternative energy. Wind offers a viable (though no cheaper) alternative to solar power in some parts of the country. In many places, combining the two would provide all the energy needs of a home or business, making an off-grid option fully viable.

Personally, I think a combined wind/solar system with a grid-tie and a battery backup is the idea system. If the worst happens, the grid is still there, but by in large, the property is energy independent.

There’s no doubt in my mind that not only are are alternative energy sources here to stay, in another couple of decades they may well make up a significant portion of our national power grid! I sincerely hope so!

Follow me on twitter!

alternative, power, generation, solar, wind, rebate, tax, grants

Powered by ScribeFire.

Green Roofs. It’s an old technology that is becoming new again as cities and municipalities look for methods of reducing the operating costs of buildings and controlling rainwater runoff. The question is: Does it work, and it it worth it?

It can cost an enormous amount of money to install a green roof! In an existing building it is doubtful the roof system will support the weight of the soil, plants, and the water the roof will absorb. The entire structure would have to be reinforced before a green roof can be installed. Meaning that, as stated in the video below, installing a green roof on an existing high rise apartment building can cost as much as $100,000!

But, as the Wall Street Journal reports, the cost may be worth it.

Technorati Tags: green roof, green building, roofing, roofing systems

PEX, (or cross-linked polyethylene tubing) is `legal’ for installation in homes and businesses in 49 States of the Union — but not in California. This despite the fact that the 2001 California Plumbing Code (CPC) listed PEX “as an acceptable material for domestic water piping,” (but didn’t approve it for installation). So do the International Plumbing Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, and the National Standard Plumbing Code — which is why it is legal to install in the other 49 states of the Union.

The Plastic Pipe and Fittings Association (PPFA) has listed some of the characteristics that make PEX both popular and positive from both the consumer’s and installer’s point of view:

• Its high temperature capability, up to 200° F
• Its High pressure capability/stability
• The smooth walls provide excellent flow characteristics
• Its quieter than PVC or copper
• There’s less heat loss and condensation
• Because it’s a tubing, it allows flexibility for design
• It has a proven long life, rigorous certifications, and is highly tested
• It doesn’t corrode
• Unlike copper, it doesn’t develop pinholes
• No build-up inside
• Its secure and simple, but reliable fittings reduce the possibilities of leaks
• It’s lightweight, easy and safe to transport and handle
• It comes in long coils, and is therefore efficient to install, and joints are reduced
• It’s clean and safe to work with, unlike copper which requires flux and solder, or PVC which requires glues that produce toxic fumes

Why then, you ask, can’t we install it in California?

The Official reason is “environmental review.” But the fact is, PEX has already undergone an independent review — and passed! And because it passed, it’s already been approved by the four major model code standards, including the one just adopted by California itself in January 2008!

So the problem here really boils down to nothing more than politics. PEX is so easy to install you can do it yourself. The Plumbers Union is understandably not happy about that! (Which is also why until recently the only fittings available for PEX had to be installed with special equipment only licensed plumbers — not general contractors, not members of the public — could buy through special outlets.) And it’s plastic, so environmental groups weren’t happy either, despite the blatant reality that we have yet to develop any better environmentally friendly products through which to pump our water. But we decidedly have quite a few worse options. (PEX can be made from recycled grocery bags.)

Back to our story: The PPFA filed suit in 2001 and obtained a court order that basically said what everyone else had been saying for years: PEX was safe to install, so allow it to be installed already! The result: For almost 3 years PEX “was code” and was installed across California.

Then, in 2004 an appeals court reversed the ruling. Suddenly, PEX was again “not code” and couldn’t be installed. Ironically, during that brief three year period all kinds of rumors began to crop up about PEX. It was claimed, for example, that PEX pipes leech methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) and benzene into the water, that PEX prematurely decays and then ruptures, and so on. I’ve even heard rumors that PEX will break down if exposed to chlorine treated water, and urban tales of “catastrophic failure” in homes where PEX has been installed, causing tens of thousands of dollars worth of damage.

None of these rumors have been found to be true.

PEX tubing bearing the marks “NSF-61″ or “NSF pw” — i.e. tubing rated for domestic potable water use has been tested by NSF International, an agency with a 60 year history of successfully protecting public health, and was found to meet the health requirements of NSF-61 and the long term strength and quality control requirements of NSF/ANSI Standard 14.

