It's going to be not too tall, not too big, not too glassy, boxy but beautiful, possibly Passivhaus, and it will have trees around it, not on it. Oh, and it is probably a bit boring.
Lloyd as Architects & Engineers we can use science & logic to convince governments to BUILD ugly homes, but how do you convince people to BUY ugly homes ? If we can answer that question then we can do our duty to reduce Upfront Carbon !
Maybe a start would be to stop calling them green buildings ... Poor AI is wondering "why do these humans keep asking for buildings that are the colour green". Just a thought - nice post. I love the boxy but beautiful phrase.
"If we are ever going to get a handle on our CO2, we are going to see a lot more urban buildings without big windows, without bumps and jogs. Perhaps we might even have to reassess our standards of beauty."
No one would ever suggest that Russian dachas are beautiful—most certainly not even the Russians. But essentially, that's what this suggests: boxy, small windows, compact, 3-6 stories tall, made of light timber framing and built to Passivhaus standards.
The one thing you forgot to note is that few people would ever want to consider BUYING something with those aesthetics. In Russia, there's central planning which limits personal freedoms and options to build differently, so unless the world is forced to move to a central government planning system for *absolutely everything* (because carbon!) people aren't going to be interested in what's being sold to them.
I'd also argue that green buildings should include exterior insulation and innie windows.
Exterior insulation protects the structure of the building from thermal and moisture issues so it's less likely to need remediation, repairs or replacement and all the associated carbon costs.
Innie windows perform better thermally and are less vulnerable to water leaks from the top, and are much more visually appealing. Look at any of the gorgeous 19th century buildings in your local neighborhood and the windows will be set in at least 2 inches from the wall plane. Outie windows are a plague on modern construction - - I've seen plenty of 5/1 projects that combine exterior insulation (and interior WRB) with Outie windows. Pure madness.
Unfortunately, I think you're preaching to the choir... The powers that be (i.e. those that control finances), love to stack people vertically, as it gets more rent money, and more taxes.
After all why make lots of smaller buildings when you can have the same amount of taller buildings?
Now, if you want to start a heated discussion, let's talk about the upfront carbon footprint of the nuclear plants (that need to be replaced every forty years) that claim to be clean energy (despite the fact that they also need to replace the fuel rods and store them)...
OK, what's the upfront carbon cost of a nuclear power plant? Since you brought up the topic, please enlighten us.
Then understand that for those 60+ years (not 40) of active use it's land footprint is 1/100th that of a 1GW wind farm and produces power CONTINUOUSLY, 24/7/365 for two years before shutting down for maintenance and refueling—which doesn't require fossil fuels outside of the extraction and refining processes—AND does so at a ~90% coefficient rating, compared to the 20-year life cycle of a wind or solar farm that has a ~40% and ~22% coefficient rating, respectively, all while contending with fickle weather conditions and seasonal changes in angles of solar incidence, wind speeds, etc.
Why do you think even unqualified armchair blowhards like Bill Nye are touting the NEED for a massive investment in nuclear and specifically, fusion? BECAUSE IT'S OUR BEST BET FOR RAPID DECARBONIZATION WITHOUT INTERMITTENCY AND VARIABILITY ISSUES.
Modern nuclear power plants being constructed today have a design life of 100 years with a heavy rebuild at 60 years. There is also plenty of activity about re-lifeing existing older plants.
We now possess the technology and processes to rebuild an existing shutdown plant into a new plant in situ. This means that there seems to be no upper limit on the ability to use a site for nuclear generation.
Jack, every power production technology produces waste from its operation.
Solar needs to be replaced at 25 years. Wind at 20.
Dams can last 200+ years but the still need replacing and Geothermal at 60 years.
The waste volume produced is tiny in volume compared with those. The high-level waste produced by the civilian nuclear program is somewhere between 4-6 swimming pools.
What you say is true, but, as they say on fact checker, you need context, that is there is no real place to store nuclear waste and the waste can be dangerous for many of hundred years... Even the nuclear waste that is currently being stored there are troubles https://www.britannica.com/topic/Hanford-Engineer-Works Then there is the immense size of such reservations, Hanford is over 500sqmi.
No, none of your argument matches the problem with nuclear power. Oh and spent nuclear rods are recyclable, but only for spent uranium ammunition, the kind used in the Iraqi war, which still had to be cleaned up by the U.S. because of the danger of exposure to citizens...
One other thing that isn't made clear, is you waste, is that per nuclear plant per year, or is that the total for all nuclear plants per year? And then what about federal nuclear plants, how much do they have?
Let's start at the top. When nuclear rods complete their life cycle, they are extremely hot both thermal and radiation. They are placed in on site cooling pools for a year.
At the end of that year much of the radiation has already dissipated and the external temperature has dropped below boiling point. The rods are then moved into casks.
The casks are a honeycomb made out of copper or brass. The rods fit into the spaces between the structure. The array when full is placed into what looks like a large brass/copper drum. welded up and filled with Helium at slightly above atmospheric pressure. It is then placed into a steel drum which is also welded up.
This in turn is placed into an outer concrete shell which has cooling channels to let air take away the decay heat. Some casks are kept in hangers other in the desert.
You then wait 300 years, checking every year that the Helium has not leaked, if it has you find the leak and seal and refill. The leak is too small for radiation particles to escape, and Helium does not become radioactive (well it does but half-life of 2.5 seconds so nobody cares).
In 300 years the radiation is down to a level where it can be recycled using common chemical industrial apparatus. The entire current cask volume for the USA would fit inside a B747 hanger. It's simply not an issue.
" ... spent uranium ammunition, the kind used in the Iraqi war, .. of exposure to citizens'
I have no idea where you got that from, but it is 100% wrong.
Natural Uranium is composed of two isotopes U235 and U238. We want U235 we don't want U238. Only U235 is radioactive. The two isotopes are separated. Only U238 is used for making ammunition. U238 is stable so it is not radioactive. Ammunition made from it poses no radiological threat.
The volume I quoted is for all USA civilian nuclear plants since they were invented
One add on. Spent fuel rods can be recycled. Only about 5% of the Uranium has been used up. This reduced the volume to 5% of what it currently is. The French recycle all their fuel which reduces their dependence on fuel imports from other countries. Most is not recycled because the cost of new rods is low, and recycling is expensive.
Which of course is the reason I suggested the whole thing... While nuclear power can be clean, it appears that it's clean only in NIMBY land. There is also mining for Uranium (as noted) and while they're not taking draining lakes for lithium like they're doing in South America, the environmental impact is just as great if not greater...
Also did you know the EPA has a page devoted to radioactive waste and Uranium mining:
And I ask you do you want this to happen every 40 years (the projected life of nuclear plants)?
As it happens I have no argument with your take on nuclear power, it probably is the best technically feasible option on the table right now. What I do not buy into, is the koolaid serving nuclear energy touting what a miracle nuclear power is.
To quote my favorite acronym from Robert Heinlein: TANSTAAFL (There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch).
Well, that's a complete mess. Your quotes jump about all over the place touching many areas. Impossible to deal with then in this format or in reasonable time.
Just to pick one
"And I ask you do you want this to happen every 40 years (the projected life of nuclear plants)?"
All current power plants are being designed for a 100 Year life with a heavy rebuild at 60 years. Potentially they could be rebuilt for another 60 years giving them a productive lifespan of 160 years.
Lloyd, I have been reading your green design articles since that prefab carpet squares for renters one on treehugger. My husband has been working 3 hours away in our camper for years. We have finally found a house there for our family, and I feel like your advice is really coming to fruition there. We eliminating that weekly commute; big carbon savings! This new place is a solar passive house, built in 81. It has greenhouse like rooms in front of the strategic windows which I never saw on your examples of this style before and would love your insight on that style, they seem to be original.
The kitchen is separate from the living space and the whole place is 1500 sq ft for a family of 4. The location is bikable to a local produce store which also carries locally produced food basics as well. The small size of the town makes it bikable to most places in fact. When I first saw the listing I thought it was probably the Lloyd Alter house😁. Just thought you would enjoy knowing that your work is taken to heart.
I just wanted to say that I read your book “Living the 1.5 degree lifestyle”, picked it up on a whim at the bookstore. I loved it and that’s how I found you on all the socials. Now I can’t wait for your upcoming book!
One thing that I wondered while reading this article (newsletter?) was whether that magic modelling tool included the cost of transportation of materials. I guess in the UK they may default to brick as the cheapest material if it’s the most abundant one locally.
