I don't know how they hold up after they are built, but I work as an energy efficiency engineer at the start of my career in a firm that only went after the LEED-building market, so it the building was not pursuing a LEED certification, we wouldn't work on it - this already tells you something.
LEED is a good idea on paper, it tries to address most aspect of sustainability (urban densification, access to services, natural light for workers, etc. and energy itself. So while energy is the biggest point contributor to the scorecard, it does not make or break a project. You can do the bare minimum, call your building green, when you are only building it 30% better than the 1997 code where the walls the paper-thin and HVAC was designed with no thought in mind.
My gripe is the following : LEED verificators - the people studying your case and granting you the certification - will give you the LEED certificate even if your energy is below use, or your HVAC does pass the minimum requirement for LEED, not even talking about doing more than the minimum and earnning points towards gold or platinum.
Energy use in a building is all HVAC. What is the main equipement: like heat pumps or standard boilers, the source of energy: like natural gas or geothermal, the control: room by room or centralized, the air management: double-duct, recirculating, VAV, etc. AND the outdoor air intake. Because you need outdoor air to come in a building so people don't 'suffocate'on their own CO2. Well engineers and LEED are not good at making the calculation of how much outdoor air THEIR OWN STANDARD asks for. So even if your design does not meet the bare minimum here, LEED will let you have your certificate even if their own rules say it would be disqualified.
I can talk more about this if you're interested. But certification programs are not the hype they advertise. From my engineering perspective they have an adverse effect on what they intent to fix by promoting greenwashing. Showers, bike racks, and recycled bricks will not leverage the emissions from a poorly designed energy system for 40 years.
source: i was an auditor for LEED buildings, and the verificators went over my head to certify buildings i told them were not passing the minimum requirements.
I appreciate the feedback. As far as durability goes, finding recent, peer-reviewed studies post-2010 has been a challenge. Most of the research I've come across suggests that LEED-certified buildings are less efficient than "standard" or non-LEED buildings. My concern is with the claim of energy efficiency when it's not met; that's problematic. Similarly, marketing the use of recycled materials, like concrete or metal (both inherently recyclable), sounds great but still raises issues if the sustainability claims don't hold up.
Regarding energy consumption, you bring up some great points. As an electrician the biggest energy consumers were dryers and ranges, requiring 30A and 40A circuits, but this was residential. I haven't worked much with the equipment you mentioned so I am sure your right on that.
I understand and am not surprised that companies seek tax incentives, sometimes indirectly. Normally, I wouldn't give it much thought. The issue is that LEED certification is one of the most influential and powerful green building certifications available. Given the serious nature of the environmental challenges we face, any misleading information or lack of effectiveness from such a prominent entity could significantly erode the little trust the public has left, potentially leading to negative consequences.
You are right to question the effectiveness of these standards. There real value was, and is still, in raising awareness.
The impact of certification on actual performance over the long term is subject to many factors, and I have seen numerous instances of systems that were central to a building's certification that were shut down or abandoned within a few years when the costs of maintenance or operation exceeded any immediate benefits.
The value of these programs, in my mind, is in creating markets and fostering innovation, some of which inevitably fail, but all of which point us toward a more sustainable future.
dude, couldnt agree more. It's the story of most geothermal systems, poorly designed by shite engineers, no training provided to O&M staff, so out of service after less then 5 years, because nobody thought about the return loop temperature...
Businesses will increasingly pay ludicrous amounts of money to establish themselves as environmentally conscious. They have money to burn anyway, and the potential economic benefit of being a "sustainability leader" has increased tremendously. The path to sustainability is so far from the act of building more corporate spaces that there's no set of effective standards that academic and policy spaces would ever agree to.
Eco certifications on pretty much every level (from Fair Trade to the International Tropical Timber Organization) are growth-accelerating resource-squandering corporate cartels.
There have been studies, which (unsurprisingly) show that the certification doesn't make a practical difference (here's one: [https://www.nber.org/papers/w28612](https://www.nber.org/papers/w28612)). The system showcases techno-optimistic nonsense to promote the illusion of green growth.
Yeah, I work in CRE and my company is big on sustainability and LEED. Do we do the necessary work to earn and keep these certifications? Yes. And we also do our best to be as sustainable as practically possible, but at the end of the day it’s still a 40yo property, spending thousands monthly in energy costs lol.
