The Environmental Protection Agency announced its 2008 Green Power Leadership Awards and the community of Bellingham is officially one of five national winners in the Green Power Partner of the Year Category. And the only winner (in that category) that is a city, or community as the case may be. And oh, by the way, it’s the second year it has won this award.

For those of you who don’t know, Bellingham basically rocks when it comes to

The beautiful city of Bellingham

The beautiful city of Bellingham

renewable energy. In early 2007, the Bellingham local government chose to buy 100 percent green power for all city-owned facilities. Later the same year, the city helped launch the Bellingham Green Power Community Challenge, the goal of which was to increase green power purchasing among city residents and businesses to more than 2 percent of the city-wide electricity use. The community has surpassed the goal and buys more than 81 million kilowatt hours of renewable energy certificates; about 11 percent of the community’s total electrical use. More than 2,400 households and businesses buy power through the challenge.

Portland General Electric won an award in another category - the Green Power Beacon Award. In part, the utility won the award for its GreenPowerOregon.com Web site, which features coupons, a power calculator and information.

Other winners in the award category included Intel Corp, University of Pennsylvania and Cisco Systems. Winners in other categories included The Estee Lauder Companies, PepsiCo., the Philadelphia Phillies.

Almost inspires you to pay that extra $3, $6 or $12 a month towards renewable energy, eh?

For more information, visit the city of Bellingham’s Climate Protection Program.

READERS, if you like this post, subscribe to a free reader to make sure you are alerted whenever there’s a new post to the Green Building Blog. Just click on the ‘Subscribe in a Reader’ link at right!

Green building has many elephants in the room and thanks to the current state of the economy, this is a big one: will green building suffer because of the current state of the economy?

The problem with trying to answer this question is that it all comes down to

The road to market-wide green buildings?

definitions: what do you consider to be a green building? Does it need to be certified by a third party operation? Are you talking about all markets - commercial, homes, mixed use etc.?

Assuming you can answer the definition question, another one immediately presents itself: how do we measure how green buildings are doing? Is there any way to realistically measure the buildings that are putting off plans, and then how green building is a factor in that?

I cannot answer these questions without doing a lot of research with time I frankly don’t have. But in the end, it seems like there are two groups out there:

1. The group that thinks yes, green buildings will take a hit because they’re more expensive.

and

2. The group that thinks green buildings are actually more valuable because they cut down on energy use and electricity bills, and will hold their value better in future markets.

Which group do you belong to? Comment on my new poll at right, or tell me more below, to let me know!

P.S. For great coverage about how the market is affecting the Puget Sound region, check out the DJC. On Oct. 13, we ran a story from local contractor’s perspectives. On Oct. 14, we run a story on local architecture and engineering firm’s perspectives. Don’t miss them!

This post is by Gary Nordeen of the Washington State University Extension Energy Program.

Do you really want this under your floor?

Essentially what it documented is when you have a vented crawlspace in a warm, humid climate the floor framing is prone to rot. In this climate, your house is often being mechanically cooled (which also cools the crawl space), warm, humid air enters the crawlspace through the vents and condenses on the cold framing members. Eventually the house may develop rot and mold problems. I agree in this climate scenario that closed crawlspaces are a great idea to maintain structural integrity. Also, if there are ducts in the crawl space, any duct losses are now contained inside the building. Note the radon differences between the two crawlspaces and keep in mind that Princeville, NC is considered a low risk radon location by EPA.

Since this construction method is catching on nationally, WSU Energy Program received funding to test houses in our state to determine if this is the way to go in the Pacific Northwest. Here is a description of the results from David Hales, Lead Researcher on this project:

nbec-logo-sq-3color

“We’ve recently completed research on sealed and vented crawlspaces in the Pacific Northwest. The results are not yet published but based on our experience with four homes in Vancouver and four in Moses Lake that we monitored for about 18 months, the sealed crawlspaces (without supply air but power vented to the outside) maintained very stable temperatures through the entire heating season in the 55 to 60 degree range. The crawl should be kept negative to the house. Based on tracer gas studies we found that in the typical vented crawl, approximately 40% of the house air came from the crawlspace in the winter. By power venting a sealed crawl (50 cfm 24/7 in 1000ft2) less than 6 percent of the house air came from the crawl. Because of higher dilution rates and additional factors radon levels at both sites were less than 2 piC/l in the vented crawls but at the same sites radon levels were from 12-16 piC/l (EPA states radon mitigation should happen when a house has radon levels of 4 picocuries per liter or higher) in the sealed crawls. From an energy standpoint there is a small penalty overall for the sealed crawl that gets worse if you actually add supply air to the space. If a cold floor is your primary concern, I would insulate the floor and not provide heat to the crawl. Over the life of the building this would be the most cost effective way to maintain a warm floor.

