This home in Northampton, MA is heated and cooled effectively by a 24k Daikin heat pump system with 3 ductless heads. A heatpump hot water heater in the fully insulated basement is a cost effective choice for domestic hot water. All new homes should consider all electric mechanical systems from the design stage.

The need to reduce carbon emissions requires we think differently

The United States is currently at a critical moment regarding its potential to limit global warming to an acceptable level. The widely accepted limit for human induced warming is 1.5° to 2° Celcius over pre industrial levels, while we currently sit at 1°C over pre-industrial levels. Frighteningly, the Earth is currently warming at roughly 0.2°C per decade; therefore we only have about 25 years to completely switch over to a renewable energy based economy. A major factor preventing the United States from doing its due diligence to halt this rise in temperature is the committed emissions of our household and grid machinery. Committed emissions are CO2 emissions that will be produced by existing infrastructure if not replaced until the end of its lifecycle. If all of our cars, coal plants, furnaces, and other fossil fuel powered machines are operated until the end of their life, then we will surpass the 2°C limit.

It is becoming apparent that if we add more fossil fuel powered machines to this existing stock, as we are currently doing, then we will surpass the 2°C limit and induce irreversible damage to both the natural and built environment.

This may sound like fear mongering intended to make you move off-grid just to prevent planet Earth from self-destructing, but it’s actually grounded in science. As we look at the possible solutions to our planet warming conundrum, we believe there are solutions that don’t require such drastic action on the individual level.

Saul Griffith, PhD in materials science and information theory from MIT as well as founder and chief scientist of Rewiring America , shares this sentiment. Griffith’s theory is that the only way the United States will be successful in cutting emissions is by completely electrifying everything- from power plants and commercial buildings to furnaces and stoves. The plan of retiring all of the current carbon dioxide producing machines and replacing them with electric consuming ones effectively solves the committed emissions issue and will prevent Earth from warming past the point of no return.

Electrification of the grid requires electrifying both energy generation and energy consumption. This means we must completely replace carbon dioxide producing machines with electric consuming ones, and feed these machines with energy generated without fossil fuels.

Economics are driving grid electrification

At this point in time the supply side of the grid is naturally moving towards electrification due to the ever lowering costs of renewable energy- it’s simply good economics to invest in grid scale clean energy. Over the course of the last two decades renewable energy technologies have advanced so rapidly that they are now often the cheaper option for power generation than fossil fuels. Of course continued government subsidies for the fossil fuel industry isn’t helping. This makes converting to all electric a simple case for energy developers. Why build a gas plant when it makes more financial sense to build a solar field or wind farm?

Challenges with grid supply and the need for storage

Peak demand does not align with peak production. source: Green Building Advisor

The storage and reliability of renewable technologies pose an issue to grid electrification without proper legislation to support them. Renewable energy production relies on forces that exist in the natural world, preventing them from being entirely predictable. For instance, a wind farm can produce energy night and day, but the quantity of energy produced is completely reliant on the velocity of the wind blowing on them. Similarly, solar farms can be located in deserts that will have sun every day, but the energy they produce at 2pm must be stored until people get home from work later in the day. Contrast these two situations with a gas powered plant, where at peak demand times the plant can simply burn more gas.

To allow renewables to completely replace fossil fuels we must have standards put in place dictating the proper storage of energy so that it can be drawn upon at peak demand times. This requires government cooperation with power companies so that there is a unilateral movement for more energy storage.

Demand side energy use in the home is a tough nut to crack

On the demand side of the equation, things are not quite as cut and dry as the supply side. Instead of having tens of thousands of power plants to replace, there are hundreds of millions of various machines that need to be replaced with electric ones. Additionally, every house currently standing is unique in some fashion, making replacement of heating and cooling systems a difficult process. As mentioned by Griffith on the Energy Gang podcast, modifying a house to go completely electric is a labor intensive process full of overlooked but necessary changes. For instance, once your stove, furnace, and vehicle are electric rather than fossil fuel powered, your house is going to be drawing significantly more electricity from the grid. This may require you to install a new load center, new wiring, and a large battery. You may also want to install solar, which requires even more modification to the building. All of these modifications can add up to be both capital and labor intensive.

Furthermore, you can’t just drop high tech super efficient space conditioning equipment into leaky old poorly insulated houses. This is a real challenge. Our home energy retrofit industry is not up to the task to perform the amount of retrofits needed to move the existing building emission needle as is needed. Not only are insulation contractors behind, but the ‘market’ has not evolved; real estate professionals and appraisers, utility programs, policy and building codes … are all operating under an old way of thinking - that we have ample time to solve our building energy and dirty grid issues. We do not have time for a systematic evolution of slow moving markets and policy initiatives.

