No disagreement here as long as were are talking about goals for
new construction. This should not necessarily be applied accross
the board to existing buildings. The older the building the more
this is true in my judgement. E.g., many older buildings were
designed for natural ventilation before the days of air
conditioning. Retrofitting these buildings has often involved
many unwise changes that completely destroyed the original logical
air flow through the building and created moisture problems where
none previously existed. A case in point is the Old Executive
Office Building (OEOB) in D.C., which when built had working
natural ventilation and when studied by the Greening of the White
House Team in 1993, had 1,400 window air conditioners and no
natural ventilation. Which do you suppose was the more energy
efficient?
Loren
----------
>From: Hal Levin <hlevin@cruzio.com>
>I agree with Arnie. To quote Jim White of Canada Housing and
Mortgage
>Corporation (CMHC), "build tight, ventilate right." This means
prevent
>leaks, create openings that can be used to control ventilation,
whether
>mechanical or passive, to provide the necessary ventilation for
health,
>comfort, and satisfaction. This will also mean matching the
timing,
>location, and quantity of ventilation to the loads - bringing air
in where
>it is needed, when it is needed.
__________________________________________________________________
This greenbuilding dialogue is sponsored by Oikos (www.oikos.com)
and Environmental Building News (www.ebuild.com). For instructions
send e-mail to greenbuilding-request@crest.org.
__________________________________________________________________