Greenhouse gas emissions tracking project

Greenhouse gas emissions tracking project

Advertisements
Creating a Culture of Sustainability in Homebuilding

Creating a Culture of Sustainability in Homebuilding

Advertisements
Yale School of Management published this insight on Creating a Culture of Sustainability in Homebuilding that could be said to be not beyond their acclaimed mission of educating leaders for business & society.  It is as wise as useful in these days of uncertainty.  Here it is.
.
.

Creating a Culture of Sustainability in Homebuilding

Sustainably built homes cost more up front, but that investment can easily pay off over the decades with savings on heating and cooling—not to mention resiliency and improved indoor air quality. Aaron Smith ’16 is helping builders and buyers understand the benefits of building homes that can generate as much energy as they use.

Aaron Smith

CEO, Energy & Environmental Building Alliance (EEBA); CEO, GreenSmith Builders
We’re trying to transform an industry that has been doing things pretty much the same way for more than 100 years. We want to make healthier, electric, resilient, decarbonized, and net-zero homes the norm.

Q: What is the Energy and Environmental Building Alliance?

The Energy and Environmental Building Alliance (EEBA) is a community of 72,000 builders, architects, and other stakeholders across North America coming together to learn, share, and collaborate on how to build homes in a more sustainable manner.

Ultimately, we’re trying to transform an industry that has been doing things pretty much the same way for more than 100 years. We want to make healthier, electric, resilient, decarbonized, and net-zero homes the norm.

Q: Why is that important?

Forty percent of our energy use comes from buildings. That’s a significant contributor to climate change. Overall, the construction industry is very slow to adopt advances; even for great products and effective new approaches, it can take 20 years. But the technology’s there to do better, so if you want to innovate and disrupt, housing is a really interesting space right now.

The move to sustainable methods is a patchwork, but it’s ready to spread. We’re seeing the start of hockey stick growth. EEBA tracks single family homes and multi-family units built at or above a Zero Energy Ready standard across North America. Over the past two years there was a 440% increase.

Q: What do you mean by Zero Energy Ready and above?

The Zero Energy Ready Home is a standard set by the Department of Energy. To qualify a building must be energy efficient enough that a renewable energy system could offset the home’s annual energy use, so it’s extremely well insulated and extremely airtight, and may have an energy recovery ventilator. Above that is net zero, where a solar, wind, or renewable other system is producing all the energy the house needs. And the step beyond that is net positive, which is a building that actually exports energy into the grid.

There are a lot of standards and certification programs out there—LEED, National Green Building Standard, Passive House, Healthy Building, the Living Building Challenge. We tend to educate builders about all of them and allow them to choose the one that’s best for them and their clients.

Something that doesn’t have a certification program but we’re always focused on is building resiliency. How does it protect the occupants and continue to operate during a stressful period? With extreme weather events and potentially extended power outages that’s increasingly important.

The efficacy of solar panels has gone up so much that even a small amount of solar allows an efficient house to be net zero. Pairing that with new inverter technology, which lets your house feed excess solar power into the grid most of the time but switch to running the house directly off solar when the there’s a grid outage, adds resilience.

We’re seeing more and more battery deployment for backup within homes. Those can be dedicated systems or with something like the F-150 Lightning, Ford’s electric pickup, your EV can serve as backup power for the home during an outage.

Q: Is the interest in more sustainable building coming from builders, consumers, or somewhere else?

There are many drivers. In a few places, building codes are requiring new construction to be all electric. For those places, understanding how to build this way is really a license to operate. But for the most part, our members are professionals who want to be the best in their field. They have a sustainability mindset and a calling to build high-performance homes.

I learned about craftsmanship from my grandfather. He was proud of building homes that would last for 100 years. To me, sustainability is an extension of craftsmanship. It just makes sense. I hope my generation decides the building it’s putting up for the next 100 years will be sustainable. Building in the most sustainable way goes to a larger mission of being stewards of this planet for our kids and grandkids. I get excited by that.

And as millennials start to become the generation driving housing, their predisposition toward more sustainable and healthier is pushing awareness of building more sustainably into the industry.

When people consider buying a house, they look at the listing price. It’s not easy to look at the operating costs or the health costs, which can be dramatically different from one house to another.

