Cool Products From Greenbuild 2009: An Expo Floor Tour

Feature

Cool Products From Greenbuild 2009: An Expo Floor Tour

Another Greenbuild conference has come and gone, with its frenetic activity, informative educational sessions, many meetings, and all-important networking.

This year I focused much of my time and attention on the Product Expo—and it took a lot of both! At the U.S. Green Building Council’s first Greenbuild conference in Austin, Texas, eight years ago, there were just 250 exhibitors; in Phoenix there were 1,100 spread over 11.5 acres (4.7 ha) in two exhibit halls at the Phoenix Convention Center. I scrambled to walk all those aisles and stopped at a good many—though certainly not all—of the booths. On the following pages are some brief snippets of what I found most exciting, covering almost 40 products and services. I feel very good about most of these products, though a few raise some doubts.

This is by no means a comprehensive list of what was there; I may well have missed some particularly exciting new products. But for those who weren’t able to get to Phoenix in November or didn’t have time to make it through the expo, this survey offers a glimpse of some companies and products that stood out from the rest. I invite you to share your comments with your own observations—products I missed or misunderstood, or anything else noteworthy.

Exciting Products from Greenbuild Phoenix

While the products described in the following pages are scattered over a wide range of applications, most have been grouped under general headings.

HVAC and water-heating equipment

Rinnai has a new, 95% efficient, condensing tankless water heater. The RC98HPi is designed for interior mounting; delivers 9.8 gallons per minute (gpm; 37 lpm) at a 35°F (19°C) temperature rise and 3.8 gpm (14 lpm) at a 100°F (56°C) temperature rise; and uses natural gas or propane at an input rate of 10,000–199,000 Btu/hour (2.9–58 kW). The energy factor is listed at 0.93. Solving a problem with some tankless water heaters used with low-flow faucets, this water heater will activate at a flow rate as low as 0.4 gpm (1.5 lpm). www.rinnai.usVenmar Ventilation of Canada showed off its state-of-the-art EKO residential heat-recovery ventilator (HRV). The EKO 1.5 uses an electronically commutated motor (ECM) to deliver 2.53 cfm per watt, which the company claims is the highest efficiency of any HRV in the industry. At the lowest of four speeds, it uses just 13.5 watts to deliver 40–80 cfm. Included with the HRV is a highly sophisticated and, well, pretty cool Altitude wall control, which displays graphically what the HRV is doing. www.venmar.caRiteHite makes high-volume, low-speed fans—like Big Ass Fans, which has been a prominent exhibitor at recent green building conferences. RiteHite claims that its Revolution series offers the highest-efficiency air delivery of any ceiling fan. It certainly looks to have very good specifications. Fans are available with diameters from 8–24 ft (2.4–7.3 m) providing up to 428,000 cfm of air flow. Ceiling fans are green because, by moving air, they raise the air temperature at which people are comfortable; RiteHite claims that 2–3 miles per hour (0.9–1.3 meters per second) of air flow is comparable to lowering the air temperature 7°F–11°F (4°C–6°C). www.ritehitefans.comThe Power-Pipe drainwater heat recovery system from

RenewABILITY Energy isn’t new, but it’s exciting enough to remind readers about. It is one of several systems that capture waste heat from shower drains for preheating hot water. It consists of multiple, parallel lengths of flattened copper pipe wrapped around a section of copper drainpipe; cold water circulates through the small-diameter outer pipe before reaching the water heater. It is appropriate for homes as well as commercial, industrial, and institutional buildings. According to company president Gerald Van Decker, over 50 builders are now using the system, and both Sears and Home Depot are carrying it in Canada. www.renewability.com

Panel products and interior finishes

The German company

Pinta Acoustic has introduced to the U.S. a great-looking acoustic ceiling panel and wall tile called Phonstop. The panels are made from 100% post-consumer recycled glass bottles, which are ground and sintered to form a rigid, lightweight, porous panel. Unlike mineral wool acoustic panels, a binder is not required for the Phonstop panels, which achieve Class 1 fire-resistance as well as flame-spread and smoke developed ratings of 0 (based on ASTM E-84) without the use of flame retardants. Compressive strength is 165 psi. Phonstop V, in 2" (50 mm) thickness, adheres directly to walls or ceilings; Phonstop E, in 1" (25 mm) thickness, is installed into standard ceiling grids. www.pinta-acoustic.com

National Gypsum introduced its ThermalCORE phase-change drywall. Phase-change materials (PCMs) take advantage of the fact that materials changing phase (as from solid to liquid) either store or release a great deal of heat with a very small change in temperature. ThermalCORE uses a paraffin-based material called Micronal, made by BASF, that melts at 73°F ± 2°F (23°C ± 1°C), storing approximately 22 Btus per square foot (70 watt-hours/m2). Micronal consists of tiny spheres of paraffin surrounded by an acrylic shell with a diameter of just 5–10 microns (about half the size of portland cement particles). While not yet on the market, ThermalCORE could be North America’s first truly practical PCM for building applications; a similar product is in use in Germany

and was used in the German submission that won the 2009 Solar Decathlon (see EBN Dec. 2009). www.thermalcore.infoRichlite makes a durable countertop material from paper and phenolic-formaldehyde resin. All of Richlite’s paper content (60%–70% of the material) is now either certified to the Forest Stewardship Council’s (FSC) standards or derived from 100% post-consumer recycled paper (the R100 line). As for concerns about emissions from the phenol-formaldehyde resin, the material is certified by Greenguard Children & Schools and has measured formaldehyde levels of 0.001 parts per million, which is two orders of magnitude lower than typical background levels in the U.S. www.richlite.com

The Japanese company

Tagawa Sangyo exhibited its

Shikkui lime plaster at Greenbuild. The product, which has received Cradle to Cradle Silver certification from McDonough Braungart Design Chemistry (MBDC), is being distributed in the U.S. by Tariki, Ltd., with distribution points in Boston and Los Angeles. (For more on the benefits and drawbacks of lime plasters and stuccos, and an American Clay product made domestically, see

EBN Oct. 2008.) www.shikkui.comSurfaceWorks makes the GreenWorks line of particleboard-core work surfaces and tabletops. These products are available with no added urea formaldehyde and FSC-certified substrate; with various surfacing options, including Forbo linoleum and Greenguard Children & Schools-certified high-pressure laminate; and with various options for edging, including bamboo, FSC-certified wood, and a urethane made from 65% vegetable oils. Oddly, FSC-certified surface veneers are not listed as an option. www.surfaceworks.us

Plumbing fixtures and water-saving components

One of the big surprises at Greenbuild was learning that most of the major plumbing equipment manufacturers, including

Moen,

American Standard,

Kohler,

Delta Faucet, and

TOTO, have shifted 100% of their lavatory faucets to maximum-1.5 gpm (5.7 lpm) flow rates—the level required to achieve EPA WaterSense certification. This represents a 32% reduction in water use when compared to the federal standard of 2.2 gpm (8.3 lpm). For most of these companies, this change applies to both residential and commercial products. As was clearly demonstrated in many of the exhibits, with good aeration or laminar-flow designs, a 1.5 gpm lavatory faucet is virtually indistinguishable from a 2.2 gpm product.

Along with the conversion to 1.5 gpm faucets,

American Standard has a new FloWise Flush-Free Urinal that’s manufactured by ZeroFlush and branded American Standard; it comes in three styles. The company has also introduced the Washbrook FloWise eighth-gallon (0.5 lpf) urinal, the H2Option dual-flush toilet using 1.6/1.0 gpf (6/3.8 lpf), the Yorkville pressure-assist 1.1 gpf (4.2 lpf) toilet (using a WDI EcoFlush pressure-flush module), and an interesting FloWise showerhead that is adjustable from 1.5 to 2.0 gpm (5.7 to 7.6 lpm); if you adjust it higher, it reverts back to 1.5 gpm when next turned on. www.americanstandard-us.comKohler was most excited about its Insight Technology for hands-free faucets and flushometer toilets. This is a hybrid capacitor that achieves, Kohler claims, a 30-year battery life for sensor faucets based on 1.5 million uses—that’s once every 10 minutes, day and night, for 30 years. Another significant innovation premiered at Greenbuild was the hands-free Wave technology for sensor-flush toilets that prevents false flushes. A user flushes a toilet equipped with Wave technology manually—without touching anything—by passing a hand over the top of the sensor, breaking a vertical beam. Kohler also showed off its new eighth-gallon (0.5 lpf) Barden urinal. In October, for the second year in a row, Kohler was named the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) WaterSense Partner of the Year in the manufacturer category. www.kohler.comAustralian manufacturer

Caroma introduced in May 2009 a redesigned version of its H2Zero waterless urinal (see

