So I work in "Sustainability" now. I put that word in quotes because it didn't take long while working in this industry to realize that many of my peers hate the "S-word" and consider it a misleading buzzword. It also didn't take me too long to realize that many of my coworkers doing the same job as me might not identify as working in Sustainability. Also during my short tenure, my team changed its name from Building Physics to Building Sustainability, to capitalize on this buzz.
Here are some quick numbers behind why I wanted to join this field:
-China emitted over 9.7 billion tons of CO2 in 2011
-The US emits over 5.4 billion tons of CO2 in 2011
-The world emitted around 33 billion tons of CO2 in 2011 (all data from EDGAR)
-The UNEP predicts that 44 gigatons of CO2 by 2020 will lead to our world increasing by 2 degrees celsius from a pre-industrial level. We are currently on target for 58 gigatons. The 2 degree mark is one that many models predicts will render life on earth unlivable
-The breakdown of end-use energy is approximately 37% industry, 20% transportation, residential and services 36%
-Coal is the most common energy source
-16.1% of the world energy consumption now comes from renewable sources. An additional 2.7% comes from nuclear energy.
However, over 12% of that comes from biofuels in some way and 3.3% comes from Hydropower. Biofuels are technically zero carbon because when they are consumed for electricity, the carbon they emit is equivalent to the carbon they absorbed during their life. However, according to jobsandenergy.com, "The biomass-is-carbon-neutral story line put forward in the early 1990’s has been superseded by more recent science that recognizes that mature, intact forests sequester carbon more effectively than cut-over areas. When a tree’s carbon is released into the atmosphere in a single pulse, it contributes to climate change much more than woodland timber rotting slowly over decades." For biofuels like corn, they can be used more efficiently as food rather than energy. Hydropower is zero-carbon, but it's obviously a limited commodity and has potentially devastating environmental issues. The renewable sources that come with the least baggage seem to be solar (heat and electricity), wind, geothermal (heat and electricity) and perhaps ocean tidal energy. These sources have some flexibility in their placement and create clean energy with minimal adverse impact to environmental or human activity. Still, they do have their own drawbacks and are dependent on resources beyond our control such as the weather and need to be placed in areas where these resources are high. None of these technologies are yet economically competitive with fossil fuel. Lastly, nuclear energy is essentially zero carbon and very powerful, but obviously has its own dangerous consequences and are being phased out of Japan and Germany.
When I look at this current situation of global energy, I do get scared. I don't know what will happen in 10 years, 20 years, 50 years. I worry that the planet will not be so enjoyable during my later life, much less for future generations. We really don't know for sure, as this has never before happened in human history, and the globe is so complicated that the best of models need to be taken with an ocean's worth of salt. Not everyone believes in global warming, and even I'm willing to say there is a slight chance that the climate change we have observed is not anthropogenic. Slight. Even still, as someone who has lived in China, it's very very obvious to me the terrible deleterious effect that air pollution can have, and my experiences in Beijing are a main reason why I decided to enter this field.
To be sure, plenty is being done and plenty of incredible advancement has been made. At my job, there are plenty of developers who want to create energy efficient buildings and no shortage of projects that are pursuing LEED or other Green Building Certificates. The market is going in that direction on its own. There are large scale projects that seek to create more energy efficient districts and cities, built around mass transit, wind corridors and green space. District cooling/heating technology is improving, where local power plants are used to supply power with minimal loss to the district, and the waste heat that is a necessary byproduct of the generation process is used to provide heating (or cooling in a different process). Similarly, combined cogeneration plants are producing electricity more efficiently. People are working on improving the grid itself, making it more efficient and less susceptible to peaks and troughs of the human behavior cycle. Car companies are working furiously to produce more fuel efficient cars, including electric cars, driven strongly by consumer demand. There are more and more energy efficient appliances. And renewable energy is growing just about everywhere. Yes I have noticed that the world at large is more energy conscious, less wasteful and more concerned about the environment.
