# Boston energy flow



## georgepds (Jan 29, 2019)

Boston has a plan to go renewable by 2050

The cute part is they mapped energy similar to LLL

Notice how low the losses are in residential and transport in the 2050 scenario. 

http://www.bu.edu/today/2019/carbon-free-boston/?mc_cid=8f432a1cf5&mc_eid=43ddca35db


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Feb 4, 2019)

We only have to make you drastically change your life.  You'll love it!  We promise!


----------



## georgepds (Feb 4, 2019)

Too late.. I've already changed

solar roof
electric car
hybrid wood stove
insulated house


The future is already here, it's just unevenly distributed


I suspect someone here still pays for electricity (how quaint)


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Feb 4, 2019)

Ahh, but the reason you changed was important here.   You did it because you wanted to.  Not because you were forced to.


Want to radically improve people's lives?   Help them insulate their home.  It'll matter less what type of fuel they use, they'll use less of it.   I'm sure they'll be healthier as a result too.   They may even use their savings to buy an electric car or send their kid to college or buy a 75" tv or heroin.


----------



## begreen (Feb 4, 2019)

Conservation is definitely the quickest way to improve the bottom line, though a lot of home are not that easy to superinsulate due to design, layout or construction. It may take replacing a lot of those buildings. FWIW net zero homes can be very comfortably habitable.


----------



## georgepds (Feb 5, 2019)

Ok   I get the point about forcing, but I don't see that here. Let me quote a takeaway 


Takeaway 7. With 500 municipal buildings, the city can lead by example when it comes to optimizing energy efficiency and implementing zero-waste strategies.

How does leadership by example translate into a forced march?


----------



## peakbagger (Feb 5, 2019)

Boston is a very hot real estate market. Every lot is looked at how many floors of condos can be built. The city has put in standards that every new piece of private development has to be designed to some pretty aggressive energy usage targets and the developer has to look at on site power generation and combined heat and power to minimize energy use. Since there is such a big demand, these costs get built into cost of the units and well off folks are willing to pay it. The city also requires some percentage of affordable housing units to be incorporated in new residential developments so the well off folks are also subsidizing the energy upgrade of the affordable housing units. Its not a perfect system but its a goal that not all big cities follow.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Feb 5, 2019)

georgepds said:


> Ok   I get the point about forcing, but I don't see that here. Let me quote a takeaway
> 
> 
> Takeaway 7. With 500 municipal buildings, the city can lead by example when it comes to optimizing energy efficiency and implementing zero-waste strategies.
> ...



I may be reading too much into this as I focused in on a takeaway of the takeaway:

"Locally, the “Carbon Free Boston” report advises that the city’s policymakers and residents will have to adhere to a drastic action plan that calls for big changes to Bostonians’ current ways of life, such as retrofitting most of the city’s building stock with energy-efficient features and for all vehicles on the road to be electric-powered. Yet, despite the up-front investment that will take, the report also revealed that there will be a big payoff in the future."


I'm all for leading by example.


----------



## georgepds (Feb 5, 2019)

EatenByLimestone said:


> I may be reading too much into this as I focused in on a takeaway of the takeaway:
> 
> "Locally, the “Carbon Free Boston” report advises that the city’s policymakers and residents will have to adhere to a drastic action plan that calls for big changes to Bostonians’ current ways of life, such as retrofitting most of the city’s building stock with energy-efficient features and for all vehicles on the road to be electric-powered. Yet, despite the up-front investment that will take, the report also revealed that there will be a big payoff in the future."
> 
> ...



Re: “the city’s policymakers and residents will have to adhere to a drastic action plan ”

OK , I see how you can reach your conclusion, the use of the word drastic can raise hackles

But, is this any different than other municipal action plans (except that this is called drastic). We have traffic plans, local taxes, water and sewer requirements, public safety measures, building codes, and health department inspections. These all restrict our behavior, but for the common good.

You might not see a Carbon free Boston as a common good, but the city reps do. I might see the municipal requirement not to poop in the street as an unreasonable restriction of my gastric liberty, but I still use toilets in town. And think of the sewer expenses, both municipal and individual this entails


Po-TAY-toes,  po-TAH-toes


----------



## begreen (Feb 6, 2019)

georgepds said:


> Re: “the city’s policymakers and residents will have to adhere to a drastic action plan ”
> 
> OK , I see how you can reach your conclusion, the use of the word drastic can raise hackles


Drastic is when they have to factor in rising sea levels.


----------



## peakbagger (Feb 7, 2019)

begreen said:


> Drastic is when they have to factor in rising sea levels.



