By JOEL
SCHECTMAN
The U.S. government is about to bar contractors who use computers bought with
federal dollars from dumping the devices in landfills, an official said on
Wednesday.
The new rule, which has not yet been released publicly, will be issued soon
and take effect within 90 days. It will require that government contractors
bring IT equipment to recyclers certified through federally recognized programs,
said Stephen Leeds, senior sustainability officer at the U.S. General Services
Administration.
The pending regulation will apply to thousands of government contractors like
AT&T Inc., T +0.47%SAP AG SAP.XE +0.34%and Verizon
Communications Inc., VZ +0.49%who work
with equipment paid for through federal funds. The date of enactment hasn't been
established, but it will occur within three months, according to Mr. Leeds.
The rule is the latest effort by the Obama administration to curb the growth
of electronic waste, much of which ends up in landfills in the developing
world.
"The federal government has made the determination that disposal of
non-functioning electronics, done incorrectly, is a significant risk to the
public," Mr. Leeds said. "The federal government wants to set an example."
Earlier this month the federal government, America's biggest electronics
customer with an annual IT budget of nearly $80 billion, applied the ban on
tech-dumping to its own agencies.
In 2011, the federal government issued at least 140,000 IT equipment
contracts, worth at least $11 billion, to outside organizations, according to a
Wall Street Journal review of data available on www.USAspending.gov. The
Journal's review included equipment such as data processors, computers and
mainframes, but not more highly specialized gear, such as military systems and
laboratory hardware.
The Obama administration's e-waste push began last summer when the
Environmental Protection Agency released a National Strategy for Electronic
Stewardship. As part of the plan, the EPA received commitments from device
makers Sprint Nextel Corp.,
S -2.35%Dell Inc., DELL +0.60%and Sony Corp. SNE -1.15%to
recycle all warranty and return items it gets back from customers, by 2014.
The program is to address what experts call a growing health risk both for
America and developing nations. The equipment is laden with toxins such as
mercury and lead, and most of it ends up getting dumped or shipped to poor
countries. The EPA estimates that in 2009, 2.37 million tons of computer
equipment were thrown away, but only a quarter of it was recycled. Much of the
rest ended up in U.S. landfills or in developing nations, said Oladele
Ogunseitan, an expert on the issue and chair of public health at the University
of California at Irvine.
"When the products are thrown in the trash they endanger people through
exposure," said Mr. Ogunseitan. "They contain lead which we've known for
centuries is a dangerous metal. There is no law that prevents a company from
just tossing a product."
Mr. Ogunseitan said he would still like to see a federal law broadly
prohibiting the dumping of IT equipment. Such rules have been enacted in the
European Union.
He said the government contractor mandate will create large changes across
the private sector. Government contractors often have private sector clients,
and may begin to use the same recycling practices across their entire
businesses. And the flood of new electronic recycling could make the process
more efficient, allowing recyclers to pay companies in exchange for capturing
valuable parts, strengthening the incentive.
"It's really a huge step," Mr. Ogunseitan said.—This
article is from WSJ.com's CIO Journal, a new premium digital edition launching
soon.
As our modern world becomes ever more entwined with energy intensive technology, environmental impact and its effect on an organization's bottom line become increasingly important. The Sustainable Technologies Design Group offers services vital to the success of technology projects with a cradle to cradle strategy that works to achieve a balance between a client’s core mission and its environmental values. We provide you with the latest information about the technology world and sustainability.
Friday, March 30, 2012
Monday, February 20, 2012
It's Too Easy Being Green: Living high on the Prius Fallacy: Pretending that more 'benign' consumption is good for the environment
By DAVID OWEN
A favorite trick of people who consider themselves friends of the environment is reframing luxury consumption preferences as gifts to humanity. A new car, a solar-powered swimming-pool heater, a 200-mile-an-hour train that makes intercity travel more pleasant and less expensive, better-tasting tomatoes—these are the sacrifices we're prepared to make for the future of the planet.
CochranGlobal energy use is growing faster than population. It's expected to double by midcentury, and most of the growth will be in fossil fuels.
Our capacity for self-deception can be breathtaking. In 2010, a forward-thinking friend of mine took me for a ride in a Ford Fusion, a gas-electric hybrid that gets more miles per gallon than comparable cars with conventional engines. His dashboard fuel gauge filled with images of intertwining green foliage, a symbolic representation of the environmental benefits we were apparently dispensing from the tailpipe as we aimlessly drove around.
I felt a twinge of idiotic virtue while in that car, as I also do when I leave an especially large pile of cans, bottles and newspapers at the end of my driveway for the recycling truck. Like many concerned Americans, I'm susceptible to the Prius Fallacy: a belief that switching to an ostensibly more benign form of consumption turns consumption itself into a boon for the environment.
If only all big problems could be tackled with product substitution. We're consumers at heart, and our response to difficulties of all kinds usually involves consumption in one form or another. My car's a problem? Tell me what to drive instead. Wrong water heater? I'll switch. Kitchen counters not green? I'll replace them. The challenge arises when consumption itself is at issue. The world faces a long list of environmental challenges, yet most so-called solutions are either irrelevant or make the real problems worse. That's the conundrum facing anyone who yearns for "sustainability."
Energy efficiency—which has been called "the fifth fuel"—is especially problematic. In 2010, I flew from New York to Melbourne, Australia. My plane consumed a lot of energy and had a big carbon footprint; in fact, my proportional share of the jet fuel burned during my round trip was greater than the total amount of energy that the average resident of the Earth uses, for all purposes, in a year.
“A new car and better-tasting tomatoes: These are the sacrifices we're prepared to make for the future of the planet.”But the environmental problem with modern flying isn't that our airplanes are wasteful; it is that we have made flying so efficient that the main impediment to traveling 10,000 miles isn't the cost but the unpleasantness of spending a whole day watching movies and sleeping in a cushioned seat. When people talk about reducing the energy and carbon impact of air travel, they almost always focus on improving the design of engines, wings and fuselages, or on using computer systems to shorten flight paths and eliminate delays. By this point, though, the total potential gain in any of those areas is small. Today's passenger jets are already something like 75% more fuel efficient than the jets of the early 1960s, and the physics of flying imposes a low ceiling on further advances.
The main effect of additional engineering improvements will be the same as for all such improvements in the past: to make travel easier, cheaper, more convenient and more attractive—thus encouraging us to do more of it. That's a good thing for those of us who love to play golf on other continents, but it doesn't move the world closer to resolving a long list of energy, climate and environmental challenges. In fact, it pushes the solutions further away.
Even if you think that climate change is a left-wing crock, this ought to be a matter of gnawing concern. Global energy use is growing faster than population. It's expected to double by midcentury, and most of the growth will be in fossil fuels. Disasters like the BP oil spill attract world-wide attention, but the main environmental, economic and geopolitical challenge with petroleum isn't the oil that goes into the ocean; it is the oil we continue to use exactly as we intend.
Many people assume that we'll conquer our addiction through technological innovation. But engineering breakthroughs not only enable machines to do more work with less fuel; they also make it possible to manufacture new and desirable products, swelling our contentment as consumers and further increasing our dependence.
Many supposedly green strategies pose a similar conundrum. Consider locavorism—the idea that it's irresponsible to eat food that was produced more than a short distance from where it's eaten. But shipping is almost always a trivial contributor to the environmental impact of eating. Much more ecologically meaningful is what we eat, how it was grown, how much irrigation it required, what was sprayed on it and how it was prepared. Locavorism is appealing because it feels enlightened but entails no actual sacrifice. A colleague of mine produces her own eggs by raising chickens in her backyard. But she also drives individual hens to the veterinarian, giving her breakfasts an impressively huge carbon footprint.
Even when we act with what we believe to be the best of intentions, our efforts are often at cross-purposes with our goals. Increasing the efficiency of lighting encourages us to illuminate more. Relieving traffic congestion reduces the appeal of public transit and fuels the growth of suburban sprawl. A robust market for ethanol exacerbates global hunger by diverting cropland from the production of food. We may believe that we care about the world's deepening environmental challenges and are merely waiting for scientists, environmentalists, politicians and others to come to their senses and implement effective solutions. But we already know more than enough, and we have for a long time. We just don't like the answers.
Flying from New York to Melbourne in 1958, on a propeller plane, consumed more energy per person than my 2010 flight did, but it was "greener" nevertheless. It required stops in San Francisco, Hawaii, Canton Island, Fiji and Sydney, and it cost each coach passenger something like a quarter of that year's U.S. median family income, each way. If comparably slow and costly flights were the only travel option available today, I and almost all of my fellow passengers would certainly have stayed home: a gain for the environment, though a loss for the global economy. The only unambiguously effective method of reducing the long-term carbon and energy cost of air travel is to fly less—a behavioral change, not a technological one.But where's the fun in going nowhere?
Mr. Owen is the author of "The Conundrum: How Scientific Innovation, Increased Efficiency, and Good Intentions Can Make Our Energy and Climate Problems Worse," from which this piece is adapted.
A favorite trick of people who consider themselves friends of the environment is reframing luxury consumption preferences as gifts to humanity. A new car, a solar-powered swimming-pool heater, a 200-mile-an-hour train that makes intercity travel more pleasant and less expensive, better-tasting tomatoes—these are the sacrifices we're prepared to make for the future of the planet.
CochranGlobal energy use is growing faster than population. It's expected to double by midcentury, and most of the growth will be in fossil fuels.
Our capacity for self-deception can be breathtaking. In 2010, a forward-thinking friend of mine took me for a ride in a Ford Fusion, a gas-electric hybrid that gets more miles per gallon than comparable cars with conventional engines. His dashboard fuel gauge filled with images of intertwining green foliage, a symbolic representation of the environmental benefits we were apparently dispensing from the tailpipe as we aimlessly drove around.
I felt a twinge of idiotic virtue while in that car, as I also do when I leave an especially large pile of cans, bottles and newspapers at the end of my driveway for the recycling truck. Like many concerned Americans, I'm susceptible to the Prius Fallacy: a belief that switching to an ostensibly more benign form of consumption turns consumption itself into a boon for the environment.
If only all big problems could be tackled with product substitution. We're consumers at heart, and our response to difficulties of all kinds usually involves consumption in one form or another. My car's a problem? Tell me what to drive instead. Wrong water heater? I'll switch. Kitchen counters not green? I'll replace them. The challenge arises when consumption itself is at issue. The world faces a long list of environmental challenges, yet most so-called solutions are either irrelevant or make the real problems worse. That's the conundrum facing anyone who yearns for "sustainability."
Energy efficiency—which has been called "the fifth fuel"—is especially problematic. In 2010, I flew from New York to Melbourne, Australia. My plane consumed a lot of energy and had a big carbon footprint; in fact, my proportional share of the jet fuel burned during my round trip was greater than the total amount of energy that the average resident of the Earth uses, for all purposes, in a year.
“A new car and better-tasting tomatoes: These are the sacrifices we're prepared to make for the future of the planet.”But the environmental problem with modern flying isn't that our airplanes are wasteful; it is that we have made flying so efficient that the main impediment to traveling 10,000 miles isn't the cost but the unpleasantness of spending a whole day watching movies and sleeping in a cushioned seat. When people talk about reducing the energy and carbon impact of air travel, they almost always focus on improving the design of engines, wings and fuselages, or on using computer systems to shorten flight paths and eliminate delays. By this point, though, the total potential gain in any of those areas is small. Today's passenger jets are already something like 75% more fuel efficient than the jets of the early 1960s, and the physics of flying imposes a low ceiling on further advances.
The main effect of additional engineering improvements will be the same as for all such improvements in the past: to make travel easier, cheaper, more convenient and more attractive—thus encouraging us to do more of it. That's a good thing for those of us who love to play golf on other continents, but it doesn't move the world closer to resolving a long list of energy, climate and environmental challenges. In fact, it pushes the solutions further away.
