Bad Visions And Unsustainable Cost

unsustainable-building-cost

An illustrious vision of which we are told is a green design.

  Above we see a designers vision of something we are told is a green building design, and the author of this no doubt wants to sell this building to someone somewhere.  However what the buyer would obtain is art work with very little consideration of what is true in terms of green building design.  First of all the design involves unusual framing of the curved sections and requires additional work in order to design the various parts to fit into place, which adds additional energy or rather power consumption as well as cost.  Furthermore the notion of all the green vegetation growing within the opening of the structure requires additional energy in terms of electrical power to pump tons of water throughout those sections to keep everything alive.  Hence this design adds additional cost to operating the building and it is doubtful that there is enough green vegetation in such designs to impact the air quality of this world if these designs were wide spread.  About the only functionality of growing vegetation on buildings is to either have vines up the sides of buildings to shade and lower its thermal mass temperature in the summer, or to have such vegetation growing on top of buildings to do the same.

  In this video there is a concern for the merit of cooling a giant dome envisioned to be built over the city of Houston.  The matter of concern here is whether or not the theories being employed to cool the structure will actually work, and if not then Houston will have a monster of a problem with the power consumption required to cool the interior of the domed city.  Although there is some discussion of the method and means of ventilation for keeping the interior cool and lowering the humidity, the fact that this dome is clear and that it allows radiant solar energy to enter through the dome, where this source of heat can cause the interior temperature to escalate once the thermal mass of all the buildings and concrete and pavement has absorbed sufficient enough heat.  A potential problem exist on this wise, the notion of ventilating a dome to cool it comes from an original design that was not clear.  The theorist here are hoping that natural air convection due to heating of the air by solar means will lead to upwards ventilation out of the top of the dome.

  As for the reason for wanting to build the dome to help save the city from the ravages of hurricanes as well as heat and humidity, a better investment would be to change their building practices and require new buildings to meet with certain design  considerations.  we might also ask our self if not those involved with this idea are actually wanting to build a futuristic vision that they have, perhaps one borrowed from science fiction movies, which we might also ask our selves of the unusual building design seen at the top of this page?

  The only practical use that any of us would obtain from a glass dome is to have some warm place somewhat nice to go and spend time in, in the winter time.  One thing that we have learned from green houses is that although we provide them with ventilation both passive and active, we still have to cover them over as the summer progresses or else the plants we are growing inside the green house will receive too much solar thermal energy and die.

  The matter of the dome over Houston then becomes a question of whether or not the project will result in something that will require the city to have to utilize enormous amounts of electrical energy to cool the structure and to help move the air for ventilation since such a structure can trap such things as automobile exhaust.  Who knows this might work however, but it is a costly vision on such a large scale when more down to earth means can be employed at a much more reduced price over all to tackle their problem.  First of all in terms of their heat problem, increasing the insulation standards of buildings is a start.

  As we go about our business to explore a whole new world of ideas and technologies as well as visions for a green world and marketplace, we need to stop and consider which visions are affordable and sustainable.  If we invest in something that was visionary and it turns out wrong, where the theories of the operation of the design fail to deliver on their promise, then we could be stuck with something that requires more energy to keep operating than it was meant to.  It should lower the cost of operation rather than increase it.  Hence it is best to stick with tried and true concepts if we want to make a good investment.

extravogantcost_hf

  In this visionary piece of architecture we have solar panels placed over two curved surfaces, one surface is somewhat of a dome while the other is a spiral walkway to nowhere, which has solar panels curved around its structure.  Here the designer somehow equated futuristic looking features with green building design and created a costly construction idea.  Several solar powered homes could be built for the cost of this construction or a much larger office building with much simpler and hence basic design.  This design also utilizes more energy to construct from energy used to heat and shape metal to all of the energy expend on suspending and hanging the spiraled feature.  Although the author of this vision tagged this as a green building design it is hard to afford in terms of construction cost, and hence such designs are unsustainable in terms of visions.  No one needs to hire an architect who does things like this.  This is not a green building design, this is art work at the purchasers expense.

Advertisements

How It Is That Some Talk Of Sustainability And Make It An Oxymoron

    You will have to pardon the crude way of speaking here in this text, but you have to realize how some people in this world utilize this word “sustainability.”

