retrofitting buildings for energy efficiency

Yesterday I joined the Cape Town portion of the Green Building video-linked seminar on retrofitting of buildings for energy efficiency. Presentations in Cape Town, Pretoria and Durban covered a range of topics from detailed case studies of building performance improvements to city-wide approaches to sustainability - all with the aim of spreading knowledge and discussing strategies to accelerate the retrofitting of buildings across South Africa's cities.

A strategy to address both the short-term electricity supply crisis and the long-term environmnental and resource issues cannot ignore the need to improve the performance of buildings. Llewellyn van Wyk cited CSIR research in 2004 showing that there were 11.2 million dwelling units in the country, and 70.6 million sq m of non-residential building space. In Pretoria, cooling and lighting alone are responsible for 75% of energy use in office buildings. John Less of the Clinton Climate Initiative noted that buildings in the US are responsible for 71% of the country's total electricity consumption, and 33% of emissions.

Retrofitting to reduce this consumption is a key challenge. Municipal and provincial governments in South Africa are starting to consider their own building stock - the City of Johannesburg (one of the C40 cities) is advertising today for tenders to retrofit the city's entire stock of Council-owned buildings.

Colin Devenish, formerly of Old Mutual Investment Group and now with the V&A Waterfront in Cape Town, pointed out that a few building tenants in South Africa are starting to show signs of demanding better energy performance, and some landlords have discovered the financial benefits of improving efficiencies, although landlord / tenant relationships and building management systems in many cases work against change. But municipalities are actively looking at new by-laws to address these issues, and developers will have to smarten up quickly.

Eskom's immediate crisis is the driving force now, but the response of the building industry needs to look beyond the short term. There is the carbon market, which can be seen as a boon or a bane, depending on your perspective, but there is another driving force of change that is already presenting a serious threat: urbanisation. The global population is growing at around 73 million people a year, and an increasing percentage of the population is urbanised. Cities around the world are falling behind in the provision of infrastructure to meet urban needs. This is not a third world problem alone, because it is not only third world cities that are developing unsustainably. But in developing countries, according to van Wyk, this pressure - and inadequate response - is already causing ecological and social collapse (more severe in some areas than others), and committed leadership is demanded.

Buildings are only part of the problem, so retrofitting existing stock and changing design practice for new buildings are only partial solutions to more widespread concerns; but good building design, management and operation are vital to improving the liveability of cities. Case studies have demonstrated their potential contribution not only to reducing carbon impacts, but also to reshaping the social and cultural landscape. And social norms, along with awareness and education, are vital to instilling a sense of responsibility in the general population. Without these key ingredients, we are dead in the water.

think globally, bake locally

It's got skylights, natural ventilation, a grey water system, a car that runs on biodiesel... and it's a gingerbread house. That's right, the folks at bakeforachange held a competition to see who could come up with the most sustainable gingerbread house design. It's too late to enter, but you can view the results on Flickr. [via SCQ]

proof that buildings can be a delight

I am not sure that this building at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore would score well under an environmental performance rating system, but for a large-scale modern building, the green roof is stunning.

And speaking of building performance, a new report published by the Commission for Environmental Co-operation (CEC) says it is possible for the most efficient buildings to consume 70% less energy than conventional properties. And since almost three quarters of the buildings that will be standing in 2050 have already been built, we'd better get on with changing the way new ones are designed, and retrofitting existing building stock.

"Improving our built environment is probably the single greatest opportunity to protect and enhance the natural environment," said CEC executive director Adrian Vazquez. [...] "Green building represents some of the ripest 'low-hanging fruit' for achieving significant reductions in climate change emissions."

But apart from a few (very few) property developers who see a market for green buildings, there is very little incentive to improve energy efficiency and reduce resource consumption and emissions: only 0.5% of homes in the US and Canada could be considered "green".

"At the moment, there is no real reason for the private sector to change its practice from a purely financial standpoint," explained Jonathan Westeinde, chairman of the CEC advisory group.