In some cases, sustainability isn’t at the forefront. A builder in Texas who does net zero homes told me 15% of his customers do it for environmental reasons. Another 25% want the self-sufficiency of being able to go off the grid with their own water supply, solar power, and backup batteries. The remaining 60% do it for economic reasons. Between the rebates and incentives that are available and the certainty of owning their power supply so there won’t be escalating costs, they are ready to make the investment.

Q: Is it more expensive to build in a sustainable way?

It typically does cost from 1% to 11% more to build a very sustainable home. But it’s a lot like electric vehicles. The upfront cost is higher, but it you look at the total cost over time, it more than pays off the investment.

The problem is, when people consider buying a house, they look at the listing price. They don’t think to—and it’s not easy to—look at the operating costs or the health costs, which can be dramatically different from one house to another.

I didn’t ask about heating costs when I rented a wonderful 1740s farmhouse in Connecticut while I attended Yale SOM. It cost $1,000 a month to heat during the winter. Operating costs make a real difference.

In addition to running EEBA, I also co-founded GreenSmith Builders with Marc Wigder a classmate from Yale SOM. We build what we call attainable sustainable housing—energy-efficient single- and multi-family homes. I just got the monthly heating bill for a 27,000 square foot apartment building. It was $720 for the whole building in Minnesota in the winter.

Sustainable building makes housing more affordable when you look at total cost of ownership. When you think about living in a house for years, even decades, would you spend 1%, 5%, 11% more up front if you know you’ll get it back with savings on lower operating costs? Sustainable builders are starting to energy model each home so they can quantify the value long term.

And that’s only considering the energy costs. Health costs are harder to quantify, but in many homes, indoor air quality is worse than outdoor air quality. There are a lot of great systems that ensure a really healthful environment in the home.

Q: Why isn’t this approach the norm?

Market sector change is very difficult. It takes bringing stakeholders together. It takes sharing of ideas and best practices. It takes radical collaboration across organizations. We get up every day at EEBA and try to transform the industry. It’s extremely challenging and frustrating and exciting and rewarding, all at the same time.

Change is hard in any industry. For residential construction, there are a lot of incumbency issues. There’s huge demand for housing. You can sell every house that you build. Why would you change anything? That’s especially true in places where building codes haven’t been updated in years. It’s common to think that a house built to code means it’s all good. Another way to look at a house built to code is that it’s the worst house that’s not illegal. Depending on where you are, simply building to code isn’t desirable.

Switching costs are real, especially in an industry where it’s common to learn through apprenticeship on a job site—“This is how we do it.” At EEBA we try to make that mentoring culture a strength. Because builders work locally, for the most part they’re not in the same market as other EEBA members; they’re not competing against each other, so they can share and learn from each other and continually raise the level of knowledge of what it means to be a sustainable home builder. That’s a powerful part of EEBA.

What we’re trying to do is really speed the adoption of great technology, great building practices, and sustainable thinking across the industry. We’re making continuous learning easier. We provide online and in-person education. We do a yearly summit where we bring builders together.

Given the trends, if builders don’t have a plan to be building Zero Energy Ready houses, they may not be able to operate in the marketplace within a few years. I think it’s going to shift that quickly.

Q: Are there enough people going into the building trades to supply the required labor?

There are not enough people going into the trades. That’s starting to force change in interesting ways. Because builders can’t hire all the labor they’d like, offsite construction techniques are getting attention.

There are a variety of different approaches, but essentially components of the house are built in a factory. Then the floor cassettes or structured insulated panels that make up the walls are trucked to the building site and craned into place. It’s incredible how fast the modules go together.

There are a lot of investments in offsite construction. Builders are looking at it. Lumber yards and other suppliers are interested. We’re seeing a huge shift right now. It really helps with the labor issues. And it can be done to the highest sustainability standards.

Q: What led you to Yale SOM?

When I was an undergraduate there weren’t courses in sustainability, let alone a major. I learned about sustainability on the job as best I could. I went to Yale SOM to strengthen my understanding of sustainability and to learn how to have impact at scale.

