Sustainable Building Support centre

Since Sustainable Building has been widely introduced in the Netherlands, early nineties last century, a lot has happened. We learned that Sustainable Building should not be based on a "adding measures" approach, but part of a conceptual development. This has resulted in performance based legislation, and integrated approaches in preparation of the design of buildings and neighbourhoods. With many colleges this is practised nowadays in the Netherlands, and the requests for information on this has led to publishing a new book, which describes the ins an outs of this concept thinking, based on ambitions an targets set before, so that progress is assured and measurable. ( see the bookshop for more details). And during the tour, announced beside, we will see similar project developments in Italy, Switzerland, Germany and Austria.

Nevertheless, the total improvement of environmental performance of our society is marginal. And the past year has been equalling the hottest year ever in the Netherlands: …which was the year before. And we had the longest dry period ever, despite the fact that it was much wetter overall then normal. Besides we had longer and more traffic jams, etc,etc.

But we had also Stern and Gore and ICPP, and many more , that have created a platform for our messages, and kicked off new attention and initiatives. And what we see now, and we could also experience that already in many of the Regional SB07 conferences last year, is that the focus is moving from buildings to urban level very fast. And from two sides: its moving bottom up, from buildings to urban level, by researchers, experts, project developing and other stakeholders, and top down, in a way that governments fail to act fast and municipalities, with more space to operate, taking over. In the Netherlands there is a pilot with a few cities to explore and implement a "Carbon neutral city" approach. One of the main issues is how to define a carbon neutral city, or a energy neutral city. And as I heard from some colleagues in the iiSBE network, this is a issue in more countries. In the Urban Harvest approach at Wageningen University, (see this website CCA -UH section) we have chosen the strategy of "Nothing goes out of the city anymore" , closing the output side. And from there analyse in how far this is possible. However, its only part of the story. The definitions therefore should be explored further, and since this not bound to geography, international exchange of visions should apply. Would you have any suggestion, let me know. I will explore if within iiSBE a core group can handle this, so that during SB08 in Melbourne we could produce a proposal.

Ronald Rovers

Some years ago we had a tree in our garden, trimmed and cut back. The company in charge came with all equipment, motorised ladders and a chainsaw, and in about four hours the job was done, including the removal of the waste wood. And a few hundred euro as well.

At the same time we had delivered a m3 of fuel wood each year, to feed the open fire, at cost of around 70 euro. And In the garden shop we bought wood chips for out flower borders.

The grass was cut electrically each two weeks ( if I managed) and the next electrified support tools were about to enter the household, as for instance the tree leave blowers.

Parallel to this I changed jobs forcing me to use the car in stead of the bicycle , and got regularly comments fro friends about the size of my middle… Ok, a fitness club could help, at 12,50 a week.

Of course, to pay for all this I have to work more or harder.

Last year the tree was due to be trimmed again, but I wondered , sitting in my garden with a beer, wasn't there a much smarter solution?

What if I would trim the tree myself, clean the leaves fro the grass, and cut the grass by an old fashioned manpowered grass cutter? In that case I probably could save the weekly trip to the fitness centre, and have free wood for the open fire and chips for gardening. I would save a lot of money, and loose hardly time, besides I could work less since I needed less money.

I broke the spiral . However, some friends argue that the fitness centre and the tree cutting firm will earn less money . But : also these people can make such moves, with as consequence that they need less money as well.

We are running forward, finding technological solutions for any problem that occurs, . While the solutions might be in the beginning, evaluating what in fact we want to have established.

This is also essential in a closing cycle approach. Not only with high tech solutions to have consumer products re-enter , but to reduce the volume of goods and the speed of cycling by evaluating the essential needs and functions. Anyway, that's what interest me most, and is basic for a new section of this website, which I will try to expand regularly,

Happy New Year,

Ronald Rovers

Good and bad in NL

This is what's happening with real sustainable building in the Netherlands: Today (March 13) the demolishing of a recent finished eco-house has started.

The house is built in what was supposed to be a eco-neighbourhood, at the time of achieving the Building license. In the mean time many of the ambitions of the area have been dropped, and it has become a more average housing area. The forces against the eco-house in the neighbourhood have been growing, and recently the municipality found a way out: formally the building license includes a condition that realisation should be within two years after licence. Husslage's housing construction took him 4 years, partly due to illness. It has been recently completed, but last Monday the judge in court justified the municipality's decision for demolishing the house.

