SSOE's Sustainability Blog

No. I am not asking you to read my mind. I am not denigrating nor supporting global climate change. I am suggesting to you the things you do and how you think make a difference. The culture you live in depends on you to embrace it for it to continue, to make it sustainable. The economy you live in, global that it may be, is dependent on your participation in it for it to exist, to make it sustainable. The environment in which you live is a reflection of how you think and act relative to it, whether it is sustainable…  in short, I am suggesting much of our success (or failure) in sustainable behavior is a state of mind, and more importantly, how we think about “things” is important.

It is like those story problems from primary school: If the United States consumed 101.31 quadrillion BTUs of energy in 2009 (http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/index.cfm) and if every consumer saved 0.01% of the energy they helped to consume in 2009, how much energy would be saved? First, recall one quadrillion is a really big number, one with 15 zeros behind it which looks like this: 1,000,000,000,000,000. A savings of 0.01% would move the decimal point four spaces to the right, so the result would have 15 – 4 = 11 zeros or 100,000,000,000 or 100 billion. These are all just really BIG numbers few of us can wrap our minds around. The mathematical answer of our story problem is 10,131,000,000,000 BTUs. Do all these zeros have your eyes glazing over?

Thankfully someone at SRI international (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_mile_of_oil) came up with a way for us to wrap our minds around these really big energy numbers, by converting them to cubic mile of oil (CMO) units. If 1 CMO equals 152 quadrillion BTU, then the United States consumed the equivalent of two-thirds of a CMO in 2009. This is less than one, not so big, only 2/3 CMO. From this frame of reference saving 0.01% seems almost not worth mentioning, 0.0000665 CMO.

So what is your frame of reference?

If you can save 0.01% of what you consume by simply remembering to unplug your electric charging equipment when it is not in use, would you want to actively participate in saving your part of 10,131,000,000,000 BTUs?

What if your efforts computed to saving 0.0000665 CMO? It represents the same amount of energy savings. Does it seem just as important?

Let me suggest to you this:

Every BTU you help save is an important contribution toward controlling costs in the economy in which you live, even small savings add up over the life of your consumption. Revisit the story problem. If you could find ten small things to do every year for ten years, you and everyone else could save a noticeable portion of 1 CMO, about 4%.

Does that not satisfy your desire to contribute positively to the economy (and your wallet)? What if you invest in reducing your 2009 energy demand by making improvements that reduce your energy consumption by 10%? If everyone followed this scenario, we could save almost 7% of a CMO in one year (that is 10,131,000,000,000,000 BTU or 10.131 quadrillion BTU). Might this savings offset the cost of inflation in the United States? Would this savings make us more competitive in the marketplace? What if the ROI on our investment was less than three years, would you then add the savings to your IRA (an investment in the economy)?

So what is the state of your mind?

My 13 year old daughter’s Christmas list this year started out with gift cards … only gift cards. Until she realized … we weren’t going to buy them. Each year as the kids get older it gets harder to shop for them. The $10 gift requests are long gone when Barbie was the gift of choice, replaced with expensive electronic gadgets and toys. Shopping has certainly gotten easier with the advent of online shopping – but what is all of that shipping and delivery doing to our environment?

We are saving gas, time, physical energy, and headaches by avoiding the stores and shopping from the comfort of our homes. Perhaps if we ordered all of our gifts at one time the cost considerations would be different; however, if you are like me … you purchase some things … then think of some more … and then some more and before you know it, you have five packages on your doorstep as opposed to one. And, along with the gifts you have ordered you now have a cardboard box, bubble wrap, and yet another catalog (in addition to the 5-10 you receive daily during the holidays).

I have tried different things to reduce my waste at the holidays. I scorn wrapping paper in lieu of fabric drawstring bags that the kids and I made one year out of felt and glitter glue – we reuse these each year for gifts. We purchased a beautiful fake Christmas tree that will last us for years and years. I reuse the paper gift bags that we receive or wrap gifts with comics and paper bags. I don’t send Christmas cards. We make charitable donations for my sister and parents and they do the same.

What do you do to Green your holidays?

These are the Audubon Societies tips: http://www.sawmillriveraudubon.org/GreenHolidays/Greening_Holidays.pdf

Goal:  Net Zero Buildings by 2030. This is the track of government required green design.

The 2012 version of the International Energy Code code is about 30% more stringent than the 2006 version. High efficiency HVAC, more efficient lighting systems, and onsite renewables are options for complying with the code. An energy cost analysis will be required during the design phase. Spaces over 10,000 SF of certain building types will be required to have daylighting components including translucent fenestration and associated lighting controls.

Who is adopting this code? 38 states will be adopting codes that meet or exceed the 2009 IEC Code by the end of 2015. At this point it too early to tell when and how many states will be adopting the 2012 version. Image is as of May 5, 2011. Keep an eye on the energycodes.gov website as they post the current status of the energy codes and the anticipated adoption.

What does this mean, practically? It means that standard construction will change. Walls, roofs and foundations will require more insulation. Windows will be checked against solar heat gain requirements.  HVAC systems and electrical systems will be smarter and more efficient. Sustainability is no longer an option but will be required as an additional submittal in the standard permitting packets. Some may argue that this is too much too soon, and others may state that this is not enough. I, for one, am quite excited about the challenge to have every building built in the U.S. be a Net-Zero building. We have a long way to go before 2030.

This year will prove pivotal for alternative energy technologies. If you consider the economy, the political climate, the state of the technologies, and recent events, developing a reliable forecast for how things will look a year from now is impossible. Let’s look a little deeper into each of these areas to see what has happened, what will be happening and what the likely outcomes may be.

First, let’s look at the economy. Most in the U.S. would agree this is the biggest issue the country is dealing with. About half of the country says less federal money should be spent on renewable energy and the other half saying the government should not be picking winners and losers. What this means to alternative energy technology providers is that funding will be cut off. It may not be this year, but it is likely to be next year. Any plans for growth based on federal (and possibly local governmental) support, will be put on hold until the situation with the economy improves. Also, as of the first of this year, the 30% federal cash rebate for new projects has expired. This means developers pushed everything they could into 2011 and will likely develop fewer projects this year.

Second, the political climate will stall any significant changes in policy direction for at least a year. This can be viewed as good and bad. Viewing from an alternative energy provider perspective, the good is that the government (state and federal) have established mandates to meet renewable energy production targets. States have implemented Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) and the federal government has department-specific goals that must be met. These two areas provide significant opportunity for new business. Additionally, the EPA has enacted (or is in the process of enacting) substantial new regulations on base load (primarily coal) generators. This will force some coal-fired generation facilities to close and have some of that capacity replaced by alternative energy technologies.

Globally, there are some worrisome events that are benefitting alternative energy manufacturers. The continued unrest in the Middle East has driven oil up to over $100 a barrel again. At this price, some of these new energy technologies can be justified. Just this week, Iran has threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz if additional sanctions are placed on it. Over twenty percent of the world’s oil flows through that region. Who knows what will happen to the price of oil if any conflict arises out of this threat. In any case, the argument will be made that alternative energy technologies produced here provide greater energy security for the U.S.

With the good comes the bad. Many constituents (voters in an election year) view funding of these projects for private industries bad policy. Their votes will be cast based on how effective they view these incentives to be performing. Unfortunately, the renewable energy industry (especially PV) is being thrust into the political spotlight due to some highly publicized (and federally funded) companies that have gone bankrupt. Most voters know about Solyndra and are now seeing other PV manufacturers going belly up or suspending operations for extended periods of time. This is due to a global glut in PV availability caused by too rapid a scale up in production capacity. These bankruptcies and disappointing financial performances will continue throughout the year. All of these issues lead politicians to play it safe or avoid the issue at all cost until the election is over.

Third, recent news has everyone guessing what could be next. Just when the country was starting to understand the vast shale gas resource that lies beneath the Midwest and other regions, questions about fracking fluid contaminating drinking water started to arise. Now, there is concern that the re-injection of fracking fluid may be causing minor earthquakes. There is no proof of any of this, but speculation abounds.

There also has been a recent spate of bat and bird deaths at some of the large wind farms. As a result, wind farm operators must now limit the times of day they can run the turbines. Many of these limitations occur at night when the turbines can create the most power. This inability to operate at design parameters completely upends the financial model developers use to support the project payback.

All this turmoil and uncertainty has led to angst among manufacturers, service suppliers, elected officials and consumers. This environment limits risk taking and development of new business models to improve implementation of alternative energy technologies. By this time next year, much of this uncertainty should be behind us. Let’s hope that the innovators that brought us to this point will still be interested in pursuing an alternative energy world.

Going paperless does make a difference for the environment in many ways (saves forests from being harvested for paper production and reduces the use of oil and energy in the harvesting, manufacturing, and shipping of paper from cradle to grave.

In the construction industry considerable paper is used in “shop drawing” submittals for equipment, materials, and methods to confirm compliance to Contract Documents. Each project typically requires submission of 5 to 10 duplicate sets of shop drawings for each item to be used, resulting in a large amount of paper and energy use.

Going to electronic paperless submittals saves reams of paper for all parties for each project. It is estimated that between twelve and twenty-four, 40 foot tall trees with a diameter of 8 inches are required to produce 1 ton of paper, depending on the processes used to manufacture the paper. It is estimated that a single ream of paper (500, 8.5 X 11 sheets) requires the equivalent amount of energy as 2 gallons of gasoline, or about 1/10th of a barrel of crude oil in its manufacture. This does not take into account the energy required for shipping the paper from the mill to the end user or the energy required for shipping paper documents between contractors, A/E firms, equipment suppliers, and the owner’s representative.

Not only is going paperless good for the environment, it saves time and effort. Has your company gone paperless yet?