The conundrum aspiring super heroes face is: “How can I stop global warming when most of my time is spent finding ways to reduce costs?” The key to solving this perplexing equation is buried at the bottom of page 48 in the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) EnergyStar® and Other Voluntary Programs 2001 Annual Report.
There, the EPA states that in 2000, a total of 1.64 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) was emitted into the atmosphere for every kilowatt-hour of electric generation. The EPA calculates that continuing investments in energy efficiency will reduce the marginal emission rate over time. In 2005, it drops to 1.20 lbs. CO2/kWh.
In 2010, it drops to 1.09 lbs. CO2/kWh. In short, a domino effect occurs. You save money by reducing energy consumption, which reduces CO2 emissions, which helps reduce global warming.
The Greenhouse Effect
We know that the greenhouse effect is real. Without the heat-trapping effect of water vapor, CO2, methane, and other naturally occurring greenhouse gases, our planet would be a cold, lifeless rock. As part of nature’s carbon cycle, some of these emissions are captured and stored in the oceans, forests, and agricultural land.
Over the past 200 years, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen from 280 parts per million to a current level of 375 parts per million. It is expected to increase to 550 parts per million by 2050. This increase is the result of mankind’s use of fossil fuels, and, to a lesser degree, deforestation and other land-use changes. Consequently, both surface temperatures and sea levels have been rising for some time.
Scientists had assumed trees and plants would offset much of the global warming to come. This theory is based on two facts: Plants need carbon dioxide to grow, and experiments in greenhouses have shown that plants grow better with extra carbon dioxide in the air. This concept was supported by the phenomenon that CO2 emissions were growing faster than the actual level of CO2 in the atmosphere.
However, studies conducted by Duke University and others have concluded that existing forests are not going to solve the problem of rising carbon dioxide. While trees were growing faster, they depleted other nutrients, like nitrogen, from the soil. This accelerated growth accounts for 30 percent of the changes in carbon being stored by plants and soil in the country. Most of the carbon absorption comes from an overlooked but important fact – more trees. In the eastern United States, forests are re-growing on formerly cleared land. In the western states, aggressive fighting of forest fires has allowed forests to grow thicker than in the past.
Planting more trees is a good idea, especially in urban areas. They offer shade, help control rainwater run-off, absorb noise, and generally make cities a better place to live. That’s in addition to their ability to absorb CO2. An average, middle-aged southern pine will absorb about 100 pounds of CO2 during a year, according to William H. Schlesinger, dean of the Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University and author of Forest Ecosystems. Of that 100 pounds, 34 pounds of CO2 will stay out of the atmosphere.
While planting trees is wonderful, it doesn’t get us to a level of net zero CO2 emission. This brings us back to making your CFO happy by reducing costs. The easiest and most efficient way to reduce energy costs is to eliminate unnecessary use, which in turn reduces CO2 emissions.
The average energy consumption for office buildings over 5,000 square feet is 19.6 kWh/sq. ft./yr., according to the EPA. Consumption drops to 12 kWh/sq. ft./yr. or less for the almost 500 office buildings that have qualified for the EnergyStar label. That’s a reduction of 40 percent!
Let’s put this in financial terms. Using data from the Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) International’s 2002 Experience Exchange Report, the average downtown private-sector office building comprises 334,840 square feet. Using an electricity cost of $0.08 per kWh, that’s an annual savings of $205,407 ($0.61/sq. ft.). Better yet, it increases the building’s value by $2.5 million at an 8.25-percent capitalization rate.
From the global warming perspective, this translates into an annual reduction of 2,086 tons of CO2 emissions, or the net CO2 uptake of 122,748 southern pine trees.
Best Strategies to Reduce Electric Consumption
While significant strides have been made in energy conservation, the EPA’s EnergyStar program has demonstrated one can still find energy savings. There are two basic strategies that can be employed to reduce electricity consumption:
*
Better control of building systems.
*
Upgrade building systems with more efficient components.
Operating any building effectively and efficiently is difficult because of the complexity of buildings. Determining the power requirements for lighting, HVAC, and receptacle loads is a moving target based on changing factors such as weather, space use, and work schedules. The process begins with an audit to model usage and pinpoint waste. Remember, no one has found a more effective way of reducing energy costs than eliminating unneeded kWh from their electric bill.
"
Real Estate Designers offers totally innovative solutions for your software
development, Internet programming,
real estate web design and hosting needs. Our service includes domain name
registration and real estate web design. Real Estate Designers provides the
complete solution including design, application development and marketing.
Real Estate Designers offers totally innovative solutions for your software development, Internet programming, real estate web design and hosting needs. Our service includes domain name registration and real estate web design. Real Estate Designers provides the complete solution including design, application development and marketing.
source: buildings.com
No comments:
Post a Comment