[Greenbuilding] NYC 90% emissions cut with windows

Michael Iversen miversen at uic.edu
Thu Mar 21 11:04:48 CDT 2013


David ... this is not a research paper published by a peer-reviewed 
journal, nor was it written as such. It is a self-described "study" by 
an advocacy non-profit organization. I view it more as a position paper 
from a demonstration study.

Rather than a hypothesis / research question, the study is based on 
advocating a policy goal for reducing New York City's greenhouse gas 
emissions by 90 percent by 2050. As I have previously noted, the study's 
stated target of a CO2 atmospheric concentration less than 450ppm is in 
conflict with the goal of its cited reference to James Hansen's paper of 
350ppm, both stated in the opening paragraphs of the study. As any 
policy is defined by the CO2 concentration target, I am concerned that 
the report claims a scientific basis while at the same time selecting a 
contradictory and more permissive CO2 target.

Its conclusions are based on modeling that demonstrates that by 2050 New 
York City could reduce its greenhouse gas emissions more than 90 percent 
from 2010 levels through a combination of existing and near-term 
efficiency technologies and shifting all remaining building loads to 
carbon-free electricity. In other words, it works backwards from it 
stated goal to find the conditions favorable to the findings needed to 
demonstrate the goal may be achieved. This is not research, nor it is 
problem-solving.

To try to make the distinction between assumption and conditions as if 
this was a scientific research paper is missing the entire point, as the 
study itself does not bother with this these distinctions. What is 
clear, is that the study is based on /conditions/ which include 
underlying /assumptions/, which result in certain conclusions which I 
brought to question. Any given condition needs to be valid and feasible 
onto itself. It was the underlying assumptions of the given conditions 
which I brought to question.

For example, the /given condition/ that energy consumption in the 
building sector may be reduced by 50-60% by 2050 is based on the 
/scaling-up assumption/ that all existing buildings have the ability and 
capacity to achieve deep building retrofits including the listed energy 
efficiency technologies. Obviously, any assumption of implementation 
achievability should be substantiated, and provided in terms of 
scenarios of likliehood. Simply assuming 100% implementation 
achievability of a deep retrofit scaling-up of the entire building 
sector without providing substantiation is not acceptable, and will only 
result in invalid conclusions.

The same applies to the underlying scaling-up assumptions of 100% 
achievability for the stated conditions of rooftop photovoltaics on all 
buildings, and that all remaining building loads (39-50 TWh) to be 
carbon-free electricity.

You are correct in that there are plenty of caveats throughout the paper 
regarding the scope and limitations of the study. For the most part, the 
front end inventory and analysis of the NYC building sector appears 
valid and of great value. My concern is that despite the caveats and 
limited nature of the study, the paper presented findings and 
conclusions that went far beyond the substantiation of its analysis. And 
therefore, it mispresented itself by providing an invalid message on a 
very important subject, knowing that this message will be cherry-picked 
by the media that only reads the paper's abstract and conclusions.

In order to achieve informed policymaking in our society of limited 
resources and a market-based economic system, it is imperative we define 
the problem correctly the first time by asking the right questions now. 
Continuing to define problems that are not grounded in the reality of a 
socio-economic context, will not only lead to false paths, but waste the 
little time to solve the problems at hand.

Michael Iversen



On 3/20/2013 9:39 PM, David Bergman wrote:
> 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_ <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 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
>>>
>>> Greenbuilding at bioenergylists.org  <mailto: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
>>>        
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130321/2ef5e259/attachment.html>


More information about the Greenbuilding mailing list