Many people spoke against demolishing, even the Governmental Building agencies director, and architect Mels Crouwel, but without result.

Tuesday 6 environmental activists chained themselves to the house, to avoid demolishing. They are removed by the police, as can be seen on this small video.

http://www.destentor.nl/stentortv/regionieuws/article2801704.ece

Today demolishing has started, that is, it will be dismantled , so that materials can be re-re-used…

After a first two level straw bale house in a nearby location, interest was/is growing and now more houses this way are under development, according to builder-architect Rene Dalmeijer. The 5 level house is prefabricated wood frames with strawbale filling, and the main structure was erected in 5 days, 1 level a day. The roof acts as rainwater storage. The construction includes a steel portal, for stiffness and coping with wind forces. In a follow-up project this will be eliminated due to a changed wooden construction.

See the websites:

http://homepage.mac.com/rdalmeij/PhotoAlbum13.html

and http://www.strobouw.nl/index.html (follow english-Sbhouses-IjburgII )

Ronald Rovers, march 2008

0-energy Tall Buildings?

Recently I was involved in a few European projects regarding Carbon neutral targeted cities or areas, or Co2 neutral, ore even energy neutral. There is a few delicate issues here: There is the definition problem, as well as how to deal with cross boundary effects of such approaches. And there is the approach regarding new building areas. These at least should not contribute to more CO2 , not to frustrate the ultimate target.

Now that we can construct new buildings with 0-energy performance is nothing new. There are also already the first projects that produce energy, in offices but also as so called "plus houses". But what's Interesting is that I recently discovered that plus houses are already for sale : Not as a special project with extra cost

Now the discussion is growing about the use of Tall buildings in a increasing urbanised world, as sustainable solutions. Sustainability is more then energy, but an important aspect these days, and how do these tall buildings fit into our attempt to create carbon neutral cities, or plus energy housing?

Of course the main problem is the overall existing stock of buildings, that will have serious problems to meet those targets, so you might expect that any new building should not increase the challenge for reduction in the existing stock, whether its low rise or high-rise, .

In other words, new buildings may not add to fossil fuel consumption, and on top that should add to the amount of renewables produced within the system boundaries they are erected…

So where is the first "plus tall building"? After some searching in the web I found a tall building that attempts to address this a little bit:

It's a start but it seems a long way for these buildings to become energy producing ones. With 4 Tall buildings of over 1 km in preparation, these are now presented as vertical cities. So we can apply the carbon neutral approach already for these buildings them selves….

By the way: this is not to assume that when they would be energy producing, they would be sustainable…. There is still more issues at stake, like the increased materials consumption, social and cultural factors and more. If you are interested, come to the iiSBE seminar organised in The worlds architects congress, where this is discussed: How tall is a sustainable building? (See this page for info)

throw money in the water...

Parts of Holland are below sea level. The ironic thing is that the Dutch have dig up these holes themselves: in order to have fuel in the middle ages, Peat land was harvested, until below groundwater level and beyond. Later the holes ( Polders) were dried by windmill driven pumps, and people started living in the holes, up to 7 meters below sea level.

Now the seawater pushes the groundwater up, and were there is no clay layer stopping this, the water is pushed up to the land. At the same time the land is sinking: the drying causes settling the land at even lower levels, and to keep it dry and compensate, the groundwater level has to be lowered again. And the water is pushed up even harder. With sea level rising this adds to the pressure. This is the general process that's threatening Holland's below sea level areas. The first 'polder" has to be cleared, and given back to the water, since the soil is getting instable more and more, and the land salinates as well. This is causing huge debates with the people living here. Of course. They claim it has been grass land and a job for ages and should remain as such...

At the same time the Dutch are getting slowly aware that living below sea level is not a smart thing, especially in this era. Many solutions are explored and some municipalities are developing floating housing areas, which give some possibilities to adapt to different water levels. Of course , its still not wise to built below sea level, but nevertheless. Floating cities are studied now as well, partially on the sea. However, awareness is growing, and there will be a point that fear will hit, and reach a critical mass among people. And people will want to move out then of the below sea level area. Which will cause a collapse of housing prices as one of the least problems. Now this may sound futuristic or dramatic, it is not: The first ads for houses claiming to be safe , since above sea level, have already been signalised .

