New York Times News ServiceWilliam Maclay’s new book, “The New Net Zero,” shows how to design buildings that have “net-zero” energy consumption.

Books by architectural firms are often vainglorious marketing efforts that keep the content glossy and light. But an ambitious new book from William Maclay, an architect in Waitsfield, Vt., and his associates, challenges the traditional entries in the genre.

Four years in the making, “The New Net Zero: Leading-Edge Design and Construction of Homes and Buildings for a Renewable Energy Future” (Chelsea Green Publishing, $90) marshals detailed architectural drawings and impressive pie charts to show that net-zero-energy buildings (those that make as much — or more — energy than they consume) not only offer long-term advantages for the planet, but also can also save their owners money from the start.

The book is an informed plea from a 65-year-old architect who has long concentrated on designing such buildings, making the most of renewable energy sources, such as solar and geothermal power.

The book is replete with examples, from highly efficient mobile homes in Vermont to a 5,000-square-foot luxury home in the Boston suburb of Newton, Mass.

Among the larger projects are a courthouse and an adjacent state building in Bennington, Vt., and a visitors center at Zion Canyon in the national park in Utah.

This is not a cranky or (beyond its basic urging of energy efficiency) preachy book. Its 576 pages do not promote one strategy for getting to net zero, but they provide an a la carte menu of technologies and inspirations, including a generous number of examples conceived by other firms. (This interview was edited and condensed.)

Q: Do you think most Americans know what the term “net zero” means?

A. No, definitely not, but more and more people are recognizing its importance and learning what it is; if we’re aiming toward a fossil-free and carbon-neutral future, the new number really is zero.

Q: Who is your book intended to reach?

A: Everyone. This is such a huge time of transition in terms of energy culture and quality of life and how people live. There are definitely messages for both consumers and design professionals. It covers the big picture down to the nitty-gritty of how to do it. The middle part is more technically focused. And then there are the parts looking at the larger environmental and ecological picture.

Q: What are you most excited about in terms of advancements in building science?

A: There have been incredible changes in heating systems in just the last few years. An air source heat pump is now less expensive than using oil and propane, and close to being as cheap as gas. And it can be powered with renewables.

Q: Does that mean boilers should be extinct?

A: Yes. At this point, I think it’s a poor investment. If you look at the total cost, using these machines is cheaper than putting in a boiler. That, to me, is so exciting about where we are right now.

Q: If you could write your own rules, what would you insist on?

A: I’d make sure every new building or renovation goes through the kind of analysis we do, showing what it would take, and cost, to be merely code-compliant versus what it would take to be net-zero-ready. I’d also require large buildings to publicly report their energy use, as New York City does. Then everybody knows how their building is performing compared to their neighbors’, and everyone learns from the experience.

Q: Should there be a national building standard?

A: I certainly would be an advocate of that. There is an international building code that has been adopted all over the United States, which is better than not having anything. But we need to move a lot further than where that code is. It’s not a baseline. Like the car industry with mileage standards, we should be setting the bar much higher. We should be taxing things that are bad, for example, reliance on fossil fuels, and adding incentives for things that are good: using more sustainable alternatives.

Q: If you could prescribe a take-away from your experience, and from the book, what would it be?

A: From my perspective, the real goal that we have is to get rid of the fossil fuels. That’s the standard to me that makes most sense. It’s the definition of net zero. This is not rocket science; we already have the nuts and bolts of how to get there. It’s not that unusual or weird, and there’s no reason not to do it right now.