Lately the EU GreenBuilding programme has gained popularity with major developers. But what does the EU Green Building really cover? And are there any alternatives to the EU GreenBuilding programme?

First of all the understanding of ‘green building’ mentioned in this quotation is purely focused on the energy consumption in buildings. This understanding of green building differs from other understandings of the term green building, which aside from energy also focus on biodiversity and materials [2-3].  

The EU GreenBuilding programme focuses on ensuring commitment from building owners and developers to become a GreenBuilding partner, as well as, endorsement from actors in the building industry.
 

This commitment to energy-efficient design is a positive contribution to the range of schemes available to building owners and developers. However, this commitment falls short if the building owner or developer aims at a holistic approach to tackling climate change or even sustainable building.  

If this is the case he or she should consider using one of the internationally acclaimed certification schemes for sustainable buildings, e.g. BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method) or LEED (Leadership in Energy-Efficient Design), which provide sustainability assessment schemes with a wider range of issues related to sustainable building design. These schemes provide a frame by which the building owner or developer can set his/her targets and they provide designers of buildings with a tool to achieve this target.

 Lastly, the schemes ensure third-party verification of the achieved score for the project, which means that the sustainability strategy taken in the building design is subjected to a benchmarked scheme by which other sustainable building designs are also measured.   The BREEAM and LEED schemes do not in their current form (2008 versions) cover all issues relating to the sustainability of buildings, but they do cover a majority of these, and the schemes are significantly different from one another in their approach to sustainability – i.e. which issues of sustainability are weighted and scored in the schemes. Building owners and developers should therefore consider which scheme fulfils their specific approach to sustainability, whether they want to set a specific target that all their buildings have to abide by, and how this target fits into their ‘sustainable’ business strategy.  

Feel free to contact me for more information about the different schemes mentioned here (and others), and how the schemes fit your specific profile as a building owner, developer or designer. 

 References:

1.     www.eu-greenbuilding.org/ 

2.     Edwards 2003: Green Buildings Pay, by Brian Edwards,Spon Press, New York

3.     Wines 2000: ‘Green Architecture’ by James Wines, Taschen, Köln

Passive houses are often regarded as one of the main answers to dealing with environmental sustainability in the built environment. This is especially the case when it comes to governmental policies in Europe.

But are passive houses really sustainable? And are they always the right answer to the climate challenge?

 

The fact, that the passive house standard purely focuses on the energy demand for peration, and in some cases, the embodied energy of the materials used in the building, does withdraw from the status of passive houses being sustainable by default (see table 1).

Sustainable buildings need not address all the themes listed in table 1, but the more themes a project considers the more holistic the approach to sustainability is.

The fact that the passive house standard does not consider whether the house is located in an area with Combined Heat and Power (CHP) with a low Carbon emission footprint (e.g. straw), is a major weakness one has to be aware of when choosing to do a passive house.

A study carried out at the University College in Dublin [3] shows that seen in a 50 year life cycle perspective, the embodied energy of the materials used for the last kWh/m  reduction needed to achieve the passive house standard, actually increased the energy consumption for the building to such an extend, that the energy reduction achieved for operation was balanced out by the increase in embodied energy.In other words – the last kWh/ m2 needed to achieve the passive house standard, actually increased the energy consumption for the building to such an extend, that the energy reduction achieved for operation was balanced out by the increase in embodied energy.

In other words – the last kWh/m2 energy savings for operation do not necessarily lead to an overall lower impact on the environment. Actually it might increase the increase the impact considering the fact that the energy consumption for operation might be changed to a fuel with lower Carbon emission than today or if the fuel for the CHP plant already has a low carbon footprint.

Based on this, the proper answer to the question posed in this blog would be that: passive houses can be a sustainable choice if the project considers the production of the house, as well as, other issues of sustainability (e.g. water consumption, waste handling, site selection and impact, procurement of materials, goods and services, and user and community interaction etc).

Basically, a passive house design should always be assessed as a possibility of reducing the energy demand for building operation in relation to the specific context that the building is located in, as well as, the other issues of sustainability. Thereby, establishing whether a passive house is the most economically, socially, environmentally and climatically sustainable solution for that specific project.

References:1.  www.passiv.de  2.   Hansen (2007): SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS as a Methodical Approach to the Development of Design Strategies for environmentally sustainable buildings. PhD thesis,