Hess Tower: Office Skyscraper At 1501 McKinney St.

[RedScare]

Environmentalism is objective-driven. The environmentalist movement (in business and in politics) is all about branding.

It takes nearly as much money to actually certify a building as it does in hard costs to make all the necessary design modifications. And ultimately, it's all about marketability to an audience that for the most part doesn't have a clue.

I am quite sure that the designers of LEED understood full well the power of branding and vanity on the commercial marketplace. Appealing to one's vanity to conserve energy saves no less energy than appealing to their conscience or pocketbook. In fact, it may save more. As for the amount of electricity saved by "gimmicky" wind turbines, a MW saved is a MW saved. Because fluorescent lighting and computer controlled thermostats may only save 15% of energy consumption on one building, does that mean it should not be done?

The most effective way to combat our energy crisis is to conserve energy, not create green ways to produce it. A massive windfarm in West Texas may look awe inspiring. However, the windfarm does not reduce the number of coal fired plants if the consumers do not reduce energy consumption.

[TheNiche]

I am quite sure that the designers of LEED understood full well the power of branding and vanity on the commercial marketplace. Appealing to one's vanity to conserve energy saves no less energy than appealing to their conscience or pocketbook. In fact, it may save more. As for the amount of electricity saved by "gimmicky" wind turbines, a MW saved is a MW saved. Because fluorescent lighting and computer controlled thermostats may only save 15% of energy consumption on one building, does that mean it should not be done?

What is the more effective investment, dollar for dollar, where the objective is the output of clean energy? To install puny wind turbines on-site so as to satisfy a marketing objective, or to pay into a pool to have full-scale wind turbines erected off-site? This is what is frequently done with land banks that offset runoff impacts of new subdivisions by pooling monies from developers to create new regional stormwater detention and wetlands. So I'd reiterate: it is all about branding and has nothing to do with the developer's dedication to environmentalism.

The same goes for things like computer-controlled thermostats and other house systems. Those kinds of setups can cost a whole lot of money if a homeowner really wants to max out the efficiency of his home. It gets to a point, pretty quickly, at which it just makes more sense to pay the money into a green energy pool if the aim is less CO2 production.

The most effective way to combat our energy crisis is to conserve energy, not create green ways to produce it. A massive windfarm in West Texas may look awe inspiring. However, the windfarm does not reduce the number of coal fired plants if the consumers do not reduce energy consumption.

Yeah, of course. ...because California has handled it oh so well.

Some conservation methods make sense but a lot are extreme. And ultimately, it isn't a viable long-term solution in a growing economy.

[Jax]

but this kind of building glitter just gets under my skin.

I actually think they are going to look pretty cool, whether they actually generate much energy or not. How many buildings have you seen with wind turbines on top? Or moving parts of any kind for that matter? It seems pretty original to me, and I am glad Houston is getting something different.. Also keep in mind they aren't typical propeller driven turbines as far as I can tell, they are vertical axis turbines.

[DrLan34]

Turbines... why not? I think it will be badass to boast something different in our city. We all know this city was built on oil money so it's nice that they are using wind turbines....

Houston is badass and the discovery green park is nicer than I expected!

[woolie]

I actually think they are going to look pretty cool, whether they actually generate much energy or not. How many buildings have you seen with wind turbines on top? Or moving parts of any kind for that matter? It seems pretty original to me, and I am glad Houston is getting something different.. Also keep in mind they aren't typical propeller driven turbines as far as I can tell, they are vertical axis turbines.

It's very typical of buildings trying to score some 'green' cred nowadays. It's a variation on "give an inch, take a mile," aka "Green-Washing," e.g. that this token windmill, functional at any level or not, excuses the building/owner/tenants from any number of other socially and environmentally irresponsible behaviors.

Reporter: Mr. Ceo, your company was just found guilty of directly spraying millions of gallons of oil onto pristine beaches, taking elected officials on baby seal clubbing expeditions, and cynically plotting to infiltrate the EPA with an army of slave robo-commissioners. Blah blah blah...

CEO: Yes, sure, sure, But! Our building has vertical axis wind turbines! We are very respectful of the environment! They provide more than enough electricity and carbon offsets to keep our paper shredders operating 24 hours a day!

Edited March 3, 2008 by woolie

[woolie]

The most effective way to combat our energy crisis is to conserve energy, not create green ways to produce it. A massive windfarm in West Texas may look awe inspiring. However, the windfarm does not reduce the number of coal fired plants if the consumers do not reduce energy consumption.

I'm results oriented in terms of global CO2 release. My master plan is something like this: on electricity, conservation in the first world, provide a secure nuclear fuel cycle in the developing world, build wind turbines and new hydroelectric whenever it's economically feasible, have a 2040 target of phasing out coal via the above combination (consv./nucl./wind.) On transportation fuel use: it's just a big mess, wipe the slate clean and reboot in the United States. Bulldoze the suburbs and try again with high density TODs. Get rid of cars by building a more appealing, better, less expensive alternative rail-based transit. Surprisingly, this might also affect public health.

First world CO2 metric tons per capita 2004:

US: ~20

Germany: ~10

France: ~6

The working model should be obvious.

Anyway, /end thread hijack.

Niche misses the point about conservation; we'll never build our way out of the problem (coal/natgas phaseout) if we can't blunt the growth curve. Conservation may not result in net decrease, but it gives us a better handle on the primary objective.

Edited March 3, 2008 by woolie

[TheNiche]

I'm results oriented in terms of global CO2 release. My master plan is something like this: on electricity, conservation in the first world, provide a secure nuclear fuel cycle in the developing world, build wind turbines and new hydroelectric whenever it's economically feasible, have a 2040 target of phasing out coal via the above combination (consv./nucl./wind.) On transportation fuel use: it's just a big mess, wipe the slate clean and reboot in the United States. Bulldoze the suburbs and try again with high density TODs. Get rid of cars by building a more appealing, better, less expensive alternative rail-based transit. Surprisingly, this might also affect public health.

First world CO2 metric tons per capita 2004:

US: ~20

Germany: ~10

France: ~6

The working model should be obvious.

Anyway, /end thread hijack.

Niche misses the point about conservation; we'll never build our way out of the problem (coal/natgas phaseout) if we can't blunt the growth curve. Conservation may not result in net decrease, but it gives us a better handle on the primary objective.

If a decline in CO2 emissions are the foremost goal, your ideas work...very painfully, but they work. My foremost goal is the betterment of humanity, recognizing that consumption is a very big part of that.

If there are low-hanging fruit where conservation is concerned, then we ought to conserve. If it takes more effort to conserve than to mitigate effects, then we ought to mitigate. I tend to favor mitigation, especially since those consequences significant to human civilization (if any) are far off in the future and are subject to exogenous factors render the specific outcome scenarios highly uncertain.

First world CO2 metric tons per capita 2004:

US: ~20

Germany: ~10

France: ~6

I'm curious whether these measures account for CO2 output related to foreign production that is imported for use by the citizenry of the U.S., Germany, or France. Anti-pollution policy often has the consequence, after all, of just shifting CO2 output overseas; this is why Kyoto was inherently flawed.

Also bear in mind that the wealth of different countries is a major driver for CO2 production. This would probably be the best way to illustrate the tradeoff in CO2 and wealth.

US: $46,000 per capita

Germany: $34,100 per capita

France: $33,800 per capita

[RedScare]

The same goes for things like computer-controlled thermostats and other house systems. Those kinds of setups can cost a whole lot of money if a homeowner really wants to max out the efficiency of his home. It gets to a point, pretty quickly, at which it just makes more sense to pay the money into a green energy pool if the aim is less CO2 production.

Yes, that $60 thermostat almost wiped out my budget. Seriously, Niche, you are probably NOT the one to tell me how to save energy in my home...and, to do so economically. A person that makes the following statement...

Some conservation methods make sense but a lot are extreme. And ultimately, it isn't a viable long-term solution in a growing economy.

...clearly has the wrong mindset to even debate the subject intelligently. Well run businesses (and homes) are well run due to efficiencies, not wastefulness. It is only because of the Bush administration's antagonism to conservation that some conservatives actually think that energy efficiency is un-American and bad business. And, clearly, you have never had to rent office space, or you would applaud any attempts by building management to limit increases utility costs.

[TheNiche]

Yes, that $60 thermostat almost wiped out my budget. Seriously, Niche, you are probably NOT the one to tell me how to save energy in my home...and, to do so economically. A person that makes the following statement...

Oh ok, I figured you were talking about something else, entirely different, related more to new construction rather than to renovation of functionally obsolecent housing units.

It is only because of the Bush administration's antagonism to conservation that some conservatives actually think that energy efficiency is un-American and bad business.

Lots of people think lots of things. I'm not going to waste time on what are clearly idiotic positions, but I will point out to you that CO2 output is symptomatic of a thriving economy and that looking at it as an indicator of wealth isn't too far fetched...so long as policymakers maintain a sane grasp of causal vs. correlary factors.

