Could New York City Cut Emissions 90% By 2050?

It's Been Done Elsewhere! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-14 17:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

In Detroit. The population's gone from 1M to 800k in twenty years, and energy consumption has plummeted. New York can emulate this success just by continuing it's current direction.

Re:It's Been Done Elsewhere! by jklovanc · 2013-02-14 18:08 · Score: 5, Informative

According to this article Detroit power consumption has dropped by 10% in eleven years. I would not call that plummeting..
Re:It's Been Done Elsewhere! by mug+funky · 2013-02-14 18:16 · Score: 1

seems to match population decline pretty closely then.
Re:It's Been Done Elsewhere! by slimjim8094 · 2013-02-14 18:43 · Score: 1

Considering that New York's "current direction" of population growth is +0.85% a year, probably not.

--
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
Re:It's Been Done Elsewhere! by BlueStrat · 2013-02-14 18:50 · Score: 2, Informative

In Detroit. The population's gone from 1M to 800k in twenty years, and energy consumption has plummeted. New York can emulate this success just by continuing it's current direction.
Yup. I live a little over an hour away from Detroit (thank goodness!).
Want to see what over 40 years of total Liberal/Progressive Democrat and labor union control (Detroit was actually the centerpiece of the Democrat Progressive "Model Cities" program...Google it) looks like?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hhJ_49leBw
That was a couple years ago. It's worse now, and no indications anything will change for the better. It's also the place to go to kill someone, as around 60%-70% of homicides in Detroit go unsolved.
I had to go there a couple months ago. Do you know there are now parts of Detroit that have big freaking *signs* up, like near a war-zone, warning people entering that they are on their own, that police and emergency services will NOT respond in large and ever-growing areas in the city?
WTF!?
To those who always throw out the "go live in Somalia" in response to those desiring a smaller, less intrusive and abusive government, I say "I don't have to "go" anywhere! Your ideas are *already* bringing Somalia to US! Just look at Detroit!"
I'm just waiting for Somali-style pirates to start operating on the Great Lakes from the harbors in Detroit. That is, if they aren't already, and we just haven't learned of it yet.
Strat

--
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Re:It's Been Done Elsewhere! by Z00L00K · 2013-02-14 19:02 · Score: 2, Interesting

There are many steps that can be taken to improve energy efficiency.
New York is located close to the Atlantic ocean and that's one decent heatsink, so by pumping out excess heat in the summer into the ocean would be more efficient in two steps - less heat put out in the city, and the temperature difference when doing heat pumping will be lower which can result in lower costs. The disadvantage here is that a lot of pipes needs to be laid down for central cooling in addition to central heating.
Buildings themselves can also be built in a more efficient manner to avoid energy loss. Use of heat exchangers in the ventilation system can reduce heat loss, triple-glass windows with heat reflecting film (like the 3M Prestige 90) will keep energy exchange with the outside to a minimum while still providing daylight.
Another factor is that New York at least has a decent sized subway system, and therefore it's easy to extend it. A subway is one of the more effective commuting systems a city can have, but not all politicians understands that, which means that some cities should have had a subway long ago, but don't and they suffer from that today.
Another energy saver is bicycle lanes. But that may be tougher to introduce in a city like New York.

--
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Re:It's Been Done Elsewhere! by jklovanc · 2013-02-14 19:05 · Score: 1

Population decrease of 20% does not match and energy decrease of 10%. It is off by a factor of 2.
Re:It's Been Done Elsewhere! by azalin · 2013-02-14 19:33 · Score: 1

Another energy saver is bicycle lanes. But that may be tougher to introduce in a city like New York.
In New York it's more like a designated suicide zone.
Re:It's Been Done Elsewhere! by amiga3D · 2013-02-14 21:01 · Score: 4, Funny

Win-Win
Re:It's Been Done Elsewhere! by davester666 · 2013-02-14 21:18 · Score: 1

So, New York should drive their murder rate up, both to directly get rid of residents as well as encourage the remaining ones to move away?

--
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Re:It's Been Done Elsewhere! by smittyoneeach · 2013-02-14 22:29 · Score: 2

Give Bloomberg more time. And a Nurse Ratched suit. He'll get there.

--
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Re:It's Been Done Elsewhere! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-15 00:12 · Score: 1

Somali-style pirates won't happen. The army would step in for target practice.
Re:It's Been Done Elsewhere! by Charliemopps · 2013-02-15 00:50 · Score: 1

I would. Dropping 10% of the entire US consumption would have a significant world impact on Pollution. Unfortunately it would also drive the price of oil down which would increase consumption in the 3rd world.
Re:It's Been Done Elsewhere! by kenh · 2013-02-15 01:01 · Score: 3, Interesting

New York is located close to the Atlantic ocean and that's one decent heatsink, so by pumping out excess heat in the summer into the ocean would be more efficient in two steps - less heat put out in the city, and the temperature difference when doing heat pumping will be lower which can result in lower costs. The disadvantage here is that a lot of pipes needs to be laid down for central cooling in addition to central heating.
Of course, pumping all that heat into the Atlantic ocean won't have any climatic or ecological implications, right?

--
Ken
Re:It's Been Done Elsewhere! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-15 01:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

"But hey, that shouldn't stop the idiots from doubling-down"
Clearly the statist has failed all these years because Obama has not yet had a chance to lead, and even now the evil Republicans still are blocking any chance at real reform and *progress*. We should just let Obama do whatever he wants for a few years, the Constitution be damned, and that will solve everything.
Of course I am being sarcastic but you do understand that there are people out there who really think this is true.
Re:It's Been Done Elsewhere! by cmuncy · 2013-02-15 01:46 · Score: 1

That is exactly what I was going to post. By 2050 NYC will be a ghost town.
Re:It's Been Done Elsewhere! by cornjones · 2013-02-15 02:34 · Score: 1

That was my first thought as well but, on second thought, you are dumping this heat into the environment anyway. is there a important difference between polluting the air vs the sea?
Re:It's Been Done Elsewhere! by Z00L00K · 2013-02-15 03:42 · Score: 1

You can just look at many cities in Europe.

--
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Re:It's Been Done Elsewhere! by Type44Q · 2013-02-15 06:05 · Score: 2

New York is located close to the Atlantic ocean and that's one decent heatsink...
Ha! By 2050, New York will be under the Atlantic Ocean and the only emissions will be from methane gas bubbles burping to the surface from the remains of landfills beneath the seabed...! :p
Re:It's Been Done Elsewhere! by Kreigaffe · 2013-02-15 06:59 · Score: 1

Ehm, that's..
That's not how thermodynamics works..

--
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
Re:It's Been Done Elsewhere! by GameboyRMH · 2013-02-15 07:25 · Score: 1

LOLWUT?
I think rich people actually believe this too, this isn't the first time I've heard such BS.
Poor people never drive gas guzzlers (because they can't afford the gas, genius!) and don't have heated pools, large houses, luxury SUVs, the luxury of running climate control when it's not strictly needed (because they can't afford the electricity). It's basically an old 4-banger econo-car (or part of a bus ride) basic home appliances (at best) and maybe a few entertainment devices.
And I'd be very careful about bragging about the eco-friendliness of any new car vs. one that's been on the road for decades. A lot of a car's lifetime emissions are in the production process.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:It's Been Done Elsewhere! by GameboyRMH · 2013-02-15 07:27 · Score: 1

Unfortunately it would also drive the price of oil down which would increase consumption in the 3rd world.
Would it? Do you think those people are going to think "Whoa oil is cheaper, better use more to compensate! Phew, almost saved some money there!"

