US Energy Department Announces 'Blueprint' for Slashing Emissions From Buildings and Reducing Energy Use (energy.gov) 76
This week America's Department of Energy announced "a comprehensive plan to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions from buildings by 65% by 2035 and 90% by 2050."
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) led the Blueprint's development in collaboration with the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other federal agencies. The Blueprint is the first sector-wide strategy for building decarbonization developed by the federal government... "America's building sector accounts for more than a third of the harmful emissions jeopardizing our air and health..." said U.S. Secretary of Energy Jennifer M. Granholm. "As part of a whole-of-government approach, the Department of Energy is outlining for the first time ever a comprehensive federal plan to reduce energy in our homes, schools, and workplaces — lowering utility bills and creating healthier communities while combating the climate crisis."
Buildings account for more than one third of domestic climate pollution and $370 billion in annual energy costs... The Blueprint projects reductions of 90% of total greenhouse gas emissions from the buildings sector, which will save consumers more than $100 billion in annual energy costs and avoid $17 billion in annual health costs.
Just for example, the Department of Energy's Affordable Home Energy Shot program "aims to reduce the upfront cost of upgrading a home by at least 50% and reduce energy bills by 20% within a decade." (Meanwhile, the federal government's role in making more change happen faster includes financing, funding R&D on lower-cost technologies, expanding markets, and "supporting the development and implementation of emissions-reducing building codes and appliance standards.")
Besides the national blueprint, the Department also announced an expansion of its Better Buildings Commercial Building Heat Pump Accelerator initiative. In this program, "manufacturers will produce higher efficiency and life cycle cost-effective heat pump rooftop units and commercial organizations will evaluate and adopt next-generation heat pump technology."
U.S. Secretary of Energy Jennifer M. Granholm said the program "builds on more than a decade of public-private partnerships to get cutting edge clean technologies from lab to market, helping to slash harmful carbon emissions throughout our economy." On average, between 20% and 30% of the nation's energy is wasted, presenting a significant opportunity to increase energy efficiency. Through the Better Buildings Initiative, DOE partners with public and private sector stakeholders to pursue ambitious portfolio-wide energy, waste, water, and/or emissions reduction goals and publicly share solutions. By improving building design, materials, equipment, and operations, energy efficiency gains can be achieved across broad segments of the nation's economy.
The Accelerator initiative was developed with commercial end users like Amazon, IKEA, and Target, and already includes manufacturers AAON, Carrier Global Corp., Lennox International, Rheem Manufacturing Co., Trane Technologies, and York International Corp. The Accelerator aims to bring more efficient, affordable next-generation heat pump rooftop units to market as soon as 2027 — which will slash both emissions and energy costs in half compared to natural gas-fueled heat pumps. If deployed at scale, they could save American businesses and commercial entities $5 billion on utility bills every year.
Buildings account for more than one third of domestic climate pollution and $370 billion in annual energy costs... The Blueprint projects reductions of 90% of total greenhouse gas emissions from the buildings sector, which will save consumers more than $100 billion in annual energy costs and avoid $17 billion in annual health costs.
Just for example, the Department of Energy's Affordable Home Energy Shot program "aims to reduce the upfront cost of upgrading a home by at least 50% and reduce energy bills by 20% within a decade." (Meanwhile, the federal government's role in making more change happen faster includes financing, funding R&D on lower-cost technologies, expanding markets, and "supporting the development and implementation of emissions-reducing building codes and appliance standards.")
Besides the national blueprint, the Department also announced an expansion of its Better Buildings Commercial Building Heat Pump Accelerator initiative. In this program, "manufacturers will produce higher efficiency and life cycle cost-effective heat pump rooftop units and commercial organizations will evaluate and adopt next-generation heat pump technology."