The Boston seaport district routinely floods several times a year during high tide. I was reviewing a development proposal and the elevation at ground level was 3' above Mean Sea Level. The plans included 3 stories of underground parking . I have heard that despite the lack of regulations on height of mechanical and major electrical equipment that developers of new buildings are now putting the mechanical rooms on the third story or above so the expensive equipment doesnt get flooded. The old standard was to put mechanical equipment well below ground. Projections I have seen are the combination of sea level rise and increased storm surge yields a recommendation to put critical equipment 25 feet above the current mean sea level. There are various maps and aerial photos of the impact of sea level rise of Boston, its scary how much of the city will get flooded during storm surge events. There was a concept floated of building a huge tidal surge dam in Boston Harbor similar to the one being built in Venice Italy and the one in place in London, it was shot down for now but expect it will be coming back after a major Hurricane hit. Note that its not just Boston its all the US coast, Boston is just trying to get ready for it.

Its going to be scary world for the next generations.


----------



## laurasmith (Feb 7, 2019)

georgepds said:


> Boston has a plan to go renewable by 2050
> 
> The cute part is they mapped energy similar to LLL
> 
> ...


I hope that more and more cities across the United States will follow the steps of Boston towards renewable energy. More than 60% of greenhouse emissions are caused by buildings, so it's very important to implement the newest technologies in construction as well as achieve LEED standards.


----------



## begreen (Feb 7, 2019)

laurasmith said:


> I hope that more and more cities across the United States will follow the steps of Boston towards renewable energy. More than 60% of greenhouse emissions are caused by buildings, so it's very important to implement the newest technologies in construction as well as achieve LEED standards.


I concur and am bullish on dramatically reducing heat loss and cooling overhead from buildings, but where did the 60% come from? I see a wide range of estimates for this sector. This states 40%.
https://architecture2030.org/buildings_problem_why/




https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions


----------



## begreen (Feb 7, 2019)

Local green building example of how it can be done.
http://www.bullittcenter.org/


----------



## georgepds (Feb 7, 2019)

Re There was a concept floated of building a huge tidal surge dam in Boston Harbor similar to the one being built in Venice Italy and the one in place in London

Might be time for a new one...

"Baroness Jones and Dr Bloore possibly have a point. The design brief was to protect London from storm surges coming from the North Sea – very high tides exacerbated by high winds and low pressure systems which can add several feet to sea levels locally. It is true that no one talked about climate change in the Fifties but it was known that south-east England was sinking, albeit very slowly, into the North Sea as the result of geological settling following the last Ice Age. This sinking, coupled with rising sea levels means that, over time, London is more at risk than before.

"But in recent times – and especially this year – the Barrier has performed the secondary function that was not in its original brief: it has been closed specifically to protect parts of west London from “fluvial flooding” that comes from intense rainfall on the Thames Valley. At high tide, the Thames fills its channel as far as the Teddington weir and there is little capacity to accommodate any additional water coming from upstream. If the Barrier is shut as the tide starts to come in, space is created into which the flood waters can flow – effectively creating a reservoir which can then be emptied at low tide.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/we...-has-saved-London-but-is-it-time-for-TB2.html


----------



## laurasmith (Feb 8, 2019)

begreen said:


> I concur and am bullish on dramatically reducing heat loss and cooling overhead from buildings, but where did the 60% come from? I see a wide range of estimates for this sector. This states 40%.
> https://architecture2030.org/buildings_problem_why/
> 
> View attachment 240397
> ...


Sorry, my mistake. I remember that the number was great, but I didn't remember the exact percentage. Thanks for correcting me. However, 40% is still a great number.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Feb 8, 2019)

'back Bay





peakbagger said:


> The Boston seaport district routinely floods several times a year during high tide. I was reviewing a development proposal and the elevation at ground level was 3' above Mean Sea Level. The plans included 3 stories of underground parking . I have heard that despite the lack of regulations on height of mechanical and major electrical equipment that developers of new buildings are now putting the mechanical rooms on the third story or above so the expensive equipment doesnt get flooded. The old standard was to put mechanical equipment well below ground. Projections I have seen are the combination of sea level rise and increased storm surge yields a recommendation to put critical equipment 25 feet above the current mean sea level. There are various maps and aerial photos of the impact of sea level rise of Boston, its scary how much of the city will get flooded during storm surge events. There was a concept floated of building a huge tidal surge dam in Boston Harbor similar to the one being built in Venice Italy and the one in place in London, it was shot down for now but expect it will be coming back after a major Hurricane hit. Note that its not just Boston its all the US coast, Boston is just trying to get ready for it.
> 
> Its going to be scary world for the next generations.


