Bio: Chris Benedict is an Architect in New York City.
Posts
SCIENCE HAS LEFT THE BUILDING
March 2nd, 2009Conversations with NESEA members aren’t always easy, but they’re always a learning experience. We’re a hard core group with major experience and proven results. We are thirsty and passionate for what works. Some of us have no manners whatsoever, others of us are examples of equanimity. Either way, NESEA gives us a forum, that is becoming rare, to express our thinking about buildings and energy with others that are educated.
This year I am extremely gratified that Henry Gifford will have the chance to face Brendan Owens of USGBC, in person, at the Tuesday evening pre-conference forum on March 10th, 2009. This is a celebration of the integrity of the NESEA community. In 2008 USGBC published a study of LEED rated buildings, claiming that, on average, they use less energy than non LEED rated buildings. Those of us in the building science community were shocked by this study. We knew that given the structure of the LEED rating system this result is impossible. Henry Gifford’s analysis of the study in 2008 shows that the study’s conclusion is FALSE and that LEED buildings use, on average, MORE energy than non LEED rated buildings. I invite NESEA members to insure that the March 10th forum stays on this topic. This conversation could only be brought to you by NESEA and I urge everyone to be in the seats. The LEED study must be publicly retracted and notification of the retraction must be sent to every government that has adopted LEED as law.
This conversation and some others need to be had right now. We are witnessing wholesale institutionalization and devaluation of our hard work and all that we have learned. Myths are now fact and anyone taking an 8 hour class and/or passing a test is an expert with “professional” looking letters after their name. Thinking holistically about buildings is just too darn hard. Easily administered point systems, guidelines, requirements and codes based on politics and who has the most money prevail. Science has left the building!
My experience is unique in that I arrived at NESEA just before the “dumbing down” of green took place. It was my great fortune to learn building science from those who were making the discoveries and pioneering the thinking about buildings and energy. I practice what I learned, and see the measured results. Conversations with NESEA members have changed my life, my practice and have set the stage for reinventing the apartment building. Because of this, I desire to be free of the programs, point systems, guidelines and energy codes that are controlling the practice today. I find myself bumping into this clampdown, and watching the lowest common denominator rewarded with my tax money. This might only get worse as the bailout money starts flowing. Two extremes will be rewarded, the most mediocre threshold requirements of government instituted programs and the most expensive, least cost effective solutions that are too expensive to be prototypes. Voices of experience and common sense will be drowned out in the rush to establish the lowest threshold criteria for handing out the funding. Challenges to our integrity to do good work will increase and frankly seem insurmountable unless addressed effectively and immediately.
Of particular interest to me right now is the role that ASHRAE 90.1 plays in all of this. ASHRAE 90.1 was initially an engineering standard, constructed by the American Society of Heating and Refrigeration Engineers. As with all ASHREA standards, 90.1 was, and is a product of politics -disguised as science. The standard was used as “good practice” until it became the basis for energy codes across the country for buildings over three stories in the 1990s. Now all state energy codes must meet or exceed ASHRAE 90.1. The standard is a moving target, and is in “continuous maintenance” making meeting 90.1 extremely complex while there is no proof that the standard is effective. This year at NESEA I am chairing a panel discussion on Thursday 12 March, 2009 at 4pm that examines ASHRAE 90.1 and the significant role it is playing in buildings and energy. Please join me. The session will explore the following issues that our community should be aware of:
1. While 90.1 has some useful components, air barriers, the most fundamental “green” move one can make in building after switching to florescent light bulbs gets short changed.
2. Heating and cooling systems other than forced air are virtually ignored and small elegantly designed systems that can use pumps and fans smaller than those covered by the standard are not allowed!
3. LEED’s new energy point system will rely on computer models based on ASHRAE 90.1, Appendix G to prove that LEED rated buildings perform a specified percentage better than ASHRAE 90.1. Since there is no proof that ASHREA 90.1 as a baseline code successfully accomplishes the goal of energy efficiency, what does a specified percentage better mean?
In addition, the computer models are easily gamed. While USGBC pretends to be scientific with their reliance on 90.1, they continue the artifice of their rating system.
4. Appendix G of 90.1 is being misused by USGBC and other government agencies who state they are rewarding a higher level of energy performance. Section G1.2.2 of Appendix G states: “Neither the proposed building performance and the baseline building performance are predictions of actual energy consumption or costs for the proposed design after construction.” This is ASHRAE stating that Appendix G should not be used to predict energy use.
5. The Energy Cost Budget Method (ECBM), a code compliance path within ASHRAE 90.1 relies on modeling to compare the energy cost of a proposed design to the energy cost of a baseline model. If the proposed design shows the same or less energy cost as the baseline, the design meets code. ECBM has been used to justify 100% glass facades in buildings. Large loopholes and assumptions that are made by the models allow a false prediction of how the building performs. This is not science.
Making energy efficient buildings is hard. There is a lot to know, and talent and commitment is necessary. A responsible party with knowledge and integrity must work on the project from conception through occupancy. That responsible party is the educated design team. Many things happen along the way that can throw a wrench in the works and these things need to be controlled by number crunching, careful detailing, good construction documents and thorough construction monitoring. This is the only way to make an energy efficient building.
At the March 10th forum, Henry Gifford will describe a new way to rate “green” buildings. The new way is to compare the size of the designed mechanical system per square foot to mechanical system sizes of other buildings with similar uses and climate. Adjustments can be made to compare to buildings in other climates. Embodied in the mechanical system size is all of the design team’s understanding of building science and energy and how they have used their knowledge to meet the expectations of their client. Once a building is occupied the actual energy use can be measured and compared to other buildings. These methods don’t lie and they can’t be gamed.
Moving forward, going back to basics is our only viable option. We need to take back our practice from those that seek to control buildings and energy for whatever their reasons and bring science back into the building.