EBN Nov. 2007). The new model includes both the elastomeric mechanical seal (trap) that the previous model used and, below that, a more conventional “P” trap that uses urine (rather than the usual water) to provide the code-required liquid trap. While Caroma believes that this U.S. code requirement is unnecessary and that mechanical seals alone can do the job, redesigning the urinal was easier than changing long-established plumbing codes (for more on this issue see

EBN Apr. 2008). The mechanical seal is made of silicone and rated for 10,000 uses. A big advantage of this system is that there’s no plant-oil trap fluid (found in most waterless urinals). Not only is that fluid expensive, but some experts worry that it will become a problem in wastewater treatment plants as waterless urinal use grows. Without the worry of losing the plant-oil trap fluid, custodial staff can periodically flush a gallon of water down the drain of the H2Zero to clear salt deposits—the biggest hindrance to long-term performance of waterless urinals. The City of Los Angeles recently approved the H2Zero urinal and offers a $400 rebate on it. www.caromausa.com

Along with the conversion to low-flow faucets,

Delta Faucet has a new Proximity Sensing Technology in its commercial line that employs a 4" (100 mm) electric field around the entire faucet; when something enters that field, the faucet turns on. It’s a smart system that recalibrates, so it doesn’t keep running if the object next to it doesn’t move. While sensor-activated faucets have not been shown to actually reduce water use, the very clear trend in plumbing fixtures is toward hands-free for hygiene reasons, and we can hope to see continued innovation to improve efficiency. In its residential line, Delta has introduced the Touch2O Technology for kitchen faucets; touching any part of the faucet or handle turns the flow on and off. This may save water by allowing easier on-off control without affecting the temperature mix or flow rate. www.deltafaucet.com, www.deltacommercialfaucets.com

TOTO featured its Clean Dry Hand Dryer, which is now available in the U.S. Having tried out a lot of fast-acting hand dryers, I was impressed with how quiet this product is—though a noisy trade show floor is not the ideal test site! TOTO’s highly regarded, 1.28 gpf (4.8 lpf) Drake II toilet has been redesigned so that water now enters the bowl on both sides for better bowl-wash; and the company also showed a 1.28 gpf commercial flushometer toilet. For the shower, TOTO introduced the Gyrostream body spray, which provides a swirling flow of 0.8 gpm (3.0 lpm) that massages the user. We believe that body sprays, which provide a horizontal stream of water from the shower wall and are typically installed in multiples, are unnecessary and undesirable in a shower, but if a client insists, this product at least significantly reduces the flow. TOTO also introduced a simple push-button control to turn a shower or body spray off and on (to save water while lathering). www.totousa.comSloan Valve showed off lots of products, including its eighth-gallon (0.5 lpf) urinal and a cool Ecos Dual-Flush sensor flushometer for toilets that chooses a light flush or a full flush based on time spent on the toilet (65-second threshold for the full flush). The company also has a prototype Alpine tenth-gallon (0.38 lpf) urinal that fills an internal basin with the flush volume and then dumps it during the flush to deliver the full volume all at once for more effective clearing of the drain line—a strategy to reduce salt buildup. Finally, Sloan’s FlushMate IV pressure-assist flush mechanism, used in dozens of top-performing toilets, is now quieter (83 dB). www.sloanvalve.comI’ve been writing about water savings for a long time but had never heard about Waterbury, Connecticut, company

Neoperl, which has been producing faucet aerators, flow regulators, check valves, and related products since 1928 and is the only company making aerators in the U.S. Neoperl mostly sells to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) such as Kohler, Sloan Valve, and TOTO, but some of its products are also available directly to consumers through Home Depot. The company’s aerators are available in a wide range of flow rates; many carry WaterSense certification. www.neoperl.comThe small Calgary, Alberta, company

TapMaster was exhibiting foot- and knee-operated faucet controls at Greenbuild. I had a great chat with the inventor, Peter Pubben, and his wife, who together run the company. We’ve had this product in our

GreenSpec database for years, and I’ve been using one at home that works as flawlessly now as when it was installed more than five years ago. But I’ve never really known how it works. I still can’t say I fully grasp the operation, but it’s ingenious, and the way it’s been engineered results in much less water-hammer (clanking pipes when you turn fixtures on and off) than more conventional foot-controls. These hands-free controls can save water and energy by allowing users to turn on the tap (at the temperature and flow rate they’ve set) quickly and easily—when washing pots and pans, for example. www.tapmaster.ca

Windows, doors, and fenestration-related products

RavenBrick displayed one of the most innovative products I saw at Greenbuild: RavenWindow, a

thermochromic glazing that darkens passively as it is heated. On a hot, sunny day this tinting reduces the solar transmissivity of a window from about 60% to 8%, dramatically reducing solar heat gain and cooling costs. The tinting occurs without any electricity; when the glazing cools, it reverts back to its clear state. The temperature at which RavenWindow darkens is set at the time of manufacture; once the glazing is produced, that property cannot be changed. The tinting is achieved with an organic material sandwiched between two layers of glass. Unlike some organic

electrochromic glazing materials that have come and gone in recent years, the material used by RavenBrick is highly durable, according to CEO Alex Burney. The first product will be shipped in March 2010, Burney says, for an installation in a new building at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). The company is projecting a cost of $25/ft2 ($270/m2), which is lower than that of SageGlass, a competing electrochromic glazing (see

EBN June 2006). Like SageGlass, RavenWindow technology will be licensed to partner manufacturers that will produce the windows and glazing systems. RavenBrick also showed off a spandrel glazing system, RavenSkin, that incorporates a PCM; the hope is to introduce it commercially in 2011. www.ravenbrick.com

I never thought I’d get excited about a garage door, but then I happened upon the

Rytec booth. The company makes commercial garage-type doors that open and close really quickly. I hadn’t thought much about this before, but in a garage or warehouse, the time a door is open is a major determinant of energy use—often much more significant than how well-insulated the doors are. A great video shown (over and over) in the company’s booth, and on its website, shows side-by-side doors at an automotive shop. The Rytec door cycles open and closed in about six seconds, versus almost a minute for the other door. www.rytecdoors.comSavannah Trims, one of the few U.S. companies to produce an exterior louvered blind, continues to roll out interesting products. The company’s latest innovation is a new solar-powered motor option for SkyShield exterior blinds. Exterior louvered blinds, very common in Europe, block unwanted heat gain more effectively than interior blinds, because they keep the sunlight from passing through the glazing. They can also provide security benefits. www.savannahtrims.comAmong the more interesting products introduced at Greenbuild was the Alluminate interior lightshelf from

Lamcel. It’s a three-foot-deep (0.9 m), lightweight, aluminum-honeycomb product with a curved (parabolic-like) profile that reflects light deep into the room. With a highly polished top surface (94% reflectivity), it disperses light much more effectively than white, planar lightshelves—150% better, according to the manufacturer. In a commercial building with high ceilings, the lightshelf is typically installed about seven feet (2.1 m) above the floor, and it reflects light coming through clear windows above that plane. Information on the product does not yet appear to be on the company’s website. www.lamcel.com

Lighting, electrical, and instrumentation

Lunera Lighting has introduced an attractive commercial LED lighting fixture that provides extremely uniform light. Available in linear (6.7" x 4'; 17 x 122 cm) or square (2' x 2'; 61 x 61 cm) configurations, Lunera fixtures provide a very respectable efficacy of about 61 lumens per watt. The fixtures are fully dimmable, and available with color temperatures of 3,000K, 4,000K, and 5,000K; the rated life is 50,000 hours with 70% lumen maintenance. www.lunera.comSouthwire has a new electrical cable with the lead oxide taken out. This isn’t as exciting as it would be if Southwire, North America’s leading producer of electrical cable for building wiring (Romex brand) as well as power distribution, offered a halogen-free product, but it’s great to see the company exhibiting at Greenbuild and at least talking about green issues.

southwire.com

Illumra is one of a number of really cool control systems for hospitality lighting and HVAC systems using wireless

EnOcean technology. Guests in Illumra-equipped hotel rooms use a key card to unlock the door, then put the key in a key-card reader in the room; this activates lighting and HVAC controls. When the hotel guests leave, they take the key card out of the reader, turning off lights and resetting HVAC controls to energy-saving default settings. The beauty of the EnOcean wireless technology is that Illumra systems can be installed in existing rooms very easily and quickly. For more on Illumra, see

EBN Dec. 2009; for more on EnOcean (a BuildingGreen Top-10 product in 2007), see

EBN Dec. 2007. www.illumra.com

GrayWolf Sensing Solutions manufactures a wide range of monitoring equipment for volatile organic compounds (VOCs), carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, ozone, hydrogen sulfide, and other chemicals, as well as temperature and relative humidity. Different probes are required for different measurements. The target market for the product line includes facility managers, indoor air quality consultants, environmental engineers, and building scientists. The company also offers a wide range of data collection, reporting, and software components. Typical system costs are about $7,500. www.wolfsense.com

Rainwater harvesting components and systems

There were a lot of rainwater harvesting systems on display at Greenbuild—more than I’ve ever seen. Clearly, there is growing concern about water supplies, and rainwater harvesting systems can be one part of the solution.

