Embodied Energy and Historic Preservation: a Needed Reassessment

(PERGLHG(QHUJ\DQG+LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ$1HHGHG5HDVVHVVPHQW $XWKRU V 0LNH-DFNVRQ 6RXUFH$37%XOOHWLQ9RO1R SS 3XEOLVKHGE\Association for Preservation Technology International (APT) 6WDEOH85/http://www.jstor.org/stable/40003163 . $FFHVVHG

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aptech. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Association for Preservation Technology International (APT) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to APT Bulletin.

http://www.jstor.org Embodied Energy and Historic Preservation: A Needed Reassessment

MIKE JACKSON

If more widely and comprehensively Introduction was made to evaluatesome typical assessment buildingassemblies. One of the most used, embodied-energy The benefitsof reusinghistoric and ex- useful aspects of the reportis a can be a boon to preservation and isting buildingsversus those of con- summary of the values structingnew buildingsare typical embodied-energy sustainability advocates alike. frequently for various in discussedin terms of economic, cul- buildingtypes, presented ft. This data can be tural, and design values. If those discus- MBtu/sq. (Table1). used to estimatethe overallem- sions are expandedto include environ- quickly bodied of a mental impact, one must also address energy typical buildingby based 1967 construction the topic of embodiedenergy. Embod- use, upon ied energyis the sum of all the energy types. There are a few caveatsfor requiredto extract, process, deliver,and using this install the materialsneeded to construct informationto comparethe embodied a building.Embodied energy has re- energyof historicbuildings to new ones, ceived some attention in the green-de- however.First, there is a stronglikeli- sign communitybut not nearly as much hood that the overall buildingfigures in as operating-energyreduction. the reportunderestimate the equivalent It is importantto take a look at embodiedenergy of older buildings. previousefforts to use embodiedenergy This underestimationstems from two as another basis for preservation.Pres- principalfactors: older buildingsoften ervationistswill also benefitfrom ex- had more volume and greateramounts ploring how embodiedenergy calcula- tions could be used as a more quan- titative method of measuringthe overall Table 1. Embodied energy for new environmentalbenefits of buildingreno- construction by building type vation versus new construction. New Building Construction Btu/sq. ft. 1967 Input/Output 399 Level Energy Use in Building Construction Residential- 1 family 702,047 Residential- 2-4 The underlyingresearch upon which family 625,050 Residential- Gardenapt 648,445 almost all U.S. embodied-energyappli- Residential- High rise 735,978 cations are based is the 1976 report Residential- Alter and addn. entitledEnergy Use for BuildingCon- Hotel/Motel 1,128,655 struction.This effort is still Dormitories 1,430,724 pioneering Industrialbuildings 972,551 the most thoroughevaluation of the Office buildings 1,641,748 embodiedenergy of buildingmaterials Warehouses 558,432 to have been producedin the U.S. This Garages/Servicestations 771,489 materialwas for new build- Stores/Restaurants 941,353 developed Religious buildings 1,257,766 ings and was based upon construction- Educational 1 1,386,046 industrydata from 1967. The project Hospital buildings 1,722,200 was a collaborationbetween researchers Other non-farm buildings 1,449,216 a. social and rec. at the of Illinois at Urbana- Amusement, 1,379,793 University b. Misc. non-residentialbldg 1,101,991 Champaignand at RichardStein Associ- c. Laboratories 2,074,056 ates, Architects,of New York City. d. Libraries,museums, etc. 1,743,588 The researchers Farmresidences 554,703 investigatedmany, Farmservice 149,071 but not all, of the typical buildingmaterials of that time. An additionaleffort Data from Energy Use for Building Construction.