When I came across EEBA, an incredible mission-driven organization that’s really changing the face of construction across North America, it just brought together everything that I had learned across my career. Now the goal is to grow the organization significantly and grow our impact significantly so we can speed up that change in the marketplace.

.

Read original text on Yale Insights.

AI and Smart Cities–Improving Urban Life

AI and Smart Cities–Improving Urban Life

Advertisements
AI and Smart Cities are they meant for Improving Urban Life?  Let us see what AI could bring to Smart Cities.
The image above is credit to World Economic Forum.
.

AI and Smart Cities–Improving Urban Life

By Ale Oluwatobi Emmanuel

The world as we have it today is not static. At the snap of a finger, there’s a new innovation in town that everyone makes a fuss about. Over the years and through generations, we’ve witnessed a series of disruptions in various sectors that have impacted our lives and activities.

You’d want to see what the first generation of computers in the 19th century looked like when they were invented. Take your time. They took up the size of an entire room.

Here is the question–who would have thought the same large computers could be compressed into smaller sizes? Today, with a size of 0.3 millimeters, the Michigan micro mote boasts of being the most miniature computer, and guess what? That’s a size smaller than a grain of rice.

What’s more? As humans, there is an exciting future ahead, and we’d have it with artificial intelligence at our beck and call. Recently, you’ve noticed how AI is disrupting virtually all sectors worldwide. Talk of banking, transportation, health, military, and even sports.

As we see with other sectors, our city centers are included in these disruptions, especially now that urban areas are getting more crowded and complex. It’s time to make our cities smart with AI.

What are smart cities, and how do we make our cities smart with this unique technology? There is no better time to have the discussion. Let’s dive in.

Smart Cities: What exactly are they?

If you’ve ever wondered–everyone is talking about smart cities, what’s the fuss about them? A city is smart if it incorporates technology and other digital solutions for its processes.

A smart city would utilize information and communication technologies to improve the quality of life of the citizens and the way the government serves the people.

It utilizes innovative technologies for a more interactive and responsive city administration, improved water supply, innovative urban transport networks, waste management, and many more.

A city is termed smart not by the number of smart technologies it’s got but by how it has effectively used these technologies to positively impact its citizens and drive economic growth.

Here is the catch– Artificial intelligence has a huge potential to access the activities of urban dwellers to bring about urban planning and management.

Talk of handling data from different sources to gain insights for effective municipal operations. Guess what? It also reduces associated expenses. Let’s assess some more use cases of AI in Smart cities.

Artificial Intelligence and Smart City Infrastructures

According to research conducted by the World Bank, 56% of the world’s population, which is about 4.4 billion people, live in cities. By 2050, this figure is expected to have doubled its current size.

At that point, 7 out of 10 people you meet would live in the city. Hence, there is a need to leverage artificial intelligence to enhance infrastructure and create more sustainable and livable urban environments.

For example, in public transit, cities with vast transit infrastructure have much to gain regarding making their processes seamless.

With the power of AI, commuters using major routes can offer real-time information through hands-on devices to communicate the situation of things on the road. This can enable other commuters to decide the ways they’d be taking faster.

As a case study, Dubai initiated a smart city project to monitor bus drivers’ condition, contributing to a 65% reduction in accidents caused by fatigue and stress.

In the same vein, AI can enhance the safety of power grids to improve performance management. Smart grids, such as generation plants, can be created backed by computer technology.

Moreso, prediction models can be set up on these grids to make smart meter readings of large quantities of data. They can also forecast the demand and price at given moments.

Artificial Intelligence and Smart City Services

Today, there is a need for cities around the world to provide improved delivery and quality of services through continuous monitoring of residents. For example, an AI-driven system in Los Angeles monitors air quality in real-time.

This system helps the city reduce air pollution and improve public health. It uses data from air quality sensors to prompt city officials about air pollution hotspots. It helps guide citizens to safe travel places.

Below are some other service sectors experiencing the disruptions of artificial intelligence.

  • Customer Service:

AI is disrupting customer service. Natural language processing (NLP) algorithms in chatbots are now available. The chatbots let customer support executives work effectively by getting information about customers’ issues.

