Peter Wilson [in a Cambridgewickedlocal with news from the Chronicle and Tab LtE http://cambridge.wickedlocal.com/article/20140220/NEWS/140229717/2014/OPINION] wrote that “Net zero is not a practical goal in New England” and that may or may not be true. There are a number of net zero energy single and two family buildings in NE, including in colder climates than Cambridge like Vermont, although the experience with larger and high rise net zero energy buildings is just beginning. However, there are a few examples that approach net zero, including one in Vienna, Austria, the Raffeisens Bank, a 21 story building built to PassivHaus standards (http://www.viennareview.net/news/ideas-and-trends/raiffeisens-upward-sustainability).
Whether or not net zero is a practical goal, it is an essential thought experiment we need to run. By viewing net zero energy as an approachable goal, the way statistical quality control views zero defects on a production line under Total Quality Management, we will assuredly come across many different ways we can reduce our energy needs, perhaps significantly.
I say we are not going far enough. We should be thinking not only about net zero energy but also zero emissions throughout our infrastructure. We know that pollution causes problems, that pollution is waste, and should be smart enough, wise enough to think about reducing the waste we generate to as close to zero as possible. I like the motto of Zero Waste Europe (http://www.zerowasteeurope.eu), “If you are not for zero waste, how much waste are you for?”
If you are not for net zero energy, how much wasted energy are you for?
However, even if we mandate that all new buildings achieve net zero energy, we still have to fix our existing buildings and probably have to start developing district heating and cooling to become a net zero energy community. This is a hard problem and requires concentrated efforts. Net zero energy for new buildings, if it is achievable (and I believe it is), is still only a start.
Thanks for your time and your work.
…why that can’t be a practical goal. Even if we don’t really think we can make it we should always see that as the Holy Grail and acknowledge there is room for improvement if we are not there yet.
If I have two parcels and one is a net producer of 500,000 BTUs per day and another parcel 10 miles away that is a net consumer of 500,000 BTUs per day. A wire connects them.
I’m not for net zero energy on a parcel by parcel basis, but if one of my buildings pumps out an excess of MWh which were generated emissions free and another of my buildings consumes that many MWh from the grid, my buildings are, combined, net zero.
Given that the amount of solar energy that is physically possible to harvest is strictly a function of land area, and given that high density minimizes energy use per person, and given that we have wires that are wonderfully capable of moving megawatts from renewable energy rich, low population areas to renewable energy poor, high population areas, why hamstring urban growth with net zero energy ideals?
We have a grid. The goal should be to decarbonize our energy system — not to decarbonize every parcel individually. It necessarily costs more because it doesn’t take advantage of areas where resources are plentiful but people are not, and it makes it very hard to build the very density that allows for lower energy use in the transportation and HVAC sectors.
I’m not opposed to EE, including deep energy efficiency retrofits and passivhous goals. I’m not opposed to RE either, both of the distributed and the centralized kind. It seems to me that net zero energy advocates are opposed to lowering carbon at lowest cost and opposed to dense development… because net zero energy policies on a parcel by parcel basis have exactly that result.
Yes? No? Why?
I’m new to that, but it sounds to me as though the idea is to require new construction to net out by buying RECs. So not parcel by parcel at all.
I mean, if you can beat the REC by building better, you have every incentive to do so (even to sell RECS if you can). But if you can’t, the RECs you buy will reach beyond your parcel.
Using less than half the roof of my house, my solar panels generate more power than my house uses. If every building with an unshaded roof had its full capacity of solar panels installed, we wouldn’t be debating net zero. According to the USDOE, 1000 sq. ft. of solar panels in MA generate enough power for about 10 houses.
…building codes cannot mandate that a certain percentage of roof square footage be covered in solar panels?
from developers, who wouldn’t want to build homes with the added cost of solar panels, and other interests that aren’t interested in having a solar industry that is ubiquitous across rooftops in any state or region.
Still, though, it’s a worthy goal: If solar panels were required on even a good chunk of new homes in most communities, it would push the cost of solar panels down further than has already happened.
Builders opposed the relatively modest “stretch building code” the Commonwealth has been promoting. Because FUD.
We adopted it anyway.
I guess I was looking for any practical reasons I might have been missing since I’m not an expert on this. It shouldn’t be much more burdensome than any number of other building codes that need to be complied with.
.
According to the Lawrence Livermore National Labs’ annual energy budget flow-chart, the USA gets useful work out of maybe 44% of the energy we generate. About 56% of the energy we produce is “rejected,” in their terms.
I agree that parcel by parcel is not the wisest way to get to zero net energy or zero net emissions, my ultimate goal, but it is what seems to be how zoning, at least in Cambridge, MA, works. We’ll see if things change when and if the new ecodistrict in Kendall Square becomes clearer. We need to think more systematically.