What do y'all think of LEED standards?

[Flyover]

I was fascinated by this series I saw on Youtube where they built a demonstration house to (and in many instances exceeding) LEED specs. (I started on this page and basically worked my way through the videos in chronological order.) The house looks wonderful. Seems like everyone should be building this way!

But clearly everyone is not building that way. I get that a major part of it is up-front cost: although LEED specs might greatly reduce the cost of the house over its lifetime, most people move every 4-5 years so they aren't going to be paying the full cost themselves. Plus, some people might do a financial calculation and decide the money they save up front with more conventional construction methods can be invested in, say, the stock market to create yields that exceed the savings advertised by LEED within the same timeframe.

So aside from cost considerations, what are other criticisms of LEED? Anything structural or mechanical the LEED evangelists won't tell you?

PS. I wasn't sure which sub-forum to put this in; I know LEED also extends to stuff like insulation and architecture and roofing, but we don't have a "construction methods" page.

 

[Snoonyb]

Sounds like a communist googlog.

 

[Flyover]

@Snoonyb I don't know what a googlog is. You mean a gulag? I'm curious to know why you think LEED sounds like that. Actually I just really don't understand your comment, please explain.

 

[Bob Reynolds]

I don't find anything wrong with Leed certification for buildings. We are all about being energy efficient and there are long term benefits here. A building is going to use energy every day for the rest of it's useful life. Why not make it as energy efficient as possible?

 

[Snoonyb]

@Snoonyb I don't know what a googlog is. You mean a gulag? I'm curious to know why you think LEED sounds like that. Actually I just really don't understand your comment, please explain.

Keep drinking the kool-aid

Because"green" is a newly minted acronym for an excuse to shove liberal propaganda down our collective throats, IE., it's a sales gimmick, just like "climate change" and "global warming".

Energy efficiency, is energy efficiency, go ahead, I dare you to say it, not some made up, feel good, political acronym.

Green to me is fresh air, roof top gardens, flowered planting on mezzanines, reforestation of the Brazilian/Amazon rain forest.

 

[Flyover]

@Snoonyb I don't know that much about LEED; my understanding is that it specifies certain requirements a building should have so that it is optimally efficient and undisruptive to the environment around it. Doesn't say anything about politics or even about climate change, does it? As far as I can remember, the guy in the videos never mentioned anything remotely political even once, and he's pretty gung-ho about LEED.

Maybe I'm wrong and LEED justifies itself with political language, but even then I don't see how it would change anything about the specifications themselves. Like you yourself just said, an efficient, low-impact building is an efficient low-impact building regardless what the climate is doing and regardless what people are saying the climate is doing. Does LEED not accomplish this?

Is the word "green" even in there anywhere? Seems like even environmentalists recognize that "green" is a meaningless buzzword.

Maybe you could tell me what kool-aid I've been drinking and show me evidence I've been drinking it before you accuse me of that. Kinda rude if you ask me.

 

[Sparky617]

Improving energy efficiency is a good thing. Moving from incandescent bulbs to LEDs, higher efficiency appliances, better HVAC systems all contribute to less demand for new power plants as our population continues to grow. Cars today are more powerful, longer lasting, more efficient, safer than anything built in the past. Condensing gas furnaces turn more of the gas into usable heat for the building. Moving towards LEED construction will in the long run make it cheaper to heat and cool the house.

Of course tightening the construction of a house, apartment building, or office does require things like air-to-air exchangers to bring in fresh air without opening windows and letting expensive conditioned air escape. This was never a concern when houses were quite leaky on their own.

This isn't green Kool-Aid it is a smart practice. Sometimes it does take regulation to make it happen because as you state in the first post it can be expensive and when people move ever 5-7 years the pay back might not benefit them. Somewhat related, when someone builds an office building they don't think about the operating costs if they aren't the ones paying for it. You need 100 exit lights and traditional ones are $5 cheaper than more efficient ones you opt to save the $500. If you're the one paying the maintenance and electric costs that extra $5 per light will quickly be paid for through reduced power consumption and reduced maintenance. LEDs last a very long time and the back-up batteries can be smaller due to the lower energy requirements. I ran the numbers a few years ago at our church. Replacing the aging incandescent exit lights with new LEDs paid for itself in less than a year. Especially if we had to replace batteries in the existing units. They might only use a pair of 15w bulbs but they are on 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

 

[Snoonyb]

@Snoonyb I don't know that much about LEED; my understanding is that it specifies certain requirements a building should have so that it is optimally efficient and undisruptive to the environment around it. Doesn't say anything about politics or even about climate change, does it? As far as I can remember, the guy in the videos never mentioned anything remotely political even once, and he's pretty gung-ho about LEED.