47 48 APT BULLETIN: JOURNAL OF PRESERVATION TECHNOLOGY / 36:4, 2005

Table 2. Embodied energy of typical construction materials Embodied Embodied Embodied Embodied energy energy energy energy (Btu/unit)- (Btu/unit)- (Btu/unit)- (Btu/unit)- Material Unit Before After Material Unit before after deliveryto deliveryto deliveryto deliveryto jobsite jobsite jobsite jobsite Wood products Facing tile and ceramic Softwood Glazed brick Each 31,749 33,416 Rough lumber Board foot 5,229 7,661 Quarrytile Squarefoot 46,589 51,031 Dressed lumber Board foot 5,399 7,859 Ceramicmosaic tile, glazed Squarefoot 62,682 68,660 Hardwood Ceramicmosaic tile, unglazed Squarefoot 58,081 63,619 Rough lumber Board foot 6,744 9,816 Concreteblock (8 by 8 by 16 Each 29,108 31,821 Dressed lumber Board foot 6,633 9,655 inches) Wood shingles and shakes Squarefoot 4,682 7,315 Ready-mixconcrete Cubic yard 2,584,938 2,594,338 Wood window units Quicklime Ton 6,394,720 6,867,465 Double hung Each 845,671 1,127,234 Hydratedlime Ton 8,812,374 9,463,852 Awning and casement Each 893,021 1,190,349 Dead burneddolomite Ton 9,077,302 9,748,365 Other Each 1,373,150 1,830,335 Gypsum buildingmaterials Ton 6,189,370 6,970,088 Wood doors Panel type, interiorand exterior Each 654,851 872,881 Mineral-wool insulation Flush type, hollow core Each 259,952 346,502 Loose fiber Ton 11,426,830 12,826,171 Flush type, solid core Each 893,696 1,191,182 Batts, blankets, and rolls Veneerand plywood (3 Viinches thick) Squarefoot 6,112 6,860 Hardwood Squarefoot 12,942 17,025 Softwood, interior Squarefoot 3,790 4,986 Primaryiron and steel Softwood, exterior Squarefoot 4,393 5,779 Pig iron Pound 7,075 7,444 Prefabricatedstructural wood Carbon-steelsheet, hot rolled members and enameled Pound 15,965 16,803 Glued and laminated Board foot 14,673 16,773 Carbon-steelsheet, galvanized Pound 26,458 27,836 Hot-rolled bars and shapes Paperproducts Carbon-steel Pound 17,808 18,736 ConstructionPaper Pound 8,841 10,479 § Carbon-steelreinforcing bars Pound 14,888 15,664 Alloy steel, plates and structural Pound 25,577 26,910 Paint products shapes Exterioroil paints and enamels Gallon 413,066 488,528 Wire for prestressedconcrete Pound 42,423 44,633 Exteriorwater base paints Gallon 413,519 489,063 Carbon-steelnails and staples Pound 32,331 34,016 Interioroil base paints Gallon 429,932 508,475 Steel wire, plain Pound 29,635 31,179 Interiorwater base paints Gallon 369,519 437,025 Steel wire, galvanized Pound 32,683 34,385 Concrete-reinforcingmesh Pound 22,989 24,187 Asphalt products (welded wire) Roofing asphalt Pound 6,701 6,914 Carbon steel pipe Pound 24,535 25,813 Roll roofing, smooth surface Squarefoot 7,514 7,753 Stainless steel Roll roofing, mineralsurface Squarefoot 10,673 11,012 Sheets, hot rolled Pound 76,814 80,816 Standardstrip shingles Squarefoot 24,553 25,334 Sheets, cold rolled Pound 131,449 138,298 Asphalt-saturatedfelts Pound 13,210 13,630 Bars, hot rolled Pound 25,577 26,910 Tar-saturatedfelts Pound 16,416 16,938 Bars, cold finished Pound 183,579 193,144 Wire Pound 228,046 239,927 Glass products Window glass, single strength Squarefoot 11,895 13,659 Fabricatedmetal products Window glass, double strength Squarefoot 13,437 15,430 Fabricatedstructural steel Pound 21,711 22,707 Plate glass, average (Yuinch) Squarefoot 41,828 48,031 Laminatedplate, average Squarefoot 185,058 212,504 Primarynonferrous metals Aluminum Stone and clay products Plate Pound 113,049 115,567 Portlandcement Barrel 1,526,498 1,528,126 Sheet Pound 94,596 95,943 Brick {2%by 7%inches) Rolled barsand structuralshapes Pound 90,852 92,146 Common and face Each 13,570 14,283 Other unglazed Each 24,306 25,582 Screw machine products Hex nuts, lag screws, and bolts, Pound 22,474 26,625 studs, and threadedrods Rivets, Viinch and over Pound 14,640 17,344 Data from Energy Use for BuildingConstruction.

