A central recommendation is an attempt to increase the prevalence of post-occupancy evaluations conducted by architects, to enable mapping of intangible impacts such as social value.
In fact, the more we build, the more challenging renewable energy becomes..In addition, public resistance to building out an ever increasing amount of infrastructure is mounting, and this resistance is happening before the conversation even turns to transmission, which, Gogan says, is very difficult to build, as it’s hard to make the case that people will directly benefit from things such as the creation of jobs.
This results in real challenges over land use.. And yet, the net zero transition is undoubtedly going to require a large amount of new infrastructure to be built, raising big questions about where to build it.Gogan points out that it really doesn't matter how cheap something is, if you can't build it in the first place.What we need to do now, she says, is reevaluate the perceived risks of nuclear, against the risks of failing to decarbonise, and adopt advanced heat solutions to help us on our journey.. At Bryden Wood, we believe it’s important to lean into all of the technologies available to us at this critical time.
While it’s possible that thirty years from now we might find other ways to sustainably meet our energy needs without nuclear technologies, to not have these highly beneficial, advanced heat solutions in our toolbox now would be a huge mistake..Replacing coal with clean energy.
The Net Zero America Report produced by Princeton University suggests that the low renewables scenario would require the US grid to double or triple in size, which, as a strategy, seems both unrealistic and very high-risk.
However, if we instead repurpose all of the existing thermal sites, repowering the US coal-fired power plants with new nuclear, advanced heat solutions, we could reduce the amount of new transmission bills by an incredible forty percent.. Gogan says this represents a radical de-risking of our net zero transition, and presents a huge opportunity for decarbonisation.In such cases, rather than re-clad the building (which defeats most of the point of a conversion) a possible solution is a ‘box in a box’ lab fit-out, though this will be more expensive and will reduce net usable space..
Furthermore, given how much energy labs consume compared to an office it may be sensible to improve the performance of an older façade, which will, of course, add cost and programme, and there can be other issues around cladding, for example, some systems and materials used in offices are not accepted by life science businesses and insurers for fire safety and loss prevention reasons.. Office finishes are unlikely to be suitable for lab use, and it is almost always best to complete a full strip-out of the office at the start of a project.This will simplify design and construction in the long-run, and will often expose hidden defects or complications (see below.)
Raised access floors will also ideally be sealed or removed to minimise future sources of contamination.For the lab fit-out itself, appropriate finishes must of course be selected, and this will be based on a wide-range of criteria such as cleaning material compatibility.. 10.