*carbonemission* ¼ *carbonintensity* � *electricityconsumption* (1)

Because of high variation in the instantaneous mixture of generators, both hourly carbon emission, which depends on hourly fuel consumption, and hourly carbon intensity are highly variable.

Unlike the hourly generation/consumption by source data, the hourly fuel consumption data is not available from NY ISO. The only related fuel consumption data for electricity generation comes from US EIA electricity monthly database. From this database, the fuel consumption and resulting electricity generation data are available in monthly resolution in New York in 2019. Therefore, the efficiencies of various types of generators can be calculated. The monthly generation efficiencies from natural gas, petroleum liquid, and coal generators are up-sampled as constants and serve as denominator of the hourly electricity generation by source data to calculate the hourly consumption of the three fossil fuels. Then total carbon emissions from these fossil fuel consumptions can be calculated in hourly resolution with the EPA Greenhouse Gas Inventories.

*Systems-Thinking Framework for Renewables-Powered World DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.100438*

Once the hourly carbon emissions data associated with electricity generation is obtained, the *time-varying carbon intensity* of electricity is calculated by dividing that with the hourly electricity generation/consumption data. One may wonder if the ultimate objective is to lower total carbon emission why one goes through the loop of dividing carbon emission data with electricity consumption data—for the purpose of multiplying the resulting carbon intensity with electricity consumption, again, to get carbon emission estimate. The answer is that carbon intensity is a function of existing grid based on current pattern of grid-wide electricity usage, whereas consideration of change in individual electricity consumption may be made for evaluating impact of such change on carbon emission. Such consideration may be made under the assumed carbon intensity, which will not change in short term. In short, with an assumed unchanging *carbonintensity* (e.g., in gray in **Figure 3**), estimate of *carbonemission* of different demand of electric usage (in yellow in **Figure 3**) can be made.

$$\text{estimateofcarbon emission} = \sum\_{\text{Year}} \text{carbon intensity} \times \text{changedelectivity} \tag{2}$$

Calculated result of carbon intensity based on existing pattern of grid-wide electricity usage in the study [12] is reproduced here in **Figure 3**. Superimposed with carbon intensity in the figure is the simulated electricity consumption makeup of an individual building with air-conditioning as well as electrified space heating and domestic water heating shown in yellow (referred to as eHP). Note the high winter peaks of eHP as a result of winter space heating, whereas the standard common practice of a combination of air-conditioning and fossil fuel fired space heating and domestic hot-water heating has peaks, much lower ones, in summer only. So, when we multiply the carbon intensity with electricity consumption (electric demand), it is a very different electric demand makeup (from that determining the existing carbon intensity) resulting in very different carbon emission estimate.

The estimate of annual carbon emission is shown as **Figure 4**.

As a result of the peaks of carbon intensity (based on current grid with its operation outside the summer season being underused) and electricity demand of eHP are out of phase with each other, a 70% reduction in carbon emission (reduction from 7087 to 2214) is projected even with the current grid. Even with limited

**Figure 3.**

*Carbon intensity of existing pattern of grid-wide electricity usage and simulated electric demand of eHP (electrified space cooling & heating and DHW heating).*

#### **Figure 4.**

*Estimate of annual carbon emission of eHP in comparison with that of standard building conditioning.*

penetration of renewables in our current grid, an instant drastic reduction in carbon emission can be achieved when each individual building goes to be fully electrified.

This is an example of the great potential of systems approach.

Another characteristic that differentiates systems approach from "Newtonian" machine approach is while the machine worldview is a static worldview, the systems worldview sees the world as a dynamic, changing, world. The finding of **Figures 3** and **4** make a compelling case for immediate deployment of electrification of space heating and domestic hot water heating as6long as the extent of such deployment does not change "pattern of grid-wide electricity usage" in any significant way, i.e., the carbon intensity shown in **Figure 3** holds.

When market-deployments of electrification of heating reach significant market penetration, it'll change pattern of grid-wide electricity usage into one that manifests high winter peak demand. That is a problem which has to be solved—without which the progress of electrification of everything including heating will be halting to full stop resulting from a carbon intensity very different from the one shown in **Figure 3**. Both the cost advantage and the carbon emission advantage will vanish. Usage of energy storages both of electricity storages and thermal energy storage (TES) will be *crucial parts* of the solutions, investigation of the latter kind, TES, has been carried out in the study [12].

The building sector is a good example of systems approaches. Buildings, when they are considered as parts of grid system, are example of ecosystems. However, as ecosystems they are different from "ecological systems that are made of organisms" in a fundamental nature: unlike organisms that are active participants of the ecological systems having geophysical/geophysiological impacts on the non-living part of the systems (especially, see the Gaia discussion in Section 5), human inhabitants are passive components of building without defining building in a physical or ecological sense. While it has been suggested that standard theories of thermodynamics fail to treat the world in terms of systems thus fail to equip students of

thermodynamics to have a solid grasp on the study of buildings, their shortcoming in dealing with ecological systems is much more serious. A case can be made that they totally miss the central question and its related core issues. A brief report on how this can be remediated is given in the next section.