of materials.On the volume side of the brickveneer, metal-bar joists, and con- Anotherconcern with using data equation,older buildingsoften had crete floor slabs. A typical school from from 1967 is the potentialchange in the higherceilings than those of the mid- 1910 was a multistorystructure with individualbuilding-material values twentiethcentury. On the materialsside masonryload-bearing walls, terra-cotta based upon newer,more efficientindus- of the equation,older buildingsused tile floors, and wood roof framing.This trial processes.Both the steel and con- more massivemasonry load-bearing same type of discrepancywill hold true crete industrieshave improvedmanufac- walls ratherthan later masonry-veneer for many older buildingtypes. No at- turingefficiencies, which reducesthe construction.For example, a typical tempt was made to calculatethe embod- overallembodied energy of these materi- school buildingof 1970 was a one-story ied energyof constructionprocesses als. Sincemost historicbuildings are structuremade of concreteblock with used in the originalconstruction period. made predominantlyof masonryand EMBODIED ENERGY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION 49

requireany heatingprocesses, just the as the federaloversight organization for mechanicalenergy to quarry,cut, shape, historicpreservation. The ACHPcom- and deliverit. It should thus have a missionedan applicationstudy of the use lower embodiedenergy than brickma- of embodiedenergy and historicpreser- sonry or concrete,but determininghow vation, which was done by Booz, Allen much less would requirea detailedinput- and Hamiltonin the late 1970s. The output study to follow the originalpro- productof this effort was Assessingthe tocols (a figureof 0.70 MJ/Kgfor local EnergyConservation Benefits of Historic stone was publishedin a Canadian Preservation:Methods and Examples, study).2Plaster, another ubiquitous which was producedby the ACHPin productin historicbuildings, was not 1979 but not widely distributed.The specificallyinvestigated, but thereare application-studydata was subsequently figuresfor gypsumand lime. Plastercan used in the 1981 National Trustpublica- also be estimatedto have an embodied- tion entitledNew Energyfrom Old energyvalue somewhatclose to that of Buildings.This book includedseveral Fig. 1 . Embodied energy of a building by concrete,since both materialscontain a chapterson the topic of embodieden- category. Data from Energy Use for Building high degreeof aggregate,which has a ergy,as well as other energy-conserva- Construction. low embodiedenergy, and a relatively tion and retrofitstrategies popular at small percentageof binder(portland that time, such as solar collectors. Threedifferent for wood, the errorfactor in this particular cementor lime), which have higherem- methodologies data is not critical.The data that is bodied energies. measuringthe embodiedenergy in his- A of toric were in Assess- probablythe least accuratetoday is the particularlyinteresting summary buildings developed how embodied was allocatedin a the Conservation embodiedenergy of mechanicalequip- energy ing Energy Benefitsof ment. Boilersand furnacesinstalled in buildingrevealed that approximately50 HistoricPreservation. These were classi- of the embodied is at- fied as the the the last 25 years are far more efficientin percent energy conceptmodel, inventory tributableto the manufactureof the and the model. The con- both their physicalmake-up and their model, survey basic architecturalmaterials and model can be characterizedas a operation. compo- cept nents. can be allocated in which various The materialsthat were surveyedin Twentypercent planningapproach, to and are an embodied- EnergyUse for BuildingConstruction mechanical,plumbing, electrical, buildingtypes given miscellaneousmaterials. The value based the foot- includemost of the typicalmaterials of remaining energy upon square 30 is divided directfuel It uses "a minimumof historicbuildings, but thereare a few percent among age (Figs.2-4). informationto a estimateof notableexceptions (Table 2). Stonewas purchases(15 percent);administration, give rough such as wholesaleand retailtrade and As the not investigated.Unlike brick masonry energy."4 previouslymentioned, miscellaneousbusiness and values are based or concrete,stone does not typically professional square-footage upon services(11 percent);transport of mate- those of typicalnew buildingsconstruct- rials (2.5 percent);furnishings (1 per- ed in the late 1960s, which meansthat cent);and constructionmachinery and the figuresmay vary greatlyfrom that of equipment(0.5 percent)(Fig. I).3 a typicalhistoric building. For the pur- poses of gettinga "quickestimate," this Preservation Protocols and Embodied is a usefultool, but it could representa lower value than would be Energy substantially obtainedthrough the inventorymodel. The publicationof EnergyUse for Build- The inventorymodel requiresan ing Constructionwas recognizedby the accurateaccounting of the materialused AdvisoryCouncil on HistoricPreserva- to createa building.This can be a fairly tion (ACHP)as a new researchtool that complicatedtask, particularlyfor build- had the potentialto supportits mission ings that do not have constructiondocu-

