<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 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@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;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Gotham Book";
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;
margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:black;}
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;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
p.pa0, li.pa0, div.pa0
{mso-style-name:pa0;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:black;}
span.A3
{mso-style-name:A3;
mso-style-priority:99;
font-family:"Gotham Book","sans-serif";
color:#211D1E;}
span.a7
{mso-style-name:a7;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle23
{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:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
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 bgcolor=white lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>To all participants and lurkers like myself :<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Given the fact that as society we will be dependent upon energy to keep society functioning I thought that the following article published by Bloomburg L.P. last week may be of interest to members of this group. It emphasizes the need to make sure that we are looking at scientifically objective information when making decisions on energy sources and mixes. Unfortunately with many of these issues there is a lot of information that is being circulated that plays on people’s emotions that in turn drives political decisions that are often not in societies long term best interest. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Don<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;line-height:normal'><b><span style='font-size:24.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>Fukushima Radiation Proves Less Deadly Than Feared<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><i><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>By Robert Peter Gale and Eric Lax - Mar 10, 2013</span></i><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;line-height:normal'><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>It is two years since <a href="http://topics.bloomberg.com/japan/">Japan</a>’s 9.0- magnitude earthquake, one so powerful it shifted the position of the Earth’s figure axis by as much as 6 inches and moved Honshu, Japan’s main island, 8 feet eastward. The tsunami generated by the earthquake obliterated towns, drowned almost 20,000 people and left more than 300,000 homeless. Everyone living within 15 miles of Fukushima was evacuated; many are still in temporary housing. Some will never be able to return home.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;line-height:normal'><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>More than 300,000 buildings were destroyed and another million damaged, including four reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant on the northeast coast. The earthquake caused the immediate shutdown of this and three other nuclear-power facilities.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;line-height:normal'><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>Since the earthquake, a powerful movement gained momentum to halt Japan’s use of nuclear energy, which provided 30 percent of the country’s electricity. The last of 54 nuclear reactors was shut down in May 2012. Two facilities were restarted in June 2012; 52 remain shut. Japan has therefore had to increase its imports of natural gas, low-sulfur crude oil and fuel oil at a substantial economic and environmental cost. Seventy-five percent of the country’s electricity now comes from fossil fuels.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;line-height:normal'><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>Accustomed to large trade surpluses, Japan, in 2012, had a record $78 billion trade deficit, thanks to increased energy imports and a drop in exports as Japanese goods became more expensive to produce.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;line-height:normal'><b><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>Radiation Threat<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;line-height:normal'><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>And what of the lasting threat from radiation? Remarkably, outside the immediate area of Fukushima, this is hardly a problem at all. Although the crippled nuclear reactors themselves still pose a danger, no one, including personnel who worked in the buildings, died from <a href="http://topics.bloomberg.com/radiation-exposure/">radiation exposure</a>. Most experts agree that future health risks from the released radiation, notably radioactive iodine-131 and cesiums-134 and - 137, are extremely small and likely to be undetectable.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;line-height:normal'><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>Even considering the upper boundary of estimated effects, there is unlikely to be any detectable increase in cancers in Japan, <a href="http://topics.bloomberg.com/asia/">Asia</a> or the world except close to the facility, according to a World Health Organization <a href="http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/pub_meet/fukushima_report/en/index.html" title="Open Web Site">report</a>. There will almost certainly be no increase in birth defects or genetic abnormalities from radiation.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;line-height:normal'><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>Even in the most contaminated areas, any increase in cancer risk will be small. For example, a male exposed at age 1 has his lifetime cancer risk increase from 43 percent to 44 percent. Those exposed at 10 or 20 face even smaller increases in risk -- similar to what comes from having a whole-body computer tomography scan or living for 12 to 25 years in Denver amid background radiation in the <a href="http://topics.bloomberg.com/rocky-mountains/">Rocky Mountains</a>. (There is no discernible difference in the cancer rates between people who live in Denver and those in <a href="http://topics.bloomberg.com/los-angeles/">Los Angeles</a> or <a href="http://topics.bloomberg.com/new-york/">New York</a>.)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;line-height:normal'><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>Rather than stand as a warning of the radiation danger posed by nuclear power, in other words, Fukushima has become a reminder that uninformed fears aren’t the same as actual risks.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;line-height:normal'><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>Why are the anticipated risks from Japan’s nuclear accident so small? Perhaps the most important reason is that about 80 percent of the radiation released was blown into the ocean. Radioactive contamination of the sea sounds dreadful, but because oceans naturally contain large amounts of radioactive materials, the net increase in oceanic radioactivity is minuscule.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;line-height:normal'><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>Another reason the public was protected is that the 200,000 or so people living within 15 miles of Fukushima were rapidly evacuated. People living in a few hotspot towns slightly farther away who didn’t leave on their own received the highest civilian doses.