U.S. Secretary of Energy Jennifer M. Granholm said the program "builds on more than a decade of public-private partnerships to get cutting edge clean technologies from lab to market, helping to slash harmful carbon emissions throughout our economy." On average, between 20% and 30% of the nation's energy is wasted, presenting a significant opportunity to increase energy efficiency. Through the Better Buildings Initiative, DOE partners with public and private sector stakeholders to pursue ambitious portfolio-wide energy, waste, water, and/or emissions reduction goals and publicly share solutions. By improving building design, materials, equipment, and operations, energy efficiency gains can be achieved across broad segments of the nation's economy.
The Accelerator initiative was developed with commercial end users like Amazon, IKEA, and Target, and already includes manufacturers AAON, Carrier Global Corp., Lennox International, Rheem Manufacturing Co., Trane Technologies, and York International Corp. The Accelerator aims to bring more efficient, affordable next-generation heat pump rooftop units to market as soon as 2027 — which will slash both emissions and energy costs in half compared to natural gas-fueled heat pumps. If deployed at scale, they could save American businesses and commercial entities $5 billion on utility bills every year.
Top four actions required (Score:1, Flamebait)
1) Electrify wherever possible (backed by government support of the required power infrastructure, nuclear and renewable wherever possible, solid grid links to places where it isn't from places where it is). Allow EU micro EVs into the market.
2) Apply a sin tax to Portland cement and use it to subsidize low carbon cement. 70% reduction of CO2 release from construction right there.
3) Encourage chicken consumption over beef. Piss off the ranchers, but the ecological impact of raising chickens for food is a
Re:Top four actions required (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
This one's easy - but it'll cause some pain 5-10 years out. Subsidies for HVAC apprenticeships to increase the supply side of the equation. Once the rollout wave is mostly over you're going to have to worry about high unemployment in that cohort, and hold a lot of hands through retraining.
Re: (Score:2)
There are self-install solutions with prefilled refrigerant lines with push to connect fittings... Still have to have the old one evacuated, but that can be done by someone who just has a refrigerant license.
Re: (Score:2)
The 'refrigerant' in a swamp cooler is water. No license needed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
DIY is a real possibility now with mini-split systems. They come with pre-charged linesets, you don't need a license to install them.
If you can live with the swamp cooler for a few more years, I would. That's just because new units with hydrocarbon refrigerants are starting to roll out, R134a and R410a are being phased out, and with hydrocarbons there won't be any need to worry about discharges for service in the future, the EPA has exempted the new refrigerants from licensing requirements. The hydrocarb
Re: (Score:2)
but contractor prices are off the charts.
This is what it looks like when the economy leaves people behind. Congratulations, you were just demoted to lower middle class. You better hope you die before you are demoted to poor. Life is utterly fucking miserable in the USA when you are poor. It is almost impossible to escape or survive. People with guns and hammers are hunting you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
2) Apply a sin tax to Portland cement and use it to subsidize low carbon cement. 70% reduction of CO2 release from construction right there.
Sin taxes rarely do anything to discourage consumption, the most common outcome is the poor get poorer.
I believe it was Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson that pointed out that the problem of horse droppings in major cities was not resolved with higher taxes on horses, it was resolved with mass produced automobiles. If people don't see a viable alternative then they will pay the sin tax than do without. Another outcome on high taxes is a black market, such as people buying cigarettes outside of a high tax area then
Re:Top four actions required (Score:5, Insightful)
The point of the sin tax is not to stop people from using the current product, but to fund the subsidy of the desired product. Prices will rise, but realistically this is rightly converting an external cost into an internal one. It also makes the new product competitive.
Re: (Score:2)
It also makes the new product competitive.
That's unlikely.
Think of who gets the money for putting up windmills, as an example. My guess is it would be some utility, electric cooperative, or whatever they are called now that electric generation must be legally separate from electric distribution. Think of who is building the natural gas plants. A co-op perhaps? The same co-op that installed the windmills perhaps? The co-op will put up the windmills because the government pays them to but the co-op is going to still be deciding on what new gener
Re: Top four actions required (Score:2)
You seem to be missing the point of an externality - it's not born by those who benefit from it. If a handful of people in my neighborhood decided to switch to old school wood fireplaces the entire area would be blanketed with smoke in the winter. Perhaps 100 households would deal with increased respiratory problems so that a couple of them could save a few dollars
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigouvian_tax
Re: (Score:2)
Give people a better alternative and you don't have to resort to the heavy hand of government to get people to move where you want them to go.
