[Greenbuilding] the bigger picture

[Don Lush]

To all participants and lurkers like myself :

Given the fact that as society we  will be dependent upon energy to keep
society functioning I thought that the following article published by
Bloomburg L.P. last week may be of interest to members of this group. It
emphasizes the need to make sure that we are looking at scientifically
objective information when making decisions on energy sources and mixes.
Unfortunately with many of these issues there is a lot of information that
is being circulated that plays on people's emotions that in turn drives
political decisions that are often not in societies long term best interest.


Don

 

Fukushima Radiation Proves Less Deadly Than Feared

By Robert Peter Gale and Eric Lax - Mar 10, 2013

It is two years since Japan <http://topics.bloomberg.com/japan/> 's 9.0-
magnitude earthquake, one so powerful it shifted the position of the Earth's
figure axis by as much as 6 inches and moved Honshu, Japan's main island, 8
feet eastward. The tsunami generated by the earthquake obliterated towns,
drowned almost 20,000 people and left more than 300,000 homeless. Everyone
living within 15 miles of Fukushima was evacuated; many are still in
temporary housing. Some will never be able to return home.

More than 300,000 buildings were destroyed and another million damaged,
including four reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant on the
northeast coast. The earthquake caused the immediate shutdown of this and
three other nuclear-power facilities.

Since the earthquake, a powerful movement gained momentum to halt Japan's
use of nuclear energy, which provided 30 percent of the country's
electricity. The last of 54 nuclear reactors was shut down in May 2012. Two
facilities were restarted in June 2012; 52 remain shut. Japan has therefore
had to increase its imports of natural gas, low-sulfur crude oil and fuel
oil at a substantial economic and environmental cost. Seventy-five percent
of the country's electricity now comes from fossil fuels.

Accustomed to large trade surpluses, Japan, in 2012, had a record $78
billion trade deficit, thanks to increased energy imports and a drop in
exports as Japanese goods became more expensive to produce.

Radiation Threat

And what of the lasting threat from radiation? Remarkably, outside the
immediate area of Fukushima, this is hardly a problem at all. Although the
crippled nuclear reactors themselves still pose a danger, no one, including
personnel who worked in the buildings, died from radiation exposure
<http://topics.bloomberg.com/radiation-exposure/> . Most experts agree that
future health risks from the released radiation, notably radioactive
iodine-131 and cesiums-134 and - 137, are extremely small and likely to be
undetectable.

Even considering the upper boundary of estimated effects, there is unlikely
to be any detectable increase in cancers in Japan, Asia
<http://topics.bloomberg.com/asia/>  or the world except close to the
facility, according to a World Health Organization report
<http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/pub_meet/fukushima_report/en/index.ht
ml> . There will almost certainly be no increase in birth defects or genetic
abnormalities from radiation.

Even in the most contaminated areas, any increase in cancer risk will be
small. For example, a male exposed at age 1 has his lifetime cancer risk
increase from 43 percent to 44 percent. Those exposed at 10 or 20 face even
smaller increases in risk -- similar to what comes from having a whole-body
computer tomography scan or living for 12 to 25 years in Denver amid
background radiation in the Rocky Mountains
<http://topics.bloomberg.com/rocky-mountains/> . (There is no discernible
difference in the cancer rates between people who live in Denver and those
in Los Angeles <http://topics.bloomberg.com/los-angeles/>  or New York
<http://topics.bloomberg.com/new-york/> .)

Rather than stand as a warning of the radiation danger posed by nuclear
power, in other words, Fukushima has become a reminder that uninformed fears
aren't the same as actual risks.

Why are the anticipated risks from Japan's nuclear accident so small?
Perhaps the most important reason is that about 80 percent of the radiation
released was blown into the ocean. Radioactive contamination of the sea
sounds dreadful, but because oceans naturally contain large amounts of
radioactive materials, the net increase in oceanic radioactivity is
minuscule.

Another reason the public was protected is that the 200,000 or so people
living within 15 miles of Fukushima were rapidly evacuated. People living in
a few hotspot towns slightly farther away who didn't leave on their own
received the highest civilian doses.

Iodine Pills

The quarantine of radiation-contaminated foodstuffs also kept the public
safe. Milk containing iodine-131 was responsible for many cases of thyroid
cancer in children after the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident in Ukraine
<http://topics.bloomberg.com/ukraine/> . In Japan, nonradioactive iodine
pills were distributed to the population to block uptake of radioactive
iodine by the thyroid.

In the 26 years since Chernobyl, there have been more than 6,000 cases of
thyroid cancers, almost all in children who were less than 16 years old when
they were exposed to iodine-131, predominately through milk and other
contaminated foodstuffs. Fortunately thyroid cancer in children is rarely
fatal; there have been fewer than 15 deaths. There may also be a slight
increase in leukemia risk among the 600,000 workers involved in containing
the accident.

Even so, there is no convincing evidence, at least as yet, of an increased
cancer risk in the thousands of evacuees from the town of Pripyat, where the
reactor was located, nor among the 30 million living in contaminated lands.
Also, as with Fukushima, there is no convincing evidence of birth defects
<http://topics.bloomberg.com/birth-defects/>  or genetic abnormalities.
(Gale helped treat the worst cases of radiation poisoning at Chernobyl and
has been involved with the follow-up in the years since the accident. He has
been involved in Japan since the catastrophe and worked with Japanese
scientists to estimate health risks.)

