[Greenbuilding] NYC 90% emissions cut with windows

John Salmen terrain at shaw.ca
Tue Mar 19 22:03:40 CDT 2013


I read the report and as an ex nyc resident that renovated a large portion
of industrial soho and the upper east side I think it is extremely relevant.
People I think need to consider that solutions are local and nyc is very
much a local aberration as Tokyo might be. 

 

I think what is most relevant is the notion of small paradigm shifts that
enable cheap (and cheaper) products to meet an end goal. Not major
philosophical paradigm shift but similar to low flush toilets which have
been subsidized by many local authorities as a means to an end which has
enabled manufacturers to make them a standard at low cost. Lets do the same
with heating and cooling - Popping a mr or mrs slim ductless in housing in
ny would be great for the mass affordability of that type of solution. 

 

I am getting tired of the plethora of green products that never meet an end
goal because they just do not get consumed to the degree that makes them
green or have the ability to move on to actually being green (hrv being a
case in point).

 

 

 

From: Greenbuilding [mailto:greenbuilding-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org]
On Behalf Of David Bergman
Sent: March-19-13 9:16 AM
To: Green Building; Green Building
Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] NYC 90% emissions cut with windows

 

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 <http://www.cyberg.com/>  
212 475 3106   twitter: @EcoOptimism

author - Sustainable Design: A Critical Guide
<http://ecooptimism.com/?page_id=58> 
blog - EcoOptimism <http://www.ecooptimism.com/> 
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
<mailto: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.bioener
gylists.org 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130319/d6a4239b/attachment.html>


More information about the Greenbuilding mailing list