In the US, energy-inefficient buildings account for over half of greenhouse gas emissions.
But tearing everything down and rebuilding means a lot of demolition debris - carted off with trucks through poor communities - to be dumped on other poor communities further away. Not good.
Retrofitting buildings is often the best solution, and that means everything from more efficient appliances and lights, to vegetative surfaces on the roof and even walls, to renewable on-site energy generation and water systems.
Making over our buildings will take millions of people and some time - but take Southern California in the 1990's as a lesson: they built two nuclear power plants worth of electricity into homes and businesses through energy efficiencies, AND their economy grew faster than the rest of the nation.
If we put real capital into how we conserve energy, rather than building new power plants, we'll see more job-creating projects that support families and prosperity, instead of ugly, toxic-waste producers. The costs might look the same, but the employment and environmental outcomes are very different.
Engineers, carpenters, plumbers, and janitors alike can play an important role in accomplishing this mission. And remember: the real victory will come when all our buildings - and our people - are operating at peak performance.
Follow Majora Carter on Twitter: www.twitter.com/majoracarter
http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/releases/2008/solargrid.html
I would really like these units to be produced scaled-down so we consumers could have them too. They would be efficient, quiet, clean, and pass zoning much more easily than wind turbines (or a backyard coal-fire generator too, I suppose). The Stirling people are only interested in producing these on a utility scale so far, but I think they are missing the boat on skipping the consumer market.
it is insane to make power far from point of use, and ship it in, when almost all of us have the capacity to generate (including conservation "negawatts") nearly all our own power, or to draw it from another developed property nearby. for example, if we made it financially possible for every home, business and marginal agricultural/industrial property in the Mojave to build an oversized solar and/or wind system (no wilderness killed!), and structures in the urban sectors retrofit to conserve/generate, all of Southern CA would actually be a net exporter of energy.
So why are they trying to kill a million acres of taxpayer owned wilderness for "solar farms" and "wind farms in the Mojave???" Why are they trying to build MORE giant powerlines to pull dirty coal from Mexico (Green Path and Sunrise Powerlink)? PURELY FOR ENERGY COMPANY PROFITS!!
Please start lobbying all your reps to let US have OUR money to build OUR power generation from OUR sun and wind and save OUR wilderness and OUR homes. seems obvious, but it ain't happening.
The clients are getting more and more savvy. The kinds of clients that used to ask if we can put solar panels on their roof are now asking if we can add enough insulation to completely offset their consumption with rooftop PV. They don't give us that impatient look nearly as often when we talk about rainwater harvesting or wastewater recycling systems.
But their are two major challenges that will limit the effectiveness of building retrofit projects, particularly in the United States: Deep Footprint Disorder and Glass Box Syndrome. These are the unfortunate building design blights of the post-WWII era. Buildings afflicted DFD have so much sprawling core space that they require interior cooling even on the coldest day of winter. Our beloved GBS buildings, including most skyscrapers, have thermally-challenged glass envelopes even though most occupants don't want that much sunlight and usually keep the blinds closed. But they look so pretty on the outside...
I think that the new bulbs do not do well in horizontal installations, which is how the bulbs are installed in most bathrooms and bedrooms. In vertical installations, it seems that the bulbs last longer, usually. I would like to see more research into the problem that you have described. It seems that there is a big difference between the lifetime hyped on the bulb wrapping and the lifetime in use. Sort of like the difference between the mpg hyped on cars at the dealers, and the actual mpg in use. My 2001 Ford Focus was supposed to get much better mileage than what I actually have gotten over the years. They say 35 mpg, I say 27.5 mpg.
Replacing incandescent with CF or LED bulbs
Replacing the pool/spa motor with an energy star high efficiency product.
Thermostat setback. Here in Los Angeles, where summertime temperatures in the 100s are common, set your thermostat to 82 during the day, usually will not activate the system until the afternoon. Remember with air conditioning, you are removing the heat absorbed by the structure and its contents. Much more efficient to keep at a moderate temperature while you are out, then cool down when you get home. Keep setpoint at 78 or 80, forget 65. In the Winter, keep heating at 72, not at 82.
Get rid of that 1960 Coldspot frig/freezer in the garage for a newer, energy efficient model.
Also, most electrical utilities have aggressive residential rebate programs.
These are common sense approaches that can make a difference.
This idea would be a real win-win solution.
It could cut long term energy costs for businesses, help our balance of trade, create real jobs, and positively effect the environment.
The recent passage of solar tax credits by Congress can help in this process.
And for that matter what if you would like to beautify the neighborhood by undergrounding your electric/tel/cable lines so there is no visual blight of wires and poles all over the place, and don't forget the undergrounding the wires of street lighting.
On a more local front: in my work as a construction consultant I'm seeing a large increase in individuals requesting super efficient house designs. In new construction, buildings that use 50% less energy than a "code" building are easily achieved with no added cash outlay, (cost of mortgage + utilities) Others invest in even more efficient systems and renewable energy at a moderately higher first cost but much lower life cycle cost. We will remain behind the Europeans but we are making progress.
In remodeling people are adding energy upgrades to their projects: foam insulation, whole house air sealing including sealing rim joists, and boosting attic insulation above R-60. (Talking Minnesota here) It's done as a "While you are working on my bathroom can you upgrade my insulation, furnace or water heater?"
Industry wide, change will not come fast enough for me, but change is coming and it is significant. We've wasted years with an administration with ties to big oil. That time will come to an end soon.
I agree with you completely, and have blogged about the topic numerous times. The big issue is one of financial hurdle. There needs to be subsidies that make it zero cost for people to retrofit their homes. Like SmellyOne, I am placing all my hopes on Barack and a new political climate in 2009. Let us put our money into rebuilding our country, not Iraq.
http://lamarguerite.wordpress.com/2008/05/14/daring-to-imagine-a-sustainable-world/
This will happen, and without the prodding of snobs like yourself.
We haven't NEEDED to do this, yet it's already happening.
My dream is for America to lead the way in energy efficiency.
We went to the moon, we can do this.
(Has your country been to the moon...?)
Don't get your hopes too high for 2009, it's just gonna' be a different set of corporate goons in the White House, no matter who wins.