A recent article by Joel Makower titled "Environmental Impact of Green Buildings" points out the many great things LEED is doing to help solve our energy and environmental problems. LEED is responsible for buildings that use 24% LESS energy. While LEED is on the right track on many of the elements of building design and siting, they seem to be behind the curve on defining what is most necessary, a substantial energy usage reduction in all our new building. Many of us know that there are building methods that offer far greater energy reductions than 25%. The 25% number will not be near enough to save our planet if we accept the data about green house warming. I have been waiting for several years for them to discover just how energy efficient buildings can be constructed. I am an ICF proponent that knows and understands that an ICF building can easily outperform the 25% level. I believe there are other construction alternatives that also pass the 25% threshold. I hope that LEED will someday soon understand the critical necessity to raise the threshold, but what are the chances . . . ?

I believe that the LEEDS program is a fantastic start to an important concept. 25% can be achieved, and surpassed.  If everyone used 25% less energy, it would have a huge impact on our environment. Every new construction project should try to achieve the most efficiency possible, within their price point. LEEDS has the right idea to set their bar at 25%.  If we could achieve 75% of new construction to be LEEDS certified we would have some real progress.


Go Green, or Go Home.

What architects and general contractors have told me is that they want to incorporate energy efficient construction, but will not have the project LEED certified, it is too expensive and too much red tape. Knowing how the government does things this makes sense to me. And it is difficult to get most commercial projects built energy efficiently because commercial projects are usually not owner occupied. The owners not caring how much the utilities cost.

I would rather see energy efficient construction come about due to the market, not subsidies.

Yes, ICF's are an excellent way to achieve super energy efficiency in walls (there are also some ICF roof systems available)

For those who are just starting to research the various "Green Building" products which are available, another excellent option that is somewhat less costly than ICF's: Structural Insulated Panels (SIP's) for both walls and roofs, and, in some instances, floors. Direct quote from the U.S. Dept of Energy "Definitive Accredited Testing Proves That S.I.P. Systems Out Perform Conventional Frame Construction By At Least 66%" (one source for more information regarding SIPs: www.r-control.com) Having said that, ICF's offer some advantages over SIPs, eg: more resistent to the forces of hurricanes and toronados, and are far superior for basements. In some cases, the ideal choice may be to construct your walls with ICF's, and your roof with SIPs.

Hans - Great post! Most new construction in Europe already far supercede the LEED 25% threshold. Greenbuilding technologies (i.e. near-surface geothermal, underground co-axial flow - counterflow heat - cool air exchange; as well as thermomordernazition of existing buildings) resuliting in an annual usage of less than 25KW/M2/A (that's 25 Kilowatt per square meter per year) are readly achived at a modest cost. I was actively involved in the construction phase of such a building in Luxembourg back in 1996. Unfortunety red tape and a past administration which has chosen to hold fast to a traditional way of thinking has resulted in the US falling far behind other nations.

These aforementioned results have been well documented in the 2005 VDI Yearbook (Verein Deutscher Ing. - Society of German Engineers; by Dipl. Ing. Phys. Edmound D. Krecke). I will gladly provide you and anyone else that is intrested with the PDF english version of this document. E-mail me at [email protected].

We are slated to begin construction using these technolegies this spring here in the US. Again thanks for a great post. Where are you located?

Heinz Horn
Isomax

The chances are very good.  USGBC, ASHRAE, et. al., know that they have to continue to raise the bar.  Remember, this is basically a voluntary, industry driven initiative.  LEED is a measurement of how "green" you are,  not a code.  Getting to LEED silver today can be done with current good practices and little extra cost.  I think in 5 years it will not be so easy, although hopefully the "good practice" bar will rise along with the requirements. 

The EU mandated Energy Performance Certificates (EPC) will continue drive Europe to higher overall efficiencies (as well as the Russians turning off the gas every now and then).  While Europe has fostered much of the innovation for green building technologies, do not think for one minute that everything built in Europe is extraordinarily green or efficient...it is not.  There is a lot of crap here, too, but like the USA, things are getting better.   Also, lots of money has been spent for "green" items that will never pay back.  Many double facades are really architectural embellishments...not much more. Please note that my point of reference is large commercial projects. 

