Dr Wolfgang Kessling
May 26, 2017
LM: From physics to climate engineering, can you briefly chart your trajectory of practice?
WK: I studied nuclear physics until Chernobyl, the nuclear catastrophe that happened in Ukraine. In April 1986, I changed from nuclear physics to solar physics. This made me relook at energy sources and understanding the potential that solar energy holds. Thereafter, I worked as a researcher for 10 years, investigating and developing solar air-conditioning systems. In due course, I understood that it was quite important to make buildings better before employing systems to make them comfortable. Better-designed buildings decrease the need to rely on energy sources.
This ideology brought me to Transsolar, which was founded at that time by friends of mine. Most of them came from similar research backgrounds. Our worldviews suggested that we rethink our buildings before we negotiate with the energy systems that enhance them. In this manner, if one can reduce the demand for energy, the debate on renewable versus non-renewable sources becomes meaningful. This is where we are at in Transsolar. We essentially strive to make buildings comfortable from an energy standpoint.
LM: You are a physicist. Does not being from an architectural or engineering background impact the way you think about buildings?
WK: So in our attempt to make building designs better, we focus on the fundamentals of physics. It’s not so much about applying rules of thumb, codes of practice, etc., which everyone is trained to do. For us, everything to do with the building distils down to the thermodynamics of its constituents. We closely study the performance of materials and how their attributes impact the performance of the building in totality. I could say that my scientific background helps me think about performance.
I cannot draw too well nor am I a good designer—but I monitor the performance of the building that is linked to design decisions. For example, how does glass as a material used as a design strategy for shading perform in different climatic contexts? This is what makes climate engineering powerful—we fundamentally study the performance of materials. We look at buildings and system performances, microscopically yet holistically. It does sound complex and difficult but here lies the opportunity to innovate and improvise market norms.
LM: Then how do you get across to people about the importance of your work, given the complexity?
WK: The answer to this is two-fold. Today, we convince our clients, architects and other practitioners best by built examples. It’s easier to showcase quality intended for a new project, by letting stakeholders experience them first-hand in our completed projects. But it wasn’t like that earlier—people could not understand what climate engineers like us were up to. But as years passed, and our projects got built, our roles in the design process became more clearly defined. The projects become the realisation of an integrated design process that we believe is the crux of all the work we do