Prispa (Romania) and Odoo (Hungary) are the Eastern European representatives at the Solar Decathlon, green building exhibition in Madrid, Spain, this year.

Prispa, Romania

The Romanian project has been rather linguistically inspired. In Romanian, “the PRISPA in front of your house is like a magic strip, an intermediary space between the interior and the exterior, which protects you from wind, from very brutal temperature changes, from sun that’s too strong, and it manages to do all this by design. Being such a control element, filtering the light and blocking or alleviating temperature alterations, it guarantees some of the energy efficiency.” So reads the webbie of the Romanian project, mainly lead by the Architecture School “Ion Mincu” in Bucharest.

Odooproject is also inspired by the local Magyar folk, however it plays joyfully with the in-living and the outside. “Our plans interpret the house-court relationship, which comes from the traditional Hungarian folk architecture. Because of the climatic conditions a closed building was needed, so “out” and “in” were sharply separated from each other. The house is a project of the Budapest University of Technology and Economics.

Odoo, Hungary

At the beginning of September 2012, the houses will be assembled at the Casa de Campo in Madrid, will be open to the public some days later, while they compete on the ten contests of the competition. After kick-off, the European Solar Decathlon will rank and evaluate the houses according to:

1. Architecture
2. Engineering & Construction
3. Energy Efficiency
4. Electrical Energy Balance
5. Comfort Conditions
6. House Functioning
7. Communication and Social Awareness
8. Industrialization & Market Viability
9. Innovation
10. Sustainability

The first international edition of the Solar Decathlon was held in 2002 at the National Mall in Washington, D.C. A large number of visitors came to see the solar houses, participate in educational workshops and discover the potential of renewable energies. It continued in 2005, 2007, 2009, its popularity constantly raising. In 2010, the city of Madrid organized the first edition of Solar Decathlon Europe (SDE). This first experience was a success and called for more. The city of Madrid won the organization of SDE 2012. France was chosen for the next European event in 2014. Furthermore, US Department of Energy announced recently a new partnership with China, who will have its own event in 2013.

SDE 2012 is organized by the Secretary of State for Housing and Urban Development at the Spanish Ministry of Public Works in collaboration with Universidad Politécnica de Madrid and the support of the US Department of Energy. In addition, SDE counts with the collaboration of the Madrid City Council and Spanish Energy Saving Energy Agency IDAE, and the sponsorship of Saint-Gobain (main sponsor), Schneider Electric, Rockwool, Kömmerling and FCC.

2Celsius and Earth Day Network have covered past editions of the solar Decathlon in Washington, D.C. Enjoy some photos taken at the editions of 2008 and 2009 of the SD. (Pictures belong to 2C Photography under Creative Commons; please reference when copy)

The Flemish Ministry for Environment, the regional authority for the Northern part of Belgium, has released a report which shows dramatic temperature increases in the last 180 years. The report bases itself on the recently released Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The Ministry has taken key indicators and analyzed the situation in Belgium. The main conclusions are that:

• The annual average temperature in Belgium shows continuous increase since the early 19th Century. The average temperature is 2.3 degrees Celsius higher than that in 1830.
• The warmest years in the period analyzed are situated between 1989 and 2000. (see graph below)
• The major increases in temperature have occurred during the Spring and Summer seasons.
• Rainfall has increased an average of 5 mm per decade, with more precipitation observed in Winter and less in Summer.
• Average sea-level has risen on the Belgian coast by 103mm-133mm compared to 1970.

Since climate change is the long-term effect of human activity on the Earth’s climate, this study shows proof that there have been significant changes in Belgium. In simple terms, the facts that the average temperature has risen, that there is more rainfall in the Winter and less in Summer, and that the warmest years have been more recently recorded all show a tendency for a change in the Belgian climate.

The image below shows a graphical representation of the rise in average temperature in each season in Belgium since 1830.

Source: Vlaamse Milieumaatschapij (Flemish Ministry of Environment)

Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC. Photo: The Lisbon Council

Only weeks before the Conference of the Parties 17 in Durban, South Africa is set to begin, Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, was in Brussels for the Robert Schuman lecture, organized by the Lisbon Council. Ms. Figueres outlined the priorities for the CoP 17 and urged civil society, business, and nations to do their part in fighting climate change.

To believers that climate change policy can be made in a day, Ms. Figueres pointed out that Robert Schuman himself took a step-by-step approach to realize his dream of a lasting peace in Europe. This policy-grafting approach may be slow, too slow in fact, to address the urgent need to transform our economy to a low-carbon one. All the same, the approach is viewed as successful. However, building peace from the rubble of World War II is where the parallel ends. Preventive action is required in the case of the environment, and not resuscitation after the damage has been done.

One of the major set-backs in at the CoP 16 in Cancun was the effort to agree on a continuation of the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. Without such an agreement, the efforts to continue with a broad mitigation framework are severely hampered and the ongoing negotiations do not show a light at the end of the tunnel. In addition to this, the European Union has been attempting to ‘blackmail’ the other Parties to agree on the issue by stating that if they accept a new commitment period (provisionally named “Kyoto II”), the EU will raise its greenhouse-gas emissions target to 30% (from the current 20%). In Ms. Figueres’ viewpoint, this is a lackluster attitude which has received a similarly lackluster response from the Convention. In similar fashion, if industrialized countries take a serious, ambitious, and vigorous approach to an agreement on mitigation and the Kyoto Protocol, they will receive a similar answer from the rest of the Parties.

Furthermore, after the fiasco at CoP 15 in Copenhagen, business leaders had become pessimistic at best about the Cancun negotiations. The fact that an agreement was produced shocked the business world into believing in the process once more. “The Cancun agreements comprised the most comprehensive package to help developing nations”, Ms. Figueres stated. There is little need to point out that infrastructure building and technology transfer, as agreed by the Parties, opens up enormous markets for business in developing countries.

“The business success of tomorrow is born on the low-carbon opportunities of today.”

Even so, it is a widespread belief that business needs a strong signal from policy-makers in order to act on environmental issues. Adoption of the step-by-step approach means that this ingredient is weak and slow. At the same time, businesses are instrumental in the interpretation of the supply and demand structures of the modern market, and can therefore potentially send strong signals to governments. Ms. Figueres labeled this the “vicious circle” of climate change mentality. However, this can be reversed into a virtuous circle if businesses manage to introduce a change in consumer and supplier behavior and send a strong message to governments that the people are not satisfied with business as usual. More specifically, when it comes to changes in industry and energy, national leaders require input from the market.

Entrepreneurship, as a strong component of capitalism, is the key to the puzzle. Ms. Figueres received input from Harry Verhaar, senior director for energy and climate change at Philips, and Harry van Dorenmalen, chairman of IBM Europe. Both emphasized that there is no “quick-fix” for climate change, but that technology is the most important component. They stressed the position that people are not fully aware of the role technology can already play in contributing to a low-carbon economy.

“If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.”