Thank you so much for your comment about the book, I am glad you liked it! As of transport, it is probably not included, it is such a difficult variable. Chris Magwood, an expert on embodied carbon, doesnt think anyone should include it because it is literally all over the map.
"Everything gets more expensive when you go tall, not just structure. "
Not everything - increasing height increases density which in turn makes services supporting the people in those buildings more efficient. Metro lines, tram lines, local shops local food places etc. There is a reason you don't find Underground lines service farming communities.
I agree the 6 stories seems like an important point to aim for.
Yeah I think that's an important point in all of this. The "best" building is not necessarily the BEST building when it is put in context. Architects, and particularly green architects, I think are often guilty of tunnel vision on the building and not necessarily the context. The epitome of this was the solar orientation fad, which was all fine in good if you're optimizing the energy efficiency of that one building but not so good if you're optimizing the wholistic energy efficiency of the community.
This would, I suggest, also go for the approach to building systems. Sure, lightweight stick-built mid-rise is probably optimal from the perspective of cost and resource use. But it is also typically a subpar living experience that makes people associate apartment living with noise, odours, and an overall undesirable way of living. In essence, such buildings might "win the battle but lose the war" by colouring public perception of urban living.
Lots of people are buying them now where they are offered, and if you think you don't have central government planning in the USA, you are dreaming.
Lloyd as Architects & Engineers we can use science & logic to convince governments to BUILD ugly homes, but how do you convince people to BUY ugly homes ? If we can answer that question then we can do our duty to reduce Upfront Carbon !
They don't have to be ugly!
You seem to be ignoring the rules of property sales.
Rule No 1: Location
2: Cost
3: Location
4: Location
5: Location
....
....
....
26: What it looks like.
If people placed any real value in what the properties looked like we would not have a housing stock like we actually have now.
Maybe a start would be to stop calling them green buildings ... Poor AI is wondering "why do these humans keep asking for buildings that are the colour green". Just a thought - nice post. I love the boxy but beautiful phrase.
"If we are ever going to get a handle on our CO2, we are going to see a lot more urban buildings without big windows, without bumps and jogs. Perhaps we might even have to reassess our standards of beauty."
No one would ever suggest that Russian dachas are beautiful—most certainly not even the Russians. But essentially, that's what this suggests: boxy, small windows, compact, 3-6 stories tall, made of light timber framing and built to Passivhaus standards.
The one thing you forgot to note is that few people would ever want to consider BUYING something with those aesthetics. In Russia, there's central planning which limits personal freedoms and options to build differently, so unless the world is forced to move to a central government planning system for *absolutely everything* (because carbon!) people aren't going to be interested in what's being sold to them.
I'd also argue that green buildings should include exterior insulation and innie windows.
Exterior insulation protects the structure of the building from thermal and moisture issues so it's less likely to need remediation, repairs or replacement and all the associated carbon costs.
Innie windows perform better thermally and are less vulnerable to water leaks from the top, and are much more visually appealing. Look at any of the gorgeous 19th century buildings in your local neighborhood and the windows will be set in at least 2 inches from the wall plane. Outie windows are a plague on modern construction - - I've seen plenty of 5/1 projects that combine exterior insulation (and interior WRB) with Outie windows. Pure madness.
Unfortunately, I think you're preaching to the choir... The powers that be (i.e. those that control finances), love to stack people vertically, as it gets more rent money, and more taxes.
After all why make lots of smaller buildings when you can have the same amount of taller buildings?
Now, if you want to start a heated discussion, let's talk about the upfront carbon footprint of the nuclear plants (that need to be replaced every forty years) that claim to be clean energy (despite the fact that they also need to replace the fuel rods and store them)...
OK, what's the upfront carbon cost of a nuclear power plant? Since you brought up the topic, please enlighten us.
Then understand that for those 60+ years (not 40) of active use it's land footprint is 1/100th that of a 1GW wind farm and produces power CONTINUOUSLY, 24/7/365 for two years before shutting down for maintenance and refueling—which doesn't require fossil fuels outside of the extraction and refining processes—AND does so at a ~90% coefficient rating, compared to the 20-year life cycle of a wind or solar farm that has a ~40% and ~22% coefficient rating, respectively, all while contending with fickle weather conditions and seasonal changes in angles of solar incidence, wind speeds, etc.
