Green Engineering

Survivability vs sustainability. I first came across this juxtaposition when digging into the real scoop behind Toyota’s success. The survival of the company in a weakened post-war economy was the motivating force in the early days, but this leitmotiv has survived the complacency fog of success to tap into an even more encompassing, yet equally primal urge of surviving as a company in an ever weakening global economy. Toyota has stayed clear of the political tangle of the global warming debate, choosing instead to commit its resources to an unquestioned future resource – the sun. This renewable resource is inextricably linked with human life and will thus always be available to fuel our cars – regardless of whether petroleum will or not.   Ultimately, survivability is sustainability.

Just recently, I again came across the word survivability, this time as the “revised and updated” concept beyond sustainability. (The Meaning of the 21st Century, James Martin). Mr. Martin contends that we have passed the point of being able to sustain the current levels of resource consumption, and are now needing solutions which will reverse the trend to hopefully get us through that bottleneck in the future where the escalating line of consumption will veer close to the decreasing line of material resources. The outcome is as yet very uncertain.

The Story of James Martin

When faced with such global crisis in the past, for example, a smallpox epidemic, our solution has been to inoculate against the disease. In other words, we didn’t just focus on healing the sick – but in preventing future episodes. What if we could take this same approach with our current problems? Interestingly, this is another of Toyota’s secrets to success – employees learn to identify causes of problems, and then start looking for potential causes for improvements which will entirely avoid future problems. These "problems" are not viewed in a negative manner (ie don’t tell the boss, can’t report this or it will look bad), rather as a catalyst for an opportunity for improvement at the root cause level. There is a lot of thinking going on over there.

Getting back to the world of construction, how do we change from our risk-averse, silo-centric, lawsuit happy culture to one who seeks continuous improvement and respect for humanity, or in the broader sense – the entire planet? Can we get beyond sustaining the status quo, really dig in and find solutions to our core problems, and then "innoculate" against future problems? Can construction become part of the sustainability/ survivability solution?

Just how does one change a culture - such as construction? The change agent needs to be someone who is well respected, whose word is generally accepted, and who is involved in most projects. … Lest I hurt any fealings, let me just say that architects and contractors didn’t quite fit the bill – but … the engineers… The very word means to make something. And whether you agree or not, it is difficult to argue with engineers because they bring solid - well “engineering” - to a project, and unless you can refute like with like, then concessions are in typically in order. ( mind you, I am just reporting cultural norms here – not taking sides – and my own personal opinions on this matter remain outside this blog..)

So this finally brings me to the concept of “Green Engineering.” This concept is being taught in our Engineering program, and presumably in campuses around the world. The US EPA has even thoughtfully provided us with a definition - which merits reading, and a textbook. Briefly, green engineering is the making of something (products and processes), within the normal constraints (forces of gravity, available dollars, influential business partners) AND - here is the change - minimizing overall environmental impact over the entire product/project life AND meeting the constraints of humanity and society. Defacto, this leads engineers back into being solution finders, vs problem solvers, with the overarching “constraint” - or goal - is that of the survival of the earth.

Brilliant. So now we have the proper vaccine, we have the identified population, and the rest of us can put some muscle into the political will and social push for “green engineering.” Unlike scientists, or politicians, or policy makers, or environmentalists - who could possible refute “green engineering?”

Building by the Numbers

The thing about numbers is that they can be very deceptive. Take, for example, a recent factoid I came across regarding the average size of new home constructed since 2003 in countries around the world. No surprise that the US comes in at the top, with 2300 SF Perhaps a bit of a surprise is that Australia coming in a close second at 2,217 SF, and with the U.K. averaging at about 1/3 the US - with just 818 SF. Wow – we say – what small spaces!!

But all this really does for me is generate questions. Was the basis of the statistics the same? What are the relative “units” of occupancy - family of four, single professional? Is this urban or suburban? Those would color the significance of these metrics.

A bit of digging on the U.K. number discovered this to be a result of a survey, which did indeed show that "many residents do not believe that the space provided in their homes is sufficient for basic everyday activities." Interestingly, it seemed that this could again be a function of - well - functionality, for these same people who cited insufficient space had an extra unused bedroom.  But it was the common rooms (living, dining, kitchen) which were too small. Inadequate space also means that homes are not adaptable to various occupancy configurations, so will be unsustainable in the future, and not provide enough accessibility for elderly users.

