更多的来宾博客
The market for zero net energy (ZNE) residential and commercial buildings is growing rapidly and is poised for a significant evolutionary leap — if not a boom. Building codes are advancing steadily, zero-energy-ready mandates are being implemented in many states, corporations are demanding high-performance facilities, and the sleeping giant of consumer awareness is stirring.
Designers, architects, builders, and tradespeople need to keep up with these rapid changes. To help them get up to speed, local organizations and businesses are stepping up to provide the education these professionals need in order to thrive in the new environment.
这类本地倡议的一个很好的例子是，两家非营利组织与本地建筑商和一名能源顾问的最新合作是开发和介绍自己的零能源设计，建设和营销的课程。
最好的ZNE培训以其独特的气候，文化，经济和建筑实践来满足当地社区的需求。本地发展的教育是利用当地资源来提供教育的一种好方法，随着对ZNE房屋和建筑物的需求的增长，建筑专业人士将需要的教育。
“We knew we needed to do something to make sure our design and building professionals were ready for California’s zero net energy code,” said Andy Pease of In Balance Green Consulting, one of the organizers. “We had 75 attendees, rave reviews, and no organizer burn-out. If that sounds appealing, we humbly offer suggestions for creating a great ZNE learning opportunity on the cheap.”
Pease recommends six elements for organizing and conducting a successful ZNE training program without stress:
Set reasonable goals:使该系列简单，负担得起且非常好，但是不需要完美。寻求足够的本地技术专长，以提供内容，而无需支付外部演讲者的费用和协调。这样可以使价格足够低，以吸引很多与会者。
用非营利组织进行培训：The California program was co-presented by the American Institute of Architecture California Central Coast Chapter and the Central Coast Green Building Council (CCGBC), a local USGBC chapter. Neither organization has professional staff, but an intern provided graphic and web support. The two nonprofit organizations gave the series credibility, and the series gave the organizations recognition and added value for membership. This was a win-win for everyone that can work in any geographic area.
Form a small steering committee:在合作者之间进行任务使工作负载更容易为每个人管理。就加利福尼亚倡议而言，两家公司领导了这项努力：建造者，艾伦建筑和一名绿色建筑顾问，以平衡绿色咨询。他们开发了培训的框架，并提供了大约一半的内容。另外八个手工挑选的扬声器涵盖了其他特定主题。志愿者处理物流，包括广告，食品，场地和注册。
Offer a manageable time frame:Consider scheduling meetings at times that make it easy for potential participants to attend. For example, organizers of the California initiative developed a four-part series that was scheduled from 8 a.m. to noon on the second Tuesday of the month for four months. This fit well with the busy schedules of the participants.
Embrace the value of in-person presentation:There are many great online resources now, but there’s no substitute for the value of personal connection and interaction. Pease’s series partnered with an architecture firm that generously offered the use of its 60-person conference room, with the added bonus that organizers could video conference the entire series to a remote location. They attracted 60 people in San Luis Obispo and another 15 in their Santa Barbara conference room, watching together by video.
Keep it inexpensive:AIA和USGBC成员的整个系列费用为每人40美元，非会员的费用为60美元。他们提供了16个继续教育单位（CEU），所有这些单位都是令人垂涎的，以及针对AIA成员的健康，安全与福利（HSW）单位。类似的商业课程可能高达350美元。
Pease解释说：“任何AIA分会都可以是CEU提供商。”“指导委员会制定了学习目标，并提交了关键的主持人履历，然后提交了学分，就像在任何常规午餐会议或其他AIA赞助的活动中一样。与会者提供了他们的AIA号码，我们确保他们为每个班级签名。”
除了偿还旅行外，没有任何演讲者被付款，所以唯一的费用是早餐和小吃。注册（3,000美元）和赞助（5,000美元）的收入超过了3,000美元的费用，主要用于食品。该项目为非营利组织提供了5,000美元的净资助奖学金。
Grassroots education drew a full house
The four sessions covered these topics:
Session 1:ZNE on the Central Coast: What, when, and how; policy, codes, and climate-responsive design for this region.
