View allAll Photos Tagged efficiency
I've been a little obsessed with pin-ups and classic love stories this week, so I made this. Painted board, vintage text (c. 1960), silhouette and woman with curlers painted in acrylics, 8" by 10". I'm considering making a series and selling them online.
To Make Your Brain More Efficient, Try New Things…
Your Brain Becomes Stimulated Once You Experience New Things.
Static display during the opening ceremony for the new 10R/28L runway at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport.
United Airlines Boeing 737-924(ER) (N68805)
(cn 42818/4625)
Consumers Energy offers an energy analysis to residential and business customers. Learn more about energy efficiency rebates and programs at www.ConsumersEnergy.com/eeprograms.
The MAN ECOCITY is on trial with Lothian Buses for the next 6 weeks. LB's next orders will be most likely single deckers so MAN will aim to impress. The bus runs on CNG compressed natural gas and is known as the "quiet man" . The bus has a range of 300 miles and the technology is very clean and fuel efficiency is on a par with the recent Hybrid ADL Enviro 400,s
More infprmation available at
Working a service from Gothenburg to Copenhagen, SJ X2000 93-74-302 stands at the buffers under the incredible Malmö train station prior to reversing out and heading towards the Danish capital over the Øresund Bridge.
Often considered the train that saved Swedish Railways, the X2000, also known as the X2, was launched in 1990 by Kalmar Verkstad in Kalmar, Sweden (prior to the company being bought by Adtranz in 1996). The X2000, and its top speed of 130mph in service (though technically capable of 176mph), massively reduced journey times and increased service efficiency throughout the mid-1990's, its effects on Swedish Railways and its passenger numbers being similar to that of the HST here in the UK.
The X2000 design goes back to the mid-1980's, and, in similar fashion to the Pendolino of Italy, took much of its innovation from the failure of the British Advanced Passenger Train (APT). Following the cancellation of the APT in 1986, much of the information and technology developed was taken up by Italy, who pioneered the first revenue earning tilting-train in 1987 with the ETR 450.
The success of the ETR 450 meant that SJ, who at the time were suffering from very slow and somewhat unreliable services on the country's very winding railway network, could also take up their design innovation to help redress the balance. During the period of the X2000's construction, the Swedish Government desired something home-built, and were reluctant to buy Pendolino's from Italy. Thus the contract for building the X2000 sets was given to Kalmar Verkstad.
The X2000 was launched in 1990 as an entirely first-class train working the premier route between Stockholm and Gothenburg, and immediately had a pronounced effect on the railway services. However, all was not well with the X2000, due largely to some electrical infidelity. As such, widespread distribution of the sets was not completed until at least 1995, after which second-class was also made available so as to help recoup the lost train's lost profits.
Production ended in 1996 following the purchase of Kalmar Verkstad by German rail transport equipment manufacturer Adtranz. Today the sets have been distributed heavily around Sweden, even operating international services to Copenhagen. However, the X2000 became a failure of its own success in some respects, especially with the increased ridership on SJ trains. As popularity of train travel rose in the 2000's, not only did capacity aboard the trains become an issue, the capacity on the railways themselves was becoming problematic, with journey times becoming longer and delays being incurred. This issue was rectified in 2008 with the order of the Bombardier X55 Regina high-speed units that have helped compliment the X2000's on their long distance services.
The X2000 however has not just been limited to Sweden, they've also made ventures to international railways with mixed amounts of success.
The first county to take interest in the X2000 was interestingly enough the United States, as, in the 1990's, Amtrak decided to modernise the high speed Northeast Corridor service between Boston, New York, Philadelphia and Washington D.C. The option was also made for diesel variants to operate on non-electrified services around the USA, especially higher-capacity services around California or to the north of New York towards Albany and Buffalo, with the X2000 set being dragged around 48 states by pairs of F40 locomotives.
The set was tested between October 1992 and January 1993, together with a more traditional ICE set from Germany, with both sets being compared for their operational efficiency and increased performance. Though a good contender for Amtrak services, the X2000's electrical faults sadly put it out of the running. Eventually Amtrak would choose the Acela sets built by Bombardier in 2000.
In 1995, three X2000 cars were hired by Australian operator CountryLink for evaluation purposes, being one driving trailer, one bistro car and one first class car. The trains were towed in a push/pull operation by modified XPT power cars XP2000 and XP2009 with the tilt equipment deactivated. After conducting a statewide of New South Wales tour in March 1995, they were used on Canberra services from April 1995 until June 1995.
China also purchased a X2000 train named "Xinshisu" (New Speed). The train served as Guangzhou-Kowloon Through Train on the Guangshen Railway from 1998 until 2007. It was delivered to Sichuan Province in August 2007. However, due to the 2008 Sichuan earthquake, Chengdu Railway Bureau needed to rebuild the railway networks in Sichuan Province. Also, the authority could not carry the maintenance costs of the train. It was therefore returned to Guangshen Railway Company in late December 2008. In 2012 the train was purchased by SJ and was shipped back to Sweden.
Nevertheless, the X2000 has proven itself a well performing and capable set of trains, working hard and bringing the Swedish Railways back from the edge. In a similar fashion to the HST of Britain, the X2000 has become the face of SJ, and one hopes that these magnificent trains can see many years of future service.
After the UP held this 383 grain train for over 3 hours worth of delays, the final goodbye kiss was a stop test on the edge of the UP trackage at East Mankato which is on a decent grade. Here the UP official pulls the red flag and heads up to talk to the crew. Then these 4 40's would dig deep to get 100 loads moving again.
The High-Efficiency Horticulture and Integrated Supply Chain Project will support the development of 30 hectares of climate-controlled greenhouses equipped with drip irrigation systems in Yerevan to produce tomatoes and bell peppers.
Read more on:
High-Efficiency Horticulture and Integrated Supply Chain Project
The New Trakker offers innovative solutions that improve efficiency and reduce fuel consumption and environmental impact. Discover the app and download it in Apple App Store or in Google Play Store!