"Generally, because of the leasing and financing structures, there is a split incentive between the owner or developer who is making the financial investments, and the tenant or occupier who will benefit. I think this is where the biggest hurdle remains."

house of hemp

You can smoke it, you can wear it, you can make oil and cosmetic products from it, and many people swear by its medicinal properties. South Africa's own House of Hemp sells it in just about any (legal) form you can imagine. (Their first retail outlet was opened in Johannesburg in 2001.) But dude, this stuff is way cool for another reason.

The House of Hemp and the CSIR have been working with the South African Department of Trade and Industry in setting up pilot projects for hemp production in the Eastern Cape. Cannabis has been a huge industry there for decades, but of course it's illegal, and I understand the Department of Health hasn't approved anything other than pilot farms under "drug testing licence", despite DTI involvement. If this is true, a big opportunity is being missed - and this is not just about legalising rural jobs: it's also about climate change.

role of cement in carbon emissions

The cement industry is responsible for 5% of all carbon dioxide released globally as a result of human activities, according to the World Business Council for Sustainable Development. In each country, the volume of emissions depends on the sources of electricity, since a large portion of emissions is related to the power used in cement manufacture. In South Africa, where most electricity comes from coal-fired plants, each ton of cement produced releases 750kg of carbon dioxide. Last year, the country consumed 14.1 million tons of cement, 89% of which was produced locally.

In response to the South African government's support of emissions targets for developing countries, the local cement industry, represented by ACMP, has warned that carbon emissions caps would lead to higher volumes of imports. The assumption is that growth in cement use (forecast to be 24 million tons a year by 2014) is the only way to feed economic growth.

There are two flaws to this argument.

First, caps would not be imposed without the option to trade carbon credits, so if the industry does grow, cement will simply become more expensive as a result of internalising the cost of carbon emissions. And since the UN negotiations that are expected to lead to a renogotiated climate change treaty by next year will include limits and trading for many more countries than at present, cement prices will increase everywhere and imports won't necessarily be cheaper than the local product.

Second, there are perfectly viable alternatives to cement in the construction industry. Cement quantities in concrete can be reduced by substituting with flyash, for instance. (And flyash is a readily available by-product of coal-fired electricity production.) The building industry could also put much more effort into designing buildings to use less concrete.

There needs to be greater awareness of the options and of the carbon implications of design decisions, then we can begin to decouple economic growth from emissions growth.

Once the Green Building Council of South Africa starts using a local version of Green Star - the Australian system for rating the sustainability performance of buildings - choices will be much smarter in terms of energy efficiency overall. The next step will be to establish building codes that address carbon intensity explicitly, as is already happening in the UK.

For more information on the cap-and-trade concept, and variations on the theme, have a look at this recent WorldChanging article.

Eskom and the Africa factor

Why does South Africa allow itself to fall behind so quickly in a race that has hardly begun? For a country that has been at the forefront of innovations as diverse as automatic swimming pool cleaners, human heart transplants and oil-from-coal technology, there has been remarkable inertia in adoption of regulations, standards and incentives to encourage improved sustainability performance.

South Africa is still developing new technologies, including a breakthrough PV solar panel, but they tend to fall into the hands of countries that are more supportive of efforts to convert innovations into practical solutions. Many of South Africa's technological developments in the past were driven by the necessity of overcoming economic isolation, and now there is strong incentive for producing renewable energy and improving efficiencies of energy use. But we haven't grasped the opportunity. Even if climate change weren't a driving force, there just isn't enough electricity to keep the economy humming, and there is no prospect of a major new power station coming online before 2011, so we should be innovating like crazy.

Eskom's current strategy relies on medium-term needs being met by returning mothballed stations back to service, building a couple of expensive gas turbines and hoping that some co-generation projects pop up from next year. The rest is up to you and me to reduce consumption - which we should be doing, but little is being done to make it easy for us.