But when I think of what is left to be done, I get even more overwhelmed. The world is growing, and energy demand is growing even faster. China is already the largest energy user in the world, but its per capita use is about 40% that of the US. As rural dwellers rapidly move to the cities and the standard of living improves, the per capita energy demand will increase. At a presentation at work, I saw data on Hong Kong's energy situation. In many ways, Hong Kong is a model city with its very efficient public transportation. However buildings use a ton of energy. I noticed that even if all future buildings in the city use 50% less energy than current ones (an impossibly ambitious number), AND all current buildings are retrofitted to use 25% less energy, the entire island would need to be covered in solar panels to reach a zero carbon figure. It made me realize that though we can put a lot of effort and ingenuity into what we do, we can only do so much. And energy is such a complicated global political issue, with far reaching security, economic and environmental consequences that very often there are multiple competing factions over any new developmental.
So what needs to change? I think first we need to reduce demand. The cleanest energy is the energy you don't use. I believe that we need to change our culture towards energy consumption and that not enough impetus is given in this regard. You can design an energy efficient building with plenty of natural sunlight and natural ventilation, but if people leave the lights on and run the air conditioning all night, it won't be so energy efficient. Energy data can also do wonders - I do strongly believe that if we were all aware every minute of how much energy we were consuming, most of us would change our habits so that we could see those numbers go down. So that would help. But a bigger question is whether we're willing to give up some of our comforts. 60 years ago almost nobody in the tropics had air conditioning - is that something we can or want to go back too? Will we be willing to give up driving?
There needs to be a drastic increase in renewable energy production and perhaps an even more dramatic advancement in renewable technologies. Geothermal and tidal energy are relatively new and untapped and potentially limitless sources. Solar and wind have been around for a while but are still improving, and our mapping of solar irradiation and wind patterns make it easier to predict the performance of individual units and help plan projects better. Perhaps the most important driver for these technologies is reducing their cost and making them competitive with fossil fuel energy. If solar panels can be produced cheaply (and cleanly) and the price for solar energy drops and the price for fossil fuel energy rises, the free market forces may allow the solar industry to boom. However, though the I think the scarcity of oil and gas will reemerge as a key issue this coming decade, coal is extremely plentiful. It appears that government policies will need to be around forever to encourage renewable energy investment and use and discourage dirty coal.
Battery technology also really needs to develop. The ability to capture energy and save it for later consumption without too much loss is crucial to a sustainable world. The question with solar and wind energy is always, "What happens during a cloudy day? What happens when there's no wind?" The ability to save energy for rainy days is a necessary development to parallel the growth of solar technology. It's also a technology that plays an important role in smart grid models (where energy users can store electricity when they aren't using it, then feed it back to the grid when there's a demand) and for electric cars. More efficient transmission is also vital, so that we can carry electricity from windy and sunny areas to less exciting climate zones.
Who are the biggest drivers here? During my time at Arup, I've been trying to figure that out. From this post, it should be obvious that this is an immense undertaking. Fundamentally, it seems that we are currently most reliant on scientists. My company doesn't develop any low energy appliances or solar panels, but as these products come out we pay attention and incorporate them into our design. It's still people in the laboratory that need to make magic happen. Government of course plays its part in funding the engineers and scientists, and creating the appropriate policies to regulate carbon and encourage green growth. It will have to play an even greater part in auditing buildings and forcing underachievers to get retrofitted, and in creating large scale eco-city projects.
We also need outside the box answers. I think there could be more human-generated energy going into the grid, such as capturing the energy from revolving doors. Office dwellers could carry weights at the bottom of the lift, take it up to their floors and then drop the weights down some sort of slide, where their energy could be captured. Gym goers could have their elliptical and biking work captured and sent into the grid, or at the least to power their machine. And then there's this bike designed to clean the air in Beijing. Maybe none of this sounds like a lot but it seems like we need to look at every possible opportunity to be nicer to this planet.
The sad thing is that if we succeed - if we successfully pull off the largest international engineering-social-political-technological-environmental transformative effort ever and dramatically alter the course of human behavior, no one will really know. We aren't too sure about the real consequences of all this carbon in the air, of the broad effects of global warming - we even have people who argue against anthropogenic global warming. The 2 degrees celsius limit is a fairly arbitrary limit that is now being ignored because we're going to blow by it. But if we pull off a miracle and stop global warming short of this limit, the end result will be a world similar to how it is now. Nothing will change. There won't be blue skies and birds chirping every day. The people who questioned the seriousness of climate change will say "I told you nothing would happen" and the people passionate about sustainability can only trust that we've averted something disastrous and that we will continue to do so for generations. There won't be a "We Saved the World Party", though that would be awesome. The best we can hope for is approval from future historians. They will either look back on our era as the people who screwed up the earth for them, or the ones who banded together for something very large and changed human history.
