The search for renewable energy

Jason P

polaris_x wrote:

yeah ... i'm not a big fan of LEED as the money spent on documenting a project could easily be spent on further efficiencies ...

I lost my enthusiasm for LEED big-time due to the documentation. It was fucking insane.

Drowned Out

polaris_x wrote:

Jason P wrote:

I put some panels on a building project I was working on. It was a LEED building, so cost wasn't an issue. This was about 7 years ago ... I can't recall the total price, but it wasn't cheap.

I'd put them on my own house, but it's a $50K investment.

It's ridiculous that it costs so much for tech that has been around my entire life.

yeah ... i'm not a big fan of LEED as the money spent on documenting a project could easily be spent on further efficiencies ...

the other thing is that unless we start paying the true cost of the resources supply we currently use ... all the renewables will seem fiscally off ...

I love putting together LEED documentation....a decent sized project can generate a few HUNDRED pages of paper from the one trade I deal with alone....of course, the norm is to submit SEVEN copies of the package....the General Contractors must have piles and piles of paper generated from LEED documentation....And it never gets more than a cursory glance....because of this, it can be easily falsified, and the procedures are rarely enforced properly by the GC's....it's a joke. As with any costly architectural endeavour in Western Canada (and probably everywhere in north america), LEED is pretty much exclusively used on public or P3 projects, where the cost can be transfered to the taxpayers...it's a feather in the cap, a bragging right of the architect, and in rare cases, the private owner - doesn't have a whole lot to do with sustainability IMO...

brianlux

cajunkiwi wrote:

In the last year, we've had coal miners die in China and New Zealand, almost die in Chile, and oil rig workers die in the Gulf of Mexico. And all of that in the name of searching for fuel supplies that are inefficient and finite.

I was doing some reading on Qatar today (I'm a soccer fan), and I found it interesting that despite having a large chunk of the earth's supply of oil, they're actively working on moving to a technology-based economy so they'll be able to continue making money after the oil runs out (I think it said they had about 37 year's worth of oil underneath them), and in the interim they're also working on renewable energy sources that will sustain their fuel needs.

So given that people are being killed all in the name of trying to get a supply of fuel that's inefficient and finite, and other countries are already actively preparing for life after oil, do you guys think the US is doing enough to explore renewable energy sources, and if not, why not?

Excellent question. First off, I'm skeptical about the "37 year's worth of oil". For whom? Certainly not for the whole oil guzzling and addicted world. Maybe 37 years worth for, say, Hershey, Pennsylvania. Keep the chocolate comin', baby. Maybe we'll run our cars on that someday instead of gas or hybrid corn.

There certainly has been some fair increase in the exploration of renewable energy and that will certainly escalate at a fast pace as the reality of peak oil finally becomes widely recognized and evident. But this will look like a bucket brigade trying to put out a barn full of dry hay that is already engulfed in flames. Is renewable energy a good idea? Of course. Are there better ideas? Certainly- drive less, use less of everything, strengthen local economy, revitalize the American railroad system and create walkable communitites.

Godfather.

Jeanwah wrote:

cajunkiwi wrote:

So given that people are being killed all in the name of trying to get a supply of fuel that's inefficient and finite, and other countries are already actively preparing for life after oil, do you guys think the US is doing enough to explore renewable energy sources, and if not, why not?

As long as the fossil fuel industries control Washington, not nearly enough exploration of renewables will be done.

I agree !
but on a funny note....where is all this alien technology that the us is supposed to have


Godfather.

polaris_x

Drowned Out wrote:

I love putting together LEED documentation....a decent sized project can generate a few HUNDRED pages of paper from the one trade I deal with alone....of course, the norm is to submit SEVEN copies of the package....the General Contractors must have piles and piles of paper generated from LEED documentation....And it never gets more than a cursory glance....because of this, it can be easily falsified, and the procedures are rarely enforced properly by the GC's....it's a joke. As with any costly architectural endeavour in Western Canada (and probably everywhere in north america), LEED is pretty much exclusively used on public or P3 projects, where the cost can be transfered to the taxpayers...it's a feather in the cap, a bragging right of the architect, and in rare cases, the private owner - doesn't have a whole lot to do with sustainability IMO...

i agree for the most part but there are developers out there that are only building LEED certified developments ... it's probably because they feel they can attract higher rents and stuff but it isn't just gov't projects ... the other thing is that it's really the only standard out there ... it's just too bureaucratic ...