Re-Post: The All-Glass Building – Is Energy Efficiency Possible

By Andrea Love, Chapter Board Member

One of our wonderful volunteers wrote extensively about glass facade buildings and the challenge these present to proponents of energy efficiency. Take a look at her recent blog entry at NESEA. Thanks for explaining this for us, Andrea!

 

Glazed towers dominate the skylines of our cities. However, most have been designed with little thought as to the climate in which they are located or the environmental impact they might have. According to the Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) in 2003, 70 percent of energy use in commercial buildings is from the lighting and HVAC systems. The performance of both of these systems is directly related to the design and performance of the building envelope. Sealed, glazed façades, now so ubiquitous, lead to higher heating and cooling loads as well as glare and thermal comfort challenges.

Despite these challenges, many design teams pursuing sustainability continue to use all-glass façades because of their ability to connect interior and exterior environments. The market continues to demand, and architects to deliver, high glazing percentages for the daylight, views, and marketing potential they provide in green buildings. Such designs are difficult to make energy efficient, but many argue that fully glazed buildings, when designed correctly don't increase a building's energy usage.  

The question remains: is an all-glass building a sustainable building?

Daylight

The principal benefit of glass façades is their ability to allow natural light into living and working spaces. Daylight provides high-quality illumination with less radiation than most artificial light sources, including fluorescents. When coupled with a high-performance glazing system, natural daylighting can reduce the heat load that comes from artificial light fixtures. A lighting control system that responds to changes in daylight can yield a dramatic reduction in the building's lighting energy use.

In addition to the energy benefits from daylighting, studies have found numerous psychological benefits. A 1999 study by the Heschong Mahone Group found that students in classrooms with more natural light scored up to 25 percent higher on standardized tests than other students in the same school district. Studies looking at the effect of natural light on productivity date back to the 1920s, when they were conducted on silk weavers; even then, daylight was shown to increase productivity. Numerous subsequent studies have shown improved performance and increased attention and alertness in occupants of daylit buildings.

Exposure to daylight has also been shown increase sales in retail establishments such as Walmart and Whole Foods. Walmart installed a daylighting system in one of its Kansas stores in the 1990s and had store employees rotate goods for sale under the natural light source; items sold better when under daylight.

Daylight has many benefits, but few studies have investigated how much glazing is needed to achieve good quality natural lighting. Most buildings do not need to be completely glazed to benefit from daylighting. For example, the glazed area below a work surface in an all-glass building has minimal impact on the daylight in a space.

Daylight has many benefits, but few studies have investigated how much glazing is needed to achieve good quality natural lighting. Most buildings do not need to be completely glazed to benefit from daylighting.

The rule of thumb in the industry (recommended by organizations such as Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory) is that only 30 percent glazing is needed for optimum daylighting performance. Our findings atPayette corroborate this figure. Our computer simulations on the impact of the amount of glazing on daylighting have found in multiple projects that the Useful Daylight Illuminance (UDI) does not increase at all beyond 50 percent glazing. UDI looks at how much light a space receives above a specified target but below the threshold of lighting levels that will cause glare and discomfort. For example, a recent investigation for an east-facing office concluded that 40 percent glazing provided no any more useful daylight than 25 percent.

Energy

A well-designed daylighting strategy can decrease a building's light energy use and associated cooling load. However, as lighting power densities decrease with more efficient lighting technologies like LEDs, lighting represents an ever smaller portion of a building's total energy use. Glazing's biggest impact on building energy consumption comes from its impact on a space's heating and cooling loads. The solar heat gain from the sun increases proportionally with the amount of glass on a façade, which in turn increases the energy needed to cool the building.

A number of strategies exist to mitigate solar radiation, from external sun shading to frits and coatings on the glass. A well-designed shading system can significantly decrease but not block all heat gain, particularly on east- and west- facing façades, where low sun angles are particularly challenging. 