Table 3. Demolition energy for existing buildings, concept model ConstructionType Small Building Medium Building LargeBuilding 5,000 - 15,000 sq. ft. 50 - 150,000 sq. ft. 500,000 + Light 3,100 Btu/sq. ft. 2,400 Btu/sq. ft. 2,100 Btu/sq. ft. (wood frame) Medium 9,300 Btu/sq. ft. 7,200 Btu/sq. ft. 6,300 Btu/sq. ft. (steel frame) Fig. 2. John Deere Headquarters, Moline, Illinois, designed by Eero Saarinen, 1964. The Heavy 15,500 Btu/sq. ft. 12,000 Btu/sq. ft. 10,500 Btu/sq. ft. typical embodied energy of an office building (masonry,concrete) 1 ft. of like this one is ,641 ,798 Btu/sq. Courtesy Data from Assessing the Energy ConservationBenefits of Historic Preservation:Methods and Examples. the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency. 50 APT BULLETIN: JOURNAL OF PRESERVATION TECHNOLOGY / 36:4, 2005

Historic Preservation.There is also the deliverycharges for the other 50 percent possibilityof dismantlinga buildingfor of the building.The LEEDcriteria are salvage, which would recaptureembod- very generousin this regard,with small ied energy. environmentalbenefit. At the other end of the equation,LEED 2.1 offers up to Using Embodied Energy as a Basis for threepoints for reusinga building's Eco-Decisions structure,shell, and 50 percentof the interior.The reusedembodied energy of The use of embodied-energycalcula- these componentscould easily be 50 tions as a basis for evaluatingthe rela- percentof the building'stotal embodied tive environmentalbenefits of any energy.If one comparesthe benefitof buildingstrategy, be it renovationor reusinga buildingversus the construc- 3. Covenant Fig. Presbyterian Church, Danville, new construction,has merit, but it is tion of an entirelynew building,the Illinois, designed by Ray D. Crites, 1967. The for historic embodied particularlyappropriate embodiedenergy savings is even greater. typical energy of a religious building which have like this one is 1,257,766 Btu/sq. ft. Courtesy of buildings, relativelyhigh What this evaluationsuggests is that the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency. embodiedenergies. The United States LEED2.1 for new constructionor GreenBuilding Council's LEED-NC 2.1 majorrenovation drastically underval- - which addressescon- but modernCAD are rating system ues the true ecologicalbenefit of build- merits, programs structionof new commercial this easierwith their take-off buildings ing reuse. making and renovations- has a number tools that calculatematerial major Embodied-energycalculations could help quanti- of in which are award- ties. In orderto createa more accurate categories points be used in othergreen-rating systems. ed to reducethe embodied of a value but one that was not as energy The VermontBuilds Greener (VBG) compli- it is not stated as cated to calculate,the third assessment building,although scorecarduses housingsize as a weighted such.5 materials,reused tool was developed- the surveymodel. Using recycled measuringtool for new construction; The model is based the or salvagedmaterials, and regionally largerhouses receivefewer points than survey upon availablematerials reducetrans- assumptionthat most of the embodied (to smallerhouses in the overallassessment. costs) will earn because energyin a buildingis containedin the portation points Using a maximumembodied-energy bulk of the architecturalmaterials. The of reducedembodied energy. figurerather than a size figurewould The relativeenvironmental benefits if sevenprimary materials are wood, paint, allow for a more creativeand environ- stone and measuredby reducedCO2 are highly mentallysound buildingprocess. A asphalt,glass, clay, primary variablefor various LEED iron and steel, and primarynonferrous categories. straw-balehouse might be able to be metals.In this method there is still some Transportationenergy is approximately much largerthan anotherkind of build- 2.5 of a total embod- complexityto the take offs, but percent building's ing systembecause of its reducedembod- quantity ied a small limitingthe of materialsto a few energy, relatively percentage. ied energyand greaterenvelope effi- range LEEDawards two if 50 broadcategories this points percent ciency.A renovatedbuilding may have a greatlysimplifies of a materialscome from with- task. The seven categoriesof materials building's similaradvantage over a new structure. in 500 miles, with no for the will equal 50 percentof the building's accounting total embodiedenergy. Therefore, multi- plyingthe total of the building'squanti- ties for each of the seven quantitiesby two will give a figurefor the overall embodiedenergy of the building.Using this model, a historicbuilding with a greatamount of masonryand metal framingmight producean overestimate of embodiedenergy. More detailedin- ventorystudies of historicbuildings are probablyneeded for betteraccuracy.