Based on this research we are preparing to make a recommendation to the Building Code Council that would allow conditioned crawls under some circumstances. However, in most areas of the Northwest they incur an energy penalty and an added expense that I don’t think is really justified. Some jurisdictions have been allowing them but a strict interpretation of the WA State Energy Code does not. I believe that if they are done they should be power vented to the exterior and should not have conditioned supply air directly introduced. I also think they should not use fiberglass batts for the perimeter wall insulation. Radon mitigation is a must.”

The power vented crawl may have an advantage from an IAQ perspective because as our testing showed, it is possible to substantially reverse the winter time stack effect and decouple the house from any contaminants that may be in the crawl. The problem with this is that it requires the continuous operation of an exhaust fan. If the fan fails and is not replaced, the IAQ may actually become worse because the air now entering the house does not benefit from the passive dilution that takes place in the vented crawl.

So it seems that from an energy efficiency and indoor air quality perspective unvented crawl spaces are not a benefit here but let’s not forget about the ducts. If you have ducts in a crawl space they leak - it’s just a matter of how much. Here’s a radical concept. Instead of moving your house around your ducts, why don’t you design your house with the ducts inside your house? Then duct leakage is not a problem. If you can’t get them inside your house make sure they are sealed well (with mastic, NOT duct tape) and test them with a DuctBlaster.
 
Finally, here is a statement we hear a lot: “I have a water problem in my crawl space so I’m going to seal it up and heat it.”  Fix the water problem or you will end up with a science project under your floor.

Readers, do you agree with Gary?

This is a monthly post by different representatives of the Northwest Building Efficiency Center. This post was written by Margaret Thomas. 

As a librarian for several years at a library specializing in the area of energy, I responded to questions about energy-efficiency from homeowners, and those responsible for building, renovating or maintaining commercial buildings.

Often, what they wanted to know is: are there any rebates or other financial incentives to help me pay for energy-efficiency improvements? Of course there are, but they are as scattered and unpredictable as mercury on a marble floor.

A variety of utility, local, state and federal organizations offer help. But their programs are buffeted by budget cycles and political whims—they come and go with the seasons. Who keeps up? The Database for State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency.

The Web site comes with a dangerous URL: dsireusa.org. Get it wrong and you may be in for a shock. Get it right and you are connected to the single most useful and up-to-date source I know of for information about financial incentives.

DSIRE has been around for more than a decade and established itself as a central clearinghouse for information about financial incentives from every source. Funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, the database is managed by the North Carolina Solar Center and the Interstate Renewable Energy Council. They contact program managers regularly and update the database daily.

Posted on the front page is a clickable map of the United States. Choose any state and you get a menu including applicable grants, rebates, tax exemptions, and loan programs. The site also keeps track of relevant rules, regulations and policies.

If you don’t have time to clip coupons or shop around for energy incentives, bookmark DSIREUSA. It’s sites like this that can make a librarian feel as useless as the Maytag Repairman.

It’s Monday and already my mind is on Friday because it’s that dashingly loud holiday called FOURTH OF JULY!

But today I found another reason to think about the holiday, due to an article in my inn box from the Environmental News Network called, ‘8 ways to green your independence day’ by Earth 911.

Greening your Fourth of July? The idea seems outlandish and obvious at the same time, but the article’s suggestions aren’t.

Here are some of the article’s (shortened) ideas:

Celebrate outside to save energy. 

Drink lots of water in large containers. Water will keep you hydrated and using reusable containers will prevent lots of plastic water bottles from ending up in a landfill.

Check to make sure the beach you want to go to is open before you go so you don’t waste gas (FYI all beaches in the city of Seattle are open and awaiting your sun bathing self!)

Use eco-friendly fireworks. Apparently they exist … if you want to find them search for fireworks rich in nitrogen. For more, see the article.

Do you have a Fourth of July suggestion? How about a fourth of July green building suggestion? Mine would be use fireworks far away from buildings so they don’t catch on fire and cause unnecessary rebuilding. Pretty good for an off the cuff idea, hmm?

First off, let’s be clear. I’m not fear mongering, my point isn’t to scare people. But the doomsday scenario of China’s taking over the U.S. housing industry the same way Asia took over the U.S. auto industry was a driving factor behind Parr Lumber’s development of a building science-based efficient home product. 

In case you missed it, I discussed the product (and Asian threat, real or not) in an article last Thursday here.

