Perhaps the most pressing long-term issue for our society and the planet as a whole is the threat posed by climate change. Although some may deny the established fact, the world is warming at an unprecedented and unsustainable rate, and the blame lies entirely with human activities, especially fossil fuels. Both the impact and the responsibility to counteract it weigh heavily on the real estate industry. Residential, commercial, office and manufacturing sectors all contribute to climate change and share the responsibility to counter it by adjusting and improving the way we heat, cool and ventilate. In a world of communities with common interests such as co-ops and condominiums, these factors are crucial as we plan for the future. Much has already been done, but much remains to be done. What has been successful and what is yet to come in terms of greener technologies? What seemed groundbreaking yesterday may be outdated tomorrow.
Underrated and overlooked
Perhaps the most effective (yet often overlooked) energy-saving and climate-change countermeasure is, simply put, conservation, explains Fred Goldner, president of East Meadow, New York-based Energy Management & Research Associates. Goldner consults with businesses and governments around the world, and he says, “The truth is, the most environmentally friendly thing you can do is make your property more energy efficient, and that should come before any other projects you can and should undertake to reduce your carbon footprint. But unfortunately, the vast majority of property owners, including condominiums, co-ops and HOA communities, don't do enough research on efficiency. Conservation is the key. It's something we've been talking about for 40 years.”
Richard Costello, president of Acela Energy Group in Norfolk, Massachusetts, agrees. He believes efficiency and conservation are the starting point for controlling and reducing a building's energy use. Like Goldner, he recommends controlling energy use before adopting new technology. “The best thing you can do to save money for each unit is to control energy consumption by controlling both heating and cooling,” he says. “Get a digital thermostat. This is the most important thing an individual can do. Most homes in New England have some kind of HVAC system, either per unit or as part of the building's main system. Having a digital thermostat installed and working will not only save you energy, but money too. In other words, individual occupants cannot disable the system. Let it work. Don't change it to your comfort level.”
Another area where efficiency and savings can be improved is with meters. For the first two-thirds of the 20th century, master meters (one utility meter for the entire building) were the standard for nearly all apartment buildings. As energy costs began to skyrocket in the 1970s and 1980s, new buildings were constructed with individual meters for each unit, and tenants or owners were responsible for the cost of their own utility usage, especially electricity and sometimes heating. Many existing properties are being converted from master meters to individual meters, and in New York City, municipal utility providers such as Con Edison are offering financial assistance for these conversions.
Kyle McKenzie, principal at Polis Consulting Engineers, a national firm with an office in New York City, points out that the push for individual meters has been completely reversed. “For existing buildings, one of the things to look at from a cost-saving perspective is going from direct or individual meters to master meters,” he says. “Instead of billing each apartment directly, one meter measures usage for the entire building. Master meters are better because they often lower the total price the utility provides. This is especially beneficial in apartment complexes and condominiums, where the savings are spread across the entire community. In New York, for example, ConEd's rate structure makes master meters cheaper than small accounts.”
New strategies, new technologies
Once conservation measures are in place, the number one new technology to consider is hydrogen, according to Goldner. “All the major gas companies are doing pilot projects and studies using hydrogen as a fuel,” Goldner says. “I'm not saying this is the only answer to the energy problem; complex problems have never been solved with a one-size-fits-all answer, but hydrogen as a fuel will be part of the answer. The Gas Technology Institute (GTI) in Chicago has tested all kinds of equipment running on a combination of natural gas and 30 percent hydrogen, and most of it can run on that combination without any changes or modifications to the equipment.”
Another promising technology, says Goldner, is something called carbon capture: “We could take existing gas boilers and fit them with scrubbers to extract the carbon dioxide and liquefy it, which could then be sold to hospitals that need it or be covered in concrete for permanent disposal.”
Costello recommends joining groups called community solar companies. “Community solar companies build solar installations in locations that wouldn't normally be used, like the side of a highway,” Costello explains. “The panels produce electricity. When your co-op contracts with a community solar company, they 'assign' you a large solar panel, and you 'pretend' it's yours. The electricity produced by the panels isn't actually sent to you or used by you, but the utility company gives you a 10-15% discount on your electric bill. It's literally free.”
But, he points out, “This program has nothing to do with energy savings. It's just money. If you want to be carbon neutral by a certain date, you need huge investments in equipment and capacity. States want utilities to do this, to build facilities along highways, for example. At the end of the day, it's energy that's being traded here.”
“Basically,” Costello explains, “communities voluntarily take on the energy, but they don't actually receive it. The utility then raises the funds to build the solar farm and sells the energy elsewhere. The voluntary take-on gets the facility built, and they save 10 to 15 percent on their electric bill. It's a 20-year program, and it doesn't reduce the community's actual carbon footprint, but it does save them money.”
McKenzie recommends using energy recovery ventilators (ERVs) as a way to purify the air and supplement HVAC systems. “ERVs bring in fresh air and remove exhaust air,” he says. “There's an energy exchange, so in the winter the air is warmed by the exhaust air, and in the summer the hot fresh air loses some of its energy through the exhaust air exchange process, reducing the work of the HVAC system considerably. ERVs are certainly more expensive to install than standard fresh air fans or other older methods, but they help meet the goals of climate regulations, such as those mandated by Local Ordinance 97 in New York City. They have a higher initial cost, but lower operating costs. Either way, it's likely that local government requirements will move users to these systems in the future.”
Electrification – advantages and disadvantages
A key element of many government programs designed to combat climate change is the shift away from using fossil fuels for HVAC to electrifying these systems. While electrification may be good for the planet, in practice this shift is an incredibly difficult and expensive endeavor.
According to Goldner, “rather than ripping out all the existing equipment, such as boilers and radiator systems, and installing a heat pump, fuelling the boiler with hydrogen or running it on natural gas with carbon capture could be a better, more affordable alternative, as it would allow the existing boiler and heating supply system to be maintained, would cost much less to implement, and would cause much less damage to life and property.”
Costello believes the future is more about efficiency than electrification. “Electrification is too expensive,” he says. “Instead, let's put in artificial intelligence (AI) systems to make our boilers run more efficiently. The payback period for an AI system is three years without incentives from the utility. Electrification has a payback period of 15 years, and 10 years with incentives. At the end of the day, electrification doesn't save energy, it just changes how you use it.”
MacKenzie supports these arguments. “The upfront costs of going all-electric and adding energy-saving measures can significantly offset the benefits of the energy-saving measures,” he says. “You need a life-cycle cost-benefit analysis to determine whether the switch is worth it. The problem is that today we are required by law to reduce our carbon emissions, and if we don't, we'll be fined. In fact, in some cases the fines are less than the costs[of compliance].”
The future of energy technology and conservation is still evolving. We expect to see changes in current thinking and material technologies in the coming years, so it is important that boards and managers take on the challenge themselves and consult with talented and knowledgeable experts in the field to chart a path forward that makes the most economic and environmental sense for their communities.
AJ Sidransky is a staff writer/reporter for CooperatorNews and a working novelist. He can be reached at [email protected].