Maybe I'm wrong and LEED justifies itself with political language, but even then I don't see how it would change anything about the specifications themselves. Like you yourself just said, an efficient, low-impact building is an efficient low-impact building regardless what the climate is doing and regardless what people are saying the climate is doing. Does LEED not accomplish this?

Is the word "green" even in there anywhere? Seems like even environmentalists recognize that "green" is a meaningless buzzword.

Maybe you could tell me what kool-aid I've been drinking and show me evidence I've been drinking it before you accuse me of that. Kinda rude if you ask me.

From the lead website; "We believe green buildings are the foundation of something bigger: helping people, and the communities and cities they reside in"

What is the 3rd word?

 

[Flyover]

Thanks, @Sparky617. So what I was wondering is, are there any hidden trade-offs that we don't know about in LEED (or other similar building practices)? Does efficiency come at any other costs besides $$$?

 

[Flyover]

@Snoonyb: I was only referencing the videos. I quickly looked up LEED on duckduckgo to see what it stood for, that's all. OK, they use "green" but it doesn't seem like a political usage in that instance, it's just shorthand for "efficient and minimally environmentally disruptive".

 

[Snoonyb]

Improving energy efficiency is a good thing. Moving from incandescent bulbs to LEDs, higher efficiency appliances, better HVAC systems all contribute to less demand for new power plants as our population continues to grow. Cars today are more powerful, longer lasting, more efficient, safer than anything built in the past. Condensing gas furnaces turn more of the gas into usable heat for the building. Moving towards LEED construction will in the long run make it cheaper to heat and cool the house.

Of course tightening the construction of a house, apartment building, or office does require things like air-to-air exchangers to bring in fresh air without opening windows and letting expensive conditioned air escape. This was never a concern when houses were quite leaky on their own.

This isn't green Kool-Aid it is a smart practice. Sometimes it does take regulation to make it happen because as you state in the first post it can be expensive and when people move ever 5-7 years the pay back might not benefit them. Somewhat related, when someone builds an office building they don't think about the operating costs if they aren't the ones paying for it. You need 100 exit lights and traditional ones are $5 cheaper than more efficient ones you opt to save the $500. If you're the one paying the maintenance and electric costs that extra $5 per light will quickly be paid for through reduced power consumption and reduced maintenance. LEDs last a very long time and the back-up batteries can be smaller due to the lower energy requirements. I ran the numbers a few years ago at our church. Replacing the aging incandescent exit lights with new LEDs paid for itself in less than a year. Especially if we had to replace batteries in the existing units. They might only use a pair of 15w bulbs but they are on 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

1st off, the "kool-aide", is the political kool-aide, IE. the process of bending over and grabbing your ankles for some politicians clap trap.

I'm all for efficiency. I was installing metal halide fixtures in commercial enterprises before led's even were patented by CREE. They were efficient, durable but expensive, thus, led's.

It's called evolution, like it or not, it's the inspirational light at the end of the tunnel.

 

[Flyover]

@Snoonyb Is building to LEED standards, or even just speaking favorably about those standards, the same as bending over and grabbing your ankles for the politicians? That seems like what you were implying.

 

[Snoonyb]

Thanks, @Sparky617. So what I was wondering is, are there any hidden trade-offs that we don't know about in LEED (or other similar building practices)? Does efficiency come at any other costs besides $$$?

I'd think the the individual application, in the cert. process, would be determining, but that any deficiencies deemed as burdensome, would not deter the developer. The resolution would, as always, risk-reward.

 

[Snoonyb]

@Snoonyb Is building to LEED standards, or even just speaking favorably about those standards, the same as bending over and grabbing your ankles for the politicians? That seems like what you were implying.

You are reading to much into it. It's the political clap-trap associated with "green".

If you want "green", get a bicycle powered generator, because that's their goal, and wind and solar are decades away.

