Cooling the Planet for Free
| Wed Aug. 12, 2009 9:17 AM PDT
"Why do we tune up our cars but not our far more complex buildings?" asks Evan Mills, a scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. He's talking about "commissioning," a basket of techniques for increasing the energy efficiency of buildings:
Energy-wasting deficiencies are almost always invisible to the casual observer, and unfortunately also to building designers, operators, and owners. Commissioning is not a widgit or “retrofit”; it is an integrated quality-assurance practice.
....Back in 2004, the U.S. Department of Energy asked my team at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab to build a national database of commissioning experience....The results are compelling. The median normalized cost to deliver commissioning was $0.30/ft2 for existing buildings and $1.16/ft2 for new construction....Correcting these problems resulted in 16% median whole-building energy savings in existing buildings and 13% in new construction, with payback times of 1.1 years and 4.2 years, respectively.
....Applying our median whole-building energy-savings value (certainly far short of best practices) to the U.S. non-residential building stock corresponds to an annual energy-savings potential of $30 billion by the year 2030, which in turn yields greenhouse gas emissions reductions of about 340 megatons of CO2 each year.
In other words, this is a way of reducing greenhouse emissions significantly — and it's not just free, it saves money. It's a no-brainer, and it's the kind of thing that will become more widespread if the Waxman-Markey climate bill passes.
It's also why the cost of Waxman-Markey, despite the pronouncements of the doomsayers, is likely to be close to zero. The CO2 goals in W-M are actually fairly modest (a 17% decrease from 2005 levels by 2020), and commissioning could provide upwards of a thirds of that at no cost. Other technologies have similar paybacks, and the net result is that we can almost certainly achieve a 17% reduction at a net cost that's very, very small. Things gets tougher after 2020, but that's also the point at which W-M has provided several years of incentives to develop green technologies that will make further cutbacks considerably less painful than they would be today. Warts and all, that's why Waxman-Markey needs to pass.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments
Here I rather agree
Submitted by The Lounsbury (not verified) on Wed Aug. 12, 2009 9:52 AM PDT.
For close to 30 years in the private sector I have found wasteful building (rather living RE management, not construction which I have no experience with) practices profoundly irritating. The potential for realising immense long-term efficiency gains is there, truly immense, but the structure of incentives is all wrong. Here is an area where well-targeted government intervention could do wonders to help correct a market failure by adjusting incentives.
It is more painful in emerging markets I might add, in particular in emerging markets that are energy importers. Rubbish initial building standards (although higher standards would not be enforced) and extremely poor consciousness of actually fairly low cost energy savings measures leads to painful waste.
No Kevin
Submitted by James2 (not verified) on Wed Aug. 12, 2009 9:54 AM PDT.
First of all, if there is no cost to the consumers under WM, there will be no benefit. It's that simple. If you want to reduce CO2 by 17%, you're going to have to make it at least 17% more expensive to produce CO2. There's no free lunch here.
Second, I am aware that you think all business owners are morons, but you really believe that the expenses of the building I own and operate are invisible to me? Are you kidding? You don't think I've looked at the type of technologies Mills is talking about? Even if you do believe building owners are too stupid to figure this out on their own, you think other businessmen are too stupid to see that, if the payback really was only 1.1 years, they could be making an absolute killing by selling this stuff to the building owners who are too stupid to figure it out for themselves?
James2: "If you want to
Submitted by alex (not verified) on Wed Aug. 12, 2009 10:32 AM PDT.
James2: "If you want to reduce CO2 by 17%, you're going to have to make it at least 17% more expensive to produce CO2."
Of course. It's a fundamental tenet of economics that demand curves always have the same slope, and that (all technological advances having already been developed and fully utilized) there can't possibly be any change to supply curves.
Hot market tip: buy flint futures! The supply is declining and we can't possibly make axes and knives without that irreplaceable material.
James2: "I am aware that you think all business owners are morons"
On the contrary, I think that business owners are omniscient, and have therefore already made all possible improvements to their way of doing business. Thank heavens we can just nay say all those wiseguys with their "new ideas". Otherwise we'd have to live with some genius suggesting that cars could more efficiently be made on an assembly line.
Really?
Submitted by James2 (not verified) on Wed Aug. 12, 2009 10:46 AM PDT.
Uh, you're the one proposing the tax! If you want to use a tax to change behavior (ie, make that behavior more expensive) the amount of increase in the tax is directly proportional to the decrease in the behavior.