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:It's Been Done Elsewhere! by jklovanc · 2013-02-15 11:22 · Score: 1

It would be significant if the entire US consumption dropped by 10% but that still is not plummeting and not what occurred. I would say it would take at least a 30% drop to be plummeting. Furthermore the population of Detroit has dropped by 20% so on a per person basis electricity consumption has actually increased by about 12%.
Re:It's Been Done Elsewhere! by jklovanc · 2013-02-15 16:48 · Score: 1

According to this the population figures are as follows
1990 1,027,974
2000 951,270
2010 713,777
Between 1990 and 2000 the decrease was 10%. Between 2000 and 2010 the decrease was 24%. So in the ten years that energy use decreased 10% the population decreased 25%. In the 20 years the population actually decreased by 30%. The population of Detroit was at a high around 1950, at 1.8M, and has been declining ever since.
Re:It's Been Done Elsewhere! by Kreigaffe · 2013-02-15 20:00 · Score: 1

The "excess heat" that would be pumped to the Atlantic, here, would be the ambient temperature -- you'd use the cool seawater to lower the temperature inside.
you can't use the ambient temperature to boil water, no matter how much of it you 'pump' to one location.. you can only raise other things to its temperature.
but yeah, he was talking about waste heat. which i didn't really notice when i wrote that.

--
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
Re:It's Been Done Elsewhere! by riverat1 · 2013-02-16 06:48 · Score: 1

Compared to the heat the Sun drops in the ocean every day what New York could do is essentially zero.
Re:It's Been Done Elsewhere! by riverat1 · 2013-02-16 06:55 · Score: 1

Nice bit if hyperbole. If you listen to what scientists actually say SLR will be perhaps 1 foot by 2050. That certainly leaves New York more vulnerable to storm surge but not under water. Perhaps you meant to say 2150.
Re:It's Been Done Elsewhere! by Type44Q · 2013-02-16 07:09 · Score: 1

If you listen to what scientists actually say
Which ones? Oh, I forgot; they all say the same thing... :p
Re:It's Been Done Elsewhere! by Jawnn · 2013-02-16 07:49 · Score: 1

You can just look at many cities in Europe.
OK. Did that. I didn't see anything even remotely resembling credible numbers that prove the assertion. Next?
Re:It's Been Done Elsewhere! by riverat1 · 2013-02-16 09:12 · Score: 1

I could link you to a number of peer reviewed papers on the subject that would mostly say similar things but I would like you to find even one that says New York City would be underwater by 2050. That's not impossible but it would be a result of some unexpected nonlinear event such as the sudden collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet which has a pretty low probability.
Re:It's Been Done Elsewhere! by Type44Q · 2013-02-16 09:29 · Score: 1

While that probability (and many others) may be extremely low, you can't argue that the trend has been one of such probabilities inching a little higher with each new 'tweak" of climate models. I could also see things of [such a catastrophic nature] being hushed-up... but then again, I'm one of "them crazy conspiracy thee-o-rists." ;)

That's a heck of a crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-14 17:43 · Score: 2, Interesting

Of course new technologies will make it possible to reduce emissions, possibly even by 100%, but anyone claiming to plan these things 37 years into the future is full of it. Read some Ray Kurzweil books to get some perspective - maybe he's too optimistic, and then again maybe he isn't. By that time we could definitely have StarTrams, asteroid mining, SBSP, space nuclear, space antimatter, who knows...

Central planners have a long history of screwing things up...

--libman

Re:That's a heck of a crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-14 18:02 · Score: 1

>>> Central planners have a long history of screwing things up...
Knee, meet jerk.
Re:That's a heck of a crystal ball... by Namarrgon · 2013-02-14 18:57 · Score: 2

What new technologies are needed? Thermal insulation has proved highly effective, and many people report up to 90% reductions in energy use & emissions.

--
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Re:That's a heck of a crystal ball... by Sockatume · 2013-02-14 20:52 · Score: 3, Insightful

Someone's going to have to help me out here:
"anyone claiming to plan these things 37 years into the future is full of it", "Read some Ray Kurzweil books to get some perspective"
Ray Kurzweil, the futurist who predicts a technological singularity in 2045? But I'm not supposed to trust people who claim to be able to predict outcomes decades in the future?

--
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Re:That's a heck of a crystal ball... by Namarrgon · 2013-02-16 20:40 · Score: 1

Your link suggested heating & cooling accounted for 43% of residential and 24% of commercial energy use; I wouldn't call that a "very small fraction".
But I agree, there's no hope of getting energy consumption down by anything close to 90%. Insulation certainly helps, but not nearly that much. Demand will increase for a long time yet, I expect. However, emissions depend on generation methods, as well as consumption. Carbon-neutral generation is a separate question, but can potentially reduce emissions to virtually zero (if we got off fossil fuels altogether).

--
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?

It's all about technology by phantomfive · 2013-02-14 17:47 · Score: 4, Interesting

Cutting CO2 mainly depends on technology (or cutting the standard of living, which most people don't want to do), aimed at two areas:

1) Non-emitting cars. Electric cars look more viable every day; it's not inconceivable that most people could be driving them by by 2050.
2) Power generation. Whether it comes from coal sequestration or my preferred solution, nuclear fusion, cutting CO2 relies on improvements in power generation technology.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."

Re:It's all about technology by balsy2001 · 2013-02-14 18:00 · Score: 1

1) In large metropolitan areas going all electric cars is very realistic in a few decades. The average trip is likely very very short and therefore very amenable to all electric cars. In rural areas it will take probably take longer and be more difficult because the average trip length is much longer (and the farm equipment may never convert, but if that is the only thing burning fossil fuel it probably wouldn't matter). I wouldn't be surprised if there is an order of magnitude difference or more in the average trip length between those on Manhattan island and some farmer in the middle of Iowa. 2) It is like your first link quipped, nuclear fusion has been 50 years away for 50 years. I am a fan of the research and hope it comes to fruition, but there is another kind of nuclear (fission) that currently powers 20% of the country and could basically take emissions from power generation to zero. Expand the fission while waiting for the fusion.

--
GENERATION 27: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
Re:It's all about technology by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-14 18:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

"Large" metropolitan areas...
I live in Melbourne, Australia and commute an hour to and from work. This is normal. This is a city of only 3. something million. A city 5 times ours I'm sure has longer commute times.
Where do you pull this idea that trips are short?
Re:It's all about technology by GumphMaster · 2013-02-14 18:36 · Score: 3, Insightful

By "large" balsy2001 seems to mean "large, densely packed population". NY City is very densely packed and that is definitely an aid to trip distance and time reduction. Unfortunately for both the US and Australia large is almost always synonymous with sprawling when it comes to cities. Coupled with "transport infrastructure" being a euphemism for "bare minimum road network for private vehicles" there's little hope that mass public transport can come to the rescue.

--
Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
Re:It's all about technology by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-14 18:37 · Score: 1

You're looking at it backwards. Cities that are larger than Melbourne are generally more compact as well leading to shorter travel distances. Of course, the GP should have said cities and not "metropolitan areas" because "metropolitan areas" include suburbs and that is where you start seeing 1 hour+ commute times.
Re:It's all about technology by LordLucless · 2013-02-14 18:38 · Score: 1

How much of that time is idling in traffic? Electric cars should have a very low draw when idle. It's not so much the duration of your trip that matters but the distance. If you're driving an hour to and from work at the speed limit, then you're not within Melbourne's city limits, you're coming in from the suburbs.

--
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Re:It's all about technology by balsy2001 · 2013-02-14 18:41 · Score: 1

Yes, that is what I meant.

--
GENERATION 27: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
Re:It's all about technology by Troll-in-Training · 2013-02-14 19:11 · Score: 2

How much of that time is idling in traffic? Electric cars should have a very low draw when idle. It's not so much the duration of your trip that matters but the distance. If you're driving an hour to and from work at the speed limit, then you're not within Melbourne's city limits, you're coming in from the suburbs.
Stop and go eats batteries, having to constantly accelerate to get back up to speed is much more draining than crusing. Crowded cities devour batteries. Distance matters but traffic matters more, an hour in stop and go traffic will wipe your charge and refilling a battery is still not as simple as filling a tank.
Re:It's all about technology by azalin · 2013-02-14 19:45 · Score: 1

you seem to have forgotten:
3) Conserving energy. By insulating houses and replacing ineffective systems it is relatively easy to save a lot of energy (and thereby CO2) without a negative impact on the standard of living. Actually good insulation improves living standards more often than not.
The problem here is that stuff like this needs investments (which pay off after a few years though). Rental houses will need some encouragement to do this, because the owner (the one paying for insulation) does not (directly) reap the benefits (lower electricity bills for people living there). On the long term people will prefer housing with higher energy standards (lower extra costs) if a choice exists and thereby provide a reason for the owner to upgrade.
Re:It's all about technology by balsy2001 · 2013-02-14 19:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

You are right and that is more what I was thinking. However, when I lived in DC, I had a near 1 hours commute that amounted to less than 20 miles. Another apartment I lived at the drive home was between 45 minutes and 1 hours 15 minutes and it was like 7 miles. I had colleagues in DC that used electric cars that did very well in the 1+ hour commute of stop and go traffic. When I lived in a mountain state away from big cities and metropolitan areas I commuted 1 hours 15 minutes but covered 56 miles, each way. It was also not uncommon for us to drive a few hundred miles in a day on the weekend.

--
GENERATION 27: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
Re:It's all about technology by c0lo · 2013-02-14 20:10 · Score: 1

"Large" metropolitan areas...
I live in Melbourne, Australia and commute an hour to and from work. This is normal. This is a city of only 3. something million. A city 5 times ours I'm sure has longer commute times.
Where do you pull this idea that trips are short?
3 millions if you think of "The Greater Melbourne" (that is including the suburbs) - which means a "city" radius of about 50 km.
However, if you refer to "the City of Melbourne" (aka CBD; let's take the inner suburbs as well = max 10 km radius), I fail to see how commuting to/from work takes an hour each way.

--
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Re:It's all about technology by dkf · 2013-02-14 21:30 · Score: 1

Another apartment I lived at the drive home was between 45 minutes and 1 hours 15 minutes and it was like 7 miles.
Did you ever suspect you were perhaps using the wrong technology to do the commute?

--
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
Re:It's all about technology by balsy2001 · 2013-02-14 21:37 · Score: 1

It depends on the situation but I don't I don't think an hour in stop and go traffic will deplete the batteries of even current generation electric cars (see http://auto.howstuffworks.com/can-electric-cars-survive-major-traffic-jams.htm). The Nissan leaf normally has a 100 mile radius, under ideal conditions that wouldn't have covered the round trip commute for my last job, 56 miles (I lived out west in the mountains and there was no traffic). The link states that stop and go traffic on a cold day reduced the range to 62 miles. That is still several hours of stop and go traffic. In DC, for example that would allow a round trip to a location about 20 miles outside the beltway (last time I lived there that would put you on about an hour and a half commute each way). I think it would be safe to say that if your one way commute is less than 25 miles or less than 2 hours, you are probably OK with an all electric car. However, if your one way commute is greater than 25 miles or 2 hours, you probably need a hybrid or gasoline car. I can't speak for NYC but in DC the majority of people who commuted into the district itself lived within the shorter limit.

--
GENERATION 27: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
Re:It's all about technology by balsy2001 · 2013-02-14 21:40 · Score: 1

I rode my bike to work for 3 years at that job because driving was so bad. I only did it occasionally for that precise reason (maybe once every couple of months).

--
GENERATION 27: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
Re:It's all about technology by nukenerd · 2013-02-14 22:08 · Score: 1

it's simply about insulation. Buildings and houses can save 90% of energy used by simply insulating things like attics and walls. Boring I know.
I don't know about New York, but most houses in the UK are already insulated up to the hilt. There may be another 5% to gain if you add another yard of insulation, but it is diminishing returns. 90% less? (Do they really mean using only one tenth the energy they do now?) - no way! Even starting from a base of no insulation (like my parents' house did) there was no-where near a 90% gain. More like 30%

To get 90% gain you would need to knock all buildings down and start with something fundamentally different. Airlock doors for a start, like into a microchip factory clean-room.
Re:It's all about technology by c0lo · 2013-02-15 00:06 · Score: 1

the city of Melbourne (small c)

You see, though, the context is "the New York City" with Capital c. Yes, I know, they are 8mils+, but the land area they live on is 789 sq.km (if it would be a circle, the radius of the circle would be only about 16 km. About 28 km side if a perfect square). And in regards with the transportation, it is the "size" as in distance that matter, not the size of its population.

--
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Re:It's all about technology by thegarbz · 2013-02-15 00:17 · Score: 1

Hard to compare. Melbourne has what I consider a somewhat average public transport system, a 10km trip could be an hour long commute by either public transport or peak hour traffic. Melbourne while it's a big city is not very dense at all. A large portion of the population lives in suburban houses typical of most Australian cities. Apartment living isn't quite as widespread in Australian living.
To put some numbers to this claim:
Melbourne population density: ~4000 people/sq mi
New York City population density: ~27000 people/sq mi
Urban layout is also an issue. While I can't comment on New York, a lot of typical Australian cities have horrendous layout with one centralised business district. The further from the city you live the further your trip. A lot of European cities who town centres are heritage listed don't have this problem. Business districts are spread around the town in rings with high-rises disperse around the city. In these towns people tend to work closer to home as well.
Re:It's all about technology by jcupitt65 · 2013-02-15 00:26 · Score: 2

A lot of UK housing stock is pretty dismal for insulation. For example, Victorian homes generally have walls which are a single layer of brick with no possibility for cavity insulation, and the original, single-pane sash windows. The house I live in has a maid's room built into the roof and it's just not possible to fit loft insulation either.
Fixing this really requires new build to a good standard. New building regs are coming in 2016 which will require all new homes to be zero carbon. In other words, they will require no energy at all for heating or cooling:
http://www.zerocarbonhub.org/
So hopefully we'll see a 100% improvement over a large section of the existing stock. It'll be a very, very long time before a large proportion of housing becomes as good as this, sadly.
Re:It's all about technology by dywolf · 2013-02-15 01:30 · Score: 1

for a large city like new york another possible energy source is its own waste. and i dont just mean the barges of garbage. I mean the sewage from the largely ancient system under their streets, many parts of which is are no longer mapped or maintained (lost records), that dump into the river/bay. i know its not practical at this point to compeltely update/upgrade underground public works in an old old city like New York. but if they could trap as much sewage as possible, and turn and use it in a biofuel powerplant...

--
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Re:It's all about technology by ChunderDownunder · 2013-02-15 01:56 · Score: 1

Current figures (greater melbourne, wikipedia) have more than 4miliion.
Your definition of the city of Melbourne extending only to 10 km is moot as a fair number of people commute each day along suburban train lines, a number of which in the E/SE extend beyond 35km from the CBD. And not just workers heading into the city - Try studying at La Trobe or Monash unis by a combination of bus, tram or train and see how long one's cross-town journey takes...
By car, there are peak hour traffic jams - despite succesive state governments building freeways in every direction...
Re:It's all about technology by lxs · 2013-02-15 02:01 · Score: 1

When you are hardly moving air resistance is close to zero.
Re:It's all about technology by Stirling+Newberry · 2013-02-15 02:26 · Score: 1

Melbourne population density 4,058.5/sq mi
NYC population density 27,532 sq/mi

--
Fugue for Aaron Swartz
Re:It's all about technology by balsy2001 · 2013-02-15 03:45 · Score: 1

I would be up for the extension. The waste isn't a problem if our they would open the national repository.

--
GENERATION 27: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
Re:It's all about technology by Miamicanes · 2013-02-15 04:38 · Score: 1

> You can use nuclear fuel to get electricity, but what do you do with the left-overs?
You run it through a breeder reactor, recursively wring about 6,000% as much total energy from it as you'd get from a single run, and end up with a much, much smaller volume of waste to warehouse.
It's kind of like cleaning up a hoarder's mess by throwing out only the uncontested garbage, expired food, and animal feces, scrubbing everything else down, setting aside high-value items for immediate sale on eBay, and packing the remaining stuff into boxes stacked from floor to ceiling in a spare bedroom (with clear 3-foot paths from the door to the window(s)). There's still arguably a long-term problem, but it's one that's enormously easier to deal with.
Taking the hoarder analogy further, reprocessing spent fuel is like sending off crates and crates of old papers for bulk scanning so the monthly rent for the storage unit needed to store them can be eliminated. The scanning isn't free, but it's a one-time charge that eliminates otherwise-eternal recurring charges by massively consolidating dozens or hundreds of cubic feet into a hard drive and a blu-ray backup or two that can be stored on a shelf.
Re:It's all about technology by AmiMoJo · 2013-02-15 06:22 · Score: 1

Actually there are massive savings to be made by making buildings more efficient. The Empire State Building massively cut its energy usage as part of a renovation that paid for itself in under five years.
There was a Japanese office building on the TV that had smart blinds which adjusted the angle of the slats during the day to reflect as much light as possible into the rooms. It also had LED lights that adjusted themselves automatically do that light levels throughout remained constant, supplemented by sunlight during the day. They claimed an 80% reduction in lighting and heating bills.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:It's all about technology by GameboyRMH · 2013-02-15 07:37 · Score: 1

More importantly, the Leaf doesn't slowly turn gasoline into heat when it's not moving. The best stop-start technology will never bring an ICE close to touching the efficiency of an EV. It's just that ICEs are horrifically wasteful.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:It's all about technology by Kreigaffe · 2013-02-15 07:49 · Score: 1

That window-blind-slat thing is actually rather clever.. never heard of it before.
I'd assume it might also have a "summer" setting that keeps the light outside, too.. heating uses a lot of energy, but at least you can use the waste heat as, well, heat. cooling's just an exercise in losses..
and while I'm ranting on slashdot, is it just me or are modern buildings, offices and the like, just fucking AWFUL when it comes to their HVAC systems? I'm talking about serious hot/cold spot issues. i just really thought that hey, you're putting up a new building. the math isn't all that fucking hard. insulate the ventilation, DO THE MATH, get an even distribution of air to every room (not air volume, of course - the nearest outlets would have warmer or cooler air than the furthest depending on losses which can be calculated, and would need a lesser volume to adjust a given room temperature..).
and individual room control isn't too hard, given an overall 'master' building temperature setting it's trivial to put a variable shutter on the vent for each room (say the master temp is 72, no room can go above but can be cooler (for winter; for summer, warmer)).
That just really bothers me, and I'm not in and out of new buildings all day every day but it seems every time I am, they have noticeably poor climate control systems. does no one sit down and do any figuring on this, is it all just slapdash? >:| who knows.
mod me kvetching

--
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
Re:It's all about technology by c0lo · 2013-02-15 10:04 · Score: 1

Current figures (greater melbourne, wikipedia) have more than 4miliion.
Yes, but if you consider the "City of Melbourne" area, you won't get 3 mills.
Anyway, I was replying to a post in which "large metropolitan area" was interpreted as "large sprawl metropolitan area" rather than "high population density metropolitan areas" (were, indeed, "the average trip is very very short"), so quibbling over the exact population of the Greater Melbourne is pointless.

By car, there are peak hour traffic jams - despite succesive state governments building freeways in every direction...
Solutions: move closer, telecommute or travel off peak (I'm using a combination of the last two for my 55km one-way) - waiting for extensive public transport coverage in large sprawls is hopeless. There is something to pay for the fact that everybody has a backyard.

--
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Re:It's all about technology by HornWumpus · 2013-02-16 04:29 · Score: 1

NYC is part of the BostiYorkAdephia metro area. It's nice to visit, but you wouldn't want to live there.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:It's all about technology by HornWumpus · 2013-02-16 04:31 · Score: 1

So no new buildings after 2016.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'

Some insulation sure would help by ShoulderOfOrion · 2013-02-14 18:24 · Score: 2

As a lifelong rural inhabitant, I've always been amazed, whenever I've visited NYC, at just how energy-inefficient many of the buildings are. Single-pane windows, little insulation, baseboard heaters, drafty weatherstripping, the works. I've been there when it's been blazingly hot, and again when it's been bitterly cold, and in both cases the standard solution seems to be to just crank the environmental controls to max. When you split wood in the summer for heat in the winter you quickly develop a respect for how quickly those little inefficiencies add up, and you do something about them. Apparently New Yorkers don't have a similar feedback loop between their effort and their energy usage. Either that, or they're making so much money packaging derivatives their power bills are below the monthly bill noise floor.

Re:Some insulation sure would help by Troll-in-Training · 2013-02-14 19:48 · Score: 1

As a lifelong rural inhabitant, I've always been amazed, whenever I've visited NYC, at just how energy-inefficient many of the buildings are. Single-pane windows, little insulation, baseboard heaters, drafty weatherstripping, the works. I've been there when it's been blazingly hot, and again when it's been bitterly cold, and in both cases the standard solution seems to be to just crank the environmental controls to max. When you split wood in the summer for heat in the winter you quickly develop a respect for how quickly those little inefficiencies add up, and you do something about them. Apparently New Yorkers don't have a similar feedback loop between their effort and their energy usage. Either that, or they're making so much money packaging derivatives their power bills are below the monthly bill noise floor.
New York has rent controls, harsh building codes and corrrupt building inspectors.
When you build a new residential building you know that the first rent you offer will be all that you are likely to get as you are prohibited from raising it and people avoid moving as much as possible to save money on rent via the controls. You also have to bribe the inspectors whether or not you follow the codes so skimping on materials is also common as you are bribing the inspectors anyway you might as well get something for it. As you cannot adjust your prices in the future to cover improvements you build using the simplest and easiest to maintain technologies you can get away with and you do as little to maintain it as possible - maintenance comes directly out of your constantly shrinking profits.
New York landlords are very corrupt because only the corrupt can stomach the crap you have to put up with to be a landlord. Rent controls ensure that there is limited new construction as only the rich can afford to live in a new building, and buildings decay quickly as landlords can't afford to maintain older buildings with long established residents.
People get used to using the Heat and A/C to make up for the deficiencies in the sometimes 100 year old buildings which are uneconomical for the owners to upgrade due to rent controls. As proper construction is expensive to maintain, few new buildings get any but the most basic features unless they are being built for rich people. Crappy living conditions and high heating and cooling costs are a negative externality of the rent controls.
Re:Some insulation sure would help by balsy2001 · 2013-02-14 20:03 · Score: 1

It may have to do with the age of the buildings. For example, energy efficient windows are not a large incremental cost for new construction, but is a fairly decent expenditure on older construction. The cost payback for windows is typically very long in single family homes (I don't know about condos etc.). I know insulation in a single family home is very easy to install and has a good pay back rate (again I don't know about doing it for condos etc.). Weather stripping and sealing are cheap and easy to install all around (this one should be a no brainer). I suspect that installing central heating and AC comes down to the large upfront cost and space issues for the condos. I also suspect that apartments are like that because the land lords don't much care to make the improvements.

--
GENERATION 27: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
Re:Some insulation sure would help by Mindcontrolled · 2013-02-14 21:56 · Score: 1

When you split wood in the summer for heat in the winter you quickly develop a respect for how quickly those little inefficiencies add up, and you do something about them.
And believe me, that respect increases when you find out that you did not split enough wood in summer and have to grab your axe and do some chopping in the freezing cold, as I found out last week. Ok, I wouldn't have had to, since I got oil heating to, but given the relative cost of oil and wood, I very much prefer to run the oil burner at a minimum. Also, a huge-ass tiled stove in the living room simply rocks.

--
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Re:Some insulation sure would help by Stirling+Newberry · 2013-02-15 02:15 · Score: 1

That's because they are really externalizing the cost on future users of the building.

--
Fugue for Aaron Swartz

38% energy savings by Namarrgon · 2013-02-14 18:38 · Score: 4, Informative

That's what they achieved when they retrofitted the Empire State Building. Paid for itself in only 3 years, and now delivers $4.4M savings annually.

Insulation, smart energy controls etc do cost money, but the energy savings can more than pay for it over the life of the building. Better designs can save up to 69% of energy costs. And there's a lot of ripple-effect savings too, by reducing emissions and freeing up capital.

Of course, getting completely off coal, oil & gas will eventually cut emissions to zero, but there's a more immediate & guaranteed payoff simply by improving efficiencies.

