Telework and Heat: Some Energy Tradeoffs

The world increasingly melts in summer heat. The impending future shows more of the same. Every year there will be even more heat than the year before. All of this is because of climate change which, in turn, is mostly the result of our continuous burning of fossil fuels. A substantial fraction of that heat input still comes from traffic involving internal-combustion-(IC)-propelled cars. There are at least two ways of attacking this problem. One is by reducing or eliminating car use by telecommuting. Fifty years ago, we reported the results on our test of telework, entitled The Telecommunications-Transportation Tradeoff[1]. It was successful in reducing car use.

Another approach to the heat problem is by replacing IC cars with electric vehicles, EVs. In the 2020s EVs started to appear in substantial quantities.  Now let’s review the energy tradeoffs in terms of heat balances between these two options.

Telework

Telework energy consumption is primarily from electricity that powers computers and telecommunications equipment, workplace lighting and related air conditioning equipment both at the telecommuter’s workplace and the relevant employer’s facilities. Let’s examine each of these.

Computing

Computer, printers and other accessories use electricity on the order of hundreds of watts, so the energy impact of a home-based teleworker is in the order of a kilowatt hour per workday. However, computer use by a teleworker is about the same as it is by an in-office worker, so there is essentially no net energy difference.

Heating and cooling

Teleworkers have an energy advantage over in-office workers in that they can adjust to temperature changes by changing clothing: lighter clothes in summer, heavier in winter. They also have an advantage in that they (and not their officemate or supervisor) can similarly adjust space heating and cooling. 

This also differs from the situation in large office complexes where the heating, ventilation and air conditioning energy use can be independent of the number of office inhabitants, hence less efficient. On the other hand, if the office complex has occupancy sensing it, too, can be a net energy reducer. 

Telework frequency

The average weekly impact of teleworking is simply the sum of the energy impacts times the number of days per week spent working at home minus the central office inefficiencies, if any. Since computer usage is about the same in both, any differences are due to those from heating and cooling.

Energy total

The likelihood is that all home-based teleworking has a net lower energy use per teleworker than does a full- time in-office worker. The amount of saving rises with the number of days per week spent teleworking.

Electric Vehicles (EVs)

The basic premise here is that most, if not all, EVs are more energy efficient than are IC driven vehicles. This statement is based on the fact that electric motors are more efficient than IC engines of whatever design.  EVs range in efficiency, just like IC vehicles, but generally are from 2.6 to 4.8 times more efficient than IC vehicles. The Tesla Models 3 and Y are near the top of that efficiency range and the Hummer is near the bottom. At present EVs are still more expensive to purchase than IC cars but, if you include cost of fuel and other operating costs, many EVs already are less expensive to run than IC vehicles. Greater efficiency means less additional heat released into the atmosphere during operation.

Energy Source

The fundamental issue is: what is the source of the energy for these uses? The easy answer is that fossil fuels = bad; renewables = good. The act of burning fossil fuels adds to global warming while the use of renewable does not. This applies to each of these broad options, so if telecommuters – or EVs – partly depend on electricity from a coal, oil or gas-fired power plant, then their reduction effect on global warming is proportionately reduced. Eliminating all fossil-fuel from these transportation alternates, transport of ideas versus bodies, will finally reduce the rate of increase of climate change. But, unless all the other uses of fossil fuels also stop, climate change will still continue, if more slowly.

Conclusion

The greatest contribution a teleworker might make to reducing the rate of growth of climate change would be to work only at home. That is not possible for many teleworkers. So, the next best choice would be for a teleworker either to confine travel to public transit or drive an efficient EV, powered by renewable energy sources, to/from work on non-telework days. The worst choice would be for the teleworker to drive alone using an inefficient IC vehicle for those days when commuting is necessary.

Most of these choices can be individual ones, not imposed by above. If you want to do your bit to reduce the rate of global warming, here’s an available option.


[1] Jack M. Nilles; Frederick R. Carlson; Paul Grey and Gerhard Hanneman. The Telecommunications-Transportation Tradeoff. Report NSF-RA-5-74-020. University of Southern California, 1974.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.