BRAE is based in North Carolina and offers a full range of residential and commercial rainwater systems. Rather than manufacturing components and systems, BRAE is a designer and packager; it has installed over 1,000 systems since its founding in 2002. www.braewater.comConservation Technology has seemingly been around forever, with new product introductions every time I turn around. At Greenbuild the company showed off a number of new rainwater harvesting products, including controllers, pumps (including a model with a variable-frequency drive), and tanks. It also has a new green roof system: the ultra-lightweight Drainage Plate System. www.conservationtechnology.comRH2ONorth America makes both residential and commercial rainwater harvesting systems. The products are imported from Germany, and the primary North American presence is (so far) in Canada. Systems include a full range of sophisticated components, including rainwater filters, calming inlets, overflow siphons, floating suction filters, and tanks. www.ourh2o.comJay R. Smith Manufacturing Company manufactures a variety of rainwater harvesting components and systems for both commercial and residential applications. With over 5,000 systems installed, not including its rain barrel systems, the company claims to be the largest manufacturer of rainwater harvesting systems in the country. Its products are primarily related to rainwater collection and filtration, not tanks. Jay R. Smith partners with Rain-water Management Solutions in the design and specification of systems. www.jrsmith.com

Wood products

MBDC had a booth focused on its Cradle to Cradle product certification, where it displayed Bark House, a residential siding made by

Highland Craftsmen from the bark of the tulip tree (Leriodendron tulipifera), which is sometimes—incorrectly—referred to as a poplar. The bark, a byproduct, is peeled from recently felled trees, cut to size, flattened, fully kiln-dried, and heat-sterilized. The bark itself provides its own “backing” and weatherproof layer. And it looks really cool—rather like, well, bark. The cost is fairly reasonable, too: about $6–$9 per square foot ($70–$100/m2) for the material or $12–$14 per square foot ($130–$150/m2) installed. BuildingGreen reviewed Bark House for our

GreenSpec directory, but I had never really grasped one of the real beauties of this product: when you want to replace it, you just pull it off and throw it into the woods to decompose. The product has become one of the few building products to earn a Cradle to Cradle Gold rating from MBDC. www.barkhouse.comAccoya from

Titan Wood was introduced in North America at the 2008 Greenbuild conference, but we somehow missed it. It is wood that has been treated with acetic anhydride (acetylation) to make it more stable and rot-resistant. The sample I picked up still has a distinctive vinegar smell—like salt-and-vinegar potato chips. The acetylation process has been known for a long time—since 1928—but has only recently entered the market: in Europe in 2004 and North America in 2008. The process works by converting free hydroxyl (OH) groups into acetyl groups, thereby removing the primary sites that absorb and release water. Titan Wood is currently made with radiata pine from New Zealand, but Accoya hopes to license the technology to a North American company that will use a native softwood. Titan Wood carries a surprisingly long 50-year warranty for aboveground applications and a 25-year warranty for belowground. All of the product is certified to the FSC mixed-sources standard, and the company expects to receive Cradle to Cradle certification at the Gold level shortly. The wood is more expensive than ACQ-treated wood but less expensive than tropical woods. Applications, according to Accoya, include outdoor decking, siding, window frames, doors, and outdoor furniture. Among our unanswered questions are whether the residual acetic acid in the wood causes corrosion problems (we suspect that it does) and whether there are indoor air quality problems associated with offgassing; we plan to run a more comprehensive product review in

EBN in the future. www.accoya.com

Water treatment and wastewater

Worrell Water Technologies produces the Living Machine ecological wastewater treatment systems (see

EBN July 1996). Now based in Charlottesville, Virginia (having moved from Taos, New Mexico), the company seems to be expanding its visibility and sophistication. Based initially on technology developed by biologist John Todd, Ph.D., Living Machine technology has evolved considerably in recent years. At Greenbuild, the company promoted its “Next Gen Living Machine,” which simulates highly productive tidal ecosystems by filling and emptying cyclically, thus achieving better oxygenation. (We’re not sure about the energy implications of this feature.) The company has also shifted to a solid medium and now offers more advanced computer controls as well as remote monitoring. Used primarily in institutional and commercial facilities, Living Machine systems were recently selected for testing by the Department of Defense for possible use in remote military facilities. www.worrellwater.com

Greenbuild exhibitor

Burgis Envirolutions showed off a real oddball product: the ORCA Green (Organic Refuse Conversion Alternative). ORCA is a waste-management appliance for foodservice facilities that uses “bio-chips” impregnated with microorganisms to decompose food waste and compostable materials, producing a liquid (mostly water) that is sent down the drain with other wastewater. The advantage is a reduction in solid waste, but I have yet to be convinced that there is an environmental benefit to this system. In fact, if it increases the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) of the wastewater, and if that increases energy and chemical use at sewage treatment plants, it is possible that the ORCA could have a net-negative environmental impact—particularly if the alternative is grinding and composting as a soil amendment. We hope to take an in-depth look at food waste and organics in wastewater in

EBN in the future and will investigate this product further for that article. www.burgisenviro.com

Living wall systems

Greenwalls modular planting systems were on display from

McCaren Designs. This living wall system relies on hydroponic growing in open-cell foam plugs. The company claims that its system could use graywater or rainwater, and it promotes indoor air quality benefits (see

EBN Oct. 2008 for more on possible benefits of indoor plants). The company did its first installation in 1993 but has installed just a handful of systems since. A large, 1,900 ft2 (180 m2) system is being installed in Canada currently, and a Greenwalls system is in use at a New York City Whole Foods store. www.greenwalls.comAnother living wall company, EcoWalls, was also displaying at Greenbuild. This New Jersey company designs, installs, and maintains systems in the mid-Atlantic states as well as Florida. About 15 of its systems have been installed to date. For indoor walls (the most common), low-light tropical plants are used; for outdoor applications, sedums or other plants may be used. The company has a close affiliation with Rutgers University, where its two founders studied, and also works with the National Foliage Foundation, which is researching volatile organic compound removal and other potential indoor air quality benefits of living walls. www.greenecowalls.com

Miscellaneous products

Among the most talked-about new products at Greenbuild was

CalStar fly ash brick. It’s an unfired brick, like concrete brick, but it uses Class C fly ash (about 40% by weight) as the binder, rather than portland cement. If this brick performs as the manufacturer claims and if the hazardous components are indeed locked up (as they are with vitrified brick), then this could be a dynamite product. www.calstarproducts.comEBN has long promoted the benefits of good entryway track-off entry systems (see

EBN Oct. 2001). In June 2009

EcoPath introduced an entryway track-off product with a host of green features in addition to the obvious indoor air quality benefits. Its BioGrip non-skid underlayment is made from natural rubber, with a fleece inter-layer made from 100% post-consumer recycled PET bottles. An EnviroCel layer is made from soy-based polyols and a fly ash constituent called Celceram. Durable face fibers are made from virgin polypropylene or nylon. Different abrasion levels are provided for different portions of the track-off system. The company will also take back product for recycling at the end of its useful life through its ReField program. www.ecopathmats.com

Final Thoughts

Even though I’ve been researching and writing about green building products for 20-odd years, I’m still always excited to learn about the new stuff coming out, and Greenbuild has become the leading place to see what’s new.

A few of the products mentioned here will return to the pages of

EBN with more in-depth product reviews or coverage in relevant feature articles. To learn more in the meantime, check out the websites listed with the brief product descriptions, or visit the Greenbuild 2009 website to view the full Expo Guide. Please share your own impressions using the comments field below.

For more information:

Greenbuild 2009

www.greenbuildexpo.org

Published January 1, 2010

(2010, January 1). Cool Products From Greenbuild 2009: An Expo Floor Tour. Retrieved from https://www.buildinggreen.com/departments/feature

Will I Get Sued? Managing Risk in Green Building

Making Your Own Electricity: Onsite Photovoltaic Systems

Feature

Making Your Own Electricity: Onsite Photovoltaic Systems

Although photovoltaic systems have a long payback period, generous incentives and tax credits can make the systems attractive for building owners interested in reducing their carbon footprint.