In other words, it’s at least as good (safe) as the alternatives.

(Warning! If the tubing has the mark “NSF rfh” it is only rated for radiant heat, not for potable water.)

Now… Let’s get real! If PEX weren’t safe, could it have possibly been approved by all four major, independent, model code standards — and California’s own CPC? Not likely.

The sad irony that this seven year (and counting) fiasco has cost California home owners and tax payers millions at the expense of its bloated, self righteous bureaucracy. And to prove precisely what?

In May (May 2008) the California Department of Public Health decided the rest of the civilized world was right after all. It proposed an Amendment to the 2007 California Plumbing Code, removing its restrictions against the installation of PEX “for occupancies regulated by The Department of Health Services.”

The public comment period closed July 7th. The regulations may not be approved for another 18 months.

What have they proved? You decide.

Technorati Tags: PEX tubing, California Building Code, International Plumbing Code, ANSI International, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Standard Plumbing Code, California Plumbing Code, California Department of Public Health

I had the distinct pleasure of meeting the lovely Anna Lee today at Humboldt County’s new Alternative Building Center on 4^th Street in Eureka.

She and Hector have done a grand job of making available a broad spectrum of green building products. From Ice Stone counter tops (a product with which I’m familiar) and Ultratouch Cotton Fiber insulation (another product with which I’m familiar), to Paperstone, a counter top manufacturer whose product I’ve never heard of before.

They’ve got interior and exterior coatings, YOLO ColorHouse and AFM Safecoat respectively for you do-it-yourself painters, American Clay Earth Plaster (a wonderful alternative to sheet rock, though sheet rock is a recyclable and natural product), Eco-Timber Flooring and Forbo Marmoleum natural linoleum, and a whole lot more stuff than I can list here.

For several years I have been amazed at the lack of a green building infrastructure in Humboldt County. It’s finally beginning to happen! Anna Lee and her partner Hector have taken the first steps in offering the do-it-yourselfer a green building hardware store. A one stop shop where you can buy all the green building supplies you need for your project — or to examine a decent selection of products you’d like your contractor to use on your new home or remodeling project.

I hope you’ll visit the Alternative Building Center soon.

Technorati Tags: green building, flooring, insulation, counter tops, do-it-yourself

One of the inevitable consequences of our legal system is a reluctance to adopt technologies and building systems that are perceived as “new”. Most of the new technologies being deployed today are perceived as new not because they are, but because it has taken decades for them to begin to be accepted by builders.

Ten years ago, for example, less that 30% of homes used engineer lumber in their flooring systems. As of 2004, almost 50% have I-joists installed rather then sawn timber girders. GluLam beams have also been around for over a decade, yet they’re still typically deployed only in special situations that require support over a long span.

That said, the use of engineered lumber is becoming more common. The quality of sawn lumber continues to fall, causing more and more problems for builders. Changing building systems completely requires a learning curve and level of risk that make most builders uncomfortable. So in the hunt for alternatives that use construction methods with which they are familiar, more and more contractors are turning to engineered alternatives. As contractor John Spier put it in Building with Engineered Lumber, “Today I use engineered beams, roofs, walls, and headers as well. My wife and partner maintains that most customers are oblivious to anything but the bottom line, but we leave the jobs knowing that they got a better result.”

To say the least!

Types of Engineered Lumber

By now, I-joists and GluLam beams are engineered products that most customers are familiar with. But when it comes to the array of engineered wood products that your designer, architect, or contractor can bring to bear on your project,it’s less than half the picture — and shrinking.

LVL stands for “laminated veneer lumber”.

A GluLam beam is LVL. But LVL dimensional framing lumber is also available. Like the beams, LVL framing material is much stronger than its sawn counter part. One builder observed that when a framing plan for a three story apartment building called for 3×4 frames on the first floor, he got approval to use LVL 2x4s instead because of their superior strength. By doing so he felt he had saved the developer considerable money, and had provided a superior product.

And in many ways it’s true. Sawn lumber has many drawbacks that many people don’t really think about:

First, unless a special order is placed for air dried lumber (which costs significantly more), virtually all framing material is “kiln dried”. Which means it’s usually so wet it “weeps” with sap when a nail is driven into it. As it dries, it shrinks. As virtually every frame in the building shrinks, the shape of the building changes, with predictable results. Doors no longer close properly. Dry wall cracks. Walls pull away from tiles or showers or cabinets. Corners are no longer square.

