|
|
Post by CMF Newsman on Apr 23, 2012 7:34:43 GMT -5
Dave Crockett thinks he can shave at least $4,000 a year from the power bill for the City Council building. Council members are willing to let him try. On Tuesday, they voted 8-1 to hire Madison, Tenn.-based Two Rivers Roofing Inc. to construct a "green" roof on the building next to City Hall. "We want to prove it and let this be a laboratory for all buildings downtown," said Crockett, director of the Office of Sustainability. Deborah Scott was the only no vote. She said she couldn't justify paying $341,000 for a vegetation-covered roof when a standard roof would cost only about $80,000. www.wrcbtv.com/story/17652141/green-roof-coming-to-chattanoogas-city-council-building |
|
|
|
Post by apriled on Apr 23, 2012 8:39:28 GMT -5
Dave Crockett is full of sh...ut up.
The Green Roof technology has applications in regions with less variations in temperatures. The Outdoor Chattanooga roof has been a maintenance nightmare. While the energy savings on a direct utilize bill may result, the maintenance costs, water, and soil supplements, treatments far exceed this finite view from Mr. Crockett. Yes, the heat losses from the roof will decrease, but the maintenance and installation results in a negative cost/benefit. Crockett is not truthful by omission of all the facts. The MO of this admin. Who is this company doing the roof? needs at look at least.
Good Work, Debra Scott.
|
|
|
|
Post by mandrake on Apr 23, 2012 20:31:14 GMT -5
Crockett claims a $4,000.00/year savings. This roof has a 50 year lifespan, according to the article in the paper, so it will be $61,000.00 short of breaking even. Good additional insulation, properly applied, and a new standard roof could save even more. I don't suppose a little engineering work could be done?
|
|
|
|
Post by apriled on Apr 23, 2012 23:07:40 GMT -5
Exactly, greenroofchannel.wordpress.com/2010/09/28/green-roof-pros-and-cons/I like to see what studies from other countries say about products like this, more cost/benefit reasoning, and this Hong Kong study lists the obvious problem lots of rain, then long periods of dry. This requires the roof to be watered, and the energy required to pump water, irrigation, and labor far exceeds the heat and cooling utility savings Crockett has presented. Council would not blindly follow Crockett would they. Let's see, park the police cars, Ok. Sod the roof, Ok..hire Paul Page for 6 figures, OK One Source Vendor no ad needed, Ok... www.devb.gov.hk/filemanager/en/content_29/Green%20roof%20study_final%20report.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by Gary on Apr 24, 2012 6:16:03 GMT -5
I'm just wondering whose pockets are going to get lined on this one. Very disappointed in the complete lack of common sense from all but Deborah Scott on this vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by Warkitty on Apr 24, 2012 6:36:15 GMT -5
When I looked briefly at green roof to see if it could possibly benefit my house, I quickly determined that it would require weeding to keep baby trees from growing in it, and any time you have roots you risk them breaking through whatever is under to cause leaks. Sure, it sounds good to have a lawn on your roof, but think of how much work your lawn takes to stay nice?! Labor intense isn't going to make a good eco-friendly answer.
Instead, I recommend good insulation.
|
|
JC
Full Forumite
No Messiah
Posts: 1,919
|
Post by JC on Apr 24, 2012 14:13:50 GMT -5
Pfftt....
Why are y'all letting math get in the way of political hand jobs? Silly citizens!
|
|
|
|
Post by gridbug on Apr 26, 2012 11:19:01 GMT -5
Wouldn't we save a lot of money and be even greener by planting kudzu around the base of the building?
|
|
|
|
Post by Gary on Apr 27, 2012 10:18:22 GMT -5
Bu the kudzu might take over the building and block anyone from entering or leaving... oh wait, I see what you did there.
|
|
