Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Does LEED Certification Save Energy? Evidence from Federal Buildings

nber.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 102 posts

Re: Does LEED Certification Save Energy? Evidence from Federal Buildings

#11

Post by nraynaud »

duxup wrote: post #6
baybal2 wrote: post #2

The biggest issue I see is that LEEDs allow for a building that looks like a big heat exchanger, and has zero heat insulation to certify for high power efficiency in a cold climate. Canada, and Toronto area had tons of LEEDs certed luxury condos being heated like no tomorrow in Winter. Things are even worse in Vancouver, but that's offset by milder weather. The opposite picture is there in hot climates. Building with…

I don't know much about LEEDs and maybe that should be updated, but I live in a cold climate and I see a lot of focus on insulation and insulation efficiency, both in new construction and updating old buildings. This idea that there's not a focus on insulation in the west seems kinda strange to me.

Same in France, I'm buying a condo and looking into all this for the renovation, and everybody is screaming "insulation by the outside".

Re: Does LEED Certification Save Energy? Evidence from Federal Buildings

#13

Post by bjt2n3904 »

The frustration I have with environmentalism is this. There's this enthusiasm for environmentalism that seems to be blind to outcome. A new standard for buildings, cars, circuit boards -- whatever -- is met with accolades. However, the opponents of such a standard clearly want the planet to die and suffer. It's time to listen to science!

Then a decade later, the program is assessed, and found to be ineffective, and the same people who were so enthusiastic shake their heads as if they've always known there would be such problems.

Fun story! Bureaucracy doesn't solve problems, it creates them!

Re: Does LEED Certification Save Energy? Evidence from Federal Buildings

#14

Post by etimberg »

baybal2 wrote: post #2

The biggest issue I see is that LEEDs allow for a building that looks like a big heat exchanger, and has zero heat insulation to certify for high power efficiency in a cold climate. Canada, and Toronto area had tons of LEEDs certed luxury condos being heated like no tomorrow in Winter. Things are even worse in Vancouver, but that's offset by milder weather. The opposite picture is there in hot climates. Building with…

I live in an apartment in Toronto that is LEED certified. To be honest, it's not that great but for different reasons than you outlines. The insulation is too good and so the building is too warm all year round. My unit can easily be > 24C without any heating running even in winter.

Re: Does LEED Certification Save Energy? Evidence from Federal Buildings

#15

Post by blacktriangle »

bjt2n3904 wrote: post #13

The frustration I have with environmentalism is this. There's this enthusiasm for environmentalism that seems to be blind to outcome. A new standard for buildings, cars, circuit boards -- whatever -- is met with accolades. However, the opponents of such a standard clearly want the planet to die and suffer. It's time to listen to science! Then a decade later, the program is assessed, and found to be ineffective, and t…

"There's this enthusiasm for environmentalism that seems to be blind to outcome."

I am completely stealing this line, because it explains the modern environmental movement perfectly. I've argued with so many people about the Paris Accords and how they are a terrible idea. Why? Because they heap regulation on the West while sending money to China and India who have no obligation to improve their environmental policy. This will result in even more manufacturing leaving the semi-regulated West and moving to totally unregulated China which will increase net pollution, and that's before you factor in transit pollution.

Nobody can explain to me why this is wrong and that Paris Accords are actually terrible for the global environment, but its still awful the US wouldn't sign them because "we have to do something!"

Re: Does LEED Certification Save Energy? Evidence from Federal Buildings

#16

Post by throw0101a »

The focus of buildings should be:

1. Keeping dry and bulk water out/away.

2. Being as air tight as possible.†

3. Controlling vapour.

4. Being well-insulated.

* https://www.buildingscience.com/documents/insights/bsi-001-t...

† Air is exchanged in a controlled fashioned: filtered for pollen and other things, and then tempered with an HRV/ERV. Buildings do not need to 'breathe':

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIcrXut_EFA

Re: Does LEED Certification Save Energy? Evidence from Federal Buildings

#17

Post by throw0101a »

blacktriangle wrote: post #15
bjt2n3904 wrote: post #13

The frustration I have with environmentalism is this. There's this enthusiasm for environmentalism that seems to be blind to outcome. A new standard for buildings, cars, circuit boards -- whatever -- is met with accolades. However, the opponents of such a standard clearly want the planet to die and suffer. It's time to listen to science! Then a decade later, the program is assessed, and found to be ineffective, and t…

"There's this enthusiasm for environmentalism that seems to be blind to outcome." I am completely stealing this line, because it explains the modern environmental movement perfectly. I've argued with so many people about the Paris Accords and how they are a terrible idea. Why? Because they heap regulation on the West while sending money to China and India who have no obligation to improve their environmental policy.…

> Because they heap regulation on the West while sending money to China and India who have no obligation to improve their environmental policy.

