Green Building
By: Joshua M. Ewert
Goshen College, Goshen, IN
Professor Stanly Grove, PhD.
November 29, 2006
Outline
Current Green Building Options
Energy Consumption and Green Materials
Reaching a sustainable lifestyle
Costs/benefits and incentives of green building
The artificially constructed world of houses, mega malls, warehouses and all the other endless forms of man made structures has a immense influence on the natural world, human life, and the economy. While one cannot argue that these buildings and developments provide immeasurable benefits to the human societies, they are at the same time significantly affecting the natural world and the environment on which humanity depends so deeply. The US Green Building Council (USGBC), discussed later, estimated that residents of America produced over 136 million tons of municipal solid waste in 2005 alone. According to the Annual Energy Review of 2005 by the EIA, the residential sector is responsible for the consumption of over 9.86 quadrillion BTU’s of fuels in 2001, excluding wood and primary electricity (Energy Information Administration, 2005. p. 39).
As this world is continually being developed and stripped of its limited resources, the advances into alternative lifestyles is becoming exceedingly more urgent. In a world consumed with waste, energy consumption, and land degradation, green building and sustainable housing offers solutions and improvements for today’s energy and waste issues. This paper will explore some of the current options in this field, national standards, and personal choices and lifestyles that play a vital role in sustaining humanities existence into the future.
When researching such a broad topic as this, there are a plethora of words and names given to this type of environmentally conscious building. Therefore three broad terms were selected, of which are by no means all encompassing, but accurately represent the majority of the most common forms of environmentally conscious building, as well as the most commonly used terminology relating to this field. These three terms are alternative buildings, green buildings, and sustainable buildings. The uses of these words are neither mutually exclusive nor fully independent in that there is much overlap between the various descriptors of this style of buildin
The first term, sustainable building and development, is focused around the balance of human needs with the ability of the earth to meet these needs. Sustainability is often defined as having the ability of being continued through the long-term future with minimal long-term environmental effects (Sustainable, 2006). According to the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency, 2006), green building, which is the second term, is the construction of healthier and more resource efficient styles of structures, renovations, operations, maintenances, as well as demolition. In this case, the EPA joined the terms green and sustainable construction into one main category. Finally, the term alternative building more broadly describes a style of construction that exists outside of the given societal norm. Although this easily could encompass a wide range of styles and forms, it is mainly used to once again describe a building technique where environmental impact is the major concern.
As one can see there are no definite qualities or differences that separates these three terms, if there is indeed any separation at all. It is important to examine and compare these three highly used terms, even though it may appear to be of little significance. As for measures of clarification and consistency, the term green will be used for the remainder of this discussion because this term more fully encompasses both the ideals of sustainability as well as the emphasis of building within the natural world.
Current Green Building Options
When it comes to the actual form of the structure, there are endless options for architectural designs that can be implemented. The two broadest categories where the majority of buildings would be described are commercial and residential sectors. The commercial sector, which encompasses the business related buildings, tends to be much larger and use a higher amount of energy. This higher energy consumption is not necessarily a description of the buildings efficiency, but rather that the overall energy use is higher within these large buildings. The other category, the residential sector, is composed of all the personal buildings and living spaces. This is where most the focus of this discussion will rest, mostly due to the excessively large scale of the commercial sector. Also, this is where the majority of people will connect and will have the most success in influencing future homeowners towards a more sustainable lifestyle.
Within this residential sector, there are many different levels and degrees which green building can be applied. There are the people on the far “green side” of the spectrum, where environmental impact is the ultimate deciding factor when dealing with building situations. Within this radical group the aesthetic, or rather the social norms, are of little to no concern, and would fully embrace the aspects of alternative life as discussed earlier. On the other side of the spectrum, would be the majority of homeowners. These people would be less inclined to build and/or buy a house that has the distinct aesthetic values as well as life style implications that accompany the previously stated “far green” style of house. Fortunately, there are building options that suit almost the entirety of the people within this spectrum.
