ASHRAE Journal - January 2009 - (Page 13) Why Green Can Be Wash November’s Building Sciences column “Why Green Can Be Wash” by Joseph W. Lstiburek Ph.D., P. Eng., is a breath of fresh air (pardon the “green” pun). The LEED® process has many nonengineering (read social) influences with priorities that do not promote the desired outcome of energy savings. Glass area and increased ventilation are two prime examples. Mechanical engineers like myself are often given the challenge to save energy with mechanical equipment after the building envelope has been selected. Is this because we’re too busy? Or lazy? Or, is this because we do not have enough courage to take a scientific stand? I’ll let everyone’s conscience be their own guide for the answer. Either way, building energy models, which are so popular due to ASHRAE Standard 90.1’s Appendix G used by LEED, clearly show that infiltration and ventilation control the building loads for heating and cooling. Since this is so readily apparent it begs the question: Why does LEED still insist that more glass or OA is green? I also have a problem with the real-world accuracy of the energy models themselves. A number of recent articles agree that a building’s real-world energy use is often quite different from the model. The reasons may vary, but this begs the question: Shouldn’t the points be awarded based on actual building energy use rather than a simulated model? ASHRAE has been challenged to make the 2010 version of Standard 90.1 30% more energy efficient than its 2004 predecessor. That’s a big number! I would like to ask two honest questions of my fellow engineers: How many of you would accept a contract in which you would be paid on the condition that the real-world performance of your building would meet such Hotel Air Conditioning Last July when I checked into my room in one of Las Vegas’ largest hotels, the room was too warm, but the vertical chilled water fan coil unit was running and the room thermostat was calling for cooling. The return air passed through a hinged core return air grille. I opened the grille core, and there was the filter totally clogged with dirt. A call to the hotel office, and a new filter was installed. My room was once again comfortable. The next morning when I left my room, there was a new filter by every door in the hotel for the maids to install. Someone at the hotel front desk must have discovered why so many guests were complaining about rooms that were too warm. Gil Avery, P.E., Fellow/Life Member ASHRAE, Cordova, Tenn. January 2009 a requirement? If that were the basis for a particular building, what would you ask for, or insist on, in the various phases of construction? How we answer this last question should form the basis for future energy-efficient building design, nothing else. In my opinion, the whole LEED process could be greatly simplified and less paper intensive. The USGBC should establish an energy use per square foot guideline and award points based on actual energy use compared to the baseline. We would then say goodbye to bureaucratic paperwork, and hello to real-world outcome. In the end, only real-world results matter. Jeffrey Waller, P.E., Member ASHRAE, St. Louis While I agreed with many of the opinions expressed in “Why Green Can Be Wash,” I strongly disagree with his contention that the double-skinned Occidental Chemical Building in Niagara Falls, N.Y., was “a bad idea.” This building was one of the first projects to use automatic daylighting and solar shading controls integrated with the double skin, at a time when installed lighting power densities were far higher than today’s standards. The building was also built within a conventional office building budget. In 1999, some 20 years See Green, Page 14 ASHRAE Journal 13
For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.