You might be surprised: I am not a certified expert in ZEB, nZEB, net-ZEB, or other trendy acronyms. However, I have written two books and coordinated, edited, and contributed to a third one (actually the first, chronologically), all published by the prestigious Springer Nature Publishing House. I have never ventured into areas I am not familiar with (and it would be great if everyone stuck to their fields of expertise, validated by university studies, postgraduate research, and authentic scientific inquiry, rather than ”bushy” and sometimes confusing legislation). But what I do know, I truly know.
This course is not exclusively for architects but for all partners involved in constructing a building from designers, contractors, system manufacturers, technical university students to anyone curious to learn more.
In the introduction to my most recent book, published by Springer Nature in 2024 (Architectural Design Strategies for Saving Energy in Buildings. An Architect’s View) I am writing the following:
”Why another book on energy efficiency in buildings?
On ZEB or nZEB?
A lot has been written on this topic, that the dependence on fossil energy sources – or any energy source – represents a challenge and a vulnerability for carrying out all human activities. So what does this book bring new?
Maybe the... architects’ perspective: that a building is not designed to be an energy plant” although this objective can be achieved through specific design (not "intelligent", not "smart", to avoid linking the principle to computer programs), once the role of the building – to house something and provide the appropriate space for whatever function was intended to be performed within its walls – is fulfilled.
”Buildings provide shelter primarily, both for living beings and for carrying out specific activities. Therefore, it is normal that they - the buildings – are ”responsible for 40% of our energy consumption and 36% of greenhouse gas emissions, which mainly stem from construction, usage, renovation and demolition” [https://commission.europa.eu/news/focus-energy-efficiency-buildings-2020-02-17_en]. However, they are not. If there were no buildings and the human activities were to be carried outside, in nature (presuming this could happen) wouldn’t buildings consume less? Obviously, they would be ”responsible” for a much lower percentage of energy consumption. So why blame it on buildings? In reality human activity is responsible for the energy consumption; buildings are a result of the human mind and work. Humans, as specialists as well as building occupants, also hold the material leverages – as passive and active design strategies - to diminish, save or produce energy throughout the whole life of the construction. […] Some existing, old(er) buildings use less energy than others; some use less energy than new buildings and are healthier and cozier. A good question would be: were buildings conceived and erected without bearing in mind the costs that will be paid during their use? Probably not: the architects who designed them certainly had in mind the operational costs.
Were they independent structures that had nothing to do with the environment? Simple or complicated sculptural shapes and forms that randomly change the landscape? Was the cost in use not an element that the design was supposed to take into consideration? Did we invent, now, the awareness regarding the use of resources?
Hardly!”
The essential condition is interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary collaboration from the concept phase. This way, the two design strategies—passive and active—will merge and complement each other, leading to the desired outcome for all: lower energy consumption.
How? Simple: Join the course (or... read my books ).