Even if you think that climate change is a left-wing crock, this ought to be a matter of gnawing concern. Global energy use is growing faster than population. It's expected to double by midcentury, and most of the growth will be in fossil fuels. Disasters like the BP oil spill attract world-wide attention, but the main environmental, economic and geopolitical challenge with petroleum isn't the oil that goes into the ocean; it is the oil we continue to use exactly as we intend.
Many people assume that we'll conquer our addiction through technological innovation. But engineering breakthroughs not only enable machines to do more work with less fuel; they also make it possible to manufacture new and desirable products, swelling our contentment as consumers and further increasing our dependence.
Many supposedly green strategies pose a similar conundrum. Consider locavorism—the idea that it's irresponsible to eat food that was produced more than a short distance from where it's eaten. But shipping is almost always a trivial contributor to the environmental impact of eating. Much more ecologically meaningful is what we eat, how it was grown, how much irrigation it required, what was sprayed on it and how it was prepared. Locavorism is appealing because it feels enlightened but entails no actual sacrifice. A colleague of mine produces her own eggs by raising chickens in her backyard. But she also drives individual hens to the veterinarian, giving her breakfasts an impressively huge carbon footprint.
Even when we act with what we believe to be the best of intentions, our efforts are often at cross-purposes with our goals. Increasing the efficiency of lighting encourages us to illuminate more. Relieving traffic congestion reduces the appeal of public transit and fuels the growth of suburban sprawl. A robust market for ethanol exacerbates global hunger by diverting cropland from the production of food. We may believe that we care about the world's deepening environmental challenges and are merely waiting for scientists, environmentalists, politicians and others to come to their senses and implement effective solutions. But we already know more than enough, and we have for a long time. We just don't like the answers.
Flying from New York to Melbourne in 1958, on a propeller plane, consumed more energy per person than my 2010 flight did, but it was "greener" nevertheless. It required stops in San Francisco, Hawaii, Canton Island, Fiji and Sydney, and it cost each coach passenger something like a quarter of that year's U.S. median family income, each way. If comparably slow and costly flights were the only travel option available today, I and almost all of my fellow passengers would certainly have stayed home: a gain for the environment, though a loss for the global economy. The only unambiguously effective method of reducing the long-term carbon and energy cost of air travel is to fly less—a behavioral change, not a technological one.But where's the fun in going nowhere?
Mr. Owen is the author of "The Conundrum: How Scientific Innovation, Increased Efficiency, and Good Intentions Can Make Our Energy and Climate Problems Worse," from which this piece is adapted.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Digital Debut
Digital Debut:
CLEVELAND, OH—When “The Life of Galileo” opened in the newly revamped, 500-seat Allen Theatre at PlayhouseSquare, Aviom’s AllFrame Multi-Modular I/O System, part of the theater’s Pro64 Audio Network, was waiting in the wings, ready to make its debut during the inaugural season of Cleveland Play House (CPH)’s new theater.“Due to the historic nature of the Allen Theatre, the recent transformation entailed building a shell inside the existing building, while still maintaining the original architecture,” said Raymond Kent, CTS LEED AP director of Westlake Reed Leskosky (WRL)’s Innovative Technology Design Group, an associate principal with WRL, and the lead AV systems designer for the project. When it came to redesigning the audio system within the Allen Theatre, Kent selected the Pro64 Audio Network and the AllFrame Multi-Modular I/O System from Aviom in particular because of the advantages it offered over a traditional analog system, as well as other digital audio networks.The Aviom Pro64 system is the center of the theater’s audio network, connecting the DiGiCo SD9 digital console in the control booth to locations around the theater. An Allen and Heath GL2200 console does the same for the lab theater. Throughout the theater, there are currently three AllFrames installed at specific points, including the orchestra pit and stage, and two that can be placed anywhere that they are needed for a particular production. In addition, there are several locations throughout the theater where Pro64 Cat-6 inputs are installed. These run to Pro64 MH10 merger hubs to provide more connection points for the loose AllFrames. Those that are installed are located at upstage right, upstage left, and in the mix pit. A Cat-6 cable connects each AllFrame to the front-ofhouse console, and input/output connections can be selected from the different locations as needed.The audio system also integrates several Crown and QSC amplifiers between the second stage area and the lab theater, as well as Biamp paging systems.The Allen Theatre’s network consists of six F6 Modular I/O Frames, multi-purpose network frames with six field-configurable I/O card slots and integrated Cat-5e (or Cat-6) and fiber optic connectivity. The F6s can be powered through a four-pin XLR connector, a Euroblock connector, or one of the Cat-5e A-Net ports. In each F6, there are up to six AllFrame modules installed. Most of the units are designed as 16x8 with four C4m mic/line input cards and two C4o output cards. But the number of each card and the type can be changed in each of the F6s to configure the system differently for different productions as needed. This flexibility gives the theater the ability to design the best possible system for a given production with ease.In addition to the Aviom AllFrames, the theater has Pro64 rack-mounted I/O components, including a number of 6416i input modules, as well as several 6416o v.2 output modules and 6416dio digital I/O modules. They also have an RCI remote control interface and MCS mic control surface combination in use at the console to remotely control the mic pres in the system. Various Extron units distribute video.
CLEVELAND, OH—When “The Life of Galileo” opened in the newly revamped, 500-seat Allen Theatre at PlayhouseSquare, Aviom’s AllFrame Multi-Modular I/O System, part of the theater’s Pro64 Audio Network, was waiting in the wings, ready to make its debut during the inaugural season of Cleveland Play House (CPH)’s new theater.“Due to the historic nature of the Allen Theatre, the recent transformation entailed building a shell inside the existing building, while still maintaining the original architecture,” said Raymond Kent, CTS LEED AP director of Westlake Reed Leskosky (WRL)’s Innovative Technology Design Group, an associate principal with WRL, and the lead AV systems designer for the project. When it came to redesigning the audio system within the Allen Theatre, Kent selected the Pro64 Audio Network and the AllFrame Multi-Modular I/O System from Aviom in particular because of the advantages it offered over a traditional analog system, as well as other digital audio networks.The Aviom Pro64 system is the center of the theater’s audio network, connecting the DiGiCo SD9 digital console in the control booth to locations around the theater. An Allen and Heath GL2200 console does the same for the lab theater. Throughout the theater, there are currently three AllFrames installed at specific points, including the orchestra pit and stage, and two that can be placed anywhere that they are needed for a particular production. In addition, there are several locations throughout the theater where Pro64 Cat-6 inputs are installed. These run to Pro64 MH10 merger hubs to provide more connection points for the loose AllFrames. Those that are installed are located at upstage right, upstage left, and in the mix pit. A Cat-6 cable connects each AllFrame to the front-ofhouse console, and input/output connections can be selected from the different locations as needed.The audio system also integrates several Crown and QSC amplifiers between the second stage area and the lab theater, as well as Biamp paging systems.The Allen Theatre’s network consists of six F6 Modular I/O Frames, multi-purpose network frames with six field-configurable I/O card slots and integrated Cat-5e (or Cat-6) and fiber optic connectivity. The F6s can be powered through a four-pin XLR connector, a Euroblock connector, or one of the Cat-5e A-Net ports. In each F6, there are up to six AllFrame modules installed. Most of the units are designed as 16x8 with four C4m mic/line input cards and two C4o output cards. But the number of each card and the type can be changed in each of the F6s to configure the system differently for different productions as needed. This flexibility gives the theater the ability to design the best possible system for a given production with ease.In addition to the Aviom AllFrames, the theater has Pro64 rack-mounted I/O components, including a number of 6416i input modules, as well as several 6416o v.2 output modules and 6416dio digital I/O modules. They also have an RCI remote control interface and MCS mic control surface combination in use at the console to remotely control the mic pres in the system. Various Extron units distribute video.
Saturday, July 23, 2011
International Green Construction Code and its Impact on AV
By Raymond Kent, CTS, LEED AP BD+C, DMC-D, EAVA, ECA
You may not know it even with all of the news and articles on the green building movement, but there is soon to be another building code that will impact what we do as AV and technology professionals. This past June, Randal A. Lemke, PhD. – Executive Director and CEO of InfoComm International - announced at the annual InfoComm trade show the creation of the STEP Foundation™ to oversee the running of the Sustainable Technology Environments Program™ (STEP™) (See Next Steps in Green AV and http://www.infocomm.org/cps/rde/xchg/infocomm/hs.xsl/17212.htm for more information). This important initiative created and sponsored by InfoComm will be a critical path to successfully navigating the International Green Construction Code™ (IGCC™)
If you have never heard of the IGCC™ here is the skinny. The IGCC™ document is currently in its second public review and was created because of recognition at all levels of Government and Building Safety Professionals that a mandatory baseline of codes addressing green construction was needed. This code will provide a framework for the integration of sustainability, safety, and performance. The foundation of this code was the 2012 International Codes using minimum prescriptive and performance based provisions working as an overlay to the other International Code Council Family of Codes and Standards that can be increased through a selection of jurisdictional requirements and project electives. This recognizes that the Code be a model that addresses the green market segment beyond those captured by rating systems such as Green Globe or LEED and is an enforceable entity that is usable and adoptable.
Currently ASHRAE, The US Green Building Council, and the Illuminating Engineering society all support the adoption of the International Green Construction Code. Because of this partnership, ASHRAE/USGBC/IES Standard 189.1 was created as a Jurisdictional Compliance Option of the IGCC™. States and local jurisdictions within the US may currently elect to adopt Standard 189.1 as a Jurisdiction Compliance Option enacting the Code as a guideline to their current building code standards. By adopting this, there is a real opportunity for audiovisual professionals to step into the process and be a real influence on the sustainability of a project.
So what does this mean for us in the AV industry? Several sections relate to technology and the way we do business that it cannot do anything but impact how systems are designed and integrated. It also means a deeper partnership with our design team partners – Architects, MEP Engineers, and the Client.
For starters section 502.3 Storage of lamps, batteries, and electronics requires that a space be provided for storage of used gear prior to being disposed of in the way that the Authority Having Jurisdiction requires. This will require planning and communication with the design team to determine the right type, size and other requirements of that storage are. It is also a great opportunity to work with the client on exactly how to discard and recycle their unwanted electronics in an environmentally responsible way. It is also a great opportunity to start a technology master plan discussion with your clients as this deals with End-of-Life issues for technology.
Chapter 6 – Energy Conservation, Efficiency, and Atmospheric Quality has the greatest impact on what we do. This section regulates the design, construction, commissioning, and operations of buildings and their sites for effective use of energy. InfoComm’s Energy Power Management Standard as well as STEP™ should play a key role in this as it is one of the first times a building code has directly dealt with the plug load side of the equation in any energy calculations.
Section 602 – Energy Performance, Peak Power, and Reduced CO2e Emissions provides a zero energy performance index (zEPI) based on occupancy types. Currently the zEPI point of entry is 51 of a possible 100 however jurisdictions can elect to have a higher standard. The prescriptive and performance-based compliance details follow in sections 604-612 of the Code.
For example Section 604 – Energy Metering, Monitoring, and Reporting mandate that any building consuming energy shall comply with this Code section. It provides the requirements that the buildings energy use, production, and any reclamation of energy be measured, monitored, and reported. This includes the design of power distributions systems that can not only isolate load types but require the installation of data enabled metering systems that provide their information to a public display. This information must be made available to the building owners, the tenant, and the public. The data shall include energy use, energy demand, and emissions associated with the energy use as a whole. Who better to provide the display and the infrastructure to support it than the AV industry.
Plug loads in Section 604.3.4 – Plug Loads (read that as computers, AV equipment, copiers, cell phone chargers, etc.) can be measured and reported via a sub-meter or other equivalent approved device. There are manufacturers within the AV industry that have the capability to provide this required feedback right now and it will be part of our AV solution. There is an opportunity here to be a value added component to the design team right from the start.
