<html>
<body>
In response to Michael Iversen's post:<br><br>
The report clearly does NOT make those assumptions. They state that they
are the <u>conditions</u> upon which the reduction <u>could</u> occur and
then establishes them as goals. This is supported by your own
underscoring of the word "if" in your statements.<br><br>
"...in determining the feasibility of this goal, we have focused on
what is <br>
physically possible with presently available and reasonably <br>
foreseeable technology. We did not restrict our analysis by <br>
current political constraints, and gave only moderate attention <br>
to economic constraints."<br><br>
"And, of course, many issues will arise when the political and <br>
economic aspects of such a project are investigated in greater <br>
depth, issues that we have purposely avoided, but that must <br>
be addressed in the near future."<br><br>
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.<br><br>
I also disagree that the outlays "<font size=2>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). <br><br>
</font>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.<br><br>
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.<br><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>
At 12:53 PM 3/20/2013, Michael Iversen wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font size=2>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.<br><br>
<b>Report Assumption 1</b>: 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.<br>
<br>
- <i>Comment</i>: 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.<br><br>
<b>Report Assumption 2</b>: 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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
- <i>Comment:</i> 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.<br><br>
- <i>Comment:</i> 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.<br><br>
<b>Summary</b>: 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.<br><br>
I welcome other viewpoints on this study.<br><br>
Michael Iversen<br>
Architect, LEED AP, PhD Candidate<br>
Department of Urban Planning and Policy <br>
University of Illinois at Chicago<br>
</font><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><br>
<pre>______________________________________________
Greenbuilding mailing list
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
<a href="mailto:Greenbuilding@bioenergylists.org">
Greenbuilding@bioenergylists.org</a>
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
<a href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org">
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org</a>
</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font></blockquote></blockquote>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<br>
</body>
</html>