Electric home heating and cooling is often the most cost effective approach to maintain a comfortable home

The good news about electrification is that there are often serious financial and efficiency gains to be had by going electric. Driving an electric car will use about ⅓ of the energy of an internal combustion vehicle and generally cost less to drive than an internal combustion vehicle over the lifespan of the vehicle, And using a heat pump to condition your house will use about ⅓ of the energy used by a traditional furnace and cost almost half as much. If you add on a solar array (which becomes more affordable by the day) then your energy savings are going to be even more substantial. Although there are benefits to going electric today, they are not quite strong enough to prompt manufacturers and consumers to make the transition off of fossil fuels. This is why Saul Griffith is calling for a “wartime effort”.

heat pumps have the lowest cost per heating season of all the fuel types due to their high efficiency. Source: randrheating.com

We need a wartime effort to electrify

Completely electrifying the grid is a task that is incredibly daunting. The current system has been a work in progress since the early 1900’s, so building out a new all electric grid in 25 years may seem like an impossible task. The only way we can completely electrify is if there is national unification on the issue. This unification along with significant and swift government support is what makes anything seem possible in America, and it is what is necessary if we want to protect ourselves from the serious consequences of climate change.

An example of what is possible is the response from Roosevelt to Churchill’s request for armaments during WWII. If the United States were to not provide aid to Great Britain, our national security would be at risk, much as it is today due to climate change (arguably this aid did come later than needed) . To avoid disaster, the US began producing war machines at an accelerated rate, providing over fifty billion dollars worth of armaments by the end of the war.

Consider the race to the moon. In an era where our nation was at risk of losing a technological war with the Soviet Union, the entire country was willing to support a goal that at the time seemed like something out of a science fiction novel.

Griffith states that to achieve the goal of ending the fossil fuel era, the people of the United States need to be “sold the vision” of electrification within the decade. If electrification is something we can rally behind like landing a man on the moon or saving the world from a fascist state, then it is something we can achieve.

A wartime effort toward electrification would involve a multifaceted attack to change the status quo.

We would need a combination of government subsidization, manufacturer cooperation, and public education. The government needs to incentivize manufacturers to stop the production of fossil fuel consuming machines. This may involve subsidizing electric machines to make their costs more comparable to non-electric ones; or the government may fund research into technologies that could make electric machines more affordable. Additionally, manufacturers need to be willing to work with the government to alter their production facilities to only produce electric machines. This shouldn’t be an issue for manufacturers because proper government support will ensure that their operation continues to be profitable, while they will also be able to create more advanced and appealing technology. Lastly the public needs to understand the changes that must take place to move away from fossil fuels. Many people are unaware of the advances that have been made in renewable technologies, like how comfortable modern heat pumps can be and how well new conduction cooktops can operate. Without fully understanding the new technologies that we will need to use, the public may be resistant to change. If these three actions are taken with the gusto of a wartime effort, we believe electrification is a wholly possible feat.

All hands on deck at HIS & HERS Energy Efficiency

As energy consultants we support builders, owners, and designers to explore all available options when it comes to energy related features including mechanical equipment and thermal envelope assemblies (insulation). As third party energy consultants, we lend our experience and expertise to ensure project goals are met, sometimes helping clients determine what their project energy performance goals are. Electrification of homes is often the most cost effective approach , due to rebates and the high performance of available equipment. Unfortunately we find that often HVAC contractors will propose system types and manufacturer brands that they are most comfortable and familiar with.. often defaulting to oversized fossil fuel systems . This may not meet the short and long term needs of the building. We expect that by 2030 there will be a huge uptick in residential scale solar installations. For this reason, it is wise to consider home electrification now. We believe it is every builder’s responsibility to look hard at electrification and omitting combustion of fossil fuels.

As a HERS Rating company in Western MA, we include a healthy amount of consulting with all of our projects. We deliver Mass Save New Construction rebates and Stretch Code 2018 IECC compliance services. Be in touch to tell us about your project

Much of the information for this article was taken from the Energy Gang podcast interview with Saul Griffith, PhD. If you’re interested in learning more about the topic, check out the episode here: Greentech media a Wartime Plan for Electrifying America

Home Electrification: Worthy of a Wartime Effort