Second, as the quality of framing lumber continues to fall, problems with rot and termite damage climb proportionally. It’s now not uncommon to have a significant rot problem in a twenty year old home. That was unheard of as little as thirty years ago!

Third, as the quality of framing lumber continues to fall, the number of “culls” (rejects) increase, and the number of actually straight pieces falls. This increases many of the problems identified above.

The use of engineered lumber addresses all of these problems.

LSL stands for “laminated strand lumber”.

In an engineered wood structure LVL is the common choice for bearing walls and LSL for the interior walls. In a non-engineered wood structure LSL is often used on walls that the contractor wants to make sure are perfectly straight: Kitchen walls on which cabinets will be hung, and bathroom walls that will be tiled, for instance.

LSL has the interesting characteristic of being so sharp edged that you can cut yourself on the corners! It also has the obnoxious habit of absorbing moisture right out of the air. When it arrives on a job site, LSL has a moisture content of only 5%. If left unwrapped and not installed, LSL can actually swell and warp as it sits on the ground. Therefore, a delivery schedule is usually worked out with the supplier so that only the quantity of lumber than can be framed each day is delivered to the job site.

I-Joists are becoming the favorite of many contractors for girders and floor joists.

They’re lighter, they use considerably less wood for the strength and span they can cover, and they come in configurations that make the job of plumbing and wiring beneath the building easier.

MDF stands for “medium density fiberboard”, which lead many people to think immediately of “flake board”.

But the two are not the same. MDF comes in thicknesses not available in any other product. It also comes in many “flavors” (though some are hard to come by in some areas). Unlike flake board, MDF is (or can be) sufficiently water resistant for use in cabinets. (Yes, I know that flake board is used in cabinets too, and if you know that, you’ve probably seen the icky long term result).

Other types of engineered lumber are Oriented Strand Board (OSB), which is now so common it’s hardly worth mentioning, and finger-jointed lumber. Finger-jointed lumber is made by gluing short pieces of wood that would normally be scrap into usable lengths. It’s useful in non-critical, non-load bearing interior walls.

Cost

Not surprisingly, when compared linear foot to linear foot, engineered lumber costs more than sawn lumber. But, as the Sustainable Building Sourcebook observes: “When labor savings and reduced job site waste are considered, the cost is highly competitive.” In fact, it’s pretty much equal. And finger-jointed lumber is equal to the cost of sawn lumber, even on a per foot basis.

Is it Really Green?

Opinions vary. For certain, the resins used to make engineered lumber typically don’t use formaldehyde binders, but that doesn’t mean they don’t give off VOCs (though it does produces less VOCs), and it also doesn’t mean those binders are made from environmentally friendly compounds.

BuildingGreen.com put it this way: “While not free from ecological concerns, engineered lumber products can provide a significant environmental advantage over solid wood by efficiently utilizing fast-growing, small-diameter trees.” In other words, engineered lumber is (usually) produced from “farmed” trees.

In the end, there are probably better alternatives than engineered lumber if you’re open to more modern building methods than studs and joists. But if you want a stud built home, or if you need to use some framing in your ICF or SIP built home, engineered lumber is a much better alternative than sawn lumber all the way around.

Technorati Tags: engineered lumber, sustainable building, LVL, LSL, GluLam, MDF, building green, studs, lumber

Things in the glass world, they are a’changin’, according to Reed Construction Data!

Down in Florida the building codes are changing to require high impact-resistant   glass to be installed in both commercial   and residential buildings. Meanwhile, high energy efficient   glass is becoming a more common choice for both commercial and residential   builders.

Energy efficient   glass reduces glare and UV light passing through the pane. It also keeps heat on the side of the glass it’s on much better than standard   glass. So if it’s hot outside, it keeps the heat "out there". If it’s cold outside, it keeps the cold "out there" and the heat inside.

Property owners are finally cottoning on to the money that can be saved on heating and cooling by upgrading their windows.

But not all windows are created equal. To aid home-owners   in rating the energy efficiency of the windows they’re considering   for their homes, a rating system has been devised. You can read more about the rating system and how it’s used here. Energy Star also has some good information   on energy efficient   windows you may wish to look over.

