|
Posted by RicodJour on November 9, 2007, 1:10 pm
> Edgar wrote:
> > ...it still looks like a beautiful building to me, and produces more energy
> > than it consumes. What do you guys think?
>
> >http://www.inhabitat.com/2007/11/08/first-leed-platinum-carbon-neutra...
>
> We've seriously looked into LEED. It's goals are worthy, but the
> process is not. It's politicized, expensive and having "LEED" on your
> building is simply a marketing ploy to get more people to have "LEED" on
> their buildings. They way the system is set up there are few
> priorities. Stupid stuff helps you qualify as much as real stuff.
Kind of like AIA on your letterhead? =:O
> Also, from the site: $333.333/sq. ft. Ouch. What's the payback on that?
>
> Buildings that use less energy to build, heat/cool, and maintain are
> great. Let's just be realistic about building them.
? That $333.33(3?)/SF doesn't reflect mortgage costs. It, in and of
itself is a borderline imaginary number. If it's built by an
individual, there will be a mortgage, if it's built by an agency of
some sort, there may be bonds and interest on that. None of that
stuff is ever reflected in the SF costs.
There are also very substantial incentives for going low impact -
state, federal and power company rebates, low cost loans, etc. CA has
a program where you're paid a higher number per KW sold to the utility
than what you pay when you buy a KW. You should not trivialize such
things as they have a major impact on the viability of going green.
Plus the chicks love it!
R
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap