The FuturArc Interview
LEE ENG LOCK
Technical Director, Trane Singapore
Lee Eng Lock is a mechanical engineer extraordinaire. Judging by his portfolio of projects—dating back to the 1980s—and the exceptional energy performance he squeezes out of each system, each sub-component, it would be no exaggeration to say that he is one of the best practising engineers in Asia today. Amory Lovins, the renowned energy advocate at the Rocky Mountain Institute, goes a step further; in the book Natural Capitalism, Lovins crowns him "the world's master of the new design mentality in fluid-handling and air-conditioning systems."
In this interview with the FuturArc editorial team, he speaks candidly (and scathingly) of the persistent problems of energy waste in buildings. Eng Lock argues for accuracy and accountability of performance in use, starting at the drawing board with a tight fit of predicted load with system capacity. He decries the culture of waste that keeps us from looking performance straight in the eye, leaving us with numbers that are at best fuzzy, at worst fudged.
The following is an excerpt from the interview.
NK: Since the 1970s, when you started your career, what has changed in the way we talk about energy in buildings?
LEL: Generally public consciousness has risen. Big companies are climbing onboard; NGOs are pushing very hard. People are also hard-hit by the economics of paying a 100 bucks a barrel for oil. There is also the related issue of peak oil. We are increasingly conscious that we are living on a finite planet, even if some economists don't agree. It is a finite planet with a finite amount of oil, gas and other kinds of fossil fuel. The atmosphere has been our sink—sewer actually—so are the rivers, the lakes and the seas. People are finally realising, "hey, this is not infinite". It is finite so you have to be a little smarter. This is happening in parallel with people questioning if capitalism is everything there is. Infinite growth simply doesn't work on our finite planet.
NK: When you bring these issues to the drawing board, does that scare off the developer? Do you have a harder time making a case for what you do?
LEL: The answer is yes and no. The so-called free market actually doesn't exist—brute market forces are still in existence. There are some who wake up and try to do something helpful; that is a good thing. On the other hand there are those who say "this is one hell of a marketing opportunity, we can make big money", leading to an explosion of self interest. For example, people will try to get their products—table, chair, carpet, glue, everything—certified by some US body or agency; there are now scandals that some products that get certified are actually very bad, to which the government agency apologises and says, "we've been conned." But they didn't actually investigate; they just handed out certificates. That's not a wise thing to do but that's the standard answer. We don't have the resources or budget to address them all so we just hand out certificates.
Then there is also the development of ESCOs. There have been massive scale failures in the ESCO market. Agencies of the US government sign 25-, 30-year contracts with ESCOs in which the ESCO puts in the money to buy better boilers, double glazing, etc., and in return the utility bill drops. They share in the savings using formula and elaborate computer models based on typical weather data and projected occupancy. But the models give outputs that don't use actual weather files, only averages, besides many other simplifying assumptions. So it's a very elaborate statistical scheme. The attorney general of the US did an investigation on a recent case—it was published in the LA Times—they issued an official report that said that there are no savings after all the money that was paid out. There are many such cases so buyer beware.
NK: Energy is becoming something of a racket…
LEL: It's like the financial industry. Too big to fail. Last year the (US) banks got more bonuses while more people became unemployed.
When I see a doctor, for example, I have to take his word for his diagnosis. I'm not going to dig into his qualifications. So the sad thing is that here and in the US we are handing out certificates for ESCOs. And when one cheats the customer, the authorities say "my agency is not the police agency. It's not our responsibility to give them black marks or bar them". And so life goes on.
NK: What is the main obstacle to energy efficiency in buildings? Is it a question of policy, technology or know-how?
LEL: Human nature, simple as that. The road to hell is littered with good intentions.
The thing that speaks loudest is measured performance. A lot of what you say, he says or she says is subjective. What is not subjective is high accuracy measurements. Usain Bolt does 9.58 seconds for 100 metres. You can say anything you like but can you do a 9.58? If you can't, shut up. It's very simple. Measure accurately and let that be the bottom line. But nobody likes that.
Anything that uses electricity must be questioned. What is the efficiency of this plasma screen (pointing to image of a wide-screen TV in Singapore's ZEB building)? It's very bad. And I can tell you the people who selected this didn't consider that. I know because during one of the tours of this building, I asked them and they didn't know. There are new technologies like SEDs and LEDs drives; even among the LEDs there are selections you can make. Then there's auto dimming that responds to the light situation; if it's bright externally then there's no need for the screen to be so bright. Another is motion sensing. Why does it need to be switched on 24 hours a day, even when there is no one there? Everything that consumes energy must be considered. But nobody thinks issues through in detail. And this is not rocket science.
To read the complete interview, get a copy of the 2Q 2011 edition at our online shop or at newsstands/major bookstores; or subscribe to FuturArc.
Table of Contents |
