Monthly Archives: November 2019

Tips for Indoor Painting Projects in Occupied Buildings

The weather is cold out there. You have projects to do for your buildings, but they all must be indoors now. But that leads to problems. Say you have a major painting job in your building, but you are under pressure not to inconvenience staff or customers. The paint job must be completed in a way that is least disruptive to daily operations.

Minimizing disruptions, of course, is something that should be taken into account in all projects, as is the health and safety of occupants and workers. While one normally focuses on keeping aisles clear for occupants to safely move around, it is also important to be aware of maintaining indoor air quality (IAQ). Therefore, look for effective coatings that also contain low or no volatile organic compounds (VOCs). They are not only better for IAQ for those potentially exposed, but give off less odors, reducing distractions.

IAQ issues are easier to address. A growing number of coating manufacturers make a line of paints with definitively lower emissions, and some directed to sensitive groups, such as children and the elderly. This is particularly helpful with projects in schools or healthcare facilities. Quick-drying coatings are advantageous. Odors are more subjective and is up to the individual. Emotions and other factors influence whether odors are detected and found to be annoying or distracting. As they say, “Somebody will always complain.” Odors top this list.

How to Start

Set a schedule so that painting is performed when there are the least users around and arrange ahead of time to stick to this schedule. For some facilities, it may or may not be a good idea to paint early in the morning when only a few people are around. It may be a good long-term strategy to paint late in the day and even let workers go home a little early. And paint into the evening. Perhaps there is a major meeting; that may be a good time to get in an hour or two of painting. Be sure to communicate times to affected staff, including which equipment or functions may not be available at what times to staff.

While Painting Goes On

Have sufficient fans present to blow the air, blowing away odors and VOCs and hastening the drying process. Be sure to rope off the areas that employees or customers should not trespass while painting goes on. One certainly does not want the enmity of somebody who accidentally gets in contact with wet paint.

Do the Job Right

One would like to minimize disturbances in the long-term. Therefore, use high-quality coatings that are durable and can withstand frequent cleaning and other conditions in the space (humidity, people effects, etc.). While this may cost more upfront, the building will save much in the long-term in reduced O&M efforts and costs and not having to paint the space again is some time.

CCES has the experts to help you plan all types of upgrades of equipment, between planning operations to procurement of equipment and commissioning that the installation is effective. Contact us today at karell@CCESworld.com or at 914-584-6720.

Energy Efficiency Programs Can Help Users’ Health

Many articles in this series show how building design can influence energy usage. Characteristics can be built in to save energy usage and cost, independent of behavior. These same energy efficiency strategies can also influence the health of those that spend time in the building, whether residents or workers who spend 40 hours per week there. A recent article from the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy compiles recent evidence behind this conclusion. https://aceee.org/research-report/h1901

A poorly-sealed building envelope not only allows conditioned air, which required energy to be expended (electricity or fuel combustion), to leave, but also allows pests, moisture, and air pollution to enter interior spaces, raising the exposure of users to allergens, mold, and disease. Leaky windows and poor insulation can lead to drafts and extreme temperatures, triggering asthma attacks and leading to other respiratory illnesses. Inefficient appliances can affect air quality through incomplete combustion or improper venting. Together, these conditions contribute to increased rates of cancer, chronic respiratory diseases, heart disease, and stroke in the US, disproportionately affecting low-income people.

Energy efficiency programs can make homes healthier and save lives, while directly benefiting families financially. The problem is that energy efficiency upgrades require upfront costs to correct a condition or procure a new or better technology, upfront capital that poorer families (or companies) do not have.

The link between energy efficiency and public health is not recognized as energy efficiency programs have historically been implemented either by energy utility companies or government agencies focused on energy management; there has been no or little contribution from public health institutions. It is recommended that research be done to identify energy program elements that would also have the greatest impact on public health and data collection of collateral public health effects in buildings after undergoing energy upgrades. This bridging the gap may need the intervention of other government agencies, such as departments of health and housing. For example, elements of the national Affordable Care Act can use energy efficiency programs to help its goal of a healthier society (making fewer health insurance claims). If a given community is a focus of a weatherization or home energy efficiency program, data should be collected, not only concerning the amount of Btus of energy saved by the program, but also whether there has been a reduction in the number of emergency room visits for children experiencing asthma attacks, for example.

While the ACEEE study followed 23 potential frequently measured health indicators, most programs tracked 3 or fewer of them. Many of the energy programs did take steps to assess and communicate their health impacts, and, in some cases, bring in health care professionals to raise the effectiveness of the program. More needs to be done to show this cross-effectiveness of energy efficiency and health.

CCES has the experts to help you assess not only the cost savings of a potential energy efficiency program, but the potential health benefits, as well. We can help you design a program to measure and heighten beneficial health effects as your reduce energy usage, costs, and greenhouse gas emissions. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

Progress and Regress in Clean Energy

The International Energy Agency (IEA) recently published its annual World Energy Outlook (https://webstore.iea.org/world-energy-outlook-2019), a major report forecasting global energy trends to 2040. The report has changed its projections since last year, significantly increasing projected offshore wind farms, solar installations and battery-powered cars due to both the growing affordability of these technologies and progress of developing nations to progress toward clean energy goals. However, their rapid growth is not sufficient to slash overall global GHG emissions and meet reduction goals.

