There are two basic lines of thought about the negative impact electric vehicles have. The first is that all the mining, refining, manufacturing and disposal associated with the required batteries comes with significant environmental costs, with special worries associated with the necessary lithium. The bigger issue argues that charging an electric car from a dirty, inefficient grid doesn’t reduce emissions, but rather simply shifts them to a new outlet, the power plant. That’s the “long-tailpipe” argument, and there are claims that under certain scenarios driving an electric car can be more environmentally detrimental than driving a fossil-fuel car.

A study released last summer by the Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology looked at both these issues. Regarding the battery question, the scientists looked at the entire life cycle of the battery—a cradle-to-grave assessment. Their conclusions were that lithium-ion batteries only constitute a “moderate environmental burden” with the entire battery contributing about 15% to the overall burden, and the lithium just over 2%.

Regarding the emissions issue, the Swiss team found that the regular “refueling” of the batteries by plugging into the grid had a far more detrimental environmental effect than that associated with their manufacture and disposal, about three times as much in the European study area. The exact effect depends on the mix of fuels used to generate the electricity and the efficiency of the grid between the power plant and the charging station. If coal is the sole source of input fuel for the charging grid, things look worse, but if its hydro power the outlook is dramatically better. The bottom-line finding was that a gasoline-powered car would have to achieve about 70 m.p.g. to reduce its environmental impact to that of its electric counterpart, given the parameters of the study.

In the Bay Area, many of us recycle, compost, turn off lights when they’re not needed, turn off the faucet as we brush our teeth, but what about the outside part of the house?

StopWaste.org has an Alameda-County-based program called Bay-Friendly Landscaping and Gardening that’s applicable anywhere in the Bay Area. It focuses on encouraging an environmental approach to landscapes, whether that landscape is as simple as a container garden or as a complex as a massive commercial project.

The Landscaping & Gardening program is based on seven principles: 

• Landscape Locally
• Landscape for Less to the Landfill
• Nurture the Soil
• Conserve Water
• Conserve Energy
• Protect Water & Air Quality
• Create Wildlife Habitat

The Right Plant In The Right Place

Start thinking of your landscape as a whole instead of a series of discrete planting areas. Above all, remember that it’s not a case of “everything must go” before you start up the BobCat and go to town with the RotoTiller.

If you can help it, when you’re changing a landscape, don’t just remove everything and start from scratch. Remember that your landscaping, especially if it’s been established over a period of years, is an established ecology, and disrupting it could be more destructive than keeping it.

If you have established low-water landscaping (especially trees, shrubs, or perennials), keeping them can support your local wildlife population, and save you money into the bargain.

Aesthetically, keeping some continuity helps give your landscape a feeling of maturity that requires time to develop. Try choosing two or three colors that complement one another and select species with these color combinations to repeat throughout the space.

There are some things that everyone generally agrees need to be dealt with:

• Unhealthy or invasive plants should be removed.
• Plants that block air currents because they’re too close to walls should be relocated or removed.
• Tightly-spaced plants should be relocated and given space.
• Anything under the eaves may not be receiving rainfall; check your plantings to make sure you’re giving Nature a chance to do your watering for you.

Way Off In The Weeds

By definition, weeds are plants that grow where we don’t want them.

Notice that I didn’t say “plants that grow where they shouldn’t”. It’s an important distinction; not all “weeds” should be pulled, because sometimes that plant that’s ruining your aesthetic is exactly where it’s supposed to be, doing exactly what it’s supposed to do.

Take advantage of the Mediterranean climate here and choose your plants from the abundant native and local choices. Most nurseries have a “California Native” section, and can help you find other adaptive species that will suit your space with a mind to both shade and watering concerns.

Whenever possible, try to have your garden mirror your local habitat, and try to get in the habit of thinking of “non-native” as “not from around here”, instead of “not from California”. Imports from Los Angeles can be as problematic as any other invasive species.

 
Gardening For The Human Pesticide

If you’re the kind of person who can kill a glass flower, there’s still hope. Bay-Friendly Gardening is flexible enough to include you, and maybe even help you become the gardener you want to be.

