Priligy online now, save money

MAR 17

Recent Comment

"I dont think that the people who invests money in this project is actu..."

View all Comments

Abu Dhabi Building World's First Energy Positive Building

It's very likely that we haven't written enough about Masdar, Abu Dhabi's eco-initiative to usher the world into a sustainable future. But now we just can't hold back. They've decided on a design for their headquarters, and it's going to be the first mixed-use, energy-positive building in the world.

That's right, its giant roof is covered in so many solar panels that the building will actually feed electricity into the grid, instead of pulling energy off the cheap no prescription viagra grid. And that's no small feat, because the building is gigantic at 1.4 million square feet.

In addition to one of cialis wholesale prices the world's largest solar roofs, the building will also have integrated wind turbines, solar-driven cooling and de-humidification and the building will consume 70% less water than other buildings of comparable size.

The solar roof will actually be the first piece of the building constructed so that the panels will be able to power the rest of construction. That's pretty frikkin cool. But it's also going to cost over $300 million.

This building is only the beginning though. Masdar is building an entire green city from scratch, and Masdar headquarters is just part of the first phase (slated to be completed in 2010.) The rest of the city will be completed by 2016, at a total cost of over $22 billion. Good to wow)) cialis 20mg see a nation who's wealth comes straight from petroleum leading the way into a world that will no longer be able to rely on it. Masdar Headquarters is going to be a beautiful and powerful example of what our sustainable future might look like.

Continue reading for high-quality renders of wow look it online order viagra Masdar Headquarters.

Via Jetson Green

Hits: 25146
Comments (13)Add Comment
Incomplete Calculation
written by Karsten, March 17, 2008
This does not make sense YET. In order to claim that anything is eco-positive you have to tell at what point a product slips from the eco-negative into the eco-positive.

A building like this will at first be eco-negative. Anything you build requires at first materials and energy. The world would be less polluted if a building like this was not built. But here is the important claim: The building will create more energy than it required to make it. Is that the case? I do not see numbers that tell how much energy it takes to make it. And if yes, when will it have created more than it took to make it? 20 years? 100? Will the building still be in use when that point in time has been reached?

So, is this really eco-positive or is it just less bad? I hope this is not just another example of riding the wave of green products (big and small) that look great, appear green if looked at superficially, and do not much more than make you feel good that we are actually doing something while actually creating little change.

Living on Earth:
Sufficient resources - Wasteful existence - 6.5 Billion humans; Preserve two and abandon the third.
written by filmgeeknz, March 17, 2008
Coolest building ever! 8)
Energy positive not eco positive
written by gren, March 17, 2008
I don't think the claim of "eco positive" was made. That would be hard enough to buy viagra using paypal define, let alone claim. But it is a significant step forward in that it will return energy to the grid (making the best prices for cialis assumption that energy returned is at least greater than extra energy used to create solar panels, etc.) We're not living in a zero footprint world and I doubt we ever will be--nor do I find it completely desirable. But if we create new buildings that will be built anyways in a more "green" manner that is a good thing. Also, making the most efficient retro-fitting (best example is more efficient power generation rather than throwing out a good used car to buy a Prius). It's a start to living sustainably.
The idea of embodied energy
written by Margaret Bruce, March 17, 2008
I agree that we can't just stop doing what we do (build stuff, make stuff, use stuff) - and that the most pragmatic solution is to do all of that in as 'sustainable' a manner as possible. However, I think Karsten has a good point. Most people have NO IDEA how much energy is required to create stuff (a plate, a cement block, a car, a hairbrush... anything) and therefore, glamorous, inspiring and viagra in spain innovative projects like the Masdar building look like an easy right decision.
I know it is very hard to measure and harder to buy levitra soft tabs report in a way that is simple and relevant, but if part of our decision-making as consumers was informed by knowledge of the embobied energy of a thing, then perhaps we would make different choices (like knowing the calories in food!) The difficulty arrises when similar products are made by different processes or in different places with a different energy mix. How would you account for embodied energy in a product made with coal-fired electricity vs. solar power? The complexities of generic cialis without a perscription verification get outa control pretty quickly. The amount energy necessary might be the same, but the impact of that energy use may be very different. Never-the-less, I hope someone develops an embodied energy measure and that we all become much more sophisticated in our understanding of 'energy-' and 'eco-friendly' products and practices.
Eco positive?
written by Read Right, March 17, 2008
There is nothing that says "eco positive" it's energy positive(which is true) and an eco initiative. It's a great start and awesome design but what about the uk viagra sales cradle to cradle? How about using some better materials.
written by Karsten, March 18, 2008
How the heck can one claim anything to be energy positive if you do not know how much energy it takes to make it? Or how much energy the thing will create in a certain amount of time in a certain period of time?