So, it means if you own a business that relies majorly on customer service, you can hire an AI developer that can build chatbots to meet your specific business needs. Due to the accuracy of chatbots, there are speculations that they’d take over customer service roles, but only time will tell.

  • Health care:

In the healthcare service sector, introducing AI can bring about predictive healthcare. By leveraging predictive analytics, AI can help doctors make accurate decisions about the health of their patients. Asides from this, AI can also help streamline the analysis of scan results via image recognition. Doctors diagnose symptoms more accurately and effectively. With the rise of IoT-enabled embedded devices, they can remotely monitor their patient’s health conditions.

  • Banking:

AI is a valuable tool in a field such as the financial sector, which is prone to fraudulent activities. Artificial intelligence helps banks automate processes that are typically carried out by humans, reducing the time and effort it takes if done manually. Interestingly, AI can also help track customers’ credit history. AI’s predictive technology shows the likelihood of an individual not paying a loan back based on the information it analyzes.

That way, financial institutions and other loan services can streamline the process of getting new customers likely to repay their loans.

  • Transportation

Autonomous vehicles are here to stay, and they’re powered by AI. Who would have thought there’d be a time when cars could navigate their ways without human control? Well, it’s happening now. Kudos to Tesla and other big technology companies. Autonomous vehicles can also be used for deliveries and for transporting goods. Self-driving trucks can deliver packages more efficiently. We already see Tesla’s AI-powered Semi automobile do well in this regard.

Artificial Intelligence–The Tool for a Smarter World

No doubt, it is a visible phenomenon that the world of technology and innovation constantly changes. It’s exciting to let you know that we’re still at the early stage of the deployment of AI. Although we’ve seen its applications in diverse sectors, its long-term benefits will start unfolding. If you’re reading this now, you’re lucky. You must begin to adapt and position well for a new world driven by artificial intelligence.

Moving forward, a lot of changes will happen. From lifestyle changes to improvements in societal processes and operations. Welcome to the world of AI.

.

Read original TechDay article.

Is generative AI bad for the environment?

Is generative AI bad for the environment?

Advertisements

Is generative AI bad for the environment? A computer scientist explains the carbon footprint of ChatGPT and its cousins

By Kate Saenko, Boston University

The image above is on The Generative AI Race Has a Dirty Secret, credit to WIRED

AI chatbots and image generators run on thousands of computers housed in data centers like this Google facility in Oregon.
Tony Webster/Wikimedia, CC BY-SA

Generative AI is the hot new technology behind chatbots and image generators. But how hot is it making the planet?

As an AI researcher, I often worry about the energy costs of building artificial intelligence models. The more powerful the AI, the more energy it takes. What does the emergence of increasingly more powerful generative AI models mean for society’s future carbon footprint?

“Generative” refers to the ability of an AI algorithm to produce complex data. The alternative is “discriminative” AI, which chooses between a fixed number of options and produces just a single number. An example of a discriminative output is choosing whether to approve a loan application.

Generative AI can create much more complex outputs, such as a sentence, a paragraph, an image or even a short video. It has long been used in applications like smart speakers to generate audio responses, or in autocomplete to suggest a search query. However, it only recently gained the ability to generate humanlike language and realistic photos.

Using more power than ever

The exact energy cost of a single AI model is difficult to estimate, and includes the energy used to manufacture the computing equipment, create the model and use the model in production. In 2019, researchers found that creating a generative AI model called BERT with 110 million parameters consumed the energy of a round-trip transcontinental flight for one person. The number of parameters refers to the size of the model, with larger models generally being more skilled. Researchers estimated that creating the much larger GPT-3, which has 175 billion parameters, consumed 1,287 megawatt hours of electricity and generated 552 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, the equivalent of 123 gasoline-powered passenger vehicles driven for one year. And that’s just for getting the model ready to launch, before any consumers start using it.

Size is not the only predictor of carbon emissions. The open-access BLOOM model, developed by the BigScience project in France, is similar in size to GPT-3 but has a much lower carbon footprint, consuming 433 MWh of electricity in generating 30 tons of CO2eq. A study by Google found that for the same size, using a more efficient model architecture and processor and a greener data center can reduce the carbon footprint by 100 to 1,000 times.