To me one of the more striking provision of this code section is 604.3.5 Process Loads. This category takes into account and provides separate metering and reporting for any single load associated with activities within the building provided they exceed 5% of the total energy use of the building. This includes data centers and can also include large AV head ends that are energy intensive such as museum, performing arts, command and control, or broadcast applications. The metering must be connected to a data acquisition and management system capable of storing 3 years worth of data and must be available to be displayed in real time. The display (604.7 Energy Display) is called out as a permanent, readily accessible and visible display adjacent to the main building entrance or on a publically available website. It has to provide the current energy demand for the whole building by fuel type, the average peak demand for the previous day and the same day from the previous year, and the total energy usage for the last 18 months.
Section 609 – Building Electrical Power and Lighting Systems part of the IGCC™ details the controls required for energy management. 609.6 Plug Load Controls is the section that most impacts our industry. Receptacles and electrical outlets are required to be controlled via an occupancy sensor or time switch. There are provisions requiring switched receptacles for audiovisual systems (609.6.4) that include displays, projectors and audio amplifiers in Group B and E classrooms, conference and meeting rooms, and multi-purpose rooms to be controlled by an occupancy sensor. This will require some form of room automation system. This could be from an AV manufacturer that specializes in controls or a Honeywell, Siemens, or Johnson Controls. The critical path for our industry is to be at the table early so systems are not designed that simply shut off power to the switch without taking into account damage that could happen to that plug load equipment if not properly power sequenced.
Particular requirements based on installed equipment and appliances are detailed in Section 610 – Specific Appliances and Equipment. There are a number of components in installed audiovisual systems that would fall into Section 610.3 – Portable Appliances and Equipment. These devices that are not permanently connected to the building energy supply system (i.e.: plug loads) and are not listed in table 610.1 of this section must comply with Section 610.3.1 - Energy Star Appliances and Equipment. This does not mean that everything must be an Energy Star appliance or equipment but must be Energy Star eligible. This could include monitors, projectors, and other devices that are seeking Energy Star certification. This also includes some Class D amplifiers, D to A converters, network server equipment such as switches and routers and other electronics that may be part of an audiovisual system. The requirement is to provide and maintain an on-site list of these installed products indicating the corresponding rated power whether or not it is Energy Star qualified or not.
Other impactful areas of this Code include section 807 – Acoustics. Sound transmission between buildings and tenant spaces must be controlled per this section. The system designer will have to now design sound systems that comply with these requirements. Outdoor to interior sound transmission ratings must meet certain requirements designed by the building architects and engineers but quite often will impact what we do particularly if the system being designed extends to exterior spaces. This must be coordinated with the design team as to the intent of the sound system and their acoustic impacts on this envelop to ensure proper design. The same holds true for interior sound transmission where the STC rating is a minimum of 50. Classrooms or multiple adjoining conference rooms or office spaces will be potentially affected by sound systems for these spaces and also must be coordinated.
While in my opinion, there is nothing in here that is beyond comprehension or just good common sense. It certainly will provide the necessary inclusion of AV and technology designers as part of the framework of the project. If you want to read the Public Review 2 of the Code check out this link: http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/IGCC/Pages/default.aspx..
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
It's Still Rock and Roll to Me
It all starts with a thing. it could be an object, such as a book or a piece of clothing. It could be a sound, such as a voice recording or a music track. Each has a story to tell. The depth at which that story is communicated to the masses differs depending on several factors, including the medium. Museums, theme parks, and even corporations struggle with storytelling, which can be imperative to their success.
In today's technology-driven world, these organizations have new tools at their disposal to help in their storytelling—video, audio, show control, virtual reality. These tools can take a museum patron, for instance, to places that bring a story to life. Today, someone can not only look at a dinosaur bone at a Smithsonian Museum, but also enter a world complete with the sounds and smells of the Jurassic period. It's the job of the design team, working with the storytellers, to communicate that vision.
Recently, I had the pleasure of being the lead AV, lighting, and show control designer on one of America's iconic museums—the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum in Cleveland, Ohio—as it examined and refined how it told its own stories. Over the years, the massive I.M. Pei–designed structure, which opened almost 16 years ago, presented challenges in terms of how the museum staff could exhibit its collection of artifacts, particularly given its large glazed lobby. In addition, the museum staff discovered that wayfinding was a major concern. Many patrons, it turned out, hadn't realized that the building was both a hall of fame and a museum under the same roof. People could miss entire sections of artifacts in Ertegun Hall, for example, where the majority of the collection is displayed, due to poor wayfinding and lighting.
These problems were made worse by the building's outdated audiovisual, lighting, and presentation technology, most of which was original to the building. Terry Stewart, president and CEO of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, and his staff decided it was time for an update. "It's fairly simple," Stewart said about the project. "We try to make sure that the music and the detritus around how music is created—whether they're instruments, costumes, or lyrics—are preserved and exhibited here. A great deal of what the renovation is about is reacting to what we've learned about the building during the last 16 years."
Architecture firm Westlake Reed Leskosky was added to the team based on its experience as a practice leader in performing and cultural arts. (And it helped that the firm is headquartered just blocks from the Rock Hall.) The team, led by managing principal Paul Westlake, FAIA, and project director Josh Haney, AIA, was guided by the Rock Hall's mission statement, which basically spells out that it sees itself not only as a source of entertainment, but also one of education. We had to keep this mission in mind when we evaluated how best to accomplish the Rock Hall's goals within its $5.5 million budget.
One of the biggest challenges when working in an existing structure, especially one designed by an iconic architect, is determining how the architecture relates to the storytelling. Westlake described the scenario as "architecture needing to provide the backdrop and pathways that lead a patron directly where you want them to go and hide where they should not go."
As designers, we had to walk a line between our contribution, especially in terms of AV technology, and the museum's contribution, in terms of the content and artifacts. Technology such as digital signage, video displays, audio, and lighting needed to work in concert with the architecture to tell a story. But it couldn't become the story. Here's how Stewart put it:
"As far back as when the museum was built, we felt we had a balance of technology and static exhibits. We think you need to strike that balance. Some folks are going in the direction of strictly interactive and technology-driven museums and we don't think that's correct. Rock and roll is an art form represented by great totems or relics, meaning guitars, clothing, and more. The spirit of the music is captured in those relics. At the same time, it's very hard to tell the entire story—and it is certainly hard to exhibit the art form itself, which is music—without the creative and ever-evolving technology of the day. We've lived so long in this day of interactivity, personal computers, cell phones, and everything else that we are driven to technology because it's what people expect."