Before continuing, it is important to discuss an essential concept in this discussion of green building and working towards a sustainable world. An ecological footprint is a concept that was originally coined by the Canadian professor and ecologist William Rees (Ecological Footprint, 2006). The concept of an ecological footprint goes hand in hand with the ideals of sustainability. The footprint is a tool that is used to measure the hypothetical amount of resources that are required for a human population to support itself and then also process the waste all in a sustainable manner (Ecological Footprint, 2006). This concept is often used to investigate and compare the sustainability of an individual’s lifestyle, companies, regions and many more aspects of the human constructed world. This measurement of a population, or any aspect of humanity, can be used to analyze our overshoot of the Earth’s capacity, and can enable us to more clearly understand our environmental impacts and manage our ecological assets (Ecological Footprint, 2006).
As mentioned earlier, there are some green architectural designs that tend to fall more on the radical end of the spectrum. This form of building often results in houses that generally have a much smaller ecological footprint. When dealing with housing options there are people who will be constructing a new home and can implement these green options throughout the building process. However, there are some who will not be building new but still have many options where one can implement green aspects, which will be discussed later. Due to the nature of these homes, unless one already owns a home that would be considered a radically green building, the majority of this type of building will rest within the scope of new construction. These buildings generally have a much smaller ecological footprint than any of the other forms of green building. The main reason for this is because this style of house is built with the primary focus resting on the objective of creating a structure that is environmentally friendly. These houses are usually built out of very natural products, including straw bales, brick, and even logs (Green Building, 2006).
Straw bale home construction is a very realistic and practical option for the home owner who wishes to build “as green as possible.” Methods developed for straw bale construction have proven to be a reliable and sound form of housing construction. According to Strawbale.com (2006), the advantages of this form of construction are extensive and impressive. Straw bale homes can save up to 75% on all heating and cooling costs, primarily because of the insulating qualities of the bale walls. Also, due to these high insulating values, it is remarkably quiet compared with standard studded walls. Among these immediate aspects, the environmental benefits of using all natural products for home construction are endless.
In contrast to the radical building options, there are also many styles, or methods, that are more suitable and/or appealing to the average consumer that tend to be less “radical” than the previously discussed form of housing options. Remember, the term “green” only describes the impact the building has on the environment, which is defined by the ecological footprint model, and is not related to its aesthetic values per say. It is rather apparent that there are some rather unfair stigmas and misunderstandings towards the term green and its implications in the whole of society. Green building can be applicable in any way, and to any degree desired by the individual. It doesn’t imply that one must choose a radical environmentalist lifestyle, although this is what is needed in order to reach the ultimate sustainable society.
There are many options if one chooses to build green, but also desires to have a house that has the aesthetic values of a standard home. These types of housing options do not necessarily imply that one must build new, and I will discuss renovation and several post-construction options a bit later on, although there is much overlap between new and post-construction methods.
Energy Consumption and Green Materials
When one decides to build with green aspects in mind, the biggest and most influential factors are energy, materials, and waste. Lets first look at options that can be used to reduce energy consumption. Wind and solar are the most common ways in which the average consumer can reduce their energy use. Wind turbines offer a very practical way to help with the energy use of a household. However, wind systems are often rather expensive, and the average consumer wouldn’t have adequate funding to erect a large enough turbine to supply total power for a house. One thing about the smaller turbines is that the smaller more affordable ones can be installed and can be used in conjunction with power from the grid (Small Wind Turbines, 2006). Examples of smaller end wind turbines consist of 8-10 feet blades, and produce around 5-10 kWh of energy per day, and average costs of these units are around $2000-$5000. As this is a very small application of a wind turbine, the benefits are rather obvious. For example, running a lamp uses up to 10 kWh per month. This shows that the use of this turbine can easily power a light for an entire month in just one day, and has the ability to power much more. Another beneficial part of these wind turbines is that they are capable of not only supplying, but also storing additional energy for future use when necessary.