If you implement a tax that makes a behavior 0% more expensive, how much reduction in that behavior do you think it's going to have?
If you like wingnut logic,
Submitted by alex (not verified) on Wed Aug. 12, 2009 10:56 AM PDT.
If you like wingnut logic, you'll love wingnut math!
Let's see, the slope isn't zero, so it must be unity.
If that's your style of mathematical reasoning, then I strongly suggest you have someone else do the cost/benefit analysis of potential energy saving improvements to your building.
To be charitable to you
Submitted by The Lounsbury (not verified) on Wed Aug. 12, 2009 10:47 AM PDT.
As I am an actual private investor: it is entirely possible that your building expenses are entirely transparent to you (doubtful, but relative to significant action, a reasonable hypothesis for an imformed developed market property manager).
That does not mean that said transparency is actionable.
Presuming you are an active property manager, you know as well as I that your investment decision depends as much as recoverability as observed costs. If you find it impossible to recover an investment cost in efficiency over a reasonable time horizon (ex incentives to look longer than a natural investment horizon), and as well your tenants are in fact supporting a significant portion of direct energy costs (directly or on a cost plus basis), you will not take the up-front risk. In addition there is of course actual implementation results doubt etc.
It is, in short, not a question of being stupid, but a challenge of different incentives.
Exactly...
Submitted by James2 (not verified) on Wed Aug. 12, 2009 11:00 AM PDT.
...but what this Mills guy is saying is that the things he's discovered will pay for themselves in 1.1 years. Which is why my BS detector immediately goes off. If this were true, there would be almost instant, universal adoption, no government coercion necessary.
Fair enough then
Submitted by The Lounsbury (not verified) on Wed Aug. 12, 2009 11:29 AM PDT.
But one should then focus a bit. There is very clearly a time horizon problem that the market itself doesn't easily solve, in particular for the near term incentives for Rental (versus wholly owned) buildings. It seems to me obvious that the investors in this that do NOT need government incentivisation as such are the Wal Marts, Google, etc, that own and operate large physical plants. There the major hurdle may be information (although perhaps some investment incentives may help).
But if one focuses on Managed Property, there seems to be a real opportunity to overcome the issues cited in my post, which in my experience (ex-USA, but I presume they are similar) are significant challenges for any kind of efficiency (water, energy, etc) investment - in particular where via rental agreement or diffuse renters the market structure disincentives longer-term investment that can't be easily shared (and in particular that require major up front capital investment for fairly uncertain savings, which for a renter with a 2-5 year time horizon may not be that interesting, even if the collective gain for the plant/building over the overall owners' end could be significant for direct private return, never mind overall social returns).
Frankly, this situation fairly screams for a clever, technocratic law to be shoved down a parliament's throat.
THat's a load os BS at least
Submitted by Ole (not verified) on Wed Aug. 12, 2009 12:16 PM PDT.
THat's a load os BS at least in regard to building construction.
Here in Denmark we've got houses conforming to "Low energy class 2", "Low energy class 1", "Zero Emission" and "Plus Energy" (houses built to produce more energy than they consume, solar panels, house windmills etc.) - and then we've got the current par for the course.
Houses built to "Low energy class 1" consume on average around 20-25 pct of the energy houses built to todays (pretty lax) standard.
And .. surprise: It turns out they're only marginally more expensive to build when built on a large scale.
It's not a zero sum game. You can reduce energy consumption dramatically and keep most of the earnings for yourself. Some god-dammed socialist politician just has to mandate all new home construction conform to a high standard ... :-)
And yes, we've had a lot of screaming too - boiler plate stuff, too expensive etc. etc. etc. Turned out the nightmares didn't come true, au contraire.
Regards.
The world doesn't work that
Submitted by James2 (not verified) on Wed Aug. 12, 2009 12:36 PM PDT.
The world doesn't work that way. If I'm building what will become my house, do you think I'm not going to make the most prudent financial decisions? You think I'm going to save 5% on construction costs when that extra cost would have saved me 20-25% in utilities and would have paid for itself in under 3 years? OF COURSE NOT!
I have no idea if your numbers in Denmark are true. I would bet a large amount of money this "mandate" your god-damned socialist politician passed also came with a hefty tax on buildings that didn't comply with that mandate. So yes, if you impose a big enough tax, things that aren't economically viable by themselves become economically viable.
