MAR 17

This does not make sense YET. In order to claim that anything is eco-positive you have to tell at what point a product slips from the eco-negative into the eco-positive.

A building like this will at first be eco-negative. Anything you build requires at first materials and energy. The world would be less polluted if a building like this was not built. But here is the important claim: The building will create more energy than it required to make it. Is that the case? I do not see numbers that tell how much energy it takes to make it. And if yes, when will it have created more than it took to make it? 20 years? 100? Will the building still be in use when that point in time has been reached?

So, is this really eco-positive or is it just less bad? I hope this is not just another example of riding the wave of green products (big and small) that look great, appear green if looked at superficially, and do not much more than make you feel good that we are actually doing something while actually creating little change.

Karsten
--
http://www.polluteless.com
_________________________________________
Living on Earth:
Sufficient resources - Wasteful existence - 6.5 Billion humans; Preserve two and abandon the third.
_________________________________________

Coolest building ever! 8)

I don't think the claim of "eco positive" was made. That would be hard enough to define, let alone claim. But it is a significant step forward in that it will return energy to the grid (making the assumption that energy returned is at least greater than extra energy used to create solar panels, etc.) We're not living in a zero footprint world and I doubt we ever will be--nor do I find it completely desirable. But if we create new buildings that will be built anyways in a more "green" manner that is a good thing. Also, making the most efficient retro-fitting (best example is more efficient power generation rather than throwing out a good used car to buy a Prius). It's a start to living sustainably.

I agree that we can't just stop doing what we do (build stuff, make stuff, use stuff) - and that the most pragmatic solution is to do all of that in as 'sustainable' a manner as possible. However, I think Karsten has a good point. Most people have NO IDEA how much energy is required to create stuff (a plate, a cement block, a car, a hairbrush... anything) and therefore, glamorous, inspiring and innovative projects like the Masdar building look like an easy right decision.
I know it is very hard to measure and harder to report in a way that is simple and relevant, but if part of our decision-making as consumers was informed by knowledge of the embobied energy of a thing, then perhaps we would make different choices (like knowing the calories in food!) The difficulty arrises when similar products are made by different processes or in different places with a different energy mix. How would you account for embodied energy in a product made with coal-fired electricity vs. solar power? The complexities of verification get outa control pretty quickly. The amount energy necessary might be the same, but the impact of that energy use may be very different. Never-the-less, I hope someone develops an embodied energy measure and that we all become much more sophisticated in our understanding of 'energy-' and 'eco-friendly' products and practices.

There is nothing that says "eco positive" it's energy positive(which is true) and an eco initiative. It's a great start and awesome design but what about the cradle to cradle? How about using some better materials.

How the heck can one claim anything to be energy positive if you do not know how much energy it takes to make it? Or how much energy the thing will create in a certain amount of time in a certain period of time?

Think this over for me, OK? One of us is lacking common sense and I will be open to it being me.

Karsten

I think that building looks beautiful, and the fact that it will be energy positive is great. I'm sure it will serve as a great demonstration project for others of its kind.

Karsten, lighten up, will you? Seriously, you are incredibly negative. Every post I've seen you write is about how everything fails to live up to your goal of eco-perfection. The building is energy positive because it produces more power than it needs to run the building. Simple. No need to over-complicate things.

Building something that is beautiful and has such obvious benefits is a nice step in the right direction, especially when most everything else is built without such factors taken into consideration. This is a good thing and all you can think of is to complain about details that aren't even relevant to the purpose of the project?

You utterly miss the point of this website. How about trying to muster a little sense of wonder at the cool things that people all over the world are trying to do to make the world a better place? Maybe the thing someone does isn't going to answer all our problems, or even the one they were trying to solve. So what? They tried, and what they tried is probably kinda interesting and geeky, which is why it's here.

Maybe pointing out the flaws in everyone else's ideas is your calling, but being negative about everything isn't very helpful either.

.. is paved with good intentions.

Hey, I appreciate cool stuff. Or let's say "used to". I still do but it is becoming harder. I came to my senses. This may of course be temporarily. I may run out of steam and before I get too frustrated just jump right back into celebrating modern life while rushing towards the abyss blind-folded. Until then, some one has to point out where there are short-falls.

I will be HAPPY if there are projects I cannot find anything wrong with. That does not mean nothing is wrong with them. That just means that they are not obviously wrong, misleading, or irrational.

Of course I am in favor of creating products to save humanity or make this planet a better place to live. Nevertheless, this is a high claim and it is not a new claim. It is as old as the industrial revolution. There is still little light at the end of that dark tunnel.

Celebrating technology the way you describe it does not sound very geeky too me. It sounds pretty mainstream. Just open any Popular Science magazine.