no mention of "Boston's *Back Bay", you mention the Seaport dist. , What about Battery section New  York. Miami? All built on filled land?WHAT IS THE SEA LEVEL, WHAT IS IT SUPPOSED TO BE OR SHOULD BE?? BARRIERS BUILT YEARS AGO IN PROVIDENCE AND NEW BEDFORD? Marconi's Eastham station  built in 1903 fell into the before the 1960's! Man contributes , but nature just gets a pass? We think man is bigger, no way ? *


----------



## peakbagger (Feb 9, 2019)

Doug MacIVER said:


> 'back Bay
> no mention of "Boston's *Back Bay", you mention the Seaport dist. , What about Battery section New  York. Miami? All built on filled land?WHAT IS THE SEA LEVEL, WHAT IS IT SUPPOSED TO BE OR SHOULD BE?? BARRIERS BUILT YEARS AGO IN PROVIDENCE AND NEW BEDFORD? Marconi's Eastham station  built in 1903 fell into the before the 1960's! Man contributes , but nature just gets a pass? We think man is bigger, no way ? *



*BOLD CAPS IS GENERALLY REGARDED AS STANDING ON A TABLE AND SHOUTING OR THE RANTING OF A LUNATIC. *It really should be used very sparingly 

And now to my response. Here is the Wikipedia version of MSL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level. MSL conceptually makes sense but as usually the devil is in the details. Yes sea level varies over time and the vast majority of folks do not worry about the details but professionals like engineers land planners, architects and developers have to worry about the details. Generally one of the roles of government is that in situation where there is a need for a common standard that the government will take the lead. Such is the case for the precise definition of MSL. The USGS and a few other government agencies maintain a network of benchmarks around the country which are fixed points in usually publicly available locations. The average person has no need for access to these benchmarks so they don't notice them. Many federal post offices have them.  For someone like me that hikes up mountains, there are frequently brass benchmarks on summits of mountains that have good view of the surrounding countryside. Many of these brass benchmarks have space for the elevation above MSL but most arent filled in. Its not that the surveyor who installed it was lazy, as much as MSL changes over time. To deal with this variation, there are agreed upon datums that are put in place where based on available data and exact elevation standard is established and  all elevations should be referenced to that elevation. The link https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/datums/vertical/ is good reference to the datums in place around  the world.

I did a study several years ago for power plant system that was potentially impacted by actual sea level as the plant drew it cooling water from an ocean bay. I was chasing a fairly precise measurement over a long term and had to take into account change in MSL in the calculations. In coastal areas where sea level is very important various parties keep long term records of tidal variation listing high, low and mean tide tied to benchmark. I located a site near the plant and obtained the long term records from the sire for around 50 years and then came up with a long term change in the actual seal level at the plant intakes. It supported that there has been consistent trend in sea level rise so 0 MSL based on the 1928 datum is now effectively below the actual current sea level. The vast majority of the scientific community agree that Anthropogenic global warming is impacting sea level due to warmer average climate and multiple indicators support this. If you do not want to use the widely accepted Anthropogenic reason for sea level rise and go with long term natural variations in climate, the short term variation over 100 plus years from multiple sources is the actual sea level is rising. In New England tidal action is more extreme and its usually the high tides that coincide with onshore tidal surge that cause the problems.  The combination of a higher actual MSL and a more energetic climate (a warmer atmosphere means bigger storms), leads to so called "100 year flooding events" occurring multiple times in a decade. No matter what the cause, no one can predict the future, all they can do is look at prior trends and project them into the future and the current trend is higher average sea level and more significant storms leading to storm surges.. Of course if someone believe in the "end times" and plan to be risen up into heaven "momentarily" then I suppose there is no corporeal future to worry about for themselves and any future generations and this discussion is moot.

Of course man contributes to the problem  like many actions that were done 100's of years ago it subsequently was determined that it was bad idea Filling in shoreline to expand available land area is now regarded as a pretty dumb idea and its rarely practiced or allowed in most areas. Coastal hardening and barriers have been proven to effectively just shift the damage to areas that are unprotected.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Feb 9, 2019)

peakbagger said:


