Slashdot Mirror
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."
This should stick in the craw of those luddites that believe Space Tech doesn't have any use on Earth!
Decrease of Solar Panel Efficiency http://solarpanel-direct.com/decrease-solar-panel-efficiency
You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
While you will get no argument from me about the steel, do you have any recent figures regarding the Wh ratio for production vs. lifetime production of current solar cells?
I'm curious if this is one of those "every knows $foo" type deals where $foo isn't really true anymore.
Everyone knows that the solar panels consume far more energy in their production than they ever produce in their lifetime
Completely bogus. It takes maybe 1-4 years to recoup the energy cost of construction, and the panels can last 30 years.
There will be no red or blue pixels on any display used in the building, and no greyscale shit either. Just imagine the glorious greenish glow from all those high-tech CRTs which can be got cheap from almost any landfill...
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
This building is in Mountain View California. The climate does not require much from a building to maintain the interior temps. Do this in Minnesota and then there is something to brag about. This building has not actually exhibited the performance claimed. This building appears to be just another cubicle hell. This building may not be a 24 hour fully inhabited building as it appears to rely upon windows for light. Solar panels do in fact return more energy than used to make them in a place with suitable insolation values. Slapping solar panels on a windowed building to serve a 9 to 5 operation in Mountain View just isn't impressive at all. The self promotion makes it even less impressive.
Everyone knows that the solar panels consume far more energy in their production than they ever produce in their lifetime
Completely bogus. It takes maybe 1-4 years to recoup the energy cost of construction, and the panels can last 30 years.
When you look at not just your "source", but the source's source, over at http://alpha.chem.umb.edu/chemistry/ch471/evans%20files/Net_Energy%20solar%20cells.pdf
You will find it's not as simple as you make it out to be.
"However, it should be noted that the above payback periods assume that the modules are always operated at their maximum power points [5], as with a maximum power point tracker. It is also assumed that no photovoltaic power is wasted or dumped, as would sometimes occur in many stand-alone systems, such as those using battery storage"
Solar panels are NOT working at their maximum power point during most days of the year. Not even close to half of it, actually. The time to "recoup" the production energy will be significantly longer than you or the Wikipedia "summary" imply.
NASA's forward-osmosis water recycling system, which cuts water use by 90% compared to a traditional building.
You are drinking your own urine.
And whatever other urine they can find.
On the plus side, the entire process renders the building water orange and tastes like Tang.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Sorry, the truth isnt nearly as cleancut as either of you want to make it.
It takes up to 4 years assuming constant peak utilisation according to the source you point to. Constant peak utilisation is obviously an extremely unrealistic assumption.
More plausible usage patterns would result in longer times to break even. In practice tropical installations with well chosen location can get close to that. Marginal usage cases may never recoup in that sense at all though. Economically it can still make sense for other reasons, of course, but that is hardly 'green' if that has any meaning other than being a silly codeword for politically correct.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
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.
The article claims it's the world's greenest building, but from the pictures it looks kinda blue, steely and clear for the most part.
I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
The first bio dome failed because the concrete consumed more oxygen then was previously believed. The facility never produced enough oxygen even to cure the concrete and thus couldn't be sealed.
NASA should build a bio dome that can be sealed. People don't need to live in it all the time. Use airlocks so people can go home at the end of the day. The point is that the facility should produce enough air, clean water, power, and food to keep five or more people alive indefinitely.
Once we can build such a facility we can theoretically set up bases on the moon or other planets. We might even consider keeping the plants alive entirely with artificial light since regular light cycles won't be useful on other worlds. We might have to turn geothermal energy into light or even use a fission reactor.
I don't care if nasa built an environmentally friendly building. That has nothing to do with space exploration. Want to impress me? Build something that produces more oxygen then the occupants consume.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
You are eating someone's shit, breathing someone's farts, eating someone's rotting corpse and drinking someone's pee. Welcome to the wonderful world of nature. (Plants grow on fertilizer (shit), oxygen is the bad breath of plants, meat and plants are dead bodies, and every bit of water has been through someone's digestive track).
Always strikes me as funny that people who would happily pay a fortune for the right to drink from a spring that a bear shat in but refuse to drink tap water that has been filtered and monitored to hell and back. You were made from dirt, eat dirt and will become the dirt in someone elses cycle of life. Enjoy!