Larger models do use more energy during their deployment. There is limited data on the carbon footprint of a single generative AI query, but some industry figures estimate it to be four to five times higher than that of a search engine query. As chatbots and image generators become more popular, and as Google and Microsoft incorporate AI language models into their search engines, the number of queries they receive each day could grow exponentially.

AI chatbots, search engines and image generators are rapidly going mainstream, adding to AI’s carbon footprint.
AP Photo/Steve Helber

AI bots for search

A few years ago, not many people outside of research labs were using models like BERT or GPT. That changed on Nov. 30, 2022, when OpenAI released ChatGPT. According to the latest available data, ChatGPT had over 1.5 billion visits in March 2023. Microsoft incorporated ChatGPT into its search engine, Bing, and made it available to everyone on May 4, 2023. If chatbots become as popular as search engines, the energy costs of deploying the AIs could really add up. But AI assistants have many more uses than just search, such as writing documents, solving math problems and creating marketing campaigns.

Another problem is that AI models need to be continually updated. For example, ChatGPT was only trained on data from up to 2021, so it does not know about anything that happened since then. The carbon footprint of creating ChatGPT isn’t public information, but it is likely much higher than that of GPT-3. If it had to be recreated on a regular basis to update its knowledge, the energy costs would grow even larger.

One upside is that asking a chatbot can be a more direct way to get information than using a search engine. Instead of getting a page full of links, you get a direct answer as you would from a human, assuming issues of accuracy are mitigated. Getting to the information quicker could potentially offset the increased energy use compared to a search engine.

Ways forward

The future is hard to predict, but large generative AI models are here to stay, and people will probably increasingly turn to them for information. For example, if a student needs help solving a math problem now, they ask a tutor or a friend, or consult a textbook. In the future, they will probably ask a chatbot. The same goes for other expert knowledge such as legal advice or medical expertise.

While a single large AI model is not going to ruin the environment, if a thousand companies develop slightly different AI bots for different purposes, each used by millions of customers, the energy use could become an issue. More research is needed to make generative AI more efficient. The good news is that AI can run on renewable energy. By bringing the computation to where green energy is more abundant, or scheduling computation for times of day when renewable energy is more available, emissions can be reduced by a factor of 30 to 40, compared to using a grid dominated by fossil fuels.

Finally, societal pressure may be helpful to encourage companies and research labs to publish the carbon footprints of their AI models, as some already do. In the future, perhaps consumers could even use this information to choose a “greener” chatbot.

Kate Saenko, Associate Professor of Computer Science, Boston University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

 

Limiting global warming to 1.5°C would save billions

Limiting global warming to 1.5°C would save billions

Advertisements

Limiting global warming to 1.5°C would save billions from the dangerously hot climate, but not only that.  It could bring improvements to life with cleaner air and improved water and soil quality.  

.

The image above is on the many effects of dangerously high temperatures, including reduced crop yield. Credit Pablo Tosco / Oxfam International

Limiting global warming to 1.5°C would save billions from dangerously hot climate

 

Current climate policies will leave more than a fifth of humanity exposed to dangerously hot temperatures by 2100, new research suggests.

Despite the Paris Agreement pledge to keep global warming well below 2°C (compared to pre-industrial levels), current policies are projected to result in 2.7°C warming by the end of the century.

The new study, led by researchers at the Global Systems Institute, University of Exeter, associated with the Earth Commission, and Nanjing University, assessed what this would mean for the number of people living outside the “climate niche” in which our species has thrived.

It says about 60 million people are already exposed to dangerous heat (average temperature of 29°C or higher).

And two billion – 22% of the projected end-of-century population – would be exposed to this at 2.7°C of global warming.

The paper highlights the “huge potential” for decisive climate policy to limit the human costs and inequities of climate change.

Limiting warming to 1.5°C would leave 5% exposed – saving a sixth of humanity from dangerous heat compared to 2.7°C of warming.

The study also finds that the lifetime emissions of 3.5 average global citizens today – or just 1.2 US citizens – expose one future person to dangerous heat. This highlights the inequity of climate crisis, as these future heat-exposed people will live in places where emissions today are around half of the global average.