Radiation spikes detected in the weeks and months following the Fukushima
accident caused concern and sometimes panic. One day a
higher-than-permissible level of iodine-131 (300 becquerels per liter, or
less than 0.00008 parts per trillion) was detected in the drinking water in
Tokyo <http://topics.bloomberg.com/tokyo/> . People immediately emptied
stores of bottled water. However, the amount of contamination in Tokyo water
was so low, Tokyoites would have had to drink 6 quarts of it a day for a
month to get the same radiation dose that an airline crew member receives in
a year of flying between Los Angeles and Tokyo.

People naturally worried about eating fish from the ocean around Fukushima,
and stringent mitigation actions were taken. Bluefin tuna caught off
California six months later were found to have traces of cesium-137 from
Fukushima, though less ounce for ounce than the amount of radioactive
potassium-40 found in a banana.

Food Safety

The important question is, how can we be certain any food source is safe if
higher-than-normal radiation levels are detected? The best way to answer
this is to consider the risk involved with eating food that may be
contaminated. U.S.food safety <http://topics.bloomberg.com/food-safety/>
standards, for example, often restrict the content of carcinogens, including
radiation, to levels that might cause a 1-in-100,000 or 1-in-1,000,000
lifetime risk of cancer. But consider the average 50-year-old male who has a
baseline risk of 43 percent to develop cancer in his lifetime. (In women,
it's 39 percent.) The contaminated food increases that 43 percent lifetime
risk to 43.0000001 percent.

Exposure to radiation isn't always what it seems. Of course, people in the
path of a radioactive cloud may receive a dangerous dose of radiation,
depending on the concentration of radionuclides, atmospheric conditions and
their location -- indoors or outside -- when the plume passes. Immediate
countermeasures are essential. In Japan, laudably, most people were
sheltered in place and then evacuated in a relatively controlled manner.
Some people received iodine tablets.

An independent commission found considerable confusion among Japanese
government officials, personnel at the nuclear power facility and executives
at Tokyo Electric Power Company in Tokyo. Furthermore, emergency authorities
didn't share or use some important data on radioactive contamination, and
that caused some people to be evacuated to zones of higher radioactive
contamination. And some children remained in high- radiation areas far too
long. Nevertheless, official actions largely protected the public, and most
continuing fears of health risks from radiation have little basis in fact.

Prudence and safety must be paramount in the use of nuclear energy -- in
fact, in the use of any kind of energy. Although immediate and long-term
health risks of nuclear accidents are often exaggerated, social,
psychological and economic consequences are obviously enormous. We don't
believe that nuclear energy is always the best choice, but it is important
to carefully weigh the risks and benefits of using nuclear energy compared
with other sources of fuel to generate electricity.

Fossil Fuels

Japan has few domestic energy resources and depends on imports for about 85
percent of its energy. What price will the country pay if it abandons
nuclear energy and uses only fossil fuels? Air pollution from coal-fired
power plants <http://topics.bloomberg.com/power-plants/> causes about 500
times more deaths per unit of electricity produced than radiation from
nuclear plants does. Electricity produced from oil isn't much safer. Even
natural gas causes about 60 times more deaths than nuclear does because of
pollution. And consider that more than 100,000 coal miners died in the U.S.
in the past century and more than 6,000 die every year in China
<http://topics.bloomberg.com/china/> .

If, in response to Fukushima, Japan switches to more fossil fuels, the
resulting carbon dioxide emissions, greenhouse gases
<http://topics.bloomberg.com/greenhouse-gases/>  and global warming could
affect all of us. Already, because of the nuclear shutdown since the
accident, there is no longer any chance Japan will meet its commitments in
the 2009 Copenhagen Accord to cut greenhouse-gas emissions from 1990 levels
by 25 percent by 2020. The country's 2012 estimate for greenhouse gases is
about 1.3 billion tons, the most since 2007, making Japan the fifth top
emitter worldwide.

We support stringent safety requirements for operating all nuclear power
facilities, in Japan and everywhere else, including the Bushehr facility in
Iran <http://topics.bloomberg.com/iran/> . But no energy-producing operation
is foolproof: mines collapse, ships run aground, terrorists blow up
pipelines and nuclear plants have meltdowns (fortunately rarely). Citizens
of Japan are understandably traumatized by the 2011 earthquake and tsunami.
But to make intelligent decisions about radiation, it's best to rely on
facts -- and not let emotional or illogical fears get in the way.

(Robert Peter Gale, a visiting professor of hematology at Imperial College
London <http://topics.bloomberg.com/imperial-college-london/> , has for 30
years been involved in the global medical response to nuclear and radiation
accidents. Eric Lax is a writer whose books include "The Mold in Dr.
Florey's Coat" and "Conversations with Woody Allen
<http://topics.bloomberg.com/woody-allen/> ." They are the authors of
"Radiation: What It Is, What You Need to Know." The opinions expressed are
their own.)

To contact the writers of this article: Robert Peter Gale at
robertpetergale at alumni.ucla.edu. Eric Lax at ericlax at radiationbook.com.

To contact the editor responsible for this article: Mary Duenwald at
mduenwald at bloomberg.net.

R2013 BLOOMBERG L.P. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 

 

Don Lush

P.O. Box 700 

Bolton Ontario

L7E 5T5

e-mail - donlush at uniserve.com

 

From: Greenbuilding [mailto:greenbuilding-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org]
On Behalf Of Michael Iversen
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 12:05 PM
To: David Bergman
Cc: Green Building
Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] NYC 90% emissions cut with windows

 

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
 <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.bioene
rgylists.org> 
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/20130321/b7b6f36b/attachment.html>