Both China and India are signatories of the Paris Accords. They are aiming to meet their targets. The US, at least for the four previous years, wasn't even in the Accords and not trying to do much in that time.

There are no regulations in the Accords, just a goal with regards to carbon emissions. If you want minimal regulations to achieve that, either introduce a cap-and-trade system (like Bush 41 did for acid rain), or introduce price signalling via carbon pricing, as recommended from four former Federal Reserve chairs (including Greenspan):

* https://www.carbonpricingleadership.org/news/2019/1/17/forme...

> Nobody can explain to me why this is wrong and that Paris Accords are actually terrible for the global environment, but its still awful the US wouldn't sign them because "we have to do something!"

Perhaps no one can explain why it's wrong because it is not wrong? The Paris Accords are not about "the global environment", they are specifically about one thing: carbon emission. Specifically reducing them by a certain amount.

Why do you think reducing them is bad?

Re: Does LEED Certification Save Energy? Evidence from Federal Buildings

#18

Post by wussboy »

arbitrage wrote: post #4

a building i used to work in got retrofitted to be leads certified. it got a new front door vestibule. the doors don't hang right, it's obstructive for people with different mobility needs. it leeks air like a tattered balloon. none of the glaring issues in the basement were fixed. it got a leed certification. nobody really cares, it's just all a sham. no real point to leeds certs other than polishing a turd.

“I found a flaw in a LEED certified building, I ignored any other possible beneficial knock on effects of that flaw or other enhancements. Therefore LEED has no beneficial effect, either here or anywhere else.”

Re: Does LEED Certification Save Energy? Evidence from Federal Buildings

#19

Post by dirkf »

duxup wrote: post #6
baybal2 wrote: post #2

The biggest issue I see is that LEEDs allow for a building that looks like a big heat exchanger, and has zero heat insulation to certify for high power efficiency in a cold climate. Canada, and Toronto area had tons of LEEDs certed luxury condos being heated like no tomorrow in Winter. Things are even worse in Vancouver, but that's offset by milder weather. The opposite picture is there in hot climates. Building with…

I don't know much about LEEDs and maybe that should be updated, but I live in a cold climate and I see a lot of focus on insulation and insulation efficiency, both in new construction and updating old buildings. This idea that there's not a focus on insulation in the west seems kinda strange to me.

Can concur here in Western Europe. For more than a decade we've had a regulation where you have to run your plans for a new building through a tool that calculates a score reflecting the projected energy consumption in a broad sense. The maximum allowed score has been adjusted down every few years.

The effect is indeed that all new buildings (and renovations that involve some kind of constructing new volumes) have improved massively in energy consumption. Still, we have such a massive amount of old buildings with next to none insulation that get renovated so slowly that it will take a long time to actually make a decent dent in reducing our climate footprint.

But there's definitely a good focus on improving our buildings. Main issue with these new buildings is no longer having decent insulation to keep heating costs down but making sure they don't overheat when there's good weather, and ventilating them properly. This is also part of the score calculation but in my experience not sufficiently highlighted.

Re: Does LEED Certification Save Energy? Evidence from Federal Buildings

#20

Post by [deleted] »

etimberg wrote: post #14
baybal2 wrote: post #2

The biggest issue I see is that LEEDs allow for a building that looks like a big heat exchanger, and has zero heat insulation to certify for high power efficiency in a cold climate. Canada, and Toronto area had tons of LEEDs certed luxury condos being heated like no tomorrow in Winter. Things are even worse in Vancouver, but that's offset by milder weather. The opposite picture is there in hot climates. Building with…

I live in an apartment in Toronto that is LEED certified. To be honest, it's not that great but for different reasons than you outlines. The insulation is too good and so the building is too warm all year round. My unit can easily be > 24C without any heating running even in winter.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN