[Greenbuilding] NYC 90% emissions cut with windows

[Michael Iversen]

Jason ... "so you start by shooting for the sky then work backwards" is 
the correct course, except one has to know exactly what's in the sky 
(atmosphere) first before setting goals and targets. The Urban Green 
Council report is based on the goal of a CO2 atmospheric concentration 
of less than 450ppm, citing a paper by climate scientist James Hansen 
and an outdated IPCC 2007 Report. Problem is that James Hansen, a 
pioneer of climate science, has been on record since 2008 that CO2 will 
need to be reduced to 350ppm, and likely less than that. Hansen states 
(Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?, /The Open 
Atmospheric Science Journal, 2, /1, 217-231, 2008) that if an overshoot 
of a 350ppm CO2 target is not brief, there is a possibility of seeding 
irreversible catastrophic effects. How brief? If the world continues on 
a business-as-usual path for even another decade (from 2008), prospects 
for avoiding a dangerously large, extended overshoot of the 350 ppm 
level will be dim. A CO2 amount of 450 ppm or larger, if long 
maintained, would push Earth toward an ice-free state. As of Feb. 2013, 
atmospheric concentration is 397ppm.

Therefore, amazingly enough, a 90% GHG emission reduction by 2050 is a 
recipe for risking irreversible catastrophic change, as 2050 will likely 
be far too late.

Why? Because GHG concentrations only decrease when global emissions are 
less than the rate of the planet's capacity for sequestration (removal). 
Currently, there are about 9.1 billion metric tons of global CO2 
emissions per year, with a global capacity for sequestration (by oceans, 
plants and soils) of about 5 billion metric tons per year. So about 4.1 
billion metric tons are added each year to the atmosphere, with no place 
to go, thus increasing the current concentration to 397ppm. As a matter 
of fact, 25% of CO2 emissions stays in the atmosphere for several 
centuries. So merely reducing emissions is not a solution. Even zero 
emissions is no longer a viable solution to reach 350ppm, as we have to 
remove more atmospheric CO2 than emissions to have any effect on CO2 
concentrations. An immediate cut of around 60 to 70% globally and 
continued further cuts over time will /merely to stabilize atmospheric 
concentrations/ of CO2/, /and that would still leave us with a radiative 
imbalance that would lead to /an additional 0.3 to 0.8ºC warming// /over 
the 21st Century, that assumes no major carbon cycle feedbacks kick in, 
which is highly unlikely 
<http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/02/17/207552/nsidc-thawing-permafrost-will-turn-from-carbon-sink-to-source-in-mid-2020s-releasing-100-billion-tons-of-carbon-by-2100/>.

The prescribed energy retrofits of the Urban Green Council should be 
seen as mitigative measures only, and need to be coupled with adaptive 
measures for NYC in terms of forthcoming climate change and associated 
impacts.


Mike Iversen


On 3/20/2013 1:13 PM, Jason Holstine wrote:
> I betcha they welcome such an analytical critique and conversation.
>
> It's a big problem, so you start by shooting for the sky then work 
> backwards ... identify gaps, holes and weaknesses, then work to 
> address, plug and fix them so they can become strengths and 
> opportunities, and if you end up with a 40, 50 or 70% GHG redux, I'm 
> pretty sure you've done a helluva more than any other urban center. 
> And in so doing, creating knowledge bases and economies of scale to 
> redefine what's possible elsewhere in the economy.
>
> Bloomberg hasn't been shy about tackling large social ills, for good 
> and for bad. Fundamentally we need that to break citizens and 
> consumers out of really bad ignorance that negatively impacts the 
> macro level.
>
>
> On 3/20/13 12:53 PM, "Michael Iversen" <miversen at uic.edu> wrote:
>
>     I reviewed the '90 by 50' report, and its conclusions are based on
>     invalid assumptions, extrapolations and projections placed outside
>     the context of reality in terms of economic and social behavior.
>     Basically, the report concludes that IF ALL buildings in NYC were
>     retrofitted or designed with rigorous energy measures, and IF ALL
>     buildings were equipped with rooftop photovoltaic systems, and IF
>     ALL source energy was carbon-free electricity, then a 90 percent
>     reduction in building sector-related GHG emissions is possible by
>     2050.
>
>     *Report Assumption 1*: All building stock is assumed to be
>     retrofitted / designed with existing and near-term efficiency
>     technologies, specifically; air sealing, heat recovery
>     ventilation, and additional insulation, to a point where all
>     heating, cooling, and hot water can be provided by electric heat
>     pumps. Capital outlays are estimated at a discounted net present
>     value $94 billion.
>
>     - /Comment/: While energy retrofitting of existing building stock
>     is a valid strategy to reduce GHG, the projection of findings
>     based on perfect model simulations for each building type to the
>     entire building stock is extremely unrealistic, in terms of
>     financial costs and building ownership / management behavior. The
>     $94 billion costs need to be placed in the context of local,
>     state, and federal economic deficits. The report needs to project
>     the extent of retrofitting based on historic data, not unrealistic
>     goals.
>
>     *Report Assumption 2*: All remaining building loads to be
>     carbon-free electricity. After reducing total building energy use
>     by 50 to 60 percent, all remaining building energy in 2050 (50.6
>     TWh) is to be supplied by carbon-free electricity, in order to
>     meet the 90 percent reduction target.
>
>     Photovoltaic arrays may be added to every single building in NYC
>     (covering up to 60 percent of the available rooftop area), so as
>     to provide 10.7 TWh.
>
>     The report enumerates potential sources of adequate carbon-free
>     electricity, but states that a detailed analysis is beyond the
>     scope of this study. Besides the previously mentioned electricity
>     from photovoltaics (10.7 TWh), the remaining 39.9 TWh are to be
>     provided a) 2,600 4.0MW wind turbines, occupying 35 to 40 square
>     miles, b) an additional 86 million square meters of photovoltaic
>     panels with a footprint of 66 square miles, c) 3 or 4 new 1000 MW
>     nuclear power plants, d) increased hydropower from Quebec, and e)
>     electricity generation from biogas derived from waste and sewage
>     treatment.
>
>     - /Comment:/ To assume 100% of buildings will be retrofitted with
>     pv arrays covering 60% of roof area is an unsubstantiated
>     overestimate, and does not factor building structural capacity,
>     financial capacity, and social behavior of private building
>     ownership / management.
>
>     - /Comment:/ To simply assume that 39.9 -- 50.6 (TWh) of source
>     energy is to carbon free is equivalent to saying it will be
>     provided by magic beans. Any proposed strategy would be valid of
>     all remaining source energy would be carbon free.
>
>     *Summary*: if anything, this report points to how difficult it is
>     to achieve a 90 percent reduction of GHG emissions related to the
>     building sector by 2050. While some of the data findings were of
>     value and interest, any interpretation of findings, unless
>     grounded in the relatity of economic and social behavior, will
>     provide only false conclusions.
>
>     I welcome other viewpoints on this study.
>
>     Michael Iversen
>     Architect, LEED AP, PhD Candidate
>     Department of Urban Planning and Policy
>     University of Illinois at Chicago
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130320/2ab3977e/attachment.html>