Published October 30, 2009

Building for People: Integrating Social Justice into Green Design

Design for Adaptation: Living in a Climate-Changing World

Feature

Design for Adaptation: Living in a Climate-Changing World

Solutions for designing buildings that not only mitigate our impact on the global climate, but also adapt to the changes that are coming (and those that are already here)

CEUs are available for this article. Click here to learn more and take the quiz.

Updated April 23, 2025; updates by Elene Drosos

Climate scientists have been speaking out for decades about the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in order to avoid a significantly warmer and less livable future. Now that climate change is finally part of the public discussion, the future is already here—and it’s only getting warmer. Designing energy-efficient buildings is an important step toward preventing more drastic warming. We need to redouble these efforts—the 2030 Challenge goal of carbon-neutral buildings by 2030 and complete phase out of fossil fuel emissions by 2040 will be a difficult yet critical standard to meet. But by stopping there, are we turning a blind eye to the changes that scientists say are coming even if greenhouse gas emissions were turned off tomorrow?

More and more experts acknowledge that while we must continue to do all we can to slow greenhouse gas emissions, we must also begin designing buildings that will work in a changing climate. This article examines the science of global climate change and looks at how we can adapt the built environment to a world that will, by most accounts, be very different by the end of this century from the one we know today.

The Reality of Climate Change

Debate may continue in some circles about whether humans are causing climate change, or even whether it is happening at all, but the scientific consensus is overwhelmingly clear. A report issued in 2017 by the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP)—which coordinates climate change research of 13 federal agencies and operated as the U.S. Climate Change Science Program from 2002 through 2008 under the George W. Bush presidency—estimates that global average temperatures have risen approximately 1.5ºF (0.8ºC) since before the Industrial Revolution and could rise another 5ºF–10.2ºF (2.8ºC–5.7ºC) by the end of this century, based on modeling of a variety of greenhouse gas emissions levels, mitigation efforts, and economic scenarios. “The reality of climate change is unequivocal—we see it in many aspects of the Earth’s climate system,” said Jonathan Overpeck, Ph.D., co-director of the Institute of the Environment at the University of Arizona and a co-author of a past USGCRP report.

A matter of degrees

The question in the scientific community seems to be not whether we will see change but how much we will see. “The confidence that something is going to happen is exceedingly high,” said Stephen Schneider, Ph.D., professor of biology and interdisciplinary environmental studies at Stanford University and a leading proponent of climate change adaptation. “Where it gets a bit more speculative is with questions like how many meters of sea level rise we will see and what the changes in rainfall will look like,” Schneider told BuildingGreen. He suggests that the extent of change depends on a few primary factors, including the speed with which the climate responds to varying concentrations of greenhouse gases, or “climate sensitivity”; the ability of the oceans and land-based ecosystems to absorb carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions; and the robustness of our efforts to curb the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Some effects of the warming planet are already being felt, and further consequences are on their way. These changes will vary from region to region, but general trends include changing precipitation patterns and heavier downpours, even in areas where overall precipitation will decline; longer, hotter, and more frequent heat waves; rising sea levels due to melting glaciers and land-based ice sheets; loss of both sea ice and protective snowpack in coastal areas; stressed water sources due to drought and decreased alpine snowfall; and “positive feedback loops”—consequences of warming that cause further warming, such as melting sea ice decreasing the capacity of the northern oceans to reflect solar radiation back out of the atmosphere. 

Alarmingly, a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by Rick Spinrad, Ph.D., of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and colleagues in 2022 reported that these changes to the earth’s systems due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions will be largely irreversible for 1,000 years after emissions stop. The authors emphasized that if atmospheric CO2 concentrations rise to anywhere between 450–600 ppm (from their current levels around 385 ppm), we will see permanent decreases in dry-season rainfall and “inexorable sea level rise”—between 0.4 and 1.0 meters (15–40 inches) if CO2 concentrations reach 600 ppm, and 0.6 to 1.9 meters (24–75 inches) if concentrations rise above 1,000 ppm—the consequences of which would be catastrophic. Other scientists, including James Hansen, Ph.D., director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, believe that we must reduce CO2 levels to below 350 ppm or risk “irreversible catastrophic effects.”

Adaptation: ‘Not an either-or proposition’

Much of what we already do in green building is related to mitigating (preventing or slowing) our impact on climate change. But given the slow pace of climate policy changes and the still-contentious political climate, we cannot stop greenhouse gas emissions on a dime, which means we are looking at changes to the earth’s systems that could radically alter our way of life. The implications are clear: no amount of mitigation will prevent potentially devastating impacts; it’s necessary for us to adapt.

The human tendency to adapt reactively is well documented, as in the case of New Orleans, where the destruction of Hurricane Katrina laid bare the city’s vulnerability to extreme storms. But proactive adaptation will be necessary to avoid far more widespread impacts of climate change elsewhere. Some municipalities have begun to incorporate climate adaptation provisions into their long-range planning, and in August 2009 California unveiled the first statewide strategy to adapt to climate change which was last updated in 2018.

These policy efforts have been slower than some climate scientists feel is necessary, and some of this may be due to a perception that adaptation initiatives will take time and resources away from mitigation programs. “What should be done about [climate change] is a legitimate debate,” says Schneider, but he argues that ultimately, mitigation and adaptation must complement each other. “The bottom line is that you’ve got to adapt to what won’t get mitigated—and unfortunately that’s going to be a few degrees—and mitigate what you can’t adapt to.” Jonathan Overpeck agrees: “Adaptation and mitigation are not an either-or proposition,” he told BuildingGreen.

Strategies for Adapting to Climate Change

There are many ways in which we can plan today for a changing climate. The strategies described below provide a sampling of ideas; this is not a comprehensive list. Many of these strategies make sense for other reasons, such as reduced operating costs, reduced emissions, and greater durability, but providing resilience to the effects of a changing climate may prove to be the easiest way to justify—or mandate—such changes.

Warmer temperatures

Increasing temperature is at the heart of climate change, and responding to this change is a critical component of any climate-change adaptation strategy. Longer, hotter, and more frequent heat waves raise demands for air-conditioning and increase heat-related deaths and injuries. Heat-adaptive strategies differ markedly by climate—what makes sense in Phoenix, where temperatures in the summer of 2024 have exceeded 118°F (48°C), will be very different from what makes sense in the Arctic, where melting permafrost is already affecting foundation design, according to John Davies, Ph.D., research director at the Cold Climate Housing Research Center in Fairbanks, Alaska.

Design cooling-load-avoidance measures into buildings. Use building geometries to limit solar gain on east and west façades, limit the area of east- and west-facing glazing, incorporate exterior shading devices above glazing, specify glazings tuned to the orientation (glass with a low solar heat gain coefficient on east and west façades), incorporate high insulation levels to reduce conductive heat gain, provide high-albedo (reflective) roofing, and provide optimized daylighting to minimize the use of electric lighting.

Design natural ventilation into buildings. In some climates, particularly those with low relative humidity, buildings can be designed to rely entirely on natural ventilation; in higher-humidity climates natural ventilation may be more practical as a backup cooling strategy that can be used during power outages as a passive survivability measure or during periods when bringing in outside air will not introduce excessive moisture.

Limit internal gains by specifying high-efficiency lighting and equipment. The higher the efficiency of lighting, office equipment, appliances, and mechanical equipment, the less waste heat is generated. In general, equipment choices are less important than design decisions since equipment is replaced more frequently.

Model energy performance with higher cooling design temperatures. With a climate that is projected to become warmer, cooling design temperatures used in energy modeling should be raised. This will help to justify higher investments in cooling-load-avoidance measures. (We’re still likely to see cold winters, so don’t raise the heating design temperatures.)

Provide landscaping to minimize cooling requirements. Trees, vines, annuals, and green roofs can all help control heat gain and minimize cooling demands on a building. Carefully designed landscaping can also help to channel cooling breezes into buildings to enhance natural ventilation. Involve landscape architects or designers at the earliest stage of planning with a new building so that existing vegetation can be preserved to aid in these uses.

Address urban heat islands in building design and landscaping. It is not unusual for urban heat islands to maintain temperatures 6°F–8°F (3°C–4°C) above that of surrounding rural land, according to Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Urban heat islands increase cooling requirements and produce localized smog. Specific measures to reduce urban heat islands include tree planting, installation of green roofs on buildings, roofing with reflective membranes or coatings, and installation of light-colored (higher-albedo) pavement and walkway surfaces. Neighborhood participation and policies that address urban heat islands will help communities achieve the greatest benefit, as these strategies are most effective with widespread implementation.

Plan for termite ranges extending north. Termite ranges are extending north, so measures to exclude or control these insects should be implemented in the northern U.S. and parts of Canada (see BuildingGreen Sept. 2000).