Along with wind as an alternative source of energy is capturing solar energy. This is a viable and efficient source of energy, and is also slightly more aesthetically pleasing that large wind turbines. As author Daniel Chiras (2000) states, people all over the world have more than enough solar radiation to capture for energy than we can even comprehend. With advancing technologies, there has been increasing work done to make solar power more common and easily applicable. For one example, there are photovoltaic cells that have been incorporated into shingles and wired together into the houses main energy grid (U.S. Department of Energy, 2006)
In conjunction with these alternative sources of energy, the easiest, and most cost effective way of using less energy is by simply changing ones lifestyle. The fact is that consumers are building far larger houses than necessary. These excessively large houses then need to be kept at a set temperate no matter what the weather is like, and this heating and cooling requires a large amount of energy. As is common knowledge to many people, energy consumption dramatically drops if one simply allows the house to get a couple degrees hotter in the summer and cooler in the winter. Another very cost effective application is large attic fans. These are used to move massive amounts of air through the living spaces by means of air returns, and is much more cost and environmentally efficient than running an air-conditioning unit. Another very easy way to reduce ones energy use is by installing energy efficient rated appliances, water conserving plumbing, and even florescent light bulbs. These are some very simple, and very possible options for any homeowner who seeks to reduce their energy use and environmental footprint.
The mentioned examples are merely some very specific, few illustrations of ways and products which can be used in building to work towards a greener house. There are many resources available that have collected information about materials that are green. An excellent source is called Green Building Products by Alex Wilson and Mark Piepkorn (2006), which is a collection of green products for every stage of construction. In addition, it is suitable for all homeowners, no matter what style of home one has. These are products that are currently on the market, with a short description of each product for easy comprehension and comparisons.
Contrary to common belief and knowledge, land management and site selection plays a crucial role when dealing with green building, and working at minimizing ones footprint. The World is composed of extremely precious, delicate and complex natural systems that are vital for the survival of life on Earth. In order for humanity to achieve a sustainable lifestyle and greatly reduce its ecological footprint (which is vital for the continuation of life on earth) it is imperative to look for ways to reduce our never-ending impact on the precious natural systems. This directly correlates to the use of land for housing and development.
As the population of America alone has reached over 300 million (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006) and the world population continues to increase profusely, pristine land and natural systems are being encroached upon more and more each year. There has always been a push in humanity to reach the more isolated areas of the world. This is especially true in the American society. Now that transportation and technology have allowed people to access the remote areas more easily, nature is being altered and developed far too readily. When deciding to begin a building project, there are several key aspects to analyze and consider before choosing a building site.
When discussing land use and management practices, arguably the most influential and important aspect is the hydrological cycle. The fact is that there will be relatively the same amount of water deposited on the earth, which causes a severe problem when there are fewer places for that water to go. As the world continues to become more and more developed, buildings, pavement, and asphalt are increasingly covering the land. As is well known, these systems are not water permeable, and therefore one must go to great lengths in order to move the water to a desired location. Houses use gutters, roads use ditches, cities use storm water tunnels, and even some countries use much more massive structures to remove water. It is and interesting paradox, water is one of the key necessities of life, but at the same time the developed world works hardest to remove this from their environment. So what can a homeowner do in order to help reduce their impacts on the watershed? The first consideration that one can make before beginning a new building project is to analyze the site with the hydrological cycle in mind. It is relatively easy to determine if the building will immediately disrupt any major water systems. This involves recognizing the presence of streams, wetlands, lakes, and other visible components of the watershed that are greatly susceptible to disturbances. However, simply because one is able to avoid the immediate disruption of these watershed components, there are many other aspects which must be addressed. The main concern is water run off, which is largely caused by precipitation on the impermeable structures. The problem begins when water hits the house, becomes concentrated in the gutters, and then released onto the ground on one location. This water discharge is abnormally high in velocity and volume, and often causes much soil erosion. One relatively easy and inexpensive solution is the utilization of rain gardens. Rain gardens are small “wetlands” that are built at the downspout site, which is intended to absorb the water discharge and then slowly percolate the water into the ground there onsite. Rain gardens are very small and take up a small portion of area. Constructed of rain gardens begins by digging a small hole/ditch (size is determined by roof area) and filling with coarse substrate at the bottom, layered with smaller fines, and finally planted with mesic wetland plants. This type of structure can be very beneficial to any household, whether it be one in a rural setting or one in a developed area. The objective is to simply allow the water to be slowly released into the ground. This can also be very applicable to large buildings, parking lots, and even recreational fields where water must be moved from an area (Rain Garden Network, 2003-2005).