That isn't anything close to what this post is about though.
home buyers and home re-modelers
Submitted by tpx on Wed Aug. 12, 2009 1:43 PM PDT.
Americans home buyers and home re-modelers will spend $10,000 for a granite counter top, but not for a solar energy water heater or other solar energy devices.
Yeah, but all real 'mericans
Submitted by alex (not verified) on Wed Aug. 12, 2009 1:02 PM PDT.
Yeah, but all real 'mericans know youse a bunch of commies over there (no offense - you do make good butter cookies). And don't go giving me none of that high-fangled "Denmark has a higher per capita GDP than the US neither" - since youse a bunch of commies y'all got to be poor and are deprived of basic freedoms like the right to go bankrupt if you get sick.
It's believable
Submitted by SecularAnimist (not verified) on Wed Aug. 12, 2009 10:01 AM PDT.
James2 wrote: "... you really believe that the expenses of the building I own and operate are invisible to me?"
Given the aggressive stupidity and ignorance consistently displayed in your comments here, and your angry insistence that ideology is superior to facts, it's not too hard to believe that you are clueless about that and a lot of other things.
Fine
Submitted by James2 (not verified) on Wed Aug. 12, 2009 10:42 AM PDT.
Great. I'm an idiot. Now, do you think ALL BUSINESS owners, and everyone in this country with any inkling of entrepreneurial spirit are also morons? Or, is it more likely that the numbers don't really work out the way the nice academic says they do?
Kwalified Bidnez Owners
Submitted by trollhattan (not verified) on Wed Aug. 12, 2009 11:09 AM PDT.
No, luckily you seem to be an outlier.
The point here seems to be that it's rare that HVAC, glazing, roofing, structural, IT and various other specialists would gather in a group to discuss with building/plant owners a holistic, cost-effective approach to maximizing building efficiency (and not coincidentally, tenant comfort). Such experts also tend to be regional, with regional points of view WRT existing alternative techniques and technologies.
Bringing in LBL propellerheads could be huge, because they would have the breadth and depth of knowledge and experience, and also aren't selling anything. For that matter, Rocky Mountain Institute has been doing similar energy and efficiency audits for decades.
arrrrgg
Submitted by James2 (not verified) on Wed Aug. 12, 2009 11:22 AM PDT.
You don't need to gather anybody into any group! If I run an HVAC company that has something 16% more efficient, and the cost for that will be recouped in 1 year, guess what my #1 selling point would be? This isn't something that needs massive coordination to occur. These kinds of efficiency improvements occur by themselves all the time.
Point, way to completely miss the
Submitted by trollhattan (not verified) on Wed Aug. 12, 2009 12:53 PM PDT.
NEVER only consider what the HVAC man proposes without consulting the other players. The HVAC man can only address the building as presently configured, and there are myriad other systems to consider in tandem. Random approach=random results.
You aren't really a businessperson, are you?
He is not an idiot, pay attention to his comments re mine
Submitted by The Lounsbury (not verified) on Wed Aug. 12, 2009 11:36 AM PDT.
I don't give a bloody fuck if elsewhere James2 is a cunt, here you bloody fuzzy minded lefties should rather try to engage. One of the key problems is investment and return horizons and - rather typical economics problem - diffuse returns.
For example, for a a good percentage of commercial buildings (ex wholly owned commercial property by main user, e.g. Google's own properties or where it is the main leasing entity) there is a serious time horizon problem, and as well non-trivial doubts as to the overall return on investment; in particular if you are asking the property owner (who may or may not have an investment time horizon equal to the return on this investment, in particular the return realised by the prime investor, not return captured by tenants for example).
The Lounsbury: "I don't give
Submitted by alex (not verified) on Wed Aug. 12, 2009 1:05 PM PDT.
The Lounsbury: "I don't give a bloody fuck if elsewhere James2 is a cunt"
A little gender confusion there Loon?
No drooling leftist git, no gender confusion
Submitted by The Lounsbury (not verified) on Thu Aug. 13, 2009 2:01 AM PDT.
Just not your impoverished provincial English. Different usage, my dear stupid cunt.
You Don't Understand
Submitted by alex (not verified) on Wed Aug. 12, 2009 10:07 AM PDT.
According to those predicting economic doom-and-gloom for any approach to GHG reductions, we can't possibly use technology that wasn't available in the 12th century. Can you imagine how it would destroy our economy if we started to rely on all these new-fangled technologies?