You would think that this would be the time to take the road less travelled, to take the lead. The race for sustainability has barely begun, but by the time South Africa gets serious about joining, the road will already be crowded. To illustrate how quickly this is happening, just look north to the UK, where government is so serious about its zero carbon homes agenda that the public debates are not about if it should happen, but about how quickly it can be achieved. Look no further than the Merton Rule to see the subtleties of the debate, which focus on whether on-site renewable energy should be required on all new developments, or only on some new developments.

Back in the land of perpetual sunshine, on-site power generation isn't even a consideration for residential or commercial buildings. The Department of Minerals and Energy's National Response to South Africa's Electricity Shortage, issued in January 2008, talks about a short-term power conservation programme that will:

• apply electricity quotas for households based on 10% reduction from current consumption,
• eliminate incandescent light bulbs from all 10 million electrified households in the country (a saving of 750 MW by 2015),
• install 1 million solar water heaters over the next three years with a subsidy of 20 to 30% (a saving of 650 MW if they can find that many water heaters), and
• update housing codes to require use of load management switches to ensure that a household's electric water heater and electric stove are not on at the same time, and improving insulation.

Nothing suggesting micro-generation of power in that list, or indeed anywhere in the national response document. Solar water heaters are of course driven by renewable energy, but that's a mere 1.5% of Eskom's total generating capacity, and the utility needs to reduce demand by about 7% immediately in order to restore a healthy reserve margin of 15% between supply and demand. Three years from now, when those 1 million solar heaters have been installed, demand will have grown by another 4,000 MW (3.6% p.a. by Eskom's account), dwarfing the water heater savings.

Eskom's public strategy is about putting the onus on consumers to reduce demand or switch to fuels such as liquid petroleum gas as an alternative to electricity (which does nothing to improve sustainability) but does not put the more powerful tool of micro-generation in the hands of the country's people. Even at a larger scale, only one wind farm is planned (100 MW), and the only mention of electricity from solar power applies to traffic lights (and as I've said before, putting PV panels atop every signalised intersection is a flawed strategy).

The problem with Eskom's strategy - and the Department of Minerals and Energy is party to this - is that it simultaneously asks consumers to do their bit, and limits what they can do. Changing lightbulbs and installing energy-efficient appliances and running remote-control smart meters to limit consumption can only go so far. Lifestyles in South Africa and around the world do need to change, but Eskom seems unwilling to take the step that would ensure that change is positive and long-lasting.

Giving individuals the ability and encouragement to choose from more options, including micro-generation, could achieve a far wider range of benefits than simply easing the short-term power shortage. It could leverage the strength of community to make choices, it could provide employment in a wider range of energy technologies, and it could encourage innovative partnerships of all types and sizes. And with realistic energy prices, we could gradually increase the proportion of power generated from renewable sources through the choices of individuals.

Yesterday Eskom placed advertisements in newspapers, asking for proposals for projects to generate electricity from any source, renewable or otherwise. But when I read the fine print, my heart sank: only projects generating more than 5 megawatts are eligible. In Eskom's world, 5 MW is small; but no urban homeowner can generate that much electricity. A small wind turbine or rooftop solar panels might typically generate 1 or 2 kilowatts.

If 2 million houses had 2 kW solar or wind systems installed, that would be equivalent to a full-size coal power station. Instead of building Medupi coal station in Limpopo for R78 billion, which will only start generating in 2011 and reach full capacity four years later, Eskom could pay the entire costs of installing 2 million household systems at R39,000 each. Of course, this is an over-simplification. In reality, solar and wind systems don't generate power all the time, and there may not even be 2 million houses that are suitable sites for these systems - but it is also true that Eskom would not pay the full installation costs. If they paid a 50% subsidy they could spend the other R39 billion on an initiative of their own that could address the shortfall from the household systems.