Why do you think even unqualified armchair blowhards like Bill Nye are touting the NEED for a massive investment in nuclear and specifically, fusion? BECAUSE IT'S OUR BEST BET FOR RAPID DECARBONIZATION WITHOUT INTERMITTENCY AND VARIABILITY ISSUES.
Modern nuclear power plants being constructed today have a design life of 100 years with a heavy rebuild at 60 years. There is also plenty of activity about re-lifeing existing older plants.
We now possess the technology and processes to rebuild an existing shutdown plant into a new plant in situ. This means that there seems to be no upper limit on the ability to use a site for nuclear generation.
Jack, every power production technology produces waste from its operation.
Solar needs to be replaced at 25 years. Wind at 20.
Dams can last 200+ years but the still need replacing and Geothermal at 60 years.
The waste volume produced is tiny in volume compared with those. The high-level waste produced by the civilian nuclear program is somewhere between 4-6 swimming pools.
What you say is true, but, as they say on fact checker, you need context, that is there is no real place to store nuclear waste and the waste can be dangerous for many of hundred years... Even the nuclear waste that is currently being stored there are troubles https://www.britannica.com/topic/Hanford-Engineer-Works Then there is the immense size of such reservations, Hanford is over 500sqmi.
No, none of your argument matches the problem with nuclear power. Oh and spent nuclear rods are recyclable, but only for spent uranium ammunition, the kind used in the Iraqi war, which still had to be cleaned up by the U.S. because of the danger of exposure to citizens...
One other thing that isn't made clear, is you waste, is that per nuclear plant per year, or is that the total for all nuclear plants per year? And then what about federal nuclear plants, how much do they have?
Let's start at the top. When nuclear rods complete their life cycle, they are extremely hot both thermal and radiation. They are placed in on site cooling pools for a year.
At the end of that year much of the radiation has already dissipated and the external temperature has dropped below boiling point. The rods are then moved into casks.
The casks are a honeycomb made out of copper or brass. The rods fit into the spaces between the structure. The array when full is placed into what looks like a large brass/copper drum. welded up and filled with Helium at slightly above atmospheric pressure. It is then placed into a steel drum which is also welded up.
This in turn is placed into an outer concrete shell which has cooling channels to let air take away the decay heat. Some casks are kept in hangers other in the desert.
You then wait 300 years, checking every year that the Helium has not leaked, if it has you find the leak and seal and refill. The leak is too small for radiation particles to escape, and Helium does not become radioactive (well it does but half-life of 2.5 seconds so nobody cares).
In 300 years the radiation is down to a level where it can be recycled using common chemical industrial apparatus. The entire current cask volume for the USA would fit inside a B747 hanger. It's simply not an issue.
" ... spent uranium ammunition, the kind used in the Iraqi war, .. of exposure to citizens'
I have no idea where you got that from, but it is 100% wrong.
Natural Uranium is composed of two isotopes U235 and U238. We want U235 we don't want U238. Only U235 is radioactive. The two isotopes are separated. Only U238 is used for making ammunition. U238 is stable so it is not radioactive. Ammunition made from it poses no radiological threat.
The volume I quoted is for all USA civilian nuclear plants since they were invented
One add on. Spent fuel rods can be recycled. Only about 5% of the Uranium has been used up. This reduced the volume to 5% of what it currently is. The French recycle all their fuel which reduces their dependence on fuel imports from other countries. Most is not recycled because the cost of new rods is low, and recycling is expensive.
You talk pretty, and you do make convincing arguments, I wish I was able to do such a thing, which I cannot, so I rely on my sources to to explain.
First, depleted uranium ammunition vs everything: https://hir.harvard.edu/depleted-uranium-devastated-health-military-operations-and-environmental-injustice-in-the-middle-east/
Secondly, again what you say is probably true, but again, you miss the accidents and the harm to the environment. https://www.tri-cityherald.com/news/local/hanford/article276863128.html
https://centerforsecuritypolicy.org/nuclear-power-has-a-nuclear-waste-problem-heres-how-to-fix-it/
https://cen.acs.org/environment/pollution/nuclear-waste-pilesscientists-seek-best/98/i12
https://news.stanford.edu/2022/05/30/small-modular-reactors-produce-high-levels-nuclear-waste/
https://www.icanw.org/hanford_s_dirty_secret_and_it_s_not_56_million_gallons_of_nuclear_waste
https://www.treehugger.com/what-is-the-nuclear-waste-policy-act-5112440
And now back to the purpose of my original posting, the carbon-free part of Nuclear power. Here is an article from Lloyd's old haunt Treehugger:
https://www.treehugger.com/nuclear-power-only-proven-climate-solution-4855333
https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-is-nuclear-energy-good-for-the-climate/a-59853315
Which of course is the reason I suggested the whole thing... While nuclear power can be clean, it appears that it's clean only in NIMBY land. There is also mining for Uranium (as noted) and while they're not taking draining lakes for lithium like they're doing in South America, the environmental impact is just as great if not greater...