As usual, just as not all (energy efficient) windows are created equal, so too are not all (energy efficient) windows suitable for all applications. To give but one simple example, low-E coated window would be a poor choice for the south face of a passive solar home, for instance, but an excellent   choice where that heat is undesirable.

As always, ask your contractor   to help you make the best choice for your application.

Technorati Tags: windows, energy efficiency, energy star, energy conservation

One little known method of cooling (and night time warming) a building that requires no electricity, no freon, and no gas, is that of the "wind tower." wind tower This ancient Middle-Eastern technology relies solely on the natural principles of convection and thermodynamics to create a natural "air conditioner". air conditioning

The basic principles behind a traditional Middle-Eastern wind tower are ridiculously simple. (Implementation in a modern building, however, is not.) The tower sticks up above the top of the building some 12′ (twelve feet) or more and is open on anywhere from two to eight different sides. The average in the Middle-East is four sides. Two sides face the wind; two face away from the wind. Inside, the tower is divided into fourths in an X pattern. (An eight sided tower would be divided into eighths, and so on.)

Madinat Jumeirah and the Burj al Arab Hotel, United Arab Emirates (The wind towers are the structures sticking up from the top of the building)

The two sides facing the wind "catch" it. During the day, the hot air is cooled by the thick masonry walls of the tower as it moves downward, into the building. Since cool air is heavier than warm air, the cooled air sinks to the lowest point in the building, forcing the hot air, which is higher up, out the down wind side of the tower. The ventilation and air movement is further facilitated by the pressure differential of the tower itself. Like an airplane wing, the down wind side literally "pulls" the hot air out of the building.

At night, the process reverses. The wind tower, having warmed from removing heat from the outside air all day, is now warmer than the cool night air. As the warm air is pushed into the building on the windward side of the tower, being warmed by the thermal mass of the tower, the cooler air is pulled out of the building by the leeward side of the tower.

This method of heating and cooling buildings heating and cooling buildings, HVAC, heating, cooling is so efficient that the technology is still in use today, even in large hotels like the Madinat Jumeirah and Burj al Arab shown above.

Traditional wind tower atop a home in Dubai (As the buildings are made of clay brick, the wooden poles work like rebar in concrete, providing sheer strength to the tower.)

A study performed by the University of Arizona showed an 18° temperature difference between the inside of a modeled building and the outside temperature during the heat of the day using only the natural convection natural convection currents of a wind tower. Though, in the University of Arizona model study, their building used a solar stack solar stack to vent the hot air, rather than partitioning the wind tower in the traditional manner.

That said, other tests — both computer models and tests performed on functioning buildings with wind towers — show similar results with a traditional single, partitioned tower. Further, those results can be improved by adding other methods of cooling such as a courtyard with a fountain, shading the building during the heat of the day, and underground venting.

With this last technique, pipes are placed underground where the temperature is relatively constant. If properly placed, the ground will change temperature at pipe depth no more than about ±2° from the heat of the day to the cool of the early morning. The pipes are then vented to the outside, some distance away from the building. The wind tower can then draw air cooled by the underground pipes into the building during the day. At night, as the outside air temperature falls below that of the underground pipe, the warmer underground air is drawn into the building, adding to the warmth provided by the thermal mass of the wind tower itself.

Commercial successes like the Mithun Offices/Pier 56 in Seattle and the Hood River Public Library in Hood River Oregon show some of the possible permutations this ancient technology offers us here in the Pacific Northwest. Other modern buildings are, and have been, built using wind tower concepts around the world, further expanding the pool of engineering knowledge about this ancient technology. (See Sustainability Goes Mainstream (Sun, Wind & Veils), by Guy Battle.)

For the home builder, the downside of the wind tower concept is primarily initial cost. Traditional homes around the Middle-East middle-east followed known designs to ensure the success of the heating/cooling wind tower system. Given the harsh conditions, it was, quite literally, a matter of life and death. Experimentation on what worked was not often encouraged. Today, modern homes are individualized. Each one offers a unique set of challenges and possibilites. Because natural convection currents are at the heart of the wind tower system, engineering and modeling is virtually a necessity to make sure that the system will work as designed, meeting the building’s needs.

But given the rising costs of utilities, it could very well be money well spent over the lifetime of the home.

Technorati Tags: wind tower, air conditioning, heating and cooling buildings, HVAC, heating, cooling, natural convection, solar stack, middle-east

As an article in the July 2006 issue of Eco-Structure Magazine pointed out: "The question has changed from `should we go green’ to `how do we do it.’" (See Concrete Points to Green in the above issue.)

As the graph at left shows (and will be explained below), the cost to benefit ratio of going green is no longer at issue. It’s the `how’ that is the rub, because the `how’ of green building is not a simple question to answer. As we shall see in this short article, there are many variables at play, and they all interact to produce an ultimate cost/benefit to the owner, each affecting the overall efficiency of the building.

According to a New York Times article, green building methodologies once added as much as 20% to the cost of construction, no matter how one chose to go about it. Today the availability of green materials and building systems have dropped that cost to a much more manageable level.¹ But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t add cost. As Mother Earth News pointed out in an article a few months ago: ". . . efficiency may come with a higher price tag — whether it’s a new home with the latest technology or an existing home remodeled with energy improvements, such as added insulation or a more efficient furnace." In 2003 a California study entitled "Managing the Cost of Green Buildings" reported the cost premium for achieving LEEDS ratings at 2.5% for Certified, 3.5% for Silver, 5% for Gold, and 8.5% for Platinum. Though they did note that the costs have been declining in recent years.²

If one examines utilizing green building techniques solely from an economic perspective, then the additional initial construction and design expenses should result in lower operating costs for the building. And in fact green buildings do just that. Sometimes they achieve dramatically lower costs.

A prime example: The Reilly
Home. General contractor Bill Rielly built his own 6,300 square foot home in Hyde Park, New York. The HVAC system is tied into geothermal vents. The photovoltic cells on the roof generate the electricity. He hasn’t paid an electric bill since moving in, in November of 2005! (Here in California the utility company would be required to buy surplus electricity back, further reducing the operating cost of the building.)

So how much can be saved in relation to how much is spent? In economic terms this is called "Life Cycle Costing" (LCC) and, if you’re an economist or statistician, LCC is a relatively straight forward process.

In the accompanying charts, Q* shows the point at which energy cost savings and LCC reach optimum. To the right of this point, savings vis a vis expenditures decline remarkably. In all three charts it pays to increase the level of investment to increase energy savings if the level of investment is to the left of Q*. It rapidly becomes less and less cost efective to increase the level of investment as the investment amount moves further and further to the right of Q*.³

Obviously, while specific dollar amounts will change over time, and will be unique to each project, current models show that the relationship between the various variables: Investment Costs versus Total LCC, Operating Costs, and/or Operating Savings, for instance, all remain relatively constant.

The trick for the designer or architect and builder is in trying to fit the variables together so that the project lands precisely where you intended it to relative to Q*. If you have the money and are very environmentally oriented, you might want everything to be as efficient and evironmentally friendly as possible. Your project would end up on far the far right hand side of the charts, squeezeing every penny of efficiency per dollar invested in your project.

Or you might not have enough money in the budget to reach Q*, but you want to get as close as possible. For you, your design team will have to work hard to find the best compromises in efficency per dollar invested.

Public entities might choose to evaluate bids based on the cost to achieve Q*, rather than on the standard formula of accepting the lowest qualified bid.

In the final analysis, it is clear that building green is already cost effective when compared to traditional building methods, and is therefore a wise use of investment dollars — for private home builders and government agencies both. It is also clear that the cost/benefit value of green building is only going to increase over time. The costs associated with green building and design continue to fall as manufacturers scale up production, and as techology and sources of green materials improve. At the same time, the cost of gas, electricity, and heating oil continue to rise. No wonder green building is the hottest topic in the construction industry.

————–

1. The New York Question: how Green Is My Tower, New York Times, Robin Pogrebin, 4/16/2006.
2. Geof Syphers, Mara Baum, Darren Bouton, Wesley Sullens. "Managing the Cost of Green buildings.” KEMA. October 2003.
3. RS Means, Green Building: Project Planning & Cost Estimating, 2^nd Edition.(Reed Construction Data, Kingston MA, 2006), pp. 303-6. Charts included in this article are my own adaptations of those published on the listed pages.