Mr. Verhaar pointed out that, in addition to technology, we need a policy framework, financing, and communication to tackle climate change. Due to the step-by-step approach at the UNFCCC, the first aspect is slow in its development. In the context of the economic and debt crises, financing has become a taboo subject. However, for businesses, financial systems also mean discovering a new way of budget-building and implementation – one that focuses on an optimization of cost-benefit ratios and emphasizes efficiency. As for communication, he stressed that there are many eco-innovators and they need to disseminate their ideas, improve interaction with citizens, and work together.

In agreement, Mr. van Dorenmalen introduced the need for another component – leadership. So far, policy-makers have not provided the required level of strong leadership to drive the policy process forward. If business was to step in, it would also be observed that a company requires strong leadership to implement the changes paramount to the transfer to a low-carbon economy. Tapping into talent internationally means the use of modern social media and the grouping of ideas. To set the wheels in motion, CEOs and business leaders have to assume a strong leadership position.

In answer to these views, Ms. Figueres presented an open question to all eco-innovators: “Are you collectively being vocal enough to at least balance, if not drown out, the corporate voices of those who see no benefit in action?” This also applies to consumers and civil society organizations – there has to be an informed balance between climate change skeptics and extreme environmentalists.

As individuals, it may be hard to change the world by replacing a single light-bulb, but even a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Global climate negotiations are a step-by-step journey, and we can only hope they are heading in the right direction.

The European Commission has announced that it will be revising the Union rules on energy taxation. This comes at a crucial moment for the Member States, who are now coming out of the financial crisis, and will help meet the EU 2020 targets. This revision of the existent energy taxation rules is expected to introduce many benefits from taxation and at the same time support sustainable growth.

Currently, taxation of energy products is harmonized on the EU level only to a certain extent. The Energy Taxation Directive from 2003 set minimum rates for taxes of products used for energy, such as motor and heating fuels. However, these rules are now considered outdated and inconsistent with the Union’s changing goals. Revision of the Directive is aimed at addressing the EU’s higher goals in energy and climate policies, in particular increases in energy efficiency, consumption of more environmentally friendly fuel, and removing distortions in competition within the Single Market.

The Problem

“A fair and transparent energy taxation is needed to reach our energy and climate targets. Our common goal is a more resource-efficient, greener and more competitive EU economy.” -Algirdas Semeta, EU Commissioner for Taxation, Customs Union, Audit and Anti-Fraud.

The energy market in the EU is generally governed by two principles – economic and environmental. Since the effects of the financial crisis are wearing off and the Member States are now facing a new challenge due to a rise in oil prices, a financial incentive to decrease the use of fossil fuels seems necessary. Also, the EU’s aim of obtaining 20% of its energy from renewable sources, having 20% energy efficiency, and decreasing greenhouse gas emissions by 20% before 2020 (the 20-20-20 Strategy), play an important role in revising the Energy Taxation Directive.

From an economic viewpoint, the EU’s current rules for taxation of energy fuels set a minimum rate above which the Member States are allowed to place their own tax rates. This has created obstacles and distortions in the Internal Market because of two economic factors – 1) current minimum rates are based on volume (EUR/1000l) and are set according to the historical rates in each state, and 2) different levels of taxation of certain fuel types has led to market price signals not fulfilling their role. The first factor means that an unfair competition between fuel sources is created and there are tax benefits for some fuel types without justification. For example, coal is currently the least taxed fuel source, and biodiesel is taxed on the same rate as conventional diesel. The second factor has resulted in artificial differences in fuel prices. For example, before taxation, diesel is more expensive than petrol. In most Member States, a lower tax is levied on the former than on the latter, resulting in the fact that the pump price does not reflect the original one.

From the environmental viewpoint, the EU’s current system of taxation does not address the issue of CO2 emissions reduction in any way. In fact, as stated above, some cleaner fuels are taxed at the same rate, or even more heavily, than the polluting fuels they are expected to replace. However, four Member States (Denmark, Ireland, Finland, Sweden) have introduced a so-called ‘carbon tax’ to address this issue by making consumers pay for pollution. Still, these states have very different rates and are not synchronized with rules under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. This also contributes to distortions in competitiveness within the Internal Market.

Comprehensive Modern Solutions

The aim of the new Energy Taxation Directive is to steer the Union’s way into a low-carbon and energy efficient economy. The values which steer the revision are the need to contribute to sustainable growth, promotion of resource efficiency, and the creation of a greener and more competitive economy. It comes as a result of calls by the European Council of March 2008, and echoes the UNFCCC CoP 16 in Cancun in 2010.

The Commission’s answer is a comprehensive solution to a modern problem. The current minimum tax rate is to be split in two parts. One is to be based on CO2 emissions of the specific energy product and is to be fixed at 20EUR per tonne of CO2. The other concerns the energy content of the fuel and will reflect how much actual energy is generated in Gigajoules (GJ). The minimum tax rate is to be set at 9.6 EUR per GJ for motor fuels and 0.15EUR per GJ for heating fuels.

The single minimum rate for CO2 emissions would harmonize pollution taxation in the whole Union. To complement the ETS, it will apply only to sectors not covered by the scheme by the introduction of a ‘carbon tax’ on sectors such as households, transport, smaller businesses, and agriculture. For example, biofuels, which are currently taxed at the same rate as conventional fuels (due to the ‘per volume’ rule), would be subject to an exemption under the new rules, due to their better CO2 emissions. Logically, renewable energy sources are also exempt from the CO2 element, since they do not produce pollution in the energy-generation process. At the same time, the most polluting fuel – coal – will become the most heavily taxed.

The second element is more complex and has to do with how efficient the fuel source is. When it comes to energy consumption, the efficiency of the source is more important than the volume and would create a level playing field for all fuel types. For example, the current distortions in the price of petrol and diesel will come to and end. Currently, diesel is taxed at lower rates than petrol in all Member States (except the UK), despite the fact that it has a higher energy content (more energy is generated per liter). This has led to the price of diesel being lower at the pump than petrol, which has created artificially high demand for the product, also in spite of its shortage in the EU. Under the new rules, a neutral taxation method will be applied and a more realistic final price will be the result. In essence, this will contribute to the removal of distortions in the market.

A combination of the two elements will be used to determine the final rate of the tax. The EU will still set the minimum for each product and Member States would remain free to set their own rates above that. This approach has been dominant since 1993 because of a compromise solution which gives the Member States some flexibility due to their different budgetary needs.

Where is the Catch?

The changes to the Energy Taxation Directive will apply to all fuels at the point of consumption. Essentially, when a person tanks-up their car at a gas station, both components of the new tax system will apply. When it comes to electricity though, neither component applies, since there is no CO2 produced or energy generated at the end of the chain. However, the electricity sector is subject to the ETS and therefore falls under the rules of that system. Also, when it comes to nuclear power, the new rules do not apply due to the same rule. And yet, small-scale electric installations falling outside the ETS would be taxed under the revised rules.

