Mini-Splits: A Cool Option for a Warming Climate

By Kiran Gupta

As the global population rises, so does the need to manage the temperature of residences. Before the widespread adoption of mini-split systems, air conditioning required forced air, a system which is difficult, and often prohibitively expensive to install in some areas. Mini-split systems therefore seem like a more viable solution to cooling homes, as compared to traditional forced air HVAC units. As we delve deeper into the sustainability implications of mini-split systems versus traditional centralized heating and cooling solutions, it's evident that this conversation extends beyond mere technological preferences. It encapsulates a broader reflection on our environmental stewardship, energy consumption patterns, and long-term ecological objectives.

Mini-split systems have emerged as a compelling alternative to traditional centralized HVAC systems, primarily due to their ductless operation and the precision of zone-specific climate control. This architectural distinction plays a pivotal role in enhancing energy efficiency. By circumventing the energy losses typically associated with ducted systems—losses that are substantial enough to account for up to 30% of a home's energy consumption for space conditioning—mini-splits present a more sustainable option. This feature, combined with their capability to function effectively as heat pumps, positions mini-splits as a versatile, energy-saving solution for modern living spaces.

The sustainability narrative of mini-splits is further extended by their contribution to reducing unnecessary energy consumption. By allowing for targeted heating and cooling, mini-splits minimize the environmental impact associated with maintaining optimal indoor climates. Their superior energy efficiencies are often captured in higher Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratings (SEER) compared to traditional systems, translating into lessened greenhouse gas emissions and a minimized environmental footprint.

From an economic standpoint, the benefits of mini-split systems are demonstrated by their potential for long-term savings, based on efficiency improvements. Despite their higher upfront costs, the energy efficiency of mini-splits can lead to substantial reductions in utility bills over time. Additionally, the availability of tax incentives and rebates, such as those provided under the Inflation Reduction Act, further enhances the financial viability of opting for high-efficiency, ENERGY STAR-certified ductless mini-split systems.

Certain technological advancements continue to elevate the appeal of mini-split systems, with innovations like variable refrigerant flow (VRF) technology enhancing their efficiency and versatility. Additionally, the concept of integrating mini-split systems into a smart power grid can have strong positive environmental impacts, especially when considering load balancing on a grid with renewable energy sources, such as solar power. These systems not only address heating and cooling needs but also contribute to improved indoor air quality—a cornerstone of sustainable indoor environments.

As we analyze the environmental impacts of different HVAC options, it's crucial to consider the long-term implications of these choices. Factors such as the energy efficiency ratings of systems, the environmental benefits of reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and the economic advantages of lower energy costs play a critical role in this decision-making process. Moreover, the alignment of HVAC system selection with broader sustainability goals highlights the necessity of integrating environmental considerations into every aspect of residential living.

Furthermore, the recognition of ductless heat pumps and mini-split systems as viable options for both new construction and retrofitting in existing homes emphasizes their versatility and adaptability. The capacity to provide targeted heating and cooling to specific areas of a home, without the need for extensive ductwork, offers a compelling argument for their consideration in sustainability-focused residential planning.

Retrofitting older buildings with modern HVAC systems, particularly through the use of mini-split systems, offers a sustainable path towards enhancing energy efficiency and indoor comfort. These systems are especially advantageous in settings where traditional ducted systems are impractical or too invasive to install. Mini-splits provide an efficient solution by delivering air directly to specified zones, eliminating the energy losses often associated with ductwork. This direct approach not only improves thermal performance by reducing heat loss but also contributes to significant energy savings over time. Additionally, the adaptability of mini-split systems allows for the incorporation of renewable energy sources, further diminishing the reliance on non-renewable power sources and bolstering environmental sustainability​.

The financial and environmental benefits of retrofitting with mini-split systems are compelling. Initial investments can lead to considerable reductions in operational costs, attributable to decreased energy consumption. This efficiency gain translates into a notable return on investment, enhancing property value and attracting energy-conscious occupants. The process of retrofitting also provides a prime opportunity to improve a building's insulation and air sealing, which are critical for optimizing energy use and comfort. It's essential to engage experienced professionals for installation to ensure that the HVAC system is correctly sized and that the retrofit aligns with local building codes and standards. By choosing the right system and making strategic upgrades, older homes can be transformed into models of energy efficiency and comfort, making retrofitting with mini-split systems a wise investment for the future​.

In light of these considerations, the evaluation of HVAC systems from a sustainability perspective involves a comprehensive analysis of their environmental, economic, and technological attributes. The pursuit of sustainable living practices demands a holistic approach to energy consumption and conservation, one that prioritizes the long-term well-being of our planet and its inhabitants. As such, the dialogue surrounding mini-split systems versus traditional centralized solutions is emblematic of a larger, ongoing conversation about how we can best align our living environments with the principles of sustainability.

Fast Fashion: Unsustainable In Every Way

Image shows a close up of a jean pocket with the words "Fast Fashion: Unsustainable In Every Way". Image from Unsplash by Markus Spiske

By Kiran Gupta

Fast fashion is a significant aspect of the modern clothing industry, known for rapidly producing high volumes of affordable clothing. This approach has led to serious environmental, economic, and social issues worldwide. By constantly introducing new, low-cost styles, fast fashion encourages a cycle of buying and discarding clothes, which contributes to environmental damage and raises concerns about the working conditions of those who make these clothes.

The environmental footprint of fast fashion is profound, rooted in the extraction and consumption of natural resources. The industry's water usage is monumental, required not just in the cultivation of raw materials like cotton but also throughout the dyeing and finishing processes of garment manufacturing. It's a sobering reality that the creation of a single cotton shirt can consume thousands of liters of water, a stark illustration of the industry's contribution to water scarcity. This is compounded by the alarming fact that a significant fraction of industrial water pollution can trace its origins back to the textile sector, where untreated effluents from dye houses and finishing plants seep into the ecosystem, wreaking havoc on aquatic life and contaminating water sources vital for surrounding communities.

The fast fashion model is inherently wasteful, with design trends that encourage continuous consumption. Annually, the world sees millions of tons of textiles discarded, with only a fraction finding its way into recycling systems. The bulk of this waste ends up in landfills or is incinerated, contributing to greenhouse gas emissions, and underlining the unsustainable nature of current fashion consumption patterns. The rapid turnover of collections, exemplified by brands releasing thousands of new styles weekly, exacerbates the issue, fueling the production of disposable apparel that swiftly transitions from wardrobe to waste.

Economically, fast fashion has redefined market dynamics, offering consumers an ever-expanding array of affordable clothing options. This model has driven a substantial increase in apparel production and purchase rates over the last few decades, propelling the industry to one of the world's most lucrative sectors. However, this growth has come at a considerable cost, with the environmental and social impacts challenging the very foundation of the fast fashion paradigm.

Socially, the industry's reliance on a global supply chain has spotlighted the precarious conditions under which many garment workers labor. Reports of labor rights abuses, from unsafe working conditions to below-living wages, are rampant in countries that serve as the backbone of garment production for western brands. Fast fashion is notorious for exploiting workers in unstable countries, exemplified by the plight of workers in Myanmar post-military coup. This exposes the complex relationship between global fashion supply chains and local socio-political contexts, with significant human rights concerns.

In response to these challenges, there's a growing movement toward sustainability and circularity within the industry. Legislative efforts in regions like the EU are aiming to hold producers accountable for the lifecycle of their products, pushing for reforms that encourage waste reduction, recycling, and the adoption of more sustainable practices. Moreover, innovative solutions and business models are emerging, designed to reduce the environmental impact of apparel and foster a more ethical fashion ecosystem. From using recycled materials to creating take-back programs for used garments, these initiatives represent a promising shift toward a more sustainable industry.

Furthermore, as the industry grapples with its impact, new frontiers in sustainable fashion are being explored. Advances in material science are leading to the development of alternative fabrics that require less water and chemicals to produce. Companies like Bolt Threads are innovating with bio fabricated materials like Mylo, a leather made from mycelium, which offers a lower environmental footprint compared to traditional animal leather or synthetic alternatives. Additionally, the rise of digital fashion, where garments exist only in virtual spaces, presents an intriguing avenue for reducing the physical resources needed for clothing production and consumption.

The role of consumers in driving change cannot be overstated. By making conscious decisions about their fashion consumption, from choosing quality over quantity to supporting brands committed to ethical practices, consumers have the power to influence the industry's direction. The adoption of the seven Rs—reduce, reuse, repurpose, recycle, refuse, rethink, and repair—by consumers reflects a growing awareness and willingness to engage in more sustainable fashion behaviors.

In summary, while the challenges posed by fast fashion are significant, the path to a more sustainable and ethical industry is illuminated by collaborative efforts across the spectrum of stakeholders. Through innovation, regulatory reform, and shifts in consumer behavior, the fashion industry can transition towards practices that respect both people and the planet. This evolution, though complex, is essential for ensuring the long-term viability of the fashion sector and its alignment with broader environmental and social sustainability goals.

Carbon Capture Technologies: Navigating the Path Between Climate Hope and Reality

Photo by Maxim Tolchinskiy on Unsplash

By Kiran Gupta

The quest to mitigate climate change has spurred a technological arms race, with carbon capture technologies (CCT) as one of the most discussed innovations. These technologies offer a vision where carbon dioxide emissions, the invisible adversary in our atmosphere, can be captured and either converted into useful products or safely stored away. The question, however, remains: Are carbon capture technologies our environmental saviors or merely delay tactics in the face of an escalating crisis?

In the past year, CCT has made unprecedented strides, raising hopes that this time, the technology will produce tangible results to tackle global emissions. The International Energy Agency has marked these advances, suggesting a new era for carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS). CCUS's maturity varies significantly by technology type and application, with several ready for rapid scale-up in applications like coal-fired power generation and hydrogen production, while others need more development.

The Biden-Harris administration in the U.S. has unveiled ambitious plans, investing over $12 billion in CCUS technologies as part of their clean manufacturing agenda. The Inflation Reduction Act, a landmark legislation in the U.S., has further fortified these efforts. One of its most notable provisions is the enhancement of tax credits for captured point source CO2. By increasing the tax credit from $50 to $85 per ton, the act has significantly improved the economic viability of numerous industrial applications of CCUS. This shift not only incentivizes companies to invest in carbon capture technologies but also makes it more financially feasible for them to integrate these systems into their operations.

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) involves collecting the CO2 generated by burning fossil fuels before it's released into the atmosphere, with most current strategies aiming for underground injection of CO2 for long-term storage. While CCS could be a crucial part of the climate mitigation toolkit, it's not without its challenges and controversies.

Critics of CCUS argue that it is an overly complex, expensive process, and many of the schemes proposed in the 1990s have failed due to high costs or technical difficulties. Currently, only a small fraction of annual emissions is captured by the existing plants. Even more concerning, most of the captured carbon to date has been used to extract more oil from existing wells. Currently, 81% of captured carbon to date was used to extract additional oil, using a process called Enhanced Oil Recovery. Critics argue that this use of carbon capture technologies nullifies the benefits, however, it is important to note that carbon emissions are still less for extracting oil compared to no carbon capture processes.

Additionally, the technology has not lived up to expectations, with capture rates starting as low as 65 percent and only gradually improving. In Canada, seven CCD projects currently only capture 0.05% of national emissions. CCS costs are projected between $20-35/tCO2 for concentrated CO2 streams, or $36-110/tCO2 for diluted gas streams. Despite these drawbacks, countries like the UK are investing heavily in research and development for CCUS, even though reliance on this technology raises doubts about meeting emission targets by 2050.

In response to these critiques, researchers are developing more efficient carbon capture methods. MIT's approach, for example, employs electro-swing adsorption using quinones. These molecules, when electrically charged, have a high affinity for CO2, capturing it from the air. When the charge is removed, the molecules release the CO2, ready for reuse. This method is highly suited to concentrated CO2 streams, making it well-suited for industrial processes. This could offer a more energy-efficient way to capture carbon without the need for significant temperature or pressure changes.

Despite the innovation surrounding carbon capture technology (CCT), its effectiveness and economic feasibility continue to spark debate. The existing infrastructure, having fallen short of its lofty ambitions, has drawn criticism, with some viewing it as a risky diversion from more established climate solutions like renewable energy and energy efficiency. However, there's a growing belief that with persistent innovation and amplified investment, CCT could see enhanced performance and scalability, potentially securing its role in a holistic climate strategy. In August 2023, the US Energy Department announced a $1.2 billion investment into two projects focused on removing carbon from the air, one of the largest investments in carbon removal to date. Additionally, carbon capture technologies are avenues for large oil companies to explore, to reduce their carbon emissions.

In this complex narrative, CCT oscillates between being a beacon of hope and a subject of skepticism. These technologies, perched at the cutting edge of our climate response efforts, face a pivotal moment. Will they rise to their much-anticipated potential, or buckle under the complexities that have so far hindered their progress? The unfolding story of CCT is not just about technological triumph; it's a race against time to protect our planet's future. As global temperatures continue to climb, refining and deploying effective carbon capture solutions becomes more than an innovation challenge—it's an imperative to ensure a sustainable future.

The journey of CCT in the realm of climate change mitigation is marked by potential and pitfalls. While they offer a promising avenue to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels, the debate over their practicality and cost-effectiveness remains unresolved. The current state of CCUS infrastructure, despite not meeting expectations, does not diminish the critical need for ongoing innovation and investment. As the world grapples with the escalating climate crisis, the advancement of CCT and its integration into a comprehensive environmental strategy becomes more crucial than ever. In the quest for a sustainable planet, every effort, every innovation, and every step forward in CCT is vital. The path to a greener future is long and winding, but with continued commitment and progress, CCT could play a pivotal role in our journey towards a more sustainable world.

Digging Deeper: The Environmental Cost Lurking Behind Cryptocurrency Boom

Photo by Kanchanara on Unsplash

By Kiran Gupta

Cryptocurrency, dubbed the digital gold of the 21st century, has been hailed as a decentralized, potentially game-changing solution in the financial sector. With Bitcoin taking the lead, the cryptocurrency frontier has seen unprecedented growth over the years. However, there's a shadow looming large behind the glitz and glitter of digital coins - the environmental impact. Bitcoin mining, a practice of doing complex math to earn a stake on the blockchain, is very energy intensive, using large amounts of power to run powerful computers. In fact, bitcoin transactions alone uses an estimated 150 terawatt-hours of power annually. As computing power increases, competition rises, requiring miners to use more energy to mine a smaller amount of cryptocurrency. However, before we can analyze the environmental impact of cryptocurrencies, it is important to understand what they are, and how they work.

Cryptocurrencies are forms of digital currencies which are validated on the blockchain, essentially a public ledger on the internet. Cryptocurrencies are not backed by any organizations, governments, or physical tender. This is a form of decentralized finance, or DeFi. Cryptocurrencies can be first acquired by ‘mining’ them, essentially doing many complex calculations, called hashes, which are then checked against the blockchain to validate. Additionally, there are two types of cryptocurrency classifications, proof of work and proof of stake. The process of mining is not just a digital affair; it has a real-world impact, devouring substantial electricity to fuel the computational power required for mining. The environmental toll isn't confined to energy consumption alone; it extends to climate, water, and land impacts, as highlighted by recent research by United Nations scientists.

Cryptocurrency miners can take many forms, but are divided into two categories, GPU miners and ASICs. Other mining strategies, such as CPU or hard drive mining are possible, but not nearly as profitable as GPUs or ASICs. GPU miners are a cluster of GPUs, usually consumer products run by individual people. These mining rigs are cheaper but have a significantly lower hash rate and power efficiency than ASICs. ASICs, Application Specific-Integrated Circuits, are computers built for the sole purpose of mining, usually designed for one specific token. These are significantly more expensive than GPUs but have a much higher hash rate and lower power consumption. However, these computers are essentially worthless after new versions are released, unlike GPUs which can be sold to consumer markets. This creates an estimated 30,700 tons of E-waste every year just from crypto.

It is very power intensive to mine cryptocurrency, with the number one expense for mining operations being electricity costs. This is due to the competitive nature of mining, stemming from the difficulty of calculations and the number of miners on the network. On the financial side, the price of bitcoin is set by the buyers and sellers, essentially what the majority of users are willing to buy or sell it for. The supply cap is the reason that bitcoin is one of the most stable coins. When bitcoin was created, a supply cap of 21 Million coins was implemented. Currently 19 million coins have been mined, leaving 2 Million left. This supply cap ensures that there are not an infinite number of coins, a fundamental principle of economics. As more coins are mined, and more miners are on the network, the difficulty to mine increases. In fact, every four years the difficulty to mine bitcoin doubles, in a process called halving designed to fight inflation and account for increases in computing power. Therefore, as more bitcoins have been mined and mining is gaining popularity, the amount of electricity required to mine an equivalent amount of currency has gone up dramatically.

In 2009, when bitcoin was first launched, a coin could be mined in a few hours with a normal work laptop. Now, you would need 1.25 million dollars’ worth of bitcoin mining computers to mine one coin per day. Even in the most efficient mining operations, one bitcoin requires 155,000 kWh of electricity to mine. In comparison, the average US household uses 900 kWh of electricity every month. This staggering power draw is worsened when considering that currently 945 Bitcoins are issued per day. That is 147 million kWh of power, or 147 Gigawatt hours. For reference, that is 1.3% of the total power used in the US every day.

Bitcoin mining has been a controversial topic for many years, especially after it gained popularity. In fact, China cracked down on Cryptocurrency in May 2021, banning crypto mining, trading, and prohibiting financial institutions from offering services related to crypto.  China explained this ban by stating that the energy intensive mining was harming their environmental goals. It is important to acknowledge that crypto is nearly impossible for governments to track, and transactions can be made internationally without any trace or fee. The result of the Chinese crypto ban is not a reduction of mining, rather a transition of mining supply to other countries, some with more reliance on non-renewable energy sources. Currently, renewable energy sources make up 50.9% of China’s total energy production. Miners from China flocked to Kazakhstan and the US, which have a 4.5% and 13.1% renewable energy production respectively. This means that significantly more non-renewable energy is used to mine cryptocurrencies following the Chinese ban.

At this point, cryptocurrency is not going away anytime soon, and its impact on the modern-day financial markets is substantial. However, there are steps which can be taken to drastically reduce the amount of electricity consumed by the sector. One major change which could drastically reduce the energy draw of cryptocurrencies is switching individual coin’s classifications from proof of work to proof of stake. Currently Bitcoin relies on a proof of work mining model, which has miners compete to solve complex, random calculations, creating another block on the blockchain and providing a portion of a coin. Proof of stake on the other hand requires very little computational power and operates based on staking coins based on the amount of transactions and wallet size. It is estimated that proof of stake networks use over 99% less power than proof of work networks. Switching large coins, such as Bitcoin, to proof of stake consensus would dramatically reduce the amount of power consumed by the network, eliminating a massive power draw from the world.

Cryptocurrencies are an inevitable aspect of the evolving digital economy, and the use of which will only increase. However, there is no denying the environmental impacts of crypto, such as e-waste and massive electricity draws from digital mining. Addressing these challenges head-on with innovative solutions like more energy-efficient consensus mechanisms and promoting responsible e-waste disposal are imperative to foster a more sustainable crypto-ecosystem. As the crypto frontier continues to expand, marrying the principles of decentralized finance with environmental stewardship will be paramount in ensuring that the digital currencies of tomorrow are both economically and ecologically viable.

Unplugging the Gas Line: The Controversial Shift from Natural Gas to Electric Appliances – A Look at Legislation, Efficiency, Environmental, and Economic Impact

Photo by KWON JUNHO on Unsplash

By Kiran Gupta

In today's era of environmental consciousness, the efficiency of appliances within the home has come into question. Multiple US states have attempted to pass legislation removing natural gas hookups from new construction, but few have gone through. Removing natural gas hookups from homes will have implications with major appliances, including stoves, furnaces, and dryers. This begs the question; does phasing out gas appliances reduce our environmental impact?

So far, six states have successfully passed or are progressing with gas bans or electrification codes. California, Colorado, New York, Massachusetts, Vermont, and Washington have already passed measures and account for 24% of the national residential gas use and 20% of commercial use in 2020. Conversely, 20 states, representing 31% of combined residential and commercial gas use, have enacted laws prohibiting local restrictions on building gas usage.

To appreciate the drive for natural gas bans, it's essential to examine the corresponding environmental and health repercussions. The EPA reveals that residential and commercial emissions comprised 13% of total U.S. emissions in 2019, with around 80% originating from natural gas combustion. Found in approximately 60% of American homes, natural gas is a prevalent utility.

Indoor natural gas combustion poses health risks, including the release of harmful gasses like nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, and formaldehyde. Studies, such as one from 1992, have linked such exposure to a 20% increase in children's respiratory illness risk. Lack of EPA regulations concerning indoor gas release further worsens the issue. Additionally, studies have found that stoves can leak natural gas, even when they are turned off. These leaks release benzene, a known carcinogen into the home.

Environmental groups make good arguments for phasing out gas stoves, but it is important to examine the true environmental impact of burning natural gas in homes, and the role of natural gas in the US. The average US household consumes between 70 and 90 therms per month of natural gas. That is up to 290 cubic feet of natural gas per day, equivalent to 2.28 gallons of gasoline. In the average car with a fuel economy of 25 mpg, one could drive up to 60 miles. The  average American commute length of 41 miles per day uses less fuel than the equivalent natural gas used within a home.

Natural gas is used extensively in the US for energy production, making up 39.8% of total production. That is the single largest source of energy. Unless the US starts producing much more energy from renewable sources, replacing natural gas appliances with electricity just changes where the natural gas is burned - from the home to outside power plants. This helps to reduce unhealthy emissions in the home but ultimately uses more power. 

Let’s take a look at heating a home with electricity. A natural gas power plant must first burn natural gas to create electricity. These power plants can range from 33% to 60% efficiency. Another 5-7% is lost in transmission on the way from the power plant to one’s home. Finally, the home furnace converts electricity to heat. On paper, electric furnaces are 100% efficient because they convert all electric power to heat, which is used to heat the house. However, using electricity to heat an entire house is very taxing, the furnace for the average house uses about 13 kWh of electricity. That is comparable to a Level 2 electric car charger.  Home gas furnaces, on the other hand, can be up to 95% efficient. Natural gas is much more efficient at heating, as burning it creates heat. It is far more inefficient to burn natural gas at a power plant to create heat, then convert it to electricity, only to convert it back to heat at a house.

In 2022, the US produced 35.81 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. However, a large portion of that gas was mined unintentionally. When drilling for oil, natural gas deposits can be broken, causing the gas to be released. In fact, 20-25% of all natural gas is produced from oil wells. Reducing the demand for natural gas by removing it from buildings does not reduce the amount of gas produced, as long as oil production remains constant. In fact, the US already exports natural gas, these legislations would only increase exports, allowing other countries to burn the gas.

