Hi Global Market for U.S. Indoor Air Quality to Reach $11.4 Billion by 2019!.

Hi Global Market for U.S. Indoor Air Quality to Reach $11.4 Billion by 2019!.

BCC Research reveals in its new report, U.S. Indoor Air Quality Market, the U.S. indoor air quality (IAQ) market is expected to grow to $11.4 billion by 2019, with a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 7 percent over the next five years. The equipment segment market is anticipated to grow at a CAGR of 7.4 percent.

Since 2012, continuing media attention focused on the health effects of toxic mold, the outbreak of infectious diseases (such as bird flu), and the increase in chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma have resulted in a new interest in IAQ in homes, commercial buildings, schools and hospitals.

There is a distinct equipment market within the industry that includes products such as air-cleaning equipment, HVAC equipment, HVAC replacement filters and IAQ instrumentation. This market, which was valued at $3.9 billion in 2013, is predicted to reach nearly $4.1 billion in 2014 and $5.8 billion in 2019, with a projected CAGR of 7.4 percent.

Although the commercial segment was the largest market for IAQ equipment and services in 2013, the residential sector is projected to move into the top position by 2019, with 29 percent of the market, followed by commercial buildings (28 percent), healthcare (16 percent) and schools (14 percent).

“The U.S. economy has continued to recover from the 2008–2009 recession, boosting the market for IAQ equipment and services,” says BCC Research environment analyst, Andrew McWilliams. “The IAQ market is important because health problems such as building-related illness and sick-building syndrome, as well as other ailments associated with poor IAQ in homes, offices and schools, are on the rise in the U.S.”

U.S. INDOOR AIR QUALITY MARKET determines the size of the overall IAQ market and its subcategories, such as IAQ equipment and technologies, consulting services and environmental services.

Hi Every Energy Model Is Wrong—And Here Is Why They Are Indispensable.

Hi Every Energy Model Is Wrong—And Here Is Why They Are Indispensable.

Recently, LEED has come under fire for accounts of certified buildings not performing as well as their energy models predicted. Frequently mentioned amongst the antagonistic “gotcha” coverage is an out-of-context 2007 quote by the USGBC Research Committee acknowledging: “Buildings have a poor track record of performing as predicted during design.”

Within context, the research committee clarifies the reasons for the frequency of underperforming energy models, citing “inaccurate or improperly used analysis tools, lack of integration of complex interconnected systems, value engineering after design, poor construction practices, no building commissioning, and incomplete or improper understanding of operations and maintenance practices.” Not nearly an exhaustive list, but all legitimate considerations.

Energy models will continue to become more accurate as the market develops and methodologies and software become more robust and sophisticated. Models can be calibrated based on actual performance data to further increase their accuracy for measurement and verification purposes. But let’s be clear—to some degree, all energy models are wrong. They always will be. At first blush, one may reasonably presuppose energy models are based solely on physics and, as such, they should be extremely precise—perhaps 95 to 99 percent accurate. Yet all building energy models also require inputs based on assumptions and long-term trends. We cannot predict the future—e.g., abnormal weather patterns, mechanical malfunctions, changes in occupancy, occupant behavior—but all of these factors have a chaotic effect on performance outcomes.

Nevertheless, energy modeling is essential for any high-performance building project—no matter how big or small. Energy models facilitate sustainable design in three essential ways:

1. To Understand. Energy models allow us to understand more about how our buildings are likely to perform. They allow design teams to test hypotheses and simulate field conditions for both proposed designs and existing structures. I was once approached to advise on dripping water in the ceiling of a museum. Through energy modeling—specifically a hygrothermal (i.e., pertaining to both humidity and temperature) analysis—it was determined that an ill-advised vapor retarder was preventing vapor drive toward the exterior. Add seasonal temperature extremes and high interior relative humidity, and it was a recipe for condensation.

2. To Compare. It is easier (and much less expensive) to experiment in the computer than in real life. Energy models are most valuable during the earlier stages of the design process when their results can help guide decision-making. As a parametric design tool, energy models can be used to evaluate everything from conceptual massing options to different glass types. This is the very premise of the “simple box” energy modeling analysis within the LEED v4 integrative process credit—and there is an abundance of user-friendly software platforms currently available in the market, many of them free. This kind of early-stage design performance modeling allows design teams to go beyond rules of thumb to actually fine-tune environmental control systems and energy conservation measures.

3. To Forecast. Buildings are investments, and the separation between construction capital and operating expenses makes it difficult to finance long-term improvements in building performance. Energy models improve our insight of the connections between—and business-case benefits of—various building systems in relation to high-performance outcomes. Despite a certain degree of imprecision, energy models can be leveraged to forecast the return on investment in high-performance building upgrades, such as onsite renewable energy, automated exterior louver systems or even that extra inch of rigid insulation on the roof. More frequently, project teams are using energy models to anticipate the order of magnitude to which future climate change could impact the economics of building performance, operations and maintenance.