Ultimately, the technology scope of the Rock Hall project was pretty straightforward. We were to provide a cohesive, unified system that was bulletproof and easy to maintain. In the process, we had to deal with poor acoustics, old or insufficient infrastructure, outdated content in obsolete formats, and issues about how the museum technology staff was going to operate and maintain the new systems. Not to mention, we had to factor in the museum's desire to leave a green footprint.
The system's backbone is based on Alcorn McBride's V16 Pro Show Controllers, linked over a new fiber-optic network. The controllers trigger several Alcorn McBride Digital Binloop HD DVM/HD-Pro video players and Digital Binloop audio players. This setup gives the museum the flexibility to take individual exhibits off-line without impacting that daily operation of the facility or drastically reducing the visitor experience.
The system also ties into the museum's new theatrical-based exhibit lighting system, which is controlled via Alcorn McBride Light Cue Pros running DMX 512 to Altman Smart Track fixtures, retrofitted with Cree LED lamps and Philips Color Kinetics eW Cove Linear LED fixtures for case lights. Traditional incandescent track fixtures were used on a selective basis where the light quality of an LED lamp was not sufficient for a specific artifact. This solution gives the museum control of lighting at the fixture level. It also reduces the potential damage to artifacts by virtually eliminating infrared and heat. And because the lamps have a 50,000-hour life span, it reduced maintenance as well. Yes, the cost to upgrade to LED was almost double that of more-traditional lighting designs, but the energy savings and the benefit to the artifacts proved substantial.
Throughout, displays and projection systems were upgraded to 1080p. In some cases their location and integration were rethought in order to better tell the story without being intrusive. And the new audio was planned carefully to minimize the acoustical impact of the reconfigured flow of the museum.
Before the renovation, audio bleed was a major issue. We addressed it with a combination of custom-built Brown Innovations focusing array loudspeakers and K-Array KKVB-50 mini line arrays strategically placed to keep patterns tight, give better directionality, and minimize bleed. For example, there's a line of exhibit casework called City Scenes in which each section of case represents a different city in the country and its musical influences. Prior to the renovation this area was a cacophony of unintelligible sound that overlapped to distraction, and the video displays were lost within poorly lit and overcrowded casework. By using the KKVB-50 line arrays, centering the video displays, and reworking the lighting, we created a series of distinct exhibits that tell a linear story and provide a much better experience.
You see, when you integrate technology into exhibits—whether in museums or a corporate lobby—it becomes part of the story, rather than an object on which the story is told. Technology for technology's sake can come across as an afterthought. About the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum, Westlake said, "The architectural changes and technology helped to shape distinct rooms and experiences with their own individual characteristics."
If you haven't been to the Rock Hall in a while, come back and reexperience it. If you've never been, you should. It has a great story to tell.
In today's technology-driven world, these organizations have new tools at their disposal to help in their storytelling—video, audio, show control, virtual reality. These tools can take a museum patron, for instance, to places that bring a story to life. Today, someone can not only look at a dinosaur bone at a Smithsonian Museum, but also enter a world complete with the sounds and smells of the Jurassic period. It's the job of the design team, working with the storytellers, to communicate that vision.
Recently, I had the pleasure of being the lead AV, lighting, and show control designer on one of America's iconic museums—the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum in Cleveland, Ohio—as it examined and refined how it told its own stories. Over the years, the massive I.M. Pei–designed structure, which opened almost 16 years ago, presented challenges in terms of how the museum staff could exhibit its collection of artifacts, particularly given its large glazed lobby. In addition, the museum staff discovered that wayfinding was a major concern. Many patrons, it turned out, hadn't realized that the building was both a hall of fame and a museum under the same roof. People could miss entire sections of artifacts in Ertegun Hall, for example, where the majority of the collection is displayed, due to poor wayfinding and lighting.
These problems were made worse by the building's outdated audiovisual, lighting, and presentation technology, most of which was original to the building. Terry Stewart, president and CEO of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, and his staff decided it was time for an update. "It's fairly simple," Stewart said about the project. "We try to make sure that the music and the detritus around how music is created—whether they're instruments, costumes, or lyrics—are preserved and exhibited here. A great deal of what the renovation is about is reacting to what we've learned about the building during the last 16 years."
Architecture firm Westlake Reed Leskosky was added to the team based on its experience as a practice leader in performing and cultural arts. (And it helped that the firm is headquartered just blocks from the Rock Hall.) The team, led by managing principal Paul Westlake, FAIA, and project director Josh Haney, AIA, was guided by the Rock Hall's mission statement, which basically spells out that it sees itself not only as a source of entertainment, but also one of education. We had to keep this mission in mind when we evaluated how best to accomplish the Rock Hall's goals within its $5.5 million budget.
One of the biggest challenges when working in an existing structure, especially one designed by an iconic architect, is determining how the architecture relates to the storytelling. Westlake described the scenario as "architecture needing to provide the backdrop and pathways that lead a patron directly where you want them to go and hide where they should not go."
As designers, we had to walk a line between our contribution, especially in terms of AV technology, and the museum's contribution, in terms of the content and artifacts. Technology such as digital signage, video displays, audio, and lighting needed to work in concert with the architecture to tell a story. But it couldn't become the story. Here's how Stewart put it:
"As far back as when the museum was built, we felt we had a balance of technology and static exhibits. We think you need to strike that balance. Some folks are going in the direction of strictly interactive and technology-driven museums and we don't think that's correct. Rock and roll is an art form represented by great totems or relics, meaning guitars, clothing, and more. The spirit of the music is captured in those relics. At the same time, it's very hard to tell the entire story—and it is certainly hard to exhibit the art form itself, which is music—without the creative and ever-evolving technology of the day. We've lived so long in this day of interactivity, personal computers, cell phones, and everything else that we are driven to technology because it's what people expect."
