E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Miller Hull Partnership illustration
Earth Day co-founder Denis Hayes and architect Jason McLellan are behind a project that aims to build the greenest office building ever.
SEATTLE – An office building that lasts 250 years with no monthly electricity or water bills? It may sound like an environmentalist’s pipe dream, but it will soon be a reality, say the builders of what they hope will be the biggest office tower in the nation that produces as much water and electricity as it consumes.
Currently rising from a pit in downtown Seattle, the $30 million, six-story “living building” is being spearheaded by Denis Hayes and Jason McLennan, who believe they can save the world one building at a time by reducing the massive energy appetites of modern cities.
"Eighty-two percent of Americans, and more than half of humanity, now live in cities -- none of which have been designed for sustainability," said Hayes, who in 1970 helped create Earth Day, which has developed into the planet’s unofficial holiday.
Hayes, 67, now heads the Bullitt Foundation, an environmental nonprofit that intends to practice what it preaches by moving into the building when it’s completed, currently planned for November.
The Bullitt Center, as the building will be known, is designed to use just a third of the energy consumed by a typical office building its size. It also aims to minimize its resource footprint by generating electricity from solar power, collecting water from rainfall and treating all sewage and wastewater onsite. It also will have no parking for cars -- just racks for bikes.
It won’t be entirely off the electrical grid, so that it can make it through the periods when there isn’t enough sunlight to meet the tenants’ demands. But it will later repay those withdrawals, said McLennan, 38, who is CEO of the Northwest-based International Living Future Institute.
"In the summer it gives excess energy to the (power) grid and in the winter it gets it back when we can't generate enough," he said. "It nets out at zero on an annual basis."
As for the water system, Seattle law requires the building be hooked up to its water supply but the goal is to take in enough rainwater to make ends meet.
Standard buildings are a "negative gift" to taxpayers, he said, because of the burdens they impose in terms of pollution and wasted energy. "We clean up our own messes ... that's the big picture," he said.
Hayes said that in addition to being self-sufficient, the building will make sense financially, explaining that while it may cost a third more to build than a traditional office building, it is designed to last centuries longer.
"We are using the Bullitt Center to explore what is possible on the cutting edge of green, using existing technology and constrained by reasonable economics," said Hayes. "Durability is key. The average building lasts 40 years, we're going for 250 years. ... It's a fundamentally different approach."
Getting the building to last 2 1/2 centuries, McLennan said, comes down to three factors: quality building materials; careful and clever detailing from the architecture firm; and high quality construction from the contractor.
Ultimately, the partners hope to get the Bullitt Center certified under the “Living Building Challenge,” which is run by the Living Future Institute.
In order to be certified as a living building, developments much meet benchmarks in seven performance areas. The slideshow at the top of the story illustrates those areas, each of which includes several "imperatives," such as "car-free living" and "urban agriculture."
So far, about 140 projects are registered for the Living Building Challenge, including a handful in Seattle. Only four have been certified as meeting the challenge criteria so far, as many are under construction or have not yet met the year of occupancy necessary for certification. Most are small projects; a few are office buildings, but none is as large as the Bullitt Center.
Net-zero homes have been around since the 1970s, but McLennan noted that it's "much harder to achieve this in a larger building, as the larger the building the more difficult it is to generate all your own energy and harvest all your water. Scale makes it challenging."
If the Bullitt Center is certified as a living building, it will be the largest net-zero office building in the U.S., McLennan said. A three-story Center for Sustainable Landscapes also is under construction in Pittsburgh at Phipps Conservatory and Botanical Gardens, he noted.
Here are some of the major pieces that Hayes and McLennan say will enable the building to meet the challenge:
- Solar panels on the roof that extend over the sides of the building will provide the electricity. (Panels have gained enough efficiency in recent years to make them operable even in places with as much cloud cover as Seattle.)
- Water will circulate through 26 geothermal wells, each 400 feet deep in earth that's a constant 55 degrees, to help offset heating costs in winter.
- Rainwater will be collected in a 56,000 gallon basement cistern. Purification steps include a special membrane for the roof, ultrafiltration and ultraviolet light. Because the process has to be tested before Seattle will consider authorizing it for drinking water, sinks and showers, Hayes calls it "the last big hurdle" for the center.
- Sewage will be sent to 10 basement composters and then shipped offsite to become fertilizer.
- All timber frames and other wood will be certified as sustainable by the Forest Stewardship Council.
The criteria for certification, McLennan said, are "more high performing" than the standards of the better known LEED, for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, which were developed by the U.S. Green Building Council and adopted by many developers across the country.
"It's time to move the ball farther," he said, adding that "single projects can change the way the design community thinks."
The U.S. Green Building Council said it welcomes the living building concept and has worked closely with McLennan, who also runs the council's Seattle chapter.
"It's more challenging," acknowledged Scot Horst, the council's vice president for LEED. "Most buildings that attempted but couldn't meet the (living building) criteria were still LEED certified."
John Brecher / msnbc.com
The six-story Bullitt Center will block the downtown views from the apartments at left, as well as partly obscure those from the condos in the center of this photo.
Even a cutting-edge development like the Bullitt Center can have difficulty meeting the living building benchmarks. For example, it is replacing a single-story bar and thereby covering up the views from apartments behind it.
That would appear to violate the Living Building Challenge's "equity" imperative: "The project may not block access to, nor diminish, the quality of fresh air, sunlight and natural waterways for any member of society or adjacent developments."
But McLennan notes the apartments went up knowing that the Bullitt property would some day be developed. "The windows for the adjacent building were placed along an alley where development was always expected and part of city zoning for that site," he said.
STORY: 'ZeroHouse' concept debuts in California
Hayes said tenants will get a rent reduction in return. "It's not a perfect solution but we're doing what we can," he said.
McLennan added that the upsides -- more diversity and added jobs in the area -- outweigh any downside.
Architects from Pink Cloud leap into the future with their eco-friendly vision of turning oil silos into low-cost housing and share their award winning ideas with Msnbc.com's Dara Brown.
Eco-friendly projects aren't immune to the community frictions that often greet new developments.
In Wallingford, a neighborhood of homes and low-rise commercial buildings in Seattle, a green developer inspired by the Bullitt project says it needs to exceed the city's height limit in order to make its building cost effective.
That has angered neighbors like Katherine Bragdon, herself an environmental activist, and put the project on hold as city government deals with the opposition.
"No developer should be given special privileges to exceed current zoning by 44 percent, impair views that belong to the public, and trump years of work and consideration that have gone into neighborhood planning," Bragdon said. "I’ve worked on a number of conservation campaigns around the country over the past two decades so I want to stress that I respect and value the green building aspect of this project. … But I also believe that we can’t trample over one good cause (well-planned neighborhoods, public process, fair zoning) for another."
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:
- Mom: Trayvon was killed because of 'the color of his skin'
- Fuhgeddaboutit! NJ top state for fighting corruption
- Woman found dead with three kids was 'good mom'
- Nebraska tornadoes rip roofs from houses
- Soldier held in Afghan killings had financial issues
- Tea Party spokesman arrested in sex assault case
Leave a Comment:
They're putting their money and reputation where their mouth is. Bravo!
I can support everything about this building except the lack of parking. "Car-free" is never going to happen, it simply isn't practical in this day and age, and never will be. Many people who work in this building will surely end up driving there, but will just park somewhere else. And what about electric vehicles? They need spaces to park just like any other vehicle. They want to discourage ALL cars? That simply isn't going to have the desired effect, period.
Green Technology is an economic disaster
Goodnight Sunshine
Germany is cutting solar-power subsidies because they are expensive and
inefficient
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/project_syndicate/2012/02/why_germany_is_phasing_out_its_solar_power_subsidies_.html
Spain's Green Disaster a Lesson for America
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/finance/2011/November/Spains-Green-Disaster-a-Lesson-for-America/
Spain's Green Disaster a Lesson for America
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/finance/2011/November/Spains-Green-Disaster-a-Lesson-for-America/
BARCELONA, Spain -- It was just last year that President Obama was touring
Solyndra headquarters and telling us green technology was the future:
"The future is here. We are poised to transform the ways we power our
homes and our cars and our businesses," Obama said.
The president said America had better get on board or else fall behind the
rest of the world in the growth of renewable or "green" technology.
Spain's Colossal Failure
One the nations he held up as an example for America's green technology
effort was Spain.
However, President Obama may like Spain's green technology program, but the Spanish -- not so much. One study has declared it a colossal failure.
The Spanish recently threw out their socialist government over their terrible
economy and a 22 percent unemployment rate.
Green technology was supposed to be Spain's path to more jobs and a cleaner
more prosperous future. It wasn't.
"Politicians told us some years ago that they found a new way of
investing or doing public investing in a new sector, in the renewable energies,
that would create a sort of new economy with new jobs, green jobs, so called
green jobs," Dr. Gabriel Calzada Álvarez, with King Juan Carlos University
in Madrid, said.
But what the Spanish got was a big helping of a Solyndra style business
debacle: a lot of taxpayer money down the drain and jobs that cost a fortune to
create.
A Job Killer
Calzada, an economist, studied Spain's green technology program and found that each
green job created in Spain cost Spanish taxpayers $770,000. Each Wind Industry
job cost $1.3 million to create.
"President Zapatero, for example, when he came in to power, said he
knew, 'he knew' that solar energy was the future," Calzada said. "He
'knew' this, so he put all the public money and investment into this
model."
But Calzada's study found that for every four jobs created by Spain's
expensive green technology program, nine jobs were lost.
Electricity generated was so expensive that each "green" megawatt
installed in the power grid destroyed five jobs elsewhere in the economy by
raising business costs.
Unsafe Conditions
Marta Sabina lives on the outskirts of Barcelona in one of Spain's new
green technology apartment buildings.