However, the environmental component of the revisions are set to impact household budgets. Currently, 10% of CO2 emissions come from the residential sector because of fuel used for heating etc. The new rules recognize that the family purse will come under attack, and propose that there should be solid safety nets and accompanying social measures, especially for low-income households. Currently, only the UK has defined the concept of ‘energy poverty’ as occurring when a family spends more than 10% of their income on energy. Yet, no such definition has been accepted on the EU level, and the regulation of this aspect is left to each individual Member State. The Commission has proposed that the revenue from the new tax could be ‘recycled’ to compensate households through lump-sum social payments, as is already the case in the states who have introduced a CO2 tax. How effective this will be in other Member States is uncertain. It is clear that heating will remain the main problem, since each state depends on different sources for warming its residential areas (gas, wood, coal etc.) and the differentiation between fuel types will result in diverse tax rates. Certainly, individuals would have to reconsider the way they keep warm during the winter.

Fuel Prices in Member States in April 2011

Furthermore, the new Directive includes a long transition period for the Member States to adapt to the new rules. Most notably, nine states (Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia) will have until 2020 to implement the CO2 component of the new tax rules, due to their generally lower income level. The basis of this idea remains vague, since fuel prices are already considered too high in these countries and the current minimum levels have come under scrutiny from national governments for placing them at an economic disadvantage. For example, Bulgaria’s petrol and diesel prices have been criticized recently for being extremely high for the population’s average income, even though the country has the lowest rates in the EU (see chart above).

Considering alternative fuels, the current rules tend to favor liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and compressed natural gas (CNG) due to their fairly new position in the market. As such, a transition period of 12 years is given for these fuel types, during which they can continue to enjoy beneficial treatment and allow them to reach a level of equal competition with traditional fuels. Whether such preferential treatments will cause distortions in the market is a question left unanswered. Yet, with oil prices on the rise, these alternative fuel types are looking increasingly more attractive to the consumer, even without the new taxation rules.

Also, two other sectors will continue to benefit from the revised Directive. The tax rates related to agriculture will remain lower, although they will depend on the environmental objectives that are supposed to ensure this sector’s contribution to saving energy. Less convincingly, the new proposal will not apply to aviation and maritime transport because of existing international obligations and the risk of competitive distortions. However, aviation is set to enter into the ETS in the near future and will have to comply with rules similar to those in the new Directive. The issue of maritime transport remains shrouded in mystery.

From Principle to Reality

For now, the new proposal revises the rules for fuel taxation as the Commission sees fit. It is up to the Council of the EU and the European Parliament to discuss and amend as they wish. Expectations are such that the Directive will be accepted and put into force as of 2013. The Commission sees this as ideal, since it would coincide with the ETS’s third working phase (2013-2020).

However, this will not mean that the new rules will apply directly. The phase-in period which allows the Member States to adjust their tax systems to the new rules is still unknown (the Commission estimates that it might take until 2023), but national administrators, as well as businesses, would expect sufficient time for implementation. Taking this into account, as well as the transition periods mentioned above, it could take a long time before we see taxation playing a role in the EU’s green economy initiative.

The European Union imports a little more than 50% of its energy resources. In this situation, no one should be surprised to see the EU’s Foreign Policy Chief, Catherine Ashton, alongside the Energy Commissioner, Guenther Oettinger. Foreign policy has come to dominate energy talks and vice versa. This became even more evident at the EU’s Energy Summit in Brussels on Feb. 4^th, 2011.

In pursuing the objective of “safe, secure, sustainable and affordable energy contributing to European competitiveness”, the Energy Summit reviewed several initiatives for the achievement of progress. The inclusion of the European External Action Service, and the integration of Commission and Council mechanisms becomes immediately apparent.

Catherine Ashton (right) with Hillary Clinton (left) at the EU-US Energy Council

The EU’s energy imports come from a wide range of countries. Starting from the Eastern neighbor, Russia, moving through the Caspian region and the Middle East, and ending up in Northern Africa, it becomes apparent that the 27 member states have to deal with a wide variety of states when discussing energy. It is this diversity of suppliers which brought Baroness Ashton to stand next to Commissioner Oettinger and demand that EU leaders give them a stronger mandate for energy negotiations with Russia, Turkey, the Caspian states and North Africa. As a result, “the Commission is invited to submit a communication on security of supply and international cooperation aimed at further improving the consistency and coherence of the EU’s external action in the field of energy” by June 2011. Also, the High Representative was asked to take into full account issues of energy security in conducting her work, especially in the context of the EU Neighborhood Policy.

Furthermore, one cannot overlook internal EU developments. In a rather obscure way, one of the conclusions of the Summit states: “The EU and its Member States will promote investment in renewables and safe and sustainable low carbon technologies”. Promoting investment in renewable energy sources has been an integral part of the EU’s legislation since 2009, when the member states had to submit action plans for developing such sources. Yet, the reference to ‘safe and sustainable low-carbon technologies’ is less clear. The implicit meaning of this concept is opening the door for developing nuclear power, and the main culprit – France. The large number of nuclear power plants in the country means that a large proportion of electricity generation already comes from a non-renewable, yet sustainable source. Critics of this clause have expressed a concern of allowing such sources to surpass renewable targets, but the EU has answered that this will not be allowed to happen.

Energy Commissioner Geunther Oettinger

Another important element discussed at the Summit was energy efficiency. It has recently become apparent that the 20% target set for 2020 is not on track. Recent estimates show that only 10% can be achieved in the next 9 years. Yet, with the goal of enhancing sustainability at low cost, the Commission and Council are asked to work together for the adoption of a new Energy Efficiency Plan, outlining policies and measures for the whole energy chain. Special attention has been given to public buildings and services, which need to be adapted.

A further discussion of the completion of the internal market also dominated the Summit. The idea is that the internal energy market has to be completed by 2014. This requires an acceleration of work to standardize the member states’ networks (through market coupling etc.) and to implement a common framework of technical standards. This would mean that, in 2014, gas and electricity should be able to flow freely across national borders. Yet, the major obstacle to this remains the modernization of Europe’s energy grid, which includes the construction of connections between states. The final objective: “No EU Member State should remain isolated from the European gas and electricity networks after 2015 or see its energy security jeopardized by lack of the appropriate connections”. The key to success: the Commission’s investment capabilities.

The overall picture which came to light at the Energy Summit is optimistic, and at the same time disturbing. There is common agreement that a common policy towards external suppliers is needed, but the diversity of these suppliers means the inclusion of the External Action Service in energy policy. Geo-political strategy is evident in this respect. Yet, although there is also common agreement that renewables have to be developed and the internal market completed, the internal discussion over what constitutes a proper energy mix and the mechanisms for development of infrastructure remains obscure. National interests always play a role in such a discussion, and one can only hope that the Commission can moderate the more extreme views. The EU’s internal geo-politics comes into play here.

Driving, taking the bus, or riding on the train – all forms of transportation have an impact on the environment and are directly related to greenhouse gas emissions. Aviation is no exception to the rule – the industry is responsible for 2% of global CO2 emissions. In the face of growing demand and increase in traffic, everyone from airports and airlines, to manufacturers and air-traffic controllers, are working to limit emissions and increase efficiency.