Drought and water shortages

Changes in precipitation patterns are an expected outcome of climate change, so designing for drought is a high priority in many regions. Even in places that receive relatively high levels of precipitation, such as the southeastern U.S., drought can occur, as we learned in 2007 and 2012 when Lake Lanier, the Atlanta area’s primary water source, shrank to historically low levels. Places that have not traditionally had to deal with drought are less prepared to respond. Emergency water-use restrictions are commonly imposed during drought, but there are design- and planning-related measures that can reduce the risk and lessen the difficulty or long-term impacts of response.

Avoid new development in the driest regions. An obvious, but remarkably rare, response to expected water shortages and drought is to restrict new development in areas most likely to be affected. California has a provision requiring developers of large projects (over 500 housing units) to demonstrate that there will be an adequate water supply for 20 years before a building permit is issued. It is likely that much broader building moratoriums will become necessary in many areas in the future, and it makes sense for municipalities to establish procedures today that will enable such measures to be instituted when and if they become necessary.

Specify water-efficient fixtures and appliances. Most water fixtures and equipment are replaced relatively often—many cycles within the lifespan of a typical building—but this doesn’t mean you shouldn’t install state-of-the-art water-conserving products when any new building is constructed or an existing building is renovated. Building owners should ensure that any replacements are state-of-the-art as well.

Plumb buildings with water-conserving fixtures in mind. In homes, structured plumbing (sometimes referred to as “home-run” systems), in which individual piping lines (PEX tubing) run to each fixture or appliance from a central manifold, allows smaller-diameter lines to feed water-conserving fixtures. For example, if a water-saving, 0.5 gallon per minute (1.9 lpm), lavatory faucet is supplied by a 3⁄4" (19 mm) pipe, there will be a long wait for hot water. The wait time (and water waste) can be significantly reduced by running a 3⁄8"-diameter (10 mm) line to this feature.

Plumb buildings for graywater separation. Even if graywater collection is not permitted today, it makes sense to plumb wastewater lines to simplify the installation of a graywater system in the future. (See BuildingGreen April 2008 for more on graywater.)

Harvest rainwater. In many climates, rainwater can be collected and stored for outdoor irrigation, toilet flushing, and, with proper filtration and treatment, potable uses. By addressing rainwater harvesting during design, it may be possible to locate cisterns high on the building to facilitate gravity distribution—which can be critically important during power outages or emergency situations. Rainwater collection is still illegal in some states, particularly in the West, but that is changing as water shortages become a reality.

Plant native, climatically appropriate trees and other vegetation. Conventional turf requires about 40 inches (1 m) of rainfall per year, distributed evenly over the growing season, and such turf is being planted from Arizona to Maine. Similarly, the same few dozen trees and shrubs are being planted nationwide, no matter what the climate—often locking building owners into decades of watering. When drought emergencies are imposed, such vegetation often dies, unable to survive without irrigation. A better and lower-risk approach is to plant vegetation that is adapted to the local climate and able to survive periodic droughts. Such practice is often referred to as xeriscaping. Areas of turf needed as play areas or for aesthetic reasons can be irrigated with harvested rainwater or graywater as local regulations allow.

More intense storms, flooding, and rising sea levels

According to some experts, the most visible and imminent effects of climate change will likely be the increasing severity of storms. As water temperatures rise in the South Atlantic, tropical storm systems will pick up more energy, resulting in higher-magnitude hurricanes on the Gulf Coast and Eastern Seaboard. Elsewhere, changing precipitation patterns are expected to deliver more rainfall in intense storms that result in river flooding. To complicate matters, development has made our landscapes less able to absorb rainfall, says architect Don Watson, FAIA, who wrote a book on “design for resilience.” “We’ve taken away all the absorptive capacity of our landscapes,” Watson told BuildingGreen. Adapting to climate change will require making our buildings more resilient to storms and flooding. In the longer term, we need to prepare for rising sea levels and restoring the ability of our land to absorb water.

Avoid building in flood zones. Flood zones are expanding—often faster than revisions to zoning regulations, meaning that simply following the law relative to the siting of buildings may not be enough. Instead of designing to 100-year floods, consider designing to 500-year floods, seeking civil engineering or surveyor assistance as needed.

Expand stormwater management capacity and rely on natural systems. More intense storms will strain the capacity of standard stormwater management infrastructure in some areas. Provide larger stormwater conveyance and detention basins, and try to rely on natural features, constructed wetlands, and other ecologically based systems to manage stormwater. “Restore the ecological services of the landscape,” says Watson.

Design buildings to survive extreme winds. The Miami-Dade County Hurricane Code has done a great deal to lessen storm damage in Florida. This sort of code should be adopted much more widely (not just in hurricane-prone areas) to protect buildings from the more severe storms that are expected. Examples of specific measures that impart good wind resistance to a building include installing impact-resistant windows (compliant with Miami-Dade Protocols PA 201, PA 202, and PA 203) or exterior shutters; installing outward-opening doors that are less likely to be pushed inward in intense wind; designing walls to resist uplift using hurricane strapping and other metal fasteners that provide a continuous load path from foundation to roof (see photo above); anchoring walls properly to foundations or frost walls; designing walls to resist shear and lateral forces using engineered wall bracing or shear panels for frame walls and proper use of re-bar for masonry walls; designing roof geometries (such as hip roofs) that are less prone to wind damage than gable roofs; installing continuous roof underlayment; properly installing high-strength roof sheathing (such as 5⁄8" plywood) that will resist uplift; and specifying roofing that has been tested to ASTM standards for wind resistance.

Raise buildings off the ground. In flood-prone areas—even where flooding is only remotely possible—raise buildings or living spaces above ground level to minimize damage in the event of flooding. With any type of pier foundation, use great care to ensure that energy performance and airtightness are not compromised; raised floors are notoriously difficult to insulate and seal.

Specify materials that can survive flooding. Especially in locations where flooding or hurricane damage is likely, use materials that can get wet and then dry out with minimal damage. Such materials include preservative-treated sills and wood framing (choosing environmentally friendly treatments like sodium silicate and borate), fiberglass-faced rather than paper-faced drywall, and tile or resilient flooring rather than carpeting.

Install specialized components to protect buildings from flooding or allow flooding with minimal damage. Breakaway wall panels on pier foundations in flood-prone areas can allow floodwaters to pass under a house without destroying it. Flood vents (permanent openings in foundation walls) allow floodwaters to escape. Specialized flood barriers, such as products made by Savannah Trims (www.floodbarriers.net), can keep rising floodwaters out in certain situations.

Elevate mechanical and electrical equipment. To minimize damage—and danger—from flooding, elevate mechanical equipment, electrical panels, and other equipment above a reasonably expected flood level.

Install check valves in sewer lines. These prevent floodwaters from backing up into drains in a building—which can occur when sewers or combined storm sewers are overloaded.

Begin planning for rising sea levels in coastal areas. Some of our largest population centers and a number of resort developments are located in low-lying coastal areas that are vulnerable to rising sea levels. Considerable planning will be needed to protect buildings and infrastructure in such places—ranging from construction of levees and flood walls to reconfiguring entire coastal landscapes in ways that minimize risks from rising sea levels. In some areas, it will be necessary to move entire cities and towns. We need to begin planning for such monumental efforts in a serious way.

Wildfire

In certain climates and ecosystems, climate change will increase the risk of wildfire—particularly in the West but also in other areas where it is not common today. The concern is exacerbated by development that has sprawled into chaparral areas that are managed by periodic fire. Most homes that are ignited by wildfires catch fire from airborne embers (firebrands) that may extend ahead of a wildfire by a mile or more. Measures described here largely concern residential buildings, which comprise most of the structures being built in wildfire-prone areas.

Specify Class A roofing. The roof is the most vulnerable component of a house to wildfire, according to the Center for Fire Research and Outreach at the University of California, Berkeley. Standard tile roofs are particularly vulnerable to wildfire, because wind-blown embers can enter attics through gaps in the tile. To reduce risk, a Class A “assembly rating,” for roofing, which addresses both the roofing and underlying components, should be specified (based on ASTM E-108 testing). Complex rooflines with dormers, valleys, and other architectural features increase risk because pine needles and other debris accumulate in these places and can catch fire from blowing embers.

Eliminate gutters or design and maintain them to minimize fire risk. Embers can quickly ignite pine needles and other debris caught in gutters, which can then impinge on the roof-edge assembly. Both metal and vinyl gutters are problematic—noncombustible metal gutters stay in place when burning, thus exposing the roof edge to fire, while vinyl gutters typically melt and fall off but continue burning on the ground, exposing siding to fire. Eliminating gutters and providing moisture management in some other way is one option in fire-prone areas. If gutters are used, screening and other features can help keep gutters free of debris, though some trap debris above the gutter. Diligent cleaning of gutters by homeowners is of paramount importance.

