Building Performance or Onsite Renewables

[Hayden Robinson]

Note: This is a serious question. Please don't flame me for thinking that results matter.

 

Which is more effective, from a CO2 emissions standpoint, building performance (efficiency), or onsite renewables (clean generation)? My economics-professor friend tells me that this is a hard question with no obvious answer.

 

From a microeconomic perspective, efficiency (reducing demand) and generation (increasing supply) both seem 100% effective. But, as was established in an earlier string, things are more complicated than that; Zack quoted a couple of reputable sources* indicating that building efficiency measures are 70 - 90% effective at reducing CO2 emissions . In other words, 1 kWh worth of efficiency, after rippling through the economy, prevents about 0.8 kWh worth of fossil-fuel emissions.

 

Anybody know where to find a similar analysis of onsite renewables?  Zack? PHIUS tech committee? Anyone?

 

It would be good to know if one is more effective.

 

*

The Rebound Effect: an assessment of the evidence for economy-wide energy savings from improved energy efficiency.

 

This Energy Journal article 

 

Hayden Robinson Zertifizierter Passivhausdesigner

hayden robinson architect

206.691.3445

 

[Adam Cohen]

Hayden, Conserve first, produce second.  As a long time off grid guy this is clear. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Passive House Northwest" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to PassiveHouseN...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Adam Cohen
Certified Passivhaus Consultant - North America and Europe

Registered Architect MD, VT, NH & CO, LEED AP, NAHB Green Professional

Design/Builder of the First US Passivhaus Public School Building

2012 VSBN Green Designer of the Year

2013 Green Builder Green Home of the Year

EMAIL POLICY

In an effort to increase productivity, I answer email as follows:

Monday - Friday

•  a maximum of 1 hour in the AM (Before 10 AM EST)
•  a maximum of 1 hour in the PM (After 5:30PM EST)

Sign up for our components newsletter here: http://eepurl.com/2MTDn

Web site: www.structuresdb.com 

Commercial Passivhaus information: http://passivscience.com/

Factory Built Passivhaus Component information: http://www.passivstructures.com/
Passivhaus information: http://www.passivehousedesign.us/

More Passivhaus info: http://www.viking-house.us/

High Performance Design: http://quantum-architects.com/

         

540.312.8400 (cell)

[Skylar Swinford]

Hayden,

The report from Richard York (UofO), "Do alternative energy sources displace fossil fuels?" seems to suggest 1kWh from your solar PV system only displaces 0.089 kWH from fossil fuels. Not too encouraging for renewables, but makes the 0.8 kWh from efficiency look relatively sexy. 

"...focusing specifically on electricity, each unit of electricity generated by non-fossil-fuel sources displaced less than one-tenth of a unit of fossil-fuel-generated electricity."

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n6/pdf/nclimate1451.pdf

http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/03/study-alternative-energy-has-barely-displaced-fossil-fuels/

Skylar 

Sent from my iPhone

--

[Hayden Robinson]

Thank you Skylar. I don't know how the heck you found this, but you are either way ahead of me on the subject, or a way better at using the internet than I am.

 

There is a lot to understand here, but I don't think it's saying to give up. York is clearly telling us that PV is not a dumb lever that can be pulled to reduce CO2 emissions. But I think he's also saying that underlying societal context matters. In other words, renewables plus business as usual gets us nothing. But, perhaps renewables as a reflection of a societal shift in values and priorities would lead to a different outcome.

 

-H

 

Hayden Robinson Zertifizierter Passivhausdesigner

hayden robinson architect

206.691.3445