(An Initial Research Prompt, Context Evaluation and Literature Review)

Of all the energy produced by petroleum, natural gas, coal, nuclear, and renewable sources, only 42.8% of it gets used. The rest is lost in inefficiencies. 38% of the total energy produced goes toward generating electricity for our buildings, but only 32.78% makes it to our outlets and devices. The other 67.21% of electricity generated for our buildings is lost in conversion and distribution. (Derived from 2011 data, Harvard University)

WHERE SOME OF THE 67.21% GOES I add DC{Direct Current}-producing solar panels to the roof of my building. I switch out my lights for low-voltage DC-consuming LEDs{Light Emitting Diodes}. But, because of the hardware in my building, the low-voltage DC electricity coming out of my PV{Photo-Voltaic} panel cannot go directly and seamlessly to my LEDs. First it must go through a series of changes that drain energy. Before entering the infrastructure of my building, the PV’s output enters a battery (so that a constant supply can be given to the power inverter), then the battery’s 12-volt DC energy is boosted to higher-voltage, and translated to AC{Alternating Current} in a power inverter. This step cuts out ~25% of the original source energy. The high-voltage AC then travels through my building’s wiring, until it gets to my LED lamp. At the lamp, it gets transformed and rectified back down to that 12-volt DC (like it was when it was on my roof). This step cuts out another ~10%. Then the DC electricity finally lights my LED. Currently, solar panels (DC) supply us with only a tiny fraction of our total energy. But hydrogen batteries and fuel cells, widely hailed as the storage solution for advancing renewable energy paradigms, output DC. Diode technologies, computational devices, and an increasing number of low-voltage domestic appliances run on DC. As we continually switch both our sources and our consumption to low-voltage DC electricity, it becomes less and less sensible to invert to AC for delivery. ENERGY v. EXERGY  &  QUANTITY v. QUALITY In typical building infrastructures, AC is the supply standard, because it can be used for all energy needs. It is the highest-grade energy. Not only can it be used to power any typology of building system, from mechanical compressors to space-heating, it can undergo the most conversions before it is entirely dissipated into its final form: heat. During a time with less sophisticated technologies and methods of computation, it was important to simplify the transportation of energy into one common denominator. Conversion was substantively more attainable than any other solution. But now, abilities to calculate, generate, and organize types of energy have caught up, and the paradigmatic reliance on conversion is no longer necessary. Energy infrastructure has the opportunity to customize to specific productions and consumptions. Why is infrastructure customization a more beneficial solution than mass-conversion? Not all types of energy have the same level of exergy—the amount of energy that can be used. AC electricity, for instance, has a much higher exergy than heat, for equal units of energy. They are not of the same quality. High-grade energy has the benefit of being able to meet both low-grade and high-grade needs, but it is created by converging lower-grade forms—a process that includes gross loss of energy to inefficiencies. {A typical kWh of AC electricity is created by focalizing three kWh-worth of low-grade heat energy.} Thus, we should avoid using downgraded AC for heating or DC lighting, when we could circumvent the associated energy losses by simply matching type to need. EXISTING STRATEGIES FOR “SOFTENING” GRIDS  Infrastructure that delivers energy and/or data is comprised of two categorical systems: 1) molecular actions along waves or paths and 2) the physical hardware that transports these actions. The vast majority of existent electricity and internet infrastructures are organized in a stable, centralized grid. Arguments to decentralize the internet “utility” are common, citing both technological and social incentives. Decentralizing internet infrastructure can be accomplished by modifying only the flows of data and the storage hardware. The hardware responsible for transportation of the data (including public or corporation infrastructure) does not require substantive alterations. -electricity doesn’t work like internet data, because there are fundamentally different types: differences in direction, grounding, data delivery -non-gridded paradigms: different because of resources involved -in a new, ideal development, there would be the following infrastructural changes: {1.Standardize all electronics to run on the same voltage of DC, relieving the need for voltage conversion at outlets. 