The Challenge of Building Decarbonization

Normally I don’t post personal stuff on LinkedIn, but in this case, the personal intersects with the professional, in that last year I finally managed to start on my longstanding professional goal of applying my 35+ years of ICT experience to decarbonizing society. I’ve had a personal goal for the last 20 years to decarbonize my home and transport as much as possible, subject to the availability of technology and products to do it and, of course, to our family finances. My approach has been experimental, trying out different products and technologies as they became available, doing some things incrementally (re-insulation), and installing some devices more than once as technology became better (solar PV and heat recovery ventilation systems) just like I did in the 1980s and 1990s with PCs and home computing systems. As of 2021, I’ve succeeded in reducing the carbon emissions from our 45-year-old house from 6.6 metric tons/year, reported by the previous owners for 2002 when we bought the house in 2003, to 0.308 metric tons/year in 2021, a more than 20x reduction. In addition, the house is net energy positive, in that we supply 3130 kwh more carbon free electricity from our rooftop solar to the grid last year than we used.

The picture at the top of this post is a snapshot of our decarbonization journey. On the bottom are the measures we’ve taken and the technologies we’ve applied to the problem. To the left is the energy use (gas energy use has been converted from therms to kwh for ease of comparison). To the right is the carbon emissions in kg/yr. Two meta-level threads run through the process: reducing energy use through efficiency measures and reducing carbon generation through replacing carbon-based electricity sources and gas appliances with renewable electricity and electric or solar thermal appliances. The only carbon emitting appliance we have left that we use on a regular basis is a gas stove, though we also have a gas fireplace for emergency use if the grid goes down in winter. And, yes, I know about induction stoves but we use an electric tea kettle, an electric oven, and a microwave for about 2/3 of our cooking so it doesn’t make sense to replace it.

I believe this journey has taught some valuable lessons that can inform policymakers, startup founders, funding agents and others involved in and committed to mitigating the climate emergency though societal decarbonization. One lesson is that building decarbonization is overwhelmingly a retrofit proposition.  Fully 2/3 of the buildings of all types that are around today will still be around in 2045. Policies, funding and business models, and procedures that work in cases where decarbonization is mainly a forklift replacement proposition, like for example in transportation, simply are not going to work for building decarbonization. For example, if transportation decarbonization was in the same category as building decarbonization, instead of buying a shiny new 2022 Tesla to decarbonize your ride, you would take your 2003 Toyota Corolla to an electrification garage, they would remove the ICE motor and replace it with a battery pack and an electric motor.  Therefore, banning new gas hookups, which many cities are doing in California and elsewhere, while a nice gesture, will have little to no impact on building carbon emissions since it has no impact on existing buildings. A better strategy would be to modify building codes requiring new buildings to meet stringent carbon emissions standards, like the federal mpg rules for cars. This would have the beneficial side effect of requiring any old buildings being retrofitted with new appliances to also match the new emissions rules so that they are “up to code”.

Another lesson is that most of the work involved in building decarbonization will be done by technicians in the construction industry, and not by engineers and other office occupying types like myself. These people are in short supply right now due to the Covid pandemic and associated upgrading of living spaces due to people having had to spend 24/7 in them for the last couple years. In addition, construction technicians are “doers” and they typically don’t have the time to spend learning something new. So very few of them are familiar with the new products and technologies necessary for thoroughly decarbonizing an existing building, nor are they oriented to discussions with clients about building decarbonization. One solution is to provide construction technicians with training and funded time off from work to learn about new products and systems. Engineers and others in technology industries typically get this kind of benefit because they need to keep on top of new technology.

However, given the critical shortage in trained construction technicians and the overwhelming amount of work necessary to decarbonize the current building stock, this isn’t likely to be enough. Training for young people through community college programs (in the US) or apprenticeships (in Europe) is desperately needed. More work needs to be done to attract young people to these professions, as today they typically are not as high profile as jobs in the tech industry or finance. Scholarships and support must be provided to young people, especially from disadvantaged families, so they can afford to learn how to install and maintain energy efficiency upgrades, carbon emissions free appliances, and renewable energy equipment.

When I started my decarbonization journey 20 years ago, energy efficiency upgrades were well researched and known, but carbon emissions free appliances and renewable energy equipment were just beginning to appear. Energy efficiency data providers such as #HEA were just beginning to get started. Today, #HEA and other data providers are beginning to turn toward providing services for building decarbonization. The main unsolved technology problems involve integration and control. My good friends at #ExtensibleEnergy and #CEL have services for the control part in the commercial building market and government building market, respectively, but their work is hampered by a lack of technology such as a protocol standard for communicating between a building energy controller and various appliances, renewable energy equipment, and car chargers. Although there is still technology to be developed, unfortunately over the last 10 years 60% of the funding for startups working on decarbonization technology has gone into light duty electric vehicles, most likely because of the aforementioned difference in replacement propositions between transportation decarbonization and building decarbonization.

But funding for deployment of building decarbonization technology is slowly becoming available. Through a referendum several years ago, the residents of Ithaca voted to completely decarbonize all 6,000+ buildings in the city. Last summer, the city lined up $100 million in financing from Alturus Capital as a down payment on the effort, to be repaid in various ways depending on the ownership of the buildings. The federal government in the US has primarily funded renewable energy and energy efficiency through tax incentives, but tax incentives don’t work for low-income families who have little tax liability. Subsidies are desperately needed, and in some jurisdictions, utilities and local governments do provide subsidies for smart thermostats and heat pump water heaters, but it isn’t enough. With passage of the Build Back Better bill now unlikely, the burden will again fall on state and local governments to continue the fight against climate change, as has been the case for the last 30 years, so expect to see more examples like Ithaca. I sure hope it will be enough.

Happy new year everyone! It is going to be an interesting year and an interesting decade.