I noticed you did not answer my request to explain how a building can claim to be energy positive without telling how much energy it uses. As far as I am concerned this is a claim that makes headlines, is popular, happily accepted by most, but not supported by data and therefor cheap. Hoping that something works is not enough. You might as well pray.

Simplifying a concept until it is useless does not do us any good. Being negative does not either (I agree), but pointing out inconsistencies should create thought and critical consumers. And with critical and educated consumers the battle against consumerism is pretty much won. On the other hand, consumers who believe whatever they are told, who do not question or take a good hard and critical look at marketing strategies or advertisements will drive us into deeper trouble than I care to imagine.

In the light of this, I do not mind being critical. I do not request perfection. I request solutions (cheap, expensive, simple, complicated, etc.) that work to create less pollution, use less energy overall, are necessary, can be used by all humans without having a negative impact on that one place we have to live. Is it possible? I do not know. I doubt it. But I honestly feel that romantic, uncritical feelings about technology are misplaced and naive. It may not feel great to hear your beloved technology criticized. Call it negative. I call it realistic and (hopefully) thought-provoking. And I cannot even tell you how much I hope I am wrong with my views of our future. I hope you will be able to say in 20 years that telling me to lighten up was justified.

Please be not offended when you read my critical posts. I am aware that being critical may result in some people running the other way. Those are the people who are part of the problem. I am just a messenger. If I am wrong with my criticism someone will correct me and will admit it and apologize if needed. If I am right, equal-minded people will feel supported, others will be more educated or aware of an issue they did not see before. All these are worth pursuing, are they not?

Karsten

It should say: I will admit it. I forgot the I. Last paragraph.

Karsten

I would like to point out that they never claimed to be the first building to be energy-positively constructed (something that I doubt will happen in the next 100 years), it claimed to be the first energy-positive building. It is the headquarters of an environmental agency, so the building stands as a symbol for their intentions more than anything. It was a choice between a huge, concrete slab, energy sink of a high-rise, or an innovative design. It is unproductive to think solely about the short-term impact; yes, the building and all its components will take a lot of energy to produce, but something tells me they will try to find the most efficient way to produce them.

The real point of the thing is that it will not be sucking the planet, or (probably more important for them) the region dry of unsustainable energy sources. They are taking on the first step in the 3R system, Reduce. Also, it is important to note that the construction is planned to be at least partially powered by the solar panel roof, which will be constructed first, drastically reducing the impact of the construction.

In addition, if you look at one of the more recent posts you will find that there are now reports saying that green-building would be more effective than changing automotive technology in reducing energy footprint, so this definitely must be a step in the right direction.

guys, this building looks facinating with all cool stuff like- construction of solar power roof to provide electricity for construction... thats all is great, but then the solar panel comes with a lifespan of 15-20 yrs,and in that life span they cant not even repay of their cost.
the embodied energy level of the solar panel is pretty high. rite now solar panels are too costly to be called sustainable. and another point is that with in the lifespan,the new technology hit the market, means new solar panels with better efficiency. so ur installed panel become obsolete.
so then you decide that solar panel are good or not. coz if the building energy saving ( turns out to be the cost)doesnt meet the extra investment, in building total life span to make it positive energy building, then the building is not sustainable.

Coincidentally, I am a consultant working for Masdar and can probably correct a few things..
1- The building is energy positive (i.e. will produce more energy than it consumes). How? By design. To achieve the holy grail, you need a combination of energy efficiency and renewable energy production. Thermal, lighting and electrical power consumption have been reduced to a maximum (over 80% less when compared to a typical building) by reducing HVAC, maximizing natural lighting, automating the building... even the building and city orientation vis-a-vis the sun path and wind flows has been studied.. The second part of the equation (energy generation) is provided through one of the world's largest building installation of PV panels.. given the reduced consumption, the renewable energy generated surpasses the need for power.
FYI, the building is LEED platinum standard.

2- Regarding the eco-footprint, there are a few more nuts and bolts that were thought of... first, on the construction front, from inception, the building is designed to reduce the embodied carbon by 45% (i.e. the carbon created from sourcing the raw material and building the edifice, including the transportation, etc has been accounted for) Also, the PV panels on the roof (mentioned above) are the first to be constructed and they power the construction of the building itself (so indeed green power for construction).. I agree that it cannot have a zero-foot print, but this is miles and miles ahead of anything I've seen anywhere else..

There's quite a bit more (including water conservation, zero-waste concept, etc) that these guys are doing.. I think that for an oil-producing country that probably has power cheaper than most other countries in the world, they deserve a kudos for setting the right example, or at least a first (major) step in that direction!

I dont think that the people who invests money in this project is actually thinking all the stuff we architects do refering to how buildings affect the ecosistem. They invest money to get more money out of it, thats it, this is just a way to get it. I respect what the designers intend to do but with this building but a solution like this should be a lot cheaper and repeatable massively.