2.Develop a standard wall outlet for DC. 3. Add a separate DC grid to all buildings. 4. Reduce the standard AC grid to only a few outlets per building, for the occasional appliance that requires intensive mechanical action (vacuums, washing machines). 5. Link DC building grids into community-scale infrastructure that connects directly to production sources. 6. Integrate community-scale non-chemical storage of DC electricity. 7. Eliminate water heating and space conditioning via electricity, by linking heat needs directly to heat sources, reusing heat sinks as new sources, and introducing passive heat boundaries. 8. Reduce space heating/conditioning to micro-climates rather than building envelopes.} -so, that’s what the ideal would look like, but what about the existing, where we have already invested so much of our energy and resources? how do we adopt a mindset of malleability towards these structures? “There should be more to Gov 2.0 than Web 2.0. Without understanding that, web and mobile services simply skate over the veneer of big, ugly problems like the city, without genuinely engaging. Or, as my colleague Bryan Boyer and I have taken to saying, ‘matter matters’.” (Hill) MALLEABLE ENERGY: MATCHING SOURCES TO CONSUMPTION “If we could begin to think of these environments at the small scale – what the body needs – and not at the large scale – the building space – we could dramatically reduce the energy and material investment of the large systems while providing better conditions for the human occupants.” (Smart Materials) -additive systems with embodied interaction are well-posed for this problem -soften the infrastructure so that it is adaptable — optimize energy systems to the user rather than to the building — most energy systems are better suited to the sub- or supra- scales anyway -collapse electricity distribution -transfer of heat: micro-climates & heat sources and sinks MALLEABLE ENERGY: ADAPTABLE, VISIBLE, OCCUPIABLE -visibility is also good for reduction of energy consumption -if we reduce consumption and reduce waste, must be mindful of economic rebound effect. in this case, positive impact on the system comes not just from visibility, but from true agency and feedback, making the user part of an energy ecosystem. (just as human is a heat source) –beautiful seams: opportunity for energy to become something spatial; something occupied -intersects well with a reconceptualization of “boundary” and materials modified by energy (Addington) -construct the energy ecosystem in such a way that the seams can be understood and leveraged, making the seams submissive to the agency of the user in the continually updating energy ecology -{ecology = how a unit interacts with other units of its own kind, and how it interacts with separate types or species in its environment. e.g. how individual energy forces interact with other energy forces and how they all interact with users} -high-tech, low-tech? careful-tech. _____________   CONSTRAINTS & PARAMETERS FRAMING THE PROJECT (bibliography) HEAT Addington, D. Michelle. Boundary Layer Control of Heat Transfer in Buildings. Diss. Harvard University, 1997. Brohus, Henrik, Peter V. Nielsen and Michael Tøgersen. Thermal Interaction of Closely Spaced Persons. Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark. Heschong, Lisa. Thermal Delight in Architecture. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 1979. Print. Myer, John. Representation of Thermal Energy in the Design Process. Thesis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1995. N.p.: n.p., n.d. ENERGY (EFFICIENCY/SUSTAINABILITY) Addington, D. Michelle. “No Building is an Island.” Harvard Design Magazine Spring/Summer 2007.Number 26 (2007): n. pag. Herrmann, Lesley, Michael Deru, and John Zhai. Evaluating Energy Performance and Improvement Potential of China Office Buildings in the Hot Humid Climate against U.S. Reference Buildings. Rep. West Lafayette, Indiana: National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2010. Mau, Bruce, and Jennifer Leonard. Massive Change. London: Phaidon, 2004. Print. Messenger, Roger, and Jerry Ventre. Photovoltaic Systems Engineering. Boca Raton, FL: CRC, 2000. Phinyawatana, Naree. Urban Canyon Design: Evaluating the Impacts of the Radiative Material Properties and Spatial Con?guration on Urban Heat Island. Diss. Harvard University, 2006. U.S. Energy Information Administration. International Energy Outlook 2013. Tech. Washington DC: DOE/EIA, 2013. Wang, Yiping, Bing Yuan, Li Zhu, Jianbo Ren, Yonghui Liu, and Jinli