Just a sample of modular origami surface area efficiency comparisons that I do. This analysis I do on some modulars that result in a completed closed surface to get an idea of how much paper was "wasted" in making locks and getting the right shapes for the particular polyhedron.
The black areas are the portions of each sheet of paper that becomes a part of the surface of the finished model (drawn perfectly to scale). The percents were calculated with a little help from AutoCAD.
As you can see, the sonobe unit is pretty inefficient. Though it should be noted that it sacrifices this efficiency for simplicity and flexibility. The other two are models of mine with both pictures and diagrams in my photostream. They were specifically designed for one polyhedron each, so in the customization allows them to gains efficiency.
Although 26%, or about 1/4 (for the dodecadodeca), might not sound very efficient, the drastically increased complexity of the shape it produces, including points of negative curvature, makes this design pretty efficient for what it does IMO; considering that it's twice as efficient as the sonobe unit.
The Icositetrahedron is one of my most efficient designs. The final model made from 24 sheets of paper is almost TWICE the diameter of a 30-piece sonobe model made from the same sized paper.
A simple example of a modular with even MORE efficiency is the Butterfly Ball, which sacrifices integrity for a 50% efficiency. This model doesn't even really have a lock; it is held together by friction. In fact, technically the sonobe unit is ALSO held together purely by friction, but at least the sonobe unit has pockets instead of just overlapping paper. Both of my designs shown here have strong, mechanical locks not based around friction.
___________________________
Surface area efficiency for my truncated rhombic triacontahedron (not shown here) is 30.9%, which I think is pretty good considering the super-strength of the locking mechanism.
Diagrams for all 3 of my models described here, the two in this photo as well as the one I just mentioned can be found in my "Diagrams & Notes" set. Photos of the completed models are in my "Origami Modulars" set.
From 2022 all motor vehicles manufactured must be more energy efficient under a new EU directive.
Here sails are attached to the rear of a vehicle in what is being termed "Wind Assist Technology". It is reported that this can result in an efficiency gain of as much as 20% thus cutting emissions.
"Auto Fold" sensors drop the sail whenever the vehicle approaches a low bridge, multi-storey car park or telegraph pole - or when the wind is in the wrong direction.
At the Energy Efficient Prosperity panel discussion at COP21, IEA Head of Energy Efficiency & Environment Division Philippe Benoit explains how energy efficiency can expand access to energy services as well as limit climate change.
Photo by George Kamiya
This is my own squad of custom clones. I'm planning on making a bunch of MOC's involving them. Please feel free to tag yourself, and also I'm horrible at naming clones, so any suggestions as to what to name any of these clones would be greatly appreciated.
Justin Liston, a Sheet Metal, Air, Rail & Transportation Workers Local 12 Union (SMART) apprentice, preparing for a high-paying, skilled energy-efficiency job at a training center in Pittsburgh.
Pittsburgh, PA
Photo credit: Justin Merriman
The experience of our team at work on trucks to always guarantee maximum efficiency Follow Iveco's adventure at the Dakar!
Mercedes E350 CDi Blue Efficiency Cabriolet (2010-on) Engine 2987cc V6 E 300 BlueTEC Diesel 228bhp
MERCEDES SET
www.flickr.com/photos/45676495@N05/sets/72157623671722255...
The W212 Saloon and C207 Coupe were launched in 2009 as the ninth generation of the Mercedes E Class.Followed by the S212 Estate later in 2009 and the A207 Cabriolet unveiled at the North American Motor Show in Detroit, January 2010.
This is powered by a 2987cc V6 Diesel engine of 231bhp with a seven speed Automatic gearbox with Tipfunction, Speedtronic cruise control and hold
Priced at £ 48,005 includes the following extras - Telephone pre-wiring (£ 290). Airscarf (£ 365), COMAND (£ 2,230), AMG 5 twin spoke 18inch wheels (£ 365) and Diamond White metallic paint (£ 1,125)
Shot 25.11.2011 at Mercedes World Brooklands - Ref 68-459
Visitors please click on the Flag Counter on my Profile page. Thank you
Find out how much money you could save with energy efficiency meaures like insulation and low energy light bulbs.
Agbar Tower Barcelona, Spain
The Torre Agbar, or also called Torre Glòries was designed by French architect Jean Nouvel and has become a symbol of a contemporary Barcelona. This tower is located in the Poblenou neighbourhood – the new technological district of Barcelona, also known as 22@. The name of the tower – Torre Agbar comes from the name of a Spanish company dedicated to services and distribution of water – the Agbar Group. Originally the building was owned by the Agbar Group and recently it was purchased by Merlin Properties real estate group which renamed the tower to be called Torre Glòries after the name of the adjacent square.
The construction of the tower was started in 1999 and was finished in 2004. The Torre Agbar is one in a collection of high-tech architecture examples in Barcelona and therefore it is interesting to take a closer look at the building, its architecture and design, both external and internal.
The Torre Agbar is a massive bullet-shaped cylinder pointing skywards, with a glass surface in which the colours of the Mediterranean are reflected. The building has 31 office floors, 3 floors for technical facilities on the top and 4 underground floors. This tower is the third highest building in Barcelona, it stands 144 metres tall. It cost 130 million Euros to build.
The architect of Torre Agbar had done a very meticulous and hard work with his team, thinking a lot about the best location where to build the tower, the design and ways how to reduce energy consumption. For that reason during its construction the solar power and groundwater were used. The Torre Agbar can truly be called as example of bioclimatic architecture. In this building, functionality and design merge with environmentally-friendly building materials and elements that take advantage of climatic and environmental conditions to achieve a significant reduction in energy consumption and improve the quality of life of residents. In 2011, the Agbar Tower won the European Commission’s Green Building award for its energy efficiency and low CO² emissions.
One of the most characteristic elements of the building is its nocturnal illumination. The tower has more than 4,500 luminous devices that can operate independently using LED technology and enables the generation of images on the outside of the tower. The system is capable of creating 16 million colours, thanks to a sophisticated system of hardware and software. It has the ability to quickly transition between colours which can create a shocking effect. We advise you to see Torre Agbar both by day and by night! Particularly by night it can become an amazing experience!