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
If they want to be even greener, why not save more water and reduce the volume of waste discharged into the sewers? Not stopping at using the recycled grey water for flushing urinals and toilets, but providing waterless urinals in the mens rooms and urine separating toilets in the womens rooms. Maybe going even further and collecting the urine from the (waterless) urinals and urine separating toilets and processing it separately (eg as fertiliser) rather than discharging it into the sewerage system.
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
You math is a bit off: 25 000 000 / 55 000 = 454.545455
But even "significantly longer" is infinitely better than "never", so for those keeping score, the AC who said,
...is completely full of shit.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Is it #00FF00?
There are bike racks on both sides of the front door, and only 3 SUVs in the parking lot.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
I suspect some mars technology went into this one
bæ8Ã0sÃOE?5r©oÂÃ?âz:ÃÃAÃ?ÃOEÂ6fXÃ?]Â
Considering all the posts complaining about, "Why is NASA fooling with this "green" hippie bullshit", I just noticed the following headline on another site,
Now watch the quick 180 about how "innovative" and "forward-thinking" it is that Apple is working toward sustainability from many of the same people who were criticizing NASA's green initiative.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
Never heard of wood?
Ever heard of fire?
Wooden office buildings haven't been in vogue for about 150 years or so.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Solar panels are NOT working at their maximum power point during most days of the year. Not even close to half of it, actually.
They assume 1700 hrs of sunlight, this is accounted for in the study.
The high-tech complex produces more energy than it consumes...
Pfft. Big deal. This applies to all coal fire plants as well.
Here's your citation for the most common cause of glass-based item breakage.
But even "significantly longer" is infinitely better than "never", so for those keeping score, the AC who said,
Everyone knows that the solar panels consume far more energy in their production than they ever produce in their lifetime
...is completely full of shit.
Unless the panel is placed in an area where it rains a lot and winters aren't particularly sunny (UK anyone?). I can easily see that a solar panel in a temperate region can easily fail before it's broken even with production cost.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
standard. most buildings will qualify for leed silver by just being near train stations/public transportation outlets and ensuring they have adequate fluorescent lighting and recycling services for paper.
its also saying nothing of its inhabitants. The building I work in still has a 4 story parking garage despite its overwhelmingly generous access to several forms of public transportation. And despite a vigorous recycling program, I still see styrofoam in the kitchen, lots of disposable plates, and computers that run constantly at unattended desks despite ACPI having been a decades old standard.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Why don't you ask all the people in Germany whose solar panels have already paid for themselves?
You are welcome on my lawn.
Ever been on tour of Downtown Seattle, which had a huge fire that burned down all of downtown once? You cannot build a wood building in Seattle's downtown anymore.. :)
What are we going to do tonight Brain?
What everyone must keep in mind is this: Even if absolutely none of the solar panels produced today will ever break even (a debatable point, if nothing else), if nobody bought them now, there would be no incentive to increase efficiency in the manufacturing process. Unless physics makes it impossible for solar panels to ever be an economically viable option, I still think it's worth putting the effort into improving the state of the art in the field, even if it has to be subsidized by, oh, I don't know, maybe.. the federal government inflating demand by installing them on large new buildings....
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
It's true for the high-end space-ready panels intended for satellites (as used on satellites). When news of that hit the climate denial blogs, every anti-environmentalist idiot out there assumed it applies to all solar panels.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
This "Green" building will cost 10x more to run and maintain.
When Obama took office, the debt was $10.6 Trillion. It is now $15.6 Trillion. The spending from both parties must stop.
Here is a video from 2011 where the GSA Administrator said their purchase of Chevy Volts would save the government millions
Disclosure: I have a vested interest in cold fusion. (at least my kids and grandkids do..)
Isn't it good enough to have an energy efficient, low waste building near public transportation, and all the other things that do (and don't) come with being LEED certified? Why pay for a certification? Does that somehow make it more efficient? Sure if you've got money to burn and like shiny stickers, or if you thing that shiny sticker will help you make more money (or recoup your cost) or whatever reason you want to spend your money on the certification - go for it. But don't use my money. Build a good building yes, but there is no need for a sticker. NASA is for now, funded by my tax dollars, and this is how they want to use my money? Shame on them.
Never let a mediocre career stand in the way of a good time
You are eating someone's shit, breathing someone's farts, eating someone's rotting corpse and drinking someone's pee. Welcome to the wonderful world of nature.
Whoa there Gene Simmons, I didn't ascribe any positive or negative value to my observations.
I would however just add that usually I'm drinking someone else's rotting corpse pee filtered many months/years/eons through nature though, not from an "in the can and back by ten" kind of system...
Always strikes me as funny that people who would happily pay a fortune for the right to drink from a spring that a bear shat in but refuse to drink tap water that has been filtered and monitored to hell and back.
You forgot chlorinated! Filtered and monitored and chlorinated. Just what do you have sir against water with the faintly metallic (from the bells) tang of bear shat? Some prefer it!
You were made from dirt, eat dirt and will become the dirt in someone elses cycle of life.
Not me, I'm getting off the unicycle at the end of my trip.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The building was on the Moon? Then NASA could stop watching re-runs of its glory daze. Maybe one day NASA will accept Google Lunar X Prize challenge?
"Go Team." - Unknown
everything about this story make me sad. remember when NASA was an acronym?
It's only a model.
In fairness, they only pay for themselves in Germany because of huge subsidies, which they are now not doing anymore.
I remember talking to a French friend who was thinking of putting up solar panels. In the US, it didn't make sense because my rates are ~$0.11/kWh. In France he was looking at getting reimbursed at something like $0.30/kWh which changes things enormously, and IIRC in Germany they were being assured similar rates (paid by all electricity users). The Germans have recently reduced their subsidies.
In many locations it seems solar panels will more than recoup their initial energy costs, but you should look at actual costs not the cost to the end purchaser if they are being subsidized. (It may well still be worth doing in order to spur the development of the industry.)
I read the papers (http://alpha.chem.umb.edu/chemistry/ch471/evans%20files/Net_Energy%20solar%20cells.pdf). They assume slightly below average conditions for a variety of different areas, and different types of cells. The worst scenario was still under five years for payback.
You keep stating "assuming constant peak utilisation according to the source." The source doesn't assume this.
I wonder if this new building really is a new building, or is it an "extension?"
Some snips from Wayne Hale, former Space Shuttle program manager
http://waynehale.wordpress.com/
Construction of Facilities, February 26, 2012
A long standing federal law states that any new buildings must be approved by the Congress; any new building must be its own separate line item in the Federal Budget. This is to make sure that the legislators know exactly what is being built on Federal property; to ensure that money is properly spent and not wasted. ...officers and enlisted, who served at Fort Laramie in the late 19th century.
Every year the post commander would propose building 4 or 5 new officer’s houses, and every year Congress would strike those line items from the Federal budget. No new houses. Until one year, he had a really ingenious idea. He proposed that since the army was often in the field pursuing the “hostiles” that the government should construct four “field kitchens” to feed the men. Then, the commandant used the maintenance budget and the free labor of the troops during the winter months to build “extensions” on those “field kitchens”.
True in the 1880’s, true in the 1990’s, and still true today; it is no so much following the rules as it is finding a way to get what needs to be done in spite of the rules.
In fact, in Federal installations all around the country, I have encountered “additions” that were bigger than the original building. Makes you wonder about the effectiveness of a rule that was probably written in the 18th century.
So my advice to anybody trying to get things done in the byzantine maze of Federal regulations is to get creative. There is almost always a way to accomplish the mission in spite of the obstacles. Sometimes it pays to study history because other clever people have gotten their mission accomplished by perfectly legal and legitimate ways to work through the regs.
for more see, http://waynehale.wordpress.com/ Construction of Facilities, February 26, 2012
mfwright@batnet.com
The great thing about using Flash to announce your research goals is that outsiders can't use copy and paste to actually discuss them, or worse yet, make a backup copy to embarrass you when all those dreams of using Computational Fluid Dynamics to reduce energy waste and advanced greywater recycling tech to reduce water usage turn out to be little more than PR fluff. No, just retroactively alter the goals to reflect dismal reality.
the panels can last 30 years.
I've always wondered what exactly it is that causes solar panels to "wear out". Is it exposure to sunlight and/or weather? Degradation of interior components?
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
Everyone knows that the solar panels consume far more energy in their production than they ever produce in their lifetime
Except that can't be true.
1. Solar panels eventually pay for themselves in electricity. It might take a while depending on the climate, but they do have a payback period.
2. Companies selling solar panels want to make a profit.
3.Companies selling electricity on the grid using non-solar methods want to make a profit.
If solar panels never produced more energy than they consume to manufacture, the solar panel companies couldn't make them at a price point which had a payback period. They would either not sell them, or the paypack period would be infinitely long (no payback).
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
Not just glass, but scissors and lizards, too.
Because there's no energy needed at all to erect a building made of wood. Nope, none.
Unless you're going to cite some actual failure rates, shut the hell up with your FUD.
