Missoula County has officially chosen green as their new motto for remodeling, designing and operating county facilities.  Developed by the county’s new Green Government Committee, the policy states that LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) methods and techniques be incorporated by county offices and departments.

SBS gives this a [green] thumbs up!

According to the policy text, the goals of the county’s policy include improving employee health and productivity and creating local jobs. It’ll also “achieve the highest, most cost-effective environmental performance possible over the life of county projects.”

One part that we at SBS find compelling is the fact that, unlike efforts in King County in WA and Portland, OR, that target a certain level, Missoula will seek “the highest level achievable under LEED that’s cost-effective based on the long-terms costs and the limits of available funding,” according to Peter Nielsen, environmental health supervisor for the City-County Health Department.

This meshes quite will with a large part of the SBS mission – we recognize that cost must play a roll in the planning process of all green building and renewable energy implementation.  It is for this reason that we’ve take a more “realist’s” approach to our energy efficiency and renewable energy work, opposed to an “absolutist’s.”

SBS looks forward to how this will unfold for Missoula County.  To read the rest of the article in the Missoulian, click here.

For more information on SBSs work in renewable energy, energy efficiency, retrofitting, LEED consulting, and more… visit us at www.SBSlink.com.

Molly Bradford
Marketing Director
mbradford@sbslink.com

The Clawson NorthSlope Window, Montana-Made with sustainably harvested Larch and US Glass

Okay, it’s not really our window per se.  But that doesn’t stop us from being excited about SBSs new relationship with the exceptionally rad window.

We are pleased to announce our official relationship as a dealer of one of the most unique, greenest, and most handsome windows manufactured anywhere in the world – the NorthSlope Window by Clawson.  Framed in Treadlight™ larch, harvested only from forest restoration sites, this window highlights the beautiful honey and cinnamon grain and dark pinhole knots of the wood, while giving high performance in energy efficiency and durability.

The NorthSlope Window incorporates a top–of–the–line, energy–efficient spacer system with high–performance, double Low–E glass to offer unmatched thermal performance, meeting Energy Star requirements.  Because these products are manufactured by U.S. regional glass makers, there is the added value of still greater “locally sourced” benefits.  The window contributes toward satisfying several credits under green–building rating systems, including LEED® and NAHB’s National Green Building Program.

Read the rest of the store at Treadlight by NorthSlope Sustainable Wood.

I was emailing recently with Bradley E. Layton  Ph.D., Associate Professor in Mechanical Engineering and Mechanics at Drexel University, after reading his article A COMPARISON OF ENERGY DENSITIES OF PREVALENT ENERGY SOURCES IN UNITS OF JOULES PER CUBIC METER.  We had been bantering back and forth on the concept of simple pay back.  Sometimes if feels like there is really no such thing as simple payback, as we’re not comparing apples to apples.  The goal of his paper is “to provide a new perspective on how to compare energy sources on a more fundamental basis. Finally, the article provides a method of estimating the dollars-per joule for natural resources versus human resources and concludes with commentary on how political decisions may be affected by energy densities and energy costs.”

In the banter relating to the energy analysis SBS gives to a customer after an audit, Layton replied to me:

Dang dude, that’s a lot for one house. Do you give them a “break even” point? I would hate to have to go out and buy an new toilet if I was broke, if I knew it would only save me money on my water bill after I was dead.

Touche!  And right back to simple payback (and his toilet example above).  I agree on the simple payback on a toilet.  I think most folks would.  But we know the value of water and how simple it is to conserve, so we just buy the better toilet without the simple payback analysis.  So how do we get to apples on energy?  Hence, Layton’s article (and my response to his email above.)

Yes, we usually do include pay-back information.

But due to the size of this project and the client’s desires we didn’t feel like we needed to with them.

We’ve also developed some bigger picture financial payback info that looks beyond “simple pay-back” which is typically not a strong selling point of these technologies.

I had a chance to read your article more carefully. Very cool and something we struggle with all the time. (i.e… comparing energy savings between gasoline usage, propane usage, natural gas usage and electricity usage for our customers, each of them using a different measure.)

From a broader picture- here is something to consider: (just very rough notes)

From your article it is so very clear that oil and it’s derivatives are a massively compact and powerful source of energy. As we are forced to transition away from these fuels and from “the age of oil” is there anything on the radar screen technology-wise that offers similar amounts of energy in such a small package with the same mobility? Right now obviously the answer is NO, but can we expect to replace this incredible gift of energy that we have enjoyed for the last 200 years?