Avoid vented roofs or protect vents from ember entry. Embers entering a roof through soffit vents are one of the leading causes of home ignition during wildfires. The best option is to design—and carefully build—an unvented (or hot) roof; great care is required to control air leakage and moisture entry. Where vents are used in wildfire areas, maximum 1⁄8" (3 mm) screening should be used, but even this can admit some embers. Specialized soffit venting products are available to minimize risk. While some wildfire design guides suggest limiting roof overhangs (soffit depths) because they can trap pockets of heated air, this conflicts with moisture-control benefits of deep overhangs, and the Berkeley Center for Wildfire Research and Outreach recommends maintaining deep overhangs.

Install high-performance, tempered windows. Window glass breaks from thermal stresses during a fire, allowing fire to enter the house. Double- and triple-glazed windows are less prone to breakage during a fire than single-glazed windows, and tempered or reinforced glass further helps prevent breakage.

Choose deck materials carefully. Plastic and wood-plastic composite decks are fairly vulnerable to fires. Solid wood decking is surprisingly resistant to wildfire, though some treated decking products, such as OnWood, offer significantly better fire resistance. Generally more important than the decking materials is the management of the deck area and keeping combustible vegetation and other material away from it. Patios provide a safer alternative to decks.

Install noncombustible siding. While siding is less often the point of home ignition in a wildfire than the roof, windows, or vents, it can be the weak point if these other components are particularly fire-safe or if an adjacent structure catches fire. Non-combustible options include fiber-cement siding, metal siding,three-coat stucco, and brick. Wood siding can be made “ignition-resistant” by treating it with an exterior fire-retardant chemical.

Manage vegetation around homes. In wildfire-prone areas, fire-safe landscaping around a home is very important. Recommended practices include keeping dry grasses, brush, and dead leaves at least 30 feet (10 m) from the house (more on a slope); maintaining firefighter access around the house; selecting drought-tolerant, high-moisture-content plants; pruning trees to maintain at least 10 feet (3 m) between branches and the roof; and pruning lower branches of trees near homes to eliminate “fire ladders” that allow fires to reach tree canopies. Some homeowners go so far as to keep all vegetation away from a home, maintaining instead a barren “mulch” of crushed stone; such an extreme measure should not be required in most places. See references, including Firewise.org, for more recommendations.

Power interruptions

Some of the likely impacts of climate change, such as intense storms and flooding, can cause power outages directly. Drought can also cause power outages indirectly if lack of cooling water for power plants results in rolling blackouts or brownouts. Adapting buildings to climate change should include measures that will make those buildings less affected by power outages. This is one of the key tenets of passive survivability, detailed in BuildingGreen May 2006.

Design buildings to maintain passive survivability. Homes, apartment buildings, schools, hospitals, and certain other public buildings should be designed to maintain livable conditions in the event of loss of power or heating fuel, or shortages of water—a design criterion known as passive survivability. Specific strategies include an extremely high-performance building envelope (high insulation levels, triple-glazed windows in cooler climates, etc.), cooling-load-avoidance features, natural ventilation, and passive solar heating.

Provide dual-mode operability with high-rise buildings. Look into designing tall buildings that will operate in normal mode when utility power is available, and in an emergency passive mode during power outages or when site-generated power is used. In the passive mode, electricity flow would be limited to critical needs such as elevators, ventilation fans, heating system pumps and fans, fire suppression systems, critical lighting, and so forth, so that the building could maintain limited functionality rather than having to be evacuated.

Design mechanical systems to operate on DC power. If mechanical systems are designed with DC-powered pumps, motors, and fans, they can be more easily switched to non-grid power, which could be provided by backup generators or renewable energy systems.

Provide site-generated electricity from renewable energy. Incorporate photovoltaic panels into buildings or link buildings with other nearby renewable energy sources such as stand-alone wind turbines or small hydropower facilities.

Provide solar hot water. Install solar water-heating systems. Especially appropriate are systems that can operate passively or that rely on integral photovoltaic modules to operate pumps so that functionality is maintained during power outages.

In urban and suburban areas, maintain access to the sun. Site-generated electricity and solar-thermal energy will become increasingly important with climate change, and being able to retrofit buildings for solar electricity, water heating, space heating, and absorption or evaporative cooling will depend on solar access. Solar access should be mandated by zoning and other provisions.

Plan and zone communities to maintain functionality without power. Incorporate measures for ensuring mobility, access to key services, and general functionality during power outages or gasoline shortages through effective municipal planning and zoning. Providing high-density, pedestrian-friendly, mixed-use communities surrounded by farmland and open space should be a high priority among planners.

Looking to the Future

Most of these strategies for adapting buildings to the effects of climate change are relatively straightforward—and eminently doable. It makes sense to incorporate these into our design palette today. There are other challenges that are likely to be far more complex, requiring significant cultural and economic shifts if we are to adapt to a future that is not only warmer but must function without petroleum. Alternate transportation systems, new agricultural practices and food systems, more localized economies, and stronger neighborhood and community networks will make us more resilient to changes and uncertainty in a way that simply building better buildings cannot. The adaptive measures addressed here give us something we can think about and act upon today. The good news is that many of these measures also help to mitigate climate change—and quite a few reduce building operating costs or improve durability, benefiting building owners as well as the future of the planet.

For more information:

Federal Alliance for Safe Homes (FLASH)

Tallahassee, Florida

877-221-7233

www.flash.org

Federal Energy Management Agency (FEMA)

Washington, D.C.

800-621-3362

www.fema.gov

Published August 28, 2009

Polystyrene Insulation: Does It Belong in a Green Building?

Buildings on Ice: Making the Case for Thermal Energy Storage

The Living Building Challenge: Can It Really Change the World?

The Folly of Building-Integrated Wind

Feature

The Folly of Building-Integrated Wind

Wind turbulence, safety, cost, and poor performance all make building-integrated wind a limited strategy.

The appeal of integrating wind turbines into our buildings is strong. Rooftops are elevated above ground, where it’s windier; the electricity is generated right where it’s needed; and wind energy can make a strong visual statement. Dozens of start-up wind turbine manufacturers have latched onto this idea since it fits well with a strong public sentiment to shift from fossil fuels to renewables. The 30% tax credit for the technology (that’s 30% without a cap) provides a strong financial incentive. A year ago, Mayor Michael Bloomberg even suggested building-integrated wind as a greening strategy for New York City’s many tall buildings. What’s not to like about it?

It turns out that, despite some benefits, building-integrated wind doesn’t make much sense as a renewable-energy strategy. In this article, we’ll examine both the pros and cons of this technology, look at some examples of how it’s been tried, and explain why it’s usually a bad idea.

Context for Building-Integrated Wind

The wind power industry has gone through a steady evolution since the 1970s, when interest in generating electricity from the wind was reawakened. Wind turbines from the early 1970s were generally small, a few kilowatts (kW) in rated output, and most were for residential applications. Aided by significant research support from the U.S. Department of Energy, the wind industry pursued the significant economies of scale with larger turbines, leading to machines with output in the tens of kW, then hundreds of kW, then in the megawatt (MW) scale.

Another major shift, starting in the 1980s, was to aggregate wind turbines into wind farms. By situating multiple wind turbines close to each other on windy ridges, such as Altamont Pass and Tehachapi Pass in California, maintenance could be more efficient, and power could more easily be fed into the utility grid.

Some suggest that a third shift is underway today: putting wind turbines on top of buildings or integrating them into buildings in other ways.

The Case for Building-Integrated Wind

Wind speed typically increases with height, as it is less affected by trees and surrounding topography. Putting wind turbines on top of buildings—especially tall buildings—should allow them to take advantage of height without an expensive, full-size tower.

In some cases, building geometry can enhance wind turbine performance. Several manufacturers of building-integrated wind turbines are taking advantage of the increased wind velocities at building parapets—where the wind rises up the façade of a large building and curls over the edge. Some architects are designing wind scoops right into the structures of buildings or situating building towers to funnel wind into turbines.

Most of our electricity is used in buildings, and generating the electricity on site reduces the need for transmission. This in turn reduces transmission losses as well as the materials needed for wiring and poles. In addition to this practical benefit, wind turbines spinning on a building provide a visible testament to a building owner’s commitment to the environment. While building-integrated photovoltaics (PV) can make a similar statement, the modules just sit there; we don’t see them generating electricity.

Finally, many consider wind turbines to be beautiful. The graceful AeroVironment wind turbines that top an office building at Logan International Airport are an aesthetic feature. Architects and building owners spend a lot of money on non-functional, decorative elements of buildings; why not install decorative elements that actually do something?

