Will Green Buildings Help
By Mike Rana, Published Author, Speaker, Software Engineer
Will Green Buildings Help
Buildings,
being major energy guzzlers, should be the prime concern of both
individuals and the authorities. Only then, the concrete jungles of
today have a chance to attractive greenhouses.
With growing awareness in the recent few years, the term green building has
emerged. It means eco-friendliness. Green buildings are
energy-efficient where both heating and cooling are realised by a
combination of design features and operational processes. The preference
should certainly be for choosing appropriate design options when the
building is initially constructed. However, energy audits and retrofit
modifications to existing buildings also help. Yet, this is easier said
than done. Builders, or even individuals as home constructors, cut
corners to reduce capital spending, completely oblivious to the fact
that subsequent piece-meal enhancements end up in recurring costs that
may exceed the initial capital expense. While technologically it may be
possible to achieve a good retrofit eco-friendly status for a building,
much more can be achieved by tuning the existing legal byelaws, to allow
and promote energy-saving options during the design stage. Lethargy in
amending the byelaws causes frustration to the builders, including the
individual home-constructors, while it adds to global warming in a big
way.
Considering the Design Options
There
is a lot to learn from ancient, though primitive, constructions of the
past. Can we dispute that they have survived the vagaries of weather,
including natural calamities like earthquakes, storms and tornados? It
is strange that many buildings of bricks and mud built centuries ago,
still stand firm even when no paint was used on the exterior. Many of
these are cool / warm from the inside. Using insulation and special
materials to thwart external heat is one way of achieving indoor
comforts, but orientation of buildings that take the benefit of Venturi
draft of air through the buildings, comes at no cost.
For
ages, diagonal bonds instead of rectilinear placement of bricks have
withstood the shaking and shivering of the earthquakes. Local building
materials not only reduce cost but also are more compatible for the
local weather conditions. These concepts should not be discarded without
sufficient examination and consideration.
Prudential Investments
That
we missed making eco-friendly buildings during the design stage, should
not deter us from taking appropriate steps now, in spite of the
incremental costs we may have to incur. However, we cannot go awry while
making these expenses. For example, wisdom lies in not embracing the
wind or solar energy options, if this is going to incur capital cost
that will not be recoverable for 10 years.
If
we need extra pumping, additional pipelines and increased maintenance
effort for the facilities that deliver 24 hours backup, we are going
wrong. If potable water is used for washing clothes in today’s times, it
only highlights our ignorance and imprudence. If water transfer is
required, and we use energy to do this, we are on a wastage spree.
Instead, we should be shifting the users or buildings, close to water
bodies or sources.
The point is that
any additional expense or extra consumption of natural resources that is
of a supplementary nature must be carefully debated before committing
to it. It might be easier and more effective to change the byelaws to
negate the wastage of energy or water.
Modifying the Byelaws
It
is strange that the regulatory authority, which is unable to discharge
its obligation of providing sustained power, has no objection to the
procurement of captive supply by the consumers. It fails to notice the
increased demand of fossil fuels, and the consequent greenhouse gas
generation, caused by this silent approval. While increasing the supply
of electricity is a specific exercise in itself involving capital
expenditure, promoting energy efficient buildings should not cause any
hesitation; but it does. The authority should not be deterred by
extraneous considerations, political or otherwise. Regulatory
authorities should not be playing to the tunes of product manufacturers,
whose products would go out of demand if green building compliance
rules were enforced. No one can justify, even on commercial or technical
grounds, avoiding features that save energy. Such people should be
tagged.
Not much of intellect is required for change in regulations as listed below.· Providing
subsidies to cover the incremental cost of converting an existing
building to a green building, since this effort is in the direction of
reducing greenhouse gases
· Allowing
and encouraging frameworks that provide protection from heat and dust,
such as collapsible metallic window covers on the outside, as are
prevalent in the middle east
· · Allowing
open verandas and balconies to be covered, using approved and
standardised frameworks, for protection against heat, dust, storms,
mosquitoes, insects and mice. Such coverage should not be deemed as
additional carpet area.
· · Allowing solar panels as standalone structures, without affecting the built-up area computations
· · It
is, by all means, possible to lay separate feeders for drinking and
general use water. This should be enforced. The drinking water pipeline
should be subjected to periodic tests for the quality of water that
flows in them. Wherever required, local water treatment plants for
individual towers must be encouraged by providing additional subsidy.
· · Enforcing
provisioning of two separated circuits for street lighting; out of
which only one is switched on as a matter of routine. The second circuit
is switched on only during prime time when the traffic (vehicles and
people) increases, or in times of inclement weather
· · For
condominiums or high-rise complexes, the bylaws should make it
mandatory that at least two levels of basement parking are constructed. A
good option may be to place these basements not under the towers, but
below the lawns and greens inside the complexes.
Green Buildings in Isolation May Not Help
Green
buildings seem like a boon for reducing the greenhouse gases effect. If
implemented on large scale they could resist the degradation of the
planet in a big way. Yet, measures directed to individual buildings
cannot be productive unless the overall urban or rural plan is in place.
There is no use of having glamorous green buildings surrounded by slums
on all its four sides. Likewise, there is no point in having green
buildings without sufficient parking space for its occupants. In fact,
large buildings create traffic jams and increase the fuel consumption of
cars.
If
we are convinced that eco-friendly buildings are important contributors
to our efforts towards energy saving or for reducing greenhouse gases,
then this effort should not stand in isolation. It should be merged with
concepts like neighbourhood living to reduce vehicular traffic,
shifting building complexes towards existing natural water bodies, and
implementing innovative sewerage disposal systems. In addition, a lot is
waiting to be done still for urban planning or rural development
initiatives. We are miles away from dismantling the concrete jungles of
today, which some greedy individuals built.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home