This now makes me want to see the floorplans as it points to the more elusive measure of functionality per square foot. For example, I was shown an award winning floorplan for a small San Francisco flat, and was still amazed to find almost 12 LF of just hallway – that’s probably 36 SF of wasted space. US floorplans still often offer rarely used living rooms, or plethoras of dining tables - kitchen, dining , and sunspace. It sounds like the British plans are sticking to some old-fashioned ideas about the flow and sizing of common rooms vs bedrooms.

Small house -built 1876

Small square footage isn’t necessarily cramped – if its use has been optimized.  For example, in my little 400 SF apartment, we’ve figured out a way to have a dining table for 12, and a living room seating to match. And – there is still plenty of space for me to hula-hoop!    I've been looking for ideas among RV manufacturers, boat builders, and NY loft designs. 

This also matters as it affects real-estate prices. All too often, properties are still evaluated based on cost per square foot. This means that a large space – say with specs of 2 bed, 2 bath, living, dining kitchen - will value for more than a small space which may have all the same specs, built-in office, speakers, cabinets, window nooks, highly functional kitchen, oh – and super energy efficient thermal envelope. It just doesn’t make sense.

MLS listings are managed locally, and some groups have at least added categories to acknowledge “green” features or ratings. But what about functionality? Or Craftsmanship? Or front porches that open out to the neighborhood – or neighbors? I’m not really sure how to develop metrics for the intrinsic quality of a house – but in the end, I’m certain that this is the number that counts.

Adaptive Re-Use

In the spirit of design thinking, in which one considers two seemingly unrelated solutions and uncovers the commonalities for a win/win solution, I considered the two predictions in housing:
* the glut of residential real estate on the market will get even worse as the 3 and 5 year ARMS come due in the next few years, and owners are pushed into default with the higher rates.
* the shortage of affordable rental units is expected to reach three million as early as 2012.

Can these two situations be mutually compatible? One can draw inspiration from the solutions being developed in the construction market. When the economic drop brought deluxe housing projects to a screeching halt, developers shifted to more diversified product offerings including smaller homes, townhouses and condominiums.

For example, Canin Associates developed the “right-sized” home concept, with simpler house shapes, a better use of square footage, and eliminating unnecessary rooms and space. Humphreys & Associates developed the “Big House” prototype, which is neither a prison ward nor a polygamous house, rather a multi-unit rental apartment or individually owned units. This is not unlike the conversion of turn-of the century mansions into apartment complexes, albeit these are purpose –built for multiple units and have underground parking.

So back to our original dilemma. We have neighborhoods which are pocketed with mortgage defaults, and also the need for rental housing. Could there be a match? This depends on your perspective, and the situation. In the broader sense, “affordable” has many levels of definition. Rentals can also be suited to many demographics – anything from a transitional student population to young professionals to empty nesters.

Neighborhoods with high individual ownership often resist a shift to rentals, yet a mixed used neighborhood allows for people to stay in the neighborhood, even as their housing needs change. Quality conversions of some of the foreclosed properties into duplexes or townhouses would also allow a lower point of entry for ownership. Equity ownership is important in America as the basis of financial stability, providing the collateral for loans which may finance entrepreneurial ventures, education, or medical needs.

But there are also many signs pointing to a shift in the American dream of home ownership. If the talk of dropping the mortgage interest tax deduction becomes a reality, we may see a big move to more rentals – bringing the US more in-line with Canada and Europe. There are some great advantages to this – as not everyone is fascinated by fixing plumbing, or doing building repairs or upgrades. On the other hand, the current energy efficient subsidies are not often extended to rentals, as the push by their home builder lobbies has been to support traditional home ownership.

Indeed, it seems many of the potential solutions drop in between the cracks of the disconnects between the single family builder / NABH association, the multi-family builders/ associations, and the remodeling/ urban rehabilitation/ affordable housing folks. But times of needs catalyze innovation, and the commonality between all of these groupings is the basic Maslow need for housing - good quality, energy efficient, durable, comfortable, and aesthetically pleasing housing. Can we do it?

Thanks for Thinking.

Power(ful) Lessons Learned from Greensburg

 The name of"Greensburg" predates the tornado which flattened 97% of this Kansas town in 2007, but the rebuilding effort is proving the town to be worthy of its name. The goal is to provide 100% renewable energy for all buildings, including residential. To make this economically feasible, the town’s strategy has been to leverage the support offered by the DOE and others to support energy efficient construction with savings of 30 – 40% over code.  

