Increasing transportation and building energy use is not going to save the
planet.
It requires controlling the human population growth.
The Impact of Building Energy Standards on Saving the Planet.
Human population growth
Year
No. of
No. of
Human
Increase
Years
Humans
Increase
per Year
Apart
(millions)
(millions)
(millions)
BC
10,000
5
BC
3,000
7,000
25
20
0
0
3,000
250
225
0
1,700
1,700
700
450
0
1,800
100
1,000
300
10
1,900
100
1,600
600
16
1,930
30
2,000
400
67
1,960
30
3,000
1,000
100
1,975
15
4,000
1,000
267
1,987
12
5,000
1,000
417
2,000
13
6,000
1,000
462
2,010
10
7,000
1,000
700
2,015
5
8,000
1,000
1,600
The population of America is about 300 million, Europe's (Western, Eastern,
and Russia) is about 700 million, and in Japan and Korea it is about 200
million. There are about another 800 million in the rest of the world
(China, India, Brazil, etc.) with same standard of living. This represents
less than 30% of the world's population of 7,000 million. However, this 30%
use almost all of the earth's resources and is responsible for almost all of
the industrial pollution and global warming.
There is no population growth in the 30% segment of the population with a
high (energy wasting) standard of living, but their energy use per capita is
escalating at faster rate than the population which is escalating at an
alarming rate. If the other 70% population were to reach the same standard
of living as the energy wasters and polluters (the 30% segment) we would
have to consider "Global Heating". Standard of living might curb
population growth but it results in escalating energy use and atmospheric
pollution.
Industrial pollution would make life impossible on this planet if the other
70% of the world's population (which is escalating) were to reach the living
standards of the existing 30%. Industrial pollution is not the main threat.
At the present rate of human population growth, forests, vegetation, and
most large animal life will be devastated in a few hundred years. This has
happened in the past as with the dinosaurs.
Uncontrolled human population growth has destroyed forests and vegetation.
It is responsible for destroying animal life as well, particularly the large
mammals that require large amounts of forest and grassland to survive.
Tigers, lions, elephants, giraffes, rhinos and hippos are going join
dinosaurs as interesting science education in schools. Humans will soon be
competing for space on this planet only with rats, cockroaches, flies, and
insects. History has shown that the smaller creature will win.
Varkie,
Yes.. Population growth has been nearly linear over the past 30 to 40 years and is expected to level off at 10 bn.
We need to make "standard of living" distinct from energy intensity. Carbon diets all around.
Being a stickler for numbers (and having researched this for a Climate Change presentation I'm doing next week) I modified and added to your table, using data from this website
1999
12
6,000
1,000
83
2011
12
7,000
1,000
83
2024
13
8,000
1,000
77
2040
16
9,000
1,000
63
2062
22
10,000
1,000
45
Regards,
William Bishop, PE, BEMP, BEAP, LEED AP
Hi Gang:
?
I need to elite for this one, and you know who you are..
?
I am reviewing another party's eQuest model submitted for LEED. The reviewer noted that the roof area far exceeded the actual building footprint.
?
Well, guess why? Somehow, the other party made several floors ROOFS instead of ceilings. I might be able to simply turn the exterior spaces into interior ceilings, but one roof (over an unheated underground garage) is partially uder the building and partially exposed to the "sidewalk/entrance" of the building.
?
The BIG Kahuena is this..if a space is crammed next to an adjacent space and one of the spaces claims an Exterioir surface between them, does DOE-2 think that Exterior surface is seeing outdoor conditions? Or does it ignore such a thin and merely considers the heat transfer between the spaces (like the wall/roof is NOT exposed to the outdoors)?
?
My approach is this (unless you disagree)..leave the Exterior wall/roof along and explain that the model (now in Detailed Edit form) would need major surgery to correct to show actual roof area. Having the "roofs" there versus floors will not change the thermodynamics of heat transfer.
?
I yield to the floor.
?
John Aulbach, PE
?
?
this sounds like you have multiple shells in one model for this to
occur? i'm pretty sure equest views an exterior wall/roof as an
exterior wall/roof even if it is bounded by an interior wall. i had
this problem come up on one of my own models where i ended up having a
building wing meet the building trunk & as i had put them in as 2
separate shells equest did not recognize the dividing wall where the
wing met the trunk as being an interior wall & assigned it (via the
wizard) an exterior wall definition. i didn't catch this until
reviewing the unmet load hour ss-r & s-va reports & couldn't figure out
why the load was so high. changed the definition of the wall to
interior (with a door) in detailed mode and the unmet load hours went to
zero and the load came down.
my understanding (in my case) is that if you create multiple shells and
place them with a common wall that you want to be an interior the shell
rotations need to be zero, even if you have the separation between the
two shells occur at a 45 deg angle (then ask mr. architect about that one).
John,
Having extra exterior roof area is a fairly common mistake in eQUEST models
involving multiple shells. It typically originates on DD Wizard Screen 3,
when roof construction is specified in the Construction list box for a shell
that has no roof (i.e. shell that includes only the middle floors of the
building), instead of setting it to "-no exterior exposure (adiabatic)".
Any exterior surface in eQUEST will conduct heat between the parent space
and the ambient, even if it is adjacent to another conditioned space based
on 3D view, so having extra roof area does affect simulation results. The
easiest way to fix the problem is to delete the extra exterior roof
surfaces. Converting them to interior walls as Patrick suggested is a more
precise approach, but is also more time consuming and will have negligible
impact on results for most projects, especially if the result of interest is
Appendix G performance rating.
