Taiwan's new solar-powered stadium
One of the things about green buildings, whether they are refurbishments or newly built from the ground up, is that it doesn't make sense to expect all of them to contribute in the same way to the improved sustainability performance of towns and cities. Context is key. Typical low-density suburbs have negative impacts for a number of reasons, but so do high-rise jungles.
For example, if an objective is to reduce dependence on private cars and to increase walking and the use of public transport, then we should work towards higher urban densities and mixed-use areas. But high-density urban cores will generally have to import their energy from other parts of the city or from surrounding areas, so they may not "pay their way" as far as fossil-fueled energy independence is concerned. (Although there is a Seattle proposal for downtown energy sources based on waste incineration.)
A few recently publicised buildings illustrate the point.
The so-called Active House in Denmark is zero-carbon, not only in its day-to-day operations, but taking into account the energy that went into building it: "In around 30 years' time, if the designers have got their sums right, the excess electricity flowing from the house into Denmark's grid will have cancelled out the energy costs of building it, leaving a non-existent footprint on the earth's resources." Those are brave words, but what is notable is that this is a suburban house with a good ratio of roof space (for solar panels) to energy consumption. It takes advantage of the low-density suburban environment.
The next example is what American Water claims is the greenest high-rise building in the US. While there are definitely ways for high-rise buildings to reduce their energy consumption below the current average (as in Toronto's downtown buildings cooled by lake water), it is very difficult for them to rely only on energy generated on site. So this one's strength lies in its reduced water consumption. The Visionaire uses 55% less potable water than a similar standard building, and it does this through a combination of improved efficiency and wastewater recycling.
The third example, illustrated above, isn't a building in the strictest sense, but rather a sports stadium in Taiwan. Arenas like this spend a lot of time unoccupied, so the key feature of this 50,000 seat structure is that it incorporates a huge array of photovoltaic panels (14,155 sq m) that generates enough electricity to be a net exporter of renewable energy. It is expected to generate 1.14 million KWh per year.
To make progress, we need to embrace differences within urban areas and work with the opportunities presented by different circumstances. This will not always be easy for municipalities that try to legislate for reduced carbon impacts, but if they keep an eye on performance across a spectrum of indicators (as in LEED, Green Star and other rating systems) rather than dictating energy or water or other targets, then they should be on the right track.
As nations come under increasing pressure to meet carbon emissions targets under international agreements, local governments may be tempted (or even required) to focus on energy and pay less attention to water, biodiversity, waste management, and other considerations that are important for long-term sustainability. A balanced approach should help ensure that we don't miss opportunities for moving our building stock in a positive direction.
Wow amazing stadium ... I wanna visit there... Thanks for sharing...
Posted by: Carbon copy | 20 March 2010 at 07:57 AM