图片来源：除非另有说明，否则照片是Martin Holladay和Karyn Patno的
More Musings of an Energy Nerd
耐用性至关重要吗？大多数绿色建筑倡导者似乎认为绿色建筑商应始终旨在建造耐用的结构。我自己的意见有所不同。实际上，正如我在a 2009 article on the topic, it’s hard to see any correlation between durability and “greenness.”
I recently had an opportunity to reconsider the advantages and disadvantages of durability when my wife and I visited the Pont du Gard in Languedoc-Roussillon, France.
这位拥有2,000年历史的庞特·杜加（Pont du Gard）是曾经是31英里长的罗马渡槽的剩余部分，该渡槽从乌兹瓦斯（Uzès）的春天运送到Nã®Mes市。大部分渡槽被埋葬。掩埋的渡槽部分类似于砌体涵洞，上面衬有防水灰泥。但是罗马工程师知道，他们无法掩埋穿越加尔顿河的渡槽部分。河道的技术解决方案是一座160英尺高的石桥 - 庞特·杜德（Pont du Gard） - 顶部有渡槽。
Pont du Gard由穿着的石灰石块建造，没有砂浆组装（请参阅页面底部的图2）。
In ancient Roman times, the aqueduct conveyed 44 million gallons of water per day to the public baths, fountains, water spouts, and cisterns of Nîmes. (That amount of water would adequately meet the needs of 138,000 modern American homes.)
Without any maintenance, the aqueduct continued to supply fresh water to Nîmes for 300 to 400 years. Unfortunately, mineral buildup gradually reduced the size of the aqueduct’s channels; eventually, in the 4th or 5th century A.D., the aqueduct ceased functioning.
几个世纪以后，水停止流过渡槽，……
Weekly Newsletter
Get building science and energy efficiency advice, plus special offers, in your inbox.
19条评论
Regarding Satsop & WPPS
SATSOP反应器过时的概念有点倾斜。在当时的WPP下，根本不需要在区域电力网上坐着少数其他正在建设的核武器。随着施工延误的升级成本，很明显，它将无法与现有的大规模水力驱动该区域网格（当时和现在）在经济上竞争。
由于没有市场上高价电力的市场和成本上升，因此WPP无法付出良好的债券支付，导致美国历史上最大的债券失败，这一失败使核电不可降低。从那以后，在美国没有政府保证。（即使有保证，通常也无法融资。）
自那时以来，类似的设计已经完成并委托在需要的市场上，并且可以在价格上竞争。称其为“过时”也许是不准确的。“冗余”或“不经济”或“不规则的定时投资”将更接近标记。
WPP舰队从未受过委托，这可能是一件好事，即使有贷款保证，该幼儿园的大型反应堆也有可怕的记录，即使有贷款。这不仅是美国的事情 - 英国目前正在建设的3吉瓦特·欣克利角C反应堆只能通过保证（随着时间的推移调整的通货膨胀）15美分/千瓦时吸引融资，用于35年的产量，这是它的产量不仅仅是英国基本负载越野风能的成本，而且超过了陆上风能和PV的成本（即使在不那么阳光明媚的雾气稀少的不列颠群岛中也是如此）。构建只是为了备份该反应堆，因为它突然脱落了。这是“能源安全”的对立面，并且在英国纳税人和纳税人对能源基础设施的投资差不多，考虑到最近调整了约40,000,000,000美元的$ 40,000,000,000,000美元的估计（以及不保证的限额），总资本成本可能是花费。
但是，不经济和不必要的事情与过时吗？也许，如果这是曾经建立的最后一个。在2015年，有争议的是，大规模集中发电的现有电网模型已过时，大型核网络只是该模型的一部分。走着瞧。
"Obsolete before it was commissioned"
Dana,
My "obsolete before it was commissioned" comment was a quip intended to highlight the stupidity of the developers and regulators who approved the massively expensive project in the first place.
"Ill-timed" may indeed be more accurate -- but "ill-timed" is overly charitable, I think. How about "unbelievably stupid"?
Unbelievably stupid works!
令人难以置信的愚蠢肯定适用于Hinkley Point C，也可能适用于GA中的Vogtle 3和4。
Some of these projects would be cheaper & better off to take the write-down now, before they load the fuel. As expensive as the WPPS fiasco was, it's cheap compared to the total cost of having to decommission a nuke that didn't run anywhere near the lifecycle built into the financial models. Given that the lifecycle cost of utility scale PV in 2015 in the US is cheaper than just the fuel costs of a US nuke, with onshore wind being even cheaper than that, it's not clear how you're going to get another 35-50 years of service out of big-iron generators (any type), new or existing. Heavy hydro won't be going away, but nukes & big fossil burners are too expensive to fuel & maintain in a smarter-grid environment heavily supplied with distributed zero-marginal cost renewables.
"Ill timed" also works, even for Satsop. If they had waited for electricity markets to expand to where it was actually needed before breaking ground they would still be waiting, but that's what timing your investment is all about, eh? Even the most aggressive assumptions about growth in power sales didn't really support the scale of construction WPPS was going for. They seemed to be going at it with a "if you build it, they will come" mentality, a concept almost worked in the power industry the 1930s & 1940s, but by the late 1950s even finishing some of the Roosevelt era dam projects didn't quite make sense, but they did it anyway, and all but forced it into the market with "all electric home" incentives and discounts, advertising resistance electricity space-heating as modernity.
到了1970年代,当wpp核武器计划被hatched there was ample reason to question who would be buying up all that excess power, and at what price. But at the time there were plenty of people in state government (including governor Dixy Lee Ray, formerly the head of the Atomic Energy Commission) who were steeped in the heady cooling water outflow, with the conviction that expanding energy use would continue unabated forever, despite clear signals in the marketplace (from the oil price shocks, and elsewhere), that energy would have to get cheaper to keep growing at prior decades' rates.
Nuclear power went from "Too cheap to meter", to "Too expensive to matter" in about one generation, two at most. But some haven't gotten the memo yet, ergo Hinkley Point C. It remains to be seen if the Little Nuke that Could designs such as scalable molten salt reactors can beat those economics. I'm fairly pessimistic about their prospects, but could see TransAtomic's design becoming economically rational as a means of processing the existing stockpile of spent fuel rods into power + dramatically reduced half-life of the re-spent fuel. It's worth building a few to find out. Designing and building containment for radioactive waste that would be reliable for 100,000 years without much maintenance isn't something humans have any experience with. But containment for the ~500 years it would take for the molten-salt reactor's waste to cool off after extracting most of the rest of the energy in those spent fuel rods is something we can probably handle.
马丁
A very timely blog. Durability plays a very small role in which residential buildings in North America are abandoned or torn down. Demographics, regional economics, and fashion are much larger factors.
还有一个很好的论点是，纽约或蒙特利尔等城市（像欧洲大部分地区）的较旧建筑中，他们从计划中良好的城市环境中受益于其固有的耐用性。当某事是整体的功能部分时，您倾向于更重视它。
我自己的方法是尝试区分建筑物的哪些要素需要定期替换并详细说明它们以使其更容易。安装窗户的方式，甚至是简单的事情，例如将台阶闪烁钉在屋顶上还是墙上的墙壁可能对面对这些任务的未来所有者来说意味着很大。
Response to Malcolm Taylor
Malcolm,
这chambred'hôtes(bed and breakfast) that my wife and I stayed at near the Pont du Gard was an old stone farmhouse. It was lovely. Many people might say, "It's a good thing that the old farmer who built this house 300 years ago made it durable."
But the house had undergone a recent renovation. I examined the work and talked to our host about it. The building had basically been gutted. It had new flooring, new wall finishes, and mostly new ceilings. It had new plumbing and electrical work. It had a brand new heating system. The bathrooms and kitchen were built from scratch. The windows and doors were all new. In some of the rooms, they left the old walls exposed -- and those sections of wall were uninsulated stone.
因此，可以公平地说，翻新这座农舍的成本基本上与建造新房子相同，只是工作费用可能会增加一点，因为工作的途中有石墙。哦，除了从能量的角度出发，他们最终到达的房屋的表现不佳，因为那些没有隔热的石墙。
如何衡量耐用性
For any structure, the probability of the structure surviving X years declines as X increases. For a house, it is not important that the median lifespan be >100 years. The 90% lifespan is a better way of measuring house durability.
Response to Reid Baldwin
里德，
I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you talking about durability, or durability estimates?
研究员研究统计学的耐久性tics would probably gather data on houses that have either been abandoned or demolished. If you know the demolition date and the construction date, you know how long the house lasted.
当然，对现有建筑物的寿命的估计是不确定的。
If you are looking at a set of houses -- for example, the set of houses built in Salem, Massachusetts in 1850 -- you could probably say that 90% of the houses lasted at least x years. But you can only determine that number if at least 10% of the houses built in Salem, Massachusetts in 1850 have already been abandoned or demolished.
耐用性Metrics
衡量耐用性可能不是我的观点的好标题。正如您指出的那样，直到寿命结束时，您才能测量寿命。但是，我们可以设计预期寿命的概率分布。预期寿命的分配可以以几个点为特征，例如，建筑物失败的机会有10％的可能性，建筑物将失败多长时间，以及90％的时间建筑物将失败的机会。增加10％数字的步骤可能与增加50％数字或90％数量的步骤不一样。我的观点是，采取措施增加10％的数字可能是值得的。采取步骤增加90％的数字可能没有道理。
Response to Reid Baldwin
里德，
I'm still lost. You wrote, "We can design for a life expectancy probability distribution."
真的吗？我们可以做到吗？
该句子内置了各种假设。听起来好像您知道（a）在50年内哪些社区将是可取的，（b）哪种样式的房屋将被如此珍惜以至于将得到照顾，以及（c）哪种类型的房主将拥有足够高的高度在50年内维护房屋的收入和（d）哪些社区将成为未来拆除活动的温床，因为将来的开发人员比修复它们可以赚更多的钱，而（e），（f）和（f）和（f）（G） ...
我不像你那样自信。我有一系列遗弃或拆除建筑物的原因 - 但是屋顶的质量或雨屏缝隙的存在不在我的清单上。
耐用性
Enduring service is one of the proper goals of workmanship in construction. We all know that the future will change the purpose for a building and the way it works. But the rule of thumb is whatever you had a hand in putting together, should still be going strong when the your work is deconstructed.
Response to Timothy James Robinson
Timothy,
我无法弄清楚您的陈述是毫无意义的重言式还是不可能。
You wrote, "Whatever you had a hand in putting together, should still be going strong when your work is deconstructed." Are you talking about when the components of the building are deconstructed or when the entire building is deconstructed?
如果您说建筑物的组成部分需要持续到维护工人进行解构（失败）组件的那一天，那就是一种重言式。组件必须持续到失败为止。当组件失败时，它们会被解构和维修。
If you are saying that the components of the building need to last until the building is deconstructed, that's a high bar. So the only roofing permitted is roofing that last for the life of the building? All roofing has to be slate or 16-ounce copper? And when acid rain eats through the copper, what then? The building is bulldozed?
Many building components need to be replaced before the life of the building is over. So what?
耐用性
An influential book on this topic is Stewart Brand's "How Buildings Learn" It's been 30 years since I read it, but I remember Brand advocating that we build assuming that buildings will be re-purposed. He advocating thinking about buildings having 3 systems; the first was a simple structure that supported and protected the space It should be built to last for centuries. The 2nd system, if I remember correctly, was the inner walls, which would get moved around on occasion as the building's use changed. Finally, interior finishes and mechanical systems would get replaced fairly regularly so we so the designer/builder should make them easily replaced.