Think this over for me, OK? One of us is lacking common sense and I will be open to it being me.

What a beautiful building
written by Jim, March 19, 2008
I think that building looks beautiful, and the fact that it will be energy positive is great. I'm sure it will serve as a great demonstration project for others of its kind.

Karsten, lighten up, will you? Seriously, you are incredibly negative. Every post I've seen you write is about how everything fails to live up to your goal of purchase viagra online canada eco-perfection. The building is energy positive because it produces more power than it needs to run the we recommend levitra free pills building. Simple. No need to canadian women viagra over-complicate things.

Building something that is beautiful and has such obvious benefits is a nice step in the right direction, especially when most everything else is built without such factors taken into consideration. This is a good thing and all you can think of is to complain about details that aren't even relevant to the purpose of the project?

You utterly miss the point of this website. How about trying to muster a little sense of wonder at the cool things that people all over the world are trying to do to make the world a better place? Maybe the thing someone does isn't going to answer all our problems, or even the one they were trying to solve. So what? They tried, and what they tried is probably kinda interesting and geeky, which is why it's here.

Maybe pointing out the flaws in everyone else's ideas is your calling, but being negative about everything isn't very helpful either.
The road to hell...
written by Karsten, March 21, 2008
.. is paved with good intentions.

Hey, I appreciate cool stuff. Or let's say "used to". I still do but it is becoming harder. I came to my senses. This may of course be temporarily. I may run out of steam and before I get too frustrated just jump right back into celebrating modern life while rushing towards the abyss blind-folded. Until then, some one has to point out where there are short-falls.

I will be HAPPY if there are projects I cannot find anything wrong with. That does not mean nothing is wrong with them. That just means that they are not obviously wrong, misleading, or irrational.

Of course I am in favor of creating products to save humanity or make this planet a better place to live. Nevertheless, this is a high claim and it is not a new claim. It is as old as the industrial revolution. There is still little light at the end of that dark tunnel.

Celebrating technology the way you describe it does not sound very geeky too me. It sounds pretty mainstream. Just open any Popular Science magazine.

I noticed you did not answer my request to explain how a building can claim to be energy positive without telling how much energy it uses. As far as I am concerned this is a claim that makes headlines, is popular, happily accepted by most, but not supported by data and therefor cheap. Hoping that something works is not enough. You might as well pray.

Simplifying a concept until it is useless does not do us any good. Being negative does not either (I agree), but pointing out inconsistencies should create thought and critical consumers. And with critical and educated consumers the battle against consumerism is pretty much won. On the other hand, consumers who believe whatever they are told, who do not question or take a good hard and critical look at marketing strategies or advertisements will drive us into deeper trouble than I care to imagine.

In the light of this, I do not mind being critical. I do not request perfection. I request solutions (cheap, expensive, simple, complicated, etc.) that work to create less pollution, use less energy overall, are necessary, can be used by all humans without having a negative impact on that one place we have to live. Is it possible? I do not know. I doubt it. But I honestly feel that romantic, uncritical feelings about technology are misplaced and buy cialis in canada naive. It may not feel great to hear your beloved technology criticized. Call it negative. I call it realistic and (hopefully) thought-provoking. And I cannot even tell you how much I hope I am wrong with my views of our future. I hope you will be able to say in 20 years that telling me to lighten up was justified.

