Can we truly achieve Net Zero, or are we using greenwash to disguise the realities of the bigger picture? Everything we make involves energy and the use of raw materials that must be sourced and manufactured. These are then assembled into a product, installed in a structure (call it a building) and then operated for a period of time.
Through the life of the product, it will have to be serviced, then repurposed at the end of its life, and finally recycled.
Energy will be consumed as part of the operation of these systems and further carbon will be generated, so can we honestly say they are Net Zero?
We can of course use green energy or generate power on site so the combined footprint of that building will be minimal. For inner cities we must have a slightly different approach to reduce the carbon impact, so onsite storage might be an option — again based on green energy.
The point here is that zero carbon is unlikely, as the reality is our current technology doesn’t allow us to operate without a carbon footprint.
We also must address the legacy building challenges of inefficient infrastructure, how we deal with these, and what is currently in construction.
It all has an impact, and claims made regarding Net Zero do worry me — how can we state this when we know that nothing is in reality truly Net Zero?
Now there is a lot of spin out there from government and large organisations promoting a green agenda and, for the most part, they are genuinely looking to make a difference. Perhaps we need to collectively have an open discussion on what we can achieve.
Reducing our carbon footprint is imperative, as is optimising the operation of our services through the life of a building.
Unfortunately, in many instances we don’t achieve this as we fail to engage with each partner in the value chain. The procurement process doesn’t always encourage collaboration.
We also have the challenge that we are still constructing buildings without an end client in place and therefore are still delivering Cat A projects where we install a base system that ultimately may not be used in the building. How many of these systems and luminaires have been ripped out and replaced over the years, and what has been their collective carbon impact?
In all projects, lighting and its management are built around a budget that will often be agreed at the outset of the project — and yet it will often be one of the first platforms impacted by variance in budget.
Construction and the very fabric of the building consumes the bulk of the costs and carbon. Any problems during this phase will ultimately lead to additional costs and time that eats away at the overall construction budget. The smart technology that can reduce operating costs and boost efficiency is often at risk of being changed or cut completely.
Project squeeze is another challenge: you run out of time and therefore cannot give the time and resources to properly commission the system. The results will vary but typically you will set a blanket value of light level and sensors with fixed time delays and assume the client will adjust these values once the building is occupied.
This cut-and-paste approach never gets properly addressed and the system is often left in the same state it was on the day it was handed over.
Groups or zones will be based on open plan so control zones may not match how the space is currently used. You may be wasting energy by switching larger zones. Many offices have switching regimes that switch on whole floor plates and post-Covid (with remote working being the norm in some businesses) we now have situations where half the floor plate is not occupied and yet we still light to the same value.
Additionally, a change in layout once a building is occupied has a huge impact on life safety systems such as emergency lighting. Proper consideration of all services can deliver better functionality — and if the right platform is used, real savings can be achieved in operation.
The key here is specification and a strong understanding of the long-term use of the building, which ultimately leads to the most efficient use of that building and the minimisation of carbon in use.
So how green and sustainable are we with the current way we specify and manage the construction process?
Well, that varies. You cannot state that we have a particular position now as contracts themselves vary. However, industry does need support from each sector to deliver a cohesive green solution.
I would stress that we have improved how we specify lighting and controls in general, with lighting designers, M&E consultants and contractors increasingly aware of terms such as embodied carbon and circularity.
Initiatives such as CIBSE’s TM65 (Embodied Carbon) and TM66 (Circularity) have led the way in how we deliver greener buildings, by introducing platforms that simplify the process of measurement and reporting.
This ability to standardise the process at a cost that is achievable is something that has helped to address the obvious elephant in the room: the Environmental Product Declaration (EPD).
EPDs are the most comprehensive method for assessing the environmental impact of a device or product. However, the cost of these can run into the tens of thousands of pounds depending on the product. For smaller manufacturers the cost of an EPD is prohibitive — hence why TM65 and TM66 have been so popular.
So are we achieving Net Zero today — and can we maintain a Net Zero installation once occupied?
The answer, I believe, is not quite yet. We attempt a blanket approach to carbon reduction without digging deeper into the detail and really understanding the benefits and risks of each technology platform. Knowledge is key — as are strategic partnerships.
It’s an interesting thought: how do you validate a company’s Net Zero claims?
