[Greenbuilding] NYC 90% emissions cut with windows

[David Bergman]

In response to Michael Iversen's post:

The report clearly does NOT make those 
assumptions. They state that they are the 
conditions upon which the reduction could occur 
and then establishes them as goals. This is 
supported by your own underscoring of the word "if" in your statements.

"...in determining the feasibility of this goal, we have focused on what is
physically possible with presently available and reasonably
foreseeable technology. We did not restrict our analysis by
current political constraints, and gave only moderate attention
to economic constraints."

"And, of course, many issues will arise when the political and
economic aspects of such a project are investigated in greater
depth, issues that we have purposely avoided, but that must
be addressed in the near future."

Thus they clearly acknowledge the issues, serving 
up the report's detailed and substantiated 
conclusions as a method of (sorely needed) 
advocacy. See also the rest of the "Next Steps" 
section on page 5 of the report.

I also disagree that the outlays "need to be 
placed in the context of local, state, and 
federal economic deficits." First, most of the 
costs would not be government expenditures since 
most of the retrofits would take place in 
non-governmental buildings. If anything, the 
expenditures would help reduce deficits and 
stabilize the economy by encouraging private 
spending and creating new jobs and taxable 
income. Second, their figures state the 
undertaking is cost neutral (an estimate, by the 
way, that I believe does not include savings from 
reduced externalities, meaning their estimated 
savings are extremely conservative).

As to the "unrealistic" aspect of the report's 
conclusions, the alternative to the unrealistic 
here is, at best, a highly uncertain and very 
costly future, and, at worst, a massive die off 
of the human species. That choice makes the 
seemingly unrealistic a whole lot more appealing.

I fail to understand why members of this group 
would find disagreement with solid research 
pointing the way toward potentially feasible -- 
perhaps even realistic when viewed in the above context -- courses of action.

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 - 
<http://ecooptimism.com/?page_id=58>Sustainable Design: A Critical Guide
blog - <http://www.ecooptimism.com/>EcoOptimism
adjunct faculty - Parsons The New School for Design

At 12:53 PM 3/20/2013, Michael Iversen 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
>
>>
>>______________________________________________
>>Greenbuilding mailing list
>>to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
>><mailto:Greenbuilding at bioenergylists.org>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>http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130320/592699ad/attachment.html>