Advice from Designers:
 Designing for Energy Conservation
By John Hermannsson
A good historical reference point for discussing the energy conservation movement in architure is
the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973, which mobilized an extraordinary campaign to conserve energy when
heating and cooling buildings. Around that time, most states incorprated performance or
prescriptive thermal energy requirements into their states incorporated performance or
prescriptive thermal energy requirements into their building codes. As a shining example, the
state of California alone claims energy efficient building regulations have saved $11.4 billion
from "going up the flue" since the regulations went into effect in 1978. The California Energy
Commission forecasts an additional $43 billion in utility bills will be saved by the year 2011.
Because of this boom in efficient construction, residential operating costs for energy efficient
houses have been reduced to a point of diminishing returns; a passive solar house built today can
be designed to consume less energy over the next several decades than was consumed to build it.
Consequently, if comparable gains in energy conservation are to be realized over the next 20
years, the focus on savings must now concentrate on embodied energy. Embodied energy is
essentially all the other energy (beyond that reflected in operating costs) consumed in the
life cycle of a building: harvesting of resources used in the building, manufacturing of
products, transporting of materials from source to site, building technique, and recycling or
removal of existing structures.
In addition, all the thermal energy efficiency we've realized has a side effect—efficient
buildings may be hazardous to your health. Air infiltration has been greatly reduced in today's
residences compared to the houses of 20 years ago; low air infiltration is a key feature of
thermal energy efficiency. Off-gassing from many synthetic materials used in today's construction
can be trapped within a house much longer today than in the past because houses are not as
"leaky" as they used to be. So using nontoxic building materials for healthier indoor air quality
is even more essential today than in the past.
In addition to embedded energy considerations and nontoxic materials use, architects also need to
allow for the concept of sustainable design. Sustainable design essentially means solving the
needs of the present without detracting from the needs of the future by creating architecture
that minimizes the use of natural resources, toxic materials, and emissions of waste and
pollutants over the life cycle of a building.
The materials used in a sustainably designed structure are known as "green" building materials.
Using green building materials is a responsible approach to the maintenance of human health,
conservation of nonrenewable resources, and preservation of the environment for future
generations. Ultimately, homeowners, architects, and builders must aspire to such green design.
As an architect, my ability to satisfy clients' requests for design with an environmental
consciousness was being frustrated by a lack of easy access to green building product
information. So I created the
Green Building Resource Guide, a database
of more than 600 green building materials and products that are particularly useful to the
design and building professions.
In addition, one of my clients' first concerns, understandably, is cost: How much will
substituting a green building product for a conventional product cost? This is a reasonable
question, but when a client asks the builder, the typical response is often: "Any deviation from
standard construction practice will probably increase the cost of your project."
My key focus is standard, "unheroic" residential construction products and materials, such as
framing, siding, and flooring materials, rather than the higher-profile "heroic" products such
as solar or photovoltaic panels. "Unheroic" materials consume most of the energy and resources of
the residential building industry. They are the materials most architects, builders, and
homeowners are most familiar with.
Substituting many conventional materials with green building materials would change the course of
residential construction. A complementary situation could be created by providing a market for
the waste stream, thereby improving the economy and preserving our natural resources and
environment for future generations, contributing to a higher standard of living.
The survival of the green building industry depends upon our ability to build with green products.
But then again, isn't their survival today really our survival tomorrow? In the final analysis,
how can we afford not to use these products? To build for our future means to build it well,
build it beautifully, and build it green.
Profile:
John Hermannsson * John Hermannsson is an architect, a member of the American Institute of Architects, and president
of The Architectural Machine in Redwood City, California. He has practiced architecture in both
the United States and Scandinavia. He holds bachelor's degrees in both architecture and
mechanical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a master of
architecture from the University of Oregon. He was the first solar energy specialist for the
state of Oregon and has been in independent practice as an architect and building energy
consultant in California for many years.
|
|
More Articles by John Hermannsson
•
Designing for Energy Conservation
•
Construction Cost Savings with Green Building Products
|
|
Back to Main Page
 Email this page to a friend
|
