[Greenbuilding] NYC 90% emissions cut with windows

Eli Talking elitalking at rockbridge.net
Wed Mar 27 08:20:14 CDT 2013


Re: [Greenbuilding] NYC 90% emissions cut with windowsI am still working through this thread.  

However, I think it is a good thing that some are projecting best case scenario, even if it seems unlikely.  It is more in the realm of theoretically possible.  However, that crash course of renovating every building to the highest thermal efficiency standard and still maintain comfort and quality of life is the vision we are looking for.  

The construction industry has been so sluggish, because we stopped expanding.  Upgrading our existing infrastructure to near net zero standards is what is most needed to find a sustainable possibility.  This needs to be the focus of our economy.  Construction that is focused for this purpose is the solution to many dilemmas.  This emphasis should be the growth sector of the economy.  As an architect, I would feel much more fulfilled by designing solutions over designing more decadence.  My ability to do so is limited by the clients who want to do so, also.  

If our culture has a vision such as this one described, we can find more who share our vision of living in peace with the environment.  

Eli 

From: Jason Holstine 
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 2:13 PM
To: Greenbuilding Listserv 
Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] NYC 90% emissions cut with windows

I betcha they welcome such an analytical critique and conversation.

It’s a big problem, so you start by shooting for the sky then work backwards ... identify gaps, holes and weaknesses, then work to address, plug and fix them so they can become strengths and opportunities, and if you end up with a 40, 50 or 70% GHG redux, I’m pretty sure you’ve done a helluva more than any other urban center. And in so doing, creating knowledge bases and economies of scale to redefine what’s possible elsewhere in the economy.

Bloomberg hasn’t been shy about tackling large social ills, for good and for bad. Fundamentally we need that to break citizens and consumers out of really bad ignorance that negatively impacts the macro level.


On 3/20/13 12:53 PM, "Michael Iversen" <wlmailhtml:miversen at uic.edu> 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
    wlmailhtml: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
  wlmailhtml: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/20130327/63026533/attachment.html>


More information about the Greenbuilding mailing list