<html>
<body>
I'm a skeptic generally and would, at first blush, share your view of
this report. However, has anyone read the report? (Not just the article
about it.) I'm not technically fluent enough to judge the detail accuracy
of the report but, at a glance, it does appear to be in depth, referenced
and footnoted, etc. And I know the Urban Green Council folks and do
not believe they would greenwash or manipulate data.<br><br>
Yes, I'd be curious to hear Henry Gifford's reactions. I strongly doubt
he was involved since the UGC is the NYC USGBC section. But the report is
not solely about HVAC.<br><br>
One also has to keep in mind the non-standard aspects of NYC buildings.
First, that they are often mid- or high-rise and attached structures,
which creates a very different energy scenario from the typical US
building stock in terms of exterior exposure. In my apartment in a
low-rise 100 year old building, for instance, I have no significant floor
or ceiling heat loss/gain because there are occupied spaces above and
below me. The exterior walls are three-wythe brick (albeit without an air
gap) but with 1980's insulation between them and sheetrock (due to a gut
reno of the building). So my primary heat loss/gain is through my crappy
1980's aluminum frame (probably not thermally broken) dual-pane windows
where I can feel the drafts, as opposed to walls or roof or
basement.<br><br>
And in more modern buildings, especially office structures, there is a
very high percentage of glass facade. One of the report's recommendations
is to limit the amount of glass in favor of more opaque exteriors which
can have higher R-values.<br><br>
The central steam heat still provided in some parts of the city is a
vestige from days when there were more local power plants and the steam
was a byproduct. That's no longer the case, but many buildings are still
dependent on it, so ConEd continues to provide fossil-fuel generated
steam even though it doesn't make sense anymore. (The report mentions the
possibility of converting that to biomass.)<br><br>
Another point they make is that there is a heavy reliance on window or
sleeved air conditioners, given the aging stock of buildings, which have
high loss factors, hence their recommendation to shift to
mini-splits.<br><br>
I have no doubt that if I was able to replace my windows and my heating
and air conditioning, my utility bills (which are quite high due to
having a home office where computers and air conditioners are on during
summer days), would drop significantly. Probably not 90%, but that isn't
taking into account the societal benefits of switching fuel and energy
away from carbon-intense sources.<br><br>
I'm sure this report is not above critical evaluation, but I don't think
it is as flawed or unrealistic as some of you are making it out to
be.<br><br>
David<br>
David Bergman RA LEED AP<br>
<font size=2 color="#808080"><b>DAVID BERGMAN</b> ARCHITECT | <b>FIRE
& WATER</b> LIGHTING<br>
</font><font color="#808080">architecture . interiors .
</font><font color="#008080">ecodesign</font><font color="#808080"> .
lighting . furniture<br>
</font><font size=2 color="#808080">bergman@cyberg.com
<a href="http://www.cyberg.com/" eudora="autourl"><u>www.cyberg.com</a>
</u></font><font color="#808080"> <br>
</font><font size=2 color="#808080">212 475 3106 twitter:
@EcoOptimism<br><br>
</font><font color="#808080">author -
<a href="http://ecooptimism.com/?page_id=58">Sustainable Design: A
Critical Guide</a><br>
blog - <a href="http://www.ecooptimism.com/">EcoOptimism</a><br>
adjunct faculty - Parsons The New School for Design</font> <br><br>
<br>
At 11:23 AM 3/19/2013, Reuben Deumling wrote:<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:26
AM, Alan Abrams
<<a href="mailto:alan@abramsdesignbuild.com">
alan@abramsdesignbuild.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<dl>
<dd><I have a very hard time believing that 90% of GHG emissions *even
come from* window and insulation losses.<br><br>
<dd>I wish people wouldn't try to hype their proposals by giving such
numbers. Huge savings are possible, but at least try to make them
look plausible or they will be dismissed out of hand (as I did).<br><br>
<dd>Thank You Kindly,><br><br>
<dd>I'm with Corwyn, thank you kindly.<br><br>
</dl><br>
Me too. <br>
It is so frustrating that the various dimensions of this problem are so
consistently muddled and hyped. <br>
<br>
(1) Replacing aging steam for mini-splits. What was the fuel source for
the steam heat? What does a thorough before and after comparison of this
kind of 'upgrade' actually look like? Has anyone talked to Henry Gifford?
He should know a thing or two about this.<br><br>
(2) Differentiate between energy efficiency and energy conservation. It
is notable that in the above excerpt what is called energy conservation
is specifically differentiated from "<font color="#0000FF">asking
residents to cut back it refers to stripping waste and leakage to the
bare minimum." </font>I will go on record saying that it is
impossible to achieve a 90% reduction without inviting residents to get
to know their habits, make adjustments to how they use energy, tinker
with their thermostat setpoints, review how much is turned off when they
are not home, what to do about standby, etc. I say this as someone who
did reduce his household's electricity use by 90% and natural gas use by
83% over the course of five years without spending a mint. <br><br>
(3) Rather than speculating it would be so much more useful if this
subject started from the lived experiences of those whose usage is, say,
90% below today's mean level, or who have figured out how to actually
reduce their consumption by 90%. This would invite concrete discussions
of what works, what the tradeoffs are, etc., rather than always being
mired in the speculative/hyped realm that seems still to hold sway.
<br><br>
(4) We know that 90% reductions are possible at the household level, and
that in principle this could be scaled up to a neighborhood or city. But
until we understand the steps, the adjustments, the parameters at each
level there is very little point in articles like this. The hand waving
detracts from the very real work that people are engaged in every day
producing results that compare favorably with the lofty goals mentioned
but which go unrecognized (perhaps because they don't involve triple
glazing). <br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Greenbuilding mailing list<br>
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address<br>
Greenbuilding@bioenergylists.org<br><br>
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page<br>
<a href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org" eudora="autourl">
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org</a>
</blockquote></body>
</html>