Demolition Energy Evaluatingthe environmentalbenefits of renovatinga buildinginstead of demolishingit to constructa new building also raises the question of calculat- ing the energyof buildingdemolition (Table3). Researchand calculationsfor this were also in topic developed Assess- Fig. 4. Typical American ranch house, c. 1967, Anthony Rubano Collection, Illinois Historic Preservation ing the Energy ConservationBenefits of Agency. The typical embodied energy of a single-family residence like this one is 702,047 Btu/sq. ft. EMBODIED ENERGY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION 51

ing energyin a true life-cyclecompari- tion and disposal of a historic building son. It may be difficultto renovatea his- and all the embodiedenergy it repre- toric buildingand both achievean Energy sents is not measuredin any of the pop- Starrating and meet preservationstan- ular green-buildingrating systems. His- dards.8However, it is feasibleto reno- toric preservationistsmust help develop vate historicbuildings and greatlyim- a better rating system that utilizes em- prove their operatingefficiency. New bodied energymore comprehensively. mechanicalequipment is just as efficient By combiningpreservation principles in an old buildingas it is in a new build- and the concept of embodiedenergy a ing. The differencebetween the two strongerargument for the environmental situationsusually is the relativeefficiency benefitsof buildingreuse can be made. of the buildingenvelope. MIKEJACKSON, FAIA, is the chief architect of the Preservation Services Division of the Illinois Conclusion Historic Preservation Agency. He holds degrees from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Cham- Embodiedenergy deservesto be another paign and Columbia University and is a visiting factor in the equation of sustainable professor of architecture at the University of Illinois at design, particularlyfor historic preser- Urbana-Champaign. Fig. 5. The demolition of Normal High School, in vation. The historic built environment Normal, Illinois, illustrates the volume of lost representsa huge resourcethat can be Acknowledgments material that could have been saved if the conservedand made efficientfor the building were reused. Courtesy of the Illinois Thanks to Prof. BruceHannon, who was a prin- Historic Preservation Agency. twenty-first-centurychallenge of fossil- cipal researcherat the Universityof Illinois on the fuel exhaustion. Preservationand design embodied-energystudy, for his help while prepar- will the re- ing this paper. Embodied Energy vs. Operating professionals depend upon searchscientists to the data Energy provide upon which to base embodied-energy Notes The relativevalue of the embodieden- decisions. tools are Sustainability-rating 1. The research used to calculate em- and should be of embodied principal ergy operatingenergy currentlyusing the concept bodied energy was the 1967 Census of Manu- more fully investigatedfor historic energy but in a mannerthat does not facturers, Vols. I and II, produced by the U.S. structures.6The ratio between total result in for Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census equitablequantification D.C.: U.S. Government embodiedenergy and annual operating historic The complete demoli- (Washington, Printing 7 buildings. Office, 1971). energyvaries between 5:1 and 30:1. Historic buildingsare more likely to be at the end of this ratio becauseof higher Table 4. Life-cycle analysis comparing embodied energy and operating energy use of materials their durable,bulky between reuse of an existing building and construction of a new building, Most envi- and large volumes (Fig. 5). illustrating the time it takes before a net energy savings is achieved ronmental-benefitstudies focus on op- because These three scenarios all point to the fact that reusing an existing building and making it more energy erating-efficiencyimprovements in an immediate of total use. If no net of total More efficientresults savings energy buildingnew, savings energy they accrueover time. long-term are achieved until a future date that can be greaterthan the life expectancy of many new buildings. savingscan be gained by im- energy Scenario1: Do nothing to the existing buildingand build a new building. The existing buildingwill provingthe operationalefficiency by 10 remain and be used by a differentuser. The new buildingwill be designedto meet EnergyStar standards percentthan by reducingthe embodied of operatingefficiency. energyby a similaramount. However, • Embodiedenergy 1,200 MBtu/sq. ft. for the new building (mid-rangevalue) • when the embodiedenergy is recaptured Existing building operatingenergy at 70,000 Btu/sq. ft. • New buildingoperating energy at 35,000 Btu/sq. ft. throughbuilding renovation, the equa- 34.2 before is achieved tion is greatlyaltered. years any life-cycle energy savings Threecase studiescomparing embod- Scenario2: Demolish the existing buildingwith partial salvage. Constructnew office buildingto meet ied and EnergyStar standards. energy operatingenergy help • illustratethe relativevalue of Embodiedenergy: 1,200 MBtu/sq. ft. (existing) renovating • Embodiedenergy: 1,200 MBtu/sq. ft. (new) or demolishingand replacinga historic • Embodiedenergy: - 400 MBtu/sq. ft. (salvage) building(Table 4). A historicbuilding • Total embodied energy: 2,000 MBtu/sq. ft. • at ft. that is slightlyless energyefficient in its New-building operatingenergy 35,000 Btu/sq. annualoperating energy, but reuses70 57 years before any life-cycle energy savings is achieved percentof its embodiedenergy, should Scenario3: Renovate existing building, improvingits efficiencyby 30 percent, although not meeting be consideredholistically. It can take EnergyStar performance standards. Construct new buildingto meet EnergyStar Standards. more than 30 before cumula- • Embodiedenergy: 400 MBtu (rehab) years any • tive is achievedwhen a Operatingenergy: 50,000 Btu (rehab) energysavings • Embodiedenergy: 1,200 MBtu/sq. ft. (new) buildingis demolishedand replaced. • Operatingenergy: 35,000 Btu/sq. ft. (new) For the issue is one of preservationists 53.3 years before any life-cycleenergy savings is achieved evaluatingembodied energy and operat- 52 APT BULLETIN: JOURNAL OF PRESERVATION TECHNOLOGY / 36:4, 2005