If you’re tight on space or just don’t have soil, try “moving the ground around” by planting a container garden or series of container gardens. In our family, we’ve used a popular series of container boxes to grow cucumbers, corn, tomatoes, melons and even lettuce on our concrete patio.

And, if you don’t know where to start, but want to get involved in a low-pressure way, community gardens are a great option. You can also sign up to help in a school garden, or join a community stewardship group to practice your new “green” tools.

An exciting exhibition is making an appearance in San Francisco over February 17-26 at the Fort Mason Center. Spotlighting the famous German penchant for innovation, Das Haus is a “traveling pavilion, a North American tour and an ongoing international dialogue about advanced technologies for home construction and solar energy use.” The event, jointly hosted by the German American Chambers of Commerce (GACCs) and Canadian German Chamber of Commerce and Industry, kicked off in Atlanta, GA last October and will have visited 12 North American cities by the time of its October 2012 conclusion in Denver.

The Das Haus pavilion tour boasts a variety of activities and programs over its 10-day stop, including: A Grand Opening and Press Event; Symposiums and seminars; Discussions with experts on topics pertaining to innovative building design and construction, energy efficiency and renewable energy; and Guided tours of the pavilion and its exhibitions.

The centerpiece of exhibit, the Das Haus pavilion, is a fully-functional, integrated structure that showcases German sustainable construction and renewable energy ideas. It is the hope of the exhibitors that this demonstration of viable strategies for ultra-low energy buildings will inspire others on how to incorporate this kind of technology into their spaces to achieve significant operational energy savings. Of note, some of the pavilion’s concepts stem from those featured in the Technical University of Darmstadt’s 2007 and 2009 first–place entries in the Solar Decathlon, a US Department of Energy international solar house competition. Emphasized technologies include:

• Thin film photovoltaic roof, facade and louvered panel systems
• Heat-recovery climate control and ventilation systems, Passive House Standard triple-pane windows
• Solar-powered LED lighting systems and high-efficiency appliances
• Vacuum insulated panel systems
• RLA battery systems
• Advanced wall construction materials and methods

To learn more about the Das Haus tour and its list of events in San Francisco.

Originally, the bar wasn’t set so high; the project planners had targeted their sights on LEED® Silver, the level currently required by San Francisco for new public buildings and major renovations. It was only midway through the construction process did they realize that a Gold rating was within reach. Remarkably, the pioneering terminal building remodel checks off line after line of the USGBC’s wish list with ambitious conservation policies and a wealth of innovative features, including:

• An estimated reduction per year of 1,667 tons of greenhouse gas emissions from the facility
• 90% recycling of construction and demolition debris in line with SFO’s Zero Waste Program
• An ongoing mission for source separation of all recyclable solid waste to achieve 90% recycling by 2020
• A requirement that all food vendors use biodegradable tableware and sort all food service wastes for direct transport to off-site composting facilities
• The first airport food and retail marketplace to feature local, organic vendors and producers
• Special tap-water hydration stations for filling re-usable water bottles
• A dual plumbing system utilizing reclaimed water from the Airport’s Mel Leong Treatment Plant for the toilets and urinals, which use 40 percent less water than typical fixtures
• Emphasis on natural daylight through skylights and clerestories instead of artificial lighting
• A displacement ventilation filter system to improve indoor air quality with a 20 percent energy saving over traditional systems
• Recycled-content flooring like terrazzo with glass chips and carpeting
• 400Hz electricity and a preconditioned air supply are provided to all aircraft docked at T2 gates, reducing the jet fuel consumed by aircraft auxiliary power units by 1,400,000 gallons per year and reducing CO2 emissions by approximately 15,000 tons per year
• Plug-in electrical chargers for ground services equipment at the gates
• Direct connections to public transportation (BART) via SFO’s AirTrain system
• A “recomposure” area past the security screening zone that provides passengers a quiet and unhurried place to re-assemble their clothing and carry-on items
• A paperless ticketing system throughout the terminal

On your next journey, should you find yourself in SFO’s shiny, history-making Terminal 2, take a moment to look around. Perhaps you’ll notice a few enthralled building enthusiasts prodding the fixtures and you’ll understand why T2 is a destination all on its own.

As I stated, by looking carefully at a client’s home I found that it consumed a substantial amount of electricity while in an unoccupied or “passive” state. This led me to develop a snapshot audit method that allowed a simple model of the overall electricity flows in a home or small business without exhaustive monitoring. The method combines looking at instantaneous audited electricity flows with the analysis of historic usage by examining utility bills to build the overall picture. The result is a reasonably predictive model that allows examination of how changes to the system could result in lower consumption.

When I measured our home’s “passive” electricity consumption, I found that it accounted for approximately just over half of overall usage, and knew by system mapping where all of it was going. Looking at the “active” components of the system (lights, appliances, etc.), I could make reasonable allocations of the unaccounted overall usage by considering how often the system components were used. The result was an overall approximation of electricity flows in the building. Once I had that figured out, allocating savings to system changes became simple arithmetic.

For example, I forecast that operating our garage door operators on a switch that cut current to the units’ electronics while our cars were in the garage would result in monthly savings of about 5 kW-hrs. I used the analysis to assemble a list of conservation changes that made financial sense, some offering annualized financial returns of more than 300%. After making the changes and tracking their effect, I found the method to be very accurate.

By pursuing these conservation efforts we reduced our electricity usage by approximately 45% with a corresponding lowering of our electricity bill by 65% due to the tiered rate structure under which our bills were calculated. As a result, our offsetting solar PV system was reduced in cost by almost $20,000 for an expenditure on conserving technologies of under $750. And in the end, when the 1,000-home challenge came around, since were had already been a modestly conserving household, it turned out we were already pre-qualified for it.

San Francisco has long been recognized, both anecdotally and officially, as the one of the greenest cities in the world with global recognition of its green credentials. Just recently, at the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP-17) held in Durban, South Africa (December 2011), San Francisco was named as a recipient of the World Green Building Council’s (WorldGBC) Government Leadership Awards for Excellence in City Policy for Green Building. Specifically, San Francisco was honored with the Best Green Building Policy award for its San Francisco Green Building Ordinance.

Supported by educational outreach, innovation and incentives, the revolutionary building ordinance calls for all new commercial, residential and municipal construction to be built to LEED standards, and existing buildings to publicly disclose energy labels, participate in periodic energy audits, and engage in mandatory water efficiency retrofits at the time of sale. According to the WorldGBC award publication, “San Francisco’s Green Building Ordinance requirements together represent the strictest, most ambitious, most comprehensive policy approach to the built environment yet undertaken by any city in the United States.”

Five other international cities, Mexico City, Birmingham, Singapore, New York City, and Tokyo, were also recognized with each receiving unique awards for their pioneering initiatives in environmental building policy.

Over eighty Green Building Councils from around the world, including ICLEI and UN-HABITAT network members, designated nominees for the award. Charged with making the final decision, a panel of expert judges, drawn from green building and sustainable cities backgrounds, evaluated the nominees through a five-category points system:

1. Effectiveness of initiative in transforming the industry
2. Cost-effectiveness of initiative
3. Scale of emissions reductions
4. Demonstration of environmental leadership and innovation
5. Replicability and relevance to other locations

The WorldGBC intends the annual awards “to inspire other governments at all levels, share and replicate best practices in green building policy, and underscore green buildings as a winning strategy to reduce carbon emissions.”

There’s a thin line, however, between optimism and Pollyanna. And there are some unique risks to building green. Competition is getting stronger, and legal exposure is greater. And, with many public institutions requiring LEED certification, everyone from the owner on down has a healthy respect for the risk of litigation.

There are three risk categories:

• Unintentional promises, warranties, or guarantees
• Green-washing
• Insurance coverage

YOU NEVER PROMISED THEM A ROSE GARDEN. OR DID YOU?