Here are some quick numbers behind why I wanted to join this field:
-China emitted over 9.7 billion tons of CO2 in 2011
-The US emits over 5.4 billion tons of CO2 in 2011
-The world emitted around 33 billion tons of CO2 in 2011 (all data from EDGAR)
-The UNEP predicts that 44 gigatons of CO2 by 2020 will lead to our world increasing by 2 degrees celsius from a pre-industrial level. We are currently on target for 58 gigatons. The 2 degree mark is one that many models predicts will render life on earth unlivable
-The breakdown of end-use energy is approximately 37% industry, 20% transportation, residential and services 36%
-Coal is the most common energy source
-16.1% of the world energy consumption now comes from renewable sources. An additional 2.7% comes from nuclear energy.
However, over 12% of that comes from biofuels in some way and 3.3% comes from Hydropower. Biofuels are technically zero carbon because when they are consumed for electricity, the carbon they emit is equivalent to the carbon they absorbed during their life. However, according to jobsandenergy.com, "The biomass-is-carbon-neutral story line put forward in the early 1990’s has been superseded by more recent science that recognizes that mature, intact forests sequester carbon more effectively than cut-over areas. When a tree’s carbon is released into the atmosphere in a single pulse, it contributes to climate change much more than woodland timber rotting slowly over decades." For biofuels like corn, they can be used more efficiently as food rather than energy. Hydropower is zero-carbon, but it's obviously a limited commodity and has potentially devastating environmental issues. The renewable sources that come with the least baggage seem to be solar (heat and electricity), wind, geothermal (heat and electricity) and perhaps ocean tidal energy. These sources have some flexibility in their placement and create clean energy with minimal adverse impact to environmental or human activity. Still, they do have their own drawbacks and are dependent on resources beyond our control such as the weather and need to be placed in areas where these resources are high. None of these technologies are yet economically competitive with fossil fuel. Lastly, nuclear energy is essentially zero carbon and very powerful, but obviously has its own dangerous consequences and are being phased out of Japan and Germany.
When I look at this current situation of global energy, I do get scared. I don't know what will happen in 10 years, 20 years, 50 years. I worry that the planet will not be so enjoyable during my later life, much less for future generations. We really don't know for sure, as this has never before happened in human history, and the globe is so complicated that the best of models need to be taken with an ocean's worth of salt. Not everyone believes in global warming, and even I'm willing to say there is a slight chance that the climate change we have observed is not anthropogenic. Slight. Even still, as someone who has lived in China, it's very very obvious to me the terrible deleterious effect that air pollution can have, and my experiences in Beijing are a main reason why I decided to enter this field.
To be sure, plenty is being done and plenty of incredible advancement has been made. At my job, there are plenty of developers who want to create energy efficient buildings and no shortage of projects that are pursuing LEED or other Green Building Certificates. The market is going in that direction on its own. There are large scale projects that seek to create more energy efficient districts and cities, built around mass transit, wind corridors and green space. District cooling/heating technology is improving, where local power plants are used to supply power with minimal loss to the district, and the waste heat that is a necessary byproduct of the generation process is used to provide heating (or cooling in a different process). Similarly, combined cogeneration plants are producing electricity more efficiently. People are working on improving the grid itself, making it more efficient and less susceptible to peaks and troughs of the human behavior cycle. Car companies are working furiously to produce more fuel efficient cars, including electric cars, driven strongly by consumer demand. There are more and more energy efficient appliances. And renewable energy is growing just about everywhere. Yes I have noticed that the world at large is more energy conscious, less wasteful and more concerned about the environment.
But when I think of what is left to be done, I get even more overwhelmed. The world is growing, and energy demand is growing even faster. China is already the largest energy user in the world, but its per capita use is about 40% that of the US. As rural dwellers rapidly move to the cities and the standard of living improves, the per capita energy demand will increase. At a presentation at work, I saw data on Hong Kong's energy situation. In many ways, Hong Kong is a model city with its very efficient public transportation. However buildings use a ton of energy. I noticed that even if all future buildings in the city use 50% less energy than current ones (an impossibly ambitious number), AND all current buildings are retrofitted to use 25% less energy, the entire island would need to be covered in solar panels to reach a zero carbon figure. It made me realize that though we can put a lot of effort and ingenuity into what we do, we can only do so much. And energy is such a complicated global political issue, with far reaching security, economic and environmental consequences that very often there are multiple competing factions over any new developmental.