 

[Flyover]

@Snoonyb In the original post I said LEED looked like a good idea but wondered what were hidden downsides. You came on and told me "keep drinking the kool-aid." You eventually explained that meant bending over for politicians. Now you're saying I'm reading too much into it and something about bicycles. Do you even understand the words you're writing?

I'm not trying to argue about this. I just want some actual answers, in coherent English, to the question I wrote in the OP.

 

[Snoonyb]

@Snoonyb In the original post I said LEED looked like a good idea but wondered what were hidden downsides. You came on and told me "keep drinking the kool-aid." You eventually explained that meant bending over for politicians. Now you're saying I'm reading too much into it and something about bicycles. Do you even understand the words you're writing?

I'm not trying to argue about this. I just want some actual answers, in coherent English, to the question I wrote in the OP.

And after all of the numerous clarifications, you are still unaware that "green" is a liberal acronym for banishing all sources of energy that the industrial revolution brought to the modern society we live in today.

In short hand, post 13 says, follow the money.

 

[bud16415]

An old timer 40 years ago told me something that stuck. He said “If you want all that economy you are going to have to pay for it.”



That saying has meant different things to me at different times.



45 years ago I bought my first house and a guy stopped and said he would put in a gas well for me guaranteed to hit gas and give me more than enough to run the house on forever. I asked him how much and he said $10k. I thought about it for a while as he might as well told me a million as I had no idea where I would get that money. I did the math and if I did have the 10k, I could leave it in the bank and pay my gas bill off the interest. People around me in their 60 with money were putting them in and I thought they will have to live past 100 to get a payout and here I was a young guy that maybe could get some return and didn’t have the money.



Most people want to find some happy medium when buying a home do they want 2000 sq ft with ok energy bills or do they want for the same price 1000 sq ft that saves them 100 bucks a month. From what I see they care more about real stone countertops and them being the right color than how thick the walls are.

It is a hard sell to many people.

 

[Flyover]

@Snoonyb:

What is your point? I asked if there are hidden downsides, besides up-front cost, of building to LEED spec. This is a thread for answering that question. You can start your own thread about the politics of environmentalism if that's what you're obsessed with.

@bud16415:

Makes sense. Sounds like more variation on "up front cost".

Now I wonder whether other aspects of LEED specs are things most people would consider spartan or luxurious. Radiant heating in the floor for example is something I always thought of as a fancy luxury, but in the videos I linked they use them in that house to help reduce the need to heat up the inside air so much. ("Most of the heat is at the floor where you are instead of up by the ceiling where you aren't.")

What does LEED say about countertops, for example? Marble/stone retains heat (and cold) much better than laminate/MDF, so might play a role in regulating indoor air temp.

I remember years ago seeing a Huell Howser episode about straw bale construction, and one of the things the guy in that video said was it gets you these real deep window sills you can turn into window seats and reading nooks and what not, and I thought that was kind of cool. A "luxury" feature you'd have to go out of your way to put into a conventional home but get "for free" with straw bale construction.

 

[Snoonyb]

"What is your point? I asked if there are hidden downsides, besides up-front cost, of building to LEED spec"

I'll again refer you to post #13.

 

[Flyover]

I can't understand what you wrote there in #13, @Snoonyb. My foreign friends tell me English is a tough language though, so I don't hold it against you, and I'm up with the baby so I have time to try and pick this apart...

I'd think the the individual application, in the cert. process, would be determining,

Translation: "it depends on how the process of applying for certification goes."

I think you do have to fill out an application to get your house LEED certified, and I can imagine it's a headache to get that to clear, but I was just asking about the standards themselves. Theoretically you could build to LEED specs without applying for certification. In fact I wasn't even thinking about the certification side of things since it has nothing to do with efficiency. Maybe it has to do with your ability to advertise the house as built to LEED specs when you go to sell it? But I hear ya, paperwork is annoying.

but that any deficiencies deemed as burdensome, would not deter the developer.

In other words, the people building the house would go forward with it even though the application process was a pain in the neck? Yes, I agree. If I was seriously going to go through the trouble to build a house to LEED specs, it would be pretty dumb to ultimately not go through with it because of the application process.

The resolution would, as always, risk-reward.

I have no idea what that means, but it's possible you were trying to say something like "ultimately it depends whether the benefits outweigh the costs." That's a truism and doesn't really add anything of substance to what you wrote, but it's not wrong I guess.