--
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?

Re:38% energy savings by balsy2001 · 2013-02-14 20:05 · Score: 1

Another advantage of becoming more efficient is you need fewer new generating facilities to break the cycle and get to ~0 emissions.

--
GENERATION 27: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
Re:38% energy savings by jklovanc · 2013-02-15 00:13 · Score: 1

38% is the low hanging fruit. To take an existing building to higher inefficiencies gets exponentially harder and there may be a point that it is impossible to improve upon and still have the building functional. Sure new buildings can have very high inefficiencies but it will take a very long time to rebuild NY City.
Re:38% energy savings by Miamicanes · 2013-02-15 04:57 · Score: 1

Sealing a building's envelope might pay for itself if you look only at energy cost, but it's NOT necessarily consequence-free. Just ask anybody who owns a home built before 1970, superinsulated sometime later, and would now end up classified as an EPA biohazard zone due to mold if someone were ever to do an official test with legal consequences inside. Or anybody who owns a house built in the 1980s or 1990s that gets its roof or exterior damaged by a hurricane or tornado, ends up with water infiltration, and something that would have been a minor "shit happens" repair 50 years ago turns into a $40,000 reconstruction saga due to moisture trapped by the same vapor barrier. Supertight buildings generally do OK for 10-20 years, but in terms Slashdot users will understand, they tend to be very "brittle", and ANYTHING that officially isn't supposed to happen, but happens anyway, ends up setting off a chain reaction that's insanely expensive to fix.
Re:38% energy savings by Namarrgon · 2013-02-16 20:32 · Score: 1

True, this is the easiest stuff, but still well & truly worth doing. And with redesigning of the interior spaces and more thorough refits, you can bring this up to 70-80%.
Obviously NYC isn't going to be rebuilt overnight, but most buildings need a thorough refit every few decades, so by 2050 the large majority could be done. If you redesign the interior with energy efficiency in mind, and do it during a normal, scheduled refit, the incremental cost is kept low but the savings can be huge.

--
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Re:38% energy savings by jklovanc · 2013-02-16 21:01 · Score: 1

Most of the energy used by a building is heating and cooling. The retrofit of the Empire state building addressed those issues. I had to laugh that one of the retrofits was not done decades earlier. Under every window is a radiator. The retrofit was to put insulation between the radiators and the exterior brick wall. That was a huge hole for heat to get out during the winter and in during the summer.
What can one do with an old building's interior to for energy efficiency? This is not sarcasm; I would like to know?
Re:38% energy savings by IwantToKeepAnon · 2013-02-21 04:53 · Score: 1

... Sure new buildings can have very high inefficiencies ...
You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

--
"Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." -- Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy
Re:38% energy savings by jklovanc · 2013-02-21 06:41 · Score: 1

damn spell checker

Re:Dreamy by icebike · 2013-02-14 18:40 · Score: 1

Agreed.

First thing I noticed was the Insulating Buildings.
Glibly thrown out there like it's cheap, quick, or even possible in a city the size of New York with a bazillion buildings of various ages.
It takes 6 months on a small two story building, and could take 6 years and hundreds of millions of dollars for any building over 20 floors.

--
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.

No. Unless by prasadsurve · 2013-02-14 18:49 · Score: 1

NY gets completely destroyed as it has been in numerous disater movies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_set_in_New_York_City#New_York_City_destroyed_on_film

Re:Misguided by Namarrgon · 2013-02-14 18:52 · Score: 1

Buildings as a whole consume 72% of total US electricity (42% of total energy). There's plenty of scope for impact.

Obviously we don't need to reduce energy consumption to zero, just emissions. And it's inevitable that we'll switch to 100% renewable energy eventually, by definition - non-renewable energy isn't renewed, and will run out (or just get too expensive to use).

--
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?

Re:Insulation will cost more than you think by Namarrgon · 2013-02-14 18:54 · Score: 1

Hah, "bankrupted"? Citation needed if ever I saw one..

--
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?

Re:Dreamy by Namarrgon · 2013-02-14 19:00 · Score: 3, Informative

They already refitted the Empire State Building, and achieved payoff in only 3 years. Now it's saving $4.4M/year of pure gravy.

It can certainly cost millions, but the returns can be much more, over the life of the building.

--
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?

Now, that was unexpected. by Z00L00K · 2013-02-14 19:04 · Score: 1

Or maybe not...

--
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.

I got a better idea. by AlphaWolf_HK · 2013-02-14 19:13 · Score: 1

Nuclear has a very low carbon footprint.

One of the things they mention in there is insulation. It's a bit hard to insulate big glass windows, which new york has a lot of. Yes you can double pane them and even (very expensively) vacuum the middle but they still transfer heat pretty well.

Unless of course you got rid of those windows, but they said without removing any creature comforts. I don't know about anybody else, but sunlight fits into my definition of a creature comfort.

--
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK

Re:I got a better idea. by drinkypoo · 2013-02-14 19:29 · Score: 1

There's assorted plastic films which can be applied to the glass which will save more energy than double-paning. It's not worth it to build evacuated windows, though some are filled with Nitrogen.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:I got a better idea. by flyingfsck · 2013-02-14 19:40 · Score: 2

Nitrogen. That is just air really. Strangely, Nitrogen is cheaper than dried air. Got to be dry else you get condensation on the inside of the glass.

--
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Re:I got a better idea. by drinkypoo · 2013-02-14 19:49 · Score: 2

Nitrogen. That is just air really. Strangely, Nitrogen is cheaper than dried air. Got to be dry else you get condensation on the inside of the glass.
Amusingly, it is also significantly more insulative than air, even though so much of air is nitrogen.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:I got a better idea. by Stirling+Newberry · 2013-02-15 02:13 · Score: 1

The can be converted to capturing heat with passive or photo voltaic solar. The thin film technology is on the way.
And for less than the price of the next wall street driven financial crash.

--
Fugue for Aaron Swartz

Re:Dreamy by icebike · 2013-02-14 20:03 · Score: 1

Facade?

What about all four walls, and the roof?
Are you talking about a quick spray foam, or real insulation?

--
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.

Replace the windows! by water-vole · 2013-02-14 20:07 · Score: 5, Interesting

I stayed at a really fancy hotel in NYC, where enormous amounts of money had been spent on interior decoration. But the windows were single glass windows which let through a lot of cold and noise. You cannot buy such bad windows in many European countries. Why do they not install proper triple-glass windows? I have not seen any building in NY with proper windows. Do they not sell them in the US?

Re:Replace the windows! by Simulant · 2013-02-15 00:22 · Score: 3, Interesting

My house is full of single pane, leaky windows. I'd love to replace the windows but a) the mortgage is still underwater b) I could only afford to replace 1 or 2 per year, and c) my neighborhood association would complain that I'm lowering the value of their property in our "Historical Neighborhood". (yes, seriously)

I'd love some of those German multipane windows that open two ways....they are awesome, but I'd have to import them and my neighbors would throw a fit.

Yes, I was a naive first time home buyer.... Never again.
Re:Replace the windows! by cute-boy · 2013-02-15 00:34 · Score: 4, Funny

With double or triple glazing you wouldn't hear your neighbours whining so much?
Re:Replace the windows! by gsnedders · 2013-02-15 00:52 · Score: 1

Can you not get windows that look identical to your current ones, but are triple-gazed? In the UK you're allowed to do that, even with listed properties.
Re:Replace the windows! by kenh · 2013-02-15 01:16 · Score: 1

It obviously wasn't cost-effective to do the replacement. You can buy anything in NYC, but remember, much of NYC is heated by steam thrown off as a by-product of other industries. Did your "really fancy" hotel have steam heat?
There are massive steam pipes that warm much of Manhattan.

