자료실

기술정보
  • 홈
  •  > 
  • 자료실
  •  > 
  • 기술정보
Integrative Design: A Disruptive Source of Expanding Returns to Investments in Energy Efficiency
글쓴이 관리자 (IP: *.176.22.203) 작성일 2017-03-20 08:37 조회수 868
1. 저자 : Amory B. Lovins, Chairman and Chief Scientist Rocky Mountain Institute (www.rmi.org, ablovins@rmi.org)
2. 개요 : Energy end-use efficiency’s potential is large1 and little-tapped. Yet all official studies substantially understate its potential and overstate its cost, because they focus on individual technologies without also counting integrative design that optimally combines those technologies. The efficiency resource keeps getting bigger and cheaper as innovation, competition, and volume make energy-saving technologies more effective and less costly—both faster than they’re being applied.2 But even more important complementary advances in integrative design remain nearly invisible, unrecognized, untaught, and practiced only by a small subset of exceptional designers. Examples below for buildings, industry, and vehicles show that optimizing whole systems for multiple benefits, not disjunct components for single benefits, often makes gains in enduse efficiency much bigger and cheaper than conventionally supposed. Indeed, integrative design can often yield expanding rather than the normal diminishing returns to investments in energy efficiency, making very large (even order-of-magnitude) energy savings cost less than small or no savings. Yet dis-integrated design prevails, because:
• R&D is structured to develop efficiency technologies, not design methods (probably no DOE R&D program develops, spreads, or values integrative design);
• design pedagogy was integrated in Victorian times, but for more than a century has been getting sliced into ever more specialized subdisciplines, so synergies are lost;
• there are almost no curricular materials or trainings for teaching integrative design, nor is it expected or evaluated in licensing designers or accrediting design schools;
• force of habit, and fear of liability for deviating from standard practice, make both designers and clients wary of fundamental design innovation;
• most software design tools optimize parts, not wholes, and cannot support integrative design, nor is there a readily identifiable and skilled integrative design practice from which tool-builders can extract the necessary insights;
• design practice has become commoditized, so most clients expect, reward, and get minor adaptations of previous drawings, not clean-sheet whole-system optimization.
These mutually reinforcing causes create a vicious circle reinforcing the status quo. Reversal requires a concerted effort to replace disciplinary fragmentation with a clear whole-system design methodology; new teaching materials (including practical case-studies) and teacher training; collaboration between design clients, firms, and schools to create “demand pull”; rewarding designers for what they save, not what they spend; early-adopter clients’ offering liability waivers or risk-sharing to overcome hesitancy; wide dissemination of results to build broad acceptance; and rapid feedback from field results to keep improving pedagogy and practice.
3. 출처 : www.rmi.org