Facing Up to Reality

Unfortunately, building-integrated wind often doesn’t live up to its promise. The turbines must overcome several challenges to meet performance expectations and be cost effective.

Turbulent Air Flow

The best wind-turbine performance happens with strong laminar wind, in which all of the air flows in a single direction. But on top of even very tall buildings, wind flow is highly turbulent. Bob Thresher, director of the National Wind Technology Center at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Golden, Colorado, explains that as wind flow comes over the edge of a roof or around a corner, it separates into streams. “Separating the flow creates a lot of turbulence,” he told EBN.

According to Ron Stimmel, the small wind technology expert at the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), this turbulent flow confuses a wind turbine, affecting its performance. “Even if it feels really windy [on top of a building], it’s probably more turbulent than steady wind,” he said. A common rule of thumb, according to Stimmel, is to elevate a wind turbine at least 30 feet (9 m) above anything within a 500-foot (150 m) radius, including the building itself.

What about the increased wind velocity at building parapets that manufacturers like AeroVironment use? Although AeroVironment’s turbines successfully harvest this band of higher-velocity wind, they do so only in a fairly narrow band, which limits the potential size and output of wind turbines. Because the turbines are small, the economics are not as attractive as with larger wind turbines.

Noise and vibration

Noise and vibration from wind turbines are among the greatest obstacles to integrating them into buildings. Based on the recent surge in building-integrated wind, one might think that engineers had beaten this problem. In truth, some wind turbines are a lot quieter than others—vertical-axis machines among them—but managing noise and vibration remains a huge challenge. Roger Frechette, P.E., of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (SOM) in Chicago, who led the engineering team on the Pearl River Tower, opted for vertical-axis turbines to minimize noise and vibration but still put them in unoccupied “technical floors” to isolate them from occupants in the building.

Engineer Paul Torcellini, P.E., Ph.D., of NREL points out that the vibration from wind turbines is variable. He said that with HVAC fans on buildings, where the frequency of the fan is known, controlling the vibration and noise requires carefully engineered housings and mounting systems to isolate that vibration from the building—and it’s still a problem.

In one of the only extensive surveys of actual performance of building-integrated wind turbines (the Warwick Wind Trials Project, the only turbines able to generate close to their projected electricity output were mounted on high-rise apartment buildings. And these wind turbines remained switched off throughout most of the test period because of complaints from the residents about noise.

If you try to put a turbine on a tower on top of a building—to get away from the turbulent flow and into the most productive wind—the stresses on the building are magnified. Randy Swisher, the past executive director of AWEA, notes that wind turbines are subjected to a great deal of stress, and if installed on a building, “that stress can be transmitted to the building structure, creating substantial problems.”

Experts

EBN interviewed explained that turbulent flow creates stress on the drive gear in a turbine, creating vibrations. These vibrations can, in turn, create harmonic resonances within a building structure. Metal roof decks made from thin roll-formed steel sheet, common in commercial buildings, can act like drumheads and amplify these resonances. In fact, AeroVironment, the building-integrated wind energy company that has done more than any other to understand the aerodynamics of wind around buildings, suggests in its sales literature that their turbines are only appropriate for buildings constructed of concrete.

Safety

One of the inherent fears aroused by installing wind turbines on buildings is that blades might fly off and injure people or property. It is not unheard of for large, free-standing wind turbines to occasionally shed a blade. On a ridgetop or in a large field, these accidents are unlikely to cause serious damage, but on a tall building in a city or even on a house, they could be a real problem. Even if the building owner is willing to accept that risk, the insurance company may not be.

Though EBN found no evidence of injury or damage from building-integrated wind turbines, a building such as the Bahrain World Trade Center, with its 95-foot-diameter (29 m) rotors, might not be insurable in the risk-averse and litigious North American market.

Poor measured performance

Despite the growing number of building-integrated wind turbine installations around North America and the rest of the world, obtaining actual measured performance data is like pulling teeth. Most manufacturers of these wind systems either claim not to have such data or are unwilling to share it. The reason for this reluctance may be that actual electricity production is much worse than expected.

Manufacturers publish power curves for their turbines that show projected electricity outputs at different wind speeds. There is also a rated power output at a specific wind speed, though the wind speed used for this rated output differs among manufacturers. Referring to small-scale, rooftop wind turbines, Ron Stimmel of AWEA said that “it’s very, very difficult to get them to perform at anywhere near their rated capacities.” He told EBN that he has yet to find one that achieves its expected performance.

The municipal utility company Madison Gas and Electric, in Wisconsin, set out last year to find out for itself whether small-scale, building-integrated wind made sense. The company installed a vertical-axis wind turbine made by the Finnish company Windside, whose turbines are widely installed on rooftops in Europe. Madison Gas and Electric installed a turbine on a pole, with the top at 42 feet (13 m)—about the height it would be on a one-story commercial building—and has been tracking performance continually since November 2008.

According to senior engineer David Toso, P.E, the 12-foot-tall (3.7 m) by 3-foot-diameter (0.9 m) WS-4C turbine is rated at 10 kW AC power output, but he has never seen it produce more than 600 watts—6% of its rated output—even on a very windy day. The turbine cost $40,000 and was purchased from Bright Idea Energy Solutions in Evansville, Indiana (which is no longer distributing the Windside product, although the company does offer a similar, U.S.-made product). When EBN checked the real-time cumulative electricity production from the wind turbine in early April 2009 (go to www.mge.com and click on “Our Environment”), we found that it had produced only 33 kWh total in four months—about a quarter kWh per day. “Either someone was too aggressive with their projections, or they missed a decimal point,” Toso told EBN. “They’re not quite ready for prime time.”

Power generation systems are typically rated by a capacity factor, which is the percent of electricity generated compared with the output if the system were operating at the rated capacity over that time period (although with wind turbines there is no standard for the wind speed on which the rated capacity is based). Freestanding wind turbines in good wind sites typically operate at a 10% to 30% capacity factor—the better the site, the higher the capacity factor. By this analysis, the Madison Gas and Electric wind turbine is operating at a capacity factor of just 0.11%. Fixed-pitch PV systems in selected cities, by comparison, have capacity factors ranging from 11% in Seattle to 18% in Tucson, according to data supplied by Steven Strong of Solar Design Associates.

The previously mentioned Warwick Wind Trials Project in the U.K. measured turbine performance of 26 building-mounted wind turbines from October 2007 through October 2008 and found an average capacity factor of 0.85%. All were very small (“microwind,” defined as less than 2 kW) turbines, including the Ampair 600 (600 W), Zephyr Air Dolphin (1,000 W), Eclectic D400 StealthGen (400 W), and Windsave WS1000 (1,000 W). For each installation, measured electricity production was compared with predicted production based on the manufacturers’ supplied power curves and both predicted and measured wind speeds. The study found that predicted performance exceeded actual performance by a factor of 15 to 17. With the worst-performing systems, the electricity required to run the electronics exceeded the electricity production, so the wind turbines were net consumers of electricity!

A 2008 report on 19 small wind turbines installed in Massachusetts, written by the Cadmus Group with support of the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative, found far lower performance than expected. While these were freestanding rather than building-integrated turbines, the measured capacity factor was just 4%, versus the projected 10%. In other words, the performance was 60% worse than predicted. Various reasons were given as to why this large discrepancy may exist, including inaccurate wind speed estimates, incorrect power curves, inverter inefficiencies, and greater losses due to site conditions (turbulence and wind shear) than expected.

Even AeroVironment’s wind turbines, are not performing at the level the company had originally hoped for. Since 2006, when their parapet-optimized wind turbine was introduced (see EBN Aug. 2006), the company has adjusted downward its expectations of energy production, according to Paul Glenney, director of AeroVironment’s Energy Technology Center, though installations are matching their predicted power curves.

Cost-effectiveness

Perhaps the greatest impediment to building-integrated wind energy is the economics. While large free-standing wind turbines provide the least expensive renewable electricity today, small wind turbines are far less cost effective, and when small turbines are put on buildings, the costs go up while the production drops.

How does building-integrated wind compare with PV? AeroVironment installations have been running at $6,500–$9,000 per kW of installed capacity, which is fairly close to the cost of PV installations, which averaged $7,600 in 2007, according to a February 2009 report from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. An AeroVironment wind system will deliver, according to Glenney, 750–1,500 kWh annually per kW of rated capacity (depending on the wind resource), while a fixed-pitch, commercial-scale PV system will deliver annually 1,100–1,200 kWh/kW of rated capacity in Boston and 1,400–1,560 kWh/kW in Tucson, according to data provided by Strong.

