ASHRAE Journal - February 2009 - (Page 16) I fully agree with what the author said in November’s Building Sciences column “Why Green Can Be Wash” by Joseph W. Lstiburek, Ph.D., P.Eng. Many green buildings, if analyzed properly, will indicate failure on many fronts but still carry some rating that the owner takes pride in and uses only for advertising! It has become a Why Green Can Be Wash Joseph Lstiburek’s liberating article in November’s issue, race for points, but the purpose is lost. From another angle, more needs to be done about tenant “Why Green Can Be Wash,” stops short of recognizing that “green” has never been a guide to good design, but mainly an awareness of deriving the full potential of whatever [green artifice to claim credit for good design without actually learn- technologies] has been done. Is it sufficient to target only huge complexes, ignoring small ing how it’s done. Efficiency (only one part of good design) requires these features: areas such as residences? During my recent visit to Houston, I • Insulate abundantly and competently; was surprised to find incorrect system recommendations (with • Block air leakage and related chimney effect; faulty positioning of supply/return points, etc.). Some rooms • Omit all glazing that would require reduced light transmis- were cold, while one room was unbearably hot. I could see the sion or blocking of view. contractor had tried to cut ducting costs, and the occupant was • Completely shade the glazing of all spaces while they paying a heavy price. require cooling; Are clients being briefed properly about available choices, • Rigorously localize heating, cooling, and ventilation by or are they being sold what is in stock? interior partitioning. Is it not more important than collecting points, green or red? • Design the HVAC systems using the principles of “optiWe still have a long way to go. mized-function HVAC” (download from www.EnergyBooks. S.S. Mani, Member ASHRAE, com); Chennai, India 16 ASHRAE Journal ashrae.org February 2009 The Author Responds The two superinsulated houses we’ve done in the Boston area in the last two years get us to a HERS Index of around 40 (i.e., 60% of the way to net zero as compared to a reference house constructed to the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code) with a 15-year payback assuming an energy escalation of 5% per annum and an annual inflation rate of 3%. Historically, over the past 30 years the energy escalation rate has been around 7%. Inflation has averaged 3% over the past decade. In terms of the “logical progression,” the houses were designed by an architect who worked with clients (i.e., the users of the building). Nowhere did we “dismiss” the “program for the use of the building.” One of the failed lessons of the past was the problem of not educating architects about physics. Technology and the scientific method are not the enemy of architecture or the enemy of society, but tools that should be used and embraced. I believe that great architecture is only possible when the “human factors” are in harmony with the physics. I hope I live long enough to see the two professions—architecture and engineering— actually understand and respect one another. I believe that the schism that exists is the fault of the architecture profession that has turned its back on adequately educating its young members in the necessary physics and technology, and is the fault of the engineering profession that has reduced everything to computer simulations and PowerPoint presentations where the young members know the “price of everything and the value of nothing.” Joseph W. Lstiburek, Ph.D., P.Eng., Fellow ASHRAE, Somerville, Mass. • Maximize the use of task lighting, using viable new methods that are now emerging; and • Select all equipment and materials for maximum energy return ratio. In this century, buildings must also be able to function during extended interruptions of external power. But, leave primary energy supply to the utility grids, which have the scale and competence to do it efficiently. These steps dovetail with other aspects of good design, including true daylighting, escape from catastrophe, blocking of falling glass and façade, easing maintenance, etc. Buildings cannot improve materially as long as the HVAC design must fit a template of bad architectural design. A complete reform of building design practice and education is needed. A curriculum has been developed, but it needs sponsors. I invite all building designers to a serious discussion of these issues. Donald Wulfinghoff, P.E., Life Member ASHRAE, Wheaton, Md. The Author Responds I agree completely with Mr. Wulfinghoff’s list of features, and I second his invitation to all building designers for a serious discussion of the issues. Joseph W. Lstiburek, Ph.D., P.Eng., Fellow ASHRAE, Somerville, Mass. http://www.EnergyBooks.com http://www.EnergyBooks.com http://www.ashrae.org
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.