But today’s discussion is not a case study about the rebuilding success, but the lessons learned behind the scenes. This is a look at a rural American town who chose to “pull themselves up by the bootstraps” according to the mayor, Bob Dixon. What is really interesting are the choices they made along the way.

They could have rebuilt the town pretty much the way it had been, which is the way insurance is structured and is supported by the existing infrastructure. Building “green” is still very much counterculture in the best of times, think how much harder this is when you have a town of 1500 people who are now homeless. And from what I've read, this was not a town of environmentalists, old hippies, or any such other “alternative” lifestyled. This are just “American Gothic” Midwesterners.

Remembering the cause of their town’s demise, many of the construction were to be built to FEMA’s storm shelter standards. As a result of this need, combined with the high requirement for energy efficiency resulted in the wholesale implementation of some key new technology, such as Insulating Concrete Forms. This is significant, because a townwide level of acceptance of changes in building systems and technologies helps reach the critical level of transformation of training of contractors, city officials, and suppliers which results in economic parity with the “traditional” construction. In other words, it doesn’t cost any more.

They also came together as a town to develop a wind farm, as the means to achieve their goal of energy independence. This is a goal which came out of the opportunity to start fresh, but not as a direct reaction to the tornado. Indeed, building windmills almost seems cathartic, in that it is embracing the very force which flattened the town. So why energy independence?

Similarly, many small towns in Germany are buying back their energy infrastructures. Every since the town of Thuga broke away from their parent energy company, municipalities are looking into getting into the energy industry. Not only is it economically attractive, but it allows the community to make localized decisions regarding the source of power. For example, they may choose a different product mix of type and location of renewable energy sources when taking the local citizens concerns in perspective.

Is it also the backlash from the depersonalization of our world, the sprawl of our city, the disconnect we feel from the controlling forces in our lives? Is taking back the power source motivated by the “Be Local, Act Local, Buy Local” consciousness? Perhaps Greensburg is showing us that towns can become empowered to make radical changes, and embrace a sense of community. Hopefully, the rest of us are not waiting for a tornado to catalyze our own change.

Summertime - Hot and Humid

In a much needed break from the deep thinking I‘ve been working on lately, today we are going to talk about the effects of humidity – which is seriously hindering my ability to think at all. Our current temperature on Monday afternoon in Blacksburg, VA is 88⁰ F, but the Weather Underground (www. Underground.com) site tells us that the Heat Index is 97 degrees. This takes into account the relative humidity in an attempt to determine the human-perceived equivalent temperature. HOT & STICKY.

Big Ass Fan

Not so bad when the air conditioning is working in my office, but a different story entirely in my attic apartment of an old house, which probably has little to no insulation. And though there are big trees in the neighborhood, none provide sufficient shade to the house. Since this is a rental, paying for an insulation upgrade is out of the question. This gives me great empathy for renters in the South, and makes me think afternoon siestas under a tree are a good idea. Might as well, since the humid heat induces a sort of lethargy, anyway.

Are there any good ways for natural dehumidification? High ceilings and moving air with fans is the classic Southern solution. Vents or exhaust fans next to moisture generating activities (bathroom, kitchen) is always recommended no matter the temperature, but especially in high humidity.

Traditional Air Conditioning is governed by the function of removing the sensible heat by cooling the air, as well as the functioning of dehumidification. However, these functions cannot be decoupled, so it can be tricky in a super energy efficient house which doesn’t have the necessary temperature differential to trigger on the AC unit. A separate dehumidifier is often recommended. We often hit this problem with ICF houses.

There is one company who claims to address this issue.  The Optima Air Dehumidifiers “made up of special non-chemical, non-toxic coolant and adsorbent filtration minerals that continuously (even when the compressor cycles off) removes water vapor from the air and to lower the dew point in order to prolong the stability of humidity in the air.” It appears to work in tandem with commercial AC units, and has picked up clients from Coca-Cola to Piggly Wiggly.

Unlike the adding of moisture through evaporation, removing moisture is not intuitively easy to resolve in a non power hogging way. One would need something which absorbs the moisture, and then wicks it out. This presumes that there would be some area which is dry to which the moisture would wick – but the relative humidity is pretty all pervasive.

