[Greenbuilding] NYC 90% emissions cut with windows

John Salmen terrain at shaw.ca
Thu Mar 21 21:01:22 CDT 2013


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.

The first sentence identified the problem (limited resources and the system
that is limiting them). If we continue to define the problem within the
reality of the problem though are we not simply perpetuating the problem? It
is like using blinders on a horse.  We are using a system that depends on
the exchange value of limited resources to define how not to use those
resources? There is a problem here. Similar to the issue of renewable
recently discussed. That paper identified the most significant problem for
renewable in europes being one of valuation of a resource that has no value
within the ' market based economic system'. It is a snag as you can't have a
product in those terms without a valuation based on its scarcity. The system
jumps in and in NA has identified storage as a potential for emerging
markets - which is potentially a 'false path' as the grid supplies the
storage needed - it just can't put a value to what it is putting out. Within
your context that might be perceived at the right path.

If infrastructure was truly based in our market system we would have no
roads, bridges or much of any infrastructure. The realm of governance
(policymaking) is distinct from the realms of commerce and always has been .
The paths don't cross though they have parallel lines. Do military spending
decisions fit market based economic systems without shoe-horns. 

I think I am most concerned here with your comments is that though you go to
great lengths to provide a persuasive argument it is basically a rhetorical
means to and end based on a simple premise. You are making what you think
are shared assumptions about our culture and how it needs to proceed and
making prescriptions for failure. What if the dialogue needs to open up a
little?

I referred to the report as a 'strategic report'. You seem to dismiss it as
a position paper but the reality in communities is that they need starting
points for dialogue and professionals that are open enough to facilitate
that.

 

From: Greenbuilding [mailto:greenbuilding-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org]
On Behalf Of Michael Iversen
Sent: March-21-13 9:05 AM
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/20130321/19ae97af/attachment.html>


More information about the Greenbuilding mailing list