<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-CA link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I read the report and as an ex nyc resident that renovated a large portion of industrial soho and the upper east side I think it is extremely relevant. People I think need to consider that solutions are local and nyc is very much a local aberration as Tokyo might be. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I think what is most relevant is the notion of small paradigm shifts that enable cheap (and cheaper) products to meet an end goal. Not major philosophical paradigm shift but similar to low flush toilets which have been subsidized by many local authorities as a means to an end which has enabled manufacturers to make them a standard at low cost. Lets do the same with heating and cooling - Popping a mr or mrs slim ductless in housing in ny would be great for the mass affordability of that type of solution. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I am getting tired of the plethora of green products that never meet an end goal because they just do not get consumed to the degree that makes them green or have the ability to move on to actually being green (hrv being a case in point).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Greenbuilding [mailto:greenbuilding-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>David Bergman<br><b>Sent:</b> March-19-13 9:16 AM<br><b>To:</b> Green Building; Green Building<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Greenbuilding] NYC 90% emissions cut with windows<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>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><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;color:gray'>DAVID BERGMAN</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;color:gray'> ARCHITECT | <b>FIRE & WATER</b> LIGHTING<br></span><span style='color:gray'>architecture . interiors . </span><span style='color:teal'>ecodesign</span><span style='color:gray'> . lighting . furniture<br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;color:gray'><a href="mailto:bergman@cyberg.com">bergman@cyberg.com</a> <a href="http://www.cyberg.com/">www.cyberg.com</a><u> </u></span><span style='color:gray'><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;color:gray'>212 475 3106 twitter: @EcoOptimism<br><br></span><span style='color:gray'>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</span> <br><br><br>At 11:23 AM 3/19/2013, Reuben Deumling wrote:<br><br><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Alan Abrams <<a href="mailto:alan@abramsdesignbuild.com"> alan@abramsdesignbuild.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt'><I have a very hard time believing that 90% of GHG emissions *even come from* window and insulation losses.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt'>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).<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt'>Thank You Kindly,><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt'>I'm with Corwyn, thank you kindly.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><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 "<span style='color:blue'>asking residents to cut back it refers to stripping waste and leakage to the bare minimum." </span>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><a href="mailto:Greenbuilding@bioenergylists.org">Greenbuilding@bioenergylists.org</a><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">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org</a> <o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>