Until there is a WORLDWIDE system for certifying biofuels...that ensures that they are highly energy-positive (the fuel contains much more energy than was input), soil was not depleted of organic matter in their production, and more carbon-rich ecosystems were not destroyed (think rainforests)...the biodiesel component of this building I believe subtracts from its green-ness. Better that it got electricity from the pretty green hydroelectric powered grid in Oregon to run ground-source heat pumps to heat space and domestic hotwater as well as cool the building.

It's unfortunate that the same effort expended on being "Green" wasn't spent on creating an attractive building.

This is an incredible building and Shizen is a development company committed to the green cause. Shizen was able to get the Portland Office of Sustainable Development to contribute a grant to develop this project. As far as the style is concerned, it may not be your #1, but there are people that prefer this style. I think it's an elegant design.

You can *never* get more energy out, than was put in. What people really mean by energy positive fuels, is that nature (generally through sunlight), put most of the energy in, and that making it usable is a small part of that.

Even oil consumes oil to be extracted, my understanding is that in many oil-fields, more energy is used in it's extraction than it yields.

In the case of renewable fuels, it doesn't matter if you consumed 3 litres of renewable fuels to make 1 litre, because none of the litres of fuel are polluting. this is far better than using 1 litre of oil to extract 50, because that first litres emmissions will not be reabsorbed to produce more fuel.

The process of course should be as efficient as possible, but it is becoming more important it makes less emissions in preference to efficiency.

Negative critics rarely effect positive change in this world. This building is a real breakawy project. Personally, I'm tired of the automobille dependant strip malls, cookie cutter, lifeless, subdivisions with wide streets, garage doors, and vinyl siding and the thoughtless planning codes that support them. This project has vision and has taken a major risk by shaking off the business as usual mentality. Much will be learned from it to be fine tuned on the next one that undoubtedly will not be built by one of the above critics.

Go Shizen!

Steven Ribeiro
Salem, OR

Whatever the esthetic of the building...the fundamental design intentions potentially are self-defeating unless the operators of the building are very, very careful about where their biodiesel comes from. They could be buying biodiesel sourced from tropical palm plantations that have replaced rainforest. Biodiesel can be worse than using a petroleum product in terms of net carbon impact...biofuels are not necessarily "good"..therefore the need for rigorous certification.

Mark, the energy balance of biofuels is now widely discussed among concerned folk in this area. Your response seems to be skating away from this very serious issue by introducing an obvious point at the beginning which distracts from issues of net carbon balance and energy balance. If we destroy carbon-rich rainforests to plant biodiesel plantations we are not doing the planet or ourselves any favors. The more biodiesel demand there is, the more tropical rainforest will be threatened unless the biodiesel industry limits itself through a certification process.

Efficiency is always a concern as we and the market do not want to do more work than necessary and use more resources than we have to to get the job done. Corn ethanol and much biodiesel production in temperate climates is not efficient and will not stand up to competition from tropical areas with palm and sugar cane production. Cellulosic and algal production is still in the future and may brighten the picture for biofuels.

Relying on sun and wind and using electricity from whatever source are less eye-catching as designs but are greener now and in the future.