And, clearly, you have never had to rent office space, or you would applaud any attempts by building management to limit increases utility costs.

Funny you say that. Show up at Happy Days round two and I'll explain to you in person (possibly even show you) how this has in fact been a top-of-mind concern for me lately. Heck, in the spirit of consumption-driven energy waste, I'll even buy you a drink or two.

[lockmat]

And, clearly, you have never had to rent office space, or you would applaud any attempts by building management to limit increases utility costs.

I don't know about other utilities, but the electricity commercial rate is pretty dramatic compared to the rate for the house, right?

[TheNiche]

I don't know about other utilities, but the electricity commercial rate is pretty dramatic compared to the rate for the house, right?

As a rule of thumb, the more electricity that gets used, the better a position that an electricity user is to negotiate their rate.

[ricco67]

While I applaud DT's adding energy producing turbines isn't a bad deal and I applaud it. While I don't know if the specifics on how much they would produce, just bear in mind that it will be on for 24hrs a day.

While this may not offset the total electrical consumption of the building, it can at least cut down the future costs of electricity as prices increase.

[lockmat]

While I applaud DT's adding energy producing turbines isn't a bad deal and I applaud it. While I don't know if the specifics on how much they would produce, just bear in mind that it will be on for 24hrs a day.

While this may not offset the total electrical consumption of the building, it can at least cut down the future costs of electricity as prices increase.

Yes, I don't think we should laud it as the answer to providing energy to the entire building, but it helps. Is there a negative to them being there? I can't see one.

[woolie]

Also bear in mind that the wealth of different countries is a major driver for CO2 production. This would probably be the best way to illustrate the tradeoff in CO2 and wealth.

US: $46,000 per capita

Germany: $34,100 per capita

France: $33,800 per capita

You can throw Australia, UK, Sweden, Japan, etc. into the mix, and the results come out more or less the same, and all of these countries have comparable quality of life even if nominal GDP differs. The principle components are nuclear/hydro power and good transit infrastructure.

Yes, I don't think we should laud it as the answer to providing energy to the entire building, but it helps. Is there a negative to them being there? I can't see one.

While this may not offset the total electrical consumption of the building, it can at least cut down the future costs of electricity as prices increase.

that depends completely on the cost of installing the turbines, their efficiency, average windspeed conditions, etc. There's no guarantee (and perhaps unlikely) that the same amount of money invested in West Texas wind production would provide the same kWh. So yes, the downside could be that it produces non-GHG electricity at a rate that isn't competitive with West Texas wind... so it's not the most efficient use of money for displacing CO2 generating sources.

Edited March 3, 2008 by woolie

[RedScare]

Yes, I don't think we should laud it as the answer to providing energy to the entire building, but it helps. Is there a negative to them being there? I can't see one.

There is no negative. There is merely an attempt at a tired argument that if it doesn't solve the entire problem, it is useless.

As for commercial versus residential energy rates, this is not the problem. It is the increase. Office rents are usually based on a base amount of expenses. Each year, if building expenses increase, the tenants' rent increases to cover the added cost. In the last several years, electricity costs have skyrocketed, wreaking havoc on my office rent. Any attempt to control costs through an energy efficient building would be applauded by most tenants (perhaps not Niche, since he believes consumption is good). In the same way that replacing my incandescant bulbs with fluorescents helps keep my home electric bill at $39 this month, computerized HVAC, tinted windows, low-flush toilets, and even wind turbines help keep building costs in line.

It is an "every little bit helps" scenario.

[TheNiche]

Yes, I don't think we should laud it as the answer to providing energy to the entire building, but it helps. Is there a negative to them being there? I can't see one.

There is no direct negative. But there is opportunity cost, as woolie has explained and as Red apparently fails to comprehend.

[jgriff]

There is no negative. There is merely an attempt at a tired argument that if it doesn't solve the entire problem, it is useless.

The negative is the cost of building , installing, and maintaining them.

We don't have any cost/benefit analysis data for this project but if it was a net positive you'd probably see every new project like this in Houston with wind turbines on them.

[RedScare]

There is no direct negative. But there is opportunity cost, as woolie has explained and as Red apparently fails to comprehend.

I understand it completely. I am only arguing the flip side of the same coin that you are arguing.

[TheNiche]

Any attempt to control costs through an energy efficient building would be applauded by most tenants (perhaps not Niche, since he believes consumption is good).

Higher levels of inflation-adjusted consumption are good. This reflects absolute levels of consumption, which is what are considered a meaningful (if not absolutely perfect) measure of relative economic prosperity.