Session 2:Building Science for effective ZNE, heat transfer, air sealing, and vapor control; energy modeling.
Session 3:ZNE技术是合作伙伴，而不是拐杖；HVAC，DHW，可再生能源。
Session 4:ZNE性能验证；我们从这里去的地方；策略，融资和下一步的工具箱。
Pease and the other organizers hope this example of grassroots education for a zero energy future will inspire professionals in other areas to plan their own courses. An important lesson from this example is to utilize local organizations that already exist, whether that be local AIA or USGBC chapters, or home builders associations, designers associations, trade groups, equipment and material suppliers, environmental organizations, and civic groups.
If you’ve created a similar initiative in your area, please tell us about it in the comments.
This post originally appeared at the零能源项目and is reprinted here with permission.
15 Comments
ZNE应在芽中咬住，并用更准确地衡量重要事物的指标取代 - 例如环境影响和全系统的成本。
Yes we should kill this idea before it gets popular.
重要的是，我们通过限制每个乘员的平方英尺数量，就像能量之星房屋计划一样，这很重要。
我们不能仅仅因为便宜有效而使用他们想要的任何绝缘材料。
如果您可以将规则归结为一段，那么任何人都可以在没有顾问和检查员的情况下这样做。
讽刺
沃尔特
丹佛的购房者仍然不在乎Zne。
但是，我会继续构建它们，因为它们的成本并不多。
I think home buyers have to be educated to care about efficiency and environmental impact in the same way they have been taught to care about stainless steel appliances and granite countertops.
让我们把它们全部寄给重新教育营地。
Speaking of efficiency and ZNE, did anyone read yesterday;s article in the WSJ on the true costs/assumption surrounding Calif "solar mandate"?
与公用事业量表太阳能相比，住宅太阳能很少有意义（有时在政治轻松或个人财务水平上除外）。如果使用更合乎逻辑的方法，则可以以较低的成本避免更多的环境破坏。
Google "Siting Solar PV Capacity to Maximize Environmental Benefits".
与分布式较小的规模（包括住宅屋顶）相比，该论文并没有真正解决公用事业规模每美元避免的环境损失。它的重点放在分布式太阳能的每笔补贴美元的避免外部性上，该太阳能因邮政编码而异。
确实建议（在第22页上）...
“尽管经济学可能有利于公用事业规模的系统，但对分布式生成系统的政策偏好仍然存在。”
...但是不要试图分析公用事业量表的收益实际上是否高于分布式太阳能。他们指出，不考虑任何考虑因素/收益的平面政策补贴的经济效率非常糟糕，这意味着如果这些考虑因素已内置在政策中，公用事业规模的投资者可能会对这些方面更加敏感，但是对于小型投资者来说也是如此。
它们使明显的观察结果（第22页的底部）
"Given the dramatic variation in environmental benefits both across and within states, a policy preference for uncoordinated capacity investments is difficult to justify."
是的,目前的政策工具有我们支付那么red to an economically optimized approach (duh!), but it's also unclear how quickly it could be optimized, given how long it would take to get political consensus and sufficient data to make those optimizations.
It's all a moving target, with lots of moving parts. As the grid grows greener, the less marginal benefit for ANY new zero-carb generation is less. As a nation we'd clearly do better applying more of the 30% tax credit subsidy to the coal-heavy states than in already-low-carb California, but the national policy makers seem to be taking long lunch breaks, and California policy makers can only deal with what's in front of them. (Opening their power markets to the WECC could increase their overall influence though.)
将化石燃料燃烧的外部成本（以税收或费用为税收）并根据其边际利益补贴可再生能源，这是经济学家的梦想。但是，即使可以清除政治障碍以使政策方向改变这一变化，也将对最大收益进行补贴以实施最麻烦。
The speed at which PV + battery lifecycle costs are falling, by the time policy optimizations could be realized they could easily be moot, and PV isn't the only player. The actual first tranche bid PRICING of the offshore wind power that is slated to be built in the early 2020s ($74/Mwh) is cheaper than the COST estimates of the THIRD tranche investments for 2029 ($79/Mwh) in analysis done just two years ago.