98 years ago, the Wright brothers successfully made the first controlled, powered and sustained human flight. This innovative step has continued to stimulate changes in the aviation industry in the face of many challenges, with the main contemporary problem being climate change. An investigation into what is being done to limit CO2 emissions, while keeping flights safe, comfortable and accessible, reveals that technology, operations, and infrastructure may all hold the key to reducing mankind’s carbon footprint.

Technology

Although most passengers are not aware of this, aircraft are constantly changing. Technological innovation in the aviation industry is comparable to that in personal computers, even though the latter have a much shorter history. It should come to a surprise that since the 1970′s, airplanes have become over 70% more efficient in their fuel-use. All components of aircraft design – from the engines to the tips of the wings – are testimony to increasing innovation in the industry.

The most important role in an airplane’s fuel efficiency is the engines. Jet fuel is one of the highest cost items for an airline, and with the increasingly volatile price of oil, it has become a necessity for the industry to make fuel-efficient engines. The two most-widely used aircraft today – the Boeing 737 and the Airbus A320 – have shown that newer models of the same aircraft can not only carry more passengers and payload, but do so while burning 23% less fuel. Airbus continues to invest $265 million annually for research and development for fuel-efficiency.

Another important aspect which has been continuously innovated is the structural design of airplanes. Airfoils – the cross-sectional shape of wings – which have a great impact at the high-speed phase of a flight, have made balancing weight, wingspan and area more favorable. The Air Transport Action Group’s research shows that something as simple as adding winglets tilted upwards at the tips on old aircraft can reduce fuel burn by 3-5%.

Operations

An aircraft has a general life-time of at least 25 years. This means that it has to be maintained and modified as new technologies become available. Correcting defects during general maintenance, such as removing scratches or chipped paint, can ensure that the plane retains its aerodynamic integrity and can reduce fuel consumption by 0.5%. Innovation in lighter paint has also proven to reduce the weight of the airplane by 10-20%. KLM has already introduced such a modification to its fleet and has reported a reduction in CO2 emissions as a result.

Furthermore, there is a direct relationship between the weight of the aircraft and the amount of fuel required to keep it in the air. An experimental flight conducted by AeroMexico showed that by reducing the weight of the beverage cart by 9kg, separating organic from inorganic waste, and reducing the amount of in-flight printed materials saved 555 kg of CO2. On average, there are 50,000 flight every day, meaning that if every one of them introduced these ideas, the total savings would amount to around 28,000 tonnes of CO2 per day. At the same time, Air France has installed lighter seats on its aircraft, which allows them to burn less fuel.

Flight-planning and flight-management have also aided improvements in fuel-efficiency. Exploiting prevailing winds, precise calculations of fuel loads and adjusting aircraft speed has allowed pilots to become environmentally friendly. Even simple planning like placing more weight at the rear-end of the plane and determining the exact center of gravity of the craft can contribute to reductions in fuel consumption.

Infrastructure

Air corridors – the highways of the sky. These are narrow and predetermined routes that airplanes fly in from their point of departure to their destination. Yet, recent research conducted by the Air Transport Action Group shows that 8% of all aviation fuel is wasted as a result of route inefficiency. Now, a new form of Air Traffic Management (ATM) is being introduced, with the aim of redesigning routes around the performance of the flight, managing the optimized use of airspace, and allowing computers to plot their own, most efficient, route. Research and experiments conducted by Iberia Spanish Airlines has shown that a reduction of 6-12% of fuel use can be achieved through this system.

CDO vs Conventional Approach

Airports have also joined the effort to reduce their environmental impact. By developing ‘green departures’ which allow pilots to take-off and climb to their desired altitude in one, smooth ascent, Copenhagen airport has reported a reduction of 32,000 tonnes of CO2 in one year. Another project, focusing on approach and landing operations through a new method called ‘continuous descent operations (CDO), where an airplane descends from its optimal altitude in a continuous motion, can lead to fuel savings of up to 40% during the approach phase. If Europe introduces CDO more widely, 500,000 tonnes of CO2 could possible be saved (Birmingham’s airport has proven that 13,000 tonnes of CO2 were saved in a year using CDO).

Furthermore, several airports have introduced fixed electrical power units which allow an aircraft to plug in while waiting at the gate instead of burning its engine fuel for power. Zurich Airport has reportedly saved 30,000 tonnes of CO2 per year through installing such units at its 50 gates. London Heathrow, the world’s busiest airport, has also introduced a similar system, which includes pre-conditioned air being being delivered to aircraft while at the gate, and has estimated a 100,000 tonnes of CO2 reduction per year.

Electric Efficiency

Through plugging in airplanes, there is a greater electricity usage at airports by airplanes, and through an increase in passengers, more electricity is used for lights and air-conditioning. Yet, an initiative by Paris Orly Airport has recently saved 9,000 tonnes of CO2 per year by drilling a bore hole to gather naturally heated water to warm its terminal. Also, Vancouver Airport’s installation of solar panels has reduced the use of natural gas by 30% since 2001. In the meanwhile, Stockholm’s Arlanda Airport has been proclaimed the first carbon neutral airport in the world through a combination of biofuel-based heating and renewable energy sources for electricity.

Through these technological, operational and infrastructure innovations, the aviation industry has acted to reduce mankind’s environmental footprint. With the necessary commitment and the already-existent willpower, it sets an example for other, more polluting industries. The next time you fly with the companies or to the airports mentioned above, be sure that you are flying greener than others.

Construction Site of NPP Belene

“Cost overruns, financial woes, construction delays, and serious quality assurance concerns”. This is how the US Ambassador to Bulgaria Nancy McEldowney characterizes the Belene nuclear power plant in a report found on WikiLeaks, and recently published by the Guardian.

The criticism goes on: “the Belene NPP project continues to move forward despite strong warnings about project safety and quality by project experts”. It is these concerns that drove away the strategic investor in the project, Germany’s RWE, which had acquired 49% of the project in 2008. From the viewpoint of RWE, cooperation with the Bulgarian government and the Russian contractor (Atomstoyexport), had proven to be “poison for the investment of the company”.

The main objections, delivered to the Ambassador by technical experts, were that critical safety regulations were being overlooked in order for construction to be achieved as soon as possible. The reason for this was the Bulgarian government’s aspiration not to lose the German investor. At the same time, RWE had reported that they were being “kept in the dark” about most technical aspects of the project. It had voiced its concerns and asked to see the complete documentation of the project.

Further, RWE had expressed its uneasiness in working with Atomstroyexport, and stressed the need for strengthening ‘European business practice’. In the ensuing months, the German company had tried to sell its share of the Belene NPP, most notably to Belgium’s Electrabel, without any success. It therefore comes as no surprise that, when RWE pulled out of the project, its share went back to the Bulgarian government, who froze the project temporarily while looking for a new investor (the only candidate at the moment is a Russian company, with some indication that Serbia and Romania wish to join in).