In a cold climate like New England, the increase in heat loss in the winter as a result of high glazing percentages can significantly impact energy use. The current code requirement for maximum U-values for glazing is seven times higher than that of an opaque wall. Even with code-compliant glazing to high-performance triple glazing, the U-value is still three to four times greater than the maximum allowable for an opaque wall assembly. As a result, fully glazed buildings always have a much higher heating load than more moderately glazed buildings.

Double-skin façades have grown in popularity in recent years as a way to improve the energy performance of all-glass buildings. They work by capturing heat between the two glass walls to reduce winter heat loss and ventilating the same cavity in the summer to minimize heat gain. An integrated sun shading system between the two glass walls can further improve performance in the summer. While the double-skin façade can typically decrease a building's energy consumption in relation to a conventional, fully glazed façade, it still does not perform as well as an opaque wall with glazed openings.

Because lighting energy loads are decreasing and HVAC energy loads are increasing as the amount of glazing increases, an energy model is often the best method to determine the optimal amount of glazing.

While there is some variability based on the building type and climate, we have consistently observed buildings with a moderate amount (around 20 to 30 percent) of glazing use less energy than a fully glazed façade or one having little to no glass. 

Comfort

Creating comfortable environments for building occupants in all-glass buildings can be a challenge. Direct solar radiation, particularly in the summer, can create localized hot spots in the building. If the thermostat is not in the sun and is therefore not experiencing the raised temperatures, it will not adjust the HVAC system to make the space comfortable for those in the sun. If the control is in the sun, the HVAC system can overcool occupants that are not directly in the sun, especially in open office spaces. A well-designed solar control strategy, using interior blinds or exterior sun shades, can mitigate this discomfort.

Winter conditions can also pose thermal comfort challenges in all-glass buildings. Because glass does not insulate well, it has a lower interior surface temperature than an opaque wall assembly. This increases the radiant heat transfer that happens between an occupant and the façade, and can make occupants feel cold even at a comfortable air temperature. The colder surface can also create a downdraft along tall vertical pieces of glass. Downdrafts occur as warm interior air hits the cold surface of the glass and falls, creating cold convective currents with temperatures and air speeds that can cause discomfort. 

To combat this discomfort in fully glazed buildings, perimeter radiant heating is often added. Using a high-performance assembly, such as triple glazing, will raise the interior surface temperature, decreasing the radiant heat transfer and reducing the downdraft which can often create a thermally comfortable environment without the need for perimeter radiant heating. However, because comfort is determined by both glazing area and the U-value of the assembly, there is a limit to how low the U-value can be without needing mechanical means to create a comfortable environment. For the Boston climate, we have found that full-height glazing (60 to 70 percent glazed or higher) to be the comfort limit with a good triple-glazed window.

Visual discomfort can also be a challenge to control in fully glazed buildings. While increased glazing increases the amount of daylight in a space, you can have too much of a good thing, resulting in overlit spaces at the perimeter that create glare problems. A well-designed exterior shading system or fritted glass can help mitigate glare, but low sun angles in the morning and evening can still pose a challenge. Interior blinds are the most common glare-control strategy. Unless they are automated, however, they frequently are lowered during a brief period of glare and are not raised again. While this controls glare, it erases all of the benefits of daylighting and exterior views that you can get from glass.

Views

Visual connection to the exterior environment and nature is one of the biggest benefits of all-glass buildings. Views to the external environment have been shown to benefit the health and productivity of occupants because of the biophilic connection between humans and other living systems. The most famous of these is the seminal study by Roger Ulrich in 1981 that found that medical center rooms with views improved patient recovery rates by eight percent. As with the daylight studies, the percentage of glazing needed to achieve quality views is unclear. Some argue that punched windows common in buildings with limited glazing act much like a picture frame, allowing access to views while maintaining the thermal integrity of the building envelope.

