[Greenbuilding] NYC 90% emissions cut with windows

Tue Mar 19 20:46:42 CDT 2013

Two thoughts
1. Thats a helluva lot of windows!
2. Many New Yorkers in apartments in which they have no control of the
heat. Sometimes opening the windows is the only way to cool them down.
 unless the heating systems get updated, better windows won't help.

On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 11:15 AM, David Bergman <bergman at cyberg.com> wrote:
> I'm a skeptic generally and would, at first blush, share your view of this
> report. However, has anyone read the report? (Not just the article about
> it.) I'm not technically fluent enough to judge the detail accuracy of the
> report but, at a glance, it does appear to be in depth, referenced and
> footnoted, etc.  And I know the Urban Green Council folks and do not believe
> they would greenwash or manipulate data.
>
> Yes, I'd be curious to hear Henry Gifford's reactions. I strongly doubt he
> was involved since the UGC is the NYC USGBC section. But the report is not
> solely about HVAC.
>
> One also has to keep in mind the non-standard aspects of NYC buildings.
> First, that they are often mid- or high-rise and attached structures, which
> creates a very different energy scenario from the typical US building stock
> in terms of exterior exposure. In my apartment in a low-rise 100 year old
> building, for instance, I have no significant floor or ceiling heat
> loss/gain because there are occupied spaces above and below me. The exterior
> walls are three-wythe brick (albeit without an air gap) but with 1980's
> insulation between them and sheetrock (due to a gut reno of the building).
> So my primary heat loss/gain is through my crappy 1980's aluminum frame
> (probably not thermally broken) dual-pane windows where I can feel the
> drafts, as opposed to walls or roof or basement.
>
> And in more modern buildings, especially office structures, there is a very
> high percentage of glass facade. One of the report's recommendations is to
> limit the amount of glass in favor of more opaque exteriors which can have
> higher R-values.
>
> The central steam heat still provided in some parts of the city is a vestige
> from days when there were more local power plants and the steam was a
> byproduct. That's no longer the case, but many buildings are still dependent
> on it, so ConEd continues to provide fossil-fuel generated steam even though
> it doesn't make sense anymore. (The report mentions the possibility of
> converting that to biomass.)
>
> Another point they make is that there is a heavy reliance on window or
> sleeved air conditioners, given the aging stock of buildings, which have
> high loss factors, hence their recommendation to shift to mini-splits.
>
> I have no doubt that if I was able to replace my windows and my heating and
> air conditioning, my utility bills (which are quite high due to having a
> home office where computers and air conditioners are on during summer days),
> would drop significantly. Probably not 90%, but that isn't taking into
> account the societal benefits of switching fuel and energy away from
> carbon-intense sources.
>
> I'm sure this report is not above critical evaluation, but I don't think it
> is as flawed or unrealistic as some of you are making it out to be.
>
>
> David
> David Bergman  RA   LEED AP
> DAVID BERGMAN ARCHITECT | FIRE & WATER LIGHTING
> architecture . interiors . ecodesign . lighting . furniture
> bergman at cyberg.com    www.cyberg.com
> 212 475 3106   twitter: @EcoOptimism
>
> author - Sustainable Design: A Critical Guide
> blog - EcoOptimism
> adjunct faculty - Parsons The New School for Design
>
>
> At 11:23 AM 3/19/2013, Reuben Deumling wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Alan Abrams < alan at abramsdesignbuild.com>
> wrote:
> <I have a very hard time believing that 90% of GHG emissions *even come
> from* window and insulation losses.
>
> I wish people wouldn't try to hype their proposals by giving such numbers.
> Huge savings are possible, but at least try to make them look plausible or
> they will be dismissed out of hand (as I did).
>
> Thank You Kindly,>
>
> I'm with Corwyn, thank you kindly.
>
>
> Me too.
> It is so frustrating that the various dimensions of this problem are so
> consistently muddled and hyped.
>
> (1) Replacing aging steam for mini-splits. What was the fuel source for the
> steam heat? What does a thorough before and after comparison of this kind of
> 'upgrade' actually look like? Has anyone talked to Henry Gifford? He should
> know a thing or two about this.
>
> (2) Differentiate between energy efficiency and energy conservation. It is
> notable that in the above excerpt what is called energy conservation is
> specifically differentiated from "asking residents to cut back it refers to
> stripping waste and leakage to the bare minimum." I will go on record saying
> that it is impossible to achieve a 90% reduction without inviting residents
> to get to know their habits, make adjustments to how they use energy, tinker
> with their thermostat setpoints, review how much is turned off when they are
> not home, what to do about standby, etc. I say this as someone who did
> reduce his household's electricity use by 90% and natural gas use by 83%
> over the course of five years without spending a mint.
>
> (3) Rather than speculating it would be so much more useful if this subject
> started from the lived experiences of those whose usage is, say, 90% below
> today's mean level, or who have figured out how to actually reduce their
> consumption by 90%. This would invite concrete discussions of what works,
> what the tradeoffs are, etc., rather than always being mired in the
> speculative/hyped realm that seems still to hold sway.
>
> (4) We know that 90% reductions are possible at the household level, and
> that in principle this could be scaled up to a neighborhood or city. But
> until we understand the steps, the adjustments, the parameters at each level
> there is very little point in articles like this. The hand waving detracts
> from the very real work that people are engaged in every day producing
> results that compare favorably with the lofty goals mentioned but which go
> unrecognized (perhaps because they don't involve triple glazing).
> _______________________________________________
> Greenbuilding mailing list
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> Greenbuilding at bioenergylists.org
>
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Greenbuilding mailing list
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> Greenbuilding at bioenergylists.org
>
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org

-- 

b e n j a m i n p r a t t

professor art+design
the university of wisconsin stout