I really don't know if the Eskom management team genuinely doesn't believe in micro-generation, is determined to maintain its control over the power system, or is simply afraid of the unknown. There is no doubt that under the scenario I have just described, the energy distribution system would be transformed into a completely new beast, and there would be serious challenges to address. But is it impossible? I doubt it. Balancing supply and demand is one of the key challenges for an electricity utility, and a system with millions of producers sounds like a nightmare. But technical solutions have been proposed for just such a scenario, and it will start happening soon in other countries. Again, we are simply behind the pack instead of leading.

So why isn't South Africa showing innovative leadership? The Africa factor.

I am not an afro-pessimist. There are plenty of people who cite corruption and greed as the seeds of post-colonial failure on this continent, and these are certainly challenges, but a serious constraint that is rarely discussed is lack of confidence. The Africa factor is the continent's failure to recognise its own worth. Perhaps its people have been cowed by colonialism and missionaries and World Bank aid, but it's time to stand tall. Africa has never been a dominant economic force on the world stage (unlike China, which is now entering its second era of dominance), but the continent has much to offer.

Africa's value lies not just in the wealth of minerals and other commodities, but more significantly in the less visible things, like its ability to innovate under stress; its sense of community; and its historic connectedness with the land, which engenders a sense of responsible stewardship. Africa knows about pre-industrial sustainability, and it's still in evidence. We just need to stop and look. And believe that the continent can overcome obstacles, to emerge as a bearer of values that can restore hope in the future.

[Update later the same day:]

By coincidence, an email arrived in my inbox today about a seminar on African Leadership being organised by the Stellenbosch University Business School for 4-5 March in Bryanston. The marketing blurb is worth repeating:

The thrust of [recent seminars, conferences and workshops on African leadership] is to understand and/or discover whether there is something germane to the African condition that is capable of producing a brand or model of leadership that is different, better or more pleasant than the other brands and models that are well known. The reasons for this quest are:

(a) An acknowledgement that the western mode of leadership has not delivered to the needs of humankind, and thus maybe Africa as the cradle of humankind can provide some insights on how to steward humanity forward in the context of globalisation and material power;

(b) The fact that Africa has survived so many disasters and calamities, natural and man-made, suggests that Africa has something inherent within it that the world can learn from, chief among these being the capacity of African leaders to forgive and forget, which is part of the Ubuntu spirit of individual wellness that is dependent upon the well-being of the collective;

(c) Something happened in South Africa after 1990 that has astonished the international community in terms of a capacity to create a society that is diverse, yet not in conflict: thus suggesting that there is something in the (South) African make-up that we ought to tap into for all humanity to emulate. At the same time, it is the South Africans themselves who do not appreciate what they offered to the world, and therefore must have.

[Update on 25 February 2008:]

On the topic of Africa's self-confidence, one of the key problems is that Africa has been branded, in the marketing sense. People on other continents have a very clear, if misleading, image of what Africa is, and attempts to "help" the downtrodden just add to that picture. If the rest of the world sees Africa as a victim requiring aid, Africa will surely see itself in that same light. Carina Ray writes in this month's edition of New African [article not available online] about the dangers of 'brand aid' and the need to galvanise awareness of challenges and raise funds "without stigmatising Africa as a dependent and disease-ridden continent".

How might this be done? Start simple: render Africa visible, and highlight the strong sense of selflessness and self-responsibility that exists amongst Africans. Instead of solely featuring Hollywood celebrities in the next (RED) advertising campaign, also include the heroes and heroines of Africa who work tirelessly and often at great cost to themselves to improve conditions in every corner of the continent. People like Awatif Ahmen Isshag and Patrick Chamusso.

Isshag, now in her mid-20s, has published her own newspaper in the town of El Fasher in Darfur since the age of 14. For the last four years, her critical reportage has been the only independent local coverage of the violence in Darfur. Chamusso, after being released from prison for his involvement in the anti-apartheid struggle, built a home in South Africa for Aids orphans, which today houses over 80 children. Now that's inspi(RED)!

