NASA Unveils Greenest Federal Building In the Nation

An anonymous reader writes "NASA just unveiled its new Sustainability Base — an exceptionally efficient building that harnesses technology developed for the International Space Station. The high-tech complex produces more energy than it consumes and it was just awarded LEED Platinum certification, making it the greenest federal building in the nation. The project features an extensive network of wireless sensors that allow the building to automatically react to changes in weather and occupancy and NASA's forward-osmosis water recycling system, which cuts water use by 90% compared to a traditional building."

Comments

More Buck Rogers not less!

[Anonymous Coward]

This should stick in the craw of those luddites that believe Space Tech doesn't have any use on Earth!

Aerospace Please

[elkto]

When there was a article posted about the NASA's bias against science to promote the Green agenda; someone remarked that NASA should stick to Aerospaceâ¦. I agreed with that; even if I knew from first hand knowledge of the bias.

While I understand there is going to be spin off technologies from the Space program, I would rather they focus on their primary responsibilities.

Re:Aerospace Please

[PopeRatzo]

While I understand there is going to be spin off technologies from the Space program, I would rather they focus on their primary responsibilities.

You mean like Tang and velcro?

If we're ever going to do human space exploration, this "green technology" could certainly pay off because people are going to have to carry everything they use. The line between what is and what is not "aerospace" is not as clear when you start to talk about long-distance space exploration by humans.

Lies

[AdrianKemp]

From NASA's site it looks like the majority of power comes from an on-site fuel cell.

That's a bit like me building a big garage, installing a big-ass natural gas generator and saying my building returns power to the grid.

Now yes, fuel cells are better than natural gas, but it's still not the building producing it's own power. It's a small power plant on the same lot as the building

"produces more energy than it consumes"

[fatphil]

Is meaningless, or at least misleading. A coal power station produces more energy than it consumes. If that's intrinsically green, then we should be building more coal power stations.

Re:Nasa needs to build a bio dome

[PopeRatzo]

I don't care if nasa built an environmentally friendly building. That has nothing to do with space exploration.

Another genius.

"Green" means something besides "environmentally friendly". It means "sustainable", too. And if human beings are going to be traveling really long distances in space, more than just "fly to the moon and fall back", then sustainability is going to be a big part of the technical hurdle that needs to be overcome.

Want to impress me? Start a permanent colony on another planet or outside of the solar system (not you, Karmashock, I mean NASA, but you are welcome to try). But even with this perfect dome you want NASA to build, they better have conservation down to a science, which NASA is trying to do, to their credit.

Re:Still not truly green

[Anonymous Coward]

Not if they break? You're going to have to cite some really impressive failure rates for anyone to think you're not just grasping at straws.

Re:Still not truly green

[MightyYar]

Never heard of wood?

Ever heard of fire?

Wooden office buildings haven't been in vogue for about 150 years or so.

Re:Still not truly green

[PopeRatzo]

Unless the panel is placed in an area where it rains a lot and winters aren't particularly sunny (UK anyone?)

Why don't you ask all the people in Germany whose solar panels have already paid for themselves?