The end of the report states the following: “There is clearly something amiss at Belene… [yet] the government is unlikely to abandon the project any time soon”.

In Bulgaria, this is not news. RWE’s pulling away from the Belene project was a bad surprise, yet the government has not lost its enthusiasm at building the power plant. Traicho Traikov, Minister for Economics, Energy and Tourism, has repeatedly stated that construction of the NPP will not occur without an investor, and definitely not from the budget. This has been explicitly supported by Simeon Dyankov, Minister of Finance, whose chief aim is to balance the budget, currently marred by a huge deficit. In addition to this, public support of the Belene NPP is high, especially since the closing down of two reactors at Kozloduy in 2007.

Nevertheless, this WikiLeaks report implies three facts: 1) Bulgaria needs to improve its reporting and documentation on the Belene project, if an investor is to be found; 2) Transparency is key to attracting cooperation from other member states of the EU; 3) Bulgaria’s cooperation with Russia on the matter is being closely monitored. It seems the central issue of the debate is no longer a nuclear power plant meant to produce 34% of the country’s electricity, but a financial power-play in a small country in the Balkans. Whether Belene will ‘glow’ anytime soon remains to be seen.

Success and failure in Cancun! With the end of the CoP 16 working-group negotiations, a draft document was released, and to be discussed and endorsed by the plenary. The mixture of agreement and disagreement becomes evident from the first sentences of the document: “Seeking to secure progress in a balanced manner, in the understanding that, through this decision, not all aspects of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention are concluded…”. [N.B. Please note that this is a draft document and has not been agreed upon! Yet, it is close to the final version to be accepted by the CoP]

Yet, there are several highlights in the document, which stand out. The issue of adaptation has been recognized to be just as important as mitigation, requiring the appropriate institutional arrangements to enhance adaptation action and support. In this respect, the Cancun Adaptation Framework is established, with the objective of enhancing action on adaptation. The main institution to take care of this being the Adaptation Committee, which would provide technical support, information, and promote synergy, remains to be created, with a clear step-by-step process laid out.Furthermore, a Green Climate Fund will be established to manage funding for developing countries. Its immediate establishment, and the high-level of agreement between the parties, can be found in the detailed institutional set-up described in the document. Also, the World Bank is invited to act as an interim trustee (or administrator of assets) for the first three years, pending review – a much expected outcome, nevertheless disliked by some civil society organizations.

Also, a registry will be set up to record national mitigation efforts. This will effectively standardize the recording, modelling and reporting of the parties to the convention. The introduction of these standards to the Convention was a much-needed step towards a balanced record-keeping.

The final decision is on transfer of technology, which was much expected. It also entails the creation of a Technology Executive Committee and Climate Technology Center and Network – two bodies which will administer the Technology Mechanism under the CoP.

As a separate part, the countries participating in the Kyoto Protocol have come out with a document mired in disagreement. No second commitment period has been agreed upon, but the hope remains that it could be, since it is mentioned several times. The statement that the CoP “agrees that further work is needed to convert emission reduction targets to quantified economy wide limitation or reduction commitments” portrays the lack of change to the status quo.

It was expected that, under the UN’s proposal, the base-year for measuring greenhouse-gas emissions would be changed from 1990 to 2005. Yet, this has not taken place. The document specifies that, in the event of a second commitment period, the base-year will remain the same. This is of no significant impact, since the existence of a Kyoto II remains a nearly-impossible possibility.

On the whole, the working document produced by the CoP 16 in Cancun is comprehensive and balanced, without major surprises. The issues agreed upon coincide with the UN Secretary-General’s expectations, as stated on Dec 7th in his opening speech to the high-level part of the conference. Now this text is up for negotiation in the plenary.

Romania’s Regional Development and Tourism Minister Elena Udrea said the thermal rehabilitation of apartment buildings will be made with loans contracted by homeowners’ associations and guaranteed by the state, with interest rates subsidized by the Regional Development Ministry, reads Mediafax.

Udrea

Udrea said this decision was made by the Government, through an emergency decree, and is being implemented via lender CEC, She added a contract or convention with lender BCR will also be concluded and, she went on, other lenders are also expected to join the project, whereby banks grant loans, on a five-year period, to homeowners interested to have their homes thermally refurbished.

Udrea said her ministry’s budget cannot cover the funds needed to keep running the existing thermal rehabilitation program, which, she stressed, “was very successful last year.” Udrea pointed out that if the thermal rehabilitation program went on the way it is now, “it would take 100 years” to thermally refurbish the approximately three million apartments in Romania.

Early May this year, Udrea said she plans to introduce a new thermal rehabilitation program, whereby the Government will guarantee the loans contracted by homeowners for their homes’ thermal rehabilitation. Udrea stressed at the time that “everybody is displeased” with the existing program, whereby thermal rehabilitation costs are 50% covered by the state, 30% by local authorities and 20% by homeowners.

By Dollores Benezic.

Ceausescu's Palace in winter, at the peak of its yearly energy consumption

The world’s second largest building after the Pentagon needs rehabilitation, although the construction process over-passed two Communist and democratic decades. Celebrated and booed in equal measure, the House of the People or House of the Republic, today’s Romanian Parliament in Bucharest, started to degrade before being finalized and officially inaugurated. Piping has high water losses and vents are not feeling well. In winter, snow enters the offices through the carpentry, water seeps from the terraces, and heat gets lost due to poor insulation. 31 elevators go up and down in the building, each recording the electricity consumption of a tram, while electricity transformers are like time bombs.

The structure’s consumption equals that of a town of 25,000 inhabitants, which led the charge to find solutions for energy efficiency. Sulfina Barbu, MP, former minister of environment, initiated in 2009 the “Green Parliament”, in partnership with local NGOs, and established a program of selective waste management. Technical Director of Building, Alexandru Tanase, has replaced one third of the over 100,000 light bulbs with some economic ones and rehabilitated the heating system. Architect Anca Petrescu, author of the “House of the Republic” project, said the building has as many sins as people can pronounce, and the palace looks today as any disregarded house, inhabited by some ignorant householder.

In the absence of an energy audit, which no company has dared to carry out in such a huge building, no one knows exactly what would be the way forward and what sort of investment is needed for energy efficiency in the House of the People.

Translated from Romanian by Vlad Limbean

Photo credits go to Anita Vizireanu

“VIP” and “economic” lights

Mr. Constantin has been working in the People’s House since it became operational in 1994. At that time no one knew where the light switch was, lights were always on. It used to be like a fairy tale, light constantly pouring from enormous crystal chandeliers. Mr. Constantin’s boss, Alex Tanase, says that starting with that period the janitors, all of which were women, acquired the nickname of hockey players: “the hockey players were running through these long halls to turn the lights on and off as they could never figure out the right switches.”

A "hockey player"

Today switching lights on and off is a computerized process running on scenarios, in regard to needs. Some energy gets saved, but not enough. Mr. Constantin on the other hand has been left frozen in time for the past fifteen years. Each day he diligently walks some four kilometers throughout the People’s House measuring the room temperatures between 6.30 and 7.45, as a nurse would be monitoring new born babies. Prior to the emergence of mobile phones, Mr. Constantin’s certainty of not getting lost in the huge building was done through a series of landline phones placed on his route.

Temperature is important for some conference rooms that are plated with expensive materials. According to the results given by the thermometer, Mr. Constantine knows how to adjust the ventilation or heat from the underground ventilation facility.

“Can you give me a VIP on C6 level 0?” Alex Tanase requests by telephone from the person operating the lighting scenarios. VIP means that all lights in a sector of the building are turned on – the most energy-expensive scenario there is. This is used when important people come to visit, when major conferences are held, but above all, when the cleaning staff is working in the area. Tanase explains the latter situation: “they need to see well through all the nooks and crannies so that everything can be properly cleaned.”

Alex Tanase, the Parliament Building's "curator"

Usually, the lighting scenario is the “economic” one – only the side lamps are lit. A step above that is the “normal” scenario – the chandeliers are half-lit. Finally, there is the “VIP” scenario – a type of Las Vegas. Tanase says that it’s rare that all the lights are turned off. This is because the surveillance cameras of the Guard and Protection Service need a certain level of visibility.

“What, do you want it to consume as much as an apartment?”

Tanase states that at the pace it had the House of the People reached its consumption peak in 1997, when it registered the greatest expenditure costs in its recent history. “We first started using energy efficient light bulbs in 1998. It was a shift to apparently fantastic costs – an incandescent bulb costs 5,000 lei and an energy efficient one costs -300,000 lei. In changing the light bulbs to a hall you have to wait half a year anyway. At this point we have exchanged about 30% of bulbs in the house with economic ones, “Tanase explains.

Architect Anca Petrescu seems to agree on energy saving idea, but is unhappy with replacement bulbs undermining the “aesthetic philosophy” of crystal chandeliers: “One needs to study how to put a light bulb into a crystal chandelier that costs millions. You don’t just randomly place it there. You can’t see the iridescent colors of the hundreds of crystals; you just see dots of light. So few are aware of the aesthetic value of this house! The misplacement of light bulbs in the chandeliers has been brought to my attention by some foreigners. The bulbs are placed so awkwardly that they neutralize the intended effect of the chandeliers.”

The Romanian version of a "Capitol Hill"

Petrescu also said that, in a building as the House of People, large consumption costs are normal and necessary. “Why are people so surprised? Many kilowatts get consumed during periods in which the conference center is being used. When you light a large area, you also get an income from renting the space. You eventually break even. These are public institutions, you can’t do anything about it,” she concludes.

“It beats” the European Parliament on waste and water costs.

Nobody expects a building that surpasses Cheops’ pyramid in volume to consume as much as a refurbished villa. However, in a time when the world is turning to renewable energy, and reducing its carbon footprint and consumption, the huge House of the People is the epitome of energy waste.
In absolute numbers, the Palace of Parliament in Romania annually consumes double the quantity of drinking water – 575.000 cubic meters – compared to the three buildings of the European Parliament (EP) put together – in Brussels, Luxemburg, and Strasburg. Continuing the comparison, the People’s House produces annually an equal amount of waste – aprox. 2,700 tons. The same as the three buildings of the EP put together. The difference is that in the EP 50% of all waste is recycled. In the People’s House that process is just timidly starting.

In regards to electricity, despite the pretentious chandeliers, the lifts, and other energetically unfriendly machines, the House of the People is still in the minor league compared to the EP. In Romania, the consumption reaches “only” 15.6 kWh, about the same as the EP building in Luxemburg. The building in Strasburg consumes twice as much, while the one in Brussels consumes four times that value. On the other hand, the energy consumed at the EP buildings is one hundred percent green. That means the energy comes from solar panels, wind turbines, hydroelectric sources, etc.
In terms of surface, the three buildings of the EP and their annexes sum up to one million square meters, while the Parliament Palace occupies only 330,000 square meters.

Cracked heater = 70.000 de euro

The high water consumption is caused by an outdated infrastructure of pipes in the building. The Palace of Parliament has 150 kilometers of pipes, while their actual refurbishment is currently only around 10.5 kilometers. A situation which is somewhat similar to that of any town in Romania. “The water consumption has quadrupled since 2004,” Tanase states. ”575.000 cubic meters of water were consumed in 2008. These increases are also due to the greater degree of occupation of the Palace of Parliament,” he explains.

The building's engine room

Regardless, the expenses also have increased. They occur without anyone even considering the possibility and are commonly noticed much later. “In a normal house it’s quite usual that a pipe might crack, not to mention in a building the size of a small town. Today for instance a pipe cracked. If under it there were a hall with decorations of four karat gold or fine wood it would be quite tragic. A while ago a heater broke down and it wasn’t noticed for some time. The water drained, but wasn’t noticed by the technicians because it was a small detail. Until the water started flowing into the hall ways, considering the immensity of the structure, the problem wasn’t even found out. Finally the reparation costs was 70.000 Euros,” Tanase states exemplifying the risks of a trivial heater break down.

The cooling unit, the Freon devourer

As administrator of the People’s House, Alex Tanase says he has a great achievement, but an equal frustration. He overhauled the main heating unit of the building increasing its efficiency by 25%. However, the same success didn’t apply to the house’s “chill factory”. After the auction held for its overhaul a firm that didn’t even take place in the bid contested the results.

Within the foundation of the People’s House a great chamber houses multiple containers holding venting and cooling machines. Two such containers work non-stop for the main hall alone. Further back, there are five inoperative “steam engines” constituting the main cooling unit that was shut down in 2008. “They would roar like airplanes when turned on and consume 470 kilos of Freon annually,” Tanase explains.

The “chill factory” used to consume 3.250 kWh and was manufactured by a now bankrupt company from the former German Democratic Republic. “The operating costs were great even at 5-7% capacity. It was badly designed from the start. It was running on R22 Freon which was subsequently banned, so we shut it down. It did work until 2008 and it provided air conditioning for the ground and first floor,” Tanase describes.

The architect Anca Petrescu considers that when the machines were installed they were top of the line. “They were of the ’89 generation bought from democratic Germany. But they weren’t completely finished; I mean the water from the heating unit had to be recycled. They weren’t completely installed. I was staggered to find out that the water from the freezing unit was thrown in the sewer, which wasn’t right. The water had to be cleansed and then used on the lawn. That’s the way it was planned.”

“Some complain that the building doesn’t have air conditioning. Why, because all the halls have it, and the installations are designed for it? Everything is done by ear here. A more thorough study had to be conducted for the cooling unit along with the engineer who would provide working parameters. I don’t even know if the unit eats up energy because I have no idea of its parameters,” Petrescu complains.

Ceausescu, concerned with the building’s consumption

All in all, the architect admits she is a little out of touch with the global concern for energy efficiency. But she does remember that at the time of the People’s House’s design, Ceausescu solicited a few modifications for energy saving.

