|
Posted by 3D Peruna on November 9, 2007, 2:48 pm
RicodJour wrote:
>> 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
'zactly. Stupid organization.
>
>> 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.
Yes... The total extra cost will probably never be known.
>
> 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!
If they are used, then again, the real costs are even more than $333/sq.
ft., so "green" isn't nearly as affordable as they want us to think it
is. You and I are paying these guys to be "green."
I'm married, so I don't care if the chicks love it.
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap