Trial / Demo
Anyone who is familiar with IES, or has watched our manifesto, will know I believe there is a strong need to make our built environment as energy efficient as possible. It is one of the three fundamental observations on which I founded IES and a view I stand by to this day.
However, recent reports have prompted me to write this blog to stress why now, more than ever, we need to make energy efficiency essential in our approach to the design and use of the built environment.
I would like to establish some common ground between both those who do and don’t accept climate change and those who see climate change as an immediate problem and those who don’t. To do this, I want to make the case for energy efficiency in the built environment as it relates to the global economic growth projections of the next few decades. I hope this will resonate with everyone as – climate reasons aside - energy efficiency, from a financial perspective, will reduce both the capital and running costs of the built environment.
We can all agree that the global economy is dependent upon energy. Without researching this statement, I would expect that the amount of energy consumed per capita by an economy would closely correlate to the strength and size of an economy.
PWC published a report in 2015 regarding the ‘World in 2050’. Some of its observations were:
To compound these projections, the UN predicts that the world's population will increase by 2 billion people in the next 30 years, from 7.7 billion to 9.7 billion by 2050, and that 68% of the population will live in cities.
At a recent meeting I had with the UN Environmental Programme (UNEP), a UNEP representative informed me that the Built Environment is growing at a rate equivalent to the size of Paris every five days and the size of Japan every year. In fact, in a recent UNEP report they estimate that the built environment will double in size by 2060, resulting in an extra 230 billion m2 of floor area. If we assume the comparative energy consumption of all new buildings could be half that of the current built environment, this would equate to an additional 35,000Twh of energy per annum by 2060. We therefore need to consider if we have both the available energy and financial resources to meet the additional demand of this much larger built environment.
It makes good economic sense to try to reduce energy consumption in buildings particularly if we accept longer payback periods.
However, reducing energy consumption in the built environment will require substantial changes to the way the construction industry operates. This will be a major challenge everywhere in the world. I expect, even with government regulations, it will be difficult and take time for the construction industry to adapt.
This could be a major concern, particularly if we take into account that this year’s Earth Overshoot Day, i.e. the day in which we consume the total resources that the Earth generates in a year, occurred on the 29th of July.
At a country level the range of Overshoot is dramatically more telling e.g. Qatar (11th February); Luxembourg (16th February) and the USA (15th March) are using more than four times their national resources each year, see more detail below.
Clearly, this level of consumption is not sustainable. Particularly if we also consider that, based upon 2015 estimates, current known fossil fuel reserves will be depleted in the relatively near future:
These figures are based upon current rates of consumption, but if the global economy doubles and the population increases by 25% then the current fossil fuel reserves could be depleted much quicker than the reports suggest.
I remember in the 1980s there was talk of Peak Oil occurring by 2000. Obviously, the projections were wildly wrong and it is probable that the fossil fuel reserve projections shown above could also be widely wrong. But, what if they are not? Do we have any contingency? No, we don’t.
For the moment, as they are the only figures I have available, let us assume the figures are right. What are the global implications?
All economies will continue to need energy to maintain growth. Emerging economies will need even more energy pro rata to help their economies grow as expected. Indonesia, for example, is expected to become the fourth largest economy by 2050. They are going to have a massive spend on their built environment to support their economy and I do not expect it will be built with sustainability as its primary design criteria.
Do the developed countries have the moral right to limit the amount of energy emerging countries have access to, thereby suppressing the economic growth plan of countries such as Indonesia? I think not. However, countries such as Indonesia and the many other countries in Asia, South America and Africa that expect strong economic growth need to be responsible and make energy efficiency one of their principal objectives as their economies grow.
If the global built environment doubles in size by 2060, how much energy will be required to develop and operate these new buildings? And with the USA announcing their withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, and the possibility that other countries could follow suit, will this cause depletion of our energy reserves more quickly than projected?
Also, when will Earth’s Overshoot Day occur in 2050? If we also take account of increased population and many countries with much larger economies, could the Earth Overshoot day occur in February? January?
There are many unknowns but, no matter the scenario, we potentially need significantly more energy to support the world, long before we reach 2050.
Can renewable technology or nuclear energy help meet this extra demand? Nuclear is probably not an option due to the dangers and the time to get sufficient nuclear stations operational. I expect renewables will help to some extent but I do not believe that they alone can address the issue. The solution cannot simply be to install more PV, wind turbines and batteries, or to find more fossil fuels. Our global motto must be ‘Energy Efficiency First’.
So, where do we start?
Energy is wasted in virtually every building. The total waste in some buildings can be as high as 50%. This can be a result of various factors, including oversized heating systems or inefficient control systems.
There are so many instances where simple energy efficiency measures could result in significant running cost savings. Have you ever looked around a city at night time and considered how many buildings have their lights on? Most of this is wasted energy and could be easily rectified. Similarly, many malls in hot countries are controlled to an air temperature of 20°C or less meaning these buildings can be uncomfortably cold if you have lightweight clothing on. These temperatures are far lower than they need to be. Again, a simple adjustment in the control settings could result in significant financial savings.
Significant capital costs savings could also be achieved if energy efficiency principals were integrated to the design of the building. For example, a centralised resource network such as CHP, district cooling, etc. can reduce the inefficiency and expense of installing each building with its own individual heating or cooling system.
There are so many benefits of an energy efficiency strategy in every part of our lives. One of the energy efficiency strategies we currently apply at IES is the creation of net Positive Energy Blocks. This involves defining a small group of buildings and applying a combination of improvements to building operation, upgrading the building envelope, upgrading the HVAC system; and so on, together with the optimisation of local renewable energy production, consumption and storage. Once this strategy is implemented, the energy saving is substantial with the potential of achieving positive net energy for the group of buildings.
Such strategies require investment and effort. However, by taking a longer term view of the economic implications and potential paybacks, surely it makes sense to implement energy efficiency in all walks of life: the built environment; transportation; manufacturing; agriculture; and so on. That it also results in carbon emissions being reduced should not pose a problem to anyone. Particularly when there are already proven processes, such as those used here at IES, that can help us achieve this.
If you are interested in finding out more about how IES are approaching energy efficiency in the built environment contact us for more information.