It has been a nightmare for this mother of three young children. Her toilet
uses recycled water with chemicals in it.
She said it's unsafe for her children and often looks no different from
toilet water that hasn't been flushed.
"A lot of times I am coming to the bathroom and I am pushing all the
time because the water is dirty and I don't know if it's the kids because they
have not pushed or if because it's the water," Sabina said.
"Sometimes it smells very bad and it's very dirty and it's not for
kids."
Sabina has also had to heat her family's hot water on the stove because the
building's solar water heater didn't work for three years.
Breaking the Bank
Spain's green technology dream was costing the nation more than $15 billion
a year before the government had to slash it because it had failed and Spain
was going broke.
The Obama Administration's 2007 stimulus package included $80 billion for
green jobs.
"Green energy is not ready for prime time," Seton Motley,
president of Less
Government, said. "It's not ready for private sector
production."
"Everything that requires government money means there's no market for
it," he explained. "Because if there was a market for it, there'd be
plenty of private capital to invest in it and people saying, 'Let's go
forward.' "
The market didn't like General Motors, which faced bankruptcy. Then
Washington came to the rescue. Uncle Sam bought 500-million shares of General
Motors, which have since lost $15 billion in value.
"I can't think of, off the top of my head, a bigger loser than GM, as
far as most money in one place that's going down the tubes," Motley said.
Environmental Dream Buster
The Spanish could have taught the Americans a thing or two about government
money down the tubes.
Spain spent billions on an environmental dream that helped make their
economy worse and added to the nation's already crushing government debt.
And now Spain's future is looking more like what Greece is facing.
Germany is cutting solar-power subsidies because they are expensive and
inefficient
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/project_syndicate/2012/02/why_germany_is_phasing_out_its_solar_power_subsidies_.html
Goodnight
Sunshine-READ IT ALL!!!
Germany is cutting
solar-power subsidies
because they are expensive and inefficient.
By Bjørn Lomborg|Posted
Saturday, Feb. 18, 2012, at 7:30 AM ET
Windows covered in
solar panels in Munich, Germany
Christof
Stache/AFP/Getty Images.
Germany once prided
itself on being the “photovoltaic
world champion”, doling out generous subsidies—totaling more than $130 billion,
according to research from Germany’s Ruhr University—to citizens to invest in
solar energy. But now the German government is vowing to cut the subsidies
sooner than planned and to phase out support over the next five years. What
went wrong?
Subsidizing green
technology is affordable only if it is
done in tiny, tokenistic amounts. Using the government’s generous subsidies,
Germans installed 7.5 gigawatts of photovoltaic capacity last year, more than
double what the government had deemed “acceptable.” It is estimated that this
increase alone will lead to a $260 hike in the average consumer’s annual power
bill.
According to Der
Spiegel, even members of
Chancellor Angela Merkel’s staff are now describing the policy as a massive
money pit. Philipp Rösler, Germany’s minister of economics and technology, has
called the spiraling solar subsidies a “threat to the economy.”
Germany’s enthusiasm
for solar power is understandable.
We could satisfy all of the world’s energy needs for an entire year if we could
capture just one hour of the sun’s energy. Even with the inefficiency of
current PV technology, we could meet the entire globe’s energy demand with
solar panels by covering 250,000 square kilometers (155,342 square miles),
about 2.6 percent of the Sahara Desert.
Unfortunately,
Germany—like most of the world—is not as
sunny as the Sahara. And, while sunlight is free, panels and installation are
not. Solar power is at least four times more costly than energy produced by
fossil fuels. It also has the distinct disadvantage of not working at night,
when much electricity is consumed.
In the words of the
German Association of Physicists,
“solar energy cannot replace any additional power plants.” On short, overcast
winter days, Germany’s 1.1 million solar-power systems can generate no
electricity at all. The country is then forced to import considerable amounts
of electricity from nuclear power plants in France and the Czech Republic.
Indeed, despite the
massive investment, solar power
accounts for only about 0.3 percent of Germany’s total energy. This is one of
the key reasons why Germans now pay the second-highest price for electricity in
the developed world (exceeded only by Denmark, which aims to be the “world
wind-energy champion”). Germans pay three times more than their American
counterparts.
Moreover, this
sizeable investment does remarkably little
to counter global warming. Even with unrealistically generous assumptions, the
unimpressive net effect is that solar power reduces Germany’s CO2
emissions
by roughly 8 million metric tons—or about 1 percent – for the next 20 years. To
put it another way: By the end of the
century, Germany’s $130 billion solar
panel subsidies will have postponed temperature increases by 23 hours.
Using solar, Germany
is paying about $1,000 per ton of CO2 reduced.
The current CO2 price in Europe is $8. Germany could have cut 131
times
as much CO2 for the same price. Instead, the Germans are wasting
more than 99 cents of every
euro that they plow into solar panels.
It gets
worse: Because Germany is part of the European
Union Emissions Trading System, the actual effect of extra solar panels in
Germany leads to no CO2 reductions, because total emissions
are already capped.
Instead, the Germans simply allow other parts of the EU to emit more CO2.
Germany’s
solar panels have only made it cheaper for Portugal or Greece to use coal.
Defenders of Germany’s
solar subsidies also claim that
they have helped to create “green jobs.” But
each job created by green-energy
policies costs an average of $175,000—considerably
more than job creation
elsewhere in the economy, such as infrastructure or health care. And many
“green jobs” are being exported to China, meaning that Europeans subsidize
Chinese jobs, with no CO2 reductions.
Germany’s
experiment with subsidizing inefficient solar
technology has failed. What
governments should do instead is to focus first on
increasing research and development to make green-energy technology cheaper and
more competitive. Production should be ramped up later.
In the meantime,
Germans have paid about $130 billion for
a climate-change policy that has no impact on global warming. They have
subsidized Chinese jobs and other European countries’ reliance on dirty energy
sources. And they have needlessly burdened their economy. As even many German
officials would probably attest, governments elsewhere cannot afford to repeat
the same mistake.
This
article comes from Project Syndicate
RENEWABLE ENERGY FAILURE
http://cascadepolicy.org/pdf/pub/RenewableEnergyFailure12.14.10.pdf
Great idea but sorry they lost me at "no parking just bike racks". I work in the Washington DC are and the lack of parking is ridiculous. We either pay a fortune to park or have to walk a couple of miles to the office from the garage. Google "Mark Center" and see all the problems caused by the government building a HUGE office building with only parking enough for 20% of the staff and only 2 commuter busses (66 passengers each) per day. How the other 4000 employees are supposed to get to work is a mystery they didnt ponder.. Some day we may have gas free cars but we will STILL have them so anyone who builds without parking is a FOOL! Visitors and VIPs arent going to ride their Schwinn into do business with them and they will soon go bankrupt from the lost business. They arent visionaries so much as out of touch with business reality.
Gee, can anyone but honest jo get a word in? I tend to agree with aquatone regarding the vehicles. Sounds more like space savings than environmental... which should, at least, have included electric car facilities... biking is NOT reasonable for all (distance, health, etc.), especially in Seattle's moist climate. As for all of "jo" negativity... just because someone else has not managed to do something "right" yet, especially when it is "new" is no reason to throw out the concept. We certainly would never have made much progress, which is built on failures, if we maintained such an attitude. Their approach seems well thought out and feasible... I am only surprised and curious as to the absence of the latest generation of wind turbine electrical generation... which would seem to be well suited for rooftop involvement in a location where one could expect an adequate resource. In that way, they would probably never need to get power from the grid.
Renewable energy is only to be successful if we invest in it while utilizing what we have WHILE working. Both Dems and Repubs have seen fit to sell out our economy to 3rd world wages; some in an effort to make bank and others in the 'faux' name of going green to make bank (how does polluting WORSE on the other side of the globe do any for so called 'global warming caused by MAN?).
So, America, like other nations, is without a viable economy; the cart before the horse. It's a downward spiral when you add in: kids getting subsidy help for lunches because of unemployment and underemployment and for the same reasons ER's being used and not paid for, food stamps, rent help, utility help, cash assistance, vast increases in medicaid (and so much else... no need for a laundry list here) ALL done not ANY longer by tax money, but ever increasing debt.
Now I have been on assistance from time to time because of what both Dems and Repubs have chosen over representing America, Americans, and Her and Our best interests.... corporo government, so I DO NOT hold any resentments towards those in need. What I am saying is corporo government is choking us out, dividing us when we should be united and are doing so in bilateral party unison.
There is NO REASON we cannot work on cleaner technologies WHILE MAINTAING JOBS TO PAY FOR THEM. We're supposed to be superior because we leave a smaller carbon footprint while leaving footprints the size of sasquatches elsewhere on the planet, thus somehow HELPING global warming.... while we suffer, fail on all economic levels, don't produce what we consume, and yet this is somehow VIABLE? Going GREEN?
What a wash... come on; technology costs money and is a negative investment until it reaches levels that are economically useable. How do you fund such an enterprise when you're borrowing money that doesn't even exist to pay for the day to day functioning of your populace, when you're always running in the negative, when expenses far outweigh your income, when you're years away from coming out of the hole, when YOU YOURSELF have no inclination to do any about the problem but continue to divide, create arguements, borrow more and so forth and so on?
In order to go forward, you have to do what you have to do in the mean time, you have to utilize what you have and make money to invest any money and move ahead. People need real work, job security, and pay into the tax system instead of being impoverished and utilizing child tax credits in order to get back more than they EVER paid in.
Yes.... fossil fuels aren't going to be a forever thing, and are pollutants; but.... how are any supposed to get away from them, how is green technology across the board ever going to come to fruition when most of a nation's populace ISN'T EVEN WORKING FOR MEANINGFULL WAGES OR AT SECURE JOBS WITH BENEFITS?
