Study measures energy efficiency against economic feasibility
Earlier today, NAIOP national released a report that looks at the levels of energy efficiency a standard office building can achieve while remaining economically feasible.
The study looked at whether commercial development could achieve reduction
targets of between 30 and 50 percent above ASHRAE 90.1-2004. It compared results on a four-story, 95,000-square-foot, Class A office building in climate zones represented in Chicago, Baltimore and Newport Beach, Calif.
The results?
"Findings show that although significant energy efficiencies can be achieved (varying by climate zone), reaching a 30 percent reduction above the ASHRAE standard is not feasible using common design approaches and would exceed a 10-year payback. The study concluded that achieving a 50 percent reduction above the standard is not currently reachable."
Here is the breakdown:
Chicago had a 23 percent increase in energy savings at a $188,523 cost increase at an 8.8 year payback.
Baltimore had a 21.5 percent increase in energy efficiency at a $165,148 cost increase at an 11 year payback.
Newport Beach had a 15.8 percent increase in energy savings at a $169,898 additional cost at a 12.2 year payback.
Ouch. Those are long paybacks for most developers. But then again, developers ARE targeting these goals and reaching them. Heck, there are net-zero buildings under development! NAIOP's goal in developing this study was to prove that a one-size fits all approach does not work in green buildings, but that almost seems to holds true in countering the study, too. Though most of the developers who really push the green envelope, both in design and energy efficiency, are long-term holders of buildings.
Is that what it all comes down to? What a developer's business model is?
The study also said elements of a holistic, integrated design approach that could create higher energy efficiencies were impractical in the study's building prototype. The example the study gives is that a geothermal system requires an additional two acres of space, at least in the Newport Beach model.
To read the entire press release, go here.
DJC Green Building Blog
Welcome to the Daily Journal of Commerce Green Building Blog. Our focus is on green building issues in Seattle, the Pacific Northwest and anywhere that might interest you. If you have any comments or questions, please email maudes@djc.com.
Opinions expressed by bloggers are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Seattle Daily Journal of Commerce.
Polls
Sorry, there are no polls available at the moment.Recent Posts
- The next big thing in energy conservation? Small commercial buildings
- Your patio can also be a power plant
- Living Future a Deep Dive into What’s Possible…and Necessary, says Noted Paul Hawken
- House gets a deep green remodel for $150 a square foot
- When it comes to certified wood, GSA is right to question LEED
Recent Comments
- T. Caine on When it comes to certified wood, GSA is right to question LEED
- Washington, D.C’s Green Building Act: What it Is and What it Could Mean for the Future of Construction | Viridian Wood Products on What can we learn from D.C.’s green building law?
- Less energy: Seattle Green Home Tour 2013 | LD Arch Design on House gets a deep green remodel for $150 a square foot
- There isn’t anything better coming along. | O'Brien & Company on Crunch the numbers and preservation wins
- Juno on It’s time to redesign our neighborhoods
Energy information
- BetterBricks
- Earth Advantage Blog
- New Buildings Institute Blog
- Washington State University Extension Energy Program
Green blogs
- Best Green Blogs
- Building Capacity Blog
- Building Seattle Green Blog
- City Tank
- Climate Solutions
- Earth Advantage Blog
- GreenbuildingsNYC
- GreenFab News and Media
- Greenversations
- Inhabitat
- Jetson Green
- Landscape and Urbanism
- Metaefficient
- New Buildings Institute Blog
- Portland Architecture
- SeattleScape
- The Greenworkplace
- Thinkspace
Green Building organizations
- Built Green
- Cascadia Chapter of the U.S. Green Building Council
- City of Seattle Green Building
- City of Seattle Green Building Program
- DJC.com
- Environmental Services Directory for Washington State
- Green Infrastructure Wiki
- King County GreenTools
- Lifecycle Building Challenge
- Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Resources
- Puget Sound Partnership
- Seattle Great City Initiative
- Whole Building Design Guide
Green events in the Seattle area
- AIA Seattle
- Cascadia Green Building Council Events Calendar
- Master Builders of King and Shohomish County Built Green Events Calendar and News
- Seattle Department of Planning and Development Events
February 25th, 2009 - 13:00
What a terrible study. It seems to be aimed at stopping efficiency increases in legislation.
“Modeling included enhanced wall and roof insulations; varying levels of exterior glazing; higher-efficiency window assemblies; reduced air infiltration via the installation of an air barrier; reduced lighting power densities; higher-efficiency HVAC equipment; and photovoltaic electricity energy generation.”
Well that’s your problem. Simply adding insulation and changing your equipment efficiency won’t get you past 30% savings. And adding PV energy generation will make your payback skyrocket (we’re seeing around 30-yr payback for PV). All I take from this study is that bad design + bandaids will get you 30% savings with a 10-year payback.
How do we beat 30%? Design better buildings. It’s not really that tough. There are buildings here in Seattle that operated comfortably before air conditioning even existed. Add daylight-dimming lighting*, modern insulation*, and heat recovery* and you’re at or past 30% without costing much more than the base building.
* all three must be intelligently designed and installed
February 26th, 2009 - 10:11
One thing to keep in mind is that green buildings are tending to get higher rents for office space as tenants are willing to pay a premium for green buildings. So the payback period really ought to include the excess rental income those buildings are getting because of building being green. I’d imagine that would shorten the payback periods quite a bit.
Great article though!
March 2nd, 2009 - 15:43
Today, I received an e-mail from Architecture 2030 that challenges the NAIOP study with an article by Ed Mazria titled “A Hog in a Tuxedo is Still a Hog – the NAIOP disinformation study.”
It’s worth reading, if you’re curious to see a rebuttal of the study. In it, Mazria says, “NAIOP intentionally kept out of the analysis all the readily available low-cost, no-cost and cost-saving options to reduce a building’s energy consumption.” To read it, go here http://www.architecture2030.org/news/news_030209.html.