Pietro Marconi

Journal 4

Key concepts from reading and lecture:

The industrial sector is responsible for producing most of the daily necessities and
comfort items people use. The industry employs around 20 million people and accounts
for 40% of the US GDP. Industry accounts for over 75% of US primary energy use for
motor operations and heating. If the US industry's energy consumption habits remain
the same, its energy use will rise to over 44 quads annually by 2050. The industry's
energy usage is expected to grow only to 30.5 quads by 2050 due to energy efficiency
improvements and a shift to higher-value products. Increased focus on cogeneration
(combined heat and power), energy efficiency technologies, and changes in the
electricity and transportation sector could reduce the industry's 2050 energy needs by
about 30%. Integrative design, which focuses on downstream requirements to
compound savings of energy and capital upstream, can be applied to drive power, fluid-
handling systems, and basic process design, among other areas. U.S. industrial energy
demand can drop 9%, from 24.4 quads of primary energy in 2010 to 22.3 quads in
2050, while industrial output rises by 84%, even without integrative design or radical
changes in technologies. Fuel-switching, process redesign, and dematerialization can
further displace fossil fuels.

Analysis:
Amory proposed that the integration of design principles could help achieve certain
values, and he suggested specific steps to apply this approach when retrofitting or
designing a power plant. These steps include analyzing and addressing losses that
occur in different parts of the system, such as pipe losses, throttle losses, drivetrain
losses, motor losses, transmission and distribution losses, and power plant losses.
These losses can be caused by various factors, such as friction and size, and Amory's
idea of increasing pipe size while reducing pump power consumption seems particularly
intriguing.
One might question why this approach wasn't previously considered by engineers.
Perhaps it was due to traditional design practices in Europe, where many people live in
apartments and space is limited, leading to a focus on compact systems (smaller pipes
with greater friction). When these practices were transferred to the United States, where
space is less of an issue, they were simply adopted without further analysis. However,
with advancements in design, engineers are now building more efficient and sustainable
industries/structures. Are there other reasons why engineers have never thought about
such as simple design improvements in the first place? Is my assumption about less
land space available in Europe realistic? I know that it might sound absurd but when
people immigrated from Europe to the US, not only they brought different cultures and
traditions but maybe also design practices.
It is also worth considering whether it is feasible to allocate a budget toward retrofitting
infrastructure designs across the United States rather than solely investing in new
technologies. If policymakers were to review the statistics mentioned in the earlier parts
of this journal or in the RMI article, they might find it beneficial to focus on retrofitting
existing infrastructure instead of solely investing in new technologies. By prioritizing this
approach, we could save money and resources while still achieving our goals of
creating more sustainable and efficient systems. Why can’t people see this as an
opportunity to reduce emissions but they only look into the new “cool”
device/technology? My assumption is that investment firms would not have much profit
from investing in a company that provides better design practices.

When considering the implementation of new power plants or renewable energy

infrastructure, it is important to also take into account energy efficiency standards that
could be set for new buildings and industries. By doing so, the adoption of innovative
designs and technologies, as discussed earlier in this journal, could be facilitated. This
is because, with increased efficiency, it should not take much effort to persuade
individuals and companies to invest in these new designs that will ultimately save them
money in the long run.
However, it is worth noting that not everyone may have the necessary capital to retrofit
their existing buildings or industries. This is where government subsidies could prove to
be incredibly useful in assisting those who are unable to make the necessary upgrades
themselves. By providing financial assistance, the government could encourage the
widespread adoption of energy-efficient practices and infrastructure, ultimately
benefiting the nation by reducing energy waste and carbon emissions. Also, this can
reduce the load that the grid will have to meet daily which will grow exponentially if we
plan to transition to only electric cars. Shouldn’t retrofitting existing infrastructure to be
more energy efficient a priority?