Aesthetics

Because large panes of glass weren't commonly available until the mid-twentieth century, fully glazed buildings are associated with modernism. Both designers and building owners demand highly glazed buildings to give the image of transparency and modernity. But in an age where we must think about the environmental impact of the built environment, many argue that it is time to end our collective passion for all-glass buildings. Fully glazed buildings have become so ubiquitous that we as designers should embrace the challenge of creating a new image for what it means to be modern in this age. Design is about embracing constraints to create a new and beautiful building, and working with materials other than glass should be embraced as part of our design challenge. 

Reducing Power Plant Emissions

By Grey Lee

EPA Rule 111: Clean Power Plan

In 2013, the EPA proposed a new carbon pollution standards for power plants under section 111 of the Clean Air Act.  The program is designed to regulate and reduce greenhouse gas emissions for new power plants under federal guidance and to address the emissions of existing power plants through a state-based program.  These proposals are designed to cut emissions from the power sector by as much as 30% by 2030, which will help to protect our health and the health of the environment for future generations.  For a comprehensive list of benefits, see the EPA's fact sheet on the Clean Power Plan. This diagram helps to explain the different kinds of greenhouse gas pollution and which sectors are major contributors.
 
 
This map shows the location of the 54 fossil fuel fired power plants in Massachusetts. The data points and background map come from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA); their online mapping system allows users to explore the various sources of energy production and distribution across the United States.
 

In December of 2014, the USGBC submitted recommendations to the EPA supporting their Clean Power Plan, proposing that States be given flexibility in developing their individual compliance strategies.  The USGBC also suggested that existing knowledge around evaluation, measurement and verification used in the LEED system be applied to tracking the reduction in emissions of power plants.

The EPA Clean Power Plan proposes 4 building blocks for states to achieve reduced power plant emissions, 1) power plant efficiency improvements 2) dispatching to cleaner natural gas combined cycle plants 3) renewable energy and 4) energy efficiency.  The fourth building block presents an opportunity for Massachusetts professionals to leverage their leadership and expertise in green building practices to help the Commonwealth achieve these important goals.

 

Super Bowl XLIX, Green Building & Energy Efficiency

By Grey Lee

Congratulations to the New England Patriots on their victory over the Seattle Seahawks in the Super Bowl on Sunday!
 
 
(Image Credit: Kevin C. Cox/Getty Images)

 

With all the excitement around Super Bowl XLIX, we thought it would be fun to see how the home states of each team stack up in terms of Green Buildings and Energy Consumption (Yes we know that it’s the New England Patriots, but for the purposes of this study we are only including data from states that actually house the stadiums!).  For good measures, we are also including the sunny state of Arizona where the big game was played.  The following bar graphs compare data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) on average monthly electricity consumption from 2012.

 

 
 
 
 
 
Arizona, Massachusetts and Washington are all very different places with a range of climatic, transmission and generation factors that influence how and when electricity is used.  In the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) 2014 rankings, Arizona placed 15th, Washington placed 8th, and Massachusetts placed 1st overall.  One component of the ACEEE ranking system is on Building Energy Codes, in which any state can earn up to 7 points.  Arizona earned 3 points in this category, with the majority of its municipalities using the 2009 IECC for residential construction.  Washington earned 6 points for building energy code stringency and adopting the 2012 IECC for both residential and commercial construction.  Massachusetts earned 5.5 points after adopting the 2012 IECC in 2014 with state-specific amendments.  Also, Massachusetts completed a baseline compliance study, which involves utilities in code compliance support efforts (ACEEE, 2014).
 
In addition to energy efficiency, these three states are also pursuing renewable energy solutions.  The Arizona Office of Energy Policy provides statistics on the state’s current renewable portfolio (8% total energy) and also a 10 year outlook on solar, wind, biomass, geothermal and hydroelectric for the state.  Massachusetts office of Energy and Environmental Affairs provides information on different types of renewable energy, funding programs and incentives, as well as installation assistance.  Also, Massachusetts obtained 9.3% of its total energy from renewable sources in 2013.  The Washington State Energy Office provides energy policy support as well as analysis for the legislature and commerce and manages the State Energy Program.  Washington is the nation’s leader in hydroelectric generation, accounting for 29% of total hydro capacity in the United States.
 