Indicator: Energy Efficiency (expressed in terajoules per million GDP in constant 2000 international PPP)
© Jon Buono 2009 All rights reserved
Click "original size" for legible image
Introduction
In the spring of this year, representatives of the United States’ Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), the U.K.’s Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BRE-EAM), and the Australian Green Star rating systems initiated meetings to align their assessment tools and develop common metrics to measure CO2 equivalents from building construction. Later this summer, BRE and the French Centre Scientifique et Technique du Bâtiment (CSTB) declared their joint effort to create a Pan-European assessment method. These events represent both the global adoption of the sustainable construction philosophy and the need for developing consensus among standards.
The ideological commitment to producing sustainable buildings is an ethical response to both global and local environmental issues. However, the criteria for “green” building evaluation among international organizations continue to evolve. To some degree, the bias for operational efficiencies of new construction over the value of existing buildings has lessened in recent years. But the importance of economic and environmental metrics to construction planning and design is only likely to increase. Given the heightened political interest in global conditions, the metrics for sustainable construction have been widely adopted by national and municipal building regulators. This suggests an amended method for the evaluation of architectural resources for conservation.
Ultimately advocates for building conservation must become active participants in a potentially unfamiliar analytical dialog. Scientific and engineering methods and data must, to a certain extent, be adopted by the historic preservation professional. The “conventional” wisdom of conservation practice - namely that stewardship of our historic building stock is an act of sustainability – is increasingly subject to demonstration and verification.
In the wake of this paradigm shift, it is appropriate to consider the net effect of sustainable construction standards in practice. To date, the “green” building movement has mostly represented an incremental change rather than a radical rethinking of the built environment (Kibert, 2004). High-performance designs must also be recognized as experiments in the trial and error process to achieve “sustainable” buildings. The development of a new generation of construction materials and systems - engineered according to standards for low environmental impacts - appears remarkably similar to the post-WWII era when architecture readily embraced experimental products with limited life-cycle testing.
The existence of experimental building technologies in modern movement buildings has long been identified as a conflict to preservation’s paradigm to conserve original building fabric. This debate, however, rarely addresses the design movement’s underlying focus on “performance” – an essentially non-existent concept in pre-19th century architecture. The era’s mantra of “doing more with less” resulted in more than just a compression of construction assemblies- it introduced the operational logic of industry, specifically the machine, to the art of architecture. One could argue that the very presence of rapidly-deteriorating, petroleum-based products within 20th-century buildings suggests the need for a conceptual understanding of conservation more akin to automobiles than to pre-modern architecture.
In recognition of the modern movement’s nascent adoption of new material technology, and yet its significant reliance on durable construction methods, this essay considers the opportunities and constraints of various models for the assessment of sustainable building.
Birth of the Green
The “green” building movement reflects many societal factors, not least of which are the escalation in fuel prices and the growing popular concern for global warming. The present condition represents an epic paradox of civilization: although “cheap” energy supported exponential worldwide growth and modernization, the resulting competition and demand cannot be sustained by the original fuel source. Of course this observation is not new, but we among oil-consuming economies “fell off the wagon” sometime in the last three decades.
At the time of the last energy crises, the concerns for nature first written by Henry David Thoreau had matured into an environmental movement within western nations. In the developing century of thought, the human role of “stewardship” found recognition and asserted that mankind’s fate is linked to that of nature; concluding there can be no competition between the two. Therefore, civilization must mitigate the long-term impact of its reliance on natural resources. The definition of “mitigation” prompted a debate of natural vs. cultural priorities. An early example was the argument of land management versus preservation, lead by Gifford Pinchot and John Muir. Overall, the parallel movements have been unified by many seminal texts and thinkers, but an ideological tug-of-war has occasionally pitted one priority against the other. Today, some of this polarity has been diminished through the recent concept of the “triple bottom line”. This more inclusive, and arguably sustainable action model, suggests equal footing for economic, environmental, and social criteria.
Building Impacts
Proponents of high-performance construction often quote an estimate that during a building’s lifespan, the majority of its energy expenditure is consumed by building operations. Although this estimate does not hold true for the full history of extant buildings, conservators generally agree that this pattern of consumption typifies construction of the 19th-20th centuries. The lifespan ratio is commonly differentiated as 16% initial embodied energy, 10% recurring embodied energy, and 74% building operations.
Initial embodied energy in buildings represents the non-renewable energy consumed in the acquisition of raw materials, their processing, manufacturing, transportation to site, and construction. The recurring embodied energy in buildings represents the non-renewable energy consumed to maintain, repair, restore, refurbish or replace materials, components or systems during the life of the building.
Building upon the early research of architect Richard Stein and others, the U.S. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) commissioned a landmark study (Booz, Allen, Hamilton 1979) based on an extensive analysis of U.S. building industry data. Although the data for industrial processes has not been updated since its initial compilation, the original calculations represent the prolific period of post-WWII construction.
In most circumstances, initial embodied energy is significantly less than the energy consumed by a building over its lifetime. Green building research has therefore focused primarily on improving efficiencies in building operations and reducing construction waste and pollution.
Comparison of Standards
To date, the LEED program has certified over one thousand buildings, with thousands more waiting in application. The majority of these certifications have been voluntary. Following the early adoption by the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA), municipalities, and some universities, LEED certification has been mandated by many facility owners and operators. Since the incorporation of the LEED standards, alternative rating systems have been developed and warrant consideration in context.
The U.K.’s BREEAM rating system was introduced in 1990 and has been recognized as the first environmental building assessment tool. Following the U.N.’s “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro, the international momentum for such standards grew. The non-profit U.S. Green Building Council was established in 1993 and introduced LEED in 2000. In the same year, the Canadian Building Owners and Mangers Association (BOMA) released the Green Globes rating system. It must be noted that both systems were heavily influenced by BREEAM, and in fact Green Globes grew out of a 1996 BREEAM franchise by the Canadian Standards Association. Unique to the BOMA revision, however, was their partnership with the joint U.S.-Canadian non-profit Athena Institute. Beginning in the 1990s, the institute was devoted to the research and development of material life-cycle assessment tools for new and existing building construction.