In fairness, they only pay for themselves in Germany because of huge subsidies
Yup. Over here in the US, there are absolutely no subsidies on energy production.
the panels can last 30 years.
I've always wondered what exactly it is that causes solar panels to "wear out". Is it exposure to sunlight and/or weather? Degradation of interior components?
Don't forget lead-free solder.
Yes, in the short term, construction costs for green buildings are higher, although not by that much. Designing an efficient building from the ground up is orders of magnitude cheaper than trying to retrofit efficiency. The payoff comes in HVAC and lighting costs, which over the life of a building cost far more than it's construction. We actually need more government buildings like this, not less, if you don't like government waste.
I'll admit I'm skeptical about the efficacy of the fuel cell, I would think a gas co-gen set up would have been a better choice, but it's not as sexy
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
So far, we've got nano-printing tech that puts the energy ROI on solar panels to roughly 2 years.
Expected lifetime (low-ball) of TFP solar cells is a decade.
The poster has no clue what they're talking about.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Oh, that's true enough, and there are even solar subsidies here. My point was that the fact that you can get a return on your investment thanks to subsidies really has no bearing on whether or not the solar panel will produce more power over its lifetime than it took to make it.
Quit relying upon outdated Wikipedia. Technology in semiconductor manufacturing progresses so rapidly that Wikipedia is a TOTALLY FUCKING USELESS source of information.
WIKI = What I Know Is, and what Wikipedia knows is OUTDATED in today's rapid-paced world of technology.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
"It takes up to 4 years assuming constant peak utilisation according to the source you point to. Constant peak utilisation is obviously an extremely unrealistic assumption."
Maybe for silicon PV. Hi, this is past 2010, we've got low-power PV PRINTING. ROI even under worst conditions in the UK is 2 years. It's what is in use on our solar-assisted crop production sheds. ROI already achieved.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
In that picture.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
So NASA now can build a green building but cant deliver a person to the space station. Yay.
the panels can last 30 years.
I've always wondered what exactly it is that causes solar panels to "wear out". Is it exposure to sunlight and/or weather? Degradation of interior components?
All materials deteriorate over time.
That's a given, but I'm interested in the why. Stainless steel, for instance, has a major advantage over iron because it doesn't rust.
Is it just a problem of finding out what the deterioration mechanism is and then protecting against it?
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
There is also an (informal?) mandate for all future government buildings to be more environmentally friendly. LEED certification provides a standard of proof that this goal is being met. In some cases, there may even be funding grants or other incentives to "green" builders who can provide third-party validation. And of course, paying for LEED certification helps the LEED program itself continue, which is arguably in itself a worthy goal for the government and NASA.
NASA is for now, funded by my tax dollars, and this is how they want to use my money? Shame on them.
You don't even know how much the certification cost, or else you would have included it in your post. You're also probably not an expert on construction, commercial development, or NASA's building needs. And yet, from a position supported by no factual basis, you feel comfortable taking stabs at NASA. Shame on you and your ignorance.
Space is half of NASA's mission. Darned aeronautics, always the bridesmaid but never the bride (quote from an AC on /.).
mfwright@batnet.com
Somebody is posting from their personal computer an argument that was invalidated by the mass production of semiconductors that made their personal computer possible in the first place. Is that person stupid or do they just think we all are?
In case it's been missed, the energy cost in making photovoltaics is those big wafers of silicon that are now made in an energy efficient way due to the economies of scale of making all those CPUs, memory etc in the same wafers. Big ingots of silicon and big wafers require a lot less energy per unit volume to make than the little ones made in the 1960s.
Alrighty, so this is not a spaceship or a research aircraft but they built a new building and used this as opportunity to try new architecture and new technologies in buildings. Maybe some of this innovative, maybe some is simply a waste. However, sometimes it has to be done in the real world and not computer simulation. NASA is the perfect agency to try some of this as their mission is technology development without having to show a profit. Someone has to do it, and NASA can take these kinds of risks commercial companies will never do. That's what govt R&D is suppose to do. Now some of you may argue otherwise, and if so then the argument is NASA should do more (like N.A.C.A.). Some of this stuff can be done by commercial companies (incidently, specific work was done by a commercial firm) but companies have to show ROI and they will never take chances on doing a lot of new stuff that may be a big money loser. Love or loth the Sustainability Base building, many things will be learned on what to do, and what not to do, in new building design that commercial firms can learn from NASA's exercise.
mfwright@batnet.com
I think people must assume that all the rowhomes in the northeastern cities are made from brick because it is quaint or charming :)
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.