Propaganda painting with the Ceausescu couple and their 'House' in the backgroung

“Carbon footprint? What the hell is that? I’ll look it up. Anyhow, even before 1989 there was a preoccupation with energy saving. My project entailed a glass wall in front with distanced columns. They asked me to reduce the size of the glass surface to save energy. With walls. I’ve also heard about the thermal rehabilitation of the building. They wanted to attach sheets of polystyrene over stone and marble. The biggest idiocy! The walls were very thick. For six months The National Institute for Research and Development in Construction (NIRDC) studied wall thickness so that thermal exchange to be minimum”, the building’s author explains.

Windows with bad locks

Outside the temperatures were below zero and there was a thick sheet of snow over Bucharest when we visited Anca Petrescu in her office at the ground floor of the People’s House. The layer of snow blowing through the office’s windows was as thick as the one outside. Despite the few radiators that were struggling to substitute the lack of proper heaters the office was quite cool. In this context, Anca Petrescu told us about the “more than thermopane windows” of the People’s House: “These windows are more than thermopane. There are three lairs of glass, thermopane one the outside with an aluminum frame: the best insulation. We had to do this everywhere, but the windows won’t lock shut. Is it normal to not repair the windows for twenty years? The windows were not of my design, they were made according to the data from NIRCD,” Petrescu points out.

Auditor wanted …

Not even the administrator’s office is snow free. Tanase says that this is not due to improper care, but bad design and irreparable old age. He admits that changing the windows of the People’s House would be the deal of the century in Romania. However, he doesn’t believe anyone would approve such a thing when any expense for the maintenance of the “pyramid” – as Tanase pampers his work place – is bureaucratically founded. Also, the fear of tabloids printing “The congressmen have bought another trinket for their comfort” is another deterrent.

Because the building needs an energetic audit, as it is compulsory for every household in Romania starting this year, Tanase started searching for an auditor since 2007: “In 2007 I posted an announcement for firms to come and audit the People’s House. No one came. Companies’ prefer to copy paste the same little protocol they use for small households instead of earning between 1 and 3 euro/sqm for the energetic auditing of the second largest building on the planet.”

Finally, around the fall of 2009, the Chamber of Deputies rallied up a committee of professionals in the field to do the audit. The committee didn’t have any result, Tanase says. Now he has some promises from a Dutch company who have offered their services for free for the sake of the legendary building.

The architect Anca Petrescu says she also has solutions: “I found someone to do the audit – I went to Munich and then to the University of Frankfurt. Our universities here can do this. I’m looking for someone who is objective and neutral. I’ve found universities who would perform the audit for 15.000 euro. The audit is everyone’s preoccupation. I checked. I’m also very interested when I hear about propositions for windmills on the building and other crap.”

The house will last 500. What about the rest?

Until the energetic audit however, the People’s House wastes a lot of energy inefficiently. Even though refurbished, the heating unit can’t handle the entire structure. The ventilations system is equally inefficient so all the offices have been equipped with AC units which in turn encumber the structure’s electrical grid. Alex Tanase says that he treads lightly so that the system doesn’t cave in because of strain: “I don’t think the electrical grid was designed to withstand all the appliances currently in the building. For example, I have three computers on my desk. The electrical panels and fuses that burn and pop like nuts date back to Ceausescu. The building also has sixteen electrical converters. One of them is up to date because of the improvements for the Museum of contemporary art. They needed the works on display to be kept in a proper environment. A new converter costs thirty billion lei plus ten percent for set up. We still have converters that run on oil. If one of them blows up people die. All of them were already outdated when they were brought in. The civil protection also had converters like this in bomb shelters, but even those guys switched them. We’re the only ones left to have them.” Tanase describes the building’s “electrical grid”.

Anca Petrescu reassures him he has nothing to worry about. “I think the electrical grid has a lot of potential, I wouldn’t worry about it. Any device is built to withstand 30%-40% over its capacity. Shouldn’t we ask the designer of the electrical documentation? The one who died, but who’s son is still alive; maybe he can tell us or do a study. Once you give a structure a lifespan it means that you proportion everything so that the building will last as long as you said. If the building is made to last 500 years you don’t give it an electric grid for fifteen years.”

“Green Parliament” Project

The unanimous decision is that the building that houses almost twenty institutions beside the Romanian Parliament needs an overhaul for an efficient level of energy consumption. On this matter, Sulfina Barbu, a member of the Chamber of Deputies, initiated in the summer of 2009 the “Green Parliament” Project, in collaboration with Green Revolution Association. The project entails the selective collection of waste, paper recycling, replacement of lighting materials and electrical appliances with more economical units. “The Palace of Parliament consumes as much as town with a population of 25.000 people. And it is necessary to rationalize our consumption to reduce the huge bills pay out of the public’s pocket. <<Green Parliament>> means a building friendly both to the environment and the public budget,” Sulfina Barbu considers.

The deputy states that in no less than six months the project has shown promising results: “ Form June to October, 11.5 tons of paper, 3.5 tons of plastic, and 0.5 tons of glass have been collected from the Chamber of Deputies. The results were promising. Consequently starting with this experience we’ve placed a legal initiative that all public institutions practice selective collection of waste starting 2010. Regarding this initiative I’ve received the support of the nongovernmental organization Green Revolution.” Last fall the NGO organized three major conferences on “The Palace of Parliament reduces its carbon footprint”. Specialists from a series of fields discussed the opportunities for reducing consumption of water and energy, and also the creation of a system for selective collection of waste and recycling.

You don’t build a Matiz from a Russian bus

The architect Anca Petrescu thinks that the building she’s been working on for more than thirty years could consume less. However, this can’t be achieved through “wacky” initiatives like windmills on the building, a basement filled with biomass, or solar panels on the roof. “Saving comes through rationalization. From the building’s point of view, for instance, air conditioning, we had vent-convectors in all offices. When they started refurbishing the building around 1992-1993 they said: what’s whit these pieces of junk? And they started cutting down the pipes. They were for ventilation and heating. And they ran through the entire structure and were hooked to the main ventilation unit. The building was designed at top technological conditions. Only it wasn’t used appropriately.”

Elena Ceausescu, wife of the dictator and architect Anca Petrescu projecting on the House of the People

The administrator also doesn’t see wind mills as a bright idea, but considers that the primary source of saving would come from improved electrical units. “There are ideas, solar panels, and windmills. But the efficiency is greater if you reduce the number of light bulbs and renew the infrastructure. It’s a great ineptitude to believe that this huge building could consume zero energy. It’s like having a car the size of a bus that consumes 28%. If we manage to make it consume 18% is called being great. But turning it into a Matiz is called shutting it down.”

