Energy and the Living Building Vision

Gone are the days when the Eco-Sense updates bubbled with visions of our dreams, and anecdotal observations of absurdities in our society. Reality is here; now is when we find out whether all our talk and thoughts amount to much. Reality is always more scary than dreams.

Yes the house is sustainable… it is built with clay, sand, straw and pumice; majority of the wood is recycled; and we are the poster child for pooping in a bucket. But the question that remains unanswered is, “Is our modern high tech. mud home efficient?”

Over a year ago we wrote that “just because you’re green doesn’t mean you’re sustainable”. The general premise of the argument is that green building doesn’t account for the excessive embodied-energy technologies and materials required to make a building efficient, and that a building that is sustainable and “a living building” has greater intrinsic value even if it is less efficient.

Before we spew info that will make all the energy nerds excited we best provide some “energy 101” basics.

All energy can be written in different forms. Electrical energy is measured in kilowatts (kW); BC Hydro charges you on how many kW you consume. Human energy comes in the form of calories; the bathroom scale measures you on how many calories you consume. Thermal energy (heat energy) has many forms, but a common one is BTUs (British Thermal Units). The one thing that can be done with all energy forms, is to translate them into the same unit. We have translated all the energy numbers into kW, as this is the most commonly understood, (and the average hydro customer can put a price on it). More specifically we observe kW in the form of the number of kilowatts consumed over a period of time (kilowatt hours, kWhr), and the space that they are consumed in (kilowatt hours per meter2, or kWhr/m2).

So here we are. Ready? How do we compare to the average, or even to the “Cadillac” of energy efficient homes. (Or perhaps more appropriately, the “Prius” of energy efficiency would be more appropriate. Maybe even in our case, the “bicycle” of energy efficient homes. ) First a quick rundown of some energy consumption figures on housing:

· NRCan’s Nation Energy Use Database (NEUD) shows the BC average at 188.8 kWhr/m2.

· An R2000 home consumes 30% less energy than a standard home, is characterized by a rating of 80 on the Everguide Rating System. This translates into an average of 132 - 139.3 kWhr / m2 per year.

· The Passivhaus standard for central Europe requires that the building fulfills the following requirements:[12][13] (Wikipedia)

o The building must not use more than 15 kWh/m² per year (4746 btu/ft² per year) in heating and cooling energy.

o Total energy consumption (energy for heating, hot water and electricity) must not be more than 42 kWh/m² per year [14]

o Total primary energy consumption (primary energy for heating, hot water and electricity) must not be more than 120 kWh/m² per year (3.79 × 104 btu/ft² per year)

Brief over view of Eco-Sense energy inputs and energy consumption
(This data is gathered over many years… one to be exact…)

(The specifics of these numbers and how they are gathered will be part of the detailed co-authored paper, with our Engineer, Kris Dick , which will be open for peer review).

Annual wood usage

· 2.5 cords hemlock = 11,722.8 kWhr

Annual Solar Thermal Gain

· 60 Mazdon tubes produce annual feed = 2926 kWhr (conservative)

Annual Electrical Energy Inputs

· 2KW array = 4380 kWhr (based on average of 6 hours per day and net zero)

Total energy consumed (by home and its six occupants)

· 19,028.8 kWhrs

· 7.67 kWhr/ft2 (82.5 kWhr/m2), (based on exterior footprint area)

Compared to the Passivhaus standards we use more energy inputs for heating and hot water, at 66KWhr/m2 versus their 42KWhr/m2. But we kick butt on the over all energy numbers where we are at approximately 85KWhr/m2 versus the Passivhaus total of 120 kWhr/m2.

We are 48% more efficient than an R2000 home, the “Cadillac” of energy efficiency in Canada. As compared to the average house in BC we are 67% more efficient. All of this while being more affordable too.

So in summary… we kicked butt!

With all this sustainable and exciting energy news we have finally applied to the “Living Building Challenge” (LBC). During all our tours we talk about our home as being fully integrated into the eco-system that sustains it where there is no division between the dwelling, the occupants, and the environment. Energy and resources flow between them all just like in nature with no waste generated. Maybe we will be the first to qualify for this designation under this Cascadia vision (a chapter of the US and Can. Green Building Councils). But even if we don’t meet all of the prerequisites a great deal will be shared and learned from our experiences.

So we will end the month with a quote we just came across.

“What’s important, is to understand the difference between vision and programs. Programs are inherently reactionary. This doesn’t make them ‘bad’, it just makes them reactionary, meaning that they always follow, never lead…by contrast vision doesn’t wait for something bad to happen, it pursues something desirable. Vision doesn’t oppose; it proposes. It doesn’t stave off defeat; it opens the way to success.” Quote by Daniel Quinn

Ann and Gord Baird