Oops, chimneys weren't widely used until at least the 14th century, so I'll give you a break and let you fast forward a few centuries.
True patriots will save us from efficiency and clean energy!
Submitted by SecularAnimist (not verified) on Wed Aug. 12, 2009 10:09 AM PDT.
But don't worry, James2 -- just as the medical insurance corporations are selflessly and altruistically organizing True American Patriots to protect you from Obama's Death Panels, the fossil fuel corporations are fighting the good fight to prevent Al Gore's Secret Liberal World Government Global Warming Hoax from destroying our economy with clean energy and efficiency:
Taking a cue from angry protests against the Obama Administration’s health care restructuring, the oil industry is helping organize anti-climate bill rallies around the nation.
The American Petroleum Institute, along with other organizations such as the National Association of Manufacturers opposed to the climate legislation Congress will consider again in the fall, is funding rallies across 20 states over the August recess.
In template fliers for rallies produced by the API-founded alliance, EnergyCitizens, the public is warned that “Climate change legislation being considered in Washington will cause huge economic pain and produce little environmental gain.”
Hooray! ExxonMobil and the American Petroleum Institute are coming to the rescue with talking points and astroturf Ditto-Head mobs! The American way of life will be saved.
I've been curious why there
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed Aug. 12, 2009 10:22 AM PDT.
I've been curious why there aren't companies doing that now.
With all the nonsense that companies spend dollars on chasing one sort of efficiency after another, why haven't we heard about this for years?
Obviously because those
Submitted by James2 (not verified) on Wed Aug. 12, 2009 10:40 AM PDT.
Obviously because those gains aren't really so easy to attain. If they were, somebody would be capitalizing on it.
Shorter James2: there is no
Submitted by alex (not verified) on Wed Aug. 12, 2009 10:47 AM PDT.
Shorter James2: there is no such thing as progress. Logically there can't be any new business opportunities. All the good ideas have already been taken advantage of.
Oh, and bronze tools were good enough in my day, so they're good enough now. This newfangled "iron" technology those Leftist Hittites are blathering about is nonsense - if it made business sense everyone would already be using it.
I wonder to what extent it
Submitted by alex (not verified) on Wed Aug. 12, 2009 10:41 AM PDT.
I wonder to what extent it has to do with the incentives. I'm no expert on commercial real estate business practice, so any help is appreciated. AFAIK in most cases the tenant pays most of the energy costs, so there's little incentive for the builders and landlords to make spend capital making buildings more energy efficient.
Of course in an ideal market, tenants would be omniscient and figure energy costs into the cost of leasing space. But is there any realistic way for them to assess these costs before leasing space? Maybe what's needed is a rating system, much as we have mileage figures for cars, so that prospective tenants can take it into account. Presumably then landlords could say "our price per square foot is a little higher than the guys next door, but you'll more than make it up in reduced energy costs."
You've obviously never
Submitted by James2 (not verified) on Wed Aug. 12, 2009 10:51 AM PDT.
You've obviously never rented any commercial space, because this is always talked about. No, there's not a rating system, but a discussion of utility costs (and why it will be cheaper/more expensive than over there) always factors in.
You're also not accounting for the nature of commercial leases. If I have a 20 year lease (extremely common) on a space, it would make sense for me to install new fixtures, or replace x, if the payback on those was reasonable. If I own the building, it makes even more sense. The incentives already exist. The gains promised do not.
James2: "You've obviously
Submitted by alex (not verified) on Wed Aug. 12, 2009 11:18 AM PDT.
James2: "You've obviously never rented any commercial space, because this is always talked about."
As I mentioned above, I don't claim this as my area of expertise. At best I've been peripherally involved. Nevertheless I'm aware that it's always talked about. But I question whether in the absence of a decent rating system a prospective tenant has a precise enough idea of energy costs, or confidence in estimates of them, to justify additional lease costs in return for energy savings.
As for new fixtures, etc., sure, anything that's highly visible upfront is standard stuff. I've noticed that in many commercial buildings the lobby is always beautiful, but the elevators break down regularly. On the bright side, the stairs are good exercise.
I really wish I had focused
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed Aug. 12, 2009 12:21 PM PDT.
I really wish I had focused on this years ago when I had the "energy". :(
Why study this when Ditto-Heads know all the answers already
Submitted by SecularAnimist (not verified) on Wed Aug. 12, 2009 10:49 AM PDT.