If one could condense the past 3 decades into a movie, I'd be like 'how in the he!! did these people ever let this happen to them? Who couldn't guess the end of this?'.
what would be nice is if the owners offered a discount or some kinda incentive for its employees to buy electric cars to commute to work there then... have the cars hooked up to the building ( parking lot meter type hookups and let the cars charge while working for the ride home maybe deduct a small amount from their paychecks what do you think ?
what is even a better idea is if every building in the downtown area this city and most cities offered perfered parking to employees that buy electric cars, have these parking spaces with electrical outlets to charge while the employe works... give them discounts at purchase for the cars and incentives if they do buy theses cars and use the outlets..
The tenants of this building are going to be the same people building it. It is going to be their headquarters, so I really doubt parking is an issue for them, as most of them probably do not even own cars. I agree, though, outside of a building for themselves, future buildings for other companies would still need parking. They could encourage electric cars by having a separate solar panel grid for the garage to recharge the cars.
I would also agree that the bicycle bit is over the top; perhaps for what they seek to be certified for, it meets requirement but is not reality. I could think of many, many areas I've driven through, lived in that there are patches, if you will, of neighborhood that it wouldn't even be remotely safe to do so, much less weather added in as well as none are anywhere near living 10 miles or less from home.
Some models are built on theory; there've been some in the past where it is very similar to this one but you live where you work, people that don't are very nearby and can walk to all that's needed, self sustaining towns more or less.... great ideals, but we're not even close to being able to change what's in place for - well - who knows how many years?
This experiment is in no way negative in Seattle unless it's funded, subsidized by tax money or bogus Fed Reserve printed worthless money as it will lead to research that one day will be beneficial. If it is funded, the same men need to be vying Clowngress for jobs to come home in order to pay for it. If not, it's more harm than good at the moment.
If this is residential how much is the apartments? Did i miss that?
By honest jo's standards, there would be no nuclear power generation. I would not mind this, but it has proven to be good from an economic viewpoint, but always uses government money for start-up costs.
Folks:
The writer needs to fact check the geothermal coupled heating/cooling system. These systems usually pump a coolant media, (or in some systems they use water), through under ground wells or fields to gain/lose heat for use in space heating/cooling via a heat pump and fan system, which is usually placed in the basement. As far as air itself being pumped under ground, I have not heard of this, although I have been studying a much smaller system that could use compost to heat aluminum pipes that fresh air is drawn through as a heating system for a single family residence, which could also work to pre-cool air year round if placed beneath the frost layer at 2 - 3 feet, depending on the building locale. Something like this could work in a home, but would be very difficult to use in a multi-story building with so many users.
Regarding the individual vehicle parking. It is possible that the parking for a building of this type may be placed elsewhere nearby, perhaps in a building specially suited to this changing use, and it could even be somewhat distant with a connection by shared transit. The larger idea is that transportation as we know it will undoubtably be different in the future as energy usage alters; as passenger demands change; and as the need to transport to a central location change, all meaning that the need and type of storage of vehicles is in conceptually in play, so it would be difficult to incorporate in the building design, especially since incorporating parking is not all the easy from a construction and building code standpoint.
One of the larger problems has to do with the ability to use power generated in a meaningful way. For instance, on the weekend this building could be punching out a lot of power that is not being used in the building if it is not open. The question would them be, is there sufficient need for this green power in grid, (if the storage plan is to use the local grid to backflow the meters for the savings accrual to the buildings utility charges)? Obviously the power is viable, but is it wanted in the quantities that may be available? Currently our power grids are very old and inefficient, and this is something that is on the top tier of priorities for infrastructure reconstruction. We need smaller, more cost effective and energy flexible grids to lower power loss, and to accommodate site generated power project outputs by lowering other non-renewable sources of energy during times of abundant green power availability. One growing use of electrical energy that will have an impact on increasing a local demand is to charge electric vehicle batteries. This energy would only available as a daytime use, so the balance becomes a bit difficult, except on days when you are at work and the car is nearby enough to top off from the local grid. Otherwise the power for the car is needed at home, usually at night, so this lets solar power out of this picture, wind works however.
Another interesting efficiency concept has to do with the geothermal array. On any days of non-use or low use, (like weekends/holidays in office buildings), this system is idle, but may be viable to adjacent uses. For instance you can make a lot of heat from the system, which could be preheating a lot of water for some commercial enterprise down the street, (like space heating; or commercial laundry/diaper service; a restaurant; a car wash; process water; etc.). Looking at the cool side of the system it could also be pre-cooling water or other media for delayed use or immediate use, (like in cooling adjacent buildings; process water; maintaining an ice rink surface; used in commercial ice making; or for building cooling using ice systems that have become a commonplace use of buildings using heat exchange systems during off hours, etc). This coupling of uses could really make these types of energy harvesting concepts a lot more viable, as the recipients of the energy should pay for the green power used, which adds to the viability of the initial installation.
All in all this is an interesting approach, and is worthy of study, testing, and reflection.
Cheers!
When did a six story building become a tower
With a good enough transit system, you don't really need a car for commuting, even in a place like Seattle. There are such things as umbrellas and raincoats. I personally prefer transit because it gives me time to read, write, listen to music, text, talk on the phone, day dream and even nap, while reducing the stress of having to drive. While it takes longer, the time is all mine, as opposed to having to pay attention to driving.
You can even do things like have a combined commute, where you drive to a park and ride center and then catch transit for the rest of the commute. Just because you use transit for commuting doesn't mean that you have abandoned your own personal vehicle.
Everyone is missing the point. The purpose of this experiment is to prove that one can balance the various factors in an urban setting to achieve a net-zero balance. This building will not be an imposing edifice. It will be a relatively small multirise building that achieves density, access, consumption and recovery goals within an economically achievable setting. As for the cars/parking thing goes, most urbanites do not drive to work. They use public transportation, bike or walk there. Even some of us suburbanites use public transportation to get to work. I commute 100 mile round trip by bus five days a week for less than a third of the cost of driving/parking in a city. I don't live in DC, but I work there. I would never chose to live there. I prefer a much more open setting than any city can provide. That said, I have lived in cities where large numbers of people can live in relative harmony with decent infrastructure. Of course that was in Europe, not America. Good luck! I hope they make it.
Generalist beat me to it, but honestly, in most major cities, the ability of public transportation means car-free living is not only available, but preferred. Granted, not all large cities are like this (screw you, LA) but Seattle definitely is. Try owning a car and living in downtown San Francisco... or New York. People who are going to pay a premium to have zero-impact living are going to generally be supportive of mass transit. And yes, walking a few miles isn't the end of the world - pretty sure we can consider that beneficial.
If you live in NYC owning and driving a car around the city is more of a burden than a blessing because of traffic it takes longer to get where your going then you have to find and pay for a place to park plus pay for a parking place at your home.It makes more sense to rent a car when you want to go out of town.
It will be interesting watching 300lb office workers riding their bikes to work. Hopefully they will lose weight through this exercise, unless their packs are full of Egg McMuffins.
It's interesting that even through your mocking comments you still bring up a point I would use to support this idea... health of workers.
Hold on ... well... if we're greenies... are you.. I dunno, Sooties?
Ok Sooties, I'm assuming you guys are the same who hate the idea of health care for all. If these workers are riding their bikes, and heaven forbid, walking, they have an incredibly better chance at a healthier life, lower rates of cancer, diabetes, etc. Shouldn't these guys not needing you to pay for their healthcare needs make you Sooties happy?
Travis-1944,
I support this office too. I wish more downtown metro areas were more bike-friendly. The problem is 2/3 of Americans are overweight (several of which are obese) and most likely have never rode on a bike since the 6th grade. Add to that the drive thru culture we have, it's going to take a lot of getting used to. A lot of people will need extra large bike seats so they don't get buried in their huge bottoms.
Is rain water safe to drink?
trebor172-3918191
If you can remove all the toxic chemicals in it from pollution, then yes
It's friggin' Seattle. Do those windows open?
What the - they do sell extra-wide bike seats. As a matter of fact, if you've been near or visited Seattle lately, there's a huge trend of bike riders riding "Fixies" (a fixed gear bicycle) that comes with a cruiser seat, which is pretty much as big as a barstool. Chubby people can exercise too, it's not the end of the world.
About 1200 B.C.
honest joe, you really don't need to copy and past all that drivel. Progress takes failures. Failures show you what doesn't work. Sure we all know that you can separate hydrogen from water. The problem is that it takes more energy than it releases. What was your point?
Glad to see this and I hope that this will be one more step in getting our country to look more seriously at sustainable living. Even if other buildings are built using only parts and pieces of the technology this building is using it will still be a good thing.
Ignoring all you know nothing trolls on here, I say keep it up to those responsible for developing this building. Even more so since this is a privately funded development. It is time we as a society start looking for ways to improve and reduce our impact on the environment around us. More often than not there are many small things that one can do that will add up to a huge benefit in the long run. This is something we can and should be doing.
Did you read the comments in the first link? People have proved that article wrong based on all the math the author provided.
I bet you just went on google and copied all the links that had a heading saying: "solar is a failure"
Solar in Seattle? And the sun shines when?
Yes, the transit system in NYC is great IF you also happen live there. It isn't so great for those who commute into the city (and that's a LOT of people). The schedules are barely tolerable during rush hours, but they're awful for those who don't work standard hours or work on weekends. I understand that they're trying to accomodate the most people possible and that not everyone can have a perfect schedule, but that is also why cars and parking can't be eliminated. There has to be an option for those who can't use mass transit. And, that's perhaps is what irritates me the most about environmentalists. Not their goals, which I support, but their lack of recognition of reality.
About Seattle sunshine? I have been there more than a dozen times and the sun has always been out. Lots of bike riders in Seattle as well. Not to mention the fact that they have a wonderful transportation system. This might just work.