How are these states doing when it comes to Green Building? Looking at data from the USGBC from 2013, we can see Washington State has an edge over both Massachusetts and Arizona with an impressive 1,474 registered LEED projects!
 
 
 
 
A lot of energy goes into putting on a Super Bowl.  What are stadium operators and teams doing to address this?  The University of Phoenix Stadium is a member of the USGBC and as part of their Green Mission, prioritizes recycling and Green Products, water-efficiency and high efficiency LED lighting.  Find out more about their Green Mission here: University of Phoenix Stadium
 

 

(Image Credit: Arizona Cardinals)

 

 
 
 

Harvard Takes Giant Leaps to Create a Greener Community

By Grey Lee

December 5, 2014

Photo credit: Harvard University Housing

Actions speak louder than words and Harvard is definitely taking some noticeable action in the green building community!  The Harvard Green Building Standards reflect Harvard University's commitment to sustainability and reducing greenhouse gas emissions from building design to operations within their new capital projects and major renovations over $100,000. They were “built” upon the Harvard Green Building Guidelines from 2007 and the Harvard Green Building Standards from 2009 (led by the Office for Sustainability and Green Building Services), then they were updated this year to include healthy material requirements and assessment to determine toxic substance exposure.  Consistent with the mission and priorities of USGBC MA, Harvard also analyzes how Net Zero Energy Buildings, LEED certification and energy efficiency systems can improve their campus buildings and spaces through implementation.

The Harvard Green Building Standards require:

Integrated design goal-setting charrettes with all key stakeholders
Multiple iterations of energy models
Life cycle cost analysis
Prescriptive requirements such as aggressive energy and water reduction targets

Through these standards, Harvard sets a prime example that greening a community takes commitment and teamwork.  Because of the hundreds of participants across the University's Schools and departments working in a collaborative process, Harvard continues to develop and expand their knowledge and resources in order to stay on top of their green game!

Harvard’s green efforts also go beyond buildings into energy conversion in their Nocera Lab, a research group of Daniel G. Nocera, which studies the basic mechanisms of energy conversion in biology and chemistry.  Nocera is the Patterson Rockwood Professor of Energy at Harvard University and has been an organizer to and primary author of four DOE Basic Research Need workshops: Hydrogen, Solar Energy, Energy Storage and Catalysis.  He was also a primary author of the Grand Challenges report (Directing Matter and Energy: Five Challenges for Science and the Imagination) to the DOE.  His group pioneered studies of the basic mechanisms of energy conversion in biology and chemistry with primary focus in recent years on the generation of solar fuels.

Earning a LEED Gold Certification earlier this year, Harvard hits another homerun with their 33,000 sq. ft. renovation at the Cronkhite Graduate Center.  The renovations included a new core bathroom installation, new lounge/kitchenettes, new high efficiency lighting and heating system upgrades on 150 dorm rooms.  Scoring perfectly in water efficiency, innovation and regional priority credits, Harvard will be able to provide their students with a healthier and energy efficient living space into the future!

We hope that many more institutions will follow their “LEED” and take on the challenge of greening their communities for the invaluable results that are sure to come.

 

Massachusetts Ranked as the Most Energy Efficient State!

By Grey Lee

On October 21st, 2014, the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) released their annual State Energy Efficiency Scorecard and ranked Massachusetts #1 for the 4th year in a row.

Way to go Massachusetts! Be sure to check out the press release and report.
 

Methodology
“The State Energy Efficiency Scorecard benchmarks states across six policy areas – utility policies and programs, transportation initiatives, building energy codes, combined heat and power development, state government-led initiatives, and state-level appliance standards. In total, states are scored on more than 30 individual metrics. Data is collected from publicly available sources and vetted by state energy offices and public utility commissions.”