Ultimately, the technology scope of the Rock Hall project was pretty straightforward. We were to provide a cohesive, unified system that was bulletproof and easy to maintain. In the process, we had to deal with poor acoustics, old or insufficient infrastructure, outdated content in obsolete formats, and issues about how the museum technology staff was going to operate and maintain the new systems. Not to mention, we had to factor in the museum's desire to leave a green footprint.
The system's backbone is based on Alcorn McBride's V16 Pro Show Controllers, linked over a new fiber-optic network. The controllers trigger several Alcorn McBride Digital Binloop HD DVM/HD-Pro video players and Digital Binloop audio players. This setup gives the museum the flexibility to take individual exhibits off-line without impacting that daily operation of the facility or drastically reducing the visitor experience.
The system also ties into the museum's new theatrical-based exhibit lighting system, which is controlled via Alcorn McBride Light Cue Pros running DMX 512 to Altman Smart Track fixtures, retrofitted with Cree LED lamps and Philips Color Kinetics eW Cove Linear LED fixtures for case lights. Traditional incandescent track fixtures were used on a selective basis where the light quality of an LED lamp was not sufficient for a specific artifact. This solution gives the museum control of lighting at the fixture level. It also reduces the potential damage to artifacts by virtually eliminating infrared and heat. And because the lamps have a 50,000-hour life span, it reduced maintenance as well. Yes, the cost to upgrade to LED was almost double that of more-traditional lighting designs, but the energy savings and the benefit to the artifacts proved substantial.
Throughout, displays and projection systems were upgraded to 1080p. In some cases their location and integration were rethought in order to better tell the story without being intrusive. And the new audio was planned carefully to minimize the acoustical impact of the reconfigured flow of the museum.
Before the renovation, audio bleed was a major issue. We addressed it with a combination of custom-built Brown Innovations focusing array loudspeakers and K-Array KKVB-50 mini line arrays strategically placed to keep patterns tight, give better directionality, and minimize bleed. For example, there's a line of exhibit casework called City Scenes in which each section of case represents a different city in the country and its musical influences. Prior to the renovation this area was a cacophony of unintelligible sound that overlapped to distraction, and the video displays were lost within poorly lit and overcrowded casework. By using the KKVB-50 line arrays, centering the video displays, and reworking the lighting, we created a series of distinct exhibits that tell a linear story and provide a much better experience.
You see, when you integrate technology into exhibits—whether in museums or a corporate lobby—it becomes part of the story, rather than an object on which the story is told. Technology for technology's sake can come across as an afterthought. About the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum, Westlake said, "The architectural changes and technology helped to shape distinct rooms and experiences with their own individual characteristics."
If you haven't been to the Rock Hall in a while, come back and reexperience it. If you've never been, you should. It has a great story to tell.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Next Steps in Green AV
InfoComm International's answer to the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED program is imminent. One insider is optimistic about what it means for AV design and coordination.
By:Raymond Kent
Unless you've been living under a rock deep in the woods on top of a mountain, you know that buildings use a lot of energy. You know that for several years, architects and engineers have been beaten over the head with LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) or some other green rating system. Admittedly, most of the energy that buildings consume is used by HVAC and lighting systems–but not all of it.
If you're an AV and technology systems designer, you know that you can be a fly in the ointment. Your gear requires juice to operate and can sometimes fry an egg with its heat output, potentially increasing HVAC and power demands and thereby offsetting any desired energy savings from green building designs.
But it's not as if architects can simply cut technology out of the equation in the name of green. Long gone are the days when architects designed structures that were just structures. Nowadays, technology goes everywhere, and it's the end user who's driving its pervasiveness. As buildings become smarter and technology more prevalent, architects and engineers are faced with the fact that computers, audiovisual equipment, security and life-safety systems, and other devices on the plug-load side are a driving factor in several key building programming areas. Having a sustainable technology plan is no longer a luxury, but a necessity.
First, there are physical considerations. Technology requires space, square footage, a place to be. Along with other building programming requirements, such as offices, conference rooms, kitchens, and lobbies, technology spaces chew up their own precious corner of a building envelope. If the architect provides square footage for an equipment room, that room may also need humidity control, cooling, and power. Add a data center or control room for AV equipment, for example, and you could quickly see an uptick in energy demand.
Second, AV must factor into the building's overall carbon-footprint strategy. How energy efficient are the projector and the sound system in the conference room? How do you manage the energy demands of a large deployment of mediated spaces, as on a college or corporate campus? What is the cradle-to-grave impact of the project's technology components?
Third, designers must address ease-of-ownership. The end user has a responsibility to diligently turn off technology when it's not in use. This can be accomplished with a full-blown room-automation system, intelligent building technology, or by simply hitting off buttons (lots of them). What no one wants is a building owner who allows lights, computers, and AV systems to be left on 24/7, only to be disappointed when the building's energy efficiency isn't up to design goals.
So now the architect and engineer have been tasked with and spent countless hours designing a new net-zero LEED Platinum facility only to realize that many rooms will be very technology-centric (i.e., potentially energy inefficient). They have little choice but to look to the technology designers on the team to help reduce energy demands. This should be a value-added service of AV and technology designers and integrators.
These specialists should turn to the Sustainable Technology Environments Program (STEP) to deliver the service. In 2009, the InfoComm International board of directors authorized the creation of a Green AV Task Force whose mission was to create a body of knowledge and best practices for sustainable audiovisual design. Part of the mission included working to obtain Innovation Credits for AV systems within the U.S. Green Building Council's LEED framework, which has become part of the everyday vernacular in 21st-century architecture. When the task force started its work, it was hard to define a green AV system, so InfoComm's board of directors decided to scale back the pursuit of Innovation Credits and develop its own rating system (STEP) through a collaborative effort of 12 task force members, several of whom, including myself, are LEED APs.
So now where do we stand? STEP is scheduled to be released this year as a rating system for electronics-based technology projects rooted in sustainable design, integration, and operation (see "Green Stepping," July/August 2010). The task force is rapidly approaching completion of the initial draft of the credits and reference guide to be released for public comment in the very near future.