1.20 deleted, honest jo copypasting this page in its entirety.
You're suspended for a week for violating #4 of the Code of Honor.
You know the rules.
Barry,
Nearly every major city with Mass Transit have huge Park and Ride terminals strategically located around the surrounding areas of the city. Honestly, driving to those terminals, parking, and riding into the city can often be much faster than fighting gridlock and trying to get parking. I figured, since you're from New Jersey, you'd be one of the first to acknowledge that.
Some heavy populated cities offer great mass transit, unfortunately Southern California LA/OC is not one of them. I think the problem with LA/OC is that it's a conglomeration of cities with no straight transit lines. Each city has their own little transit system but not intercity transit.
As an example, lets say you live in Long Beach but work 14 miles away in Torrance. You can drive 40 minutes in 6 lanes of light traffic(that's 6 lanes in each direction) or take approx 6-8 buses (about 2 to 3 hours) between waiting, transferring and riding the bus. It's all about catching the transfers at just the right time, hoping there were no traffic delays on one of the other bus routes to make your connecting bus LMFAO. Enjoy that book.
Or a combo bus/train, 2-4 buses to the train transit system running N/S that goes to LA, get off at the train intersection terminal running E/W about halfway to LA, take another train then take 2-4 more buses to get near your job-site. Should only take you about 2 to 3 hours to get to work, hmmmmm thought I'd save time, guess not, oh well at least I can read a book on the way to work.
You should be able to shave off about 20 minutes if you drive to the train terminal parking lot, and skip the first buses, and if you have enough dough leave a car at the train terminal parking lot near your work to shave another 20 minutes, just make sure it's not a model that likes to get stolen or vandalized.
Great mass transit system in LA/OC, everyone should try it someday.
Mopar,
It's kinda funny, my first comment was nearly every large city has great mass transit, save a few (screw you LA). LA has, by far, the worst city planning regarding mass transit. Unless you live in the same burb you work, driving is about the only logical option, and it's just horrible in LA. I'd rather drive in NY than LA. Since I live in southern CA... that's something I have to do way to often.
If anyone is interested in finding out what having a testicle removed with a rake feels like, try to drive from Riverside to Santa Monica at 4:45 PM... after that, any driving, anywhere, seems downright friendly.
@workingpoor-2370498
Are they? No mention in the article where the money is coming from. You'd be a fool to assume they are not recieving green energy grants and tax breaks. I'm pretty confident that some of "their" money is actually "our" money.
You've got to "borrow" energy from your neighbor? Yeah, that's going to work. So you are "responsible", this is comical. I have no issue with the whole "lets be self sufficient" thing but this isn't. It's limiting the amount of energy the tenants can use and then imposing a cap and trade (cap and tax) on energy consumption. That will NEVER work on any scale. The first time a "neighbor" doubles the going rate for more power watch how fast neighbors become enemies. Cool building, bad cap concept.
rightwing - we all "borrow energy" from our neighbors - it's called a city power grid. They're not "off the grid" they're just offsetting how much they use by producing their own utilities (water, power, sewer). I'm not entirely sure how you got cap and trade out of that.
Oh and BackCountry - there are tax breaks for LEED certified buildings, that's why they build them that way. To build this way goes even farther, without additional incentives. They're doing this with private funds. If you feel that the wealthy in this country are using "Your" money, I would agree with you, but I'm guessing you're not someone who's in support of more equal taxing of the rich, since you seem to spout fox news talking points.
It seems very clear to me that many people posting comments on here did not read the entire article, or their reading comprehension just sucks. Some of the questions being asked were definitely addressed in the article.
Solar works anywhere in the lower 48. I live across the strait from Seattle and mine work fine. In fact my county claims to have one of the highest densities of solar in the country. I expect to replace 80% of my electric needs this year, and could get that to 100% when I can find a reliable dimmable LED flood, (I have 24 65W incandescents now).
Thanks to China, solar is finally affordable for the masses, IF you DIY the install. You can get down to $1.70/watt complete now that panels have fallen below the magic $1/watt. At that price they don't even need federal subsidies. What we need now is a low interest solar conversion loan, it's no longer a price issue, it's an up front cost issue.
HOWEVER, green energy is NOT a jobs creator, it is a jobs destroyer. Think of all the steps to keep a coal fired plant running, the constant mining and shipping of coal, the constant maintenance at the plant, all the people employed along the way, etc. Compare that with solar panels that are made once, installed once, and just sit there for half a century. Even wind turbines are made once, installed once and require minimal maintenance compared with even a nuclear plant, let alone a coal plant.
Germany is even farther north than we are and they have the highest level of installs. They did get their by over stimulating the market and are now having to cut back. However, China has cut pricing dramatically so they are viable here.
Travis ... Park and Ride lots (which are often over-crowded during rush hours) do nothing to address my issue with terrible off-peak transit schedules. Sure, I can drive to a Park and Ride near NYC, but if its on the same line as the train station nearer my home, I'm really no better off because it is the same train schedule. In one particularly bad example of scheduling, there's a nearly three-hour gap between trains on weekend mornings. If I can make the same drive in 45 minutes, why would I tolerate a three-hour hole in my day?
Now, don't get me wrong. I take trains (I hate buses) every time that it makes sense, even if the cost is a little higher. I don't even mind paying more in taxes to support mass transit. What I can't stand is the attitude of mass-transit advocates that mass transit is perfect for everyone and there's no need to ever drive a car into the city. I hate zealots, on the right and on the left.
I don't think anyone here was saying that you shouldn't have a car, just that not having parking at an office building isn't the end of the world. If you work in the city, does your building have its own parking?
This is awesome! I'd love to see where it all goes.
55 degrees seems a little cold to air condition or heat a building.
As for the side-wall solar panels, what if a different builder wants to construct an additional "green tower" of similar height in front of this one? It would block the sunlight that the original tower relies on for power.
Furthermore, will the absence of parking spaces for cars limit access for elderly and handicapped/disabled citizens who cannot ride bicycles or even walk short distances?
Typical, they pay no taxes.
There isn't a mass transit system out there that can handle 100% of all commuters. Even adding local bike riders into the mix, all systems everywhere were built under the assumption that many or even most people would continue to drive to work, one way or another. If you want to build a new city from scratch, with a complete subway system, local buses, commuter trains, taxis, etc., and completely ban vehicles from inside city limits, you might stand a small chance of success. But there is no way any existing city can modify systems enough to allow for near-zero automobiles. That is the simple truth.
The building in question is going up in Seattle. I was born there and live nearby. You can get around fairly easily on mass transit in that area right now. It's not perfect but it generally works for pretty much anyone who works in most parts of the city, at least for those who aren't in a rush or don't care about convenience. That's ONLY because most people still drive to work everyday, thereby leaving capacity available on the transit system. Whether in carpools, their own cars, or whatever, most people drive. The building is supposed to be a demonstration project but the lack of parking doesn't demonstrate anything relative to how the city as a whole is designed to operate. A few buildings here or there could maybe be successful with this strategy within any given city, but if the whole city adopted the same parking policies it would be utter disaster, without massive upheaval and expense. Just the way it is. And then when you consider the fact that electric vehicles will need parking too, the lack of parking "by design" sends the completely wrong message, IMO. It's simply going too far with what is otherwise a great idea.
Sometimes I think that people get too tied up in narrow causes, and forget that the term "renewable" means energy that can be replaced, and therefor will not run out, as opposed to non-renewable sources of energy that we know will run out eventually.
Oh, and I agree that they should have had parking... with electrical outlets for the electric cars. :D
Untill cars are against the law, the lack of car parking is silly.
Bikes are not the future. They are just another fad.
You know we've had bikes longer than we've had cars, right?
I'm sorry but how does this building pass as a "Tower"? I would think it would be above ten stories at least to be called a "tower"? Kudos to them anyway.
I can see the receptionist offering beverages to the Client:
"Would you care for some coffee? Evian? ...or perhaps some freshly treated wastewater from our on-site facility?"
What do you think Evian is anyways? Nearly all drinkable water is at least in part treated wastewater.
I guess that makes you a potty mouth
All of us together buddy!
This should be the model for all future development, and retrofitting older buildings to the degree possible. We need to rethink our economy and base it on sustainability, not consumption. We are well behind the world leaders in this area.
If the claims are true, the world will flock to their door. A building that produces as much energy as it consumes .... scientists have been searching fo a perpetual motion machine for centuries.
But it wouldn't work in all cities all over the world. How can a building in Arizona get the water it needs from rainfall when there is none or very little. This might work in places that get a lot of rain, but I doubt it would in the desert areas. Figure out how to do that, and we'd all be better off.
I only visited once but found Seattle to have a stellar public transit system. Conversely, Los Angeles is still expanding an extensive system, but their planners just cannot 'cut the mustard' and attract people out of their cars.
It's not perpetual motion as the energy it 'produces' comes from a finite source.
The sun.
Sorry folks but somebody has to bring up the elephant in the corner that everybody has turned their back on. It's just good old fashioned common sense really, the kind that pushed Solyndra into bankruptcy. HOW WILL THE NEXT ONE OF THESE MINI TOWER THINGS GET PAID FOR. Cost of land is highest in higher density urban areas and doesn't even factor in to the $6 MILLION PER FLOOR construction costs. Good thing the owner is going to occupy it, cuz no one else would pay even the break even cost to own or rent it, meaning the building from a financial standpoint is a total loss. Sustainability needs to extend to the finance$ as well. I think our country already has enough buildings in it that cost more to build than they can bring in financially. As much as I hate to burst another bubble
None the less I do see the value in one of a kind projects like this built primarily to develop and test new technology, and we all know that archtecture needs to move fairly quickly in this direction. Just keep in mind it is completely irrational to expect these types of projects to start spring up all over next year. The financial feasibility just isn't there. Maybe those geo thermal conduits could be placed in steel reinforced concrete columns in three or four stories of underground parking and some additional clean domestic energy source developed (Clean diesel or natural gas generator or gas from composting generated sewage ?) to make the large amount of electricity needed to charge electric vehicles. I use both solar and wind on my residence in the southern california desert and it doesn't go near as far as most people think. Solar in Seattle is suspect as well.
One of these buildings in Arizona would have problems with water, but think how well it would do on solar power. And when you think about it, Pheonix could not exist with it's current population if not from a huge federal project that moves water from the Colorado river.
Solar in Seattle is not at all suspect. Solar panels can generate electricity even when the sky is overcast. The difference in the amount of electricity this building generates in the summer versus the winter probably has more to do with the length of the daylight being so much less in winter in Seattle, than clouds. But, as the article states, the surplus generation in summer balances out the shortfall in winter.
chris -how does that compare to a regular building to build? How long is this building going to last? How does it compare in longterm energy use ? Is it a publicly or privately paid for?
Solar doesn't work well at all with clouds. Mine will go from 8KW to .8KW when a cloud blocks them. Even a hazy day drops their output a bit.
There is a program called PV-Watts anyone can use to estimate a hypothetical installation, it takes into account average weather/insolation for your area. You type in your address and some other details and it gives you a month by month output simulation. I have found it very accurate.
What about the service life of a solar panel??? Most panels warranty last only 20+years, then their generation capacity drops well below the current 23% or about 230+watts/square meter @ 90 degree to the sun. Plus the maintenance and service cost of the controllers, which are usually warranty for only 5+years... The Germans have found that single site fixed systems produce only about 5% of their rated power, annually...
Solar electric panels can only power lights or they charge a battery supply. This battery supplies the needed surge power required to start many electrical appliances, heat pumps, stoves, refrigerators, etc...
And for the electricity to be available at NIGHT or when there is snow coverage or clouds, or to run electrical equipment with motors, etc. The system depends on the GRID and their fossil fueled generators...
Maybe they can use all those Li-ion battery from the EV than can not be recycled safely or economically...
BTY - Wind turbine generators do not function well on roof tops. Plus the noise and vibration that is transmitted into the building structure...
Green Energy Failure: Windmills, Solar Panels and Hydro Project
Can’t Reliably Provide Power For 87 People
http://motorcitytimes.com/mct/2010/07/green-energy-failure-windmills-solar-panels-and-hydro-project-cant-reliably-provide-power-for-87-people/
The new ‘green energy’ system the residents of Eigg installed
was designed to provide a meager 5kW (max.) of power per household. Via the Daily Mail:
Right now, however, their award-winning and highly complex
eco-energy system, which allows each household access
to a maximum of 5kW of energy at a time (enough to power a washing machine,
a small heater or a kettle, but not all at once), is lying largely idle.
So the wind turbines are still and silent. The hydro turbines in
the rivers and dams are quiet. And toasted teacakes and hot tea are off the
menu at the Eigg Tearooms.
So what on earth’s going on? Have the Eigg eco-innovators been
victims of some act of jealous vandalism? Has their award- winning electricity
system blown a fuse?
Er, no. It turns out that when the good people of Eigg put their
faith in strong winds and pounding rain to provide all their electricity needs,
they overlooked one possibility – a spell of lovely weather.
Go figure, no rain or wind and the solar panels
are not cutting it. Of course this is not a big deal to the residents of Eigg,
but imagine how chaotic this would be in a large US City.
We’ve never taken electricity for granted,’ says Maggie, 61, has
lived on Eigg for 34 years and has a daughter and granddaughter living nearby.
‘Until a couple of years ago, I was supplied by a tiny
hydroelectric generator that produced a maximum of 1kW of power. Which powered
my lights, TV and computer, but not a washing machine, electric kettle, toaster
or anything like that. And I was one of the lucky ones.’
A few of her neighbours had no running water and others relied
on their own generator which had to be turned on every morning by hand.
‘So if you got up for a pee in the middle of the night, you had
to take a torch with you or fumble about in the dark,’ she adds.
‘And the noise was terrible. If you walked round in the evening,
you’d hear a terrible thumping of generators.
If green energy can’t reliably provide power for 87 residents
(who are not big consumers of electricity) how do supporters of ‘green energy’
propose we are going to power large US cities using windmills
and solar panels?
The tiny island of Eigg off the coast of Scotland made a big
push for ‘green energy’ recently. They designed their system to provide 95% of
the electrical needs for the 87 residents of their island. This should be
fairly straightforward, since the residents of the island are not big users of
electricity to start with. They only received regular electrical service in February
2008.
honest jo- You can type and type and fling all the blather and give example after example blah, blah blah. It really doesn't matter why, or what kind of argument you have against "green" energy. You sound like a troll for the carbon fuel industries. There is one FACT you cannot argue against. We live on a planet with FINITE resources. We have an economic system, worldwide, that depends on consumption. Burn all the coal and oil you want, it will not last forever. Why hell, the human race wont last forever. We can speed up the decline of our species, we can slow it down or just let our time on earth play out.
You can give all the examples of the failure of green energy in the first decade of the 21st century of man's short, short time on earth. You are dust and your great, great, great, great, great grandchildren will know you for a fool.
honest jo - you remind me of a couple of anecdotes: I worked in a law office when computers were just becoming a wave of the future for offices. A salesman was demonstrating and one of the typists entered an affidavit, which was inadvertently "lost" when saved. The lawyer/owner refused to ever get computers based on that very early technology.
About the same time, the credit union of the small town I lived in installed an ATM machine. This was new technology and people were slow to trust a machine with their money. It was removed and for years none of the banks would install an ATM because "they didn't work out."
All "new" ideas take time for people to accept and take time for the bugs to be worked out. What a different world we would live in today if everyone had accepted the idea that computers weren't reliable and ATMs weren't worth the money to install!
Location, location, location. Plus backup sources.
If the people setting up the windmills don't do their homework when it comes to average wind velocity, then they are at fault, not the technology. And if they are stupid enough not to consider backup sources for those days when the wind is blowing, then people have to live with the consequences.
Of course the consequences might be that you have to do your laundry on a Tuesday as opposed to a Saturday. And you might need have to settle for a cold drink as opposed to a hot drink.
Do note that there is a huge difference between a small, isolated island and the US power grid. With a large grid, the lack in one area is usually handled by an excess in another area. It is only when there are severe loads and/or disasters that you run into problems.
until the bugs get worked out!!!!!!!!!
every country in Europe that has tried the conversion to "green" energy is facing bankruptcy.
i understand giving these new technological advances a chance to play out but i also understand that if obama and this administration does not get their head out of their behinds before it's too late we may be the next country to face the same fate.
motorcitytimes.com
A conservative view of south east Michigan and beyond
A dumb view!!! why do you conservatives think wind and solar energy will replace all of our energy needs? You people have a dumb way of looking at alternative energy.
5,000 watts per house? that's more than enough for any house... a kettle, washing machine, and heater?? All of those running together wont consume 2,500 watts, even ones that are inefficient..
I suggest you study what the smart grid is and what it will do for renewable energy.
http://www.smartgrid.gov/the_smart_grid
http://www.greentechmedia.com/channel/gridtech/
They provide less than 3% of our energy needs right now?? and you think we are going to go bankrupt?
So in the end this whole rant of yours was because of Obama? Wind and solar energy are here to stay and there's nothing your conservatives (idiots) can do about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Texas
Texas is a very conservative state, why are they number one in wind production? And growing?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Year_End_2011U.S._Installed_Wind_Capacity.svg
Check out that picture!! people in the south are scared to death of wind power???
And don't give me some bull about wikipedia man!!
WOW! Another Solyndra happening again! Why don't all the "green energy", waste of taxpayer money people go live in a commune in the middle of no where and eat their tofu. Don't forget to sing kumbaya!
And you won't have to worry about parking cars because once you fill up your tank at the "algae" or "kelp" station, you won't get far enough to make it to work!
Algae research and funding was started a long long time ago under Bush??? but i bet you already knew this right? Even the military started doing research on this way before Obama came into the picture.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=using-plants-instead-of-petroleum-to-make-jet-fuel
Check out this link... the military has been doing this for a very long time.
Do you even know how they plan to use algae to make energy? How does the whole system work?
Fill up your car with algae? jajajajaja!!!
You people come on here to spread your ignorance.
I assure you you wont have to fill up your car with algae. You convert that algae into something else??
You do know what they convert it into right?
You sound like Mr. Romney: "We all like wind and solar, but you can’t drive a car with a windmill on it."
What an idiot.... this guy has no chance of winning with the smart people in this country. he might be talking to the ignorant with those comments, but he wont make those kind of statements for all of America to see once he wins the nomination.
honest jo - interesting isn't it? If you simply made statements they would call you a liar and demand proof of what you say. So you circumvent all that and just put your proof out there all they are capable of is collapsing your posts and calling you names. Even though 90+% of the people on here seem incapable of getting your point you are exactly correct.
To everyone dissing on honest jo, the point jo's making isn't, as so many of you have incorrectly assumed, we shouldn't pursue "green" power. Jo's entire point is that the technology needs to be developed further, and rather that forcing it down all our throats it needs to be brought along more slowly to avoid the economic collapse the suden change to an undeveloped technology would bring.
Do you all think that when the internal combustion engine was developed it replaced water wheels and steam power and horses overnight? It took DECADES and that was with a fraction of the current world population which necessarily dictates that this process will take significantly longer.
Jo's point is simply that we should not bankrupt ourselves as part of the process as we strive to make these technologies economicaly viable i.e. more efficient.
I need to know how much we spend for the less than 3% of our energy that these alternate energies supply, then I can judge for myself if it will bankrupt the US to continue the course that we are presently on.