I started this post writing about technological development and energy. In those areas, too, Africa needs to become visible. There are stories about how Brazil has led the world in developing biofuels, how Cuba harnessed the power of community to overcome its own oil crisis, and how Curitiba and other South American cities have transformed their public transportation systems into models that other countries seek to emulate. Where are the stories of what Africa has done?

showcase of young South African architects

The Iziko SA National Gallery is hosting the Daimler Chrysler SA Architecture Award Exhibition until 30 March. From Andrew Horn's return to thatching, to Heinrich Wolff's urban eco-design in Du Noon, this should be an interesting show. From the Saturday Argus [requires subscription]:

An admirable humanitarian approach is exemplified by Zimbabwe-born and Johannesburg-based Heather Dodd, who pinpoints the urgency facing the South African government to embrace the fact that forming communities depends on housing. The negative impact of a lack of sensitive fore-thought keeps a legacy of neglect and cruelty alive on our doorsteps in the Cape Flats and horrifically engineered sub-economic housing remains the breeding ground of gangsterism and depravity.

Pointing out that she is "trying to make neighbourhoods", Dodd mentions a "spatial fabric" and social structure that is influenced by and indeed shapes the experience of the individuals who live in the structures she designs.

Exactly. If we don't provide the environment needed to get the social structures right, as part of building cities, we can forget about sustainability.

community housing can play a leadership role

A year ago I would have assumed that it would be difficult to incorporate measures in low-cost community housing that would improve the sustainability performance of the buildings. For one thing, budgets are very tight. For another, community housing projects are led by government departments that tend to put carbon impacts low on their agendas. They have bigger issues to worry about, what with huge housing backlogs and tenants who can barely pay the rent and buy groceries every month.

Today, the challenges are the same, but the response is starting to change. I've blogged previously about the Cape Town Kuyasa housing project that incorporates solar water heating, insulated ceilings and energy-efficient lighting (and was a CDM project under the Kyoto Protocol).

Now in Toronto, the Community Housing Corporation (CHC) even has a green plan manager who is cutting the greenhouse gas emissions produced by their projects, and cutting their own costs along the way.

On a tour [of one of the CHC buildings], the manager points out all the green fixtures: low-flow toilets and shower heads in all 215 apartments; energy-efficient fridges, stoves and washers; compact fluorescent light bulbs in every socket; new and well-sealed balcony doors; and, in the basement, four spanking new efficient boilers. The exhaust is recaptured on the roof and used to preheat the air circulating into the hallways.

And this is not only in new buildings:

So far, the housing corporation has spent around $90 million on energy retrofits and thus cut its annual greenhouse gas emissions by 19,000 tonnes – the equivalent of taking about 10,000 cars off the road every year.

What makes this achievement even more remarkable is that this ecological saving is coming off an already small footprint. These tenants are "not living in 3,000-square-foot houses in the suburbs and driving their SUVs 50 miles to work and back every day," they are the city's poor. But there are lots of them, occuping 2,000 buildings run by the CHC, and only a few buildings have received this sustainability makeover, so the potential carbon reduction for the city is significant. And it's not being done for ethical reasons, but purely as a cost saving measure. Other developers should be taking note.

green architecture is not about solar panels

Architect Frank Harmon, interviewed in the previous issue of Dwell (Dec/Jan 2008), suggests that good architecture respects climate and region, and this is why vernacular architecture is inherently sustainable: it makes use of what is available locally - materials, labour and building methods that suit local conditions - and produces buildings that are comfortable without the need for climate-fighting technologies.

A colleague of mine recently suggested that the sustainability performance of a building is 80% design. The rest is some combination of technological interventions and changes in building management and operational procedures. For example, if you want to reduce the amount of waste coming out of a building and ending up on a landfill site, you might set up an on-site recycling operation to create new products; or you might reduce the load on municipal sewage treatment works by using biogas digesters to turn some of it into a useful energy stream. More likely, you will take the less ambitious approach of looking at what products and resources are brought into the building, and how packaging and other waste is handled and disposed of, and set up waste sorting systems to send it off to recycling plants. Yet, in many countries, even basic recycling is rare; and while incentives and penalties would help focus minds, part of the issue is still design. Buildings should be arranged and fitted out to make waste management an obvious part of doing business.