Another very effective way to ecologically manage the issues with water management is the application of a green roof. A green roof, though the name may be deceiving, doesn’t mean that the color of the roof is that of a green hue, but rather that the roof is composed of vegetation and soil. As compared to normal roofs, green roofs generally have a lower sloping roofline, a watertight base layer, and drainage systems. This is then covered by several layers of growing mediums and finally vegetated with desired and suitable plants (Green Roof, 2006). The vegetation can be anywhere from grasses to mosses, vegetables to herbs, however, ecologically speaking, sods and other monocultures are not a viable option for roofscapes. According to Greenroofs.com (2006), there are two main types of green roofs. There is the extensive roof, which has a lower profile appearance, due to the use of fewer growing medium layers as well as the vegetation selections. This type of roof is mainly used as an ecological solution to water. On the other hand, there is the intensive roof, which is used for environmental as well as possible human uses as well. These roofs have more soil layers and have the ability to grow a wider range of vegetation, including grasses, herbs and vegetables. Though this is an applicable solution in any situation, the utilization of green roofs is a very sensible and beneficial thing especially in urban areas where water runoff is a great concern. Economically, the average extensive green roof costs from $15-$25 a square foot, and an average intensive roof costs from $25-$45 (Greenroofs.com, 2006). As in any building project, the prices vary drastically depending on the special circumstances. This is compared to the average asphalt shingled roof which generally costs anywhere between $8 a square foot to $12 a square foot (Home Depot, 2006).
Apart from the broad environmental concerns of building a house, economically it can be extremely beneficial to adequately analyze the building site. Though it is increasingly more popular, it simply doesn’t make sense to build in “high risk” areas where natural events are highly likely to cause destruction to the home and site. Although these locations are attractive to many people for what ever aesthetic values it has, the geographic and natural conditions must, often times, be greatly altered simply to make housing a possibility. One obvious example of this, though it is apparent across the country, is in Southern Louisiana where people once found it to be a very enticing location to develop. However, in order to build a city out on the low land areas, massive diking and damming systems were constructed in order to remove the water and reduce the threats of flooding (Ko, & Day, 2000). In this situation, not only were thousands of acres of wetland coastal areas greatly disturbed and destroyed, but also the people who live there have and will face great environmental hazards, of which are nearly impossible to eliminate. Although it may seem easy to simply say, “don’t live there”, there are much broader social and economical factors which accompany this issue. This was merely used as a widely known example of human habitation in environments not readily suitable to a developed lifestyle.
Reaching A Sustainable Lifestyle
The statistic towards the beginning of this discussion of municipal waste generated was a way to introduce and incorporate sustainable lifestyles into this discussion. Some may think that this just doesn’t have anything directly to do with green building styles. When analyzing this highly complex and interconnected topic of green building, it is equally important to discuss the concept of green lifestyles as well. The fact is that sustainable issues are not solved by simply housing solutions, but is a whole lifestyle that requires aspects of all sustainable living. Housing is a great first step, and it is an excellent materialistic and concrete starting point that can be used as a tool to help drive the ideals of sustainable living. The fact is that the utilization of green building is simply one aspect, a first step, to a greener and more sustainable life. Humanity, especially highly developed nations that have advanced technologies and resources available, must find ways in which we can greatly reduce the ecological footprint on the Earth. This can be achieved through basic lifestyle choices, ones that seem undesirable to the general American society. Actions such as conserving energy by turning lights off, using public transportation and hanging clothes for drying can make a significant difference. Clothes dryers are considered to be the second most household energy consumer under the refrigerator. In an average household, the use of a clothes dryer costs about $85 a year, where the use of solar heat and wind can perform the same actions with no environmental implications (World Wise, 2006). Another easy way to make a difference is by using energy rated home appliances such as stoves and heaters. These are some examples that can help towards a lifestyle that has a smaller footprint.