Thanks,
Maria
If you did opt for conversion, it is probably easier to do so in the INP file than detailed interface.
Adding a bunch of ceilings will also require matching floors for "adjacent-to" surfaces - just deleting sounds easier.
DSE Mobile
Here are a few more thoughts (gathered in haste because I'm traveling, but on my mind for a while)
* Humans have clearly mis-managed every resource on the planet - occasionally.
* As Bill notes, global population is leveling. Almost every Western country is now below its population rate and is experiencing population decline. China's population growth has been forced by law to decline for years, Europe is in a particularly sad state, the US is buoyed by immigrants' generally higher rate of having children and even historically high growth groups like Muslims are seeing significantly slowed growth.
* Humans have (through creativity, ingenuity and need) created a host of technologies and processes that would have been considered black magic only 100 years ago - and have been doing this throughout history. Their pluses outweigh the minuses dramatically over the course of history!
* Reduce population and you reduce the amazing and consistent impact of human creativity! (and while we're at it, consider how you are going to remain part of the powerful group that decides who lives and who dies - it seems to be primarily an exercise of the powerful against those who lack it. The "Haves" against the "Have-nots". I don't think it's a simple matter!)
* There is ample evidence that the worries about "overpopulation" are a myth. The advocates are well-funded myth promoters (and perhaps power-grabbers), but do not have science substantiating them. See http://overpopulationisamyth.com/overpopulation-the-making-of-a-myth for some teasers on this topic.
* "Global warming", which in recent years has become "climate change", seems to be in a similarly unsubstantiated position. It's easy to find many scientific arguments against human-caused climate change (with many credible supporters), and very few IPCC or other climate change advocates who can refute their challenges. (See http://petitionproject.org/gw_article/Review_Article_HTML.php for a detailed summary.) A short summary of concerns about climate change might be:
o Is the global temperature changing? (Yes, as it has throughout history)
o Is the change bad for humans? (Maybe. Higher temperatures and associated higher CO2 levels promote plant growth - great for food production! Greenland used to be ... green during a previous warm period!)
o Are humans causing climate change? (some evidence says "yes", some says "insignificantly", some says "probably not". The historical data shows that global CO2 levels follow global temperature rise .. by hundreds of years. How could it be that a following effect causes the first?)
o Do we know how to reduce the rate of change? (I haven't read the Kyoto Protocol, but it's supposed to have predicted a global temperature reduction of a few hundredths of a degree C if every first world nation adopted its measures. Not too impressive and not consistent with global cooling in the last decade or so despite increasing CO2 production. I wonder what the uncertainty of that model was?? We all know about the accuracy of "models"!)
* All of that said, I am not a climate scientist. I am an engineer who looks for facts, trends and logic. Most of what I see and read in the population and climate change discussions is "Trust me, I have the support of a big government-funded project", or ad hominem (look it up!) rebuttals. Since when has science been a "consensus"? It's a good thing Galileo and Newton and Einstein didn't conduct research by consensus! If the facts are really on your side, they'll stand up to scrutiny. I'd love to hear a reasoned debate by knowledgeable people on both sides of these issues, but one of the sides seems curiously un-inclined to debate....
* P.s., I am also the father of seven children who has marveled at the amazing diversity of insight and talent among my own family. The potential of children is proven and holds incredible promise for all the rest of us. It's impossible to predict what they might do, but history demonstrates clearly that they consistently outperform expectations!
John,
I can comment only on the DOE-2 side of things. When you say "one of
the spaces claims an Exterior surface between them", you must mean just
by geometrical
proximity, not explicitly with a "NEXT-TO" command ? Because as far as
I'm aware, only an INTERIOR-WALL can have a NEXT-TO command. If these
roofs are specified as EXTERIOR-WALLs or ROOFs (the only difference is
the default TILT), they can't have a NEXT-TO and will be modeled as
exposed to the exterior environment, including solar. Self-shading from
other exterior-walls will be considered only if those are specified as
shading surfaces (though I've forgotten exactly how that's done
SHADING-SURFACE = YES ?).
Joe
Varkie,
I'm going to say something that might rankle others on this bulletin board.
The main take-away I get from your post (but something I've felt all along),
is that in respect to energy efficiency and carbon mitigation, the developed
countries are still the source of the problem, and not the solution (at
least
not yet). Therefore, those of us working in green buildings, building
energy
efficiency, etc., should still maintain a healthy dose of humility and
not have
that air of moral superiority I often detect at international conferences.
Joe
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
I'm excited to see this Brave New World.
If the "roofs" don't have a zone as the outside boundary condition, then
the model views them as roofs exposed to the exterior. You need to fix
this. If the spaces on the other side have the same thermostat setpoints,
then the easiest thing to do is set the roof type to "adiabatic". This will
save you from having to define new polygons if the floor above has
different zone shapes. For a roof that is only partially covered by the
floor above, you need to create the new polygons. Sorry.
--
wrote:
Karen
On Sep 28, 2013 9:41 PM, "Patrick J. O'Leary, Jr."
Agreed, make the change in the .inp file for the appropriate shells.
It helps to give the incorrect roofs a different construction so you can search them more easily. Also, save a copy of the .inp file before making your edits. I?ve found it?s too easy to make a mistake in the .inp file that corrupts the whole model.
It is unfortunately a very common mistake in the wizard that is a pain to fix in the detailed mode, but that?s the best way I know how to correct the problem.
Fred Betz PhD., LEED AP ?BD&C