If we quit giving tax breaks to big oil, they will charge the consumer more to make up for the tax breaks, but we will still have to buy the product.
If we quit giving tax credits to people who purchase electric cars, and solar installations and solar companies and... will anyone still purchase their products? Will they be bankrupt?
Many companies and investors now invest in wind energy. Look it up.
If oil companies stop receiving tax breaks the price of oil will go up...... but surely people will start looking at the alternative in an instant. Which is why Republicans don't want this to happen.
Sustainable energy sources like Solar and Wind have received very little in the way of government subsidies when compared to other sources of energy. There would not be a nuclear industry at all if not for the US government paying for the entire project. US oil and gas production is way up today because the federal government payed for the studies that led to the new extraction method called fracking.
Why shouldn't the government also invest in someting safe and sustainable. The facts are that if Ronald Reagan hadn't cancelled the early Solar projects begun under Carter the US would be the world leader in Solar power right now, with all of the good jobs that come along with it.
Right wingers need to get out of the fast lane, stop blocking traffic, and let the rest of us make some progress.
I applaud the idea but would like to start smaller. How about places to plug in hybrid cars at work? One thing the pentagon does that I like is that car-poolers get to park closer to the building. Instead of styrofoam and plastic in the cafeteria, use something biodegradeable. Better yet, use something reusable. Recycle everything you can. Rather than using harsh chemicals for cleaning offices, use biodegradable and environmentally safe cleaners (these are better for people with allergies, too). HEPA filters and living plants would make old offices smell less like sweat socks and more like fresh air. Little changes don't cost $30 Million but can make a huge impact.
the us alone has enough natural gas to last 150 years.
Dammit Jo, shut up. I don't know how you've come to the decision that everything environmentally responsible is somehow terrible, but we all think you're an idiot for it.
Betty, Bravo on the little changes speech. People, don't buy paper plates and plastic forks, look right next them, in whatever supermarket your in. They have paper plates from recycled sources, and plastic forks made from biodegradable sugar resins. That way, when you throw it out, it will sit in the landfill for three weeks, not 30 years. Also... they cost maybe 30 cents more. Little changes make a big difference.
Now Travis, I am going to have to use the words of Obama million dollar contributor, Bill Maher- be respectful of others you @!$%#.
In the words of honorary Republican Congressman, Rush Limbaugh, no problem, slut. Sorry Bob, had to do it... just fun. Honest Jo and Studio Steve are just trolling on this board anyways, it's a bit distracting from the actual conversation that can be had on this topic.
the actual discussion on this page.
well lets get real if that is what you would like to do. we have more oil and gas than we know what to do with and this administration is doing everything that it can to kill jobs and make oil and gas unaffordable so that he can give money...taxpayer money to his compadres at solyndra and other failed companies in return for their votes.
fact is i tried designating a portion of our business to selling products that promote green energy. you know what it failed. you know why? because it doesn't work. and every time you think that you are getting ahead of the game with green energy somebody comes up with a scam.
for instance where i live the federal government will pay 20% or so on solar home comversion and the state will pay 60% or so for the conversion sounds great right. when the whole package should cost $10,000.00 it cost $30,000.00. (these are example numbers only) it's like what insurance companies charge for a q-tip. over inflated pricing tacked on th=o the original cost. WHY????? because they can.
in addition the "cause and effect" of most of the green technology has severe adverse affects to the environment in some cases things that we already know but i some cases what we have yet to discover.
solar panels for instance. barely work good enough to function day to day. cost is astronomical. by the time you pay off the system it is time to replace most of it. as well as the cause and effect-ENERGY CAN NOT BE CREATED ONLY CONVERTED OR CHANNELED. by channelling huge amounts of the suns energy to certain areas it can potentially cause hot spots in those areas as well as cold spots in other areas.these areas of concentrated energy from the sun WILL cause increases in cancer.
we are making huge decisions without completely verifying the long term consequences.
Honest Jo
I'll go ahead and focus on one thing you said on the last quote... are you saying that by building solar energy collectors in certain areas, this will create hot spots of intensified solar rays? You do realize that we don't actually control where or how much solar radiation we receive, right? I don't think the sun cares how many solar panels we have, it won't shine extra on a certain area because we want it to.
Also, as you correctly stated, energy cannot be created, only converted or channeled. We can convert energy from oil and natural gas, which produces harmful by-products and is a limited, finite resource, or we can channel energy from solar, wind, tides, hydro, etc, which are all naturally occurring sources of energy, and do not create by-products by being channeled.
I do agree that the materials used in solar panels and process of producing them need to be thoroughly evaluated to judge their environmental impact, and wind, tidal, and hydro power can all produce harm upon the ecosystems they're introduced to, but it's a pros V cons situation.
Either way, this tower isn't just about Solar, it's about natural heating, water treatment, recycling, and low power usage.
Hopefully you can agree that even if this was just hardwired into the city grid, with no solar, that this is a good idea to build in a way that conserves energy and limits waste. Especially considering the Earth's exploding population, this should be a major concern to everyone, even drill-baby-drillers
The comment about "channeling" energy posing some kind of danger is rather absurd. Even if you were to "channel" solar energy to Seattle from sunny eastern Washington, you wouldn't add any more heat energy to Seattle than if the electricity had come from any other source, say hydro or coal. And you would avoid waste heat generation at the source, as well as heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions (compared to using coal as the source).
150 years so what is the plan for when it is gone? what about smarter use to extend that that time frame. We may not be here still no reason to screw the people 150 yrs. from now.
eric we sell coal to china so we are remove a limited resource from america, for who's gain?
Tao of wow
The way we are heading, China will own the western US and it will be up to them to decide what to do with the building. It will probably be the propaganda building because they need to make sure their lies get spewed all over Seattle, even during power outtages.
Tao of wow,
The person who is gaining the most is Warren Buffett. Because he purchased the controlling interest in the rail roads that are shipping the coal across the US. He did this just prior to Obama's EPA shutting down the use of US coal. Those political donations paid-off very well, because coal exports to China have increased by 800%...
Remember that coal is necessary for the manufacture of steel...
The fact that we currently sell coal to China doesn't mean there's not a problem. Both the U.S. and China need to participate in international agreements to reduce fossil fuel use (especially coal), unless a workable method of carbon capture and storage can be found.
honest jo: who do YOU work for?
Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania....obviously you don't live here, own property here, or drink water here,
so you don't care. And you also don't think you will be alive in 30-40 years to freeze to death when oil and gas are gone.
Deb.....don't you know that there are 400 years worth of natural gas here in the US alone?? Probably not. You have your head in the green sand, and have been too busy drinking the kool-aid.
Don't you know our population is expected to double along with most of the developed world, and that at expected demand that drops to far less than 100 years? Realistically might be 50 that we can reliably get to without destroying all of our drinking water and land to get to it? Maybe you have been drinking the funny kool aid.
WOW! Another Solyndra happening again! Why don't all the "green energy", waste of taxpayer money people go live in a commune in the middle of no where and eat their tofu. Don't forget to sing kumbaya!
And you won't have to worry about parking cars because once you fill up your tank at the "algae" or "kelp" station, you won't get far enough to make it to work!
Deb ... Some people really do sell used cars, but honest is not in the name.
Most boat captains should not be drilling for gas, at least until they have navigated the clean waters of the Susquehanna River or drinking water in New York and Philadelphia. The real issue there is not fracking, but the obstinate refusal of the drilling companies to tag with isotope labels and define their toxic potions.
Although most of us live on land, the idea of drilling holes everywhere, and then to frack where it is feasible offers one purpose, which is to drain the gas reservoir more rapidly. Thus a reservoir that would last 40 years can be drained in 8 or ten years. The same amount of gas removed in accelerated time frame, thus it quite plausible that 500 year supply estimates from previous years to become a 400, then a 300, … of 50 year supply.
Land – Suitable for gas production by drilling, where the underlying geological formation has gas at various depths, and at various pressures and at various volumes. Each case quite complicated, were the ideal case is too simple for understanding, the 460,000 already drilled. Which depth is exploited, what is the capacity (gas extract volume, per drop in pressure) at each depth, what the pressure at each depth is, and what limits reservoir transfer between high and low pressure areas. If wells of low pressure are found among wells of high pressure in given field, the high pressure well will be exploited first and the low pressure well capped, for later use or never used because it requires additional investment that will be put in high return area. Management: Yes gas field management, could lower the high pressure areas to the point where low pressure wells could be connected, but always allowing global pricing to determine the local utilization.
Fracking and Natural Fracking post Natural Fracking – First fracking, newly heavily advertised, but it is not new so much as it is old to very old and not mentioned in advertisements since the 1960’s. The successful fracking occurs in formations that are perfect for fracking, who’d guesses. The rest of the frackable formations, are as complicated as anything, like fracking a high pressure reservoir into a low pressure reservoir for loss of capacity, like drilling sideways through various high and low formations in 6 directions and encounter natural geological faults. Fracking might enhance the draining of perfect high pressure wells, or create a loss of gas in quantity to the atmosphere through natural faults.
Draining faster – The economics of draining high pressure quickly is based on market timing or hitting market when prices are high, and never mind about tomorrow. If you access the production figures, for the past 60 years and compare them with other energy prices, you will see that gas production has been systemically suppressed, because of the run up in the profitability of imported oil. How could gas producers hold back production to boost profits from imported oil, except by owning both resources?
End Market Use Efficiency – It takes surprising little gas volume to heat your home; the bill is another matter, part of the reason is that home gas can burn with high efficiencies approaching 90% to produce heat, hot water. If were not for the cost of low pressure piping for home delivery you could a make case for free gas for home heating. But that would not be large enough market for the apparent over supply of gas, instead using gas for major electrical production using vastly more gas, but at efficiency of 40%, where the waste heat (in the united states) is not used co-generation. Electrical production using gas has been the trend, because real money was one used in energy investment. Then the industrial use of gas and energy and feed stock (beyond the gas used to heat industrial scale facilities), burning gas to make glass bottles, using gas to make plastics, or the worst possible burning gas to produce aluminum from ore. In terms of saving energy you can see the problem of arranging these complex elements from the physical and energy costs to the nefarious economic motives of world domination, profits galore plebeians be dammed.