Also did you know the EPA has a page devoted to radioactive waste and Uranium mining:
https://www.epa.gov/radtown/radioactive-waste-uranium-mining-and-milling
https://www.treehugger.com/paintings-mutated-insects-nuclear-power-cornelia-hesse-honegger-4856561
Also, here the history of the WWPPS boondoggle on power plants:
https://www.historylink.org/File/5482
And I ask you do you want this to happen every 40 years (the projected life of nuclear plants)?
As it happens I have no argument with your take on nuclear power, it probably is the best technically feasible option on the table right now. What I do not buy into, is the koolaid serving nuclear energy touting what a miracle nuclear power is.
To quote my favorite acronym from Robert Heinlein: TANSTAAFL (There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch).
Well, that's a complete mess. Your quotes jump about all over the place touching many areas. Impossible to deal with then in this format or in reasonable time.
Just to pick one
"And I ask you do you want this to happen every 40 years (the projected life of nuclear plants)?"
All current power plants are being designed for a 100 Year life with a heavy rebuild at 60 years. Potentially they could be rebuilt for another 60 years giving them a productive lifespan of 160 years.
There are situations where the plants can be added to the box to make easy improvements: https://imgur.com/gallery/scSQSPw
Lloyd, I have been reading your green design articles since that prefab carpet squares for renters one on treehugger. My husband has been working 3 hours away in our camper for years. We have finally found a house there for our family, and I feel like your advice is really coming to fruition there. We eliminating that weekly commute; big carbon savings! This new place is a solar passive house, built in 81. It has greenhouse like rooms in front of the strategic windows which I never saw on your examples of this style before and would love your insight on that style, they seem to be original.
The kitchen is separate from the living space and the whole place is 1500 sq ft for a family of 4. The location is bikable to a local produce store which also carries locally produced food basics as well. The small size of the town makes it bikable to most places in fact. When I first saw the listing I thought it was probably the Lloyd Alter house😁. Just thought you would enjoy knowing that your work is taken to heart.
I just wanted to say that I read your book “Living the 1.5 degree lifestyle”, picked it up on a whim at the bookstore. I loved it and that’s how I found you on all the socials. Now I can’t wait for your upcoming book!
One thing that I wondered while reading this article (newsletter?) was whether that magic modelling tool included the cost of transportation of materials. I guess in the UK they may default to brick as the cheapest material if it’s the most abundant one locally.
Thank you so much for your comment about the book, I am glad you liked it! As of transport, it is probably not included, it is such a difficult variable. Chris Magwood, an expert on embodied carbon, doesnt think anyone should include it because it is literally all over the map.
"Everything gets more expensive when you go tall, not just structure. "
Not everything - increasing height increases density which in turn makes services supporting the people in those buildings more efficient. Metro lines, tram lines, local shops local food places etc. There is a reason you don't find Underground lines service farming communities.
I agree the 6 stories seems like an important point to aim for.
Yeah I think that's an important point in all of this. The "best" building is not necessarily the BEST building when it is put in context. Architects, and particularly green architects, I think are often guilty of tunnel vision on the building and not necessarily the context. The epitome of this was the solar orientation fad, which was all fine in good if you're optimizing the energy efficiency of that one building but not so good if you're optimizing the wholistic energy efficiency of the community.
This would, I suggest, also go for the approach to building systems. Sure, lightweight stick-built mid-rise is probably optimal from the perspective of cost and resource use. But it is also typically a subpar living experience that makes people associate apartment living with noise, odours, and an overall undesirable way of living. In essence, such buildings might "win the battle but lose the war" by colouring public perception of urban living.