  In order for a society to be sustainable it has to be founded upon the concept of sustainable ways and means from the government on down to how people live their lives.  If a government is spending more than it takes in, or is ever increasing its spending year by year without addressing the need to balance its budget than that government will fall, it will spend its nation into bankruptcy as it reaches the point where it can never pay back its debts based upon the money it borrows.  Hence in this scenario such a government’s talk about sustainability is a true oxymoron and it is likewise hypocritical.  It is incompetence, and furthermore there are such people in this world as this that head up various nations who believe that the remedy to reach sustainability is to die off much of their population.  And as we are now seeing some of these nations have taken in so many refugees that the scenario there in those nations is unsustainable and is likely to lead to a down fall as well as civil war in Europe.  Thus as we talk about this word sustainability and its true concept we have to address the lack of people in this world practicing this although they preach about it.  Sustainability unfortunately in the view of some in the various governments of this world means nothing more than population reduction in their minds.  And so, they favor such things as endless wars and inferior health care to help reduce the world’s population as fast as possible.  If you expect those who preach about sustainability to practice what they preach, in the purest sense of the word, you will be disappointed.  Do not be surprised to find out that their definition of sustainability is twisted.

  It is left up to us to utilize the word correctly and not make it an oxymoron.  Also we have to realize that when we are talking with people in government about sustainable building and sustainable communities their definition of the word might be more like something from George Orwell’s “1984” or something like that seen in some sort of bazaar science fiction movie.  Hence what we might be thinking and what they might be thinking are not at all one and the same.  Some of them have this vision of us being reduced down to living in third world conditions, where they promise us a little plot of ground to grow tomatoes in and a goat or in some special cases cow.  While they reduce our roads back to being dirt, and remove our electricity and give us a candle to use at night.  This is actually a vision you can see being spoken of by some who use this word sustainability.

  If those who speak of sustainability within our governments and learning institutions were actually working on making sustainable things possible in the true sense then we would have seen a transformation take place in our world some time back when they began to toss this word around.  However as I said above,  you should not be surprised to find out that their definition of sustainability is something other than they preach.  Its like the fallacy of the notions of socialism, which reduces the people down to living by the means of government being their provider, where the corporations become government owned and hence the freedom of choice is removed from the products in the marketplace.  Where there is no competition, the corporations can charge what the want as the government allows this to be carried on.  Where there is little real production, where this is no competition to spark new companies and hence new jobs, where the people have to resort to living with whats available and thus provided them regardless of how inferior the product may be.  Where also, the means of production has been removed which removes the people’s means to work and support them self, such a government will come to view the people as a burden and either fall under the weight of having reached a point of un-sustainability, or turn on the people and send troops out to reduce the nation’s population.

  Here today in the USA we have seen our factories leave for overseas some time back, thus taking with them our means of working to support ourselves, and hence we have now a nanny or welfare state that is providing the people with welfare and food stamps, and is now providing them with free health care.  The problem with this is that someone has to pay for all of this.  And those who are paying are those who have managed to remain working, and in addition to this, our government is borrowing money to support some of this since the tax payer can not afford this all on their own, as they also spend allot of what they borrow wastefully.  And thus, there is a lack of understanding economics, as well as a lack of understanding what sustainability really means.  Call it incompetence or say that it is contrived, it will lead to our ruin.  Never listen to a socialist talk about sustainability because he or she first of all has no concept of economics.  Capitalism with a free market within a nation, along with a good manufacturing base where the market is fueled by affordable products, makes an economy robust and keeps it that way.  When you remove a nation’s means of production you remove the means that the people have to support and sustain them self.  Along the way the government will act partially as a provider, but the means to sustain the people is now gone, the government has to increase the tax on those who have remained working as well as borrow money, and thus in the end the people will meet with their demise.  They will come to a day when they will starve and when troops come out to put down an uprising that has occurred when the supplies run out.  You see if you follow an unsustainable course, this is the end result.  You can not escape this end once you have come to the point where the scenario has reduced the people down to a generation or two of dependence upon the state as their provider, where all the manufacturing jobs are gone.  Hence we are on the wrong road, and have been listening to those with this alternate idea of what sustainability means.

  Here at Emerald City Visions we do talk about ways and means to become sustainable and self sufficient in the pure sense of the word, and will not spin the definition to mean anything like our incompetents in the world’s various governments and radical institutions spin the word to mean.

  Fortunately here in the USA we still have some of the means we need to re-establish a robust economy.  We can do this surprisingly through green building and not by way of the green means so far provided by politicians and those institutions who sound good on the surface have provided us.  You see their definition of a green economy and market is another oxymoron, especially when you see them legislating and make illegal such things as living independently off the grid, and do not say that you have not heard of this, you can Google this.  We can not do as they do which is to destroy our base of natural resources that we must utilize until the day we have come to be able to switch over to renewables, at present we can not force renewables on society without providing a means to afford them.  here we know of a means as well as know of a means to get the market moving so that jobs will be created and then people will be able to invest in the kinds of things that the future needs.

  Check this link out if you want to see more about how they talk of sustainability but do the opposite. States With Laws (and What They Are) About Living Off The Grid