The following interview was conducted by the Northeast Sustainable Energy Association (NESEA) with Paul Eldrenkamp, founder and owner of Byggmeister, Inc., long-time NESEA member, the first Passive House Certified Consultant in New England—and if that doesn't impress you, he also has a Bachelor's degree in the History and Literature of Medieval Europe. The interview has been reprinted here with the permission of NESEA. We urge you to visit the BuildingEnergy10 Conference website for more information about the conference, and would point out that online registration ends March 5—no time to waste!
Some 4,000 renewable energy and green building experts will bring their cutting edge thinking to Boston March 9-11 for the BuildingEnergy10 Conference and Tradeshow, the annual event organized by the Northeast Sustainable Energy Association (NESEA). Now in its 35th year, BuildingEnergy is the oldest and largest regional building energy and renewable energy event in the country, with participants coming from across the Northeast—from Maine to Washington, DC.
Q: NESEA will award a $10,000 prize for Zero Net Energy Building Projects at BE10. Could you explain the difference between a Zero Net Energy project and the Passive House approach?
A: Passive House sets a very specific – and very low – operating energy "budget" for any home or building constructed to Passive House standards. Zero net energy buildings are an impressive accomplishment, but they generally have no particular budget beyond the limits of what the building can produce on site over the course of a year via renewable sources (solar and wind, primarily). A net- zero building is very likely to be a low-energy building, but not always. A house built to Passive House standards will (depending on climate zone) get a fair amount of energy from the sun in the form of gain through the windows and via solar thermal for domestic hot water, but a Passive House building does not have to have PV mounted on the roof or on-site wind, or any other on-site electrical power generation.
Q: You are one of about 100 or so certified Passive House experts in this country. How and why did you decide to become certified?
A: I really like the rigor that the Passive House approach brings to the concept of green building. I think a fair number of "green" builders and designers were getting frustrated with how much air time was being taken up by things that just didn't matter all that much, in the end. The focus on clichés like bamboo flooring and recycled glass tile were getting in the way of any real progress in building performance standards. Too many people were feeling really good about doing a lot of things that were, in the end, meaningless. I think that's why The Passive House approach captured the imagination of so many people in the green building movement. It's incredibly rigorous – it's a whole new way of thinking about design and construction. It may be too rigorous or misguidedly rigorous – that's a legitimate, important debate to have. But the fact is, the Passive House movement has gotten us thinking and talking about just how much energy a building should really be using, and that's exactly the conversation we need to be having right now. In fact, we needed to have it 20 or 30 years ago. In the end, we US designers and builders need to figure out how to make Passive House standards our own – but in a way that does not dilute the message and allow backsliding or gaming the system. A way that impresses the Germans rather than depresses them.
Q: Back in the 70's, Massachusetts was leading the way in terms of superinsulation and air sealing. Are we still out in front when it comes to these kinds of issues?
A: From a policy point of view MA is doing very, very well – we're among a small handful of the most progressive states with regard to energy efficiency and green power initiatives. On the other hand, although there are many outstanding practitioners in MA, I don't feel that we're way out in front in terms of what's getting done in our field. But we are definitely holding our own.
Q: How would you like to see BE10 evolve over the coming years? How would you like to see NESEA evolve?
A: I would like to see BE and NESEA becoming fewer and fewer years ahead of the rest of the industry. Not because NESEA is losing ground, but because we’re continuing to get better at changing the industry and getting everyone on board with the NESEA way of thinking.
Q: What is your role at BE10 this year?
A: I'll be on a panel talking about "counting, measuring, and reporting" -- a topic near and dear to my heart.
Q: What is your favorite BuildingEnergy memory?
A: Joe Lstiburek jumping in the pool fully clothed at a conference in Cromwell, CT in the late 1980s. That was back when he drank beer.
Q: What do you get out of going to the show? How long have you gone?
A: I've been going to NESEA conferences since the late 1980s. I love the energy that's often palpable in the air – the feeling that this is important, exciting (if often frustrating) work that we're all doing, and that we're all learning from each other as we go. It's hard to come out of a Building Energy conference feeling jaded. If that ever happens to me, I'll retire.
For more information, and to register online, visit the BuildingEnergy10 website. Also be sure to check out all the other great NESEA thought leader interviews with the likes of building experts John Straube, Betsy Pettit, and Jamie Wolf. Thanks to Paul Eldrenkamp, and to NESEA's Jo Lee for permission to reprint this article.
Comments
The resulting efficiency in the processes becomes obvious by analyzing the benefits of sustainable building solutions. The water and energy consume are low and therefore the operating costs are pretty reduced.
Posted by anonymous on Mar 3, 2010 2:02am