Online at Architectural Record:
The designers of Seattle’s Bullitt Center have overachieved. The designers set out to demonstrate that a six-story office building could generate all of the energy it needs, but after one year of operation, it is sending a sizable energy surplus to the local power grid, according to data released by its developer, the Bullitt Foundation.
Consumption is simply far lower than what its architects and engineers projected for the 52,000-square-foot building. Instead of using 16kBtu per square foot—half the energy-use intensity (EUI) of Seattle’s best-performing office building—consumption during its first year was just 10kBtu/sf …
Sabotage: GreenSource’s how-to guide for occupants
New technology lets occupants work with building systems rather than against them, to improve their comfort while reducing energy costs.
By Peter Fairley
The stats on occupant comfort are disappointing, and green buildings are no exception. Consider, for example, heating and cooling performance. Thermal-comfort standard standards stipulate that such systems should satisfy at least four out of five occupants. “Very few buildings actually perform that well,” according to John Goins with the Center for the Built Environment (CBE) at UC Berkeley. Out of the 609 buildings in CBE’s database, only 13 percent meet ASHRAE’s performance threshold; among those that are LEED-certified, 20 percent make the grade.
There is increasing recognition that all that discomfort may be translating into a lot of wasted energy. Goins estimates that the average office building wastes 4 percent of its energy just by cooling and heating more than occupants want. The indirect impact could be even bigger when one considers how disgruntled occupants—who in most buildings lack an effective channel for requesting change—fight back against the machine. They may block air vents or plug in space heaters to combat excessive air-conditioning…
Excerpted from the May/June edition of GreenSource Magazine. Read the story at GreenSource.
Turbine House: Michael Pelken & Thong Dang’s residence with horizontal-axis wind turbine
As design teams work toward harnessing air flows around buildings, they are producing some intriguing structures. But just how viable is wind power as a source of on-site renewable energy?
By Peter Fairley
Wind power is the fastest-growing source of megawatts thanks to the jumbo-jet-sized turbines sprouting en masse worldwide. But it also has a significant presence in the city, where gusts regularly send umbrellas to landfills. Rather than considering it a nuisance, architects increasingly view urban wind as a renewable resource for on-building power generation.
Building-integrated wind power (BIWP)—wind turbines mounted on or incorporated within an occupied structure—may lack wind farms’ economies of scale. But like the leading source of on-building renewables—photovoltaics (PVs)—wind turbines offer some advantages in architectural applications. No roads get cut through wilderness to erect towers, and they deliver electricity without power lines and transmission losses. Wind turbines are also attractive to designers and clients looking to express a commitment to sustainability.
Such benefits provide potential for dramatic growth, says mechanical engineer Roger Frechette, principal in the Washington, D.C., office of Interface Engineering. “If there’s data showing that BIWP works and testimony that it’s a good thing to do, there will be an explosion,” he predicts…
Published in the April 2013 issue of Architectural Record Magazine. Read the whole story.