One old-time here apparently used to hang up burlap bags of rock salt in the basement, with a can underneath to collect the water which has condenses out of the air. Another method was using charcoal briquettes to absorb the moisture (for example in a bathroom) and then periodically put them outside to dry out. Of course, the more modern version of this is silicone or clay dessicants, which the Australians have perfected. For smaller applications, there are products like Dri-Z-Air, or Well-Dry.


But the Tour-de-Force solution here was created by Patrick Ward of FossilFreedom. For all you dedicated energy geeks out there – this is the ultimate solution for a make-up air drier and heat exchanger. Check out this guy’s website.

In the meantime, I think it is time for a tall glass of ice tea, a little bit of shade, and a nice light summer novel…

The Plasticene Era

Kamilo Beach, Hawaii

In a recent interview webcast on the Green Builder, Marcus Eriksen of the Alagalita Marine Research Foundation presents some very compelling information about the serious nature of the 5 marine gyres of plastic debris. And this is not entirely out of sight, as the start reality of plastic pollution hits us when we visit our favorite island beaches, which serve as filters for this waterborn plastic. The research shows that a third of the small nightfeeder fish have plastic in their innards, which transfers right up the foodchain to larger fish. As plastics absorb organic compounds (like DDT), these toxins end up in the fish we put on our dinner tables. This is a real problem which affects us all.

Ron Jones, of Green Builder Media poses the question of what our construction industry can do to help address this plastic waste problem. This isn’t an easy answer, and doesn’t fit tidily into any of the LEED categories. Plastics are pervasive and can be very beneficial, for example in the many uses in the medical world. The very fact that plastics don’t break down and last forever is a good thing in that application.

The solutions will come from an awareness and thinking. The first green step is typically “reduce” or avoidance. For example, while reusable shopping bags seem to be quite the rage at the grocery store, I seldom see people bring in their own totes to Home Depot. I wonder how that plays out in places like San Francisco, Los Angeles County and Edmunds, WA – where plastic bags have been banned?

Peter Lewis and the "Byfusion" blocks

The next step is to recycle and purchase recycled products, such as TREX. There are some new products being developed, such as the New Zealand guy which is recycling plastic from landfills, or the EcoMat developed in the U.K. . However, there are some pretty common obstacles for large scaled operations. Most building products are governed by standards and testing for quality control, which means the raw materials need to have consistent and predictable content. While that can be done if you use scrap plastics pre-consumer (used to be called post-industrial ), anything that comes out of a public rubbish bin is of mixed plastic types and contaminated. So though these plastics dumpster divers get a round of applause, we can’t offload our problem to this sole solution.

Plastics to Oil Conversion

Another tack has been to dip into the landfills materials for “biomass” to be converted to fuel. There are a few research groups and entrepreneurs, such as Natural State Research , Agilyx and even a Waste Plastic Technology Blog. Check out the Penn State research for a plastic pellet burner for energy recovery, which could offer a real localized solution. Of course, in any of these cases – the formula for economic success is that the cost of the energy generated (fuel or heat) minus the cost of processing leaves enough of a margin to offer an attractive price for the recycled plastic. If there is a lucrative market, the recycling industry can provide – and micro businesses developed which collect plastics from beaches and other areas. This is especially important to help developing nations clean up their landscape while providing a necessary fuel source.

Awareness is the first step, and decisions based on the knowledge of the problem. Solutions are many: clean jobsites, keeping plastics (or any debris) from being picked up by the wind or water, using plastic only where it is appropriate and minimizing waste or re-using pieces on the next site. As Dr. Eriksen states, we live in the Throw-Away Society of the Plasticene Era, but I am encouraged that we are entering a new awareness of the relative role of humankind within the world’s ecosystem. Perhaps this millennium will the emergence of the Symbiotic Era.

Thanks for Thinking.

Creative Use of Construction Waste

Accepting that the first steps toward responsible use of raw materials and their resulting finished products, we also accept that there is waste in all processes – including construction. So how can one creatively use the left-over materials - giving them a new life?

The first step is to separate the materials at the site. While most of the C&R Waste companies who offer recycling services will accept co-mingled waste, the exercise of separating creates awareness in your waste stream, and minimizes contamination and makes the material more readily available for return or re-use. It is also a way for the estimators to get feedback on actual quantities used, and may offer some insight on better construction practices for the use and layout of materials.

