Abigail Goldman is guilty of the same offence as most all the “green building” reporters I’ve seen to date. Rather than informing us of the true metrics we need to know about what makes a house efficient, we get more of the same ignorant terminology.
The environmental effects of a building have to do with the energy and resources used in its construction combined with the energy and resources used throughout its life. The energy metrics are measured in kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity and therms of natural gas while the water is measured in HCF (hundreds of cubic feet – 748 gallons = 100 cubic feet).
None of these crucial measurements were anywhere to be found in the article.
Unless people understand what kind and how much energy they use as well as the amount of water and the environmental consequences of using these resources, they will remain ignorant of the true cost to society and the planet of their respective lifestyle choices.
It does nobody any good to read of how many solar PV panels one uses if we don’t know the rating of the panels. Were they 75 watt panels or 210 watt panels? What we need to know is how many kWh do those panels generate in a month and how many kWh do we as a family use. That’s information we can use.
And for the U.S. Green Building Council acting director of the homes program, Jay Hall, to be quoted as saying solar PV is a “fad” is unconscionable. If he indeed said such a thing, he does not deserve to be a director of the USGBC. He is also quoted as saying the average cost of a PV system for a 2,000 sq. ft. home is $40,000. Again, this doesn’t tell us anything of value. It actually serves to scare people off of solar. We don’t know how many kWh this 2,000 sq. ft. home uses or how many kWh the $40,000 PV system will generate.
I have seen 2,000 sq. ft. homes that used less than 400 kWh/month and some that used well over 3,000 kWh. This is a huge range that runs through all house sizes. So, trying to “educate” the public on green building by using such useless information does a serious disservice to the readers of The Times.
I suggest that any journalist who wishes to truly educate their readers begin by reading their own utility bills and get a handle on how much energy and water they use, then write about what it would take to reduce their own consumption. That learning experience will generate a much better article.--Paul Scott
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-greenhouse29jul29,1,3912777.story?ctrack=6&cset=true
Living green, by design
One home is efficient and thrifty. The other is stylish and opulent. They both help the planet.
By Abigail Goldman, Times Staff Writer
July 29, 2007
DONNA SIDER painstakingly renovated her 1,000-square-foot Pasadena home to be more energy-efficient as a way to save money and help the environment at the same time.
Jeffrey Eyster built an eco-friendly, 2,200-square-foot dream house in the hills above Laurel Canyon, in tune with his appreciation of fine architecture, superior materials and healthful living.
Eyster's home demonstrates that luxury and cutting-edge design can be integral to environmental construction.
Sider's is proof that going green doesn't require a lot of gold. Their efforts can serve as examples to homeowners who want to fight global warming or trim their household expenses, or both. And the payoffs in both areas are substantial, environmental leaders say.
"Forty percent of America's carbon emissions comes from buildings — almost half — and utility bills are a major factor in household bankruptcy," said Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club. "You can reduce your utility bill by 50% or 60% relatively easily. That's one-fifth of the total carbon emissions today. It's a huge part of what we have to do."
Making those eco-friendly changes at home has become simpler and more affordable.
"Five years ago, the environmentally healthier or higher-performing building materials and products were harder to find. It was still a niche market, and they were more expensive," said Charles Lockwood, a Santa Monica-based environmental real estate consultant. "Now, you see Home Depot offering eco-options.
"This brings it down to everyday Americans. You don't have to go to a special place to find it. It's right there and at a good price."
Home builders and buyers also have a better way of identifying environmentally friendly homes, thanks to the U.S. Green Building Council's seal of approval.
The group's residential Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Green Building Rating System will be formally launched this fall after a two-year pilot program. It was designed to encourage builders to keep the costs of green homes similar to those of traditional new houses, the council said.
To get the group's most basic certification, a builder would have to spend about 3% more, or $10,000 on a $300,000 home, the national average price for a new house. Amortized over a 30-year mortgage, that extra $70 a month is easily made up in energy savings, said Jay Hall, acting director of the homes program.
"If they cost the same on a monthly basis, which one would you rather have?" Hall asked.
Sider already has answered that one. "I wanted to be a part of doing what I could in my own home to make these changes," she said.
Sider's long road to transforming her two-bedroom home began shortly after she bought it in 1999. With a limited budget, the 49-year-old registered nurse saved up and attacked her projects as she could afford them, doing much of the work herself and enlisting the aid of friends and family.
When she began her energy-saving projects, she paid about $200 every two months for water and power. When she finished, this summer, her bill had dropped to about $60.
Eyster, a 36-year-old architect, became a green believer when he was evaluating the costs of building a home on a 5,700-square-foot lot just off Laurel Canyon Boulevard near the Mount Olympus neighborhood. His wife, real estate agent Alla Furman, bought the lot five years ago for $30,000.
Eyster opted to save money by constructing beams from small pieces of Douglas fir pasted together with environmentally friendly glue. The engineered wood was easily carried up the steep hill, unlike large, old-growth timber, which would have required a crane.
"It didn't start from a philosophical position," Eyster said. "It just made sense."
His bright and airy but compact house is all about making sense. The tiny 6-by-3-foot downstairs powder room with low-flow electric toilet maximizes space and water efficiency; LED track lamps throughout the house will last 40,000 hours, as opposed to old-style 2,000-to-5,000-hour bulbs.
By the time the couple and their two children moved in two months ago, the house's cost had swelled to about $1.2 million, financed with a $600,000 construction loan and round after round of refinancing to free up cash for the project.
more....
No comments:
Post a Comment