<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Everything Old Is Green Again</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.conservationmagazine.org/2011/09/everything-old-is-green-again/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.conservationmagazine.org/2011/09/everything-old-is-green-again/</link>
	<description>Creative Ideas for a Greener Future</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 15:57:26 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matthew Grocoff</title>
		<link>http://www.conservationmagazine.org/2011/09/everything-old-is-green-again/comment-page-1/#comment-14446</link>
		<dc:creator>Matthew Grocoff</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Oct 2011 13:29:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.conservationmagazine.org/?p=13240#comment-14446</guid>
		<description>This is wonderful work by the NTHP. Thanks Patrice for leading the way.  Weaning historic buildings from fossil fuels is a precondition to preservation.  Our own 111-year-old net zero energy folk-Victorian home in Ann Arbor is proof of what&#039;s possible.  

Wendell Berry said that when going back makes sense you move forward.  We need to look back and restore the original sustainable elements of homes (windows, transoms, root cellars, etc.).  Then using the most current research make the buildings as energy efficient as possible.  

Without an energy retrofit, old buildings eat up their embodied energy quickly.  The long-term energy operational costs are far greater than the embodied energy.  That does NOT mean we should tear down existing buildings.  On the contrary, our best path is to restore all existing buildings to better than Energy Star standards (before including actual performance our historic home achieved a HERS rating of 37 - without removing a single piece of plaster, adding to the footprint or altering the structure).  No new home with a comparable HERS rating to a historic energy retrofit can ever compete with the existing building in it&#039;s full life cycle.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is wonderful work by the NTHP. Thanks Patrice for leading the way.  Weaning historic buildings from fossil fuels is a precondition to preservation.  Our own 111-year-old net zero energy folk-Victorian home in Ann Arbor is proof of what&#8217;s possible.  </p>
<p>Wendell Berry said that when going back makes sense you move forward.  We need to look back and restore the original sustainable elements of homes (windows, transoms, root cellars, etc.).  Then using the most current research make the buildings as energy efficient as possible.  </p>
<p>Without an energy retrofit, old buildings eat up their embodied energy quickly.  The long-term energy operational costs are far greater than the embodied energy.  That does NOT mean we should tear down existing buildings.  On the contrary, our best path is to restore all existing buildings to better than Energy Star standards (before including actual performance our historic home achieved a HERS rating of 37 &#8211; without removing a single piece of plaster, adding to the footprint or altering the structure).  No new home with a comparable HERS rating to a historic energy retrofit can ever compete with the existing building in it&#8217;s full life cycle.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Reading round up: blog posts from across the web that caught our attention this week &#171; CAT Talks</title>
		<link>http://www.conservationmagazine.org/2011/09/everything-old-is-green-again/comment-page-1/#comment-13520</link>
		<dc:creator>Reading round up: blog posts from across the web that caught our attention this week &#171; CAT Talks</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Sep 2011 12:06:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.conservationmagazine.org/?p=13240#comment-13520</guid>
		<description>[...] Magazine reported that some old buildings are probably much more energy efficient than a lot of modern buildings. Far from being outdated and inefficient, she says, many old [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Magazine reported that some old buildings are probably much more energy efficient than a lot of modern buildings. Far from being outdated and inefficient, she says, many old [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: PreservationNation &#187; Sustainability Round-Up: Emerson School and Life-Cycle Assessment Edition</title>
		<link>http://www.conservationmagazine.org/2011/09/everything-old-is-green-again/comment-page-1/#comment-13488</link>
		<dc:creator>PreservationNation &#187; Sustainability Round-Up: Emerson School and Life-Cycle Assessment Edition</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Sep 2011 20:42:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.conservationmagazine.org/?p=13240#comment-13488</guid>
		<description>[...] be sure to check out the article in the Fall 2011 edition of Conservation Magazine, where National Trust Sustainability Program Director Patrice Frey is quoted about the value of [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] be sure to check out the article in the Fall 2011 edition of Conservation Magazine, where National Trust Sustainability Program Director Patrice Frey is quoted about the value of [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: carl dodd</title>
		<link>http://www.conservationmagazine.org/2011/09/everything-old-is-green-again/comment-page-1/#comment-13458</link>
		<dc:creator>carl dodd</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Sep 2011 17:50:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.conservationmagazine.org/?p=13240#comment-13458</guid>
		<description>the interesting thing in all of this
is energy flows..
it would be interesting to see what would happen if a carbon negative building could speed up and help its neighbours become neutral quickly..so in effect tackle the low hanging fruit ( percieved as retrofitting the existing buildings) but build to very very high standards in new build
and then there is the argument about energy efficiency earlier - means faster returns..
I am not sure about increasing building density - because that implies that sustainability is only about people per sq km is important.. maybe there should be less people - then we all have abit more space?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>the interesting thing in all of this<br />
is energy flows..<br />
it would be interesting to see what would happen if a carbon negative building could speed up and help its neighbours become neutral quickly..so in effect tackle the low hanging fruit ( percieved as retrofitting the existing buildings) but build to very very high standards in new build<br />
and then there is the argument about energy efficiency earlier &#8211; means faster returns..<br />
I am not sure about increasing building density &#8211; because that implies that sustainability is only about people per sq km is important.. maybe there should be less people &#8211; then we all have abit more space?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

