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."

22 of 172 comments (clear)

  1. More Buck Rogers not less! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re:More Buck Rogers not less! by tnk1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes... except without a goal, the money that you spend on those degrees would be wasted. I'd say that one good goal is worth more than a million Ph'Ds.

      You know what you get with more doctorates and no goals? More people looking for hair loss remedies and erectile dysfunction pills.

      People work towards competing against limits, or each other. I'd prefer that they spend billions on "tin cans in space" than on arms proliferation or viagra. Let's face it, there is a time we have to suck it up and get into space or we are extinct as a species. We might have a billion years to do it, or events may conspire to make that period of time much, much shorter.

      Space exploration challenges our need for new materials and technology more than just about anything else I can think of. We also know that the solar system alone has enough in the way of resources to keep us going for a very long time, but we have to pay the steep upfront costs of infrastructure there to be able to take advantage of it. Those costs will not become magically smaller as time goes on. Nothing about the iPad or smartphones is going to get us there. We have to design specifically for non-terrestrial environments and stresses.

      Without a space program, I am not sure what you think all those post-grads would be doing except looking for jobs that no one wants to hire them for.

  2. Re:Still not truly green by Dr.+Hellno · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  3. Re:Still not truly green by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  4. Reading between the lines by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Funny

    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
    1. Re:Reading between the lines by Merls+the+Sneaky · · Score: 4, Funny

      So its got what plants crave?

    2. Re:Reading between the lines by WillDraven · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well, duh.

      Everyone knows that it's American BEER that's made of pee.

      Taster's Choice and other American Coffee are composed of charred feces.

      Can't be mixing up your excrements like that.

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
  5. Mostly glass and steel by ZaMoose · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.
  6. Nasa needs to build a bio dome by Karmashock · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Nasa needs to build a bio dome by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  7. Yes and? You always have been by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Yes and? You always have been by Rogerborg · · Score: 5, Funny

      And all of that effluent was forged in the heart of stars. It's a magical world.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  8. Lies by AdrianKemp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      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

      Bloom boxes (the fuel cells mentioned in the article) use natural gas as well. Then it's only question about the efficiency (in regards to CO2 and emissions).

      Fuel cells might be the most efficient method of producing electricity in small scale, but in larger scale they tend to lose to bigger plants... for now (potential is higher though). Bloom boxes are rated for 100 kW and 200 kW approximately, with > 50% electrical efficiency. Gas turbines, gas engines can achieve this, but only in larger scale, thus a blanket statement that fuel cells are better, is bit over-extended.

      The problem is with the overall efficiency: can the heat be utilized effectively. Bigger (100 MW+) plants can invest more to the heat utilization, even produce more electricity with combined cycle, and thus exceed 60% electrical efficiency. But the advantage with distributed power production comes from local possibilities. If you install a fuel cell in a location that has a need for high (or low) grade heat, in approximately 100kW range, your overall efficiency is very very good. The tendency is even more so that it's better to install it to a place that needs heat, instead of a place that produces gas. Of course sometimes these can be combined (waste water treatment plants for example).

  9. Re:and what a bargain! by kj_kabaje · · Score: 4, Informative

    You math is a bit off: 25 000 000 / 55 000 = 454.545455

  10. Re:Still not truly green by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Informative

    The time to "recoup" the production energy will be significantly longer than you or the Wikipedia "summary" imply.

    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.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  11. Re:Grün by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Informative

    Parking lot filled with SUVs, no bike rack, what a green environment.

    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.
  12. Re:Aerospace Please by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  13. "produces more energy than it consumes" by fatphil · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  14. Re:Still not truly green by MightyYar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  15. Re:Still not truly green by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  16. Re:Still not truly green by GameboyRMH · · Score: 4, Informative

    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