I know there are declarations that are made and schemes that validate efficiency, so there are ways of measuring compliance provided you have the relevant data. Once again, data is the tool that allows us to make informed decisions.
Once we have achieved Net Zero in construction, what does that look like? Do we then rest on our laurels, or do we continue to monitor and improve our products and systems to further reduce carbon through life?
I hope we all agree that continual review is the right approach — and visualising that data and benchmarking against industry best practice must be the right approach.
Confusion in the Workplace
A recent article I read about the NHS made great claims about their journey to Net Zero and how some of the initiatives they had introduced were helping them achieve their stated goal.
All very positive, but generally focused on the service side of their operations rather than how they managed their buildings and general energy consumption.
I did write to the author of this article (a senior director in the NHS) and offered support from the lighting industry to help develop a strategy on how to better manage their estate and put in place procedures and technology paths that could dramatically reduce energy consumption whilst improving patient health and recovery times.
There are numerous studies on how post-operation recovery times are improved through good lighting, as well as the benefits to night workers and dementia patients.
As an industry — wearing my SLL and LIA hats — I wanted to reach out and start a dialogue where we could share information to help educate a major contributor to carbon on how to manage systems better and develop a long-term strategy for Net Zero.
I did receive a response worthy of one of Sir Humphrey’s plots in the TV series Yes Minister — a typical civil servant’s response: polite, with no commitment or content.
Younger readers may want to Google Yes Minister as it really sums up the challenges we face as government talks about the race to Net Zero yet doesn’t educate or empower decision makers to properly review and validate best environmental practice.
The point here is that easy wins are promoted as the gold standard in achieving Net Zero. As positive as that message is, the reality is that in the case of the NHS, good lighting design along with proper use of lighting controls and smart technology would improve overall efficiency dramatically.
The added benefit of patient wellbeing would hopefully free up beds and ultimately lead to further benefits.
There is plenty of research covering the use of colour and circadian lighting in healthcare. Collectively as an industry we know how to make that difference and deliver an efficient and well-lit scheme.
The challenge is getting our collective message across — change is only possible if we all pull together to make that a reality.
Net Zero: The Reality
Net Zero is a way of spinning change. As previously mentioned, I think this is a slightly misleading term as we can’t get something from nothing — so we will generate some carbon. However, that carbon can be dramatically reduced and with judicious actions we can manage the process better.
We are on a journey and, speaking as a member of the lighting industry, I want to see real change that can help us achieve Net Zero.
Embodied carbon is only part of the discussion and whole-life carbon is by far the greatest challenge we face.
We need to embrace innovation and technology to remove waste and maximise efficiency. Data is key, and recording how we use technology will drastically reduce consumption. We need benchmarks from which we can measure change and set goals that need to be achieved.
In the same vein, convergence of technologies can and will reduce installed hardware — so less is definitely more if managed correctly. Why duplicate controllers for different services when smart lighting can provide feedback on information such as light levels, air quality and temperature?
Finally, although I do support carbon offsetting as a way of achieving some parity with carbon produced, this cannot be the only method for achieving Net Zero.
A friend posted a video recently on carbon offsetting that showed that if we wanted to offset our current carbon production, we would need to plant trees on a landmass four times the size of the UK. Therefore, offsetting isn’t practical in the long term.
Low carbon — with proper management of building systems — is one of the greatest tools available to us today that can make significant reductions in “as used” carbon.
The drive towards Net Zero is fundamental and something we should aspire to; however we need to start making changes now and embrace technologies that will reduce energy, reduce waste and extend the useful life of our buildings.
Is Net Zero the right metric? Only time will tell. I fully support the initiative, however I think minimal carbon is more likely the real outcome if we accept that all products have some level of embodied carbon.
Net Zero in operation, I do believe, is possible — and this is where convergence of technology with renewable energy sources can deliver buildings and services that have zero impact on the environment.
To achieve this change, we need to drive innovation and engage with decision makers. Only then will we see specifications based on deliverable metrics that are constantly reviewed to continually improve efficiency.
Organisations that have large estates need to be able to look to lighting industry bodies for advice on how best to achieve Net Zero — and how, through partnership, we can deliver tailored solutions that deliver real change.
Small steps can and will make a dramatic change to our current and future lives.
Author: Stewart Langdown FSLL (Fellow of the Society of Light & Lighting)