Direct fossil fuel consumption by buildings, burned in water heaters, furnaces, and other heating sources, account for nearly 10 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States.
Switching to an electric system that powers heating through renewable energy sources, rather than coal, oil, and natural gas—the process known as building electrification or building decarbonization—is a crucial step towards achieving global net-zero climate goals.
However, most building decarbonization models have not accounted for seasonal fluctuations in energy demand for heating or cooling. (!!!!!!)
This makes it difficult to predict what an eventual switch to cleaner, all-electric heating in buildings could mean for the nation’s electrical grid, especially during peaks in energy use.
Our new study found that this seasonal surge in winter energy demand will be difficult to satisfy through current renewable sources, if buildings switch to low-efficiency electrified heating. nature.com/articles/s4159…
"More efficient electric heating technologies will reduce the electrical load put on the grid and improve the ability for this heating demand to be met with non-combustible renewables.” @jjbuonocore
"This work really shows that technologies on both the demand and the supply side have a strong role to play in decarbonization" @Parichehr_S
"Using a strategic combination of heat pump technologies, as well as long-term energy storage, will help us electrify buildings more efficiently, economically, and equitably. The #FalconCurve shows us a faster path to a clean, healthy energy future." @zeynebmagavi
"the drive to electrify our buildings must be coupled with a commitment to energy-efficient technologies to ensure building decarbonization efforts maximize climate and health benefits" @j_g_allen (me!)
Grateful to work with such smart, passionate, dedicated people everyday.
For years there was an FAA-funded Center of Excellence focused on air quality on airplanes (I was part of this thru Harvard.) Brought together academics, industry, unions. Very successful. Ended pre-pandemic. Should be reconstituted.
"Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, FAA supported research on the air cabin environment. Specifically, that work was performed from 2004 through 2014 under the aegis of the National Center of Excellence for Airliner Cabin Environment Research (ACER)"
"One researcher said that ACER, a former FAA-sponsored Center of Excellence, paired researchers with
industry, and that once that center ended, it became difficult for researchers to access aircraft"
Before replying...remember the data I just shared is about outdoor air ventilation, but the plane also has excellent (and high) levels of filtration. Here's an article I wrote very early in the pandemic that covered this (and a whole lot more...) washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/…
The Lancet COVID-19 Commission’s Task Force on Safe School, Safe Work, and Safe Travel sought to answer a basic question:
"What set of measures should every building pursue, that would lead to significant public health benefits immediately and through this fall and winter?"
Note that this is not a complete list of measures we recommend - that was not the intent of this report. Other strategies and considerations can be found at the end of our report and this thread
Important paper on wildfire smoke, using cell phones and internet search. When it comes to searching for air quality info, similar for high- and low-income. But when it comes to health protection and staying home to avoid smoke…
“Residents of lower-income neighbourhoods exhibit similar patterns in searches for air quality information but not for health protection, spend less time at home and have more muted sentiment responses.”
2/n
Why care about wildfire smoke?
“During smoke events, indoor particulate matter (PM2.5) concentrations often remain 3–4× above health-based guidelines and vary by 20× between neighbouring households.”
3/n
One of the real challenges in interpreting risk on airplanes is the massive denominator. When a plane crashes, it's rightly front page news, but doesn't mean flying isn't safe. Same issue w/ unruly passenger, jerky comment about masks, some guy playing guitar in the aisle...
1/n
These issues make 'front page news' on social media, but they're wholly unrepresentative. (I flew two days ago, and about 10-20% chose to wear masks, no flight attendants did, and nobody seemed to care either way. It was blissfully boring, and gets lost in the denominator.)
Same goes for transmission risk on airplanes. Can it happen? Yes, of course. Transmission can happen anywhere. But we can't take one-offs and apply generally without accounting for the denominator. 2 million people flew yesterday in the U.S. alone.