--
Ken
Re:Replace the windows! by dywolf · 2013-02-15 01:45 · Score: 1

Screw the HOA. IANAL, and we just bought our first house (like you said, naive first time, learned a lot...never again shall i be fooled).
But seriously, scrwe the HOA. IMO they dont get to dictate that my house should suck and waste money just because they are worried about thier values. father had trouble with HOA's growing up too. Similar thing, we had a bigger lot on the circle than most, due the shape of the surrounding lots, etc etc. Fther decided to put up a shed. Not just a prefab home depot thing, no sir. A good sized 18x25 real work shed on an actual slab foundation, fully wired power, etc etc. Oh how they complained:
-it was an eyesore while it was being built (took ~1.5 years cause he did it by himself by hand)
-noise complaints during construction (he only working during 9-5, and ironically, we were the first house sold in the area, so we had to deal with the noise while all the other houses were built around us)
-constant false accusations of "no permits" (city finally threatened to charge that guy if he made another false accusation, cause father always had all the permits he needed when they came to check)
-the "you're lowering our property values" claim, to where someone actually tried to get an injuction against us over that (was tossed)
We ended up moving less than a year after it was finished. But it had become a case where father wasnt going to backdown. And when we sold, my folks made a tidy profit over what they paid originally just 4 years before, and everyones elses values hadnt changed.
Screw HOAs. My property, I do what I want to it.

--
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Re:Replace the windows! by Stirling+Newberry · 2013-02-15 02:10 · Score: 1

This is why some rather simple fixes to the mortgage system, which could have been done as part of fixing the financial crisis, would allow people to borrow money for reducing energy retrofit. Instead Obama was busy being a Republicans and the Republicans were busy being crazy. Then we get to the libertarians, who were, and statistically speaking are, still in denial about climate change. It isn't that price signals could not be used to fix the problem, it is that the people who were, and are, profiting from the problem on a death bet risk adjusted basis, did not want the price signals in place.
Now market dynamics being what they are, some one will pay for this behavior, namely the people who were not alive (why "perfect intergenerational altruism" is an assumption of infinite horizon models, and the "future discount" is an explicit part of growth theory) to do anything about it. See Externalization of costs. Consider Katrina and Sandy as small down payments on the disutility. There is another group of people suffering, namely people who work, because by delaying conversion of the economy and protecting a capital base whose marginal utility is less than zero, it artificially depresses demand for labor.
That's why nerds are working on web pages rather than a smart grid.

--
Fugue for Aaron Swartz
Re:Replace the windows! by water-vole · 2013-02-15 02:23 · Score: 1

It was very probably steam heated. Replacing the windows would also make the room quieter by shutting out traffic noise, which would have improved the ambience. But as you say, the owners clearly decided it wasn't worth it.
Re:Replace the windows! by jbeaupre · 2013-02-15 02:46 · Score: 1

Every kind of window imaginable is available. But the rule of thumb to use when it comes to understanding energy efficiency building codes in the US is the owner usually gets to decided the cost/benefit ratio and buy accordingly.
Codes are set at a state and local level, so some are better than others. Which makes sense. Heating and cooling requirements in Hawaii are negligible compared to Minnesota or Arizona. Climates and microclimates mean that even two towns next to each other may have radically different needs. Any national requirements would have to be just as granular.
As for what's available, it ranges from quadruple pane to single pane (or no pane in some parts of the US). Argon or krypton filled. Thin films. You can spec the e value (optimize for the side of the house and climate), add coverings (inside, enclosed, or outside), etc etc.
NY has its own economic quirks (explained better in other posts) that bias people there towards lower efficiency.

--
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
Re:Replace the windows! by jsrjsr · 2013-02-15 05:07 · Score: 1

If you bought a piece of property that has deed restrictions that grants an HOA power over certain things, and then you want to do something that the HOA doesn't allow, you're pretty well stuck.
And considering that you agreed to those terms when you bought the property, there's not a whole lot you can do.
And from you description of the problems your father had, it sounds like it wasn't the HOA exercising it's power, just his neighbors being buttheads. You can get that without any HOA being present.
Re:Replace the windows! by AmiMoJo · 2013-02-15 06:27 · Score: 1

In the UK we have a scheme where you can borrow the money to make improvements like installing triple glazing and pay it back over a very long time (say 20 years) through your energy bills. Since the improvements save more money than the monthly cost of the subsidized loan your bill actually goes down, and your home gets more pleasant to live in.
A green policy that improves quality of life. The only problem is that it is too socialist for some countries.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Replace the windows! by GameboyRMH · 2013-02-15 08:03 · Score: 1

+1 Fuck HOAs forever. Avoid them like the plague they are. Why live in a free society and then opt into a little fascist dictatorship?

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

Investments by Neil+Boekend · 2013-02-14 20:19 · Score: 3, Interesting

Everybody sensible already knows you can, but people are afraid of investments. Of course insulation pays back quite soon but people are afraid of investments.
The only ones who can really help are banks. They could lower mortgages on well insulated houses. 1% is a big incentive.

--
Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.

Re:Investments by kenh · 2013-02-15 01:09 · Score: 1

Why would banks slash their profits on mortgages to facilitate your vision of better insulation for buildings?
Why aren't lowered operating costs motivation enough?

--
Ken
Re:Investments by Stirling+Newberry · 2013-02-15 01:52 · Score: 1

Because the people who are paying the operating costs aren't the ones building the buildings. Banks wouldn't have to slash their mortgage profits, instead interest rates for non-green buildings would be higher, thus shifting the burden back on to the people who made. This is Pigou "taxing bads."

--
Fugue for Aaron Swartz
Re:Investments by swillden · 2013-02-15 02:48 · Score: 1

Banks wouldn't have to slash their mortgage profits, instead interest rates for non-green buildings would be higher
Unless the higher rates were forced by regulations, this would never happen. The banks charging higher rates for mortgages on less-efficient buildings would be immediately undercut by other banks, and buyers would go where the rates are lowest. Mortgage lending is an extremely competitive industry.
For that matter, even if higher rates were forced by regulations, the system would have to be watched very closely because banks would benefit from selling the higher-rate mortgages, so competition would push them to find other ways to incent people to buy those. Creative solutions might well end up pushing effective rates to parity. There's also the risk that if there's any sort of crunch in that supply of capital to lend, banks might actively avoid lending for green buildings, since it would be less profitable.
If you want to use government power to alter private choices, don't try to hide it by doing it through some other private intermediary, because you'll get all sorts of unanticipated side effects. Just do it directly. Tax credits and subsidies for "green" buildings work, though it creates opportunities for people to analyze the letter of the provided definition of "green" and perhaps do things other than what was really intended. The simplest and most effective method is simply to increase the cost of whatever you'd like to reduce. Tax fossil fuels, for example. To make it even more effective, take the proceeds and use them to fund research into alternative energy sources, making them cheaper at the same time you're increasing the cost of CO2-emitting fuels. Or if your real goal is reducing CO2 emissions, just tax those directly, and invest the money in carbon sequestration projects.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:Investments by swillden · 2013-02-15 02:51 · Score: 1

Oops, forgot something in my response.

Because the people who are paying the operating costs aren't the ones building the buildings.
Like hell they aren't. The people who pay the operating costs are the ones who buy the buildings, and if you think operating costs aren't a factor when people evaluate a property purchase, especially a commercial property purchase, you have no idea what you're talking about.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:Investments by swillden · 2013-02-15 03:03 · Score: 1

Everybody sensible already knows you can, but people are afraid of investments. Of course insulation pays back quite soon but people are afraid of investments.
Nonsense.
People aren't afraid of investments. Business, to a first approximation, is nothing but investment: "How should I employ my available resources to generate the best return?".
If the expected rate of return on an investment in insulation is better than the return obtainable by putting the same money elsewhere, then businesses will install insulation. If they don't, it's usually because it's not the best return they can get.
The example of the Empire State building isn't a good one, because the investment was effectively heavily subsidized by the rest of the renovation project. Only a small part of the cost of insulation is the actual insulation, most of it is the process of getting to where the insulation needs to be installed, and when you're already doing a renovation which requires that anyway, then that cost disappears. The result is that the incremental cost of adding the insulation is very low, which makes for a very rapid return on that incremental investment.
As energy prices rise, investments in insulation will make sense in more and more cases. If you want to accelerate that process, all you have to do is make insulation cheaper or energy more expensive.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:Investments by Namarrgon · 2013-02-16 20:59 · Score: 1

I think the Empire State Building is an excellent example of how you can dramatically reduce insulation & efficiency improvement costs by simply doing them at the right time - alongside a building refit.
Insulating etc without waiting might still be worth it, though payoff would certainly be longer. Would depend on the building no doubt. But in other cases, a building refit is an excellent opportunity to insulate and redesign to avoid future energy costs.