Zhang. “Interactions between Building Integrated Photovoltaics and Microclimate in Urban Environments.” J. Solar Energy Engineering 128.2 (2005): 168-72. Yadama, Gautam N. Fires, Fuel, and the Fate of 3 Billion: The State of the Energy Impoverished. USA: Oxford, 2013. Print. ECONOMIC REBOUNDS Murray, Cameron K. “What If Consumers Decided to All ‘go Green’? Environmental Rebound Effects from Consumption Decisions.” Energy Policy 54 (2013): 240-56. Alcott, Blake. “Jevons’ Paradox.” Ecological Economics 54.1 (2005): 9-21. Select Committee on Science and Technology, House of Lords, UK. The Economics of Energy Efficiency, Chapter 3. Rep. no. 2. N.p.: Parliament, UK, n.d. SMART SYSTEMS Addington, D. Michelle, and Daniel L. Schodek. Smart Materials and New Technologies: For the Architecture and Design Professions. Amsterdam: Architectural, 2005. Beesley, Philip. Responsive Architectures: Subtle Technologies 2006. Cambridge, Ont.: Riverside Architectural, 2006. Print. Moloney, Jules. Designing Kinetics for Architectural Facades: State Change. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2011. GRIDS Alfaro, Jose, and Shelie Miller. “Sastisfying the Rural Residential Demand in Liberia with Decentralized Renewable Energy Schemes.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 30 (2014): 903-11. Elsevier B.V. Web. 11 Jan. 2014. City of New York, The. Road Map for the Digital City: Achieving New York City’s Digital Future. Rep. NY: New York City, 2011. Sierra Energy Group. Smart Grid Starts with Smart Design: Prepared for Autodesk. Rep. N.p.: Energy Central, n.d. NEW DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES Department For International Development. Energy for the Poor: Underpinning the Millennium Development Goals. Rep. N.p.: DFIV, 2002. Print. DFIV Issues. Easterly, William R. The Elusive Quest for Growth: Economists’ Adventures and Misadventures in the Tropics. Cambridge: MIT, 2002. Print. Fischer, Brodwyn, Bryan McCann, and Javier Auyero, eds. Cities From Scratch: Poverty and Informality in Urban Latin America. Durham, NC: Duke University, 2014. Print. International Energy Agency. Energy for All: Financing Access for the Poor. Publication. Paris: OECD/IEA, 2011. Print. Special Early Excerpt of the World Energy Outlook 2011. Szabó, S., K. Bódis, T. Huld, and M. Moner-Girona. “Sustainable Energy Planning: Leapfrogging the Energy Poverty Gap in Africa.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 28 (2013): 500-09. Elsevier B.V. Web. 11 Jan. 2014. United Nations Development Programme. “Universal Access to Modern Energy for the Poor.” UNDP. N.p., 2013. Web. 11 Jan. 2014. BEHAVIOR / LEARNING / FEEDBACK Ajzen, Icek. “The Theory of Planned Behavior.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50.2 (1991): 179-211. Darby, Sarah. “Social Learning and Public Policy: Lessons from an Energy-conscious Village.” Energy Policy 34.17 (2006): 2929-940. DeWaters, Jan E., and Susan E. Powers. “Energy Literacy of Secondary Students in New York State (USA): A Measure of Knowledge, Affect, and Behavior.” Energy Policy 39.3 (2011): 1699-710. Grønhøj, Alice, and John Thøgersen. “Feedback on Household Electricity Consumption: Learning and Social Influence Processes.” International Journal of Consumer Studies 35.2 (2011): 138-45. Hargreaves, Tom, Michael Nye, and Jacquelin Burgess. “Making Energy Visible: A Qualitative Field Study of How Householders Interact with Feedback from Smart Energy Monitors.” Energy Policy 38.10 (2010): 6111-119. LIGHT An, John. Evaluation of Assumptions in Building Energy Standards: A Method for Assessing the Lighting Provision. Diss. Harvard University, 2005. Livingstone, Margaret. Vision and Art: The Biology of Seeing. New York: Harry Abrams, 2002. INTERFACES Dourish, Paul. Where the Action Is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 2001. EXPERTS / TECHNOCRAT Easterly, William R. The Tyranny of Experts: Economists, Dictators, and the Forgotten Rights of the Poor. New York: Basic, 2014. Print. Mitchell, Timothy. Rule of Experts: Egypt, Techno-politics, Modernity. Berkeley: University of California, 2002. Print. Polanyi, Karl. The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time. Boston: Beacon, 2001. Print. PERCEPTION OF SHELTER BOUNDARIES Rohles Jr. F.H., Nevins R.G., McNall Jr. P.E., and Springer W.E. 1967. Human physiological responses to shelter environment. Report 2. Institute for Environmental Research. Kansas University (USA). Schwartzman, Madeline. See Yourself Sensing: Redefining Human Perception. London, UK: Black Dog Pub., 2011. Smith, Neil. Uneven Development: Nature, Capital, and the Production of Space. New York, NY: Blackwell, 2008. Print.