What? Builders saying that “architects know nothing about energy”? But I know some architects who definitely know A LOT about energy, especially the ones preparing the BuildingEnergy workshop, An Accessible Design Tool for Simplified Design Heat Loss and Energy Requirement Analysis for Single Family Structures. Here’s a peek into a recent email exchange about this workshop:
At 9:07 AM -0500 2/1/10, Everett Barber wrote:
Hi Bruce,
I’ve been showing our spreadsheet to various and sundry in preparation for the BE10 workshop.
All encounters with potential users have been very positive, even from one guy, a builder, who said that his clients rarely express any concern about energy. He thought this thing should be on the counter of every lumber yard in the US. Hmmm. That is so far beyond where we are now that I can’t even contemplate what that would entail on our end. The builder said that the architects he works with know ‘nothing’ about energy and really don’t seem to care. So my experience was not unique, even in this day.
Anyway, I thought I’d forward some comments that I got regarding the program from Tom Hopper. He’s an architect/teacher/industrial designer. I think that you know him. We spent about 2 hours on the phone on Sat. going over the program. He seems very positive about it and what it does. He said it is very useful as a self-teaching tool.
There is no way that I’ll be able to incorporate Tom’s suggestions by the BE10 workshop, but we’ll do our best. We are still developing our own passive solar ‘routines’ within the program so that we don’t have to go to back and forth between F-Chart to get the data that we need.
Onward.
Ev
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Thomas Hopper
Date: Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 7:34 AM
Subject: next idea
To: Everett Barber
Good morning Everett,
You know, I’ve got to tell you how pumped up I am about what you are doing; thinking about it all the time; such a good thing.
If I can encourage you, here is what I wish:
If you have recently visited my web site then I think that you can see that I’m getting ever more serious about approaching net zero for homes; like all the recently uploaded cabins, even the mini 12×12; I’m really trying to do this because the world needs to do this faster than we think.
So what if your Design Heat Loss program was subtitled “How to take serious steps toward net zero energy”?
Like my 24×28 solar cabin designed for two folks that I used in my trial run in your spread sheet; it is designed for high thermal capacitance, well valued and placed insulation for the entire envelope including doors and windows, substantial high R-5 glazing to the south and R-5.5 on all others, low glazing areas on all other orientations with only one tiny window on the north that facilitates natural convection cooling for summer along with the operable skylight on the north roof, it has good shading of glazing in summer with its stepped garrison style profile on the south. It has a 4.6kW array and three 3×7 thermal panels for DHW. These things are not trivial, once an intelligent orientation and envelope is done, they are absolutely needed steps to get to net zero.
I want to enter that data in your spread sheet model Home A, play with it, i.e. try different ideas in model Homes B & C and see trends, and I want to see how close I can get to zero energy usage; truly that is where I am permanently in all my design efforts for the rest of my life. Truly this is the tool we designers really need, the world needs, and I personally would use it a great deal. To me it is not enough to just conserve energy anymore; of course we must do it and your tool can educate along the way but this is not really enough.
Look I’m living what I say right now. Active solar really does work. We new this instinctively 35+ years ago. Now you have lots of raw data with 10,000 jobs to prove things.
I think this tool must allow these inputs.
If you can’t do it before NESEA, and I certainly understand that, then promise it in the next upgrade and tell the audience where your going with this.
This tool needs to embrace net zero energy goals right from the getgo/beginning or first introduction; this is your hook to the world of architects and designers. This is where it must go. Indicate that this is where you are going. I strongly encourage you to not drop this objective for this super fine effort you are doing. Feel okay now that it is incomplete; you’ve got a great start. Let the audience taste the possibilities and potential, is what you’re doing at this NESEA BuildingEnergy10 Conference, but tell em where its going.
Go Ev Go!!! Wow! I am so excited by this possibility.
I will help you any way I can, to accomplish this greater goal. Perhaps we can use Adam’s skills along the way?
All the very best,
-Tom
PS – This am, tank at 103F at bottom and 107.5F at top, no wood burning. We have used 414kWh since start up of net meter. If it were Fran and I only here, we would be net zero on electric pretty sure. Got to do window insulation. I know somebody who did something ……
Net zero is the wrong equation for living lightly and sustainably on the earth. The sum can be zero even if you over-consume energy as long as you spend enough money, purchase and install enough generating capacity, to produce as much as you are using.
The goal should not be to use technology (with all its inherent unintended consequences and externalities)to compensate for our wastefulness, but to simply use far, far less. Less energy, fewer resources (particularly manufactured products), much smaller and simpler homes.
Net zero advocates forget that it’s not just energy that we humans consume in excess. We are turning the earth’s resources – organic and inorganic – into millions of tons of human biomass and over-swarming a planet which simply cannot support such a plague.
Any real solutions will involve not more technology, but far less and simpler technologies, smaller simpler shelters, and much simpler lifestyles.
Mary, basically you’re right. We are overusing the planet.
But I don’t think we will change much by telling the people to live a simpler live.
An ACI member described how she lived at 59 degrees in her house to protect the planet for future generations. By insulating the walls to passive house standard she would use much less AND be comfortable. What do you think people will favor?
Only with net zero dwellings, electric and public transportation and cradle to cradle production and consumer cycles will we be able to live with 9 billion other people on this planet. If we don’t achieve these goals, wars over scarce resources will be the result.
The Article stated:
“(My cabin) It has a 4.6kW array and three 3×7 thermal panels for DHW. These things are not trivial, once an intelligent orientation and envelope is done, they are absolutely needed steps to get to net zero.”
A 4.6kW array is not necessary to get to net zero. A big PV array is just the result of an inefficient envelope and inefficient appliances. The passive house standard proves this in many thousand examples in the US and Europe.
The Passive House Planing Package (PHPP – $200) is the planing tool for new and old house retrofits. The PHPP-accuracy was proven in many thousand real world passive houses built or retrofitted.
The simplicity of the passive house principles together with the PHPP planing software are unbeatable, because it follows a whole system approach!
http://www.passivehouse.us
PS: I am not affiliated in any way to the passive house institute. This is only my humble opinion. I believe this is the way to go. Why waiting for net zero, when there are many thousand examples on how to do it right the first time?