--
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Re:Investments by swillden · 2013-02-17 08:04 · Score: 1

Absolutely agreed. If you need to do a refit anyway, the incremental cost of adding insulation is small relative to the payoff. Insulating for its own sake may also be a good investment, but the return is less certain and longer-term.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.

Re:Dreamy by c0lo · 2013-02-14 20:26 · Score: 1

Sounds like they get to have their cake *and* eat it too

You reckon? One reasons for renewable power working well in Germany: they also started to build in a "energy efficient manner and insulate the old buildings. Here's why:

German building stock currently consumes approximately three to (in the worse cases) ten times as much energy for heating as new builds.

Loans/mortgages for insulating buildings would be a win-win situation for the case of older ones. (if you start insulating some buildings, the money saved on energy can be used for insulating others... I think Bloomberg could even choose to offer "0 rate loans/returnable subsidies" from the city budget...).

--
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.

Re:Dreamy by icebike · 2013-02-14 20:38 · Score: 1

House != NYC building.

--
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.

Re:And pigs might fly... by c0lo · 2013-02-14 20:48 · Score: 3, Informative

We might also move to 100% green energy if we carpet the entire surface of the earth with solar cells. Until people reduce and make their own efforts to reduce there energy needs through economic (if you don't save on costs or get paid, it is not reasonable to ask people to change their habits) means then it wont work.

You would only need to cover some percentage of desert area (not even all of it: do a computation using the solar constant, total world energy production and assume only 12% conversion efficiency for PV - you'll be surprised of how low the percentage of the world surface would need to be covered by PV-es. I've done this computation in the past). The only engineering problem is the transport of the energy around the globe.

--
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.

Re:Insulation will cost more than you think by Mashiki · 2013-02-14 20:59 · Score: 1

Hah, "bankrupted"? Citation needed if ever I saw one..

Would you take Ontario, Canada as well? The Liberals here have done the same thing with their "green initiative" programs.

--
Om, nomnomnom...

Re:Misguided by Namarrgon · 2013-02-14 21:07 · Score: 2

Nice diagram, though it's 39 quadrillion BTUs, not 39%. Still, 40% of $280B total electricity cost would be $39B annually; a pretty significant savings. But it's more than that, because thermal efficiencies result in a lot of savings from gas & oil heating too.

But it's unrelated to the issue of fossil fuels. Efficiency gains reduce and delay the impact of CO2 emissions, but transitioning our energy infrastructure away from fossil fuels will still have to happen sooner or later, even if only to maintain supply.

--
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?

Re:Just fucking nuke it by amiga3D · 2013-02-14 21:08 · Score: 1

While I know NYC has it's problems it's got lots of great people. You know what happened to the last bunch of idiots that attacked NYC don't you? They've been running and hiding and dying ever since.

Re:Dreamy by Namarrgon · 2013-02-14 21:10 · Score: 1

Just to be clear - the full refit cost a lot, but the incremental added cost of improving energy efficiency had a three-year payoff. Timing the efficiency upgrades to be done in conjunction with necessary building refits can save a lot of money.

--
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?

Re:Dreamy by jklovanc · 2013-02-15 00:06 · Score: 1

According to this document the retrofit will reduce "consumption of watts and BTUs by a guaranteed 38.4%". Not quite 90%. That would require changing the steam plant and electricity production.

One small detail by kenh · 2013-02-15 01:06 · Score: 1

What, exactly, is the zero carbon source of electricity that could power NYC?

As I read the criteria "creature comforts" I take that to mean there would still be buses and taxis, presumably running on electricity (ignoring for the moment that cabs run 24x7 and have no real window for battery charging), heating and air conditioning would keep everyone warm or cool, and that Times Square would not go dark, the stock market will still be run out of NYC, etc.

--
Ken

Re:One small detail by Stirling+Newberry · 2013-02-15 01:54 · Score: 1

We are working on harnessing the stupid on the internet, which would be an inexhaustible supply of cheap energy.

--
Fugue for Aaron Swartz
Re:One small detail by vandamme · 2013-02-16 06:09 · Score: 1

The Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant, duh!

Example of inefficiency by CityZen · 2013-02-15 01:10 · Score: 1

Lots of NYC buildings are heated by centralized steam or hot water systems. Most of them have only a single thermostat for the whole system. In an individual apartment, the typical way to adjust temperature in the winter is to crack open a window when it gets too hot. This is because an old-fashioned steam radiator is either on or off - it offers no in-between setting. It is possible to retrofit radiators with thermostatic controls, but this just isn't done very much (despite the fact that it typically does save the building owner money). In addition, some rooms are heated by pipes without any available controls. The only way to adjust their heat output is to put insulation around them partly. And occasionally, some idiot will leave the boiler room door open, and since that's where the thermostat is located, the heat will run continuously.

Re:Example of inefficiency by Stirling+Newberry · 2013-02-15 01:55 · Score: 1

Legacy retrofit is done all the time in NYC, since pre-war walk ups are highly desirable.

--
Fugue for Aaron Swartz
Re:Example of inefficiency by vandamme · 2013-02-16 06:12 · Score: 1

Seems like most of the downtown shop doors are open, "inviting" people in, while the A/C is spilling onto the sidewalk.

Re:Dreamy by azalin · 2013-02-15 01:13 · Score: 1

Scaffolding, applying 6+ inches of insulation boards (glued and secured with "nails") on all outer walls, weather protection, paint job, remove scaffold. It's not exactly witchcraft. And I have seen it done a few dozens of time. The roof is somewhat harder (depending on shape), but still nothing a skilled contractor shouldn't be able to pull off rather quickly. Take a look at countries where there are financial incentives (like cheap credits) for insulating houses. 6 months is twice the time the Chinese estimated for building the worlds largest tower.

Sure they can by TheSkepticalOptimist · 2013-02-15 01:49 · Score: 1

Only 10% of the city will be above sea-level by then.

--
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.

What a project by Iridium_Hack · 2013-02-15 01:54 · Score: 1

And it will only cost 20 billion!???..... Hmmm. I have a new defense technology for you. It's made of paper, weighs only 20 pounds, will carry about 1 - 2 tons of explosive bombs or missiles, flies by remote control so there's no risk of casualties, and has a range of about 10,000 miles, uses solar energy and will only add about 65 million to the defense budget. Of course, there might be a few extra additions to the cost as we add more research and testing. No more than 10 bil or so, I'm sure. And we'll have to spread it around to different congressional districts. Why? Er, because such a good project deserves the support of more than a few nice congress people.

What do you mean I'm over-rating the project? Pork!? C'mon! Maybe you need to spread your project around a bit more in the same way. Oh, you say that's the plan. Uhh. . . . OK, nevermind.

No. by Guspaz · 2013-02-15 02:10 · Score: 1

If a headline asks a question, the answer is no.

Re:2050? by Stirling+Newberry · 2013-02-15 02:11 · Score: 1

It is only someone's job, if the public hires someone to do it. That means "government" and "taxes." If you have an allergy to those words, then no, no one is going to save your ass.

--
Fugue for Aaron Swartz

Re:population reduction is key to reduced energy n by lxs · 2013-02-15 02:13 · Score: 1

Oh goody! You found the Internet. Welcome!
If you think this is good, just wait until you find the sites about Free Energy and alien pyramids on Mars. They will blow your mind.

As usual... by Jawnn · 2013-02-15 02:18 · Score: 1

...the answer is no. Not that it isn't technically possible. It almost certainly is, but the collective will required for such a change, and to no small degree the collective will of those that oppose such a change, makes it virtually impossible.