In dealing with waste, energy, water and other aspects of building operations, there are some things that might take place without people in the building even knowing it (like grey water recycling or using solar-generated electricity), but we can't expect that technology will sufficiently reduce environmental impacts without some change in behaviour, so there must be awareness. This is why some buildings are designed deliberately to have occupants open and close ventilation openings and adjust sun shades throughout the day, when it is perfectly possible to have this done by electric devices run on timers and temperature sensors. The combination of active and passive systems is a design choice that, again, depends on regional and site conditions, and what the building will be used for.

Sustainability performance is about a lot more than resource management, and one of the less tangible aspects is social wellbeing. On its own, this is a worthy design consideration, but there are obvious financial and economic impacts related to how people experience buildings. Or, judging by the ongoing development of big box stores across North America, perhaps it's not so obvious.

During my brief and uncomfortable stint doing traffic impact studies for big box stores while I was based in Toronto, I was amazed at the complete lack of sensitivity of companies like Wal-Mart towards local conditions. If the box and its parking didn't fit on a potential site for a new store, they would rather abandon the site than change the building. They had a formula, and it worked. It was efficient - or so it appeared to them - and they saw no need to change. Over time, the formula does indeed change, as evidenced by current explorations into ways to make big boxes somehow greener; but once a path is set, the designers and other professionals tasked with rolling out acre after acre of steel and tarmac are instructed to stick with the plan.

With this mindset, sticking solar panels on the roof and installing grey water recycling and low-flow toilets might win green points, but it will do little to improve sustainability performance in its broader sense. I confess that I was a regular Toronto customer of Home Depot - another big box retailer - because of the convenience, huge selection of products, and reasonable prices. I am sure that's why people will continue to flock to shop at these places as long as they are able. But I also suspect that the likes of Wal-Mart and Home Depot have never seriously considered whether they could attract more customers through a building design strategy that is genuinely responsive to sustainability principles.

Will more people come if there is natural lighting, fresh air, variety of local building materials, aesthetically pleasing building designs, and a view of the adjacent forest? MPreis, a chain of design-conscious Austrian supermarkets, thinks the answer is 'yes', and have built dozens of supermarkets that respond to the local context. According to an article in the same issue of Dwell as the interview with Frank Harmon, "each MPreis market is architecturally unique and linked to the others not through the same front entrance or predictable location of the deli, but by an effort to make MPreis and modern design synonymous." Put one of these next to a standard Canadian Loblaws supermarket, and you are bound to get shoppers preferring to hang out at MPreis. As the move towards organic food products has demonstrated, it's not all about price and efficiency and the perfectly shaped apple.

One last thought. To make buildings that respond to the natural landscape, there actually needs to be a natural landscape, and for the vast majority of North American developments now being built (whether big box stores or residential neighbourhoods), that is not the case. Developers invariably clear-cut and level the site before plonking down the box or house or apartment block. A design-conscious approach will have to change more than the building design process. It will have to change the whole approach to site selection and preparation. This will cost more, but if MPreis is right, people do respond to high quality environments, making them financially worthwhile. And we will all benefit from kinder cities.

And finally, an example from architect Eduardo Cadaval in Mexico, making design decisions based on what's available locally.

[Update on 30 January 2008: Here's a report on green building design analysis software.]

low-cost solar roof

Taking the solar roof to new heights, an Argentine scientist has designed a low-cost solar roof that is more sophisticated than any other I've seen, performing both heating and cooling functions. As one of the Treehugger post's commenters has noted, the devil is in the details - but I like the idea that this system can perform more than one function, and still be affordable.