The product is called the Parr High Performance System. Parr takes an architect’s plans, tweaks them, builds pieces of a house’s frame at a climate controlled plant and assembles the building’s envelope on site. It’s quick, easy and they say more efficient.

Parr says it reduces energy bills, reduces job site lumber waste by 75 percent, shortens the construction schedule, and provides cleaner air and consistent room temperature.

Oh, by the way, Toyota Housing Services has already entered the housing market in San Antonio, Texas.

Apparently, Toyota has been in the housing business since the 1970s. For more information on what the Japanese modular homes look like, see below or click here.

Nate Bond, director of sales at Parr, says houses have been built the same way since the stud frame home was invented in the 1800s. He says something needs to change to keep American homes competitive and efficient. If Asia brings a great, cheap, modular house to the mass American market, he said, “They would take over the U.S. housing market without firing a shot.” What do you think? Is he right?

If he is right, could efficient easy homes be the answer?

For an overview of the housing market from a mortgage planning perspective, check out this post called Brian’s Blog O-Parr-Tunity here.

For more on the Parr product, where the idea came from, how it works and building science, read my story in the DJC here.

This week, I (and a packed crowd at Seattle City Hall) heard Svend Auken, Denmark’s former minister for energy and the environment, speak about everything from energy to economics to the U.S.’s responsibility in a climate-conscious world (sign a post Kyoto agreement, lead the way).

Then, I sat down with him in a one-on-one interview to focus his attention a little bit more on buildings. What should we do, I asked? How should the construction industry attack the problem of a changing world?

His answer?  Government.

Government, he said, needs to make very, very strict rules and make it clear to people what they want out of a building. A good way to encourage that, he said, is by requiring an energy goal per square foot of a building rather than a whole-building goal. Once the goal is set, the industry will follow.

Of course government in Denmark is managed differently than government in Seattle and Washington. On multiple occasions, for example, Diane Sugimura, DPD’s director, has expressed exasperation at creating a balance between energy codes and letting untested technologies be used.  As a city government, she’s said, you don’t want to just start using something that might be more efficient but hasn’t been adequately tested. In Denmark, you can be fairly creative as long as you achieve the end energy goal.

But Auken said government has to be very strong on this. Yes, people will moan for a while, he said, but in the end it will make them more creative and will be more profitable (especially in an age of rising oil costs where energy bills are sure to “skyrocket”).

“Once you let architects think in terms of energy efficiency, they get more creative,” he said. “Architects love to do low energy, it’s so much more fun.”

How about it architects? Are energy efficient buildings (like London’s BedZED project above) more fun or a pain in the bum?

For more on Denmark, read my post from last week (click tag ‘Scandinavia’ below). For more on Auken’s talk, what Denmark did and how we could do it, check out my story here.

Face it: everyone who’s anyone in green design says the U.S. is way behind Europe. And one of the areas outpacing us further and further… is Scandinavia. 

Scandinavia’s sustainable strengths are no new feat in Seattle. Local group International Sustainable Solutions has been taking local building and city professionals there for years on a whirlwind eco-tourist trip. It is just about getting ready to kick of a Portland version of the trip,  more here.

Scandinavian speakers have also graced the Seattle scene every couple of months to teach us what we don’t know. One of them, Svend Auken, is going to be in Seattle again on Monday from noon to 1 p.m. He will be speaking at Seattle City Hall in the Bertha Landes room.

Scandinavia also reared its green head when I attended a forum at the UW a couple of weeks ago. At that forum, Jayson Antonoff of Seattle’s green building team (formerly with ISUSTAIN) spoke about how Scandinavia has focused on energy efficiency by looking at different energy producers, varying it’s idea of energy, and requiring buildings to meet an energy requirement per square foot.

For more on that story, and to learn what other sustainability leaders in the Pacific Northwest think about green solutions, check out the story in the DJC here. (more…)

My friends over at the Seattlepi.com’s reader blog Building Seattle Green have got a great new post today by Mati Bishop on solar hot water. To check it out, click here now.

Too often in the Pacific Northwest, solar technology is discounted because, well, people think we don’t have any sun. But that “fact” doesn’t always ring true. For example, with the solar battery that powers the BigBelly trash compactor (see here for a past story I did on the topic) the battery actually works better with the ambient light available when it’s cloudy out, rather than in direct sunlight.

Check out the Building Seattle Green post. It’s worth reading to learn other mythbusting solar facts! 

As for the photo, I can’t say if that’s a myth or not. It’s a farmer named Ma Yanjun of Qiqiao village in Shaanxi province China who, according to Ananova, built a solar powered water heater out of beer bottles and hosepipes. I guess anything’s possible!