They Already Have The Subway by assertation · 2013-02-15 02:47 · Score: 1

Anyone going into NYC for a day is impressed with their subway system. It is affordable and there is a stop on almost every corner.

If "they" could find a way to reduce the remaining need for automobiles and trucks their pollution levels would drop like a rock.

Re:They Already Have The Subway by ebh · 2013-02-15 03:08 · Score: 1

Remember, though, NYC is much more than Manhattan. In Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx, you can be miles from the nearest subway station, and Staten Island isn't connected to the NYC subway system at all.

city folk already use 1/3 carbon of suburbanites by peter303 · 2013-02-15 03:26 · Score: 1

Much less and more efficient transportation.
More efficient living situation.

Steward Brand, one of the early environmentalists and Silicon Valley technologists, wrote an interesting book on this.

One can still make more improvements.

90% reduction in emissions is quite achievable by DaKong · 2013-02-15 03:28 · Score: 1

I founded an award-winning startup a couple years ago whose software tells you what your potential energy savings are, using only your street address and zipcode as inputs, so I've been tracking developments like this closely. What the experts call "sealing the envelope of the building," or thoroughly insulating the structure, does give you the biggest bang for the buck (although the ROI for triple-paned windows, as the article suggests, just isn't there). But that's not terribly sexy because once the insulation's in it's hard to brag to the neighbors about something that's invisible. An array of solar panels or a cool wind turbine are much better for that.

And NYC's solar potential is decent, at 4.08. That means that on average NYC gets 4.08 hours of peak solar production every day. A 200 Watt panel in NYC would therefore produce 200 Watts/hr for 4.08 hours, or roughly 0.8 kwh/day. You need 15 of those panels to produce the 12kwh/day, or 440kwh/month, that the average family uses.

When you consider those kinds of numbers, it quickly becomes obvious that all the chatter about "stressing the grid" with increased demand for electricity is FUD. What they're really worried about is this, which is already happening in Germany with the solar capacity they have today. That is, the profit curve for the fossil-fuel powered utilities has been gutted by renewables because they make most of their moneye during the height of the day when the demand is highest, and coincidentally exactly when solar performs best.

Especially now that we have seen several times this year, thanks to Hurricane Sandy and the Superstorm last week, that the grid is not reliable everyone is reaching the collective 'aha!' moment that causes a huge shift in energy consumption behavior and that the fossil fuel companies are terrified of.

--
If not us, who? If not now, when?

Telling quote from article by operagost · 2013-02-15 04:16 · Score: 2

The key, says the Urban Green Councilâ€(TM)s executive director, Russell Unger, is that the city must begin to view buildings as infrastructure, like roads and sewers, rather than simply as private property.

I tend to see them as private property-- because they are. As much as I support green energy, I oppose increasing government power. I find the use of government to impose regulation on the people when not in the interest of defending the rights and safety of others to be immoral. A city is a place to live, not a toy that special interests should be allowed to tinker with, especially using the $167 billion I assume they will be stealing from taxpayers who probably won't even live in NYC, but will be from around the state or even around the USA through federal graft.

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.

Re:And pigs might fly... by eriks · 2013-02-15 04:28 · Score: 1

That may be true, but you seem to have missed the point of the rebuttal. It's completely unnecessary to "carpet the entire surface of the earth" with panels.

I've done the math before as well, and it's a very small percentage (around 0.1%) of the earth's surface required to produce all the electricity needs of the planet with PV panels, or a little under 1% to produce ALL the energy needs of the planet.

That would be a decidedly non-trivial undertaking. Though The same effect could be achieved over a long period of time by having lots (and lots) of grid-connected solar systems (with storage) installed all over the place. A distributed solution would not require massive changes to the transmission lines to be rolled out in one project.

It's my understanding that the problem of storage is really the only barrier currently to a 99% PV electrical grid.

We could only generate around 20% with PV without needing serious technology upgrades at substations and additional on-grid storage.

Re:Insulation will cost more than you think by GameboyRMH · 2013-02-15 07:44 · Score: 1

I want to hear about the deaths.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

Re:Insulation will cost more than you think by GameboyRMH · 2013-02-15 07:49 · Score: 1

Citation still needed, did some googling and can't find the horror stories of these failures. But maybe it's a liberal coverup by the Harper government which supports these initiatives. They're liberal by American standards.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

Re:population reduction is key to reduced energy n by GameboyRMH · 2013-02-15 07:59 · Score: 1

On a more serious note, it's odd and disturbing that the idea of population control has been abandoned. In a lot of '80s sci-fi you can see that it's recognized as a serious problem, and then somewhere in the early/mid '90s it's like everyone just...gave up. It just doesn't get brought up anymore. It's like it's been accepted that attempts at population control are futile and we'll have to deal with the fallout.

I wonder if that could be the future of the global warming debate. Accepting that we're going to trash the planet and just dealing with the consequences, moving onto treating a symptom of a problem we've given up on.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

Just turn the thermostat down by tweekzilla3652 · 2013-02-15 10:26 · Score: 1

Yeah like sitting in a 90 degree apartment block in the middle of winter with all the windows open isn't the norm in NYC. Or the crazy case of a known university where the thermostat for the inside of the building was outside - You had to heat up the whole of NYC before the damn heating would turn off.... A start at least...

Re:Insulation will cost more than you think by Mashiki · 2013-02-15 12:44 · Score: 1

I'm guessing you're that ignorant of canadian politics that you don't know that Liberals(are the name of the party). But that's okay, let me educate you. Let's see here. Well now that's from all three sides of the political spectrum of the news. Going from left wing, to centerist, to right wing. And I haven't even touched the gas power plants that were gutted out, and the $250M+ bill that taxpayers were stuck with or the 50k documents that people are still pouring over, or the reason that it was cut was due to environmentalists and his desire to push "green energy."

--
Om, nomnomnom...

Re:And pigs might fly... by c0lo · 2013-02-15 19:17 · Score: 1

And PVs work great as long as you only want to turn your lights on when the sun is shining brightly.

1. My post was in reply to someone claiming that all the world surface need to be covered by PV, this is why I stayed with PV as a given.
2. have you noticed the phrase saying The only engineering problem is the transport of the energy around the globe.

Thermal solar systems are what is used for generating power for the grid.

Well, while you are right that thermal solar is the easiest way, that's not absolutely necessary: see NaS batteries, the Zn-ZnO cycle (still using thermal power, but not storing the energy as thermal) or even rechargeable batteries for small power needs (look, Model S Tesla is currently delivered with 60/80 kWh batteries. If you need or really want to live off grid and can afford to spend, you can).

--
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.

Re:Insulation will cost more than you think by GameboyRMH · 2013-02-16 01:57 · Score: 1

Oh I see why I didn't find them, it wasn't about insulation at all. There's one right-wing rant that mentions green initiatives as "a boondoggle" in passing (in this context, "boondoggle" being synonymous with "non-conservative project"), an article that points out that a bald eagle nest was destroyed to make room for a wind turbine and then spends many paragraphs spreading anti-wind FUD and bringing up the "Big Green" conspiracy with a straight face, and finally one that points out problems with a project in Ontario to replace gas and coal power plants with wind turbines...which again, is not about building insulation or any building efficiency retrofits at all.

Or do you paint all "green" initiatives with the same brush? One wasn't a smashing success so they're all disasters right?

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

Re:Dreamy by HornWumpus · 2013-02-16 04:36 · Score: 1

Good luck sticking insulating siding onto the outsides of all those Manhattan townhouses.

Rich fuckers love to live in houses that look like mobile homes.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'

Re:Dreamy by vandamme · 2013-02-16 06:05 · Score: 1

Yes, for one truckful of carpenters, it wil take a long time to insulate New York.

If only there were a large amount of unemployed laborers, but Obama's put them all back to work.

Re:Insulation will cost more than you think by Namarrgon · 2013-02-16 20:42 · Score: 1

Here you go. Sad, but way over-politicised, unfortunately.

--
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?

Slashdot Mirror

Could New York City Cut Emissions 90% By 2050?

148 of 215 comments (clear)