[Greenbuilding] NYC 90% emissions cut with windows

Thu Mar 21 11:19:35 CDT 2013

I agree with Michael that the paper is funded by people with a
strong opinion. I happen to have similar views but still. Also, as somebody
in the trenches of NYC green building I still sometimes renovate houses
with cheap ass double glazed vinyl (Crystal Windows, locally made in Queens
and actually not that bad). It is what the client wants to afford and the
windows are much better than what they are swapping out. But I have no
illusions that if a company like mine (the greenest I know of in NYC) is
still using vinyl double glaze on occasion then we have a very long way to
go before your general window company starts pushing triple glaze
exclusively.

Gennaro Brooks-Church
Director, Eco Brooklyn Inc.
Cell: 1 347 244 3016 USA
www.EcoBrooklyn.com
22 2nd St; Brooklyn, NY 11231

On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Michael Iversen <miversen at uic.edu> wrote:

> **
> 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
>
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130321/eb4b7fc7/attachment.html>