When you factor in the fact that the PV system is likely to deliver closer to its rated output on a building than the building-integrated wind system, while costing less to maintain, PV is just a better deal. According to Paul Gipe, a leading advocate of wind power for 30 years and author of numerous books on the topic, if you’re looking to put renewable energy on buildings, “there’s nothing better than photovoltaics.”

Wind turbines as advertising

Putting wind turbines on a building to advertise the greenness of a company or organization is a compelling idea—as long as those turbines spin most of the time. In Golden, Colorado, a Southwest Windpower Skystream turbine was installed at a dental office to make a statement about renewable energy and demonstrate wind energy. The problem, according to a few residents of the area, is that it’s hardly ever spinning, especially during the morning rush hour when commuters are driving by. A lot of commuters who pass this turbine may conclude that wind energy doesn’t work very well.

Products

Quite a few manufacturers offer wind turbines for rooftop installation. The following is a small sampling of what’s available today.

AeroVironment AVX1000

Arguably, the world leader in rooftop wind technology today is AeroVironment and its Architectural Wind division, based in Monrovia, California. In 2006, the company introduced a 400-watt wind turbine designed to take advantage of concentrated wind at the parapets of commercial buildings. That initial model has been replaced by the AVX1000, an elegant, lightweight, 1 kW turbine that bends gracefully from a mounting base on a building’s parapet. The turbines are designed to be installed in a row; 20 grace a Massachusetts Port Authority (MassPort) administrative office building at Logan Airport in Boston.

AeroVironment has pursued horizontal-axis, rather than vertical-axis, wind turbines. Vertical-axis machines “are inherently less efficient by a wide margin,” according to Glenney. “Our patent for leveraging the accelerated wind flow includes vertical-axis wind turbines, but we’ve never pursued them simply because the lower efficiency significantly increases turbine size and, thus, material costs,” he said.

Aerotecture International helical rotor wind turbines

Aerotecture founder Bill Becker, a professor at the University of Illinois, invented this unique wind turbine, described on the company website as a “helical rotor and airfoils housed within … a steel cage.” The lightweight, 10-foot-tall by 5-foot-diameter (3 x 1.5 m) 510V turbine is designed for vertical mounting and rated at 1 kW output—at 32 miles per hour (14 meters per second). While the 510V turbine is rated at 32 mph, the power curve for the unit shows less than 200 watts of output in 20 mph (9 m/s) wind. The cut-in windspeed (when the turbine begins generating electricity) is listed as 6.3 mph (2.8 m/s). The slightly modified 520H is made up of two 510V turbines that are installed horizontally; it is rated at 1.8 kW at 32 mph.

Eight 520H Aerotecture wind turbines were installed on a Mercy Housing Lakefront single-room occupancy building in Chicago in May 2007. Each of these was rated at 1.5 kW (somewhat lower than the currently listed rated output for the 520H)—for a total rated capacity of 12 kW. Unfortunately, there is no data available on the actual performance of these turbines. Aerotecture would not return EBN’s calls, referring us to a public relations agency, which told us by e-mail that “the company is focused on internal development not media coverage at this point, so it’s frankly just not possible to get your query on the agenda.”

Larry McCarthy, the vice president for property management at Mercy Housing Lakefront, told EBN that the turbines “are not all working at this time,” adding that a couple of the alternators are frozen up. A Chicago resident EBN spoke with said he has “rarely seen more than one of the turbines rotating and often not even one.”

Windside and GUS vertical-axis wind turbines

Made in Finland by Oy Windside Production, Windside turbines are Savonius-style, vertical-axis turbines made by forming two spiral vanes (photo page 15). The design was developed in 1979 by Risto Joutsiniemi, and the turbines have been on the market since 1982. Used for charging batteries in harsh, cold climates (they are manufactured just 250 miles, or 400 km, south of the Arctic Circle), some of the turbines are designed for operation in winds up to 130 mph (60 m/s). It is a Windside turbine that is being tested by Madison Gas & Electric in Wisconsin, and these turbines are planned for the Pearl River Tower. The turbines are claimed to be virtually silent: less than 2dB at two meters, according to Raigatta Energy, the Canadian distributor.

The installer of the Wisconsin turbine, Bright Idea Energy Solutions of Evansville, Illinois, no longer carries the Windside products, having replaced them with remarkably similar-looking turbines made by the Flagtown, New Jersey company Tangarie Alternative Power. Creede Hargraves of Bright Idea Energy Solutions says the Tangarie turbines (referred to as Greenpower Utility System or GUS turbines) cost half as much as Windside products—though are still far more expensive than the line of free-standing horizontal-axis turbines that the company sells. They are also larger for the same rated output, which should help to avoid the problems being experienced by Madison Gas and Electric. Hargraves said that he will be replacing that Windside turbine with a GUS model in the summer of 2009.

Quiet Revolution QR5 vertical-axis wind turbine

Currently available only in the U.K, Quiet Revolution’s QR5 is an elegant, eggbeater-style (Darrieus) wind turbine with blades and spokes made from carbon and fiberglass. The 16-foot-tall (5 m) by 10-foot-diameter (3.1 m) turbine is designed for mounting on a mast that is installed either stand-alone or on top of a building. The peak DC power output in 31 mph (14 m/s) wind is 6.2 kW, with the British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) rated power output at 24.6 mph (11 m/s) is 3 kW DC. Power generation can begin at 10 mph (4.5 m/s), and the turbine cuts out at 36 mph (16 m/s). Data from the company on noise production from the turbine shows about 50 dB(A) at 13 mph (6 m/s) and 58 dB(A) at 22 mph (10 m/s). The company’s website lists the price for the turbine and control electronics at 29,600 British Pounds (about $43,000), plus mast and installation.

To date, more than 65 Quiet Revolution turbines have been installed in the U.K., and expansion to other countries is anticipated in 2010 or 2011, according to Phillipa Rogers of the company.

Swift Wind Turbine

Designed and developed by the Scottish company Renewable Devices, the unique carbon-fiber rotor is now being manufactured by Cascade Engineering in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Cascade Engineering will be manufacturing all Swift rotors worldwide and assembling all components of the Swift turbine for the U.S. market. The 7-foot-diameter (2.1 m), five-blade turbine with a distinctive outer rim and twin angled positioning fins, is designed for rooftop mounting using an aluminum mast with a minimum clearance from the roof of two feet (0.6 m). The manufacturer claims its operation to be nearly silent (less than 35 dB in all winds). The turbine is rated at 1.5 kW in 31 mph (14 m/s) wind, and annual production is estimated at “up to 2,000 kWh.” The average cost is $10,000 to $12,000, according to the company.

Final Thoughts

I want to like building-integrated wind. There’s a wonderful synergy in the idea of combining form and function by generating electricity with turbines that reach into the sky on the buildings they will help to power. But in most cases, at least with today’s technology, it just doesn’t make sense.

There is a huge economy of scale with wind power. This has fueled the evolution of ever-larger wind turbines from a few kW of capacity in the 1970s to a few MW today. Small turbines, even stand-alone, pole-mounted turbines, are not very cost-effective. When we put those small turbines on top of buildings, the costs go up and the performance goes down.

Rooftop installations—even the best of them—are too small to be cost-effective, and the air flow too turbulent to be effectively harvested—whether vertical-axis or horizontal-axis. The truly integrated installations that are large enough to generate significant power will be too hard to permit or insure in North America to become a serious option, even if the vibration and noise concerns are successfully addressed.

Paul Gipe vociferously discourages building-integrated wind. Wind just isn’t a good fit, he argues. Cost-effective wind turbines are “too big for the structure of buildings.”

Wind energy has a very important role to play in our energy future, but it is with large, freestanding wind turbines, located on ridgelines, in Midwestern agricultural fields, or in offshore wind farms. The bottom line regarding cost is that while large stand-alone wind farms provide the least expensive renewable electricity today, small, building-integrated wind turbines provide electricity that is more expensive than that produced by PV, while the turbines are more costly to maintain and less dependable.

By all means, power your buildings with wind energy, but do it on a larger scale, remotely, where the turbines can operate in laminar-flow winds and where their vibrations and noise won’t affect buildings and building occupants.

For more information:

American Wind Energy Association

www.awea.org

National Wind Technology Center

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

www.nrel.gov/wind

Warwick Wind Trials Project

www.warwickwindtrials.org.uk

Aerotecture International, Inc.

www.aerotecture.com

AeroVironment, Inc.

www.avinc.com

Quiet Revolution, Ltd.

www.quietrevolution.co.uk

Norwin A/S

www.norwin.dk

Swift Wind Turbines

www.swiftwindturbine.com

Tangarie Alternative Power

www.tangarie.com

Windside Turbines

www.windside.com

Published April 29, 2009

Cost-Effective Green Retrofits: Opportunities for Savings in Existing Buildings