The one place where the USA does lead is in property management and operations (of commercial buildings).  The Europeans can further improve the efficiency of their buildings with better management.  Almost anyone can design an efficient building.  Making it operate efficiently and keeping it efficient are different things.  That too will change as the EU starts to requires annual energy perfromance ratings.

Bruce

TLC, Leed is not a gov. program and is not subsidi d. It is a third party verification system for green building. Im my opinion if you are not building LEED or EARTH HOME or one of the other verified homes in 5 years, you won't be building. Kind of like a UL label on electronics. I took a LEED day long class about six months ago and learned more than the $275 fee. It was also a great place to meet the tradesmen in charlotte who were interested in green. Building and money.

The weighting of the leed points seems very off to me. There should be a lot more points given for high insulation values. Also, I think it is ridiculous to give points for things like Integrated Project Team or Third Party Durability Management Verification. They also give points for not using a lot of wood, instead of giving points for the origin of the wood. Also, they clearly don't understand that using lots of wood from managed forests is actually eco-friendly. Undisturbed forests are carbon neutral, because as trees die they fall, rot, and re-release all the carbon they previously absorbed, with a net effect of nothing. However, if you keep the wood from rotting and replant a new tree, you will have a net carbon absorption. And what better way to keep the wood from rotting than to build a house with it?

While I am familiar with LEED C&S and NC, this thread finally go me to open my LEED for Homes Reference Guide.

Remember that LEED originated in the commercial building industry.  It appears that the large project mentality, rightly or wrongly, has followed in LEED for Homes.

Personally (and I have a large project mentality), the prerequisites for Integrated Project Planning and Durability Management Process are absolutely necessary and the additional points that are available add benefit and value to the project IF the Owner wishes to pursue them.

Again, remembering its commercial building origins, the emphasis is on reducing overall energy consumption.  Follow through the EA path and you will get the idea.  While you may disagree with the number of points available for insulation, the approach is to create an efficient facade, of which insulation is a part, and to reduce total enrgy consumption.

My interpretation is that LEED does not give points for not using any given material, but they DO give points for using material efficiently and there are several points available for using FSC certified wood (as well as material with recycled content, etc). 

I personally think LEED will have a difficult time gaining wide acceptance in the residential industry because of its complexity, cost and large project mentality.   NAHB seems to offer an easier path to "green identification", although I have not looked at that in detail.

Whether you like LEED or not, I encourage everyone to download and read the LEED for Homes Rating System.  I promise it will get you to think about a lot of different aspects of "green".

http://www.usgbc.org/displaypage.aspx?cmspageid=147

Bruce

I concur. I think anyone interested in green building enough to interact on these forums owes it to themselves to get a LEED book, one that breaks down all the credits and read it. Some of it is pretty obtuse but LEED is not designed for the DIY folks like me. The way it works for people not familiar is you basically sign on with one of the 15 or so "providers" in the US, hopefully one relatively close by and they in turn hire the local tradesmen/verifiers/raters like the blower door people etc. to track your project @ set points during your build. A year ago my local provider witch is the NC State solar group would not let me sign up because i was not a contractor. The new director of their LEED program said they didnt have time for owner builders since they only build one house, which i completly understand. The funny thing is at that point the did not have a single residential project. Teach a man to fish i understand, but they were just sittin on the dock. Due to the lack of a local provider i decided not to get certified and still build as if i was, albeit with alot more leway. LEED does offer points for some materials like SIPS and open web floor truss. YOU also get points for material substitutions towards greener materials. They also have credits for "innovation" so if you come up with something you think is green or more durable or what ever you file a form with your provider and they judgre its merits. They understand that every build and site have specific constraints and plusses and the LEED system is designed with adaptaion in mind. If your "innovation" not only passes but is seen as a possible improvement they can put it in fututre rating adjustments. I was super impressed with the two educators from USGBC. These guys were obviously best of bread. The 15 or so minutes i spent in direct converstion with these guys more than payed for my couse in my opinion. I encorage everyone to do their homework and research LEED. Thanks michael
'
'

For those of you interested in the direction that LEED is going with their revised rating system, check this out.

http://greensource.construction.com/features/0811_NewLEED.asp

Energy and Atmosphere will likely have a significantly higher weighting.

Bruce