You are here

First "Net Zero" Visitor Center Makes NPS Greener

Share

The Anthony C. Beilenson Visitor Center at the King Gillette Ranch in the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area in California is the first in the National Park Service to attain “net zero site energy” status—which means it produces and exports at least as much renewable energy as the total energy it imports and uses in a year. NPS Photo.

Since its inception in 1916, the National Park Service (NPS) has been charged with protecting our country’s national parks for generations to come. Since the push to “go green” has become an increasing part of public consciousness in recent years, so too has the NPS expanded its efforts in that arena. From locally produced food served in park restaurants to cutting edge energy conservation, the NPS has many sustainable practices in place.

Now, the NPS has gained its first “net zero” visitor center, the Anthony C. Beilenson Visitor Center at the King Gillette Ranch in the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area in California. Check out these other National Park Service green buildings—

http://www.nps.gov/sustainability/documents/sustainable/LEED-Buildings-T...

The visitor center has been awarded a LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Platinum certification (the highest) for its design. LEED provides building owners and operators with a framework for identifying and implementing practical and measurable green building design, construction, operations and maintenance solutions. In addition to this building, the NPS has several other LEED certified buildings.

The King Gillette visitor center is “net zero site energy,” meaning it produces and exports at least as much renewable energy as the total energy it imports and uses in a year. The building boasts a mix of both new technology and older insights into green building: photovoltaic panels, LED lighting, geothermal heating and cooling, as well as a use of natural light and green building materials. The visitor center’s energy production and consumption can be monitored online.

The Anthony C. Beilenson Visitor Center is in alignment with the Park Service’s green parks plan, which encourages units of the park system to reduce carbon emissions and use sustainable management. Kate Kuykendall, a NPS spokesperson, said, “It’s really about walking the walk since our entire agency is about protecting national resources.”

Located in northwest Los Angeles, the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area is the largest urban national park in the United States. The area has a long history of human occupation and contains many significant historic and prehistoric sites and a Native American history. The national recreation area actually is made up of many parks and locations, from the beaches of Malibu to the peaks of the mountain range and is only a hop, skip, and jump from Los Angeles, making it the perfect location for a family vacation or a quick outing on a business trip.

Comments

Lee, you can cite all the "pieces" you want. I work in reality. Answer the question. If "net zero" is the same cost to implement, why doesn't every project implement net zero. The answer is the people that are spending their own money are doing the research and they realize that the cost is prohibitive.


So let's see some solid numbers from your "reality." Prove me wrong. Answer my question and show us some of that "reality."

Or is it just another example of short-sighted profit grabbing over what will actually be the best long-term solutions? Or could it be a new idea that is still foreign to some people who have trouble moving ahead in the world and find it more comfortable to stick with tradition? A number of architects and builders in this area are advertising net-zero or "reduced impact" design and construction of both commercial and residential properties. They acknowledge (as I do) that such construction may involve some added expense, but that the price is worth it. Numbers in the studies I cited above say that the extra cost ranges from none to normally about +10% with some going as high as an extra 30% if they include some fancies.


I agree that we need to spend public money wisely – but there are two sides to that approach in building new facilities. We should avoid wasteful "extras" which have no benefit, but we should also be willing to use new approaches if they offer improved efficiency. We could call this the "fluff vs. function" test for a project.

Anon illustrates the challenges faced in trying any new technologies or building techniques.

He rejects this project as "absolute baloney" and offers his credentials: "I'm in the real estate business. I work with builders on a regular basis. I know what the actual costs are... If "net zero" is the same cost to implement, why doesn't every project implement net zero?"

There are a number of reasons why more projects don't try new approaches, and Anon's comments illustrate several of them.

1. Many builders are already comfortable with known suppliers, sub-contractors and technologies. It's always easier—and safer from a business standpoint—the stick with what has worked in the past. In today's troublesome times, why risk your business reputation on something new?

2. Most customers of architects and builders have little or no technical knowledge about design and construction, and therefore rely on those professionals for advice. Unless the customer is committed to trying something new and pushes for that approach, the building professional will usually stick with the tried and true.

3. The benefits of using design and technology to reduce energy use and costs ("green building" techniques) are sometimes rejected out-of-hand simply for philosophical and emotional reasons. The global warming controversy has so polarized our society that some people will automatically reject anything they perceive is connected with "those wacky environmentalists."

Change is hard and risky; the familiar is easy and seems safe...but not always the best in the long term. When it comes to spending scarce public money, I hope we'll be willing to try something new if the available information indicates it's worth a try.


Jim is exactly right. Thank you for a well expressed and well thought out comment.

Here is a study by a couple of professors of architecture at Colorado State regarding comparative costs of building some LEED and non-LEED bank buildings.

http://www.costar.com/uploadedFiles/JOSRE/JournalPdfs/13.254_273.pdf

Especially interesting are comments beginning on the first page page that support the idea that "perceptions" held by architects and construction companies may block consideration of LEED construction. Then, toward the end (page 269 if you look at page numbers or page 16 of the PDF) you'll find a "conclusion" that costs of LEED and non-LEED buildings were almost equal and that additional costs are often the result of lack of experience with LEED by people involved in building them. Their final conclusion was that LEED construction added only 2% to 3% to the cost of the building.

I have a very strong hunch that Jim's comment (3) regarding reasons for rejection of LEED technology by Anon and others like him is absolutely correct. Anon seems to have amply demonstrated that in this and past postings here. Sometimes, it's much easier and more comfortable to simply oppose something than it is to try to learn more about it. Pushing an old paradigm aside is frightening to most of us. But it's the people willing to try who are the ones who will make advances that will benefit all of us.


There are 3/4 of a million new building starts each year (on recent average) and only a hand full are net-zero. You are telling me that 3/4 of a million owners, builders, architects, electrical and plumbing contractors ....... are all wrong and Lee and Jim know better? Jim I think you have the eco bias wrong. I thing those that do implement net zero do so for "feel good" reasons despite the economics and those that don't do it are reluctant because they know the economics don't work. I think AGW is a bunch of whoee but if I were building a new home and someone demonstrated to me acceptable techniques that would reduce my energy costs to zero, I would be all over them.

I don't disagree the NPS should try "new" things if they are indeed economic. But I don't believe it should be the test bed for costly eco-extremist pet projects at the expense of other facilities that need to be repaired/upgraded.


For Lee - Leeds and Net Zero are two different things. Leeds is a certification that a project meets certain energy savings levels - levels that are well short of net zero. And, the Leeds certification process itself can cost thousands of extra dollars not counting the additional construction costs.


Numbers?

Yes, LEEDS and Net Zero are different. But they are still steps in the right direction.

Again, I invite you to prove me wrong. So far, there is a lot of emotion in your postings, but not much that substantiates your claims.

If I'm wrong, I'll admit it. Besides being exceptionally handsome, a fine athlete and great outdoorsman, and smarter than average, I'm very humble.


but not much that substantiates your claims.

You think 3/4 of a million new homes a year not implementing net-zero is not substantiation? The market is telling you, it doesn't make economic sense.


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.