Obviously there was no need for Lawrence Berkeley National Lab to study this issue at all, let alone "to build a national database of commissioning experience", since James2 knows and has always known everything that can possibly be known about it. They should have just asked him, instead of wasting the taxpayers' money to actually study it. There is certainly nothing that scientists can learn that "conservative" ideologues don't already know, and if there is, then it's all "liberal" lies anyway.
Jesus Christ, and you guys
Submitted by James2 (not verified) on Wed Aug. 12, 2009 10:52 AM PDT.
Jesus Christ, and you guys think I'm an asshole? Thanks for contributing so much to this thread.
James2: "Jesus Christ, and
Submitted by alex (not verified) on Wed Aug. 12, 2009 11:05 AM PDT.
James2: "Jesus Christ, and you guys think I'm an asshole?"
We tried to be a little more diplomatic about it, but if you insist ...
No, in fact he's not an asshole
Submitted by The Lounsbury (not verified) on Wed Aug. 12, 2009 11:47 AM PDT.
Although "alex" is indeed a simple minded hard Left ignoramus.
While I personally thought James2 was a wee bit negative, his comment supra re none of you having an idea about commercial property rental was spot on.
Magically assuming (a rather typical Green-Left trait) that maximum effects or maximum theoretical efficiencies will OBVIOUSLY be achieved, and that by your Maths Poor Reasoning, the Capitalists etc are obviously bad faith assholes who just do not want to do good .... is just simply idiotic Bolshy thinking.
As an actual equity investor (but also believer Global Warming is a really serious problem, and equally an opportunity if properly dealt with to achieve extraordinary efficiencies in the economy), I can very well see his point. Marginally technically literate journalists (or even technically literate journos writing against a deadline and doing weak maths - which we should admit is done as well in biz [i.e. against deadline, weak/suspect maths...]) sell all kind of various Sci Fi-ish visions. Great goals, but implementing is harder than it seems as the Journo presentation normally suggests, once one drills into the actual costs. Easy to write an arty. Harder to make it work.
A little less ascribing to your critics bad faith and a little more trying to figure out the problem, challenges - in particular in this realm of energy efficiency - would do you idiots wonders. Here the Green Left has a damned good argument - rather too often spoiled by Magical Thinking and an unwllingness to do hard maths and economics to figure out how to really sell the concepts. That is really sell outside of people who will just lap up any illiterate magical argument and believe in Raeliens (California comes to mind)....
The Lounsbury: "Although
Submitted by alex (not verified) on Wed Aug. 12, 2009 12:51 PM PDT.
The Lounsbury: "Although 'alex' is indeed a simple minded hard Left ignoramus."
The old Loon is back! I'm relieved - I thought that maybe you were the subject of a real-life version of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers".
One quibble: I think that "simple minded hard Left paranoid conspiracy theorist" might be more appropriate than "simple minded hard Left ignoramus." How else would you characterize someone who actually questions whether the US government is acting for the most direct benefit of its citizens because the same Financial Genyuses who blew up the world economy and ran begging for unprecedented government handouts are now, in the midst of the Great Recession, rolling in the dough again? And to think I would question that simply because the "regulators" are staffed by so many alumni and other benefactors, and made so many undisclosed contacts. How paranoid! The US is an equal opportunity country so I'm sure the FDIC will also give me $28B in loan guarantees if I declare myself a bank holding company (and promise that it's for the good of the economy). Hey, Helicopter Ben will probably be even more generous, but he's too modest to tell the public just how generous he is.
The Lounsbury: "a little more trying to figure out the problem"
You mean like I took a stab at, early on in the thread (11:42)? Nah, that would be a bad approach.
Magic Math and LEED buildings
Submitted by FriendlyMonsters on Wed Aug. 12, 2009 1:03 PM PDT.
I'm an accounting professional who has over 2 decades experience in California asset management. I have led many tenant's CPA's through year end CAM (common area maintenance) audits. There are viable, tangible, and fairly benign ways to reduce energy consumption in commercial buildings. During the Enron market manipulation period in the early part of this decade, there were at least 2 firms we dealt with that retrofitted light fictures for measurable cost savings. Most commercial tenants pay their pro-rata portion of CAM charges. There is currently little financial incentive for landlords to make their buildings greener. In my experience (as a landlord rep), most business tenants will grumble, but pay the costs unless they are seen as unreasonable. In 2001, energy costs were seen as unreasonable. This prompted the a market response and closer scrutiny of the issue. The constriution and maintenance of Commerical buildings creates a large amount of greenhouse gases. It behoves us all to take reducing the emissions seriously.