[RedScare]

Higher levels of inflation-adjusted consumption are good. This reflects absolute levels of consumption, which is what are considered a meaningful (if not absolutely perfect) measure of relative economic prosperity.

Not necessarily true at all. In your world of consumption uber alles, that may seem to be the case, but unbridled consumption causes a whole host of other problems, waste, inefficiency and increased pollution, causing health problems, among them.

[TheNiche]

I understand it completely. I am only arguing the flip side of the same coin that you are arguing.

So far, its sounded to me like you're just blowing off the idea that there may be a significant opportunity cost (where the stated objective is minimizing CO2 output on a particular budget)...or not understanding the concept.

[lockmat]

that depends completely on the cost of installing the turbines, their efficiency, average windspeed conditions, etc. There's no guarantee (and perhaps unlikely) that the same amount of money invested in West Texas wind production would provide the same kWh. So yes, the downside could be that it produces non-GHG electricity at a rate that isn't competitive with West Texas wind... so it's not the most efficient use of money for displacing CO2 generating sources.

Isn't it more expensive to use energy gained from wind?

And wouldn't they eventually pay for themselves(although I'm not sure if maintenance costs are significant and their life expectency)?

I wonder what the average wind speed/amount in west Texas is compared to the the place/height where these will be placed. Plus, does the direction these are facing make a difference (depending on what kind of turbines they are).

[TheNiche]

...unbridled consumption causes a whole host of other problems, waste, inefficiency and increased pollution, causing health problems, among them.

Unbridled consumption is the best form. It is when government policy encourages an excess of consumption relative to investment that a suboptimal outcome is most likely. That seems to be our policy, and I'm not a big fan of it.

Even when governments must tackle externalities with the outcome necessarily meaning that consumption will decline, the particular ways that households cut back on consumption ought to be left unbridled so as to allow that household to exercise its preferences.

And wouldn't they eventually pay for themselves(although I'm not sure if maintenance costs are significant and their life expectency)?

Payback period is an overrated investment criterion. In these kinds of analyses, always use NPV or IRR.

[lockmat]

Payback period is an overrated investment criterion. In these kinds of analyses, always use NPV or IRR.

Got it, thanks

[jgriff]

It's really a simple concept people. If it costs more money to install and maintain these turbines than it saves in electrical costs then it is a publicity exercise.

That may not be a bad business descision though. There may be customers out there who are willing to pay extra to feel like they are saving the environment. The fact that they may be doing more to hurt the environment by spending money in the wrong places really doesn't matter to them.

[RedScare]

Unbridled consumption is the best form. It is when government policy encourages an excess of consumption relative to investment that a suboptimal outcome is most likely. That seems to be our policy, and I'm not a big fan of it.

Even when governments must tackle externalities with the outcome necessarily meaning that consumption will decline, the particular ways that households cut back on consumption ought to be left unbridled so as to allow that household to exercise its preferences.

I will concede that'unbridled' was a poor substitute term for 'excessive'. Government is not the only proponent of excessive consumption, though I do not endorse restrictions on marketing (other than truth in advertising.

It's really a simple concept people. If it costs more money to install and maintain these turbines than it saves in electrical costs then it is a publicity exercise.

That may not be a bad business descision though. There may be customers out there who are willing to pay extra to feel like they are saving the environment. The fact that they may be doing more to hurt the environment by spending money in the wrong places really doesn't matter to them.

That was really everyone's point before we got off on tangents. I believe everyone actually agreed on this.

[jgriff]

That was really everyone's point before we got off on tangents. I believe everyone actually agreed on this.

I didn't really see that. It seems like a lot of people think that there are no downsides.

Edited March 3, 2008 by jgriff

[ricco67]

I didn't really see that. It seems like a lot of people think that there are no downsides.

I might be new to the english language, but isn't that the general definition of "agreement?"

[lockmat]

Another rendering. I wonder where they got this one? I'd like to see the entire thing from this view. Looks thinner from this view too.

http://www.globest.com/news/1106_1106/houston/168765-1.html

And I like how they're thinking here...

"We're trying to make sure the building has enough transparency to maximize views into the park," he tells GlobeSt.com, "and landscaping to make a smooth transition point from the park to the building. We're trying to look at the neighborhood and figure out the best way to capitalize on the location."

Edited March 4, 2008 by lockmat

[H-Town Man]

"We're trying to look at the neighborhood and figure out the best way to capitalize on the location."

I've got an idea: