I moved to this region about 15 years ago because I thought it would be a better place to set up a homestead. I was looking for mountain spring water and milder temperatures than my Texas home. I found both, but the longer I’ve been here, the more I’ve become amazed by the people who live here, especially the ones I meet in my work in the world of “green building.” For my next few columns, I’m going to interview some local founts of wisdom on various green building topics. This month, I talked with area mechanical engineer Jeff Buscher:

CS: You and I are old enough to remember that ancient time before “green building” was a household word. How did you first get involved in the field?

JB: I was studying architecture and engineering at Kansas State University when I read the book Ecotopia in an elective philosophy class. I remember it as a turning point for me. I started focusing on energy-efficient technologies and sustainable practices in whatever way I could. After graduation, I worked for a large commercial engineering firm in Dallas for a number of years. It was frustrating, because I kept pushing for sensible energy- efficiency measures and putting them into designs only invariably to have them taken out at some point due to shortsighted reasoning. I finally decided to put my money where my mouth was and move to a smaller firm identified with green principles.

CS: You’re unique in my experience because you combine an expansive knowledge of complex technology and technical methods with an interest in simple technologies, such as those commonly referred to as “natural building.” Given that novel perspective, what do you see as the important issues for green building enthusiasts to focus on?

JB: First of all, we’ve got to face reality. The conventional construction world is in the grip of two dangerous forces: ignorance and inertia. Ignorance because efficiency has only been a concern for one generation; we’re all still learning the best way to do this, but, frankly, many building professionals aren’t educated as to even the most basic, common sense issues of building science. Inertia because to make money and avoid getting sued it makes sense to keep doing the thing that worked the last time. In other words, the construction industry is often wary of innovation and slow to change. Even in the green building industry, many people are content to build to code. But, building to code is the bare minimum acceptable to avoid being fined for breaking the law. To get where we need to be, we should be building at least two-times in excess of current code mandated insulation levels. By achieving that level of performance, we can significantly downsize or eliminate heating and cooling systems and make net zero energy buildings financially feasible. [Note: Zero energy design (ZED) can be defined as designing buildings that produce as much or more energy than they use.] ZED has been possible and achieved for decades. It’s not technically all that difficult to do. It’s rare because it requires more design effort, and, with current solar prices, it costs a little more up front. However, the long-term benefits are huge. The question today is whether we can afford not to do it.

CS: ZED is just barely starting to make it onto the mainstream radar. I think to a lot of people it sounds like something out of a science fiction novel. Can you shed a little light on the steps to move from conventional construction practices to ZED?

JB: Well, it’s true that there is some high-tech involved, but many of the steps are old-school. These concepts have been around for millennia. First, we start with the land. Maximize what you can get from the building site and the surrounding area. Work with the sun for passive solar heating and cooling. Collect water on the site. Use as many materials from as close to the site as possible. Next, we need to stop building these light, expendable, giant boxes that pass for houses, office buildings, malls, what have you. We need more insulation and more mass. Insulation is a common concept for most people, but mass not so much. Adding heavy, dense materials (mass) adds to temperature stability and longevity of a building. This is a common approach in Europe, but we’ve missed the boat here.
In our climate, by creating a highly insulated building, you can drastically reduce the heating load, and by using a lot of mass you can potentially avoid mechanical cooling to keep the building comfortable. When compared to complex mechanical systems, insulation and mass are inexpensive, and once installed they don’t require any additional input of energy to do their job. Past a certain threshold of load reduction, current alternatives such as solar electricity (PV), wind generators, solar hot water, and waste heat recovery start to become the sensible default solution rather than a luxury. This is where engineering becomes pivotal. Through energy modeling and integrating systems design with passive aspects of the building’s performance (insulation, mass, solar heating and cooling), we can create buildings that require only a fraction of the energy and resources to build and run compared to present common practice in this country.

The single variable that has the most effect on a building’s energy and resource efficiency is its size, so another major component of this strategy is to build smaller. Finally, we have to stop looking at our buildings as islands and start seeing them in their social context. A small, energy-efficient eco-cottage is still missing the point if it’s part of a lifestyle that requires a two-hour daily commute. We should be designing to make driving less convenient and walking and biking more convenient. I’m a big fan of the New Urbanism movement and recommend that people read up on it.

CS: I’m with you on all of this, but one thing that makes me a bit nervous is our increasing dependence on complex technology. I’ve always been a do-it-yourselfer, but now I find myself spending more and more time in front of a computer whose inner workings are a complete mystery to me. That makes me fundamentally uneasy. What’s your take on the possibility of taking technology too far?

JB: Obviously, that’s a danger. However, my personal feeling is that we need to find a way to solve our environmental problems while maintaining some level of the “comfort zone” that modern humans have become accustomed to. Technology can be a very useful tool in that context. For example, in our climate, humidity is extreme. Around here, there is no way to create stable indoor humidity levels without some level of mechanical equipment. For me, the fun is in finding ways to limit and simplify the technology required to solve problems like this. I’m working on it, and I know others are too, so stay tuned.

Resources

To find out more about what Jeff thinks regarding green building fundamentals, check out his blog at www.thinkorthwim.com, and check out these sources he recommends:

Walkable towns: www.ecotownz.co.uk
ZED Architects in the UK: www.zedfactory.com
Passive House Institute: www.passivehouse.us
The Living Building Standard: www.cascadiagbc.org/lbc

Clarke Snell is the author of two books on alternatives to conventional construction, The Good House Book and Building Green, and is a regular columnist for New Life Journal as well as a member of the NLJ Green Home Experts Board. He administers Think Green Building, LLC (www.thinkgreenbuilding.com), a consulting and design network that offers innovative housing design, architectural engineering for solar/natural resource management, energy modeling/analysis, land analysis and 3D modeling, and consulting for all green projects.

Back to New Life Journal..