Today, BREEAM, LEED, and Green Globes are the most widely used of more than ten independently-authored “green” building programs developed internationally over the past 20 years. The top three have expanded their systems to other countries; Green Globes entered the U.S. market through the non-profit Green Building Initiative (GBI) in 2005 and is finalizing ANSI certification; LEED has been franchised for use by non-profit Green Building Councils in India, Brazil, and Canada.
By 2006, the emerging market competition for “green” standards became apparent when the GBI filed a grievance against the GSA for their endorsement and requirement of LEED certification. In response, the GSA signed a Memorandum of Understanding to operate “rating system neutral,” maintaining however that LEED is currently the “most credible rating system available to meet GSA’s needs” and will re-evaluate systems every five years.
It is difficult to forecast what the afore-mentioned rating system partnerships will yield. Although multiple standards allows for the intrinsic variability of the construction market (private/public, residential/ commercial/institutional), the use of variable metrics problematizes the comparison of impacts which are decidedly global in their nature.
Given the common roots and similar goals, the LEED and Green Globes standards are more similar than different. A 2006 comparison by the University of Minnesota identified eight generic categories common to both analyses: 1) Energy Use; 2) Water Use; 3) Pollution; 4) Material/Product Inputs; 5) Indoor Air Quality & Occupant Comfort; 6) Transport; 7) Site Ecology; and 8) Other Sustainable Design. On the surface, the Green Globes system was initially credited with providing a less expensive and more efficient means of building certification through an on-line mechanism. In some cases, however, the “yes/no” format of the web-based data system was criticized as being prone to interpretation. LEED recently-introduced version 3 has notably replaced their paper-based system with a web-based format. However in their substance, the two systems offer differing values for the conservation of existing buildings.
Promise of LCA
Life cycle assessment (LCA) attempts to quantify the environmental impacts of a product or service caused or necessitated by its existence. The assessment method provides a systematic view of the environmental aspects of a product from “cradle to grave.” This includes: 1) a description of the entire product’s life-cycle; 2) key environmental impacts from production and use of the product; 3) the product’s functional quality. Based on these three conditions, the LCA quantifies a product’s range of environmental impacts (Trusty, 2004).
In the concept of embodied energy, it was earlier noted that the energy required to operate a building over its life exceeds the energy attributed to the products used in its construction. This statement does not take into account other embodied effects such as toxic releases to water, effects during the resource extraction and manufacturing stages that greatly outweigh any releases associated with building operations. Byproducts from the manufacture of long lifespan materials, such as iron, steel, hydraulic cements, and lime, have a significant impact on global warming. As well, the extraction of iron, sand, and gravel also contribute to natural resource depletion.
Research conducted by the Athena Institute demonstrates the value of retaining structural and envelope systems, which on average account for half of a building’s embodied energy (Cole and Kernan, 1996). This ability for detailed itemized assessment is well suited to the modern movement’s development of core and shell construction technology.
For example, two scenarios of “Impact Avoidance” can be used to estimate the environmental effects that are avoided by rehabilitating a building. The minimum avoided environmental impact case involves saving only the structural system of an existing building, with the rest demolished and replaced. The avoided impacts equal the effects of 1) demolishing a structural system and 2) rebuilding a comparable structural system. This scenario is demonstrated by the curtain wall replacement project for the Lever House and in development for the United Nations secretariat tower. In both cases, the effects of demolishing the envelope are not avoided. The maximum scenario involves saving the envelope as well as the structure, with avoided impacts equal to the effects of: 1) demolishing a structural/envelope system and 2) rebuilding a comparable structural/envelope system. The rehabilitation of the Van Nelle Factory in Rotterdam remains one of the most comprehensive examples of this alternative to date.
Until recently, both the LEED and Green Globes rating systems were criticized for not rationally weighting their assessment criteria according to environmental relevance. Although some LCA inconsistencies remain, Green Globes has been credited with including explicit rating criteria for both life-cycle strategies and building durability/ adaptability. LEED, however, historically has favored specific products according to LCA impact. LEED version 3 has re-distributed the credit values of its criteria according to LCA, but there is no single criterion that explicitly evaluates the cumulative life-cycle of a construction project. For example, the “Materials and Re-use” section requires the use of rapidly renewable materials to reduce the use of long-cycle renewable materials. However, there is no allowance for evaluating the impact of using a rapidly renewable material that must be replaced 10 times more frequently than its long-cycle alternative. Notably, a consortium of university facility managers has recently decided to eliminate the installation of bamboo flooring from future projects due to its limited service life in their prior LEED projects.
Conclusion
“In exploring the primary general categories of 'green' or 'sustainable' design and construction (energy, durability, air quality, and environmental impacts) and the ability to develop and specify requirements and standards of performance, measurement is a critical issue. Specifically, if you can't measure it, it is difficult to set up specific requirements and standards for it.” (Smith et al., 2006)
The professional evolution of preservation has lead to scientific methods and technologies to physically support the conservation of historic structures and sites. In turn, measurements have been conducted to demonstrate the positive economic impact of this mission. Despite some occasional reluctance, metrics have become fundamental to practice.
In deference to the legitimacy of environmental concerns, one cannot address today's global condition using yesterday's individualized arguments. This has occasionally been a shortcoming of the policy statements of historic preservation leadership. In the wake of the last energy crises, the aforementioned ACHP’s substantial investment in embodied energy research was an appropriate response. However, during that same period, the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation was revised for only a narrow consideration of energy efficiency. Although the topic was addressed (primarily the weatherizing of wood sash windows), it was not sufficiently encouraged, nor have the challenges of integrating both criteria been explored.
During the past boom of U.S. construction, the values of conservation and building integration largely lost out to the practice of tabula rasa- which the private development community has historically preferred for project expediency. Preservation advocates can attest to the large number of buildings demolished before the end of their technical service life due to a common list of “red herrings” that may now include operational inefficiency. It is too simplistic to conclude that modern architecture is logically produced and removed from the landscape based on its original bias for experimentation and technological innovation. To offer a counterpoint, there is a fundamental difference between “shortening the replacement cycle” of our mechanical systems versus our building stock and by extension communities and architectural heritage.
Architectural preservation has repeatedly been argued to be an act of sustainability. In the immediate future, LCA methodology suggests a potential bridge between the preservation community’s interest in increasingly rare building materials and techniques, with the environmental principles supporting “green” building standards. But as a caution against any suggestion of a “silver bullet”, LCA expert Arnold Tukker offers the following: “It will never be possible to solve controversial discussions about products with an LCIA [life cycle inventory assessment] method that is based solely on mathematical relations between interventions and protection areas. There are simply too many uncertainties, there is too much ignorance, and they can only be overcome by all kinds of subjective, subtle, and basically value-laden choices. …”
Preservation and conservation advocates are tasked with addressing the present paradigm shift. Future programs and processes within both academia and the profession must acknowledge the environmental impacts of construction. Simultaneously, those forces must impart the values of social interaction and cultural enrichment inherent to architectural heritage to expand the popular definition of sustainability.
References
Anonymous. 2009, April 10. American National Standard 01-200XP: Green Building Assessment Protocol for Commercial Buildings. Public Review Draft. Green Building Initiative.
__________ 2008, July 30. “USGBC Lists Certification Lineup for LEED 2009.” Greener Buildings online journal.
__________ 2003, November. “White Paper on Sustainability.” Building Design & Construction Magazine.
__________ 2004. “Towards Sustainable Use of Building Stock.” Joint Workshop on Sustainable Buildings. Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development/International Energy Agency.
__________ 2008. “Green Building Practices and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Historic Preservation.” Draft edition. Pocantico Symposium. National Trust for Historic Preservation.
Booz, Allen, Hamilton. 1979. “Assessing the Energy Conservation Benefits of Historic Preservation: Methods and Examples.” United States Advisory Council for Historic Preservation.
Campagna , Barbara A. 2009, June 15. “How Changes to LEED™ Will Benefit Existing and Historic Buildings.” Preservation Architect: The Newsletter of the Historic Resources Committee. American Institute of Architects.
Cole, R.J. and Kernan, P.C. 1996. “Life-Cycle Energy Use in Office Buildings.” Building and Environment, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 307-317.
Frey, Patrice. 2007, October. “Making the Case: Historic Preservation as Sustainable Development.” Draft edition. Sustainable Preservation Research Retreat. National Trust for Historic Preservation.
Kibert, Charles A. 2004. “Green Buildings: An Overview of Progress.” Journal of Land Use. Vol. 19:2.
Smith, Timothy M., Miriam Fischlein, Sangwon Suh, Pat Huelman. 2006, September. “Green Building Rating Systems: a Comparison of the LEED and Green Globes Systems in the U.S.” University of Minnesota.
Trusty, Wayne. 2004. “Renovating vs. Building New: The Environmental Merits.” The Athena Institute.
Pipit was sent to pick up a couple of bumpers that were left in the pond after training. Of course she figured out the quickest way to do this....
Bulk Carrier
IMO: 9491666
MMSI: 372967000
Call Sign: 3FRJ3
Flag: Panama [PA]
AIS Vessel Type: Cargo
Gross Tonnage: 22852
Deadweight: 37000 t
Length Overall x Breadth Extreme: 177.85m × 28.6m
Year Built: 2010
Draught 7.1m
Speed recorded (Max / Average) 7.9 / 6.1 knots
Norgate, North Vancouver District, British Columbia
Efficiency Tischmesse Basel
25.10.2017 St.Jakobshalle in Basel / Schweiz
Efficiency Tischmesse ist eine Präsentationsplattform und Kontaktbörse für die regionale Wirtschaft. Die Teilnehmer präsentieren ihr Angebot auf einheitlichen, vom Veranstalter zur Verfügung gestellten Tischen. Diese sind nach einem einheitlichen System beschriftet. (Galerie zum Harnisch Schweiz)
Basel,Schweiz,Ausstellung,Besucher, Efficiency Tischmesse,
Efficiencies and motel rooms--Week--Month--Season--Mr. & Mrs. Irl Rain
1845 Garfield Street, Hollywood in Florida.
phone 3-6026
Radio in each room--Shuffleboard--Beautiful, Landscaped Lot--Brand New and Modern--Near shopping district.
Countdown Day #28
Happy Hump Day!
In honor of the week advancing nicely towards the weekend, I figured I would post an image of a brown bear. This one was photographed on our 3rd trip to AK, specifically within Katmai National Park & Preserve.
I remember that particular day well ... we had reached our destination and were immediately in the midst of numerous coastal brown bears who were full on chasing the run of salmon making their journey in the river. Most of these bears were single bears, but they shared one passion ... SALMON ... therefore they shared the same feeding grounds. How wonderful when I thought about adaptive those bears are, able to live amongst the others when necessary to do so, otherwise definitely preferring their personal space. Even on the rivers, the still have their personal space, though it seems to be a smaller one. That's not to say that there are no territorial disputes, but for the most part, the salmon are plentiful and they all seem fairly happy with that. I guess it's like when I have enough chocolate ... lots of endorphins being released. :-)
Another thing that always amazes me is how quickly they catch their dinner. They are quite the skilled fishermen, but even more so, they are efficient at devouring their catch. Whatever they don't feel like eating doesn't go to waste ... there are plenty of seagulls around to pick up the scraps, and the gulls have no fear of the bears whatsoever.
On this particular trip, we spent time in the river with the bears, which I thought was the craziest idea I had ever heard of! But in reality, it was so wonderful and believe it or not, very relaxing and fulfilling. they are totally amazing creatures and I can't wait to share some time with them again. Makes a spirit feel good and alive!
Thanks so much for stopping by to view and follow the countdown to Alaska 2013. We especially love to read all of your thoughts and comments as well.
© Debbie Tubridy / © TNWA Photography - All of my images are protected by copyright and may not be used on any site, blog, or forum without my permission.
Website: www.tnwaphotography.comBlog: www.tnwaphotography.wordpress.com
Advancing health system quality and efficiency by improving access, quality, and efficiency of public health services in Romania. Photo: Jutta Benzenberg/World Bank
Then 66 number 016 WBAT WEMBLEYYD 894M381O05 4 * DAVTRYREC N
DB Schenker Rail (UK) Ltd's class 92 number 92019 named "Wagner" in two tone railfreight grey livery with large EWS logo and a three 'O' shaped channel tunnel logo works the first leg of 4M38 from Dollands Moor to Wembley before it was taken on by class 66 number 016 to Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) on 5 November 2014.
At Jaguar Land Rover's Whitley plant, Coventry (15 miles from Crick, Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT)) car bodies are constructed using recycled aluminium sheet stamped panels. They claim that this enables them to increase crash safety and reduce weight of their new Range Rover, Range Rover Sport, Jaguar F-TYPE sportscar and Jaguar XJ saloon by approximately 40% (so improving fuel efficiency and lowering emissions). Jaguar Land Rover operate a closed loop vehicle recycling policy at the end of their vehicles life and in future aim to construct up to 75% of their entire vehicle from aluminium when feasible.
The Novelis company, spun off from Alcan in 2005, makes aluminium rolled products such as light-metal products for the automotive industry (automotive coil), as well as drinks cans, products for the construction sector and products for manufacturers of consumer electronic goods. Alunorf, the Novelis Deutschland GmbH aluminium rolling and casting facility at Neuss (near Düsseldorf), is the largest aluminium rolling and casting facility in the world, and is operated jointly by Novelis and Norsk Hydro supplied with recycled aluminium delivered from Ditton Foundry in the UK by train (6O16, returning as 6M14). The Ditton Foundry trains share the same International train ID number as 4M38 in France and so are assumed to work the same route. Previously 46455 was photographed by Mattias Catry at Merris on 23 March 2014). Dollands Moor to Nievenheim aluminium trains have also been photographed passing through Houplines (east of Armenières) working from Nievenheim to Dollands Moor on 12 March 2014. Dennis Vansummeren also photographed 46455 between between Wespelaar and the village of Tildonk Belgium, working from Dollands Moor to Nievenheim on 26 April 2014.
The automotive coil produced by AluNorf at Neuss, Germany is thought to be taken to Umschlag Container Terminal GmbH by lorry and loaded into 18 Stobart Rail branded containers mounted on 9 French FIA and IFA twin intermodal flat wagons numbered 33 87 4908s. The route to Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) then involvs 5 different rail companies (International train ID 46455 and 46452) (RheinCargo GmbH & Co KG railway company, DB Schenker Rail (formerly Railion), Corridor Operations Belgium Rail (COBRA), B-Cargo and finally to DB Schenker Rail UK through the Channel Tunnel to Daventry) where Eddie Stobart lorries are thought to take it the last 15 miles to Jaguar Land Rover's Whitley plant. For a map of the route to and from Germany click here.
According to Chris Warman numbers of the 9 intermodal twin flat wagons being hauled with Stobart Rail containers mounted on them were 8749084301, 8749086785, 8749084970, 8749086751, 8749084806, 8749087338, 8749085076, 8749085050 and 8749086595.
92019 (works number BT1080) was built by the Brush Traction Company at Loughborough in 1995.
According to Realtime Trains the route and timings were;
Dollands Moor Sidings ......................1421..................1421.............RT
Ashford International UML................1433 1/2...........1434 1/2.......1L
Maidstone East [MDE] 1......................1501..................1458 1/4......2E
Otford Junction[XOT].........................1524 1/2...........1520 3/4.....3E
Swanley [SAY] 1....................................1535 1/2...........1531 1/4.......4E
St Mary Cray Junction........................1540 1/2...........1535 1/4......5E
Bickley Junction[XLY].........................1541 1/2............1536............5E
Bromley South [BMS]..........................1545.................1538 3/4.....6E
Shortlands [SRT]...................................1547..................1540 1/2......6E
Shortlands Junction............................1547 1/2...........1541.............6E
Bellingham [BGM]................................1550.................1543 1/4......6E
Nunhead [NHD] 1.................................1553 1/2...........1550............3E
Peckham Rye [PMR] 3.........................1555 1/2...........1552 1/4......3E
Crofton Road Junction.......................1556 1/2...........1554............2E
Denmark Hill [DMK] 1..........................1558.................1554............4E
Voltaire Road Junction.......................1602.................1559............3E
Latchmere Junction............................1612..................1608 1/4......3E
Imperial Wharf [IMW] 2.......................1615..................1610 1/2......4E
West Brompton [WBP] 4.....................1617...................1612 1/2.......4E
Kensington Olympia ..........................1620.................1614 1/2.......5E
Shepherds Bush [SPB] 2....................1621 1/2............1616 3/4......4E
North Pole Signal Vc813....................1624 1/2...........1619.............5E
North Pole Junction............................1625.................1618 1/2.......6E
Mitre Bridge Junction.........................1628.................1625 1/2.....2E
Willesden West Londn Junction......1629 1/2...........1627............2E
Wembley Eur Frt Ops Ctr...................1644 1/2/1721..1635/1723..2L
Wembley Central [WMB] 5................1726..................1724 3/4......1E
Harrow & Wealdstone [HRW] 5........1732..................1729 3/4.....2E
Bushey [BSH] 5.....................................1737..................1735 3/4.....RT
Watford Junction [WFJ] 8..................1738 1/2...........1739............RT
Kings Langley [KGL] 3.........................1743..................1744............RT
Apsley [APS] 3......................................1746..................1747 1/2.......1L
Hemel Hempstead [HML] 3...............1747 1/2............1749 1/2.......1L
Bourne End Junction(Herts) [XOE]...1749..................1750 3/4......1L
Berkhamsted [BKM] 3.........................1752..................1753.............1L
Tring [TRI] 3...........................................1756..................1757.............1L
Cheddington [CED] 3..........................1800.................1801 3/4.......1L
Ledburn Junction[XOD].....................1802.................1803 1/2.......1L
Leighton Buzzard [LBZ] 3..................1804.................1806 1/2.....2L
Bletchley [BLY] 3..................................1811...................1812..............1L
Denbigh Hall South Junction............1812 1/2............1812 3/4......RT
Denbigh Hall North Junction............1814..................1813 1/2.......RT
Milton Keynes Central [MKC] 3.........1816..................1814 3/4.......1E
Wolverton [WOL] 3..............................1818 1/2............1816 1/2........1E
Hanslope Junction[XHN]...................1822.................1820 1/4.......1E
Northampton [NMP] 2.........................1833..................1831 3/4.......1E
Long Buckby [LBK]..............................1915 1/2............1916 1/2........1L
Daventry South Junction...................1921 1/2............1924 3/4......3L
Participant during the Session: “Enhancing Energy Efficiency“ at the Annual Meeting 2019 of the World Economic Forum in Davos, January 25, 2018. Congress Centre – xChange.Copyright by World Economic Forum / Christian Clavadetscher
Sandia mechanical operations engineer Casiano Armenta checks out a heat exchanger that’s part of the labs' free-cooling system. Free cooling has helped Sandia cut energy usage by more than 250 billion BTUs the past six years and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Read more at share.sandia.gov/news/resources/news_releases/sustainabil...