Please be not offended when you read my critical posts. I am aware that being critical may result in some people running the other way. Those are the people who are part of the problem. I am just a messenger. If I am wrong with my criticism someone will correct me and will admit it and apologize if needed. If I am right, equal-minded people will feel supported, others will be more educated or aware of an issue they did not see before. All these are worth pursuing, are they not?

written by Karsten, March 21, 2008
It should say: I will admit it. I forgot the I. Last paragraph.

A Symbol, A Step
written by Emmett, March 24, 2008
I would like to point out that they never claimed to be the first building to be energy-positively constructed (something that I doubt will happen in the next 100 years), it claimed to be the first energy-positive building. It is the headquarters of an environmental agency, so the building stands as a symbol for their intentions more than anything. It was a choice between a huge, concrete slab, energy sink of a high-rise, or an innovative design. It is unproductive to think solely about the short-term impact; yes, the building and all its components will take a lot of energy to produce, but something tells me they will try to find the most efficient way to produce them.

The real point of the thing is that it will not be sucking the planet, or (probably more important for them) the region dry of unsustainable energy sources. They are taking on the first step in the 3R system, Reduce. Also, it is important to note that the construction is planned to be at least partially powered by the solar panel roof, which will be constructed first, drastically reducing the impact of the construction.

In addition, if you look at one of the more recent posts you will find that there are now reports saying that green-building would be more effective than changing automotive technology in reducing energy footprint, so this definitely must be a step in the right direction.
written by mohit, January 17, 2009
guys, this building looks facinating with all cool stuff like- construction of solar power roof to provide electricity for construction... thats all is great, but then the how much cialis solar panel comes with a lifespan of 15-20 yrs,and in that life span they cant not even repay of their cost.
the embodied energy level of the solar panel is pretty high. rite now solar panels are too costly to be called sustainable. and another point is that with in the lifespan,the new technology hit the market, means new solar panels with better efficiency. so ur installed panel become obsolete.
so then you decide that solar panel are good or not. coz if the building energy saving ( turns out to be the cost)doesnt meet the extra investment, in building total life span to make it positive energy building, then the building is not sustainable.
A bit more insight...
written by Chady, April 07, 2009
Coincidentally, I am a consultant working for Masdar and can probably correct a few things..
1- The building is energy positive (i.e. will produce more energy than it consumes). How? By design. To achieve the holy grail, you need a combination of energy efficiency and renewable energy production. Thermal, lighting and only now cheapest viagra prescription electrical power consumption have been reduced to a maximum (over 80% less when compared to a typical building) by reducing HVAC, maximizing natural lighting, automating the building... even the building and city orientation vis-a-vis the sun path and wind flows has been studied.. The second part of the equation (energy generation) is provided through one of the world's largest building installation of it's great! viagra online sales PV panels.. given the viagra cost reduced consumption, the renewable energy generated surpasses the need for power.
FYI, the building is LEED platinum standard.

2- Regarding the eco-footprint, there are a few more nuts and bolts that were thought of... first, on the construction front, from inception, the building is designed to reduce the embodied carbon by 45% (i.e. the carbon created from sourcing the raw material and building the edifice, including the transportation, etc has been accounted for) Also, the PV panels on the roof (mentioned above) are the first to be constructed and they power the construction of the building itself (so indeed green power for construction).. I agree that it cannot have a zero-foot print, but this is miles and miles ahead of anything I've seen anywhere else..

There's quite a bit more (including water conservation, zero-waste concept, etc) that these guys are doing.. I think that for an oil-producing country that probably has power cheaper than most other countries in the world, they deserve a kudos for setting the levitra professional right example, or at least a first (major) step in that direction!

Arq. student
written by Juan Rodriguez, May 12, 2010
I dont think that the people who invests money in this project is actually thinking all the stuff we architects do refering to how buildings affect the ecosistem. They invest money to get more money out of it, thats it, this is just a way to get it. I respect what the designers intend to do but with this building but a solution like this should be a lot cheaper and repeatable massively.

Write comment

security code
Write the displayed characters


Are you an EcoGeek?

We've got to keep 7 billion people happy without destroying our planet. It's the biggest challenge we've ever faced....but we're taking it on. Are you with us?

The Most Popular Articles