In a recent TED talk, climate modeler Gavin A. Schmidt, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, insisted, “Models are not right or wrong; they’re always wrong. They’re always approximations. The question you have to ask is whether a model tells you more information than you would have had otherwise.”

Energy models are not meant to predict the future. They are powerful tools that enable us to better understand the behavior of our structures, fine-tune building systems and strategies, and forecast future performance trends. 

Hi Standards Leave Their Mark on Engineering.

Hi Standards Leave Their Mark on Engineering.

World Standards Week takes place the week of October 20, and it presents an opportunity to reflect on how standards are used in engineering and impact almost every facet of modern life.

For example, standards make it possible for the Internet to exist and for Engineering360 to be shared seamlessly worldwide. Likewise, banking institutions function on a set of standard protocols that enable global trade to take place.

As this article’s main photo suggests, the National Institute of Standards and Technology in 2011 published a revised biometric standard that vastly expands the type and amount of information that forensic scientists can share across international networks to identify victims or solve crimes.

But even something as simple as a screw has thousands of standards associated with it. These ensure that the manufactured product is usable everywhere, says Robert Russotti, senior director for online marketing at theAmerican National Standards Institute (ANSI).

Standards cover testing, performance, quality and procedures, Russotti says. They help a specifying engineer determine, for example, how many times a door hinge will open and close before it’s likely to fail, or if a particular metal is suitable for grinding.

A more ( shall we say) standard definition from the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IECA) defines a standard as a document, established by consensus that provides rules, guidelines or characteristics for activities or their results.

ISO says that it does not decide when to develop a new standard. Instead, ISO responds to a request from industry or other stakeholders. Typically, an industry sector or group communicates the need for a standard to its national member (such as ANSI in the U.S.) who then contacts ISO. 

ISO standards are developed by groups of experts from all over the world, that are part of larger groups called technical committees. These experts negotiate all aspects of the standard, including its scope, key definitions and content.

Developing ISO standards is a consensus-based approach and comments from stakeholders are taken into account. So-called Draft International Standards are circulated among ISO members who have three months to comment and vote on the draft. ANSI coordinates the U.S. voluntary consensus standards system. In that role it provides a neutral forum for the development of policies on standards issues and serves as a watchdog for standards development and conformity assessment programs and processes.

ANSI also accredits qualified organizations, whose standards development process meets all of ANSI’s requirements, to develop American National Standards. However, ANSI itself does not develop standards. In addition, ANSI represents U.S. interests in regional and international standardization activities while overseeing conformity assessment activities that promote the global acceptance of U.S. products, services, systems and personnel.

In the U.S., standards are voluntary and consensus based, which means that product designers and manufacturers can decide whether or not to follow them. The marketplace helps decide whether or not a non-standard product achieves success. In other countries, standards carry the force of law. Standards also may be used as a defense in a legal challenge. A product that fails may be defensible if it can be proved that it conformed to specific standards, Russotti says.

American National Standards (ANSs) are essential tools used in every industry. Today, there are some 9,500 ANSs that have been developed and approved in accordance with ANSI essential requirements. American National Standards are voluntary and serve U.S. interests well because all materially affected stakeholders have the opportunity to work together to create them. ANSI-approved standards only become mandatory when, and if, they are adopted or referenced by the government or when market forces make them imperative.

ANSI says that globally relevant standards make it easier for many companies to get their products certified and on the shelves in countries around the world, allowing them to take part in global value chains, benefit from technology transfer and compete on a more equal footing. Similarly, nations that incorporate international standards into their policies and regulations can allow their citizens access to a wider selection of high-quality goods, while also providing protection against dangerous or faulty products and services.

Hi Researchers use HIVE to test latest building methods.

Hi Researchers use HIVE to test latest building methods.

A new research facility in Wiltshire is set to 

advance the development of sustainable 

construction materials and systems.

Funded by EPSRC, the £1m HIVE facility will allow construction companies and researchers to conduct realistic, full-scale testing of their facade designs in open-air conditions.

HIVE, located at Bath University’s Building Research Park in Swindon, consists of eight cells that are insulated from one another, each with a single face left exposed to the external environment.

The cells themselves will let researchers analyse the environmental impact of construction materials including their energy efficiency, flood resilience, structural capability and internal air quality.

‘People are interested in looking at the latest iteration of their products and trying to compare them with previous iterations or with competitive products to see whether or not the performance is something to shout about,’ said Dr Mike Lawrence, director of the Building Research Park.

He cautioned, however, that related projects are beset with issues surrounding finding a suitable location to build, gaining planning permission and installing the infrastructure to carry projects out.

Dr Lawrence said: ‘[HIVE is] plug-and-play…we’ve already got the data loggers, all the infrastructure, weather stations, communications [etc.].

‘They can, on day one, start their programme, which saves between six months to a year of time.

‘At the other end when you’ve finished your programme, you often have to deconstruct your building and put everything back to where it started. Again, we’ve got processes where the whole thing can happen much more quickly and effectively.’