Costs/Benefits and Incentives of Green Building
The broad environmental aspects and incentives of green building and working towards a more sustainable lifestyle have all been discussed, but what are the economic costs and benefits of this type of building? Although green building and housing options have few immediate economic advantages, there can be great long-term rewards if done and applied in an appropriate and effective manner. One hindrance towards this form of building is the issues with short-term economics of the American society. This is not altogether surprising, since the immediate costs of housing and establishment can be rather daunting and challenging for many people. However it may be the case, one must also take into consideration the many long-term economic advantages, not to mention the broader environmental advantages.
As is the case for many alternative technologies, such as cars, fuels and energy sources, the government offers many incentives for the use of green building methods. The energy in the United States has been drastically increasing with the advances in technology and the population explosions. According to the EPA, in 2002 buildings in the US are responsible for 39.4% of all energy consumption, and the residential sector was responsible for well over half of that total energy (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2004). This is a significant amount of energy consumption by households, something that can easily be decreased with some innovation and care.
The United States Green Building Council (USGBC) is the governmental organization that sets the standards in sustainable architecture and green building. This organization is composed of more than 80 national chapters, and over 7,200 members nationally. According to the USGBC, their main focus is to transform the built world into an environmentally and socially responsible, healthy, and prosperous atmosphere that improves the quality of life (US Green Building Council, 2006).
As is the case for almost every aspect of society, there is a governmental rating system that is used to classify green buildings. This system is called Leadership in Energy Efficient Design, also known as LEED, and was developed by the US Green Building Council. This system has become the most respected, and most applied form of green construction ratings and comparisons. Some of the major objectives of this program are to define and set a standard of comparison for green buildings in the United States, increase awareness and competition to green building, and also to push for whole building design practices (Leadership in Energy Efficient Design, 2006). LEED was originally designed with its primary focused towards businesses. Only in recent years has the USGBC been developing and implementing a rating system that is focused at households and the residential sector of construction (U.S. Green Building Council, 2006). Within the LEED rating system, there are four main levels where a building can fall: LEED certified, LEED gold, LEED silver, or LEED platinum, depending on the extent to which it meets the criteria. In order for a facility to become certified it must adequately meet the 5 main goals emphasized by this program. These five major areas are sustainable sites, water efficiency, energy and atmosphere, materials and resources, and indoor environmental quality (U.S. Green Building Council, 2006). Under each of these five main points, a facility must reach a designated level of sustainable and green attributes. This rating system is adjusted for each facility and is designed to bring a standard of comparison and utilization of green attributes to a building project and facility.
This is a precious and delectate natural world, one which humanity has the obligation to care for and ensure its longevity. As this world is continually being developed and stripped of its limited resources, the advances into alternative lifestyles is becoming exceedingly more urgent. In a world consumed with waste, energy consumption, and land degradation, green building and sustainable housing offers solutions and improvements for today’s energy and waste issues. As technology advances and the understanding of the natural world and human impacts increases, we must look towards ways in which our societies can mitigate the destructive presence on the natural systems. Green building, and the push for sustainable lifestyles is a very sensible and possible way in which we have the ability to reduce our ecological footprint. As the renowned author and environmentalist Wendell Berry once said “The care of the Earth is our most ancient and most worth, and after all our most pleasing responsibility. To cherish what remains of the Earth and to foster its renewal is our only legitimate hope of survival” (Think Exist, 2006).