2. There are several valuable international sources for embodied-energy values. Ted Kesik, A Look Back at the Embodied- calculationmeant that all of the extracted "Measures of Embodied En- Sustainability: and all of the labor hours were ergy," Canadian Architect, ArchitecturalScience Energy Study energy allocated, unambiguouslyand without Forum, January 2002, http://www.canadianar- Bruce Hannon was the team leader the of double counting, to all of the economy's chitect.com/asf/perspectives_sustainibility/ researchat the Univer- measures_of_sustainablity/measures_of_sus- embodied-energy in detail. We pointed out the Illinois in that output, tainablity_embodied.htm (accessed November sity of Urbana-Champaign tradeoff that ensues from a Use for Con- energy/labor 1, 2005). George Baird, Andrew Alcorn, and developed Energy Building steep price rise in energy.The economy Phil Haslam, "The Energy Embodied in Build- struction in the 1970s. His reflections became more labor intensivefor the first ing Materials: Updated New Zealand Coeffi- below provide insight into how this fell. cients and Their IPENZ Transac- time, and labor productivity Significance," researchevolved. In the mid-1970s Richard a tions 24 , no. 1 (1997): 46-54, http:// www.ipenz. Stein, org.nz/ipenz/publications/indexes/transaction/ The idea of embodied energy first oc- prominentNew York architect,called and transactions97/civil/7baird.pdf (accessed curred to me in the late 1960s. As an wanted to make the energycalculations November 16, 2005). Commonwealth of engineer in the chemical industry and for new buildingsand for buildingremod- Australia Greenhouse Office and University of later in the company of energy-minded eling. Togetherwe producedseveral papers Institute for Sustainable Technology-Sydney ecologists, I was well preparedfor talk in on the subject, includingone in Science Futures, "TechnicalManual Section 3.1: Em- We were able to to the bodied Your Home: for Life- 1970 by an industry representativeon the magazine. point Energy," Design virtues of contain- cost of as style and the Future, http ://www.greenhouse. throwaway beverage energy remodelingbuildings gov.au/yourhome/technical/fs31 .htm (accessed ers. I launched a study with my students comparedto buildingreplacements. The November 16, 2005). of the total energy cost of the throwaway interestin the rest of the architecture and the returnablecontainers that quickly communitywas mild, and our research 3. Energy Resource Group of the Center for Ad- moved on to other vanced at the of Illinois became the basis for legislation in about group subjects. Computation University a dozen states. These were times Our efforts ended in 1982 with the at Urbana-Champaignand Richard G. Stein & heady Associates, Architects, Energy Use for Building for a professor turning environmentalist. cessation of federalresearch funding for Construction, prepared for the U.S. Energy The study was so laborious that I energy-conservationresearch. Since that Research and Development Administration knew there had to be a betterway to time I have been asked to provide updated (New York: U.S. Dept. of Energy, 1976), 37. calculate embodied-energycost. From the calculationsfor other architects,but our we learnedthat such costs little was out of business.To 4. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, economists, group my Assessing the Energy Conservation Benefits of could be calculated by transformingthe knowledge, no one has updatedour Historic Preservation (Washington, D.C.: Ad- input-outputmatrices - the mathemati- architecturaldata, although the Depart- visory Council on Historic Preservation, 1979), cal forms of who buys how much of what ment of Energyhas continued to fund the 108. from whom - into energy terms. By formation of the basic energy matrices. 