Sixteen platforms will be available alongside HIVE for researchers to construct pods of up to 125m³ enabling flexible testing of construction systems and performance.

‘We can whack [buildings] up very quickly because the foundations are already there and when the experiment’s finished take it down and put something else up straight away – all of the infrastructure is there,’ said Dr Lawrence.

Carbon footprint:

The construction industry is widely acknowledged as having a considerable carbon footprint, a situation that Dr Lawrence is keen to redress.

‘The construction industry is responsible for half of global emissions, that’s an enormous amount and big target to hit,’ he said. ‘Let’s try and hit it, let’s both improve its on-going performance but also…make a building with a lower carbon footprint actually embedded into it.

‘So instead of putting in lots of steel and concrete, let’s put in materials which have much lower environmental impact, or indeed where the energy input into building [a structure] is less than the energy stored within the fabric of that building if you convert it into carbon dioxide.’

 Inside the HIVE:

• a hygrothermal cell to evaluate movement of heat and moisture through buildings, energy efficiency, air tightness and acoustic efficiency;
• a double-height and width cell that can be used for flexible construction design, testing façades, internal walls and floors, together with a strong roof, allowing for load testing;
• a flood cell that can be used for testing the resistance of construction materials to high water levels or for testing technologies that resolve the effects of flood damage;
• a bladder cell that enables the testing of construction panels against horizontal loading such as wind load and geotechnical forces.

Hi Artificial Cooling Tricky Topic for Climate Panel!.

Hi Artificial Cooling Tricky Topic for Climate Panel!.

BERLIN (AP) -- It's Plan B in the fight against climate change: cooling the planet by sucking heat-trapping CO2 from the air or reflecting sunlight back into space.

Called geoengineering, it's considered mad science by opponents.

Supporters say it would be foolish to ignore it, since plan A - slashing carbon emissions from fossil fuels - is moving so slowly.

The U.N.'s expert panel on climate change is under pressure from both sides this week as it considers whether geoengineering should be part of the tool-kit that governments use to keep global warming in check.

Russia, in particular, has been pushing the panel to place more emphasis on such techniques in a key document for policymakers being finalized in Berlin this week.

Drafts leaked before the conference only mentioned one of the options, removing CO2 from the air and storing it underground. Russia, a major oil and gas producer, said the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change should also mention solar radiation management, which could include everything from covering open surfaces with reflective materials or placing sun-mirrors in orbit around the Earth.

'It is expedient to give a short description of the approach and mention the major 'pro and contra',' Russia said in comments submitted to the IPCC and seen by The Associated Press.

But even advocates of studying geoengineering express doubts.

'Really at the present moment there is a high level of uncertainty surrounding all of these options,' said Steve Rayner, co-director of Oxford University's geoengineering program. Still, he said it's worth continuing to research geoengineering 'to get a better sense of whether there's any merit in pursuing these technologies further.'

After discussions among governments and scientists, a mention of geoengineering was added last year to the first of four summaries of the IPCC's authoritative assessment on climate change. They are now working on the third one, which deals specifically with fighting climate change.

The document is important because it will be used as scientific guidance for governments as they negotiate a new global climate pact, set to be adopted in 2015.

Some environmental activists watching the talks in Berlin want the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to scratch references to geoengineering altogether. They worry that such technologies would be ineffective, possibly harmful and delay efforts to shift the world's energy system from oil and coal to low-carbon energy sources like wind and solar power.

'It seems like a dangerous gamble to hold up this technology that may not work,' said Jim Thomas, of the Canada-based ETC Group.

However, the IPCC's draft document says that unless emissions are cut much faster than currently projected, measures to scrub CO2 from the air will be have to be deployed to avoid potentially dangerous levels of warming.

The problem is those technologies don't exist yet or are in an experimental stage. 

- "No one knows whether they will be successful."

Ideas include spraying clouds with seawater to make them more reflective or pumping aerosols into the air to mimic the cooling effect from major volcanic eruptions.

Each is associated with unknown risks, including potentially shifting weather patterns or damaging the ozone layer that protects the Earth from ultraviolet sunrays.

One technology that is currently being tested at a small scale is called 'bioenergy with carbon capture and storage,' or BECCS. 

The idea is to grow crops that absorb CO2 from the atmosphere then burn them in a power station to generate energy. 

The resulting CO2 emissions are captured at the plant and then stored deep underground. The net effect of that process is that CO2 is removed from the air.

In a scientific report underlying the summary for policy-makers being discussed in Berlin and obtained by AP, the IPCC notes that BECCS could play a key role in curbing the buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere, which scientists say is the main reason for global warming. 

However, it would have to be deployed at a large scale, which would require major investments. 

There could also be negative impacts if food crops are replaced by bio-crops.

Right now the carbon removed through this technique is only a fraction of the 30 billion tons of CO2 emitted annually from the combustion of fossil fuels.

'BECCS faces large challenges in financing and currently no such plants have been built and tested at scale,' the IPCC says in the draft report.