The problem with that is that you will have to deal with the (anti-)lobby of the established current businesses and their power of scale while you are trying to figure out how to scale up to the same level the established companies are. Large optimized production businesses are not built in a year, see Tesla as a recent example.
Re: (Score:2)
Sin taxes rarely do anything to discourage consumption, the most common outcome is the poor get poorer.
That's not true, they absolutely do work to discourage consumption.
Tobacco taxation, passed on to consumers in the form of higher cigarette prices, has been recognized as one of the most effective population-based strategies for decreasing smoking and its adverse health consequences [1â"4]. On average, a price increase of 10% on a pack of cigarettes would reduce demand for cigarettes by about 4% for the general adult population in high income countries [4]. ...
The economic literature has made unique and important contributions to our understanding of the effectiveness of tobacco taxation on ameliorating the health consequences of smoking. Increased tobacco taxes, passed on to consumers in the form of higher cigarette prices, provide an economic disincentive to those who smoke or may be contemplating smoking. Indeed, the evidence from this knowledge synthesis strongly supports increasing cigarette prices through tobacco taxation as a powerful strategy for achieving major reductions in smoking behavior among some, but not all, high-risk populations.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3228562/
Really to claim that increasing prices don't lead to lower consumption would overturn the whole concept of supply & demand, or at the very least assert that the demand is perfectly inelastic.
If you're really concerned about economic inequality, you can redistribute those taxes to the poorest population.
Already solved for this generation (Score:2)
1. Work from home for most office workers
2. Let them not drive millions of miles commuting
3. Demolish commercial buildings near their end of life
#1 would reduce the needed office space, and pollution generated, by multiple percentage points.
TLDR: Reality - Govt has preached the benefits of carpooling, mass transit, saving energy, less trash and pollution yet when there is a proven way (work from home) to achieve all of them, they choose preserving the current economic structure over (pollution, traffic prob
Hard to not be skeptical (Score:1)
It's hard to not be skeptical when the government keeps coming up with improved ways to do things yet never ever does them itself except for token photo opportunities.
The government federal, state, local and its contractors are the single largest consumer of energy and largest polluter in the entire country.
Why, when cuts, lower quality of life, job loss and negative outcomes happen, the government never ever has to be the first in line to be affected?
I'm ready to reduce my energy consumption and pollution
Re: (Score:3)
All other WFH advocates just love to work in a relaxed environment
Yeah, heaven forbid that someone might do their best work when they are relaxed and at ease with their environment.
where they can watch TV, avoid paying child care because they are actually homeschooling their children while getting paid, and take a nap after lunch because the boss can't see them.
I don't watch TV while working. I don't have children to homeschool. My lunch is usually eaten right here on my desk, while I'm working. I don't take naps, ever. Why should other people's rank irresponsibility and bad behavior become a problem for me, rather than just dismissing the people who's productivity never measures up to expectations because they aren't working while they should be
Re: (Score:2)
Alternative TLDR for your post - Go Live In A Cave And Collect Fruits And Veg From Nearby Fields And Trees
Absolutely no pollution in my solution.
Honest and reasoned discussion (Score:1)
>Alternative TLDR for your post - Go Live In A Cave And Collect Fruits And Veg From Nearby Fields And Trees
>Absolutely no pollution in my solution.
>/sarcasm ?
>Nothing to see here. Move along.
As stated elsewhere, how can we even discuss, evaluate, prioritize and fund solutions for running the country with knee jerk reactions like this?
Need to be able to get to the table, have reasoned discussion and prioritize policies, funding, and projects for society first.
Can't even do that, blocked by the la
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well we tried that already with cap-and-trade, and all it did was cause more hot air to be expelled by politicians, and more money to be transferred between lobbyists and political action committees.