I do not believe in Raliens, and can only assume they are indiginous to the UK.
Cheers
FriendlyMonsters: "There is
Submitted by alex (not verified) on Wed Aug. 12, 2009 1:19 PM PDT.
FriendlyMonsters: "There is currently little financial incentive for landlords to make their buildings greener."
Any ideas on how that could be changed? BTW, thanks for some knowledgeable commentary.
FriendlyMonsters: "I do not believe in Raliens, and can only assume they are indiginous to the UK."
No, they're real and they're an American original.
Any Ideas?
Submitted by FriendlyMonsters on Wed Aug. 12, 2009 1:55 PM PDT.
Brian O has a good comment on this further down the thread....my suggested approach would be a little carrot, a little stick.
I am short on time (deadlines), so will try to follow up on additional suggestions later this wek...
Thanks for the Raelians link...if I hadn't seen it, I wouldn't have believed it. One cannot make this stuff up. Although they may be an American original, it is somewhat amusing to note their headquarters are in Switzerland.
Cheers.
FriendlyMonsters: "Although
Submitted by alex (not verified) on Wed Aug. 12, 2009 2:33 PM PDT.
FriendlyMonsters: "Although they may be an American original, it is somewhat amusing to note their headquarters are in Switzerland."
Oops, my mistake about being an "American original". I just assumed that only Americans could be that crazy, which is an interesting form of ethnocentrism.
SecularAnimist is a shill
Submitted by MacGruber on Wed Aug. 12, 2009 11:42 AM PDT.
SecularAnimist is a shill for the green industry, as well as socialism in general. He wants nothing more than complete government control and/or regulation over every aspect of the American citizen's life. All choices an American can make should be regulated. Heavily.
He whines about health care, but fails to realize Obama wants to roll the private industry up and place it under government auspices, even though the CBO says it will be a budget-buster. Heck, the CBO and most actuary tables show Medicare and Medicaid bankrupt in the next twenty years.
What a great idea! Add more entitlements to a government health care system on the brink of financial ruin.
Of course, what Obama and his socialist acolytes don't tell you is they will tax you to Kingdom Come to ensure their socialist policies remain well funded.
The first step to pay for their grand plans is the WM bill, which will do nothing to stave off "global warming," since most CO2 emissions will come from the developing world, places like China and India. What WM will do is tax American businesses to pay for socialist policies.
They don't care that greater taxation will harm business growth. They don't care that the swell of Baby Boomer retirees, coupled with a less populous workforce, is an impending disaster. All that matters is greater government entitlements and greater government control over the citizens' daily lives.
James2, pay no mind to the likes of SecularAnimist and his ilk. Debating them is like wrestling with pigs.
MacGruber: "SecularAnimist
Submitted by alex (not verified) on Wed Aug. 12, 2009 12:27 PM PDT.
MacGruber: "SecularAnimist is a shill for the green industry, as well as socialism in general."
Sure, but who else is clever enough to hand out copies of "Silent Spring" and "Das Kapital" bound into a single volume?
MacGruber: "the CBO and most actuary tables show Medicare and Medicaid bankrupt in the next twenty years"
Good. Then countries that are foolish enough to provide such care for all their citizens will go bankrupt even sooner (ignore the evidence that it actually costs them less).
MacGruber: "what Obama and his socialist acolytes don't tell you is they will tax you to Kingdom Come to ensure their socialist policies remain well funded"
We of the Inner Party are well aware of that. But it's not a bug, it's a feature!
MacGruber: "The first step to pay for their grand plans"
Grand plans? Hey, black helicopters ain't cheap you know.
MacGruber: "the WM bill, which will do nothing to stave off 'global warming,' since most CO2 emissions will come from the developing world"
Hence you agree that AGW is real. That's a step in the right direction.
MacGruber
Submitted by SecularAnimist (not verified) on Wed Aug. 12, 2009 12:10 PM PDT.
I'd like to give MacGruber's comment the thoughtful response it deserves ...
BWAH HAH HAH HAH HAH
BWAH HAH HAH HAH
BWAH HAH HAH ...
But .. can't ... stop ... laughing ...
Yeah, that evil "green industry" ... empowering Americans to generate their own electricity ... oh, yeah, that's the heavy hand of the socialist state at work all right! Those Red Commies at General Electric and Nanosolar (top recipient of private venture capital investment in the USA in 2008) are getting ready to destroy capitalism with windmills and solar panels!