Photo by Randy Montoya.
My 1996 Civic HX CVT is approaching its Sweet Sixteenth, and while it still more or less runs fine, it is not what it once was and there are modern amenities I long for.
Chief among these are the safety innovations of the last two decades – in terms of safety the Civic HX wasn’t state-of-the-art even in 1996 – including anti-lock brakes, traction control, stability control, more than two airbags, improved crumple zones, etc. Almost as important are advances in fuel efficiency and emissions. Finally, there’s the electronics: MP3 players, navigation systems, keyless entry, hands-free dialing, etc.
I am one of the biggest gearheads I know and yet unlike traditional gearheads, well, I don’t put much stock in tradition. Don’t get me wrong: I enjoy racing cars in GT5 as much as the next guy. It’s just that when it comes to handing over actual money, I cannot justify spending significantly more simply to get to the next stoplight a second faster or go faster around a track.
What I will spend (a modest amount) on is new tech. This was the case when I got my Civic, which was a proto-hybrid-smugness moment for me. The Civic was the first car with a real engine (not counting the Subaru Justy) to sport a continuously-variable transmission – more or less the same one still used in Honda hybrids. This delivered nearly the acceleration and efficiency of a manual transmission but the convenience of an automatic. It helped that the engine was also new: a VTEC tuned not for performance, but for fuel efficiency. Also that it was a Honda – back when Hondas were more cart-like than the competition. And all this was available for maybe $1200 more than a very affordable Civic LX. I was in geek heaven.
Fast-forward to April 5, 2012. The early adopter car of the moment is the Prius c, and I test-drove my second one (pictured) today.
First, a brief rundown of the Prius c. Marketed in the U.S.A. as an entry-level Prius, in fact it more closely resembles a Yaris Hybrid - while it does have a real (albeit three-quarters-scale) Hybrid Synergy Drive, in terms of physical dimensions a Prius c is clearly a Yaris. It is not even made on the same assembly line as the Prius and Prius v. It is also $3-4k less than a Prius Liftback (the retronym for the Prius now that there’s four Priiuseses).
What you give up for that extra few grand in your pocket is surprisingly little. It gets similar (class-leading) fuel economy; still has five doors and five usable seats; and most of the electronic wizardry is intact, as is the basic design. Actually, I don’t think I’m alone in thinking the Prius c is more attractive than its Poppy (Prius) and Mommy (Prius v). (What does that make the Plug-in Prius? Uncle Fester?)
Personally, it’s not so much what I’m willing to give up to make the Prius affordable, but what I positively gain with the Prius c. I like small cars. I’ve always thought my Civic Coupe was a little too big. The Civic is roughly the same size (only not nearly as tall) as the Gen-II Prius, which is somewhat smaller than the current Prius Liftback. The Prius c is almost a foot and a half shorter (lengthwise) than my Civic – and that should come in handy looking for parking in San Francisco.
Hand-in-hand with the smaller size is less weight – roughly 500 pounds less than the Liftback. It’s still around 145 pounds heavier than my Civic (it’s hard to get reliable specs for a car so long out of production), 185 more than the Yaris, and about the same weight as the Fit, but none of those cars have to lug around the extra motors, electronics, and batteries of the Hybrid Synergy. Undoubtedly, if they have not already done so, JDM (Japanese Domestic Market) tuners will gut the Aqua (their name for the Prius c) and transform it into an outright sports car.
That will be a big transformation, though, because the stock car is anything but sporty. While it drives essentially like a normal car at low speeds (if “normal” is a Yaris), once you get much past 30mph the accelerator doesn’t have a whole lot of effect on the world outside the engine bay. It seems to be enough to keep up with traffic, though.
It’s not half bad in corners, either. While my Civic’s springs have seen better days, it has noticeably more body roll than the Prius c. And, as other reviewers have pointed out, the c feels more planted than its 2587-pound weight and 175mm-wide tires might have you think. It also has a considerably smoother ride than the Civic has.
Considerably quieter too. While it ain’t no Lexus, it’s remarkably calm for a subcompact – even the Prius’ own “blind pedestrian” noisemaker is difficult to discern from the front seat.
Neither is the overall driving experience a 90s Honda, and that can be good or bad depending on your tastes. Honda is not what it used to be either: the CR-Z I drove in Dec 2010 felt almost as dead as the Prius c - which is fairly lively for a mainstream Toyota, if one can say that without risking oxymoronity.