Information – You’d think that information on 460,000 wells would be good place to determine the draining the gas first strategy, or all least a good place to start to restore public trust, but think again, as that very information is proprietary and very, very secret (guess why?)
Who of thought we’d stay on the topic of evaluating the building?
Danna - what are you smoking?
This is a private building, built by a private company, using private funds! This is just responsible construction, what are you freaking out about? Really... this building does not have a downside, apart from blocking the views of the apartment behind it... which would happen no matter what kind of building it is.
Rich, yes "fracking" itself has been around for a long time but the current method has not. Haliburton's own web site talks about (or use to) exactly when they came up with the current process. I worked in the oil field here in Wyoming for Nabors Drilling, True Drilling, Peak Energy and number of other places. I know for a fact the reason they hadn't drilled the Pinedale Anticline and the Jonah Field prior to the late 90's is because the didn't have the ability to get to the gas, the technology just wasn't there yet.
As for the toxicity of the chemicals they use, just in the drilling part of the process alone I know of one in particular that is highly toxic, Meg-5 . I watched a cow drink out of one of our pits and die within 20 minutes. BP and Nabors claimed the Meg-5 was so diluted that it wouldn't affect us when we got covered in the mud while making connections, but that's not what the MSDS says.
There are lots of reasons to not use fracking, but the vast majority can be safely conducted when using common sense and accepted drilling methods. It is the operators that cut corners to save time and money, that are the TRUE RISK...
Fracking and horizontal drilling methods are still being developed. As these procedures mature they will enable even more NG deposits to be economically viable...
There are deposits of methane hydrates that could supply the US energy needs for the next 500+years. These deposits are still being explored and viable & SAFE procedures are being developed by multinational companies & governments...
Save the coal for steel production and as a stop-gap until the power plants are converted to NG...
Stop the export of natural resources that will cripple the future generations, when they run out...
If they do not have more batteries than the height and width of the building itself, then they can kiss their power goodbye. Clouds, rain or snow would render those solar panels useless.
It didn't sound like they were planning for the building to be independent of the power grid, which is what batteries would provide them. But as they described to push power onto the grid when there is an excess of sun, and consuming when there is not to in the end have a net of zero power consumption.
Correct. Seattle in the summer often has long and gorgeous days with tons of sunshine (despite our reputation for rain), so I don't think there would be a problem in making this plan work.
9 deleted, Jimbo-1004296 beginning a new thread by calling another Viner a 'plant for the coal and/or oil industry. Go crawl back under the rock you came from.'
Don't accuse other Viners of being shills - it's impossible to prove and never helps the discussion.
You're suspended for a day for violating #1 of the Code of Honor.
Matt~ You're clueless about how solar panels work. Please read up on them. You can and will collect power on cloudy days, rainy days as well as snow accumulation on the panels. Granite, it's not as much asfull direct sun but it is possible to collect more power than is used regardless of weather. The thee biggest impacts are usage (duh), storage of power and collective watts (how many watts you're collecting at one time).
I can attest that they will work with snow covering them if the snow isn't too deep. It's all abour photons reaching the P-N junction. It is not the rain that kills the panels, it's the clouds that come with it. They do fall off drastically but still generate some power, seems to be about 10% of rated power give or take depencing on cloud density.
It's overcast now with a little spritzing and my 8KW system is down to 881W or about 11%. Even at that though, I'm feeding power back to the grid since I only have a couple of lights on and an LED TV, (and idling refridgerator, and other appliances as well of course).
Um..Seattle gets snow. What are the workers supposed to do in the winter? Not everyone lives on or near a bus route. Someone didn't think this through very well.
Pretty sure this building will likely be on the bus route. Kinda part of urban planning and all. Also, as someone who lived in Seattle... it doesn't snow that much. More rain... lots of rain. The pictures of happy people riding bikes is a bit of marketing. But the public transit is great.
When Seattle has enough snow to cover the roads, the area tends to shut down anyway. Those of us on the east side of the state joke that Seattle shuts down after an inch of snow while our area requires at least four inches before they consider plowing the side streets.
Also note that you don't need to live near a bus route in order to use the bus as long as your destination is close to a bus stop. There are park and ride lots scattered around the area.
well said Travis. When it does snow there are minor accidents on the hilly parts of Seattle. But I also think it being 2012 that the solar panels are very good and can use minimal light. I hardly think that panels they used 30 years ago were half as good as the ones they use today.
Actually solar panel efficiency hasn't changed all that much in 30 years, perhaps 25% if memory recalls. What has changed is material science, allowing them to be made much cheaper. My guess is they are much more reliable though, due to automation and better clean room technology.
Valhalla - not quite true. Even if you read the article you'll notice that the reason they were able to go Solar was due to the technology improving significantly within the past ten years. It's slated to get even better in the next decade. This is a good Forbes article about a US company that invented a way to boost panel efficiency up to 300%.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/eco-nomics/2011/02/14/new-magnifying-film-increases-solar-panel-efficiency-by-up-to-300-percent/
Travis-1944,
How are those beliefs in; Mann, NASA & East Anglia, holding-up???
Research the price increases in 'Rare earths', 400 to 800% during the last few years and China has stated they will stop EXPORTING ALL - Rare Earths. If a company wants to use any of China's 'Rare Earths', they will have to relocate their manufacturing plant to China...
During the last decade China has supplied 97% of the worlds 'Rare Earths' and they have the ONLY commercial processing plant. The one in NZ is facing many enviromental problems and will be a decade prior to processing any 'Rare Earths'...
I love that this pisses off right wingers. Go die already, your day is over.
Such a wonderful expression: "If you don't agree with me, then die." It might be easier to agree with you if you could express ideas instead of vitupertions. But then, I realize it is hard to form polysyllabic sentences when you're foaming at the mouth.
Bill, you're going to have to brush up on your reading comprehension before pretending that you're smarter than I am.
I never asked anyone to agree with me, as I didn't type a statement that could be affirmed.
Also, both sentences are polysyllabic. You should read the definitions on that word-a-day calender you've got before trying them out.
denver, showing off huh??
You're right; however, "I don't like you, go die" isn't really that much better.
Meat Roll,
My reading comprehension is fine. For example, I understand it is easier to comment with statements that cannot be affirmed or denied, but which do allow for inference, and then become offended when the drawn inference doesn't match your lofty ideals. That is of course unless your object is to be perpetually offended, in which case you are doing admirably well. From all the insight and education you claim to possess, I would expect a few original ideas. Unlike you, I never claim to be better educated or more logical than anyone else, so I am relieved from holding myself to your oh-so-high standards.
Poor Bill. You're just not very good at this. You couldn't ever hope to offend me, your opinion is a fart in the wind. Totally worthless and fleeting.
Also, I never claimed to possess insight and education, I merely stated that you aren't smarter than me. You continue to prove this. Rather effortless on my part.
No big words this time? Get back to me tomorrow when you flip your calender. We'll work on it together.
Meat Roll,
Your kung fu trolling skills are not strong. Do you recognize this post from March 19: "Upstanding citizens like me are always subject to persecution and the hands of fools. I'm used to it, it's the burden of having an education."
I am not interested in flame wars. Even if I were, I am sure before we were done I would see another post from you that you might also recognize from March 19: "I've reported you to site moderators for harassment."
Goodbye.
Meat, I am as conservative as they come and have 10KW solar on my roof. How much do you have? If you're a typical liberal I'd guess zero.
I don't know who said it originally but from my experience it rings true, most liberals live like conservatives, they just want everyone else to live like liberals.
How does it feel being pigeon holed? If you don't want us conservatives to lump you all together, don't try to lump us all together.
Also, one has to wonder about workers with disabilities who cannot bike to work. It seems to me that having no parking spots would violate the Americans with Disabilities Act. If the managers at the building refuse to hire workers because they cannot bike to work, and therefore they cannot be green, this also would violate the Americans with Disabilities Act. Not everyone is physically able to ride a bike. Some people have wheelchairs and drive.
The
people who talk about the building must have parking do not know Seattle. Downtown
Seattle is big and like New York City parking and driving around is not ideal.
As for people with disabilities they have the same access to public transport
like everybody else.
Thanks Norm.
Honestly, how many buildings in New York, San Francisco, or Seattle have their own private parking? I can't quite grasp why so many are freaking out over this.
While I don't think the parking would be an issue, I don't think there is any allowance for elevators, which could definitely be a problem for wheelchair access. I wonder if it would be acceptable by the Disabilities Act to have all wheelchair access only on the ground floor?
Travis.............................Because they hate change? Because they might have to step up to the plate? Because they can't see the forest for the trees? Because if it wasn't their idea, it isn't worth discussing?
Seems to me that's why we're in the mess that we're in. It's a mentality................"It works fine the way it is."
I do actually find your user name and comment somewhat at odds with each other... but honestly, I think even those that don't want to make a change should at least acknowledge that being creative and finding ways to heat, cool, dispose of waste, and lower overall consumption should be a good thing. I mean, did these people get angry when dual-pane windows came out?
Travis.........................I am ever the optimist. I was referring to others who cannot stand innovation.
As for dual pane windows.....................they probably did. Not to mention the host of innovations that have come along over the past few decades. Believe it or not, I find it absolutely amazing that many communities do not require that you separate your recycles...............they just throw it all in one big can. That many communities do not even bother to have people recycle electronics, paint, etc. Those are the people who fight change to the bitter end. All the while buying bottled water and throwing away millions of plastic bottles.
