John Nelson does not want to be misunderstood. In describing himself as a green-building pragmatist, he’s not suggesting the eco trend is a flat-out fraud, he’s merely advising people not to get caught up in the symbolic hype that surrounds it.
Nelson, an adjunct professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at UW-Madison, is calling for objective eyes and some much-needed perspective on the green movement. In his view, there is an over-emphasis on construction materials in the ecological footprint of buildings; in fact, of a building’s five phases — making, using, operating, changing, demolishing — Nelson said the majority of its footprint is made by operating and using.
For a construction industry perspective on Nelson’s views, IB also spoke to Mike Whaley, director of pre-construction services for J.H. Findorff & Son.
Hyping Green
Nelson agrees with those who believe the benefits of green building no longer need to be proven, but he added that some touted benefits are more legitimate than others. He said the vast majority of green-building concepts are merely symbolic. “They aren’t substantive,” he stated. “We aren’t really getting to the meat yet.”
The case for geothermal in Wisconsin is one example, he said, because it misses an important fact — that while you are trading a less efficient natural gas system for a more efficient electricity-powered system at the property line, in Wisconsin the electricity likely comes from a less efficient, coal-fired power plant.
So unless your system is powered by solar photovoltaic, geothermal is carbon neutral at best. “It’s sold as green, but it really isn’t,” he stated. “It’s just economically advantageous right now because it’s subsidized, but it’s not really any more green. I don’t know how you can promote something as green if it really does not, at the system level, make a difference.”
In terms of buildings, Nelson said the metric that makes the most difference is the Energy Utilization Index, the total energy used annually per square foot of area. For water, which is driven more by building occupancy, the applicable metrics are total gallons or gallons per person. Each measures eROI, or energy return on investment.
Whaley (J.H. Findorff & Son) agreed there is some hype around green building. He said the hype is unfortunate because the concept behind green building is “very valid” in terms of reduced energy use and consumption.
“Our approach with owners on projects has been to look for the green building components that bring the best value,” Whaley said. “That falls into reduced consumption, which results in lower operating costs for a facility.”
Findorff recently worked with a not-for-profit organization that wanted to make its new building as green as possible without going through the LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) documentation process. The firm selected mechanical systems that had good energy use, and good maintenance and serviceability from the client’s perspective. “We did not want to put in a mechanical system that was so sophisticated that they couldn’t maintain it, and that would not operate efficiently for them two years down the road,” Whaley said.
Wedge Issue
According to Nelson, if you study underlying science of the climate change legislation working its way through Congress, it traces back to Princeton University’s Carbon Mitigation Initiative, which has developed the concept of stabilization wedges. This refers to reducing the rate at which carbon is emitted into the environment by 250 billion tons, or in 25-billion ton wedges, through 2050, and then plateauing the total carbon in the environment at a prescribed level.
This also is the science underneath the Waxman-Markey legislation and other carbon control measures that have been introduced in Congress. “If you believe that to be a reasonable goal, then our equivalent MPG (miles per gallon) for energy in our buildings in the U.S. needs to go down by 80% between now and 2050,” Nelson noted.
That ambitious goal is likely to be unfulfilled without fundamental change, Nelson contends. Thus far, the discussion about energy-related issues has focused more on finding alternate supplies, or mitigating the harmful impacts of existing supplies.
Yet Nelson said supplies are limited by physical resource constraints and technology, so the demand side is the proper area on which to focus.
Nelson compared the energy situation to the nation’s financial collapse in that we’ve set up a demand system associated with a standard of living that cannot be supported with the available resource base and population.
Said Nelson: “Houses have gotten bigger in the last 20 or 30 years. Cars have gotten bigger. Mileage driven has gone up. When I look at the fundamentals, I don’t think there is something out there that will invisibly slide in, cost effectively, to allow all that consumption to continue at the current level.”
He sees nothing in proposed climate change legislation that would address this in a meaningful way, nor does he envision it being addressed by a disruptive technology. Citing an excess of retail space and credit restraints, he believes the future belongs to those who figure out how to repurpose existing commercial buildings with a more effective use of space.
“Just as when, in debt, you can’t spend your way out of a problem, or when you’re overweight you can’t eat your way to slim, you cannot build your way to green,” he stated. “The existing inventory is too big and the cycle time in buildings is long.”
The challenge with renewable energy, he said, is that it’s very low-grade, diffuse, and intermittent. When asked whether renewable energy will become more cost effective, he said it’s less about renewable energy becoming cheaper and more about conventional energy becoming more expensive. The factory that makes solar photovoltaic panels runs on conventional energy, and the plant that makes a gallon of ethanol runs on electricity and natural gas, not on ethanol, he noted. These renewable sources never approach, not even closely, the high energy return on investment of fossil fuels.
“When you think of the limits to substituting a renewable system with intermittency, low-intensity, and diffusion, those characteristics are the opposite of a block of coal or a gallon of gasoline,” he explained. “It’s not a technology limitation, it’s a fundamental first-principles limitation.
“So with this term eROI, for every unit of energy I spend making a fuel source that I can use, I get between 60 and 100 units of energy use with fossil fuels. Renewables are on an order of magnitude lower than that, so it takes a lot of energy to make a solar collector, too.”
LEEDING Question
Nelson has mixed emotions about LEED guidelines. While he gives LEED credit for starting an important dialogue, he believes it’s an expensive system that only institutions or large companies can afford, and they do it principally for public relations. He said LEED certification does not correlate to energy reduction, which is where the real green value resides. “The thing I’m most concerned about with respect to LEED is people think it’s the destination. ‘I’ve got my LEED plaque on the wall, so I’m now as good as I ever need to be.’ There is still a long way to go, and I’m concerned that, increasingly, our culture looks for easy solutions to complex problems.”
Whaley said LEED is a good process that has caused building owners to incorporate sustainable practices. In another respect, he said LEED has become the Good Housekeeping Seal among owners that simply want buy a LEED certificate. “Some people are using LEED as a promotional thing, but at least it’s making them aware of it,” said Whaley. “It will cost you more only if you look at your initial cost. If you look at the long-term, I don’t believe it costs you anything.”
Sign up for the free IB Update — your weekly resource for local business news, analysis, voices and the names you need to know. Click here.