If the solution requires Congress to get on board, you don't have a solution until maybe next year if you're lucky. And it could easily be any number of years after that because there's absolutely no guarantee that the next Congress will actually be able to do anything more meaningful than renaming post offices
Re: (Score:2)
Lower Energy Prices is Good... (Score:2, Insightful)
... as long as I don't have to spend $15,000 for blown insulation that will save me $75 / month in electrical service charges. Careful, careful with that gov't powered flamethrower, someone could get burned.
Re: (Score:3)
But of course, the government asking a homeowner to maintain their property in a way that would boost it's resell value is too much right? Can't have someone's right to force others to
Re: Lower Energy Prices is Good... (Score:1)
Well, no, payments on $15K of insulation at a lucky to find 6% over 15 years would be spending $126.58 in payments to save $75 in electricity. Plus the fact that I'm 76 and would be highly unlikely to survive long enough to approach any savings would just be a cost savings to America that I would get to pay for and which would impact my quality of life by about an extra $50 per month for 15 years. "Maybe" the gov't would pay for the whole thing, which would not help our deficit spending problem. The who
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Currently you can get cavity wall insulation in the UK for free on a government scheme. As well as economies of scale, it also reduces costs for the government in other areas - healthcare in particular, but also unemployment and tax take.
It's a huge opportunity to boost the economy, cut costs, and improve people's lives. As well as helping address climate change.
Re: (Score:3)
The typical problem is that the funding/subsidies for upgrades are offered as a refund or tax rebate after the work has been completed & paid for. This means that the people who are most likely to benefit from it, i.e. lower income households, can't afford to make the investment. All the savings g
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
And this is why global warming is a certainty. Rather than focusing on energy reduction we're concerned primarily about lower energy prices. This is also why countries with low energy prices dominate the list in emissions per capita (not a dig at the USA here, you're not alone near the top of that list).
Maybe if you actually had higher energy prices you'd build better houses, drive more appropriate cars, or not insist on chilling your office to the point where you need to wear a jumper in the middle of summ
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Maybe if you actually had higher energy prices you'd build better houses,"
Well, no, "we" wouldn't, as I've done as much as I can afford. I'm sitting in a manufactured home (double-wide) because the barmdominium, with it's reputation of being super-insulated as a construction feature (I'm reading further and beginning to doubt that) was simply beyond my ability to pay for it. I got slightly less of a payment instead of a lot less because I included things like the highest R-value insulation that they ma
Re: (Score:3)
Well, no, "we" wouldn't, as I've done as much as I can afford.
Well you may not, but "al'ya'all" would. It's a simple supply and demand problem, and you can see that play out the world over. The fact that you would be hit with a change in supply and demand doesn't change the underlying principle. If gasoline cost 4x as much as it did now (like it does in parts of Europe compared to parts of the USA) you'd think of yourself and your situation the next time you pick a car, and not get a 5L V8.
I also wasn't talking about instant solution by starving the poor, I was talkin
Re: (Score:2)
Well done on exhibiting the exact short-sighted thinking that got us to where we are today.
Stop being part of the problem.
Those heat pumps will need electricity (Score:2, Insightful)
It's a good thing the Biden administration is funding development in nuclear power because we will need reliable low CO2 emitting electricity production to run those heat pumps.
https://www.energy.gov/ne/arti... [energy.gov]
I know people will point out how heat pumps will provide something like 2x, 3x, maybe even 4x the heating capacity over resistance heating of the same power but if the electricity is coming from natural gas then that gain in efficiency is lost compared to natural gas heating when considering conversio
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
"I've also heard that there's some existing mines that were left idle years ago because competition with China,"
How about US income taxes that comprise about 22% of the price of anything produced in America making competing with China a losing proposition. Cure? Abolish the income taxes by passing the FairTax, which 100% replaces all the income taxes - personal, corporate, capital gains, payroll, self-employment, gift, estate, etc etc. with a luxury tax charged on new items for sale at retail and servic
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, great. I've paid income tax on all my earnings and have retired. Now I get to pay a new "Fair" tax when I spend my saved money along with the existing sales tax already in place? Way to tax my money three times.