Only the courageous selfless freedom-loving heroes of ExxonMobil can save us from General Electric's communist tyranny!
Only the altruistic patriotic multimillionaire CEOs of the insurance corporations can defend us against Obama's secret plan to exterminate all white people with Medicare Death Panels!
BWAH HAH HAH HAH HAH
BWAH HAH HAH HAH
BWAH HAH HAH
It takes time
Submitted by Brian O on Wed Aug. 12, 2009 12:38 PM PDT.
Sorry to break in with a non-vitriolic observation, but the transition is already taking place...slowly. It is also far more prevalent in major-market new construction than in old buildings in smaller markets. This is due to a few reasons I can think of:
1. Change in building has a long timeframe. It takes 2.5 - 4 years from concept to operations to complete a project. Not only does this make for greater general risk, which provides incentive for risk-aversion, but it also results in a much slower rate of tech adoption than something like the software industry.
2. It is a multi-tiered process. Many different actors play a role in building something new and efficient communication between the parties is notoriously difficult. BIM and other integrated systems are helping this, but in the end bricks are still laid by hand. Combine these multiple actors with the risk aversion mentioned above and you find an awful lot of projects being built "as it's always been done" simply because that's how it's always been done.
3. Leases are triple-net. In the majority of commercial leases, the renter pays all of the expenses. Utilities are "passed through" to the renter. It is therefore in the interest of the renter to have the more efficient systems, but not necessarily the developer/operator. But, you say, it's in the developer's interest if he wants to rent the units! This is true, but the pressure is much greater in a big competitive market with many other lease options than in most small- to mid-size markets populated by a few big developer/managers.
4. More risk. The potential rent hike due to increased marginal demand for efficient systems must be balanced against the additional risk of the new systems. The developer could choose a system that becomes outdated, or has high maintenance costs, or simply doesn't raise rent enough to pay for itself. The safer play is building something in a proven way.
It is likely the past few boom years will be seen as an explosion in "green" building and it will trail off for a bit as developers become more risk-averse. A sector of the market that will remain strong is energy (and in some places water) efficiency because it does offer some return to a willing investor. Other LEED-type details, such as limited parking, will be quite rare, especially in areas they are considered financial losers (small car-oriented cities).
There is general consensus that developers and their financiers must become more realistic in assessing risk and "green" building is inherently risky. This is why wise observers (such as The Lounsbury) argue that fine-tuned government incentives could be very useful here. A combination of efficiency zoning and upfront capital loans repaid with the energy savings would effect a much quicker change. Another option would be tax breaks for sustainable capital investment, perhaps with a sunset provision to make it stimulative.
OK, I guess that's about it for now -- I need to get back to work. Just please keep in mind this is complex and difficult, but not impossible to address. Also, there are very few evil secret plots stopping this all from falling into place magically.
Brian O: "Sorry to break in
Submitted by alex (not verified) on Wed Aug. 12, 2009 1:40 PM PDT.
Brian O: "Sorry to break in with a non-vitriolic observation"
Apology accepted.
BTW, any ideas on how to remedy your problem #3?
Brian O: "there are very few evil secret plots stopping this all from falling into place magically"
Actually this thread has been more about evil secret plots causing this to fall into place magically.
As far as remedies for the pass-through of utilities expenses from landlord to tenant and the difficulty in aligning incentives, I think FriendlyMonsters makes a good point a couple of posts up. The more aware tenants are of their energy costs, the more likely they are to demand efficiency. Higher prices certainly have a break-away point at which this happens.
Additionally, perhaps there could be mandatory labeling of various options or a lease requirement that the building's energy profile be listed on its own page up front with comparisons to other buildings. Also, municipalities can certainly demand higher efficiency if TIF or other subsidies are used. The state of Wisconsin currently requires all new state buildings be constructed at 30% better than ASHRAE (an industry standard) and this was done via executive order.
As I mentioned, the market is working well enough in big competitive cities, where inefficient buildings are showing 30% vacancy (or requisite rent cuts) as compared to 10-12% norms. This is also true of non-elevator buildings in 2-4 story office structures, even in smaller markets, which makes me think that new supply will push out the inefficient buildings eventually. Incentives would be used to push this process along while not stifling competition which ends up slowing other progress. It's a hard game to play well.
Thanks Brian!
