On average, eight times as much air is exchanged when you open a swing door compared to a revolving door.

Researchers at MIT found that if people always used the revolving doors at just one campus building, it would prevent 14.6 tons of CO2 per year.

If 10,000 people use a revolving door instead of a swing door the next time they enter a building, it will save enough energy to light a CFL bulb for almost 640 days straight.


Who knew!!?

Sorry if I'm a bit skeptical here, but the CO2 has to go somewhere. It will eventually have to escape the building one way or another. Is there a greenhouse in the building that will convert the CO2 back to oxygen? If not, we're looking at DEATH BUILDING!

I think what their saying, is the revolving doors, keep the temperature more stable, requiring less airconditioning or heating.

Hello Houston, We Have a Problem!

Interesting!

IMHO, rethinking stuff like this probably could bring us a nice gain overall. There is CO2, but also just energy in general.

Both problems are important. Oil is gonna peak, might have peaked, and other sources are coming on line. The easy ones, like nuclear, come with a lot of problems. The harder ones, like solar, need a lot of human and oil energy to be applied before they really deliver.

All in all, this kind of thinking is worth doing, environment or not.

. . . cough, cough, . . . I wonder if super efficent buildings will have higher CO2 levels causing health concerns?