There are some methods that we can take to reduce the amount of natural gas emissions. When drilling for oil, natural gas is released. However, unlike oil, which is extracted in liquid form, natural gas is in gaseous form. This makes storage challenging and expensive. To prevent releasing volatile organic compounds into the air, it is burned, known as flaring. In 2022, the US flared 419.75 Billion cubic feet of natural gas. That is 23 million tons of CO2 emissions with nothing beneficial in return. For reference, all the passenger cars in the US produced 374.2 Million metric tons of CO2.

Capturing the gas released from these flares, or at least burning it for something useful, would significantly reduce the amount of useless CO2 produced. Researchers at MIT have developed a method of producing methanol, a liquid fuel with many uses, from natural gas on site at oil rigs. With free natural gas, methanol production would be roughly $1.00/gallon, much lower than the current market price. This allows for the excess natural gas to be used for something useful, instead of just burning it off. Other companies are attaching containers filled with bitcoin mines to these flares, taking advantage of the free energy while mining cryptocurrency.

In conclusion, the debate surrounding the use of natural gas in homes raises complex questions about efficiency, health, and environmental impact. While legislation seeks to phase out natural gas from new constructions, the broader implications on energy consumption, emissions, and alternative utilization of natural gas require careful consideration. Innovations in capturing or repurposing natural gas, as well as a balanced approach to energy sources, could forge a path towards a more responsible and sustainable energy future for all.

Power Surge: The Growing Impact of Data Centers on Energy Grids

By Kiran Gupta

Photo by İsmail Enes Ayhan on Unsplash

In today's digital era, data centers have evolved into the lifelines of our interconnected world. They safeguard the mountains of data generated daily - from routine emails and social media updates to financial transactions and medical records. Nonetheless, these digital fortresses carry substantial environmental footprints, especially concerning their energy consumption and the resulting stress on our power grids.

To grasp the power consumption scale in data centers, we need to understand their functionalities. While all data centers fundamentally collect, process, and store data, their specific functions can vary. Some primarily store data using storage infrastructure, while others offer cloud computing services like AI and machine learning applications. Others deal exclusively with network traffic. Irrespective of their operations, all data centers house server racks, each brimming with high-powered computers requiring efficient cooling systems. 

The International Energy Agency notes that data centers worldwide consumed approximately 205 million Megawatt-hours (MWh) of electricity in 2018. That's about 3% of the global electricity consumption. Unsurprisingly, as the demand for digital services soars and servers increasingly pack more processing power, so will this figure. For context, the average household in the US uses 1.2kW per hour. A decade ago, the power density for a standard server rack was between 5kW to 13kW per hour. Using NVIDIA’s future HGX A100 GPUs commonly used for Artificial Intelligence, one server rack can use over 160 kW per hour. That means a rack of servers that takes up space equal to the size of a household fridge can use as much power as 140 US households. A large data center can have over 12,000 racks. All these servers generate heat which requires data centers to be cooled. The cooling systems can add an additional 40% of a data center's total power consumption.

As predicted by Moore's Law—proposed in 1965 by Intel co-founder, Gordon Moore—the number of transistors on a microchip, and thus global computing capacity, doubles approximately every two years. With IDC projecting that global data usage will increase 5-fold  from 33 Zetta Bytes in 2018 to 178 ZB by 2025, the need for more power-consuming data centers is inevitable. The surging demand for AI, machine learning, and autonomous vehicles further fuels this trend.

Data centers that house servers often require service-level agreements that ensure 99.999% or higher uptime. This means they can only be down for less than an hour for every decade of operation. Data centers that mine cryptocurrencies, however, seek the cheapest possible power. If power demand exceeds supply, they are often ok with turning off their miners when it means they can buy cheaper electricity. Electric utilities have to balance these differing demands.

Mirroring the rise of electric vehicles (EVs), this proliferation of data centers will stress power grids, particularly those already nearing capacity. It may even necessitate the construction of new power plants to meet the escalating demand. For power companies, data centers can pose considerable challenges given their need for constant power. Unfortunately, this constant draw makes certain renewable sources, such as solar power, non-viable due to the periodic power generation. Continuously producing energy sources such as geothermal are often better suited for data centers.

Data centers are increasingly becoming significant renewable energy consumers. Amazon and Microsoft led the pack as the largest corporate renewable energy buyers through Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) in 2021. Such renewable energy purchases enable data centers to lower their carbon footprints and contribute to the shift towards a sustainable energy grid. 

There are numerous strategies data centers can adopt to minimize their power consumption. Companies can select locations with colder climates to lessen energy spent on cooling systems. Intelligent power management using AI can predict traffic surges and optimize cooling systems accordingly. Some are running them at a higher temperature, with the US GSA saying data centers can save 4% of total energy for every 1℉ they allow the temperature to climb.  Data centers could repurpose their waste heat for residential and commercial buildings, a practice already implemented by Microsoft's data centers in Finland.

In summary, the surge in computing and the escalating demand for digital services have substantially increased the global data center footprint. Despite the heavy electricity consumption and strain on our power grids, the industry is making headway in mitigating its environmental impact. It is achieving this through improved operational efficiency and a transition to renewable energy sources. As our reliance on digital services persists, it remains essential to continue advocating for sustainable practices within the data center industry.

Is EV Battery Production Green?

Photo by Kumpan Electric on Unsplash from the Kumpan 54 Iconic electric Motorbike

By Kiran Gupta

In 2023 electric vehicle (EV) sales peaked, making up 7.1% of all new vehicle sales. EVs are applauded for their remarkable efficiency, environmental cleanliness, and ability to convert 77% of the electrical power from the grid to propel the wheels. In comparison, conventional gasoline vehicles can only convert between 12-30% of gasoline energy into actual motion.

Nonetheless, EV battery production raises valid environmental concerns, especially regarding the non-renewable minerals used in their batteries. Amidst ambitious global EV adoption goals, a pertinent question arises: Is EV battery production environmentally friendly?

In a nutshell, the answer is no. But to understand why we must first comprehend what goes into an EV battery. Contemporary EVs utilize huge battery packs composed of thousands of individual cells wired together. It's akin to inserting AA batteries into a remote control, but instead of two batteries, it's 4,400 - the number of cells in a Tesla Model Y, the leading EV seller.

The individual cells differ significantly from standard household batteries due to their unique battery chemistry. Every cell comprises a cathode, an anode, and an electrolyte. The minerals utilized in these roles determine the battery's chemical composition. Varying mineral combinations can result in batteries with high energy density but slow discharge times, or alternatively, batteries with low energy density but a high cycle capacity. EV manufacturers are continuously experimenting with new battery chemistries to enhance performance, energy density, and lifespan. For instance, one Tesla Model Y variant uses 2170 type cells with a Nickel-Cobalt-Manganese chemistry. Interestingly, current Tesla models hardly ever use lithium in their batteries. However, from an environmental standpoint, the metals used in batteries are essentially all problematic.

The first step in battery production, mining, is an energy-intensive process with significant environmental repercussions. Mines for these metals, such as Lithium, Cobalt, and Nickel, are often in developing countries with loose labor laws, raising serious human rights issues. The wasteful process of mining these metals arises from the limited presence of the desired element in the earth, measured as an ore grade. For example, the average ore grade for Cobalt is around 0.1%, which requires mining 30,000 pounds of ore to obtain 30 pounds of Cobalt, the average amount required for a lithium-based EV battery. Extracting that ore involves moving significant amounts of overburden, often polluting water sources and disrupting wildlife.

