 |
NYC government plans 30% carbon cuts by 2017Energy efficiency is cornerstone of ambitious plan.Everyone’s favorite McKinsey report states that America can reduce a huge percentage of its carbon emissions through measures that pay for themselves, primarily in the realm of energy efficiency. But it’s never entirely clear how well an analyst’s report is going to translate into reality. For New York City, the answer appears to be: really well. Mayor Bloomberg’s office recently released a plan to drop the carbon emissions of the municipal government 30% from 2006 levels by 2017. The plan will cost about $2.3 billion, but the city expects to recoup these costs by 2015 — an average payback of less than eight years across a large portfolio of projects.
A full 57% of the savings come from projects related to building retrofits and improved maintenance — utterly boring stuff like boiler replacements, upgraded heating and cooling systems, better steam trap maintenance, etc. A further 17% comes from wastewater treatment. Wastewater presently is a huge source of methane. Capturing that methane not only creates a direct reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, but also provides a source of renewable energy. Another 11% will come from a new rail and barge network to replace long-haul garbage trucking. The remaining 15% is divided up among a large number of piecemeal initiatives. The sexy, cutting-edge stuff — solar photovoltaic, daylight harvesting, green walls, etc. — make up a tiny sliver of the planned reductions. No breakthroughs required. The city’s plan calculates the cost per metric ton of carbon dioxide reduced across all the different project types. This metric provides a handy benchmark for any future climate legislation, allowing a direct comparison of financial incentives to costs, as well as a gauge of the economic impact of any carbon reduction effort. Except that there almost aren’t any costs in the city’s plan. The average abatement cost across all project types is negative $52 per metric ton, meaning that every ton reduced offers $52 in savings. Even when costs are analyzed by project type, almost all projects pay for themselves. Improved street lighting, for example, yields an amazing $149 of savings per ton (almost enough to balance out solar PV’s fairly painful price of $157 per ton). And the plan offers further benefits beyond direct emissions reductions. In particular, by shaving 220 megawatts off peak power demand, the city will significantly reduce strain on the grid and pressure for new power plants. The only real rub is the aggressive pace required to meet the plan’s goals. Implementation of roughly 2,200 projects over the next decade will require a roughly eight-fold increase in the present pace of efficiency improvements. Another consideration, of course, is the fact that the municipal government only accounts for 6.5% of total emissions in New York. This is a big chunk, to be sure, but it hints at the huge potential savings if the private sector follows suit. Comments4 comment(s) on this post. Leave your own!
Post a comment |
|
This only goes to show how grossly incompetent the city government of New York (and by extention, most big city governments) have been on energy efficiency issues. You would be hard pressed to find a corporation of the same size who hasn't made such changes decades ago. Indeed, a corporation that DIDN'T make efficiency changes with such huge returns on investment wouldn't be around anymore. I find it funny that you say "if the private sector follows suit". What do you mean? By and large, they have already done this kind of stuff!
I think this was intented to be a "Yay! Let's feel good about New York's government". I perceive it as just the opposite - what a bunch of idiots.
Reply
Um...you're just wrong here. Corporations fail to make these kinds of efficiency improvements all the time. The literature on this is deep and vast. If you think every privately-owned building in New York has turned over its HVAC system in the last few decades, then you haven't been to New York recently.
The return on the project is good, but it's still only 13% per year. And most municipal governments don't have $2.3 billion lying around waiting to be dropped on these sorts of projects. So let's feel good about New York's government.
Reply
Adam, note that I was talking about big corporations, not little ones. Probably the most public example I can think of is Dupont, who has already reduced greenhouse gas emissions by SEVENTY PERCENT, energy use by nine percent, and increased production by 30% since 1990. I work for a different company in the same industry, and it essentially the same here. Our emissions our down substantially despite very good growth. Simply put, there is virtually no low-hanging fruit left on the energy-efficiency tree anywhere in my company, nor just about any large manufacturing company.
Now, when talking about small businesses, you do find problems. They often lack the expertise and cash to find and solve even simple problems...it is cheaper to let them go. I am sure there are lots of crappy, inefficient buildings all throughout NYC, but it is in no one's pocketbook interest to fix them before they fall apart.
Reply
Chad,
I think the point is that if a large percentage of New York's private sector is, like the municipal sector, energy inefficient, then there is a potentially large reduction in CO2 emissions that is both untapped; and financially sound.
The "crappy, inefficient buildings" throughout NYC are not being upgraded NOT because it is too costly, but because small business owners (which by and large own these buildings), haven't costed it out. Too many companies are operating on an old model of "fix it when it breaks". What the city is doing will hopefully lead to an "aha!" among the private sector to follow suit.
Yes, the DuPont's of the world have already been doing this, and they won't benefit from New York City's planning, because it's old hat to them -- but not every business is of that size, nor has thought of energy investment as a net-positive on the bottom line. That's what's exciting here.
Reply