> *BOLD CAPS IS GENERALLY REGARDED AS STANDING ON A TABLE AND SHOUTING OR THE RANTING OF A LUNATIC. *It really should be used very sparingly
> 
> And now to my response. Here is the Wikipedia version of MSL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level. MSL conceptually makes sense but as usually the devil is in the details. Yes sea level varies over time and the vast majority of folks do not worry about the details but professionals like engineers land planners, architects and developers have to worry about the details. Generally one of the roles of government is that in situation where there is a need for a common standard that the government will take the lead. Such is the case for the precise definition of MSL. The USGS and a few other government agencies maintain a network of benchmarks around the country which are fixed points in usually publicly available locations. The average person has no need for access to these benchmarks so they don't notice them. Many federal post offices have them.  For someone like me that hikes up mountains, there are frequently brass benchmarks on summits of mountains that have good view of the surrounding countryside. Many of these brass benchmarks have space for the elevation above MSL but most arent filled in. Its not that the surveyor who installed it was lazy, as much as MSL changes over time. To deal with this variation, there are agreed upon datums that are put in place where based on available data and exact elevation standard is established and  all elevations should be referenced to that elevation. The link https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/datums/vertical/ is good reference to the datums in place around  the world.
> 
> ...




chalk up the lunacy to frustration. the natural historical cycles so often seem to be ignored. respect your background and knowledge, would love to hear balance in these discussions. in the meantime we can all watch Florida become this country's "Doggerland"?


----------



## peakbagger (Feb 9, 2019)

I agree with your frustration. I wasnt aware of the Doggerland reference. but probably applicable to Florida. Much of Florida coastal development is monument to short term gain over long term reality.  Folks forget that National Flood Insurance didnt exist until the sixties. I expect that the timing interestingly coincides with extensive development along floodplains and coasts. Currently the National Flood Insurance program is deep in the hole meaning US tax payers will eventually subsidize the cost for folks who decide to build and live in floodprone areas. Everytime there is an attempt to make the program self sustainable, the cry's rise up that its going to make it affordable and the new rates are delayed. How often in the news do you see folks rebuilding their homes after a major storm/hurricane where there is nothing left and thanks to flood insurance they rebuild. Building up on stilts may protect their new home but all the infrastructure required on the ground to support the house in stilts has to be rebuild and repaired endlessly. On the rare occasions that someone proposes tearing down what is left and moving elsewhere it takes years for the government to pay up and usually not without a fight. I got a chuckle when I had cable at the shows on bargain ocean front vacation homes. If you look carefully at many of the bargains they are in areas that are prone to hurricane and storm surge. In some cases in the background you can see places up on stilts designed to take the hit. It sure would be nice for the helpfull hosts to review the high potential for storm damage but that doesnt sell ads. The folks buying the places just factor in the cost for flood insurance and take their chances. If they do get hit, they take the check and sell it to some developer who waits a year or two and builds a resort for the next run of suckers. Pretty much standard practice along the intercoastal waterway along the east coast.  

Not sure you are aware of Galveston Texas, it was boom town but was prone to frequent devastation from Hurricanes. Around 1900 it got wiped out by a hurricane so they lifted the entire city and all buildings by 17 feet and built a seawall to keep the fill from going anywhere. It has helped but there is now discussion that they may need to do it again. Seawalls get quite expensive if there is nothing solid to tie into. During a project in the Boston area a few block in from the shore I was informed that the proposed 160 foot high building had to sit on 220 feet of buried structure to reach down to bedrock as the underlying soil was a combination of fill on top of muck.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Feb 9, 2019)

peakbagger said:


> I agree with your frustration. I wasnt aware of the Doggerland reference. but probably applicable to Florida. Much of Florida coastal development is monument to short term gain over long term reality.  Folks forget that National Flood Insurance didnt exist until the sixties. I expect that the timing interestingly coincides with extensive development along floodplains and coasts. Currently the National Flood Insurance program is deep in the hole meaning US tax payers will eventually subsidize the cost for folks who decide to build and live in floodprone areas. Everytime there is an attempt to make the program self sustainable, the cry's rise up that its going to make it affordable and the new rates are delayed. How often in the news do you see folks rebuilding their homes after a major storm/hurricane where there is nothing left and thanks to flood insurance they rebuild. Building up on stilts may protect their new home but all the infrastructure required on the ground to support the house in stilts has to be rebuild and repaired endlessly. On the rare occasions that someone proposes tearing down what is left and moving elsewhere it takes years for the government to pay up and usually not without a fight. I got a chuckle when I had cable at the shows on bargain ocean front vacation homes. If you look carefully at many of the bargains they are in areas that are prone to hurricane and storm surge. In some cases in the background you can see places up on stilts designed to take the hit. It sure would be nice for the helpfull hosts to review the high potential for storm damage but that doesnt sell ads. The folks buying the places just factor in the cost for flood insurance and take their chances. If they do get hit, they take the check and sell it to some developer who waits a year or two and builds a resort for the next run of suckers. Pretty much standard practice along the intercoastal waterway along the east coast.
> 
> Not sure you are aware of Galveston Texas, it was boom town but was prone to frequent devastation from Hurricanes. Around 1900 it got wiped out by a hurricane so they lifted the entire city and all buildings by 17 feet and built a seawall to keep the fill from going anywhere. It has helped but there is now discussion that they may need to do it again. Seawalls get quite expensive if there is nothing solid to tie into. During a project in the Boston area a few block in from the shore I was informed that the proposed 160 foot high building had to sit on 220 feet of buried structure to reach down to bedrock as the underlying soil was a combination of fill on top of muck.