Surprisingly, mining only accounts for 10-20% of the total emissions from the entire production process. Refining the ore is the most energy-intensive aspect of raw material production. It demands a massive energy input, a large quantity of water, and is a source of significant emissions. For instance, it takes 580,000 gallons of water to produce one ton of lithium. This translates to 6,500 gallons of water for the lithium required for the average EV battery.

The environmental toll of battery production doesn't end with mining and refining. The procurement and processing of raw materials into actual battery cells is both energy-intensive and complex. The production stage alone accounts for roughly 50% of total emissions. The carbon footprint is further increased when including transporting battery components and the finished product.

Despite these challenges, progress is being made towards more sustainable battery production. Innovative mining techniques are being developed that are less destructive. New battery technologies requiring fewer rare and nonrenewable resources are in the pipeline. Notably, phytomining, or the extraction of certain metals like Nickel from plants, offers an environmentally friendly alternative. Metal farms can produce between 170 to 280 pounds of nickel per acre. Not only is this better for the environment than traditional mining, farmers growing these plants can expect to produce a profit of $3,800 per acre, a number on par with the best-performing agricultural crops. 

Moreover, the rise of battery recycling programs is a significant step towards more sustainable battery production. Battery recycling allows for the extraction and reuse of precious metals from old batteries, reducing the demand for newly mined materials. A California company, Redwood Materials, was able to recover over 95% of the minerals from thousands of battery packs they collected. In addition, several companies and researchers are investigating the potential for second-life applications of used EV batteries, such as energy storage, which could prolong their usability and offset their environmental impact.

While the production of EV batteries is not green, the use of EVs considerably reduces emissions compared to gasoline cars over their lifespan. The US Department of Energy reported that EVs generate 3,932 lbs of CO2 equivalent per year, while gasoline vehicles generate 11,435 lbs. So, within less then five years, a Tesla Model 3 can offset its production emissions, resulting in a net decrease in CO2 emissions compared to a gasoline car.

In conclusion, while the production of EV batteries is currently far from green, the emergence of new technologies and a transition towards more sustainable practices hold promise. To truly harness the green potential of EVs, we need to focus on the entire vehicle lifecycle - from production to disposal - and aim for sustainability at every step. Only then can we turn the promise of a green future with electric vehicles into reality.

Accelerating EV Infrastructure in California

Photo by CHUTTERSNAP on Unsplash

By Erin Sanchez

The State of California has set forth ambitious carbon neutrality goals to combat climate change. The goal of carbon neutrality by 2045 was codified in September 2022 by AB 1279. Reducing the reliance on fossil fuels in the transportation sector is a major aspect of reaching these goals. To help support California’s statewide carbon neutrality goal, Gavin Newsom issued Executive Order N-79-20 which set the following targets for zero emission vehicles and equipment:

• 100% of new passenger cars and trucks will be zero emissions by 2035

• 100% of medium and heavy-duty vehicles will be zero emission by 2035

• 100% of off-road vehicles and equipment will be zero emission by 2035

In addition, the state set a target of 250,000 EV charging stations by 2025. These goals compliment the recent federal Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which provides consumers a $4,000 rebate for used EVs and a $7,500 credit for new EVs. Additional information on IRA EV incentives can be found in A/G’s previous post: The Inflation Reduction Act poses a new way to think about the EV Tax Credit

While California’s goals represent the loftiest carbon reduction goals in the country, the progress made toward these goals thus far is encouraging. California is the #1 EV market in the country, with over 1.39 EVs sold in California by the end of 2022. This represents approximately 19% of the market share of passenger vehicles. Approximately 87,700 public and shared private EV chargers have been installed across the state, which is about 32% of the targeted stations. 

It is clear there is a long way to go to achieve statewide goals and help California transition to a greener environment and economy. To aid this transition, the development community can play a role in expanding the network of EV chargers, but it does not need to take on this challenge alone. The state has allocated $8.9 Billion to accelerate the transition to zero-emissions vehicles. Many of these funds are available through Incentive programs such as the Clean Transportation Program, California EV Infrastructure Project, and Communities in Charge. Additional incentives and rebates are offered by utilities throughout the state, including Southern California Edison (SCE), San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E), and Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). More details on these incentive programs and requirements can be found here: https://business.ca.gov/industries/zero-emission-vehicles/zev-funding-resources/

Embracing Nature: Biophilic Building Strategies and Their Effects on Inhabitants

Photo by Matt Hoffman on Unsplash

By Sarah Thomas

In an industrial society that has become increasingly detached from nature, biophilic design is an architectural approach to addressing that disconnect and fostering connectivity to our natural environments. By re-integrating natural elements into building designs, these spaces are not only visually appealing, but they also have the potential to enhance the well-being and productivity of inhabitants.

Biophilic design principles seek to establish a deep connection between occupants and the natural world through built spaces. This is achieved through incorporating elements such as green walls, organic patterns, rooftop gardens, water features, and ample natural lighting. These features not only enhance the aesthetics of the building but also have profound effects on human psychology. Studies have shown that exposure to nature has a calming effect, reduces stress levels, and improves cognitive function. By simulating natural environments indoors, biophilic designs provide occupants with a sense of serenity and tranquility.

These buildings also prioritize the health and well-being of inhabitants. Indoor air quality is enhanced through advanced ventilation systems that filter pollutants, reducing the risk of respiratory problems. Additionally, the presence of greenery helps purify the air by absorbing carbon dioxide and releasing oxygen. Access to natural light has been linked to better sleep patterns, increased vitamin D synthesis, and enhanced mood. These factors contribute to improved physical and mental health, leading to higher levels of satisfaction and productivity among occupants.

Biophilic design also has a profound impact on occupant’s creativity and productivity. By incorporating natural elements into workspaces and educational environments, occupants experience improved focus, creativity, and problem-solving skills. Greenery and natural light have been shown to enhance cognitive abilities, memory retention, and information processing. Additionally, providing ample views of nature and outdoor spaces from within the building has a positive influence on attention restoration, allowing individuals to recharge and maintain optimal performance.

Biophilic design elements, which prioritize the connection between humans and nature, represent a revolutionary abandonment of building constructions that seeks to shelter and separate occupants from the natural world. By creating spaces that mimic natural environments, biophilic designs not only enhance the aesthetics of buildings but also have a profound impact on the well-being, health, creativity, and productivity of inhabitants. Embracing biophilic design is yet another step towards a more sustainable and harmonious future.

Resources: 

1. Terrapin Bright Green: 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design - Improving Health & Well-Being in the Build Environment

2. Biophilic Design - The Theory, Science, and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life, by Stephen R Kellert, Judith H Heerwagen, and Martin L. Mador

Frameworks For ESG Reporting

Photo by Lukas Blazek on Unsplash

By Gayaneh Giragol

More companies nowadays are moving towards investing in sustainable goals when it comes to Environmental, Social and Governance Sustainability. At its core, it is influencing positive change which includes smart investing.

ESG is becoming an essential part of companies.

According to Mike Walters, CEO of USA Financial, “ESG is important for the obvious impactful reasons relating to each stakeholder, but it also can be used to identify the strength and sustainability of the company itself”.

Based on the company’s industry and operations, they can adopt a suitable framework for ESG reporting. According to RIVERON, SASB and CDP are the most frequently adopted frameworks. 

Here below are the top 5 most adopted frameworks:

Frameworks Adopted Among the S&P 500 (2022) RIVERON

Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB). SASB Standards identify the subset of sustainability issues most relevant to financial performance in each of 77 industries. It is relatively easy to adopt due to its limited scope and industry-specific consideration of financially material topics.

CDP. The Climate Disclosure Project is a framework that is responded to by filling out a complex questionnaire on the group’s website. CDP is a not-for-profit charity that runs the global disclosure system.

Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD). TCFD disclosures continue to gain popularity as organizations prepare to comply with the forthcoming SEC rule which largely mirrors this framework on issues related to climate-related financial disclosures.

The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). GRI created the first sustainability reporting framework in the late 1990s and measures the impacts a company has on the environment, society, and the economy. Ratings are based on a voluntary issuer questionnaire.

UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) consist of 17 goals that aim to be achieved by 2030 and are meant to mobilize countries and organizations to tackle climate change, end poverty, and reduce inequality.

Forbes states that with more data and push-button technology becoming available, investors can cross compare their choices in real time and update allocations within minutes. 

The Impact Of EV Growth On Current Power Systems

Photo by Yuan Yang on Unsplash

By Kiran Gupta

The rise of electric vehicles (EVs) continues, fueled by efficient battery technology breakthroughs and increasingly competitive pricing from automakers. Electric vehicle (EV) sales have been increasing consistently, with EVs accounting for 7.1% of all new vehicle sales in 2023, up 162% from Q1 2021. Federal tax credits and state electrification goals have further incentivized automakers and consumers to pursue the widespread adoption of EVs. Major stakeholders, including the U.S. government, are clearly backing electric vehicles, but this begs an important question: can the power grid sustain the surge of these electricity-intense vehicles?

The answer is rather complex. While most studies indicate that the power grid can manage the initial influx of EVs, long-term expansion requires infrastructure modification. This will necessitate building extra power plants to manage the increased load. New power plant construction can be a good thing; building large renewable plants to retire old fossil-fueled power stations can not only reduce carbon emissions, but also create jobs and stimulate the local economy. Additionally, the characteristics of EVs may offer opportunities for charge optimization and load balancing, as well as short-term battery storage to boost the viability of renewable energy sources.

EVs consume substantial power. For instance, the top-selling EV of 2023, the Tesla Model Y, comes with a starting battery capacity of 67.6 kWh. Charging this car at home could easily double a household's daily energy consumption, considering the average U.S. household uses around 30 kWh per day. This makes an EV the most power-hungry appliance a house can have, although it allows more flexibility for electricity usage than anything else. Unlike other household appliances, namely air conditioners, an EV can be charged at any time during the day. Smart chargers could selectively charge a large network of EVs at different times, reducing the need for energy utilities to activate standby power plants which are often non-renewable and inefficient.

A more cost-effective yet somewhat less efficient approach to mass EV charging optimization involves delayed home charging. An MIT study discovered that this strategy—programming EV chargers to charge the car just before departure—can reduce the number of EVs being charged simultaneously. Professor Tranick explains this effectiveness comes from natural variabilities in human behavior and consequently, varied driving times across the population. The same MIT research also highlighted the benefits of installing slow charging stations near workplaces. This allows EVs to charge during the day when solar farms are at peak capacity, preventing an oversupply of power during high-sunlight hours, effectively treating EVs as energy storage units.

Although the rise of EVs present challenges for the current energy grid, they also offer unique opportunities. A centralized smart charging system could allow EVs to be used as short-term mass energy storage devices, increasing the feasibility of certain weather dependent renewable energy sources. Households with solar arrays could also use their EV as electricity storage, allowing them to use excess power generated during the day at night.

As the market and want for EVs grow, the need for grid expansion and efficiencies grow as well. Creating an integrated system that will allow for more EVs while taking advantage of technology that can expand and support the current infrastructure is the next challenge. What happens next remains to be seen, but partnering EV batteries with grid expansion could be a win-win for all of us.

Breaking Down the LEED v4 Energy Updates

By Ali Karim-Lee

The current versions of LEED are set to be updated to address the urgency of climate change. The proposed changes to LEED v4 energy requirements are in the process of receiving 2nd public comment. When the update language is finalized, a ballot with member votes will lead to new requirements going into effect. 

The LEED v4 energy updates are intended to increase energy efficiency and include aspects beyond energy efficiency:

• Raising the threshold for minimum energy performance → Stringency to achieve better performance

• New metric of greenhouse gas emissions reductions → Broader evaluation of buildings concerning climate change

• Energy efficiency can be measured using source energy → promoting electrification

The changes to EA Prerequisite Minimum Energy Performance for “LEED v4 for Building Design and Construction (BD+C): New Construction, Warehouse and Distribution Centers, Hospitality, Retail, and Schools” rating systems are as follows:

→ New EA prerequisite - Minimum Energy Performance: 10% improvement beyond ASHRAE 90.1-2010

→ Metrics of cost, source energy and GHG emissions can be used to demonstrate minimum performance improvement

→ Contribution of on-site renewable energy can be used to meet the prerequisite compliance

The changes to EA Credit Optimize Energy Performance for “LEED v4 for Building Design and Construction (BD+C): New Construction, Warehouse and Distribution Centers, Hospitality, Retail, and Schools” rating systems are as follows:

→ Available points are distributed evenly between energy efficiency metrics (cost or source energy) and greenhouse gas emissions metric. Total points will be the sum of each metric point. (With only demonstrating the energy efficiency improvement, half of the points is achievable) 

More information and resources can be found by visiting USGBC’s v4 site.

Water Reuse in Buildings as Part of the Solution to a Growing Water Crisis

By Erin Sanchez and Sarah Thomas

Water reuse is an important aspect of a sustainable future, especially in drought prone areas of the world such as California and other southwestern states. It is also increasingly important as climate change trends towards a hotter and dryer future. The western Unites States has experienced the driest 22-year period in more than 1,200 years. 

In addition, despite a drought breaking winter and record snowpack this season, the Colorado River, which supplies water to 40 million people and over 5.5 million acres of crops, is still severely over allocated. One rainy season will not be enough to reverse the trends of the last 22 years. Lake Mead and Lake Powell, the two largest reservoirs in the country, are both supplied by the Colorado River. Each are currently at 28% and 22% of capacity respectively. This is 34-36% less than the historic average. Water levels are so low that they may soon fail to turn the turbines that generate electricity. Consequently, the states that rely on the Colorado River will likely face not only a water shortage, but also power grid disruptions. 

Last summer, the federal government mandated that the states relying on the Colorado River come to an agreement and plan to reduce water use by 20-40% of the river’s flow. Up to this point, the states have been unable to reach an agreement and in an unprecedented move, the federal government has stepped in to draft a plan which will allocate the water and mandate reductions. The plan is expected to be delivered this summer. While this news may seem grim, many water resource professionals and leaders agree that this is not a result of a water supply problem, but in fact a water management problem. With this view in mind, there is some optimism that the water crisis can be addressed through resource management efforts to create a sustainable and equitable future for all states. 

In California, Urban Water Use makes up around 10% of total usage. The main proportions of usage are in Residential, Commercial, Institutional, and Industrial sectors respectively. While Agriculture makes up the bulk of water use in California, we should aim to improve water management across all sectors. With the rapid improvements of water reuse technologies, we can aim to close the loop - reducing wastewater and ultimately our reliance on precious freshwater resources. 

There are many ways we can help combat this resource management problem. In buildings, multifaceted strategies include decreasing, optimizing, and reusing water - all of which are pieces of the puzzle. Efforts to decrease water use can involve installing low flow and flush fixtures, and landscaping with native and adaptive plants that require little or no irrigation.  Water reuse systems focus on utilizing water from sources that have traditionally been regarded as waste products. 

Repurposed wastewater sources include graywater, blackwater, condensate from cooling towers, groundwater, and stormwater. One water reuse strategy is the collection of foundation drainage for water supply. Methods such as this simultaneously solve a nuisance problem, while providing a source of usable water to the building after treatment. In large commercial and residential buildings, onsite water treatment technologies are another example of water reuse. The clean, treated water is then recirculated into the building’s non-potable water supply, often meeting up to 95% of the total building water demand. This can serve to reduce the reliance on strained fresh water supplies. Water reuse strategies are often a win-win. 