From an economic perspective, it is certain that the growth we have experienced in the last 200 years is absolutely tied to the amount of inexpensive energy we have had access to through these liquid fuels. To continue to grow and prosper as a species we must be able to continue to feed at the trough of an INCREASING energy source in a world that shows an ever DECREASING ability to provide this through traditional discovered forms of energy. Is it scientifically realistic to replace the amount of energy consumed currently, and to indeed, increase that level of energy consumption in order to continue to grow? Or are we doomed to run out of energy and see a decrease in growth of the species?

How much of a part does efficiency play in this equation? It seems that we can safely assume that there is generally speaking a 15-20% savings in energy to be had through efficiency measures. World wide we continue to waste large amounts of liquid fuels due to the fact that for so many years the supply was huge and the price was low.  If 15-20% is a safe number for “free, inexpensive efficiency measures that wouldn’t get in the way of growth” than how does that play in the macro environment of overall energy consumed and remaining supply.

STUDY IDEA NUMBER ONE- I suspect, that if one were to look at the overall total of available energy through liquid fuels remaining on the planet, as compared to the growing desire to utilize this energy by the earth’s human population, that we would see a near tragic confluence of graph lines coming in the near future. (20-50 years? or sooner?) Then, if one were to graph in the savings made possible through efficiency and the resulting decreased demand, would things look different? (I hypothesize, not really) Then, if one were to graph in the possible energy savings from current renewable technologies employed on a big scale what would the graph look like then?  Probably quite different, but I’m still not convinced that it can transition us from this oil boom train we have been on for so long, to another train of equal speed and size!

STUDY IDEA NUMBER TWO- Does this mean that we must invent new energy technologies to replace oil and it’s derivatives to sustain our growth as a species? Do we even want to try, given the population of the planet? If we don’t find a replacement at equal price and mobility, should we be working on designing a “soft landing” where the planet’s population will shrink slowly and without major unrest? What does that do our current economic models where shrinkage and non-growth are equated with death?  Can you design a society that is peaceful, sustainable, and healthy in an environment of economic shrinkage?

I’d love to see the first question addressed (simple analysis of the world’s supply of available energy as compared to the world’s appetite for the stuff.) Then so many other questions would come to light.

I’m sure someone is working on this already, if you see something will you pass it along?

Jeff Crouch, President
Sustainable Building Systems, LLC
www.SBSlink.com

By designing and/or building above and beyond the code you will set yourself and your business apart.  And in the process, your high-performance buildings also improves the comfort, safety, health, durability, and affordability of your projects.

Anyone building a new home after June 2010 will have to meet the requirements of the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code® (2009 IECC) for residential buildings. Not only does SBS know WHAT the code requires, we also specialize in HOW to meet it and how to go BEYOND with energy conservation.

Bring yourself up to speed on the significant changes with help from this document on the City of Missoula’s website.  And take a look at our flier on MEETING THE CODE.

builder_energy_rackrcard

Molly Bradford
Marketing Director
mbradford@sbslink.com

The Obama administration has called on Congress to pass a new incentive program for home energy efficiency upgrades called Home star. Created to help bolster the hard hit construction sector and national security by decreasing foreign energy dependence Home star will create tens of thousands of jobs and save home owners billions of dollars in long term energy reductions not to mention green house gases.  Rebates will be provided directly to the consumers and the federal government will reimburse accredited contractors and utilities for efficiency work performed. (SBS does this type of work.)

There are two tiers of the program: Gold star and Silver star.   Gold star is a two-year program that will provide between $3,000-$8,000 for 20%+ modeled savings for home owners.  Homeowners will need an audit by a RESNET HERS Rater or BPI Building Analyst Certified Professional to assess energy savings through improvements before work begins.  Work must be performed by a Gold star accredited contracting company.

Silver star is a one-year program which will qualify homeowners to receive between  $1,000-$1,500 for each qualified efficiency measure, $250 per appliance, with a cap of $3000or 50% of project costs whichever is less. Qualified measures include: air sealing, attic, wall, and crawlspace insulation, duct sealing or replacement, replacement of existing windows, doors, furnaces, air conditioners, heat pumps, water heaters, and appliances with high-efficiency models.  When this bill passes through congress (expected in the next few months) there will be a huge demand for audit and efficiency retrofit work.