ReStore Volunteer Frank Hay

The re-use may be related to the job, through an organized re-seller (such as Habitat Re-Stores), or ultimately – linking your smaller batches of product to a consumer who would really appreciate it. The Pacific Northwest seems to be the hotbed for sustainable materials and creative re-use. There is a terrific Construction Salvage and Recycling Guide available on the web, which does a really good job of breaking down the whole deconstruction process.

Re-use on site is the most efficient. On my recent construction site, a wood chip truck converted all the remnant bits of wood and wood products into mulch. Some of the commercial C&D Waste companies have also incorporated this into their service. Gypsum board can be reground, and added to highly acidic soils, can be used as an absorptive material for animal bedding ( really!), or as water/sludge/manure treatment (California Integrated Waste Management Board).

Some of the waste may not even stay on the site. For example, the concrete industry has figured out a way to use up any left-over product in the trucks. This is dumped into wall “paver” forms, where the particular mix design or time in the truck doesn’t really matter. Old concrete is already crushed and re-used for aggregate, but I’ve also seen a creative uses pieces of concrete forming a retaining wall, or even a patio.

The finer-tuned, and smaller scale re-use requires a bit more creativity, but can also help link your project/ company to the community. For example, what about donating left-over 2 x 10’s to a community garden program for raised beds? Or conducting a ““yard sale” at edge of the job-site to sell salvaged items? While each of these approaches will require more staff time, it also buys you a great deal of good PR – which could be very valuable in getting community support of future business.

We are all part of a closed loop - cradle to grave, ashes to ashes – the earth in balance.

From Cradle to Grave – Missing Links in the Materials Chain

Environmental issues related to material goods tend to be apportioned in a mix and match fashion. For example, the focus in “green” consumer goods tends to be on the “reduce, re-use, recycle” aspects of the materials use. There is less concern about the sourcing of the materials – with the exceptions of food. Even then, we may know that our fish has mercury, or that chickens are grown in ghastly factory settings, or even that our peaches taste like plastic and have more pesticides than nutrients - but not enough of the public is disturbed enough to cause a major pendulum swing in behavior or support for appropriate legislative action … though gardening and backyard chickens are popular.

On the other hand, in the construction world, we pay a lot of attention to the composition of materials and the environmental costs associated with raw material extraction, transportation, manufacturing, packaging and delivery to site. The USGBC LEED system is a result of that thinking. However, far less attention is devoted to reducing, re-using and salvaging or recycling of these same materials.

Only one bag of foam waste for the job

For example, when I worked in the ICF world, it was regularly noted that the foam is a petroleum based material. True, but the complete story is that the EPS foam itself was developed from the industrial waste of the petroleum refining system. Hence, as long as there is oil used, it makes sense to turn the byproduct into insulation. This insulation, in turn saves many liters of oil. On the other hand, I always urged the design community to designed to the modulus of the block, ie to use their talent to make a positive contribution. The finest example, was the Onekama Residence, where only one small grocery bag of ICF waste generated on the site.

Other RRR strategies include using the fewest material types. Again, a good example is ICFs, which have been used for foundations, walls, roofs, retaining walls, pools… Not only does this help in having the fewest problems for material compatibility at the joints, but you only have one “waste factor” overall - rather than one per material. In the case of ICFs, the cut blocks can all be reused as a patchwork assembly (with additional bracing) in areas with high dimensional tolerances – such as short wall supporting a front porch, or a retaining wall. Small pieces can always be tossed into the attic to mix in with the blow in cellulose. And larger pieces can be transported to the next job - or sold on Craigslist, or Zamray.com - a new resale site for construction materials.

The point is to recognize that the full material chain flows from cradle to grave (or ultimately the cradle of the next cycle). And while becoming informed of source information is helpful, it is nearly impossible to do this on all materials or even get the complete scope. However, we all have our own spheres of influence, and can “vote” within these realms. But this is hard, and calls for a level of responsibility and commitment beyond the finding of a C&D Waste contractor who will fulfill the LEED point. It is time to develop our own brand of “gardening and chickens” on the jobsite. Creative re-use of materials, coordinating trades with similar material use, setting up good storage and organization so materials are easily accessed - and can be easily transported to the next job. Are there accounting or legislative obstacles we need to address? Can we support or initiate salvage “deconstruction” contractors, or salvage material stores? There are many creative opportunities – if we care enough to make a difference.