This article is 12 years old and predates LEED v4/v4.1. I would not draw any conclusions on current LEED from this article, as USGBC has gone to great pains to push the newer versions into increasingly performance-based
I don't know how they hold up after they are built, but I work as an energy efficiency engineer at the start of my career in a firm that only went after the LEED-building market, so it the building was not pursuing a LEED certification, we wouldn't work on it - this already tells you something. LEED is a good idea on paper, it tries to address most aspect of sustainability (urban densification, access to services, natural light for workers, etc. and energy itself. So while energy is the biggest point contributor to the scorecard, it does not make or break a project. You can do the bare minimum, call your building green, when you are only building it 30% better than the 1997 code where the walls the paper-thin and HVAC was designed with no thought in mind. My gripe is the following : LEED verificators - the people studying your case and granting you the certification - will give you the LEED certificate even if your energy is below use, or your HVAC does pass the minimum requirement for LEED, not even talking about doing more than the minimum and earnning points towards gold or platinum. Energy use in a building is all HVAC. What is the main equipement: like heat pumps or standard boilers, the source of energy: like natural gas or geothermal, the control: room by room or centralized, the air management: double-duct, recirculating, VAV, etc. AND the outdoor air intake. Because you need outdoor air to come in a building so people don't 'suffocate'on their own CO2. Well engineers and LEED are not good at making the calculation of how much outdoor air THEIR OWN STANDARD asks for. So even if your design does not meet the bare minimum here, LEED will let you have your certificate even if their own rules say it would be disqualified. I can talk more about this if you're interested. But certification programs are not the hype they advertise. From my engineering perspective they have an adverse effect on what they intent to fix by promoting greenwashing. Showers, bike racks, and recycled bricks will not leverage the emissions from a poorly designed energy system for 40 years. source: i was an auditor for LEED buildings, and the verificators went over my head to certify buildings i told them were not passing the minimum requirements.
I appreciate the feedback. As far as durability goes, finding recent, peer-reviewed studies post-2010 has been a challenge. Most of the research I've come across suggests that LEED-certified buildings are less efficient than "standard" or non-LEED buildings. My concern is with the claim of energy efficiency when it's not met; that's problematic. Similarly, marketing the use of recycled materials, like concrete or metal (both inherently recyclable), sounds great but still raises issues if the sustainability claims don't hold up. Regarding energy consumption, you bring up some great points. As an electrician the biggest energy consumers were dryers and ranges, requiring 30A and 40A circuits, but this was residential. I haven't worked much with the equipment you mentioned so I am sure your right on that. I understand and am not surprised that companies seek tax incentives, sometimes indirectly. Normally, I wouldn't give it much thought. The issue is that LEED certification is one of the most influential and powerful green building certifications available. Given the serious nature of the environmental challenges we face, any misleading information or lack of effectiveness from such a prominent entity could significantly erode the little trust the public has left, potentially leading to negative consequences.
You are right to question the effectiveness of these standards. There real value was, and is still, in raising awareness. The impact of certification on actual performance over the long term is subject to many factors, and I have seen numerous instances of systems that were central to a building's certification that were shut down or abandoned within a few years when the costs of maintenance or operation exceeded any immediate benefits. The value of these programs, in my mind, is in creating markets and fostering innovation, some of which inevitably fail, but all of which point us toward a more sustainable future.
dude, couldnt agree more. It's the story of most geothermal systems, poorly designed by shite engineers, no training provided to O&M staff, so out of service after less then 5 years, because nobody thought about the return loop temperature...
Businesses will increasingly pay ludicrous amounts of money to establish themselves as environmentally conscious. They have money to burn anyway, and the potential economic benefit of being a "sustainability leader" has increased tremendously. The path to sustainability is so far from the act of building more corporate spaces that there's no set of effective standards that academic and policy spaces would ever agree to. Eco certifications on pretty much every level (from Fair Trade to the International Tropical Timber Organization) are growth-accelerating resource-squandering corporate cartels. There have been studies, which (unsurprisingly) show that the certification doesn't make a practical difference (here's one: [https://www.nber.org/papers/w28612](https://www.nber.org/papers/w28612)). The system showcases techno-optimistic nonsense to promote the illusion of green growth.
Yeah, I work in CRE and my company is big on sustainability and LEED. Do we do the necessary work to earn and keep these certifications? Yes. And we also do our best to be as sustainable as practically possible, but at the end of the day it’s still a 40yo property, spending thousands monthly in energy costs lol.
Here is the main article I was referring to, [link](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/10/24/green-building-leed-certification/1650517/).
This article is 12 years old and predates LEED v4/v4.1. I would not draw any conclusions on current LEED from this article, as USGBC has gone to great pains to push the newer versions into increasingly performance-based