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;line-height:normal'><b><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>Iodine Pills<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;line-height:normal'><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>The quarantine of radiation-contaminated foodstuffs also kept the public safe. Milk containing iodine-131 was responsible for many cases of thyroid cancer in children after the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident in <a href="http://topics.bloomberg.com/ukraine/">Ukraine</a>. In Japan, nonradioactive iodine pills were distributed to the population to block uptake of radioactive iodine by the thyroid.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;line-height:normal'><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>In the 26 years since Chernobyl, there have been more than 6,000 cases of thyroid cancers, almost all in children who were less than 16 years old when they were exposed to iodine-131, predominately through milk and other contaminated foodstuffs. Fortunately thyroid cancer in children is rarely fatal; there have been fewer than 15 deaths. There may also be a slight increase in leukemia risk among the 600,000 workers involved in containing the accident.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;line-height:normal'><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>Even so, there is no convincing evidence, at least as yet, of an increased cancer risk in the thousands of evacuees from the town of Pripyat, where the reactor was located, nor among the 30 million living in contaminated lands. Also, as with Fukushima, there is no convincing evidence of <a href="http://topics.bloomberg.com/birth-defects/">birth defects</a> or genetic abnormalities. (Gale helped treat the worst cases of radiation poisoning at Chernobyl and has been involved with the follow-up in the years since the accident. He has been involved in Japan since the catastrophe and worked with Japanese scientists to estimate health risks.)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;line-height:normal'><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>Radiation spikes detected in the weeks and months following the Fukushima accident caused concern and sometimes panic. One day a higher-than-permissible level of iodine-131 (300 becquerels per liter, or less than 0.00008 parts per trillion) was detected in the drinking water in <a href="http://topics.bloomberg.com/tokyo/">Tokyo</a>. People immediately emptied stores of bottled water. However, the amount of contamination in Tokyo water was so low, Tokyoites would have had to drink 6 quarts of it a day for a month to get the same radiation dose that an airline crew member receives in a year of flying between Los Angeles and Tokyo.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;line-height:normal'><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>People naturally worried about eating fish from the ocean around Fukushima, and stringent mitigation actions were taken. Bluefin tuna caught off California six months later were found to have traces of cesium-137 from Fukushima, though less ounce for ounce than the amount of radioactive potassium-40 found in a banana.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;line-height:normal'><b><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>Food Safety<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;line-height:normal'><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>The important question is, how can we be certain any food source is safe if higher-than-normal radiation levels are detected? The best way to answer this is to consider the risk involved with eating food that may be contaminated. U.S.<a href="http://topics.bloomberg.com/food-safety/">food safety</a> standards, for example, often restrict the content of carcinogens, including radiation, to levels that might cause a 1-in-100,000 or 1-in-1,000,000 lifetime risk of cancer. But consider the average 50-year-old male who has a baseline risk of 43 percent to develop cancer in his lifetime. (In women, it’s 39 percent.) The contaminated food increases that 43 percent lifetime risk to 43.0000001 percent.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;line-height:normal'><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>Exposure to radiation isn’t always what it seems. Of course, people in the path of a radioactive cloud may receive a dangerous dose of radiation, depending on the concentration of radionuclides, atmospheric conditions and their location -- indoors or outside -- when the plume passes. Immediate countermeasures are essential. In Japan, laudably, most people were sheltered in place and then evacuated in a relatively controlled manner. Some people received iodine tablets.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;line-height:normal'><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>An independent commission found considerable confusion among Japanese government officials, personnel at the nuclear power facility and executives at Tokyo Electric Power Company in Tokyo. Furthermore, emergency authorities didn’t share or use some important data on radioactive contamination, and that caused some people to be evacuated to zones of higher radioactive contamination. And some children remained in high- radiation areas far too long. Nevertheless, official actions largely protected the public, and most continuing fears of health risks from radiation have little basis in fact.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;line-height:normal'><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>Prudence and safety must be paramount in the use of nuclear energy -- in fact, in the use of any kind of energy. Although immediate and long-term health risks of nuclear accidents are often exaggerated, social, psychological and economic consequences are obviously enormous. We don’t believe that nuclear energy is always the best choice, but it is important to carefully weigh the risks and benefits of using nuclear energy compared with other sources of fuel to generate electricity.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;line-height:normal'><b><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>Fossil Fuels<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;line-height:normal'><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>Japan has few domestic energy resources and depends on imports for about 85 percent of its energy. What price will the country pay if it abandons nuclear energy and uses only fossil fuels? Air pollution from coal-fired <a href="http://topics.bloomberg.com/power-plants/">power plants</a>causes about 500 times more deaths per unit of electricity produced than radiation from nuclear plants does. Electricity produced from oil isn’t much safer. Even natural gas causes about 60 times more deaths than nuclear does because of pollution. And consider that more than 100,000 coal miners died in the U.S. in the past century and more than 6,000 die every year in <a href="http://topics.bloomberg.com/china/">China</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;line-height:normal'><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>If, in response to Fukushima, Japan switches to more fossil fuels, the resulting carbon dioxide emissions, <a href="http://topics.bloomberg.com/greenhouse-gases/">greenhouse gases</a> and global warming could affect all of us. Already, because of the nuclear shutdown since the accident, there is no longer any chance Japan will meet its commitments in the 2009 Copenhagen Accord to cut greenhouse-gas emissions from 1990 levels by 25 percent by 2020. The country’s 2012 estimate for greenhouse gases is about 1.3 billion tons, the most since 2007, making Japan the fifth top emitter worldwide.