Not me.
At the same time, these were the same people who were losing their minds when bottle watered first became popular, saying, I would NEVER....
Travis...................That's where we should ALL begin. Stop buying that damned bottled water. Since when is is imperative that one carries water with them at all times? How about a filter for your faucet, your system, or just plain Brita for a pitcher? It sickens me to see what is happening in our landfills. I would love to take a poll of how many bottles of water people drink in any given day. And where they think that bottle goes when they chuck it out.
Talk about misguided. And wasteful.
Optomyst,
Where I currently live, they turn on the water @ 0700 & 1700 for two+hours. Last year there was NO water for three+months, from this source. We carried water from local ponds...
This water is suitable for; bathing, the toilet, and washing clothes. The drinking/cooking water is delivered in 5-Gal reusable jugs and you fill your personnel drinking container from these...
Home owners use cisterns to store the rain water. But people stopped drinking this water due to air pollution...
The area farmers stopped irrigation, decades ago, due to the rising levels of mineral salts in the ground water...
While this is not common in the USA, it is only a matter of time. Farm and industrial chemicals are polluting the US ground water and many coastal cites are facing sea water intrusion into their drinking water wells...
Research - Atrazine & sea water intrusion... Start with; http://www.nrdc.org/health/atrazine/ & http://www.solinst.com/Text/restext/Salttxt.html
I have a pretty good filtration system in my house, so I still use tap water. Sucks for AC, though...
Blue Gold - World Water Wars. (Full Film)
Masanobu Fukuoka's Natural Farming, One Straw Revolution.
YEA! Why do we need "towers"? Lower is better.
Agreed. Caves are wonderfully energy efficient. They can be heated for hours with just a few twigs.
"Bullitt Center"??
I think there are a couple of letters missing. Green, as it exists today, is a money pit, and I agree with the poster that remarked about the apparent lack of parking. Just like the "Paperless Office", "Car-free" is a utopian dream, especially in America, whose development was based on the autombile. If and when they ever get reliable, effective mass tranist set up (don't hold your breath), it might be somewhat feasible, but never 100% - people want the freedom that comes with personal transport.
It isn't a money pit when you cut your fuel consumption in half. It isn't a money pit when you use energy efficient bulbs.
It's more money you have to leave in your wallet.
They should stick a big wind turbine on it too while they're at it.
This is a great story and a great building. The best part is that it's private; as in not involving a government agency. This is how America is supposed to work - gov should do a lot less and allow the market to produce results. Kudos to you folks. As for the rest of us, we can all get greener. Use rainwater, passive solar heat and low energy bulbs. What else can y'all suggest to emulate these guys?
I had a professor, Dick Levine, at the Univ of Ky College of Architecture using every one of these concepts in a home he built in the early 1980's - we have advanced ZERO since then.
Our advances will come in finding a large energy producing material through science not trying ancient technology over and over as most of this (sans the solar panels) "technology" was used by American Indians at places such as Mesa Verde...this is a stupid building.
exponential increases are exponentially expensive, and what giant octopus corporation is going to put any real money into something like this?
No cars? I guess I wont be going. And neither will 99.9 % of Americans. But OK Greenies.....have your fun. Build your $30 million dollar- six story office with bike racks.
Sounds good, we didn't want you there anyways. Enjoy your 4x4 SUV in a gridlocked city while eating pop-tarts, then stumbling home to your dinner of Hot-Pockets in your double-wide and enjoy the next Nascar Event you hillbilly!
Ok, so that was Jim Gaffigan, but I couldn't help it.
To me it depends whether the building is built in a dense urban center---if it is then you'll able to drive your dinosaur and pay to parking it in a nearby parking facility, or you could use mass transit, or you could even try (gasp) walking or riding a bicycle.
If it isn't in a dense urban center then there's undoubtedly is plenty of available parking in the area and you could (gasp) try walking or riding a bicycle.
Sounds to me that the parking lot may just be another savings opportunity.
Personally, I'm of the opinion if you wish to drag your dinosaur then you should be expected to pay.
Rap
The problem is not the rural person that needs a 4x4 for work and transportation...
It is the City dwellers that use large sums of energy to support their non-sustainable life-style...
If you do not understand BTU/passenger mile or BTU/ton shipping. Then you have no concept of how much energy you are really using, when you are using that public transportation or motorcycle...
See the latest US DOE BTU ratings
sounds nice...but ill still be drinking my bottles of imported glacier water rather than drink onsite treated sewage...:D
Funny Horton--Somehow I'd bet dollars to dimes that the recycled water is subject to a higher QA/QC than the imported packaged rainwater (most likely none).
I live in an area that uses aquifer water in the water supply system--also attached to the same water tap are two water bottlers that put that tap water in fancy packages declaring it as ultra pure aquifer water--their proof--the utility lab results.
BTW I pay $8 per 1000 gallons for the same stuff you are paying a dollar a liter (~$4000/1000gal).
Rap
thats why i said glacier water and not captured rainwater...thanks..i know how it works...
somehow the oil companies will take this idea, block it, or stop it, just like every other attempt in the past to make something greener and more efficient...
you can not believe them when they say they are working on more sustainable energy, etc, because its not in their interest to do it or for it to happen.
think about how many people have been killed, or ideas have been bought or stolen then locked up to keep them from becoming reality, just because it would make them lose money.
Careful or you might disappear into this fantasy world you are living in. Zoloft...give it a try.
Those conspiracy theory's are so absurd. BP sells solar panels, Exxon is investing heavily in algae oil, etc., they aren't trying to kill green energy, they are trying to take it over! :<)
No one has blocked anything, the EV-1 died because there was no viable battery. It's decades later and we still don't have a viable battery. If people are bitching about the Volt at $40,000 how could the EV-1 be viable at $85,000? And that's in 90's dollars!
EV's are the future, but it will take another five to ten years to become viable.
I just patented an invention where by we inject every person with the same silicon product used to make solar panels, thereby everyone is a living breathing part of the collective. Once one is at home or work, they simply "plug-in" and discharge the power they generated along the way.
I am now introducing legislation that will require every person to spend one hour per day outside in the sunlight so each person gives back to everyone else.
I am working on another that uses body heat to produce electricity and another that collects the methane emitted out our sphincter that passes through a miniature wind-turbine ...again, once at our destination we simply plug-in.
Since America is fighting a loosing obesity problem, every desk, restaurant table, car, train and plane seat or park bench will have a "pedal operated power generator" so that everyone can exercise and generate power no matter where they are or what they are doing. We get healthier as we generate power. This will cut health care costs too.
A benefit is the breaking down of social barriers that separate us...regardless of the size of a company, everyone will "plug-in" the same way and instantly, we see that none of us is different, better or worse than the other. Peace and harmony will flow over America and we will become one with nature.
For singles, I am starting a dating service where we pair up an obese person with a skinny person. The skinny one will receive heat from the obese one and they will share a meal, cutting energy use in half. By wearing one outfit, they can share clothes, the skinny one fitting inside and sharing the effort of human propulsion.
Last but not least, I propose we change the colors of the American flag from red, white and blue to green and white, and instead of being called "Old Glory," it is now known as "Green AlGore" or GAG for short.
Oh perish the thought! Something inventive! Apparently innovation is a scary word to a lot of people.
Hey, Skeeter!
I'm working on a design for a "fart collector", to take advantage of natural gas. Each person would be required to wear it during working hours, and consume a can of beans daily. We could install collection points in every home, or economize and have a community "Flatulence Station".
Those who do not wish to participate can take the Algore route, by purchasing verifiable methane production credits.
We can extend the program (or run a pilot) on the CAFO operations in the midwest; all cattle should be outfitted with a collector during growth mode. It would create jobs, too. "What do you do for a living?" "Oh, I'm in Green technology - I collect cattle farts." or, "I run the neighborhood Biological Gas Extraction Unit." A whole new industry, right at our, um, fingertips. Whaddya think?
You are right "Enema" this is innovative...see my post below about "1980's house" and the American Indians...wow, and AlGore invented the internet.
Enema? Oh how cute! It's been done before. Once again, people who can't make a logical argument use name-calling.
Skeeter, Cygnus - why in the hell would this be considered something bad? Are you guys really rooting for construction that uses more water and electricity? Why? For the love of God, why in the hell are you fighting against this?
build underground , that is the best way to be energy efficient . safer too in most ways .
mercenary76
This is actually one of the best ideas that i have read on this page.
good post!
Underground may be a problem due to the water table. It also makes it difficult to go multistory.
At the same time, underground, or partially underground, or earth covered, works well for houses. I can see people considering it for places that have tornadoes. I might consider an earth covered house on a mound for areas that flood or deal with hurricanes.
"Why towers?"
When you can't grow outward, you have to grow upward (or downward). Vertical takes advantage of space constraints, and the cost of real estate. As long as the population keeps growing, we'll need to look skyward for the space we need. Imagine how many buildings of the article variety it would take, and the real estate footage involved, to account for just one metro business high-rise. It's cute, it's eco-friendly, but terribly impractical. In a Logan's Run world, where all is youthful and robust, riding bikes to work might seem to be a great solution to pollution and energy efficiency, but again, for most people, highly impractical. Here in the northeast, where much of business is centralized, and workers live in suburban bedroom communities, commute time may be extensive. With a bike, some folks would have to leave for work the day before to get there on time. :-)
Commute time to work solved!!!!!!
Re-elect Obama for another 4 years and no one will have a job...except in government and then we can just move in to the federal facilities....
"no one will have a job..."
I'm already there, and it doesn't matter who we elect, we're on the downhill slope to the place where all failed democracies wind up - totalitarianism. The middle class is all but gone, which leaves only Pigs and Sheep. I'd wish us luck, but it would be like whistling past the graveyard. Greed will bury us.