Name: Steven Class: EAP 3 Date: Oct 2021

Detailed Plan
Research question:

Buildings, their construction and running, are responsible for a significant

amount of energy usage, and the industry has, therefore, been seen as a
major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.

Based on evidence from your research, to what extent can the concept of
‘green buildings' help to change this situation?

Organisation of ideas
GB in energy GB in GHG GB in cost
saving emission
CA CA CA
A A A

Thesis statement:

‘green buildings' can help to change this situation

Section 1: GB in energy saving

Paragraph 1: Main Idea: Counter Argument: GB cannot save the energy

Topic sentence: It is often claimed that GB has less influence on energy saving

Evidence：
 As shown in Table 5, SAS was predicted to consume 67.78 kBtu/sf/yr, a 22.9%
reduction when compared to the baseline energy use. However, its actual
performance was vastly different at a consumption level of 135.76 kBtu/sf/yr on
average in the three years. In essence, the SAS building consumed 100.3%
more energy than predicted. (Chen et al., 2015, p. 146)
 In other words, there is no discernable difference in the measured source
energy consumed by the LEED-certified office buildings from that consumed by
other large NYC office buildings. (Scofield, 2013, p. 520)
Analysis: Some studies have shown that the energy efficiency of GB may not perform
better than normal buildings, leading to the belief that GB cannot help to change the
present situation.
Paragraph 2: Main Idea: Argument: GB can save the energy

Topic sentence: While this may be true in some cases, more evidence shows that, in
general, GB could save more energy than traditional buildings.

Evidence：

 Results indicate that per-unit energy reduction is 5,384.3 kWh per year, which is
28.1% greater than estimated. Combining the average utility rate of $116.7 per 1000
kWh for Virginia [12], such savings equal $628.4 per year. Findings suggest that the
per-unit reduction is estimated to be 34.1% yet are observed at an even larger
amount of 43.7%(Zhao et al., 2016, p. 771)
 The energy use intensity in all case study buildings analyzed is 2043 MJ/m2/yr,
which corresponds to 11.4% reduction compared to the benchmark level. (Balaban &
Puppim De Oliveira, 2017, p. 575)
 In aggregate, LEED offices save 95 MJ/m2, which represents an 11% savings from
the mean site EUI for non-LEED offices in aggregate. (J. Scofield et al., 2021, p. 8)

Analysis: A great number of comparisons between LEED and non-LEED buildings on a

large scale have proved that although very few LEED buildings fail to achieve the energy
goal, most of the GB indeed save more energy than estimated. Thus, GB can help to
change the present situation.
Section 3: GB in GHG emission
Paragraph 3: Main Idea: Counter Argument: GB cannot save the GHG emission

Topic sentence: There seems to be a perception that the GHG emission won’t decrease
with the application of GB

Evidence:

 Table 2 lists the GHG emission intensity of the LEED-21 buildings as 98 kg/m2/yr,
just a bit higher than the 95 kg/m2/yr emitted by the 953 non-LEED buildings.
(Scofield, 2013, p. 521)

Analysis:
Because of the terrible GHG saving performance of the LEED-certified buildings in New
York, there is a claim that the present situation won’t be changed by GB.

Paragraph 4: Main Idea: Argument: GB can save the GHG emission

Topic sentence: It may be true to some extent; however, it can be argued that the
application of GB has a positive effect on GHG saving

Evidence:
 The associated CO2 emissions of average annual energy consumption in case study
buildings are calculated as 85 kg per square meter, 14.6% less than the benchmark.
(Balaban & Puppim De Oliveira, 2017, p.575)

 Since 2000, LEED-certified buildings have averted 33 megatons of CO2 from being
released into the atmosphere, equivalent to the average annual CO2 emission from
10 coal-fired power plants in the United States. (P. et al., 2018, p. 313)

 For instance, the aggregate reduction in annual GHG emissions for LEED offices is
(7%) × (77 kg/m2) = 5.4 kg/m2. This savings multiplied by LEED office aggregate
floor area yields a total savings for 2016 of 170,000 metric tonne of CO2, as
compared with non-LEED offices of the same floor area in the same cities. (J.
Scofield et al., 2021, p. 14)
Analysis: Despite that in some cities GB could not perform well on GHG saving, when
people focus on the overall effect of GB on GHG across the U.S and Japan, GB is
beneficial to the GHG emission, making it can help to change the present situation.
Section 4: GB in cost
Paragraph 5: Main Idea: Counter Argument: GB is expensive

Topic sentence: It is often argued by some people that the high cost of GB prevents the
popularity of that.

Evidence:
 According to the interviewees, initial investment costs are the main barrier to
promote sustainable buildings in Japan at present, as green technologies and
measures generally result in high investment costs. There are not many incentives
from the Japanese government for real estate and construction companies in this
respect. (Balaban & Puppim De Oliveira, 2017, p.576)

 Companies, which are interested in constructing a green building or retrofitting their

buildings, have to bear the upfront costs by themselves, and wait for the payback
period to get returns on their investments. (Balaban & Puppim De Oliveira, 2017,
p.576)

Analysis:
Because the initial cost of GB is very expensive to both individuals and companies, GB
might not become popular at present. Therefore, although GB has many advantages, the
present situation still cannot be changed with fewer GB are built.
Paragraph 4: Main Idea: Argument: GB can save the money

Topic sentence: There is some truth in this, however, evidence shows that GB actually
can save money in a long run

Evidence:

 The total LCC of GB is lower than non-GB by 41.74% differences. …GB is also
offered a lower cost per square metre than non-GB from US$ 7,905.14/m2 to US$
4,605.23/m2. (Miraj et al., 2021, p. 634)

 In terms of operation and maintenance GBs contribute to substantial savings of 23%

and 15% respectively. This results in green industrial buildings contributing to total
life cycle cost saving of 17% in Sri Lanka. (Weerasinghe et al., 2021, p. 7)

Analysis:

Although the construction cost of GB might be higher than conventional

buildings, the total life cycle of GB is lower than conventional buildings.
Therefore, there is no valid reason why GB cannot help to change the
situation considering the cost.