Re-imagining Infrastructure: Part 6

Image courtesy of Chambers Design It’s no secret that our energy infrastructure has problems – from fossil fuels and pollution from power plants, to the age and condition of the system that delivers energy to homes and buildings.  But rarely do we hear about the dilemma we face. The modernization of energy distribution in the […]

Image courtesy of Chambers Design

It’s no secret that our energy infrastructure has problems – from fossil fuels and pollution from power plants, to the age and condition of the system that delivers energy to homes and buildings.  But rarely do we hear about the dilemma we face. The modernization of energy distribution in the United States has brought power to everyone everywhere while, at the same time, that access has driven us to be the single largest users of energy, per capita, in the world. The grid is the reason for both our current lifestyle and technological advancement, and our oversized impact on the environment.

Little over a hundred years ago, the energy grid didn’t exist and most people didn’t have access to electricity. Today we overlook the revolutionary condition of ample output that powers our lives, day and night, seven days a week, 365 days a year.

image-dilemma-02

Image from the Library of Congress

The advent of a widely distributed energy grid has brought about an entire suite of markets for new services, products, legislation, and fortune.  Utility companies create jobs and make handsome profits from people paying for the privilege of using things like televisions, air conditioners, computers and microwaves.  All of those things (televisions, computers, air conditioners, microwaves, and a thousand others) are the bread and butter of countless small companies, as well as giants like GE, Siemens and Sony.  I could easily include Apple, Microsoft and Verizon in that list as well as Google, Facebook, Twitter and Foursquare – all of these businesses base their future growth and marketization on us having constant and continual access to as much electricity as we like.

And it’s obvious that we like these things.  We love our laptops, smartphones, iPads, DVD players, hair dryers, digital alarm clocks, coffee makers, and social networks.  But we have these things at the expense of our planet. We have burned billions of tons of fossil fuels to produce and use them. We’ve recognized that doing so is causing great stress on the ecological systems of Earth, so we are actively searching for alternatives in the form of renewable sources like the wind and the sun.  When asked if we would like to have a more sustainable way to power our world, the answer is an easy yes, of course.  However, would we be happy to, say, turn off the lights forever if we can’t find truly sustainable energy options? Would we give up online joys like YouTube, Hulu, Dropbox, Google Docs, Xbox, Tumblr and WordPress if no real alternative can be found?  Would we go back to reading by candlelight and no longer having traffic signals or television if renewable energy can’t fix our problem? Even the most ardent do-gooders among us would have difficulty saying yes.  This is the heart of our dilemma—we are in love with the things that are killing us.

The Nature of Energy

Will changing fuel types (fossil fuel to renewable) resolve our dilemma?  Will we be less in love with electronics when they are powered by wind and solar energy?  Will we need electricity less?  Or, will using renewables reveal that electricity is the real problem?

image-dilemma-03

Image courtesy of Chambers Design

Currently, our lives are moving even deeper into the world of electrification as the new interest in electric cars grows. This trend may be beneficial as long as the energy is coming from cleaner sources, and as long as those sources can keep up with demand.  If not, our problems will get bigger in the long run.

The energy debate has always been about efficiency, conservation, and renewable sources. What if these ideas are not the answer to our problems with energy infrastructure?  Perhaps we could find more comprehensive solutions. How would nature solve the problem? Are there solutions within the energy realm, like oyster-tecture?  Can we look to ecomimicry as a way to get us out of our dilemma? If so, I think we need to focus less on making a better television and instead figure out how to eliminate gigantic blocks of energy consumption all together. We need to go beyond the ideology that technological advances will save us, and discover how engaging ecological services can erase our energy dilemma completely.

image-dilemma-04

Image courtesy of Chambers Design

Some interesting approaches of this kind already exist. In the next few articles I hope to explore them and determine if any of them can answer our questions in new ways.

Neil Chambers, LEED-AP is the CEO and founder of Chambers Design, a research-based, contemporary design company, focused on next generation architectural and technological solutions based in DUMBO Brooklyn. He is the author of Urban Green: Architecture for the Future.  Neil’s work includes urban design, green building design, energy assessment, master planning, and habitat restoration.  He is interested in the relationship between ecosystems, ecological services, buildings and infrastructure. He has taught at NYU and FIT as well as spoken throughout the United States and around the world.

This post is part of the Re-imagining Infrastructure blog series.

Recent Programs