Here in Los Angeles, City National Plaza is installing a water reuse treatment system by EpicCleanTec. This system would treat an estimated 14,900,000 gallons of water annually, providing nearly $500,000 per year in local rebates and utility savings. This equates to a payback of 8-10 years. From an investment perspective, building owners can insulate their investments from increasing uncertainty in the cost and availability of water supplies by incorporating a variety of water reuse strategies. 

As these technologies improve, a shift in local regulations has also been observed. These regulations are starting to incentivize and, at times, require buildings to incorporate secondary water sources such as municipally reclaimed water supplies, water catchment systems, and maybe one day on-site wastewater treatment and reuse technologies. As we continue to face uncertainty in the future of our water resources, it is more important than ever that we look to all industries to spearhead solutions to our water management crisis.

Renewable Energy and the Essential Role of Batteries

By Ali Karim-Lee & Justine Taormino

Wait, What Is Battery Storage?

Battery storage is a technology that enables power system operators and utilities to store energy for later use. A battery energy storage system (BESS) is an electrochemical device that charges (or collects energy) from the grid or a power plant and then discharges that energy at a later time to provide electricity or other grid services when needed (source). A battery is not the only energy storage system option. Other examples include thermal (using heating and cooling methods to store and release energy), flywheels (storing energy in a rapidly spinning mechanical rotor), pumped hydro power (water flowing through turbines to produce electricity), and emerging technologies like compressed air, superconducting magnets, and hydrogen storage (source).

The Essential Role Of Batteries

As we move towards a sustainable future, the need for renewable energy generation is on the rise. Clean energy sources are set to outpace growth in global electricity demand and will overtake fossil fuels in the process (source). Renewable energy can not be produced 24/7/365 due to limitations in systems and the inconsistent access to certain energies. For instance, cloudy days reduce solar energy generation, calm weather reduces wind energy generation, etc. The intermittent nature of renewable energy requires means of energy storage (like batteries) to make consistent availability of renewable energy sources possible. In addition, energy storage provides grid relief during peak energy demands by storing energy during off-peak times to be used in times of higher demand. 

Drawbacks Of Recycling BESS

Battery energy storage systems (BESS) play a vital role in the increase in and movement towards renewable energy options, however, the full cycle of “renewable” needs to take into account the reusability and/or recyclability of the batteries themselves. If not, the renewable energy systems are just creating waste of a different kind. Incorrect battery disposal or reuse can leak environmental toxins, never biodegrade, or in worst case situations, explode (source). To tackle the material use aspect of BESS, solutions are developing to reuse and recycle batteries, for example, used electric car batteries can be recycled at renewable energy plants or reused in other grid applications (source). The whole process is fairly new and runs into trouble with two main issues: the cost of recycling (or the lack of profit in recycling) and the varying types of batteries which makes it more difficult to standardize and scale recycling processes (source).

California Title 24-2022 Battery Requirements

With the 2022 Energy Code, California is the first state to enact a solar plus storage requisite. The order, which went into effect January 1, 2023, requires all newly constructed commercial buildings to have a solar photovoltaic (PV) array and an energy storage system (ESS) installed (source). 

The move towards renewable energies is gaining momentum and battery life-cycles (manufacturing, implementing in a system, and recycling/reusing) will play an important role in just how “renewable” these energy systems can be.

For specific Title 24 language and requirements, visit energycodeace.com. 

For more information about how Title 24 affects California building codes and regulations, please contact us at argentograham.com/contact

What You Need To Know About the January 1st California Code Changes

Happy 2023!

As many of you know, January 1st marked a new building code cycle here in California. Just as in the last update 3 years ago, the focus remains on reducing carbon emissions in the 2022 California Energy Code Title 24 Part 6.

Our friends and frequent project collaborators at ARC Engineering know how confusing and overwhelming it can be to grasp the changes and how they will affect your project. To help with that they have prepared summaries of the most significant changes to the energy and building codes.

We are happy to share them here and are grateful to ARC for doing their homework and putting these together!

Download the ARC Engineering summaries:
ARC 2022 CMC & CPC Code Changes.pdf
ARC NEC 2022 Code Changes.pdf
ARC Electrical 2022 T24 Updates ARC.pdf
ARC Mechanical Plumbing 2022 T24 Updates ARC.pdf

Belkin International - LEED v4 Silver Rating

Belkin International’s Headquarters

Argento/Graham provided LEED Consulting, Fitwel Consulting and Commissioning services for Belkin International’s new headquarters in El Segundo, California, helping secure a LEED v4 Silver Rating for the project as well as an expected Fitwel Star rating in the first quarter of 2023.

A leader in cutting-edge consumer electronics, Belkin relied on A/G ’s expertise to ensure their new home reflects their values of environmental stewardship and support for the well-being of their employees.

Gateway Logistics Center - LEED Gold Certified

Rendering of the Gateway Logistics Center

Argento/Graham provided LEED Consulting, Energy Modeling and Commissioning services to Black Creek Group for the newly LEED Gold certified, Gateway Logistics Center, a 250,000 sq.ft. industrial facility in the City of Los Angeles.

The project is an urban infill development located on the former Del Amo Superfund site and is in close proximity to major logistics hubs like LAX and the ports.

It also boasts a rainwater collection system, a large rooftop PV array, and among other green building strategies, has EV charging stations and water conserving landscape and plumbing fixtures.

Strategies to Reduce Energy Use in Energy Intensive Buildings

Photo by Doris Morgan on Unsplash

By Ali Karim-Lee

Moving towards achieving a sustainable future, reducing energy consumption is a crucial part of the process. Residential and commercial buildings account for about 28% of total U.S. end-use energy consumption in 2021 according to U.S. Energy Information Administration.

With respect to energy, buildings can be categorized by the metric of Energy Use Intensity (EUI). EUI indicates the total energy consumption of a building in one year relative to the total gross floor area of the building. While EUI varies considerably for different building types, it can be used as a benchmarking tool to compare energy performance of buildings with similar type and function. Certain building types will use more energy and be classified as energy intensive buildings. Examples of such buildings include healthcare facilities with EUIs in the range of 200 kBtu/ft2 and above and restaurants with EUIs of about 300 kBtu/ft2 and above.

The dominant portion of energy use in energy intensive buildings are associated with process loads accounting for industry-specific equipment. Improvements to reduce such equipment energy use are mostly beyond the scope of the buildings sector and falls under the energy efficiency in the industry sector.

From building design and operation perspective and considering Energy = Power x Time, improvements to reduce process energy use are limited to the Time component of energy use as reducing Power of process equipment is not always feasible. In commercial and residential buildings, many power reduction opportunities can be attained by load reduction and using efficient HVAC systems, lighting, service water heating systems and appliances, while industry-specific process equipment can be within limited market/design options. With this regard, process energy use reduction approaches will be more focused on schedules and controls of process equipment. By identifying and understanding different process loads for each of the space types within the energy intensive buildings, appropriate strategies can be adopted to reduce energy use within each space type. Moreover, industrial processes can provide opportunities to harvest the generated waste heat during processes. One strategy for waste heat recovery is to use a coil in the exhaust stream to harvest heat.

Another aspect of energy use in energy intensive buildings such as laboratories and testing facilities is the ventilation requirements. By adopting a space demand control ventilation approach, ventilation can be adjusted to meet the air quality requirement based on continuous air quality monitoring and therefore over-ventilations will be prevented.

Dual lighting and HVAC occupancy sensors help reduce energy by dimming the lights and reducing the HVAC airflow while occupants are not present in each space within the facilities with varying occupancy patterns. Another significant energy use can be due to fume hoods in space types such as educational labs and food service. Fume hood occupancy-based sensors can limit hoods operation to times when required only.