Submitted by FriendlyMonsters on Wed Aug. 12, 2009 1:47 PM PDT.
Thanks, Brian. The non-vitriolic observation is most welcomed.
imho, the proper approach to change landlord's behavior is a bit of the carrot (potential to increase profit), and a bit of the stick (government regulation / taxes / fees of some sort for those who don't wish to participate).
I'd be very interested in seeing Mill's analyses and report to determine the components for the definition of "commissioning".
Cheers.
Sorry Alex, but I put
Submitted by MacGruber on Wed Aug. 12, 2009 1:11 PM PDT.
Sorry Alex, but I put "global warming" in quotes. It is not real. It is a bugbear, a myth to scare people. Shills like SecularAnimist, bitter that his 1960s communist/socialist revolution sputtered out, leaving him with only a tattered Che t-shirt, want the government to push money and influence to the companies that he shills for, companies like Nanosolar. Unable to compete in the free market, much like SecularAnimist can't compete in the job market, the green industry looks to the government to level the playing field for him.
What better way to gin up support that spread doom-and-gloom scenarios about global warming, none of which is anchored in fact.
Brian O puts it best. He understands how the market works. Let the market decide how and when "green" technologies will be deployed into the commercial real estate market. The last thing we need are the brainchildren from the government to do it for us.
Of course, if "global warming" were for real, Pelosi and Co. wouldn't be ordering more jets to be at their disposal for their junkets and boondoggles. Those jets are real CO2 producers.
MacGruber: "Sorry Alex, but
Submitted by alex (not verified) on Wed Aug. 12, 2009 1:34 PM PDT.
MacGruber: "Sorry Alex, but I put 'global warming' in quotes."
If it's not real, then how can you say that most of it will come from the developing world? You have to make up your mind.
MacGruber: "companies like Nanosolar. Unable to compete in the free market"
You mean like the car and trucking industries were uncompetitive with the railroads before the Government started building highways for them? Or developing the Midwest was unprofitable before the Government built the Erie Canal? Or George Washington subsidized the shipping industry by using Government money taken from the people to build lighthouses?
rural electrification program
Submitted by tpx on Wed Aug. 12, 2009 2:21 PM PDT.
Without the socialism of the the rural electrification program, farmers would still not have grid electricity hook ups.
Architecture 2030
Submitted by gmoke (not verified) on Wed Aug. 12, 2009 1:25 PM PDT.
This sounds like Section 201 of the bill which covers energy building codes because buildings are responsible for
• 50.1% of total annual U.S. energy consumption
• 49.1% of total annual U.S. GHG emissions
• 74.5% of total annual U.S. electricity consumption
• most of the projected 7.34 QBtu increase in U.S. electricity consumption by 2030
Section 201 strengthens building codes so that by 2010 buildings will be 30% below the baseline energy code (IECC 2006 and ASHRAE 90.1-2004), increases that to 50% below the baseline energy code by 2014-2015, and adds an additional 5% reduction every three years after, out to 2029-2030.
I wrote about it at
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/7/31/758970/-Building-Codes-to-Save-M...
after receiving information about it from Ed Mazria and Architecture 2030
http://www.architecture2030.org/downloads/2030FactSheet_published.pdf
MacGruber's comical ignorance
Submitted by SecularAnimist (not verified) on Wed Aug. 12, 2009 1:36 PM PDT.
MacGruber wrote: "... want the government to push money and influence to the companies that he shills for, companies like Nanosolar. Unable to compete in the free market ..."
You are an incomparably ignorant and stupid dumbass. Nanosolar was the number one recipient of private venture capital investment in the USA in 2008. They receive NO government money. Their money comes from private investors -- you know, the folks we call "capitalists". Private venture capitalists are falling over themselves to invest hundreds of millions of dollars to Nanosolar and other renewable energy companies. The "free market" has already spoken. Renewable energy and efficiency are the future. Fossil fuels are the past. Smart capitalists know this and that's why they are investing tens of billions of dollars per year in renewable energy and efficiency.
And of course the government has lavished hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies on the fossil fuel corporations over the last century, so they can "compete in the free market", but that's lost on a brainwashed, dumbass Ditto-Head ignoramous like yourself.
Your comments about global warming are too clownish and worthless to even respond to.
Your only contribution here is to display your depraved ignorance and the inane, one-dimensional, cartoon comic-book stereotypes that pass for "thought" in the mind of a raving Ditto-Head.
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