In “worst-case scenarios” of 3.6°C or even 4.4°C global warming, half of the world’s population could be left outside the climate niche, posing what the researchers call an “existential risk”.

“The costs of global warming are often expressed in financial terms, but our study highlights the phenomenal human cost of failing to tackle the climate emergency,” said Professor Tim Lenton, director of the Global Systems Institute at the University of Exeter.

“For every 0.1°C of warming above present levels, about 140 million more people will be exposed to dangerous heat.

“This reveals both the scale of the problem and the importance of decisive action to reduce carbon emissions.

“Limiting global warming to 1.5°C rather than 2.7°C would mean five times fewer people in 2100 being exposed to dangerous heat.”

Defining the niche

Human population density has historically peaked in places with an average temperature of about 13°C, with a secondary peak at about 27°C (monsoon climates, especially in South Asia).

Density of crops and livestock follow similar patterns, and wealth (measured by GDP) peaks at about 13°C.

Mortality increases at both higher and lower temperatures, supporting the idea of a human “niche”.

Although less than 1% of humanity currently live in places of dangerous heat exposure, the study shows climate change has already put 9% of the global population (more than 600 million people) outside the niche.

“Most of these people lived near the cooler 13°C peak of the niche and are now in the ‘middle ground’ between the two peaks. While not dangerously hot, these conditions tend to be much drier and have not historically supported dense human populations,” said Professor Chi Xu, of Nanjing University.

“Meanwhile, the vast majority of people set to be left outside the niche due to future warming will be exposed to dangerous heat.

“Such high temperatures have been linked to issues including increased mortality, decreased labour productivity, decreased cognitive performance, impaired learning, adverse pregnancy outcomes, decreased crop yield, increased conflict and infectious disease spread.”

While some cooler places may become more habitable due to climate change, population growth is projected to be highest in places at risk of dangerous heat, especially India and Nigeria.

The study also found:

  • Exposure to dangerous heat starts to increase dramatically at 1.2°C (just above current global warming) and increases by about 140 million for every 0.1°C of further warming.
  • Assuming a future population of 9.5 billion people, India would have the greatest population exposed at 2.7°C global warming – more than 600 million. At 1.5°C, this figure would be far lower, at about 90 million.
  • Nigeria would have the second-largest heat-exposed population at 2.7°C global warming, more than 300 million. At 1.5°C warming this would be less than 40 million.
  • India and Nigeria already show “hotspots” of dangerous temperatures.
  • At 2.7°C, almost 100% of some countries including Burkina Faso and Mali will be dangerously hot for humans. Brazil would have the largest land area exposed to dangerous heat, despite almost no area being exposed at 1.5 °C. Australia and India would also experience massive increases in area exposed.

The research team – which included the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, and the Universities of Washington, North Carolina State, Aarhus and Wageningen – stress that the worst of these impacts can be avoided by rapid action to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Speaking about the conception of their idea, Professor Marten Scheffer, of Wageningen University, said: “We were triggered by the fact that the economic costs of carbon emissions hardly reflect the impact on human wellbeing.

“Our calculations now help bridging this gap and should stimulate asking new, unorthodox questions about justice.”

Ashish Ghadiali, of Exeter’s Global Systems Institute, said: “These new findings from the leading edge of Earth systems science underline the profoundly racialised nature of projected climate impacts and should inspire a policy sea-change in thinking around the urgency of decarbonisation efforts as well as in the value of massively up-shifting global investment into the frontlines of climate vulnerability.”

The research was funded by the Open Society Foundations and the paper is also an output of the Earth Commission – convened by Future Earth, the Earth Commission is the scientific cornerstone of the Global Commons Alliance.

Wendy Broadgate, Executive Director of the Earth Commission at Future Earth, said: “We are already seeing effects of dangerous heat levels on people in different parts of the world today. This will only accelerate unless we take immediate and decisive action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

Work on climate solutions by the Global Systems Institute at the University of Exeter has identified “positive tipping points” to accelerate action, including a recent report that highlighted three “super-leverage points” that could trigger a cascade of decarbonisation.

The paper, published in the journal Nature Sustainability, is entitled: “Quantifying the Human Cost of Global Warming.”

Read more on University of Exeter