[Greenbuilding] NYC 90% emissions cut with windows

[John Salmen]

'IF' becomes a big word in your critique - but it is also pretty clear that
the report itself is based on the 'IF' factor but that is also its
significance as that is the paradigm for significant change (Kuhn and
others). In other words the report identifies what would need to be in place
for the IF factor to be a 'reality' - it is what I would term a 'strategic
report' and I think it accomplishes that goal.  

The report thankfully does not diverge into critical theory which however
seemingly relevant would make it useless as a document. In making use of the
term 'context of reality' you are basically saying that this would not fit
some orderly progression of society and its economics and culture.
Thankfully history does not provide much evidence for that kind of
progression or order otherwise our planet would still be the centre of the
universe. Our history is one of shifting paradigms and 'IF' is the word that
begins those shifts as it is predicated in a new reality .

My only other comment is a sideways view on the summary. You identify that
the report points to the difficulty of achieving the goal but then relates
the data to providing 'false' conclusions unless assumingly grounded in
reality. I never saw that as the premise of the report (i.e that it would be
realistic in those terms). I viewed it as functionally a map that overlays
our current map and that it was significant in that it may serve as a map
for other communities exploring options (and they all are). Now the fact
that it was actually published means that it is significant and probably
will have some Copernican type change on how other communities develop their
maps for change

From: Greenbuilding [mailto:greenbuilding-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org]
On Behalf Of Michael Iversen
Sent: March-20-13 9:54 AM
To: Green Building
Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] NYC 90% emissions cut with windows

 

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
Greenbuilding at bioenergylists.org
 
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioener
gylists.org

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130320/8c9acb0a/attachment.html>