The ultimate success of the STEP initiative will be the recognition from the owner and architect side that early inclusion of technology designers is a must–especially when the project sets lofty goals for green building and energy efficiency. As a LEED AP who's worked the AV and technology angle for major international architecture firms, I've participated in many LEED design charrettes that didn't include a technology discussion simply because there wasn't a LEED credit specific to technology. And when I brought the topic up, I was often met with blank expressions. It is no wonder: LEED barely addresses nonbuilding technology.
STEP will, and it also will provide the opening that AV and technology professionals need to jump-start discussion early–when sustainability goals are set–in order to inform the rest of the design team about better choices. STEP will appreciate the entire life cycle of the systems that it seeks to prescribe, from planning and budgeting, to design and construction, to owner operations.
We're designing STEP to include everyone, even manufacturers, so that the AV and technology industries can develop more sustainable solutions and change blank stares to looks of recognition through tangible, actionable direction. It's our hope that STEP will also create for the industry a body of knowledge around formal best practices, as well as provide benchmark data that's generated as projects are completed. For owners, these elements of STEP will translate into real return on investment information and ongoing operations strategies that will ultimately affect their bottom lines.
Raymond Kent, CTS, Assoc. AIA, LEED AP BD+C, is an award-winning technology and entertainment designer who works with leading architecture and performing arts companies.
By:Raymond Kent
Unless you've been living under a rock deep in the woods on top of a mountain, you know that buildings use a lot of energy. You know that for several years, architects and engineers have been beaten over the head with LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) or some other green rating system. Admittedly, most of the energy that buildings consume is used by HVAC and lighting systems–but not all of it.
If you're an AV and technology systems designer, you know that you can be a fly in the ointment. Your gear requires juice to operate and can sometimes fry an egg with its heat output, potentially increasing HVAC and power demands and thereby offsetting any desired energy savings from green building designs.
But it's not as if architects can simply cut technology out of the equation in the name of green. Long gone are the days when architects designed structures that were just structures. Nowadays, technology goes everywhere, and it's the end user who's driving its pervasiveness. As buildings become smarter and technology more prevalent, architects and engineers are faced with the fact that computers, audiovisual equipment, security and life-safety systems, and other devices on the plug-load side are a driving factor in several key building programming areas. Having a sustainable technology plan is no longer a luxury, but a necessity.
First, there are physical considerations. Technology requires space, square footage, a place to be. Along with other building programming requirements, such as offices, conference rooms, kitchens, and lobbies, technology spaces chew up their own precious corner of a building envelope. If the architect provides square footage for an equipment room, that room may also need humidity control, cooling, and power. Add a data center or control room for AV equipment, for example, and you could quickly see an uptick in energy demand.
Second, AV must factor into the building's overall carbon-footprint strategy. How energy efficient are the projector and the sound system in the conference room? How do you manage the energy demands of a large deployment of mediated spaces, as on a college or corporate campus? What is the cradle-to-grave impact of the project's technology components?
Third, designers must address ease-of-ownership. The end user has a responsibility to diligently turn off technology when it's not in use. This can be accomplished with a full-blown room-automation system, intelligent building technology, or by simply hitting off buttons (lots of them). What no one wants is a building owner who allows lights, computers, and AV systems to be left on 24/7, only to be disappointed when the building's energy efficiency isn't up to design goals.
So now the architect and engineer have been tasked with and spent countless hours designing a new net-zero LEED Platinum facility only to realize that many rooms will be very technology-centric (i.e., potentially energy inefficient). They have little choice but to look to the technology designers on the team to help reduce energy demands. This should be a value-added service of AV and technology designers and integrators.
These specialists should turn to the Sustainable Technology Environments Program (STEP) to deliver the service. In 2009, the InfoComm International board of directors authorized the creation of a Green AV Task Force whose mission was to create a body of knowledge and best practices for sustainable audiovisual design. Part of the mission included working to obtain Innovation Credits for AV systems within the U.S. Green Building Council's LEED framework, which has become part of the everyday vernacular in 21st-century architecture. When the task force started its work, it was hard to define a green AV system, so InfoComm's board of directors decided to scale back the pursuit of Innovation Credits and develop its own rating system (STEP) through a collaborative effort of 12 task force members, several of whom, including myself, are LEED APs.
So now where do we stand? STEP is scheduled to be released this year as a rating system for electronics-based technology projects rooted in sustainable design, integration, and operation (see "Green Stepping," July/August 2010). The task force is rapidly approaching completion of the initial draft of the credits and reference guide to be released for public comment in the very near future.
The ultimate success of the STEP initiative will be the recognition from the owner and architect side that early inclusion of technology designers is a must–especially when the project sets lofty goals for green building and energy efficiency. As a LEED AP who's worked the AV and technology angle for major international architecture firms, I've participated in many LEED design charrettes that didn't include a technology discussion simply because there wasn't a LEED credit specific to technology. And when I brought the topic up, I was often met with blank expressions. It is no wonder: LEED barely addresses nonbuilding technology.
STEP will, and it also will provide the opening that AV and technology professionals need to jump-start discussion early–when sustainability goals are set–in order to inform the rest of the design team about better choices. STEP will appreciate the entire life cycle of the systems that it seeks to prescribe, from planning and budgeting, to design and construction, to owner operations.
We're designing STEP to include everyone, even manufacturers, so that the AV and technology industries can develop more sustainable solutions and change blank stares to looks of recognition through tangible, actionable direction. It's our hope that STEP will also create for the industry a body of knowledge around formal best practices, as well as provide benchmark data that's generated as projects are completed. For owners, these elements of STEP will translate into real return on investment information and ongoing operations strategies that will ultimately affect their bottom lines.
Raymond Kent, CTS, Assoc. AIA, LEED AP BD+C, is an award-winning technology and entertainment designer who works with leading architecture and performing arts companies.
Monday, March 28, 2011
A Day Made of Glass... Made possible by Corning.
This is pretty awesome stuff. How much will become a reality is yet to be seen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)