The only thing the "Fair" tax does is try to get more money from people that have a large amount of saved income. (You have more than me! Let's find a way for you to give me "my share" of your money!)
Re: (Score:1)
Note that due to embedded taxes in US manufactured goods of about 22%, those things produced in the US will fall in price by about that much. Then, they get taxed back up to about the same price they were before. You might have to "buy American" to get away with not paying more for your purchases. And of course if you're getting Social Security, I'm retired and that _is_ taxed, at least mine is. That tax would go away under the FairTax. And, regardless of your other tax status, you STILL get a month
Re: (Score:2)
You do know that heat pumps are 3x or 4x the efficiency of direct resistive electric heat, right?
Installing heat pumps actually will reduce electric demand. That's the whole damn point.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, I had a geothermal heat pump in Virginia. Geothermal is the gold standard of energy savings for heating. Unfortunately, heating isn't the priority here in Texas, cooling is. The geo doesn't perform as dramatically in AC mode as it does in heat mode because the OTHER air conditioners are also heat pumps, just not in heat exchange mode with the subsurface soil. They heat exchange with colder air than my geo in Virginia that was exchanging with 40 to 50'ish degree underground soil. Texas and th
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I had a geothermal heat pump in Virginia. Geothermal is the gold standard of energy savings for heating. Unfortunately, heating isn't the priority here in Texas, cooling is. The geo doesn't perform as dramatically in AC mode as it does in heat mode because the OTHER air conditioners are also heat pumps, just not in heat exchange mode with the subsurface soil. They heat exchange with colder air than my geo in Virginia that was exchanging with 40 to 50'ish degree underground soil. Texas and the rest of the south doesn't have the dramatic options for heat that the northern states do.
I had not heard that ground source heat pumps had any challenges with cooling. If the soil temp is 50, my first thought is that would be better than trying to dump heat into the air at 80 or 90, and if the air is not that hot, would the AC even be needed? On second though though, maybe the ease of bringing new air in rather than the slower movement of heat through the soil is the issue?
Re: (Score:2)
You do know that heat pumps are 3x or 4x the efficiency of direct resistive electric heat, right?
Installing heat pumps actually will reduce electric demand. That's the whole damn point.
Nobody here uses resistive heat. We use natural gas.
Re: (Score:2)
And you base this statement on doing a statistical survey of heat generation techniques "here" - whatever that means?
I can assure you that you're wrong. Even one person plugs in an electric space heater and you're wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
I can assure you that you're wrong. Even one person plugs in an electric space heater and you're wrong.
Yes, and if even one person switches from natural gas you are also wrong. Gonna need more electricity production to run those heat pumps.
Re: (Score:1)
Heat pumps will not reduce electricity demand where it is common to use natural gas for heat, and much of the USA is in that category. More than half of new homes use natural gas heat. https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com]
Heat pumps aren't likely to reduce natural gas use either because to turn natural gas into electricity means losing at least half that energy to waste heat, then further loses in transmission, only for maybe 2X gains in turning that electricity to heat again with a heat pump.
The claims of a
Hear, hear! (Score:2, Funny)
Get the local gym to turn down the goddamned heat. Particularly in the swimming pool. Ever since they joined that "Silver Sneakers" program, they have that thing (gas heated) turned up like a lobster pot.
Reduce glass buildings (Score:1)
While office space isn't in danger of disappearing, new buildings should not be 90% glass. I don't care what is said, glass is a huge heat and cooling loss no matter how the glass or building is made. There are always drafts, the sun bakes you in the summer and you freeze in the winter regardless of HVAC.
Build walls with heavy insulation, then add windows for light but seal their edges. Heating and cooling costs will plummet.
The same with homes. Use expanding spray foam for insulation rather than the pi
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
new buildings should not be 90% glass...Build walls with heavy insulation
So more like caves then?