So what needs to change? I think first we need to reduce demand. The cleanest energy is the energy you don't use. I believe that we need to change our culture towards energy consumption and that not enough impetus is given in this regard. You can design an energy efficient building with plenty of natural sunlight and natural ventilation, but if people leave the lights on and run the air conditioning all night, it won't be so energy efficient. Energy data can also do wonders - I do strongly believe that if we were all aware every minute of how much energy we were consuming, most of us would change our habits so that we could see those numbers go down. So that would help. But a bigger question is whether we're willing to give up some of our comforts. 60 years ago almost nobody in the tropics had air conditioning - is that something we can or want to go back too? Will we be willing to give up driving?
There needs to be a drastic increase in renewable energy production and perhaps an even more dramatic advancement in renewable technologies. Geothermal and tidal energy are relatively new and untapped and potentially limitless sources. Solar and wind have been around for a while but are still improving, and our mapping of solar irradiation and wind patterns make it easier to predict the performance of individual units and help plan projects better. Perhaps the most important driver for these technologies is reducing their cost and making them competitive with fossil fuel energy. If solar panels can be produced cheaply (and cleanly) and the price for solar energy drops and the price for fossil fuel energy rises, the free market forces may allow the solar industry to boom. However, though the I think the scarcity of oil and gas will reemerge as a key issue this coming decade, coal is extremely plentiful. It appears that government policies will need to be around forever to encourage renewable energy investment and use and discourage dirty coal.
Battery technology also really needs to develop. The ability to capture energy and save it for later consumption without too much loss is crucial to a sustainable world. The question with solar and wind energy is always, "What happens during a cloudy day? What happens when there's no wind?" The ability to save energy for rainy days is a necessary development to parallel the growth of solar technology. It's also a technology that plays an important role in smart grid models (where energy users can store electricity when they aren't using it, then feed it back to the grid when there's a demand) and for electric cars. More efficient transmission is also vital, so that we can carry electricity from windy and sunny areas to less exciting climate zones.
Who are the biggest drivers here? During my time at Arup, I've been trying to figure that out. From this post, it should be obvious that this is an immense undertaking. Fundamentally, it seems that we are currently most reliant on scientists. My company doesn't develop any low energy appliances or solar panels, but as these products come out we pay attention and incorporate them into our design. It's still people in the laboratory that need to make magic happen. Government of course plays its part in funding the engineers and scientists, and creating the appropriate policies to regulate carbon and encourage green growth. It will have to play an even greater part in auditing buildings and forcing underachievers to get retrofitted, and in creating large scale eco-city projects.
We also need outside the box answers. I think there could be more human-generated energy going into the grid, such as capturing the energy from revolving doors. Office dwellers could carry weights at the bottom of the lift, take it up to their floors and then drop the weights down some sort of slide, where their energy could be captured. Gym goers could have their elliptical and biking work captured and sent into the grid, or at the least to power their machine. And then there's this bike designed to clean the air in Beijing. Maybe none of this sounds like a lot but it seems like we need to look at every possible opportunity to be nicer to this planet.
The sad thing is that if we succeed - if we successfully pull off the largest international engineering-social-political-technological-environmental transformative effort ever and dramatically alter the course of human behavior, no one will really know. We aren't too sure about the real consequences of all this carbon in the air, of the broad effects of global warming - we even have people who argue against anthropogenic global warming. The 2 degrees celsius limit is a fairly arbitrary limit that is now being ignored because we're going to blow by it. But if we pull off a miracle and stop global warming short of this limit, the end result will be a world similar to how it is now. Nothing will change. There won't be blue skies and birds chirping every day. The people who questioned the seriousness of climate change will say "I told you nothing would happen" and the people passionate about sustainability can only trust that we've averted something disastrous and that we will continue to do so for generations. There won't be a "We Saved the World Party", though that would be awesome. The best we can hope for is approval from future historians. They will either look back on our era as the people who screwed up the earth for them, or the ones who banded together for something very large and changed human history.