1972 I had assembleda small team of there have been in 5. The LEED system of sustainable building Certainly, changes design is rapidly evolving. There are several researchersat the Universityof Illinois' the technologies that make the important differentLEED rating tools, but the analysis in Center for Advanced Computation, and components of buildings.Steel, concrete, this report is based upon LEED-NC, which is for we made the first such calculationsfor glass, and so on and the total energycosts new construction and major renovation. There is every good and service provided by the of buildingmaterials have changed as a also a LEED-EBfor existing buildings. More U.S. in time for the 1973- Steel beams, for information is available at economy, just consequence. example, www.usgbc. org. 74 energy embargo. Suddenly,we were are now made with continuous casting, 6. The Athena Sustainable Materials Institute very popular.Research money flowed avoiding the billet reheatingof earlier (http://www.athenasmi.ca/)has been developing easily, and we applied the calculationsto times. With new basic energy data and environmental building-assessment tools that everythingfrom disposable diapersto the with the papers we had done in the 1970s, utilize life-cycle assessments and embodied- balance of trade. We also it would not be a task to values. One energy foreign daunting update energy particularly noteworthy made the same of calculationsto the total data for all the is vs. New: The type energy-cost parts study "Renovating Building determinethe embodied labor of the modern Until that Environmental Merits" by Wayne Trusty, by occupa- buildings. time, http://www.athenasmi.ca/publications/docs/ tion for any good or service. By energy the data we generatedwith Stein and his OECD_paper.pdf(accessed October 20, 2005). and labor cost of a unit of a good or associates can serve as a guide in assessing service,we meant that we had calculated the energy cost of architecture,including 7. The U.S. Energy Information Administra- with reasonable the entire the energy embodied in existing buildings. tion's assessment reports are available at very accuracy amount of energy and of labor of every http://www.eia.doe.gov/. This report draws BruceHannon, JubileeProfessor the data for use in commercial type that had to be extracted because of upon energy Universityof Illinoisat Urbana-Champaign buildings from 1999, which can be viewed at the existence of this unit. The form of the http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/pdf/allce. pdf (accessed October 20, 2005). 8. The Star was Energy rating system developed Maddex, Diane, ed. New Energy from Old the U.S. to consumers Bibliography by government help Buildings. Washington, D.C.: The Preserva- that uses identify equipment energy efficiently. Booz, Allen & Hamilton, Inc. Assessing the tion Press, 1981. The Star homes was Energy program developed Energy Conservation Benefits of Historic Mumma, Tracy. "Reducing the Embodied to whole-house promote operating efficiency. Preservation:Methods and Examples. Energy of Buildings."http://homeenergy. org/ historic and older homes are difficult However, Washington, D.C.: Advisory Council on archive/hem.dis.anl.gov/eehem/95/950109. to renovate and achieve Star Energy perfor- Historic Preservation, 1979. html (accessed October 20, 2005). mance values. More information is available at Krigger,John and Chris Dorsi. Residential http://www.energystar.gov. Energy: Cost Savings and Comfort for Existing Buildings. Helena, Mont.: Saturn Resource Management, 2004.