Oh, those sexy building codes: More powerful than 100 nuclear plants

[joshcryer]

Are 100 new nuclear plants the solution to our climate troubles? I asked that question in a post last week.

The answer lies buried deep within the 1,428-page Waxman-Markey climate bill (H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act), passed by the House and now under consideration in the Senate. It is Section 201, pages 320-348. It is this section that makes H.R. 2454 worth passing.

No matter what else is compromised or changed in the climate bill as it works its way through the Senate, Section 201 must not be changed or weakened. Why? Because all other energy- and emissions-reduction approaches pale in comparison to what Section 201 will accomplish. Without it, we simply cannot meet the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction targets called for in the bill. We won't even come close.

Section 201 covers building energy codes -- that's right, building energy codes -- that will transform the entire built environment in the U.S. by 2050. That's because Section 201 affects all new buildings and major renovations, and by 2050 more than three-quarters of the built environment in the U.S. will be either new or renovated.

http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-23-building-energy-codes-are-best-part-of-waxman-markey

---

Much more at link, could this be the quiet solution that people overlook and gets passed in to law that might just save our asses?

[Dead_Parrot]

1. Except, of course...

...the amount of energy we need to replace is a lot more than current electricity generation: There's the same again in transport energy, and about the same again in non-electric fixed energy.

By the time time we've replaced the cars, trucks, silicone smelters and gas stoves with non-fossil versions we'd need a bunch more generation - even if we current current useage by 100%.

[DCKit]

2. Then we'd be cutting the need for additional growth - by half.

I see no problem with the OP's premise and it's still win-win for the U.S..

[NNadir]

3. The "all new stuff" approach to the environment? Some people might think

that "all new stuff" is how we got into this disaster in the first place, but probably they're just whiners and complainers.

The answer to everything is consume more, worry less.

[Nederland]

4. It's totally true

Over the last 13 years I've built three houses in Boulder country. The last one I built at the same time as a coworker was building one for himself. Same size house, but in the winter his utility bill is $600 and mine is almost always under $200. Of course, mine is framed with SIPs and has geothermal heat which are not cheap choices. However, I'm sure even simple things like making sure you have lots of windows on the south side and very few on the north side make a huge difference.

[Statistical]

6. We need to raise the minimum bar on efficiency for new buildings.

Inefficient (cheap now but expensive over long run) materials should simply be outlawed.

The most efficient material, equipment, designs should receive credits.

[kristopher]

7. Just how do you do that?

Who is going to select the materials that are to be outlawed?

Prescriptive approaches to such large scale, diverse endeavors is doomed to fail either from massive failure to comply or from the massive costs of enforcement and inefficiency in building. For example, if you don't have every single component and maker evaluated, rated, and listed, then there are going to be glaring loopholes. If you attempt to do those things you not only spend huge sums in an inevitably corrupt process, but you also lock in inefficient technologies and hinder innovation dramatically.

The approach being looked at (it is in the house energy bill) is to give buildings energy efficiency ratings. That too has problems, but those issues seem to be less severe than other approaches and the upside in the area of innovation should be dramatic. Enforcement can also be tied to regulatory language related to financing and insurance.

[Statistical]

8. We already do it for certain items....

Air conditioners for example must have a minimum SEER rating.
10 years ago a SEER of 10 was legal. Now minimum SEER is 13. Same amount of cooling for less energy.

Furnaces another another example:
AFUE rating of 70% was legal at one time. Now the minimum is 85% with lot of support for raising that to 90%.

The difference between a typical 85% furnace and 90% furnace is a hundred bucks or so. It pays for itself in 1-2 years.

So why are they sold?

Builders special. If the comparable home is say $260,000 the builder needs to have comparable sq footage, and amenities. However how many home buyers are looking at furnace rating. Builder installs a SEER 13 AC instead of SEER 15 and "saves" $200. A 85% efficient furnace instead of 90% one and saves another $200. Low rated windows instead of slightly more expensive and much more thermally insulated ones and saves $500.

All this is "hidden money". House looks very much similar to even moderately efficient one which means more money into builders pocket. Within 2-3 years that homeowner has lost more than the builder gained in terms of increased energy.


I am not saying require the absolute highest grade materials however when you have a SEER 13 AC and SEER 15 AC very close in price and one will save a massive amount of GHG for only $100 more then it is time for SEER 13 AC to be delisted and 15 become the new minimum standard.

[kristopher]

9. Once more for the hard of hearing...

You can't do it by mandating materials - you do it with standards. Just like the examples you point to in appliances.

Your idea to mandate materials is a nonstarter - it is a bad idea - it doesn't work.

[Statistical]

10. Yes we can.

By material I don't mean raw materials but rather building materials.

Set minimum standard for windows, doors, insulation.
For items that have minimum standards raise them periodically based on technological improvements.

We currently sell low grade insulation in this country that doesn't meat code in other countries.
Why isn't it allowed in other parts of the world? Because it is criminally ineffective at insulating. Save $1 in construction pay $100 more in energy over 60 year life of building.

Prohibit use of inefficient building materials, appliances, and equipment in new construction.

[Nederland]

11. He didn't say certain materials should be mandated

He said certain materials should be banned.

We do it all the time, and it does work.

[joshcryer]

12. There was nothing wrong with his explaination and you're just arguing for the sake of it.

Geez dude.

[FBaggins]

5. Let's apply a little math

They're saying that you can cut emissions by 60-65% by replacing (or substantially renovating) 75% of existing structures (plus any growth) with far more efficient ones.

Those new structures had better be 90% more efficient than the existing ones or there's no way that happens.

All of which, of course, ignores the emissions involved in building new homes/stores/offices.