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/first-large-us-offshore-wind-project-sets-record-low-price-starting-at-74#gs.InQ8C3Y
https://www.ceoe.udel.edu/file%20library/about/siow/maouckshore-wind-future-cost-cost-cost-study-final-final-final-14-mar-16-mar-16.pdf
还要注意,同一LCOE在岸wind projects in the US were as recently as 6 years ago. Onshore wind is getting cheaper too.
对我的第一句话的支持在其他地方，但是典型的（并非总是）实用程序量表PV胜于住宅的卓越成本有效性是如此清楚，以至于不值得讨论（再次）。
Agreed, wind is often a cost effective renewable source (and clearly it shouldn't be done at the residential level).
史蒂夫·纳普（Steve Knapp），我以舒适的态度出售它们。节能房屋非常舒适。每个人都可以缠绕着自己的头，这是一种美学价值，就像花岗岩台面一样。
不管可再生能源的来源如何，您是否可以同意，使房屋更舒适和节能，这是所有零能源讨论的核心，这是一件好事吗？我在加利福尼亚州，目前正在燃烧广泛的火灾，使建筑物更加高效和实现温室气体排放的深度减少的紧迫性变得越来越明显。也许有更好的方法可以比通过加利福尼亚的2020年能源法规要求。让我们讨论一下。另外，没有人在加利福尼亚州说不应将可再生能源供应到网格。我们要求在2020年之前续签33％的电网能源，到2030年50％。我们有望实现这些目标。
Whatever you think of California policy, the state is taking climate change more seriously than most other areas of the country. See this report for more information:https://www.ethree.com/tools/pathways-model/. E3 is a contractor to the California Energy Commission.
我建议，通常无法检测到一个良好的，当前的代码最小房屋和类似能量使用的类似代码房屋之间的舒适性差异。但是，对舒适性主张的更多量化将有所帮助。
更好的事情是什么 - X减少环境影响，以改善1美元的房屋能源效率，或者通过其他方面的价格减少两次X X？不幸的是，做较少的事情最终是不做更好的事情的借口（例如，迫使公用事业支付污染，以便他们有动力使用更多可再生能源）。
可用的环境保护供应非常有限 - 鼓励每个人有效地花费它们。
凯文·迪克森（Kevin Dickenson）在回应中的评论可能是正确的：
“丹佛的购房者仍然不在乎Zne。
但是，我会继续构建它们，因为它们的成本并不多。”
无论是否真的更舒适，如果设计和构建ZNE的成本实际上都比当前的代码均高。这是“ ...环境保护美元...”的有效$ 0成本的政策升级。
That's a pretty easy spending decision.
我期望在CA中也非常正确（在CA的大多数情况下，比Kevin's Co更容易做到），因为设计师和建筑商在此过程中得到了更好的教育，以及全面安装的可再生能源成本（是否分布式或公用事业量表）继续下降。
I suggest that anyone who thinks they can build a ZNE house for the same cost as an intelligently built IBC code min house is wrong. As Dana has said before, even code min homes are overbuilt in terms of simple $ effectiveness. But let's see the numbers....
Kevin seems to imply that that NZE is effectively pretty close to the "..intelligently built code min house...".
到NZE参加CA Tract House和Custom House设计师和建筑商的第一阶业务是更聪明地建造它们，但我怀疑在新住房市场的最低点，它们会比当前的代码MIN Houses更昂贵至少有一点。对于定制房屋或中距离房屋，可能是剃须刀的薄成本差异。增加的热架桥接/较低的热性能框架对于数十亿美元的凸起和窗户型功能增加了成本，可以通过更简单的足迹和框架来恢复，并具有更简单的空气密封和隔热效果。
由于CA已经在这条路上，因此我们肯定会看到数字。
登录或创建一个帐户以发布评论。
注册 登录