The above-mentioned strategies are around the schedule and control of end-use while in energy intensive buildings, processes and building operational demands are substantial fractions of buildings energy use.

California Air Resources Board (CARB) headquarters – Net Zero Energy (NZE) Facility

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) Southern California headquarters (above) was completed in Riverside, California in 2022. The 403,306-sf is the largest vehicle emissions testing facility in the world and the largest net-zero facility of its kind. Read more.

Changes to LEED (A Reflection on Greenbuild 2022)

By Katie Matthews

Every year Greenbuild highlights an array of topics and discussions centering around green building and sustainability. This year was no exception; sessions ranged from reducing embodied carbon, net zero initiatives, meeting zero waste goals and updates in the certification systems. While most years typically showcase small changes to LEED ratings systems, 2022’s event was a much larger conversation surrounding the future of LEED.

Updates to LEED v4

During the keynote session at Greenbuild, USGBC announced new updates coming to the current v4 rating system. The updates include a revision to the Minimum and Optimize Energy performance credits to address greenhouse gas emissions and climate change more directly. The revisions will include raising the current thresholds for the current Minimum Energy Performance Prereq and the overall thresholds for the Optimize Energy Performance credit. 

The prerequisite will now require a performance improvement of 15% for NC projects (including warehouses, schools, major renovations and hospitality), 8% for Core and Shell Projects and 5% for Healthcare projects. Option 1 under the credit will change to be 20 points overall (typically 18 points under NC), as well as break up the points into two different categories: ‘Percent Improvement in Energy Performance’ and ‘Percent Improvement in Greenhouse Gas Emissions’. With these changes, USGBC hopes to align the v4 and v4.1 credits to meet the greater goal of reducing carbon emissions. The language for each prerequisite and credit is now live on the USGBC website a deadline for public comment to be submitted by January 13, 2023. 

Future of LEED v5 

This year announced a new version of LEED to be released for review in September 2023. LEED v5, will be the next full revision LEED rating system to be released to the public since v4, released in 2016. After v4, we saw multiple iterations of v4.1 requirements circulate as USGBC has tried to address some of the feasibility issues of v4. The updated credit requirements for v4.1 have been in comment review and allowed for project teams to test under the v4 rating system for the past couple years. V4.1 has done a good job of adding alternate methods for meeting credit requirements to open LEED to more projects in more places. But according to USGBC (and many of its TAG committees), it is still not enough. LEED v4.1 will no longer go to ballot, and USGBC is moving on to LEED v5. For buildings to meet the standards that align with global initiatives, such as the Paris Agreement, we will need to rebuild LEED from the ground up. Whether or not they will change up the existing credits, one main topic was constant; LEED needs to change. A/G attended a variety of sessions that discussed the “New LEED”. 

On Monday October 31st, USGBC held ‘LEED Convene and Connect’. USGBC’s Wes Sullens moderated the discussion opening with the following principles of concept for the new LEED rating systems:

1. Scale for the greatest impact

2. Decarbonize building industry, swiftly to reflect the urgency of the climate crisis

3. Inspire and recognize adaptive and resilient built environments

4. Invest in human health & well-being 

5. Create environments in which diversity, equity, and inclusivity thrive

6. Support flourishing ecosystems through regenerative development practices

The panel discussed how Oakland and San Francisco have changed local codes to push buildings and local development to meet more stringent carbon, DEI, and resiliency goals. The two cities lead as examples of how policy changes are one way of shifting the market to address the immediate climate and suitability targets. This same idea applies to LEED and its rating systems. USGBC and LEED have demonstrated over the last 25+ years, as the preeminent green building standard in the US, that their rating systems play a large role in the building market and conversations on sustainability. For that reason, LEED should be held to a higher standard and aim to push for greater change. 

Another panel A/G attended was the ‘Future of LEED’. Similarly, the conversation was centered around how LEED needs to push for future change and started with the same key principles present in ‘LEED Convene and Connect’. During the session, the largest agreement amongst the panel and attendees is that the shift for the future rating system needs to be focused on decarbonizing the building industry. “LEED needs to establish decarbonization pathways for new and existing buildings.” Some examples of this given in the session include:

• Prioritize reductions from on-site combustion 

• Lower peak heating and cooling loads

• Reduce embodied carbon

• Grid harmonization 

• Establish minimum requirements for EV charging 

• Use refrigerants with lower GWP 

• Use construction equipment and techniques that are less carbon intensive 

• Existing buildings submit plans to decarbonize

• Align with regulatory drivers as Building Performance Standards, ESG reporting

Bumping up thresholds and target goals also led into the conversation of creating more stringent requirements for buildings targeting Platinum certification. The new rating system aims to have additional tiers of requirements for projects tracking higher certification levels. LEED User also has a great article to break down the 6 things to know about LEED v5.

Development for the new rating system will start in January 2023 with working groups opening now for Resilience, Existing Buildings and Equity. 

If there was any takeaway from Greenbuild, it was that there are huge changes that are needed (and needed quickly) to address the emissions and climate resilience goals. USGBC needs help creating the next rating system, so use this as an opportunity to submit public comments to have the next LEED v5 meet the needs of the building industry. 

The Power of Purchasing Towards a Healthier Built Environment

Photo by Vedrana Filipović on Unsplash

By Erin Sanchez

When the environmental movement was born, harmful chemical were the battle cry that pushed public calls for change, resulting in regulation and many market transformations. However, years later there are over 40,000 chemicals on the market, less than 10% of which have been studied for human health impacts. Many of these chemicals are found in our built environment, including building materials and furniture.

According to the Green Science Policy Institute, there are six classes of chemicals that have been identified as highly toxic and harmful: PFAS, antimicrobials, flame retardants, Bisphenols and Phthalates, some solvents, and heavy metals. One class of chemicals that is especially prevalent in our built environment (among other places) is PFAS (Per- or Polyfluoroalkyl Substances). These chemicals are used as water and oil repellants and can be found in carpets and carpet cleaners, furnishings, adhesives and sealants, protective coatings, and many other materials we encounter frequently, such as food packaging and cosmetics. PFAS are harmful multisystem toxicants and are often referred to as “forever chemicals” because of their persistence in our ecosystems.

While this problem may sound overwhelming, it’s not all bad news. In most cases, manufacturers want to provide great products and clear market signals. Scientists, advocates, major companies, and design professionals can work with manufacturers to begin eliminating harmful chemicals. For example, carpet was one of the highest sources of PFAS in building materials and a major exposure source to children. Several major buyers and distributors used their combined purchasing power to build relationships with manufacturers. As a result, the carpet industry has been a leader in eliminating PFAS and Lowes and Home Depot no longer sell carpets which contain these harmful chemicals.

To help scale these types of changes across industry, a multipronged approach will be needed. Certifications are a great way to drive change because of the transparency they provide for consumers and architects. However, sustainability professionals, scientists, and companies need to work with certifications to ensure their thoroughness and constant improvement in addressing harmful chemicals. Instead of simply looking at a narrow list of know harmful chemicals, certification organizations can start to look at entire classes of toxic substances. Product lists are also a helpful way for consumers to have transparency into the products they purchase. Finally, architects and sustainability professionals can work not only to specify healthy materials, but to educate owners and raise awareness of the importance of healthy materials.

With commitment and collaboration across all phases of building design and construction, the market can be transformed and drastically reduce its reliance on harmful chemicals.

To learn more, visit:
greensciencepolicy.org
sixclasses.org
sfapproved.org
sustainablepurchasing.org
The Proliferation of Plastics and Toxic Chemicals Must End (NY Times)