Amory Lovins and RMI - FTW!! (Score:1)
How about starting with the real culprits (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
LOL. Scope 1 and 2 emissions of oil companies are absolutely dwarfed by Scope 3 (customers setting their product on fire). But hey I actually fully support your point of view. We should be placing additional costs on oil companies, they should reduce their emissions, and ... they should pass those costs on to consumers who may actually not waste energy as a result when the price goes up.
Re: (Score:2)
Reducing demand for their products helps force them to clean up. They can either adapt their business model, or die.
Reduce heating and cooling needs, reduce gas and electricity consumption. Other things like solar also have the benefit of making EVs more attractive, reducing oil consumption.
Gubbermint over-reach! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Why we pay for a continent of wealthy democracies who have nothing but withering criticism for us and who block our companies and imports is beyond me.
Because the 1940s taught us that wars that start in Europe, do not stay contained to Europe.
Also, you may have noticed that those "wealthy democracies who have nothing but withering criticism for us" also pay into their own defense. In fact, they're doing way more than the US in Ukraine at the moment, because we have a bunch of isolationist morons that apparently never heard of World War 2, or are too ignorant to see the parallel between the conditions that led to it, and the conditions we see developing t
Re: (Score:2)
It's not hard. Except for convincing short-term thinkers that they should look at long-term solutions.
Even in this comment section, we've seen boomers bitching about the costs to increase efficiency because they selfishly may not be around to see the full return on investment. That's the exact kind of thinking that caused the problems we have today.
Tax energy and give the money back (Score:4, Insightful)
The most efficient way to improve energy efficiency is to put significant and rising taxes on it and GIVE THE MONEY BACK as a universal basic income. This should ensure that few poor people suffer and lots of companies start to invest in better energy efficiency. But it's far more attractive to employ more bureaucrats and give the money out visibly; that creates the illusion of activity by the government...
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with Georgism is the political spectrum will not stop fighting with itself long enough to implement the
Economic theory - all taxation distorts (Score:2)
The virtue of taxing pollution and monopolies is that you are reducing the distortion caused by the failure to address pollution. Sadly the losers will squeal...
Re: (Score:2)
Everything is game theory. All these schemes neglect the fact that they are dealing with humans, who will find ways to game the system and reward their buddies.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The most efficient way to improve energy efficiency is to put significant and rising taxes on it and GIVE THE MONEY BACK as a universal basic income.
So you want UBI eh? Tell me sir, what kinds of strings will be attached to that UBI? You won't be able to drink sodas anymore? No more rock climbing? What kinds of reports will be demanded from the people receiving the UBI?
Or is UBI just a free handout to you? You might try to get it that way, but it will never be that way.
Free handouts rarely work well. UBI is a complete non-starter bro. Just drop it.
UBI all but exists already (Score:3)
In the US you get a tax credit if your income is low enough. And remember that Alaska already has a universal handout.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
it would be interesting to know if that 'doesn't work well'.
UBI is an extension of this idea and yes, it is UNIVERSAL paid for by reducing the distortion in the market caused by under priced polluting items. But it's not going to be enormous - just an acknowledgement that some people are going to lose out by the necessary rise in prices.
Re: (Score:1)
In the US you get a tax credit if your income is low enough.
This is not a UBI. This is returning what was taken. The person who receives the tax credit already earned that money. There is no "gift" there.
And remember that Alaska already has a universal handout.
This is closer to what a UBI is; however, the only reason it exists is to offset the increases in costs to actually live in Alaska. Everything is more expensive up there (ask Hawaii why).
Honestly, I don't think you have the mental rigor required to advocate for or against UBI.
from now on... (Score:2)
From now on, turn off the heat, lighting, and air conditioning. Oh, also the ventilation. And no more hot water. You don't need it.
LOL whatever (Score:2)
They make announcements like this while:
The BitCoin Boys are using ludicrous amounts of power.
Data Centers are using ludicrous amounts of power.
AC isn't a luxury for much of the World, it's a necessity. ( Same for heating )
Only a few can afford to live where the Weather is nice enough to need neither.
The forecast is for AI to use even MORE amounts of power.
Yet, they ask the little people to conserve by using less and less so the rich can use more and more. :|