The audit – insurmountable complexity

“I don’t believe they didn’t find a company to perform the audit. Rather they never had the money to pay for it,” said the president of the Energetic Auditors Association, Emilia Cerna Mladin. Mladin considers that such an operation for the People’s House – which is “a little energetic disaster” – is both difficult and risky due to its unprecedented complexity. “We’ve proposed Tanase the audit two years ago. But it is indeed a very challenging operation. Its complexity stems from the many elements that are linked to security and control. Moreover, at the time, the building didn’t have any plans of architectural or technical nature at all. Those items alone are very expensive, maybe more expensive than the audit. It can take a long time and money,” Mladin added. The standard audit price for normal buildings ranges between 1 and 3 euro/sqm. However, Mladin believes that when it comes to a building the size of the Palace of Parliament the price might drop below 1 euro/sqm. Without an audit Mladin believes that all expenses for the building’s rehabilitation are senseless.

AN UNFINISHED HISTORY

The proud and glistening progeny of the Golden Age

“Today, 25^th June 1984, in our fortieth year of anniversary of the revolution of freedom and national upholding, of unbound development and independence of Romania, we have commenced the erection of the House of the Republic and the boulevard Socialism’s Victory; proud and glistening progenies of this era of great revolutionary transformations, monumental structures that will remain here over the ages as an impressive reminder of the strong will of the citizens of Bucharest, of the entire Romanian people; granting dignity and greatness to our countries capital, our socialist homeland, Romania.” Thus reads an old manuscript buried in the innards of the People’s House; the author, Ceausescu. In truth, actual building was started one year earlier than stated. On the 25^th of June 1984 the structure was still a level surface.

To prepare the site, the neighborhood Dealul Arsenalului was demolished – over seven square kilometers of the capital’s former center. And over 40.000 people were relocated. Among the disappeared structures are the Vacaresti Monastery, the Brancovenesc Hospital, the National Archives, and the stadium Republica.

The country’s new political center

The building has a spread surface of 330.000 sqm and is listed in the Book of World Records as the second largest administrative building in the world after the Pentagon. Its 2.550.000 cubic meter volume place the structure on the third place in the world, succeeded by the space shuttle assembly plant at Cape Canaveral, Florida, and Quetzalcoatl’s pyramid in Mexico. The People’s House is 2% larger in volume than Cheops’ pyramid in Egypt.

The Palace of Parliament’s construction, at that time, was part of an ensemble named “The country’s new political center”. An urbanism contest was organized for the ensemble. The contest emphasized nationally representative buildings: The National Museum of History (so called, the Radio-House), the National Library, the Opera, the Ministry of Defense, the Guest House (today, the Marriott Hotel), and the Romanian Academy Building. “This center had to align itself to a new axis that was about to be built in Bucharest. The idea wasn’t an original idea of Ceausescu’s. It was in fact inspired by Carol the II’s program of 1934. The press of ’38 announced the commencement of demolitions for the opening of the new east-west axis –today’s Uniri Boulevard. And the Chamber of Deputies was to be placed on Dealul Arsenalului,” Anca Petrescu explains the idea’s origin.

1.000 chambers

In December 1989 the People’s House was 80% finished. However, the work was halted due to a revolt of the population and the numerous voices crying for a national debate concerning the building’s future. At that time, estimated construction costs were at $1.75 billion. In 2006 to costs estimations were at 3 billion Euros.

Work on the site recommenced in 1993, when the decision was made that the Chamber of Deputies would move in the People’s House from Dealul Patriarhiei. Along the years 200 architects and over 20,000 laborers constructed the building, working in three shifts to ensure streamline continuity.

Cranes and scaffolding in the 1980s (adevarul.ro)

Today the building has approximately 1,000 rooms, 440 of which are offices. Also there are over 30 halls, 4 restaurants, 3 libraries, 2 underground parking lots, a concert hall, the remaining rooms are left unused. The Romanian Senate also moved in the building in 2004.

Hasn’t yet been inaugurated

According to Alex Tanase, the building has about 11% unfinished surfaces. While the architect Anca Petrescu states that, at the moment, the structure is entirely occupied, unfinished parts being left only in the lower levels. In December 2009, after twenty years, the building’s designer managed to put together and deliver the structure’s technical plans. The People’s House is yet to be officially inaugurated.

The People’s House is a gigantic entanglement of monumental sculptures, carvings, decorative floors plates, elegant ceilings, fine silk drapes, and rugs. All of these are stretched on a line of halls, galleries, ball rooms, and other chambers of great proportions. Expensive marble alternates with fine wood and crystals from the chandeliers.

The building has been hated by Romanians because of its ominous association with the megalomania and lust for power of the dictator Ceausescu. The People’s House was erected by ruining the former heart of the capital and the starvation of its People. Foreign appreciation of the building has lessened the formerly strong feelings of dislike.

House of the People. Satellite View

Materials used for the building of the People’s House:

1.000.000 m³ of marble

5.500 tons of concrete

7.000 tons of steel

20.000 tons of sand

1.000 tons of basalt

900.000 m³ of wood

3.500 tons of crystal

200.000 m³ of glass

2.800 chandeliers

220.000 m² of rug

3.500 m² of leather

Source: Wikipedia

Electricity and water consumption:

Electricity:

House of the People – 1.300.000 kWh/month = 146.739 euro/month

- 15.600.000 kWh/year = 1.760.868 euro/year

European Parliament – Luxemburg building – 1.407.248 kWh/month – 16.888.977 kWh/year = 1.569.194 euro/year

Water and sewage:

House of the People – 50.000 de m³/month – 575.583 m³/year = 1.748.198 lei= 416.237 euro

European Parliament – all buildings – 19.413 m³/month – 232.956 m³/year = 530.325 euro

Waste:

House of the People – 250 tons/month – recycling has just been implemented

European Parliament – all buildings – 224 tons/month – recycled 1491 tons/year

Maintenance Budget 2008:

House of the People – 24 million lei (5.732.953 euro), approximately 12% of the Chamber of Deputies’ entire budget. The budget was above 71 million Euros.

European Parliament – 191 million euro, 14% of total budget

For 2009 the Romanian Parliament was allocated the following budget:

314,000 lei – cleaning appliances; 8,113,000 lei heating and lighting; 1,286,000 lei – water, sewage, cleansing; 11,155,000 lei new constructions; 3,660,000 lei maintenance of parking lot; 10,933,000 lei capital repairs.

Total – 33 million lei.

Sources: Chamber of Deputies – Technical Department and the Press Bureau of the European Parliament

How the European Parliament (EP) reduces its carbon footprint:

-In 2007 the European Parliament obtained the EN/ISO 14001:2004 certificate “The international standard for environmental management” for the three buildings

-The institution has lowered its reliance on methane gas about 25% in the past three years

-The EP uses electricity integrally generated from renewable sources lowering CO2 emissions by 17%.

-Over 50% of all waste is recycled or reused

-The EP intends to reduce emissions by 30% by 2020. A sequential plan of action was adopted after a study performed in 2008 by a third party on the issues of carbon footprint.

-Gas emissions are being lowered already because of the introduction of railway connections between Brussels and Strasburg in July 2008. The railway has mostly replaced air travel.

-Videoconferencing as a means of holding meetings has increased in all three separate places of the EP.

-Through campaigns, all the staff and personnel has been encouraged to use public transport more often.