It’s easy to point at USGBC case studies and research to show a client the benefits of building green. But there’s a big difference between that and implying that you can deliver specific savings. Over-promising, whether it’s in a rating level or building performance, is a recipe for disaster.

Owners are aiming for a certain level of building certification, with tax credits or utility rebates depending on it. If you over-promise and fail, the owner can seek damages for unmet guarantees; there’s already a precedent.

The Destiny USA project received over $200 million in tax-free financing from the federal Green Bonds program. The developer of the project promised LEED certification, along with large amounts of renewable energy. Neither the certification or the energy materialized, and the IRS is taking a good hard look into the project’s finances.

TOM SAWYER’S GREEN PICKET FENCE

Greenwashing can be described as claiming unproven green or sustainable benefits. And it’s a great way to increase your legal exposure. It’s not exclusive to green building products, either. Fiji Water is dealing with a class action for claiming they’re “Carbon Negative”, and SC Johnson and Son just settled a case around its use of the “Greenlist” trademark; the advertising implied that “Greenlist” was a neutral third party, when it’s a trademark owned by…SC Johnson and Son.

In construction, only the building is certified. The USGBC never certifies services or products. There isn’t a product on earth that can ensure a LEED Gold rating or provide you with a given number of LEED credits. On top of that, many newly-introduced “green” products haven’t even been around long enough to develop a track record.

INSURING A GOOD OUTCOME

Jobs, by their nature, face cost and schedule overruns. What do you do when the client blames green building practices?

Insurance companies are wary of providing green building insurance; nobody wants to be first, and that type of insurance is rarely available. Sure, you could try your liability insurance, but that’s just going to cover standard of care, not warranties or guarantees made as part of a contract.

Green Law is an emerging discipline, and your best defense is a combination of direct dealing and truly neutral third parties like the Pharos Project. Pharos uses 48 criteria to calculate “scores” for VOC, User Toxics, and Renewable Materials, and you can’t get much more diligent than that.

As for rules of thumb:

• Don’t over-promise
• Vet products through third-party resources
• Carefully draft scope and contracts

Finally, when in doubt, get in the habit of consulting counsel. Lawyers are expensive, but they’re a lot cheaper than losing a class action.

In the end, honesty and due diligence are sustainable virtues; make them your allies, and you’ll never findyourself in trouble.

When I crunched the numbers, I found that our home already qualified, so in our case no additional work was needed. But 5 years previously I had taken some simple steps to substantially reduce and supplant our energy use.

My journey began when a Bay Area client approached me about installing solar PV on her home, which we had recently totally renovated. Since the home had been upgraded under California’s pioneering energy code I assumed its energy performance would be good. But when I sized a solar system to offset electricity use, I found that it would be too large to fit on the roof. I looked more closely at the home’s energy bill and found that it used, on average, 3,500 watts. Parsing that number, I was astounded, and tried in vain to count light bulbs and consider appliances to account for such high usage.

Determined to get to the bottom of it, I asked an electrician to help me measure the home’s electricity usage when the home was in a “sleep” state, that is, the way it would be when the occupants were away or asleep. We found that with everything off, the home was still consuming lots of electricity. Idling plug-load electronics alone could account for over 30% of the home’s overall usage, built-in electronics even more.

Although my client opted not to pursue system changes I recommended in a subsequent report, the experience taught me that there is great opportunity for sustainability upgrades with very modest lifestyle impacts. As a result I developed a snapshot audit method that allows a simplified model of how a home or small business uses electricity, and quantifies the results of making system changes. Using this audit method on my own home allowed me to identify and make a few simple changes, and reduce my electricity bill by 65%.

I’ll dive into more details on this simple audit method and where the energy savings were found in my final blog post in this three part series on the Thousand Home Challenge.

At my son’s elementary school, last year’s PTA board elected to use their surplus money to build a shade structure for the children.  It would cover the school’s outdoor lunch area and would solve two problems: shield the children from bird droppings (that have historically been a maintenance challenge) and provide shade for the children while they eat lunch (the metal benches can get pretty hot).