我认为值得重新阅读。
吉姆Baerg反应
Jim,
我当然同意您的建议建筑物如何学习is worth a re-read.
Many GBA blogs and articles have made the same suggestion. Among the GBA articles that discuss建筑物如何学习这是：Low-Road Buildings Are Homeowner-Friendly。
Inspired by Steward Brand, builder Tedd Benson developed the Open-Built Platform, a system that attempts to "disentangle" building components that need to be remodeled regularly from the more durable building envelope. For more on Tedd Benson's Open-Built Platform approach, see these two GBA articles:
统一房屋：推动房屋建筑的界限
Service Cavities for Wiring and Plumbing
对细节的关注会创造耐用性吗？
My understanding of the green/durability question comes from the belief that increased attention to detail required to make a house tight, which then triggers the need for controlled air exchanges, will necessarily make a building better built and therefore more durable. As it is only a belief, and not a fact proven by time, since these notions are relatively new, we can only assume them to be true. And even if time proves them to be untrue, we do know the occupants are likelier to live in a healthier environment with relatively less expense.
对金·沙纳汉（Kim Shanahan）的回应
金，
You propose an interesting theory: that "increased attention to detail required to make a house tight, which then triggers the need for controlled air exchanges, will necessarily make a building better built and therefore more durable."
Unfortunately, recent decades provide plenty of counter-examples to undermine your theory. Many enthusiastic builders have jumped into the field of energy-efficient construction, and have managed simultaneously to make a house that is tight and in need of controlled air exchanges -- and have also ensured that the house has moisture problems and rots quickly. The cluster of EIFS failures is North Carolina is just one example of the type of failure I'm talking about.
当然，要注意的建筑商试图从每个失败集群中学习，并在将来努力做不同的事情。但是，并非所有的建筑商都非常关注，我们每年都在学习新的东西。（例如，查看所有带有敞开的喷雾泡沫隔热的条件阁楼，现在有潮湿的屋顶护套。）
因此，可悲的是，您的成功公式 - 使房屋紧紧，并确保房屋控制了空气交换 - 不足以确保耐用性。
Passive Houses too?
马丁，
Of course you are correct, but this statement gives me hope: "...builders who pay attention try to learn from each failure cluster, and strive to do things differently in the future." I also know you have documented spectacular failures of certain passive houses, specifically in Europe, that had underground ventilation systems for air exchanges.
But have we seen evidence that the notion of attention to detail and conditioned air exchanges that is taken to extremes in certified Passive House is creating disastrous unintended consequences?
对金·沙纳汉（Kim Shanahan）的回应
金，
Like you, I'm a big believer in reducing air leakage through building envelopes. I also believe that a tight home needs a mechanical ventilation system.
大多数相信这些原则的建筑商都是建造良好的建筑物。然而，我们仍然有很多问题可以让我们所有人忙碌，维修和学习。
Lots of builders have trouble with wall flashing details and WRBs, so wall rot problems will be with us for many decades to come. To see some fun photos, check outAll About Wall Rot。
忽视宽容
长期忽视的宽容是渡槽和旧石农舍的特征，但没有太多的机械依赖的结构（出于许多充分的理由）今天我们发现自己在建造。也许及时我们可以学会创造房屋，即使在我们无法积极维护它们的时代，也可以保持声音。
对詹姆斯·摩根的回应
詹姆士，
You're right that (at least in centuries past) an old stone farmhouse could survive decades of neglect -- especially if it had durable roofing like clay tiles. But decades of neglect aren't kind to the interiors of any kind of home that people want to live in in the 21st century, because our interiors include kitchen cabinets, insulation, and electrical wiring.
如果房屋包括这些功能，那么我们在法国住的石墙的床和早餐也是如此，那么数十年的忽视将导致需要全肠康复工作。石墙不能保护昂贵的东西。
登录或成为成员发表评论。
Sign up 登录