Watts to ADD

Guusje Huybregts: Welcome to a new episode of Watts to ADD. In this episode, we will take a closer look at OP sustainability aspects. Now, you want to be bus-proof. BREEAM, that is. Can you tell us a little more about that?

Dirk-Jan Houben: Yes. Um. Well, our trial is actually more of a CO2 quota. It sounds a bit silly, but not everyone will agree with me. But you can see the two parts. So how much CO2 do you emit during construction? In terms of production, what the materials cost and the CO2 chain. And then, once it’s built. What are the CO2 emissions when it’s actually in use? And that’s converted into kilowatt hours. But of course, there’s a component to that. BREEAM’s focus is actually more on materialization. So what? What? What does it cost the planet to use certain materials? And that’s how we try to steer towards a sustainably responsible building. It’s not really sustainability per se, but I always mention it in the same group because it also adds a certain quality. And that’s much more about the quality for staff. Ultimately, it’s about a healthy building to stay and work in.

G: If these are indeed the underlying values and standards, how can you link this to gas consumption?

DJ: At first, I didn’t think so. Paris Proof even states quite firmly that you are not allowed to have a gas connection. We came up with a technical solution for this that is simply very silly. But anyway, that’s just the way it is. We divide it up so that the gas generator is in a different plot than the buildings, and with the buildings, you only look at what comes into the plot from the building. So if you are now connected to the grid. Again, to be honest, you don’t know whether it comes from a wind turbine or a large gas generator or coal production. So it only looks at whether you’ve solved it properly. Well, those buildings themselves will soon be properly solved and you’ll have some gas left over. And of course that’s not ideal, but because we say we’re going to wash away all those gases, at least the four I mentioned. So CO2, nitrogen, particulate matter, and ultrafine particulate matter, I dare say that we are not making the climate worse with this solution.

DJ: Or at least not within the possibilities I have as a project developer.

G: So in this sense, the use of gas is not necessarily at odds with sustainability goals.

DJ: It’s not ideal, because you would really prefer to just stop using it altogether. But I think that in the long term, we will continue to use fossil fuels to some extent, because the energy density of fossil fuels is so high that for some things, they remain the best solution. It’s not ideal, but that’s the way it is. And when you look at fossil fuels, gas is the most sustainable in terms of combustion.

G: And is there a way to compensate for this?

DJ: So we compensate internally with those gas welders. That’s why we want to scale that up. So we capture more than we produce ourselves. And you can also look at it in other ways. That makes me a little less happy. You could say, I’m going to plant trees. That’s great, of course, because there are a lot of nature reserves around the world that could use that. But if all companies were to take that approach, we would need eight planets just for the Nasdaq in America. So that doesn’t work. It’s good that we’re doing it, but you have to solve it internally and not externally.

G: And what do experts actually say about this?

DJ: This too. It is now the accepted norm, but it is not ideal. However, given that we are where we are and we have to move forward, this is the most ideal solution. Not everyone will agree with me on this. But I also notice that clubs that are really working on this full-time are saying, “Just do it now, so we can move forward.” And as we continue to build and develop, we will also progress further along our learning curve. It is not an ideal step towards an ideal final solution.

G: Yes. And, what do buyers and potential residents say about this sustainability paradox?

DJ: The residents themselves? They don’t really have much to do with it in that sense. Because we wash away those gases, they are not confronted with smoke or anything like that, and they still have power from the grid, so it makes no difference to them. For the end users, you will indeed have to be willing to accept the idea that you want that sustainability solution. And that it’s about the emissions being harmful and not the consumption itself. And I think my feeling from the conversations I’ve had is that the market agrees with me. We’re in a much worse situation, we have to solve it. The alternative is worse. You see that real estate that does not meet certain requirements is already being devalued, and we are talking about really bad real estate. But it is already happening. And for this reason? But then comes the moment when it gets a push on the positive side. And then you notice that the pragmatism of solving it this way is valued more highly than the fact that it may not already be ideal for 2050.

G: Yes. So, in fact, gas is used in a cleaner way this way.

DJ: Well, yes, it doesn’t get used more cleanly, because it goes through the same gas generator as it would if you did it another way. But it has no effect on the combustion of the gas, no further effect on the climate.

G: Yes. And, um, what is actually worse for the climate and society? Waiting until power is available and then getting started. In other words, using this solution.

DJ: We are 100% convinced that it is better to implement these solutions. Once again, if we don’t do it, we will be stuck with outdated real estate with high energy demands. And if we do do it, then at least the energy demand will go down. You could also say that the fact that a party will soon be moving into a very sustainable building with lower energy demand is, unfortunately, generated by gas leaving a building where energy demand was much higher, but which may now finally be transformed for the better. And in the long term, you will have a carousel that ensures that all those buildings will meet higher sustainability and quality standards. And if we don’t do that, we’ll stay where we are. And one thing we know for sure is that that’s not a solution. Yes.

G: So, in this way, sustainability is actually a very elastic concept.

DJ: It’s a flexible concept because you can’t do it perfectly right now. It’s not possible. Our technology isn’t there yet. Yes.

G: Okay. Well, that’s very interesting. Uh, then in the next episode, we’ll take a look at what exactly this solution entails in practice.

DJ: Nice!