By / par Steve Clayman
In 1973, we saw the beginning of the Arab Oil Embargo when the price of oil increased by as much as 300%. In 1979, we witnessed the Oil Crisis. The demand for oil never abated. It was a time of V8 engines in cars and single-glazed windows. People began to sit up and pay attention to energy use, and so began the idea of seriously conserving energy. ASHRAE 90 (as it was known then) was first published in 1975.
Let’s take a look back to June 2008, when the cost of West Texas Intermediate (WTI) oil reached a high of US $164.92 per barrel. The bright lights, the “experts” who knew things no one else knew, said the cost of WTI would hit US $200 per barrel. As I write this article, the cost of a barrel of WTI is US $41.15.
Natural gas took a similar plunge from US $19.25 per MMBtu in September 2005 to where it is today at US $2.04 per MMBtu.
When energy costs were high, the powers-that-be put in motion the very real need to save energy, and the best way to do that was to address energy use in industry, the built environment, and transportation. According to the Energy Fact Book, 2018-2019, [published by Natural Resources Canada (NRCan), energy use in Canada consists of:
Industrial 28%
Transportation 21%
Residential 12%
Commercial 8%
Agricultural 2%
The remaining 29% consists of conversion factors, feedstock, producer consumption, and pipelines. The report goes on to state: “… energy use includes the energy to run vehicles; the energy used to heat and cool buildings; and the energy required to run machinery.”
From the perspective of the built environment, the rising energy costs in the 2000s encouraged entities such as ASHRAE and NRCan to establish a code of applicable requirements that would serve to appreciably reduce energy consumption. NRCan established the Model National Energy Code for Buildings (MNECB) and published that in 1997. MNECB was based on ASHRAE 90.1 and modified for Canadian use and conditions. It was in MNECB 1997 that attention was drawn to the importance of pipe and duct insulation and the establishment of minimum thicknesses for various applications.
ASHRAE updates Standard 90.1 every three years, whereas the MNECB (now NECB) is updated every five years. In both cases, interim updates are published and incorporated as the need arises. Keep in mind that the driving force was to save energy and to continue to do so as the number of buildings increased. To underscore the continued push for energy savings, the 2011 edition of NECB included requirements that were designed to improve building energy performance by an average of 25%.
As we know, energy costs came down and in line with these declining numbers, pushback increased. Pushback came from certain parts of the construction industry, basically saying if energy costs keep coming down, we shouldn’t have to incorporate all of these costly energy savings measures. The cost-benefit isn’t there any longer. Fortunately, the authorities stayed with the energy savings momentum for two reasons: energy costs are cyclical and energy consumption is tied in with greenhouse gas emissions (GHGe) and global warming. The push to reduce CO2, in particular, became front and centre.
Canada’s population is often compared to that of the state of California, yet when it comes to carbon emissions, we rank in the top ten globally. As one would expect, China is ranked number one, with the United States second, and the European Union in third place. Canada’s ranking is ten, just behind Korea and Iran. We need to get further down this list, but instead, we keep increasing our carbon emissions.
Building design criteria and government involvement are making strides to move the needle. How often are we hearing about Passive House, Zero Carbon Buildings, Energy Star, LEED, and structural timber construction, just to name a few?
We’re familiar with geothermal, wind farms, and solar panels as energy sources. Hydrogen and small module nuclear reactors have potential. Carbon capture utilization and storage technology shows promise. However, if we were able to reduce fossil fuel energy use at the point of consumption by incorporating energy efficient design in new and retrofit building installations, this would then serve to reduce CO2 emissions.
The architectural and mechanical engineering communities are working with established and new energy/carbon reduction criteria. Building design reflects that, in particular the design and implementation of high efficiency HVAC equipment. It is in this context that mechanical insulation becomes important to the overall efficiency of the building.
The energy efficiency of the building envelope is tremendously important. With greater use of triple-glazed windows incorporating inert gases as well as high-R envelope insulation, improvements in energy efficiency are quantifiable. As with most energy efficiency initiatives, one reaches a point of diminishing returns. Correctly specified and installed mechanical insulation ensures that cooling and heating buildings and hot water supply are maintained at their respective optimum design temperatures.
When we see literally acres of glass walls on buildings, the demands on HVAC systems are huge. The message to consultants, building owners, and managers is they must look at the contribution mechanical insulation plays in reducing their carbon footprint.
Mechanical insulation reduces energy consumption and CO2 emissions—it’s a simple message. ▪
