News - The University of Montana

Euphoric.

That is the best word to describe today. Through rain, wet feet, great food, cold hands, stranger’s friendly waves and afternoon exhaustion, I came away euphoric.

For three years as an architecture student I have been striving and struggling to design as comprehensive a green building as the Northern Plains Resource Council [NPRC] – struggling even though my work is academic and never gets built. Even at a progressive school that prides itself on environmentally conscious design- green practices are constricted by concerns about money, construction difficulty, codes, liability, and client concerns. Ed Gulick of High Plains Architects gets around these concerns- way around. I’ve gone looking for great green buildings and have never seen anything like the NPRC. And I’ve never met an architect like Ed.

We met him yesterday when he biked out to our campsite to say hello. None of us had met Ed, yet he was willing to give tours and slide shows all day long and invite us to his home for dinner. Ed doesn’t own a car or a detectable ego. After grad school he came back to Billings to influence the way buildings were being built in a town where energy and carbon drives the economy. With three oil refineries and a coal plant in Billings, it is remarkable what an impact Ed and his contemporaries have made. He says about fossil fuel, “We’re using our one time gift” and he is making a difference using less of it. The NPRC- a project he managed uses about a fifth of the energy of a typical building, along with remarkable water savings and improved indoor air quality.

Buildings use 38-48% of the energy consumed in the U.S. Ed’s four step design process could change that. Three quarters of the built environment will be either new or renovated in the next 30 years and if we 1) reduce demand by using natural light and passive solar, 2) recycle waste heat flows, 3) use energy efficiently with the right appliances and 4) maximize use of clean, renewable energy we could transform this part of the climate change and energy problem. Simultaneously we could hugely cut water demands. Energy production ranks number one as the biggest user of water at 38% of U.S. Consumption. Pair those efficient design changes with composting toilets, rain water catchments and gray water irrigation, and our water demand could almost disappear.

“People should be participants in how our buildings function” says Ed, and the NPRC resoundingly agrees. They’ve earned the pride clearly found in their faces and voices. Ed estimated that $50,000 or more worth of volunteer labor was provided to reclaim old doors, trims and other valuable assets for the building. They are stewards of this building and thus of the environment they exist to protect.

So can this example be replicated? The answer is not only “yes it can,” but it must. From the environmental and economical viewpoint this building saves resources. Because reuse of an old building drastically reduced the demolition and new construction costs which otherwise would have been the standard route, initial expense was 17% less than a conventional building of this type and size, including the solar panel array that supplies half of the building’s energy needs. By the slashed demand on utilities, Ed estimates that within 30 years the building will cost only 65% of a conventional building.

Wow. Euphoric.

J.J. Green, University of Oregon

Having something to endure always brings people together, which is why on the morning of our first day on our trip the rain can be credited with the majority of the bonding that has already happened between the nine students and two faculty members accompanying each other on our unique field study in Montana. We were awakened by Steve, the appointed “Morning Czar” of the day who got us all out of the closest things man has come to a synthetic womb – our tents – and up making breakfast and hot drinks. The plan for the day was to bike to a coal fired power plant that morning, come back for lunch, visit an oil refinery, and then return to our Kampsite of America where we would have a discussion, dinner and possibly a soak in the hot tub.

The first hour of our visit to the power plant was spent in a classroom, listening to a presentation by Tom Olson, the plant manager, along with a public relations representative and an engineer. We learned how the plant operated and more specifically the details of operating in accordance with state and federal regulations and what they are doing to address the issue of coal’s impact on pollution and climate change. Occasionally in the presentation the three would include comments about the faults of wind power, citing its inconsistency. In relation to global warming words such as “allegedly” were used. While I might think the contrary, I can see why the people we talked to today might think that. I will use my bike trailer as an analogy.

About a week before coming to Montana to bike across the state, I purchased a trailer to tow all my belongings behind me. It was not cheap, as I invested hard earned cash in the piece of equipment, just like the employees invested a lot of time and effort into their work. Three other students on the trip have trailers, and they all happen to be the same kind, but different from mine in many ways. Theirs have one wheel, a dry bag to load their gear in, and it connects directly to the frame of the bike. Mine has two wheels, a compartment covered with a removable water repellent canvas top, and a hitch to attach it to the bike. In my mind, my trailer is the smarter choice between the two. Even if I went with the other kind, I would think that I had the superior trailer. Why would I choose to admit a bad decision, when all I need to do is deny that the other trailer is better? I am not saying that it was a bad decision to work in a coal fired power plant, but if I did I would never admit that all the time I put in did more bad than good, and I would not be eager to accept a “theory” that global temperatures are rising, causing glaciers to melt and raise sea levels, especially since my house is not under water yet.

Lunchtime blessed us with the opportunity to eat food, and even bask in a bit of sunshine and clear sky that the clouds forgot to cover up. It did not take too long for them to realize their mistake and soon enough we were damp with the familiar drizzle as we were picked up and taken to the Exxon/Mobile oil refinery in a big rumbling bus.

New Jersey is a state that mainly acquired its tainted reputation from the region in front of and around Newark International Airport. Anybody driving on the parkway in that area will see refinery after refinery with their looming tanks of crude oil, gasoline, and diesel fuel. Many people who drive on this section of road just hold their breath and push a little harder on the gas pedal, not once thinking about what it would be like to check it out and meet the people who work at these places. Imagine working at a coal power plant or an oil refinery for twenty plus years, and then all of a sudden facing major scrutiny for the role your industry plays in global warming. Upon talking with some employees, defensiveness became a common theme of the day, but for reasons that should be understood.

I for one cannot say that I don’t take advantage of Jersey’s relatively cheap oil. Without it, transporting my belongings up and down the coast to and from Vermont would become a feat for one with strength comparable to the Incredible Hulk. If I did not use my cell phone and the electricity needed to charge it, to give my friend a message within seconds I would need speed comparable to that of Flash Gordon. What I am trying to say is that the lifestyle that we live is made possible today by the fossil fuels that we burn for energy, and the people who make it happen. To keep that standard of living and not rely on natural gas, oil, and coal, we would all need to be superheroes. Maybe that will happen someday, but until then all we can do is live with what we have available to us but at the same time increase our efforts to live more sustainably, and focus efforts on switching to renewable energy sources.

Today a group of university students began a course called, “Cycle the Rockies: Energy and Climate Change in Montana.” Nine students and their instructors, Nicky Phear and Dave Morris, will spend the next four weeks cycling 650 miles from Billings to Whitefish to study our regional energy choices and the impacts of climate change. The course is run by the Missoula-based Wild Rockies Field Institute for six credits through the University of Montana.

We welcome you to follow along as students write about their educational journey. Traveling by bicycle will give us a unique perspective and an appropriate pace for examining the past, present and future of energy and climate change in the West. We will explore first-hand the landscapes, communities and ecosystems that are already feeling the effects of our changing climate.

Our route begins in eastern Montana at a coal-fired power plant and an oil refinery in the industrial core of Billings. Then we will pedal north and west through grasslands and island mountain ranges of central Montana, visiting energy-efficient buildings and production sites for biofuels, wind, solar, geothermal and hydroelectric power. After meetings with energy and climate policy experts at the state capitol in Helena, we will turn north along the impressive Rocky Mountain Front to Glacier National Park. We’ll cycle over the Continental Divide, spending time with climate scientists and park managers in Glacier before ending our journey in Whitefish with a public presentation.

For more information about the course and WRFI, visit our About page. For more information about our students and instructors, please visit our page about the Cyclists.

Thanks for your interest!

Dave Morris and Nicky Phear, Course Instructors