Kick-starting Green Building

Pariah · November 14th, 2006, 12:06 PM

I attended a USGBC/Home Depot Foundation workshop the otherday in conjunction with Greenbuild (the USGBC's annual conference) and it got me thinking.

What would be the downsides to mandating a certain percentage of new construction either be LEED certified or have some sort of energy generation (solar, for example)? It'd probably be different for residential versus commercial construction...say, 30% for res and 50% for comm.

The increase in volume would bring down the price of things like solar panels and make a serious dent in the total consumption of our natural resources. Thus far it seems the "alternate fuel" community has highlighted how awful automobiles are on the environment, but buidlings use a tremendous amount of energy, too.

I think we have some construction/developer folks on the board...what do you think of something like this?

Treesquid · November 14th, 2006, 12:33 PM

As long as it really works and my taxes don't go up as a result I can get behind anything that helps the environment.

Pariah · November 14th, 2006, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Treesquid

As long as it really works and my taxes don't go up as a result I can get behind anything that helps the environment.

Taxes wouldn't go up, but the price of homes and services/products might to cover the additional cost associated with green building.

nidan · November 14th, 2006, 12:50 PM

But let's forget that this is offset by reduced strass on the infrastructure.

Hence less need to expand power plants and transmission lines for a start.

Derm · November 14th, 2006, 01:00 PM

Somehow I see another sin tax coming.....

Pariah · November 14th, 2006, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derm

Somehow I see another sin tax coming.....

Huh?

DutchmanAZ · November 14th, 2006, 01:16 PM

I've often wondered the same thing. In my mind there is no excuse not to require some sort of solar energy in new home construction. Even if the solar system was only powering say a hot water heater and perhaps outdoor lighting (i.e. the porch light & driveway lighting). I cannot see the downside except for homeowners inability or lack of desire to maintain the solar system.
It's my understanding small solar systems require little maintenance beyond ensuring the batteries have acceptable fluid levels.

Derm · November 14th, 2006, 01:18 PM

there are tax credit incentives for certain energy saving devices, both the state (AZ) and the feds. I would rather see choice than mandates....

Pariah · November 14th, 2006, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derm

there are tax credit incentives for certain energy saving devices, both the state (AZ) and the feds. I would rather see choice than mandates....

Yes, there is. But, if you look into it, the upfront cost still puts it out of reach for most people, IMO (you're still looking at laying our $15-30K, after rebates). I think one of the major reasons it's so expensive is because the panels/cells aren't being mas-produced enough to for a significant price break. If it's mandated in a percentage of new construction, then that cost will likely go down--not only for the new construction folks, but for retrofit, too.

just an idea. I'm not married to it (haha).

RedStorm · November 14th, 2006, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derm

Somehow I see another sin tax coming.....

I am all for it. Tax the smokers. Doesn't all that smoke count as pollution?

RedStorm · November 14th, 2006, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DutchmanAZ

I've often wondered the same thing. In my mind there is no excuse not to require some sort of solar energy in new home construction. Even if the solar system was only powering say a hot water heater and perhaps outdoor lighting (i.e. the porch light & driveway lighting). I cannot see the downside except for homeowners inability or lack of desire to maintain the solar system.
It's my understanding small solar systems require little maintenance beyond ensuring the batteries have acceptable fluid levels.

Sounds like an idea but that is an aweful lot of money to put into features to just heat some hotwater or power outdoor lighting.

40yearfan · November 14th, 2006, 03:03 PM

Pariah, most HOA's outlaw solar panels unless they are hidden from view. That's the biggest knock against solar heat is the large panels you have to have on the roof or in your yard.

If you had flat roofs with paraphets, it would make it a lot easier to hide them and I do believe more people would use them.

Pariah · November 15th, 2006, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedStorm

Sounds like an idea but that is an aweful lot of money to put into features to just heat some hotwater or power outdoor lighting.

Not when when you can use the panels to cut 50% or more of your total energy use.

And, maybe I narrowed the discussion by using solar as an example. ANY green building features--as defined by a recognized body, for example the US Green Building Council (USGBC) which has a program called Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification. You can get a building certified through various levels of "green," and much of it has to do with things other than energy production such as sustainable building materials, design and irrigiation.

USGBC LEED program