Somewhat surprisingly, even the passenger space is better than my Civic’s, despite the shorter wheelbase and much shorter length. True, the Civic has a fraction of an inch more headroom in the front, but I don’t use all the headroom anyway (I’m 5’10”). Only with the sunroof option does my hair brush the ceiling of the Prius c. Without the sunroof (which I don’t want anyway), I have more than enough room.
Driver position is more adjustable in the Prius c too. In addition to a seat height adjustment on trim levels Two and up, all Prius c’s have a tilting-telescoping steering wheel. The total travel is barely an inch or so, but that inch is nice for someone who’s driven 16 years in a car whose steering wheel is an inch too far away.
The seat itself comes in two models and three upholstery types. The One’s seat fabric is a cheap-feeling material that evokes 80s Corollas. The Two/Three seats (pictured) are two-toned and two-textured – the center of the seats being a modern, smooth synthetic, and the outer parts a rougher woven synthetic remarkably similar to that of my task chair at home. Finally the Four is upholstered in SofTex, which is a (faux) faux leather which evokes more of an aquatic origin (appropriate!) than bovine provenance.
The One trim has an older seat design, while Two and up have a “next-gen” seat. The difference is subtle – the headrest is different and the side bolsters deeper in the next-gen seat - but I personally found the next-gen substantially more comfortable. It practically fits me like a glove - although my smaller female friend who test-drove the car with me found the deep bolsters got in the way of her arms. The seats are reason enough for me to upgrade to Two.
Where the Prius c really shines is in the back seat. It has noticeably more head, leg and hip room back there than my Civic – enough to make the difference between feeling cramped and contorted in the Civic and perfectly comfortable in the Prius c. There’s even a cupholder back there in the c. And a three-point belt for the humpsitter.
Where the c comes up short, literally, is in the cargo area. I’ve measured it to be less than half the size of my Civic’s trunk – which is already one of the smaller trunks of my friends’ and family’s cars. Even for a single person like me, I doubt the c has enough space for a typical Costco run without folding the rear seats. (Which would be ironic, since, if I bought one, it would probably be through Costco.) Then again, the c appears to have about the same amount of cargo space as the Mazda 3, and more than the Yaris Hatch, so I guess it doesn't bother people too much.
As for the gadgets, they leave me cold. Then again, I’m a smartphone/GPS Luddite. Still, even diehard iPhoners – especially diehard Apple fans – will likely agree with me that the Prius’ GUI design is about a decade behind the times. Not unusable by any means; I just didn’t feel invited to try it out. Whatever.
I did plug in my old iPod Photo to test out the stereo, though. I probably didn’t find all the controls (then again, I don’t think the Two trim level has all the controls the Three trim level I was testing had), but it looked like the car just treated the iPod as a USB HDD, and played the songs in order – but, again, I wasn’t really concentrating on that.
I was concentrating on the sound quality. Which is okay. Distortion rears its ugly head early in the walk up the volume dial - it's already noticeable at normal-for-me volumes and overwhelms the music at anything approaching loud. The driver-side speaker on my Civic’s entry-level OEM stereo is not working, and yet the sound quality is still noticeably better. I had previously tested a c One, albeit only with FM, and the even cheaper stereo in there was downright muffled. As if the speaker drivers were made of cardboard – which I wouldn’t put past them. Clearly, Toyota designed these stereos to be replaced.
Which introduces us to the topic of build quality. Which is as cheap as I should have expected: in short, Yaris-like. The CR-Z, while definitely not luxurious, has a more cohesive, techo-modern feel to its interior. It has a familiar ring to it, as my Civic HX CVT filled a similar niche back in 1996. While the HX was only a step-and-a-half above the bargain basement, the overall design and quality of the materials does not scream cheap. Basic, but not cheap. And even, when it comes to the speedo, slightly sporty.
Conversely, I wouldn't call the Prius c basic - with its busy center console and USB port - but it is a little cheap. Parts (e.g., the glovebox) are noticeably flimsier than in the HX. Most everything is made of semi-glossy hard plastic, with occasional bright bits that burn spots into my retina on a sunny day. (I hate that about my mom’s Camry, although they seem to have toned it down a bit with the c.) By comparison, the HX is mostly soft plastics and all matte. Even after sixteen years, the Civic’s interior still looks down its nose at the Prius c.
To make a long story less long(er), the Prius c is amazing at one thing – fuel efficiency for the money – and competent at everything else. Which makes my (and others’) buying decision relatively simple: including all the externalities you feel are worth including, what is your break-even point? For me, the result is the Prius c is a slam-dunk versus the Yaris or Fit (let alone the practically obsolete Insight), but a dubious value versus my still-okay Civic HX.
With my typical 65-mile commute (63 of which are on freeways), I’d only save a few hundred a year in gas versus my current Civic. The question is what value do I place on the psychological benefits of increased safety, lower pump anxiety, and saving the world on the way to work?
If I do decide to pull the trigger (probably not a good analogy since I'll likely have to wait months to get one – not to mention the fact that Piercey Toyota is across the street from the county correctional facility), the final questions are trim and color. For me, the obvious choice is Two. It fixes the cheapest aspects of the One, for only $950 more, while avoiding the overly expensive gadgets of Three and Four, which are roughly $2k and $4k more, respectively.
And then there's color. For me, it basically comes down to same-old-spontaneous-combustion-black (both my cars have been black), absolutely unspontaneous white, or Habanero (pictured). Which for some reason I should probably see a shrink about is exciting me. Unfortunately, it's probably the only thing about this car that's exciting me now that I've driven it.
P.S. The photos above represent as close as I can get to the real Habanero color. The colors shown in the brochure are both inconsistent and wildly misrepresentative of real life. Of course, the photos above will only be accurate if you have a calibrated monitor.
Sandia National Laboratories researcher Vitalie Stavila inserts a substrate patterned with electrodes into a temperature-controlled liquid-phase reactor for depositing metal-organic framework (MOF) thin films. Sandia’s research team plans to combine MOFs with dye-sensitized solar cells, a technique it believes will lead to advancements in photovoltaic technology.
Read more at bit.ly/2MVaroD.
Photo by Dino Vournas.