When the school’s PTA board presented their ideas to the School District for approval, it opened the proverbial can of worms.

• The proposed canopy wasn’t approved; a larger, engineered, State-approved canopy would have to be built.
• The School District’s master plan for renovating the school grounds in the next five years included a much larger shade structure.
• The District extended an offer to cover the difference between the cost of the approved shade structure and the surplus funds the PTA Board had raised.

This would have been great if not for one thing: a beloved elm tree planted by students in 1994, and subsequently dubbed “the Peace Tree”. It’s the only remnant of a larger student project called the “Peace Garden” and it lies squarely within the footprint of the Master Plan’s larger shade structure.

This is where the students went into action.

Once word got out that the Peace Tree was in danger, a group of students from the third, fourth, and fifth grades put together their own committee to Save The Tree. They polled students and gathered signatures for a petition, and put together a presentation for the PTA.

A group of elementary school students, on their own, did the following:

• Researched the history of the Peace Tree, even getting in contact with adults who were part of the 1994 class of sixth graders who participated in the Peace Garden.
• Polled students on what the Peace Tree means to students, teachers, and community; they discovered that the Peace Tree is a focus for classes, student groups, impromptu playdates, and even local running clubs!
• Researched the procedure and cost of relocating the tree if the District’s Master Plan shade structure gets voted in.
• Proposed three alternate solutions for building a shade structure while allowing the tree to remain unharmed.

I sat in that meeting and was just wowed by their critical thinking, their follow-through, and communication skills. As a result of their efforts and the voting by the PTA, the kids are now working with the School District’s architect to review alternate locations for the shade structure – all in order to save the Peace Tree.

It’s just one tree, but what I saw gave me a lot of hope for our future.

 
These are questions the remarkable people promoting the Small House Movement hope to answer. A growing crusade for living efficiently in small spaces, the Small House Movement has emerged as an antithesis to the resource-hungry supersized McMansions dominating the landscape in recent years.  In an era celebrating excess, in just the past 3 decades, single-family homes have ballooned from a typical 1,780 square feet in 1978 to 2,479 square feet in 2007. The American Dream realized?

Interestingly, when it comes to housing, the founders of the Small House Movement would argue that in having more, you really have less – less in the form of money and time. The bills, maintenance, and the large ecological footprint associated with a supersized house can be a major detraction. A small house frees the owner from much of this burden by its emphasis on utility: every part of the space carefully considered and designed with versatility in mind.

One of the most well known advocates of the Small House Movement, the Tumbleweed Tiny House Company, based in Sebastopol, California, offers houses from 50 to 750 square feet. These homes can be purchased ready-made, as a kit to be assembled, or just as a set of plans for on-site construction. Owner Tim Shafer, author of The Small House Book, remarks on his philosophy,

“My decision to inhabit just 89 square feet arose from some concerns I had about the impact a larger house would have on the environment, and because I do not want to maintain a lot of unused or unusable space. My houses have met all of my domestic needs without demanding much in return. The simple, slower lifestyle my homes have afforded is a luxury for which I am continually grateful.”

Appreciation of this movement is spreading into our local communities, encouraged by the
support of municipalities. In early January, construction was completed on “Karen’s Cottage”, the inaugural project by Berkeley start-up New Avenue. The opening of the tiny 420 square foot home at 934 Delaware Street was marked by a ribbon-cutting fanfare attended by city luminaries like Mayor Tom Bates. The City of Berkeley has recognized, officially in the general plan, small secondary units like the cottage (as well as in-law units, studios, or accessory buildings) as a wise solution for smart-growth that doesn’t contribute to suburban sprawl. Initially triggered by student project, the realization that most Berkeley properties qualify for accessory structures under the current zoning ordinance illuminated the business model for New Ave entrepreneur, Kevin Casey. He recalls,  “when we did a study of homes within half a mile of north Berkeley BART we found that 560 of the homes qualified for secondary units.” Opportunities like this ensure we will be seeing more of these tiny houses sprouting up in our neighborhoods.

If you have an inclination to simplify, perhaps a tiny house is for you.