Thursday 11 October 2012

Author(s): Disha Singh

Comments are moderated and will be published only after the site moderator’s approval. Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name. Selected comments may also be used in the ‘Letters’ section of the Down To Earth print edition.

  • Nice article Disha! "The

    Nice article Disha!

    "The project was ready in 2004. Six years later, the Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE) awarded it a five-star rating." very impressive!

    Good to know about architects who are truly interested and working to make a building green.

    Posted by: Anonymous | 3 years ago | Reply
  • A building sized for 500

    A building sized for 500 persons only housing 100 persons will have a tragically poor carbon footprint, regardless of its current energy consumption. The most ecologically efficient building is the one that is never built. One that is 5 times oversized is at the other end of the spectrum.

    Posted by: Anonymous | 3 years ago | Reply
  • The building was designed for

    The building was designed for 500 persons as the PEDA authorities were planning to set up various departments for renewable energy such as wind power, solar energy harnessing etc. But as of now this is still in the pipeline.
    It is estimated that even with an increase in workforce the buildings energy consumption would increase only slightly due to the passive design techniques which have been applied. Also, simultaneously with an increase in workforce reaches the wind tower ambiator shall also be installed which should be able to completely satisfy the cooling requirements within the building.

    Posted by: Disha Singh | 3 years ago | Reply
  • Congratulations to the team

    Congratulations to the team who made PEDA Building whose design has helped to save the energy and money (Greenest of all, DTE 31st Oct 2012). This building design and way of saving energy & money is the most needy to all in general and particularly for developing country like India.

    Now our Country is facing severe Power crises and affected the production and finally the quality of life of the people. Though the initiations for the alternatives like Bio Gas, Hydro thermal, Wind energy, Solar energy and others are at initial stage and could not come out with sustainable ways. At this stage, the design of PEDA and its claim on saving energy & money is the welcome step and more such things should come into the reality.

    Now, the need of the hour is to know about its:

    £ Scale up, Replication and Sustainability (SRS)
    £ Conveniences and comfortability
    £ Cost effectiveness
    £ Affordability & Accessibility
    £ suitability at all terrains and environments
    £ extent of Eco-friendliness ....................

    If the answer to the above points is acceptable to the stakeholders at all levels, then the Government should encourage the Institute to do more research if necessary to replicate the designs matching to the needs of the local environment and people.

    Posted by: Anonymous | 3 years ago | Reply
  • Dear Lakshmi Narayana Thank

    Dear Lakshmi Narayana
    Thank you for your comment. I am in complete agreement with the points that you have raised. The PEDA building was built as a prototype so that the principles and techniques used could be suitably modified and applied in buildings located in similar weather conditions.
    The endeavour through this article is to get the message out there as a number of people have no idea about the passive design features of the buildings.
    Although,it is in the hands of the government to promote the construction of buildings designed on passive principles, but the same may be achieved if the public is also made aware of such strategies.

    Posted by: Disha Singh | 3 years ago | Reply
  • Thanks for the quick

    Thanks for the quick response. It is true that the implementation and transformation of technologies is in the hands of Government. Parallel to this, creation of public awareness among the stakeholders and community helps to create pressure to the Government for an effective implementation.

    Looking forward to expect that the media takes this as a mission for effective transformation...

    Posted by: Anonymous | 3 years ago | Reply
  • Dear Ms. Disha, liked the

    Dear Ms. Disha,

    liked the article. We have a started a platform called www.icareforpune.com addressing the issues of ecology, environment & cityscape in & around Pune. If you permit, wd like to post your article with due mention of the DTE in the ecology section.

    Await your response.

    Abhijit

    Posted by: Anonymous | 3 years ago | Reply
  • Dear Abhijit Thank you for

    Dear Abhijit
    Thank you for your appreciation. You can post the article, but please mention the link of this article along with mentioning DTE.

    Posted by: Disha Singh | 3 years ago | Reply
  • Dear Disha Is the ECBC EPI

    Dear Disha
    Is the ECBC EPI benchmark for air-conditioned buildings? If it is so then should we compare it with the EPI of a non-airconditioned building?
    The PEDA building 'appears' to be truly green. Of course the greatest wisdom of this building is that it knows how to respond to the sun-path and shade its interiors from the harsh summer sun. BUT can there be a 'measure' of the green quotient of this building.
    A building that does not adhere to the ECBC code gets a 5-star rating! This should raise many questions in the minds of the building professionals and those who decide the benchmarks for the 'green'.

    Posted by: Anonymous | 2 years ago | Reply
  • Dear Seema The ECBC does not

    Dear Seema

    The ECBC does not provide any benchmarks, it is the BEE which awards star ratings for specific EPI ranges. These ranges differ for air conditioned and non air conditioned buildings. The star rating system provides different EPI ranges for conditioned and non conditioned buildings for them to achieve a particular star rating.

    For example, In order to achieve a BEE 5 star rating an office building in a composite climate requires an EPI of less than 40 Kwh/sqm/year for a non conditioned building and less than 90 Kwh/sqm/year for a conditioned one.

    As you correctly mention the achievement of the PEDA building is that it is sustainable because it responds to the climate and not because it adheres to a particular energy code. Hence for such a building, measuring the green quotient shall always be a challenge as different agencies or rating systems shall have a different set of parameters.

    I am in complete consensus with your observations and the PEDA building highlights the fact that a 'sensibly' designed building can perform far better than a badly designed building even if it is compliant with the benchmark of any energy code or rating system.

    Posted by: Disha Singh | 2 years ago | Reply
  • With the amount of synthetic

    With the amount of synthetic polymers (polyurethanes, polystyrenes, fibre reinforced plastics, etc.) used in this building, is it really green ? Sure, it may be using far less energy on a day-to-day basis, but the amount of energy invested in making these synthetic materials are huge. aren't they ?

    Posted by: Anonymous | 2 years ago | Reply
Scroll To Top