The report states that global GHG emissions will not decline as is needed but will continue to rise for the next 20 years, mainly because of the overall rise in demand for energy globally. While the rise in renewable energy is encouraging, it is not large enough to satisfy the extra demand. Fossil fuels will supply the rest of the demand.

Global consumption of coal is declining. The report notes that investment in new coal-fired power plants has dropped sharply recently. Renewable energy with battery storage is now a cheaper way to produce power and is predicted to surpass coal by 2030, rising to 42% of global generation. Natural gas will also cut into coal’s portion, which would drop to 34%. Coal will not go away, as hundreds of young coal plants will continue to operate to fulfill initial investments; policies to retire such plants early are not in place.

Solar power with battery storage is growing fastest of all renewables. However, offshore wind may make bigger gains in the near future. Land-based systems are difficult to approve, but major offshore projects are in the offing. Offshore wind is expected to supply as much as 18% of the European Union’s electricity by 2040 from the current 2%. Major new projects are planned for the U.S., China, South Korea and Japan.

The report states that the transportation sector has mixed news. Last year, 2 million electric cars were purchased globally, helped by declining costs, improved infrastructure (places to “fuel up”), and financial incentives. The IEA expects the electric car market to continue to grow; gasoline/diesel use for the transportation sector will peak by the mid-2020s. However, sales of large SUVs, which use more gasoline than conventional cars, has grown from 18% of passenger vehicles sold in 2000 to 42% today. If this continues, the report notes, it could negate much of the fossil fuel savings of the electric car boom. Carmakers are researching how to manufacture battery-powered versions of SUVs.

Another avenue to reduce GHG emissions is to improve the energy efficiency of buildings and vehicles through building codes and fuel economy standards. The report states that the energy intensity of the global economy improved by only 1.2%, a lower than usual rate. Many nations are weakening these policies, thinking this will lift their economy. In the US, the Trump administration plans to roll back light bulb standards.

The report also notes concerns about Africa, which is projected to grow over the next few decades at a faster pace than China did in recent years. If Africa supplies the energy for such growth with fossil fuel sources, then global GHG emissions could rise greatly. The African continent, researchers say, has greater potential than China and others for solar energy if it can be allowed to be developed properly.

CCES has the experts to help your company or building learn more about energy to become more efficient, save costs, and reduce GHG emissions. We can help you tap into existing incentive programs (which you may be paying into without realizing it) to pay some of the upfront costs and quicken the payback. Contact us today at karell@CCESworld.com or at 914-584-6720.

Cost Effective Start For A Green Cleaning Campaign

More and more building owners and managers are recognizing that a “green”, sustainable building is not only the “right thing to do”, but also ultimately financially prudent. However, some decision makers balk at the high administrative and other costs of becoming formally LEED certified and want to implement beneficial changes quickly for the least upfront cost, even if it means they don’t get formal recognition.

One area that can be very effective in “greening” one’s building is “green” cleaning, typically focused on reducing the amount and toxicity of chemicals, equipment and procedures used to clean facilities. However, an effective “green” cleaning program can be achieved without overly considering cleaning chemicals, for example. An effective way of keeping buildings clean is to prevent dirt and microbes from entering in the first place. Studies have shown that one of the greatest sources of microbes, soil, chemicals, and other contaminants that enter a building and can get into the ventilation system is from the shoes and boots of users entering. Walk-off mats can remove much such dirt quite effectively at a low cost.

Studies have concluded that coliforms was detected on 96% of shoes tested, and, therefore, can easily enter and spread in a building. Transfer efficiency of bacteria from shoe bottoms to clean tiles inside a building ranged from 90 to 99%. It was also found that 1,000 people walking into a building over 20 days can track in up to 24 lbs of soil if no mats are in place.

When an effective matting system is installed, the International Sanitary Supply Association (ISSA) estimates that as much as 70 – 80% of these contaminants can be stopped from entering a facility, causing users to be healthier and reducing cleaning requirements, which itself, saves the facility labor and chemical costs and reduces building impacts on the environment.

The USEPA’s Indoor Air Quality Tools for Schools program recommends that mats be installed at all key school entries, as both an effective and a cost-effective action.

Not all types of mats are as effective at source control. Look for high-performance mats which do the best job of capturing soil matter. Look for mats with the following:

 Pile: Made using higher quality fibers and have a deeper, thicker pile, allowing them to more effectively capture and trap soil particles.

 Backing: Using a higher-grade rubber backing designed to be longer lasting, resist curling, and cracking. They hold up better under different conditions.

 Construction: Many are “bi-level,” allowing soils and moisture to be trapped below its surface so this is not transferred from the mat onto other’s shoes.

 Warranty: Because they are built using higher quality materials, high-performance mats last longer and have longer warranties, usually 1-6 years.

Another consideration is size. Studies indicate that for matting to be truly effective, at least 15 feet should be installed; it could be inside and/or outside the building.

CCES has the experts to help your building assess and meet LEED “green” building standards. If, instead, you wish to implement simple, effective steps for your buildings to be more “green” and healthier for all, we can help there, too, cost-effectively and with minimal disruptions and impacts. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.