The picture (click for larger view) shows one of these house selling ads on a real estate agencies website, , claiming: "Now who still wants a house below sea level? The ice is melting!! Do you want to throw your money in the water??? House in Austerlitz, 8 meters above sea level!!! ("NAP" is sea level)

The first one is over the 'dam ', how many will follow, and how soon?

22 October 2047, at 19.56

Its very fashionable at the moment: to be climate neutral, or carbon neutral or even 0-CO2. There are a lot of claims, but seldom clearly explained and showing when and where what will be done. It has led to a paper on definitions and systems of these claims, which is launched on this page for further discussion elswhere. After discussion it will most likely be published in a special issue on Low Carbon Communities in Energy Policy next year.

One conclusion I want to stress here is that if you decide for a CO2 target in a city, be it 0- CO2 or 30 % reduction in 2020, it implies that all new construction immediately at least should be 0- energy. If not the reductions to be established in the existing built environment will be much higher, and we all know that's more difficult and costly. So if not all new construction is 0-energy, the claim is bound to fail instantly.

However, these climate and carbon claims are mostly aimed at the end of pipe impacts: The emissions that come with fossil fuel use. However even more threatening is the depletion of resources. Peakoil is predicted somewhere between 2012 and 2017, Peakoil, is when oil production will reach maximum, and will only be less and less afterwards.

Though more and more experts expect is rather sooner then later, and some see signs that it has already happened. Nevertheless without oil, or with sky-rocketing prices, we are in serious trouble, with more wars to expect, and for instance food transport around the world to stop….

And when will the last drop of oil be spilled? That's on October 22, the year 2047, at 19.56 hours. ( See the online live clock on the website www.energy.eu )

So the CO2 problem is rather soon solved by itself, but the transition for renewables, since all fossils will be depleted, is another thing. And that's what targets should aim at : 100 % renewable energy .

Koyaanisqatsi

Koyaanisqatsi: the world is in turmoil, life is out of balance… It is a famous movie based on the view of Hopi Indians on the world. This turmoil of life in society, has now entered our financial system, that can't keep up with our speed of consumption, and related hunt for making money from money. If you look form a distance its in fact very weird:

What happens now is that institutions that make money from money, among others my money, now need to be saved by governmental money, my money again. Its like funding your own fall of society…

No wonder we are having difficulties for years getting sustainable development and sustainable building implemented. That this anyhow is difficult, I already learned years ago, when realising that things change only for three reasons:

Either its profitable, or its mandatory, or its "Fun" ( Fun including healthy, comfortable, enjoyable, technical gadgets, etc).

Well, "Fun" in nearly all cases increases in stead of reduces resource consumption or emissions, changes are not mandatory, (our governments have proven not to be able to guide this transition), and its not profitable, and will never be. A simple example is that of designing and constructing a bad house: the more maintenance the higher GDP of a country…: The economical system itself has led us to that stress situation And as Einstein already posed: You can not change things thinking the same way as caused the problem.

It is also the non-sense behind the P-P-P thinking: If the interests of people, planet , and profit are mixed, you get sustainability. Of course not. It's the amount of resources a society can be build upon, with people creating some comfort in their settlements. The profit part is only there to facilitate things. (better: should be there for that reason)

Bit it is not used like that, as we can see . However we tend to forget that the economical system is a human invented, artificial old fashioned system, developed in the medieval ages.

And since people always will strive for more comfort ( behaviour change programs always fail to address majorities) , and politicians fail to make unpopular changes mandatory, (by definition), its clear that economy needs a clean sweep.

As learned before, probably this only will happen if disasters take place, and minds open for new approaches. I hope the financial turmoil of today is big enough, but I am afraid its not, and we will have to go through another period of even larger losses and system failures before change will happen. In other words, if we keep saving banks and financial institutions, we will more or less fund maintaining 'turmoil'. So lets speed up things , in order to create change and solve our problems, lets us not save the financial system, but let it collapse, and invent a new one. That's progress.