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;line-height:normal'><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>We support stringent safety requirements for operating all nuclear power facilities, in Japan and everywhere else, including the Bushehr facility in <a href="http://topics.bloomberg.com/iran/">Iran</a>. But no energy-producing operation is foolproof: mines collapse, ships run aground, terrorists blow up pipelines and nuclear plants have meltdowns (fortunately rarely). Citizens of Japan are understandably traumatized by the 2011 earthquake and tsunami. But to make intelligent decisions about radiation, it’s best to rely on facts -- and not let emotional or illogical fears get in the way.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;line-height:normal'><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>(Robert Peter Gale, a visiting professor of hematology at <a href="http://topics.bloomberg.com/imperial-college-london/">Imperial College London</a>, has for 30 years been involved in the global medical response to nuclear and radiation accidents. Eric Lax is a writer whose books include “The Mold in Dr. Florey’s Coat” and “Conversations with <a href="http://topics.bloomberg.com/woody-allen/">Woody Allen</a>.” They are the authors of “Radiation: What It Is, What You Need to Know.” The opinions expressed are their own.)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;line-height:normal'><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>To contact the writers of this article: Robert Peter Gale at <a href="mailto:robertpetergale@alumni.ucla.edu">robertpetergale@alumni.ucla.edu</a>. Eric Lax at <a href="mailto:ericlax@radiationbook.com">ericlax@radiationbook.com</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;line-height:normal'><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>To contact the editor responsible for this article: Mary Duenwald at <a href="mailto:mduenwald@bloomberg.net" title="Send E-mail">mduenwald@bloomberg.net</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>®2013 BLOOMBERG L.P. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span style='color:#1F497D'>Don Lush<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span style='color:#1F497D'>P.O. Box 700 <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span style='color:#1F497D'>Bolton Ontario<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span style='color:#1F497D'>L7E 5T5<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span style='color:#1F497D'>e-mail - donlush@uniserve.com<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext'> Greenbuilding [mailto:greenbuilding-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Michael Iversen<br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, March 21, 2013 12:05 PM<br><b>To:</b> David Bergman<br><b>Cc:</b> 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><span style='font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>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. </span> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>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</span><span class=a7><span style='font-size:8.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#211D1E'> </span></span><span class=A3><span style='font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>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. <br><br></span></span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>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.<br> <br><br></span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>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 <i>conditions</i> which include underlying <i>assumptions</i>, 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. <br><br><br></span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>For example, the <i>given condition</i> that energy consumption in the building sector may be reduced by 50-60% by 2050 is based on the <i>scaling-up assumption</i> 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. <br><br><br></span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>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. <br><br><br></span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>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. <br><br><br></span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt;line-height:normal'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>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.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span style='font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Michael Iversen</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><br></span><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'><br>On 3/20/2013 9:39 PM, David Bergman wrote: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>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 "</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>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></span><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>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></span><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:gray'>DAVID BERGMAN</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:gray'> ARCHITECT | <b>FIRE & WATER</b> LIGHTING<br></span><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:gray'>architecture . interiors . </span><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:teal'>ecodesign</span><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:gray'> . lighting . furniture<br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:gray'><a href="mailto:bergman@cyberg.com">bergman@cyberg.com</a> <a href="http://www.cyberg.com/">www.cyberg.com</a> </span><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:gray'><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:gray'>212 475 3106 twitter: @EcoOptimism<br><br></span><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";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><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'> <br><br>At 12:53 PM 3/20/2013, Michael Iversen wrote:<br><br><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>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></span><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'><br><br><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><pre>______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Greenbuilding mailing list<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>to Send a Message to the list, use the email address<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><a href="mailto:Greenbuilding@bioenergylists.org"><o:p></o:p></a></pre><pre><span class=MsoHyperlink><a href="mailto:Greenbuilding@bioenergylists.org">Greenbuilding@bioenergylists.org</a></span><o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><a href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org"><o:p></o:p></a></pre><pre><span class=MsoHyperlink><a href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org</a></span><o:p></o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre><p><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div></body></html>