The Retrofit for Energy and Environmental Performance (REEP) Program Act has been submitted to the House Energy and Commerce and House Financial Services Subcommitees.  This bill Requires: (1) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop and implement standards for a national energy and environmental building retrofit policy for single-family and multifamily residences; (2) the Secretary of Energy (DOE) to develop and implement standards for a national energy and environmental building retrofit policy for commercial buildings; and (3) the program to implement such policies to be known as the Retrofit for Energy and Environmental Performance (REEP) program.

Requirements of the REEP program: (1) facilitate the retrofitting of existing buildings to achieve maximum cost-effective energy efficiency improvements and significant improvements in water use and other environmental attributes; and (2) provide financial assistance to states, to be administered through the State Energy Program, for management and accomplishment of the program’s objectives at the individual building level. Authorizes states and local agencies to offer free or low-cost building audits, incentives, technical assistance, training, incentive financing, and other forms of assistance to individual building owners. Requires the Administrator and the Secretary to assist states and local agencies in establishing revolving loan funds or other forms of financial assistance.

The Caulkers Bill – or “Cash for Caulkers” has not passed the House.  We think this is good news… but the fight isn’t over yet.  Next it’s to the senate.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h4pIOjTWTl06XsauqI72MEvbYgqAD9FHJ4003

After a little design and deliberation, we have some new marketing pieces… tell us your take:

This is our one page 8.5 x 11 flyer:

SBS_qualifications (click to open)

This is our tri-fold, double sided brochure:

SBS_trifold (click to open)

Thanks in advance for your opinions.

Hello SBS Folks,

As we’ve discussed Jen and I are intent on using our big, old, drafty, inefficient home as a test case and guinea pig for Sustainable Building Systems.

Just how much energy can we save at the “Elrod House”?  If we can show that this house that was built before the turn of the century can be made efficient than it will be proof that we can do it anywhere. And we can show just how much energy could be saved if a larger percentage of existing homes were addressed in the same manner.

Jeff's “Elrod House”

So we’ve been in the house since July of last year and we are already seeing some compelling results. At this point Jen and I have implemented about 3/4 of the easy and cheap energy savings measures. We’ve retrofit about 3/4 of the light bulbs with cfls, we’ve installed and programmed the thermostat to set regular set-backs (a simple technique I’d like to expand on later), we’ve turned the water heater down, insulated the walls and ceilings with urethane spray-foam where we gutted them for the upstairs remodel, and we’ve installed a lot of spray foam in the crawl space, gasketing and thresholds and other air barriers including a quilted curtain at the stairs to the largely un-insulated attic. We’ve also taken simple operational measures like turning the thermostats to 50 when we are gone overnight and replaced one of the original single pain windows with a therma pane unit and covered the rest with plastic film for the winter.

So we are just starting really. New projects will include insulating the attic, insulating the crawlspace, installing a crawlspace vapor barrier, continuing to work on finding air infiltration and sealing it, and eventually installing Solar PV and/or Solar Thermal as well as some energy modeling.

So how are the results looking? Well, I’ve got to say pretty spectacular so far!  The year to year monthly comparison between this winter and last shows that we have reduced our electricity use by about 60% and our gas use by about 15% as compared to the previous owners. The monetary savings are impressive too. We are saving an average of over $3.10 per day on elasticity and over $2.20 per day on gas for a total savings of around $150 per month in these winter months.  And this with just the simplest of measures.

Obviously it’s important to note the differences between the previous owners and us. They had a hot tub which would explain a lot of the electicity savings, and we assume they must have used the electric baseboards that are upstairs as well. (We have barely used them at all) We know that they are both staunch environmentalists who care about global climate change issues, so they were certainly within the realm of SBS clients.  And they were living in the house with just the two professional adults, like us. It is also important to note that Jen and I have not totally traded in our American habits, we didn’t turn the heat off and hunker around a single candle for warmth. For the most part we had the house temperature set to 67 or 68 when we were home and awake; and we still both take pretty long hot showers.

Clearly, this isn’t a scientific analysis and it isn’t meant to be. But it IS a real life example of a house and people who fit the SBS target market. It is just another clear example that we can make a very large dent in our client’s building energy footprints.

Cheers,

Jeff