 for reference Boston 1776 and 2010.




Texas hurricanes another topic, take Harvey Rain and flooding in Houston? great example of man's interference. natural areas for water to go replaced with roadways, parking lots, and buildings? this from a LA Times article" In the 1930s, a new residential subdivision was built in the Brownwood neighborhood, which at the time was 10 feet above sea level. Forty years later, it was less than 2 feet above sea level, a subsidence blamed on ground water pumping along the Houston Ship Channel. The neighborhood was destroyed in Hurricane Alicia in 1983 and is now the Baytown Nature Center." link https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-harvey-engineering-20170828-story.html


----------



## ryanwc (Mar 4, 2019)

EatenByLimestone said:


> Ahh, but the reason you changed was important here.   You did it because you wanted to.  Not because you were forced to.


Oh Please.  Boston doesn't have the power to force anyone to do anything.  About all they can do is force people to pay the costs of lifestyle choices. The problem has been that the costs are borne socially for the benefits that individuals enjoy.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Mar 4, 2019)

I love it when the government decides that I should pay extra fees due to my lifestyle choices.

That's awesome.


----------



## ryanwc (Mar 4, 2019)

Sounds like you love it when the rest of us pay the costs of your lifestyle choices.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Mar 5, 2019)

Which of my choices have you paid for?

Since this is an energy thread, let's keep this on topic.    Care to compare our energy usage?


----------



## ryanwc (Mar 5, 2019)

>Since this is an energy thread, let's keep this on topic. Care to compare our energy usage? 

In a thread on limiting energy use in Boston, I mentioned that the only real power Boston had would be to raise the cost.  The clear implication was that I was talking about raising the cost of energy use.  You whined about it.  My assumption was that you were whining because higher energy prices would be a burden for you.  If that's not what you were whining about, I suggest you keep your whines on topic.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Mar 6, 2019)

Lol, ok buddy.


----------



## woodgeek (Mar 9, 2019)

peakbagger said:


> The Boston seaport district routinely floods several times a year during high tide. I was reviewing a development proposal and the elevation at ground level was 3' above Mean Sea Level. The plans included 3 stories of underground parking . I have heard that despite the lack of regulations on height of mechanical and major electrical equipment that developers of new buildings are now putting the mechanical rooms on the third story or above so the expensive equipment doesnt get flooded.
> 
> Its going to be scary world for the next generations.



By coincidence, I just stayed in one of those new luxe condo buildings in the Seaport district for a week, and pahked my cah (a 2015 Volt) in one of those 3 story underground lots!  Had 10" of snow, but otherwise aok.  Guess I should've checked for King Tides.  

As for the feud in this thread....it is an OLD one I think for the Green Room.   

---------------------------------

A: Hey...let's talk about the future of energy.  Did you know that they are going to BAN non-electric cars in the US?

B: Yeah, of course, probably around 2035.

A: I was thinking more like 2030.

C: You guys are nuts and want to take my car away, and then I will have to move to a city and walk everywhere and get mugged....no thank you.

A: Yeah, pretty much.

B: Dude, it won't be that bad...you'll just get a car that look and works the same, and it'll probably be cheaper.

C: I rode in an electric car once, it was really nice, but cost more than my first house.  I will NEVER be able to afford one, and there are no chargers near my house.

A, B: 

-------------------------------

Whether we like it or not, we live in a democracy, where we collectively decide how to live together, hopefully informed in some areas by good science and economic and public policy theory.

The future is hard to predict, but the kids nowadays are all really big on fixing Global Warming, and when they take over politics, any day now, we will probably be looking at a Green New Deal, or something a LOT like it.  And some of the Boomers on the right will just frickin lose their minds at how un-American it is.  I think solving big problems is very American.  Right now America is bringing up the rear on this global issue.  That will not continue.


----------



## begreen (Mar 11, 2019)

Essay on Boston's future
https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/20...-comes-home-behind-the-essay-frederick-hewett


----------

