permaculture

["Kelly Finigan" <kfinigan@spots.ca>]

Harold:

been a bit busy lately, hence the slow reply

On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 14:12:45 -0700, Harold Waldock wrote
> Kelly:
> 
> I'm sorry if I have annoyed you with my argumentation - I hope you 
> like to chew into an argument as that is what I am inviting here so 
> as to refine thinking. Argument and discussion is a good thing for 
> the discovery of truth, especially about the really important things 
> like energy.
> 
yup!

> I do consider you a friend and hope you will visit the Yarrow Ecovillage
> when you come by Vancouver soon. Anybody else  on this list is 
> invited  to come and see as well.  We already have somebody visit 
> who drove in from Midwest just to see us (as part of a vacation) but 
>  he  thinks  he  might stay.
> 
Yeah, I'd like to visit...what stage of the project are you at?

> I can tell you are have thought much and care about the energy 
> situation for the good of our clients, friends and family.  You are 
> one of the few on this list who woke up to my call about energy and 
> relevant permaculture.  How might we get a real debate going on the 
> permaculture list serve?  I'd like to change the thread name to 
> Permaculture and Energy or Energy Options. Energy futures is 
> suggestive of merely predictions not actionable options we discuss.
> 
correct...I like "energy options" - more inclusive of different options for 
different niches and also to deal with issues of today, of transition period 
and of low-energy future.

> >
> > On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 10:15:13 -0700, Harold Waldock wrote
> > > It is cheap and efficient to put a hot water to air "radiator" into a
> > > standard gas furnace less than $1000 and you can keep the gas burning
> > > component for back up or peaking.
> >
> > yup, it might be "cheap" but this is only part of a district heating
> > system...think about the $ and energy costs of: installing heat
> > exchangers
> > at the electricity plant; mining, refining, shipping and installing
> > kilometres of large-diameter pipes to individual houses...a CAREFUL full-
> > cycle energy (& EMERGY) analysis is needed here.
> 
> Yes, it would not work well in many suburban subdivisions but in higher
> density situations it works quite well all over Europe as retrofits. 
>   CHP - District heating systems lend themselves to biomass 
> operations , ground source heat pumps, utility scale renewable power 
> as well. 

I think biomass is good but have found ground source heat pumps less so 
(maybe better elsewhere??)...basic premise is: use electricity to pump heat 
from the ground into a building...understanding basic thermodynamics leads 
me to the conclusion that the heat "source" will become depleted...around 
here, systems have lost performance in as little as two heating seasons - 
there is little need for active summer cooling here and summer cooling is 
one way to "top up" the heat reservoir (by dumping heat back in during 
summer)...even in a climate with a perfectly balanced heating/cooling 
regime, I think we're better off using GOOD DESIGN of the buildings to 
minimise external heating/cooling apparatus. Any incremental cost (if any - 
its possible to build cheaper this way...see Factor 4 by Lovins for 
description of the RMI headquarters - I've been there and it works well!) in 
my mind would pay off quickly, especially as "conventional" fuels and 
electricity rates increase. Also, less moving equipment to make, transport, 
install, maintain, etc.

Emergy Analysis:  I am concerned about analysis paralysis 
> otherwise known as utopian idealism here. 

yes, Holmgren talks about falling into this trap too, but there is a balance 
here. I try to stay open-minded, but find (to generalise) that "new" 
technologies, if we look at the numbers, are often "smoke and mirrors" in 
terms of net energy benefit...however, in case something new MAY be 
beneficial, I think its worth keeping EMERGY analysis as a useful tool we 
CAN use before spending lots of time and $$$ on poor technology...if we 
don't want to do ANY analysis, my gut feel (based on lots of experience) 
would be to dismiss the new-fangled approaches and go with the traditional 
knowledge/systems/approaches (e.g. passive heating/cooling, with biomass and 
wind/water based supplements). THe potential downside to this approach 
is "missing" some new approach/technology/integrative systems that may be 
really worthwhile/effective. I know the traditional approaches are good and 
pull out my questioning/critical (cynical??) mind, engineering fundamentals 
and (at last resort) calculator only to "sess out" the claims of new 
technologies..."ideally" the manufacturers would do this in a transparent 
way!

While  emergy  may show 
> relatively poor results, district heating would be transitional and 
> far better than what we have now. 

yup, very good for transition!

But transitional is all we have to 
> achieve in our lifetime.  Let the perfect design be perfected over 
> time. I propose to the Permaculture Movement a saying, "If it is not 
> transitional it is not Permaculture."  The idea lurks in many  of 
> the PC writings.

I would hope to get past transitional in the systems I inhabit / design. I 
think it could even be cheaper in $$ to "leapfrog" the transitional 
approaches. Examples include: going straight to solar-radiant-heating (or to 
passive solar with wood stove / electric backup, climate depending) from low-
efficiency furnaces...little need to go through high-efficiency furnaces, 
then district heating then finally adopting the renewables. I think there 
are lots of opportunities (and certainly hope I'm right because of the 
wasted materials and limited $$ so many people have to invest in 
infrastructure)...of course, this will be a transitional approach, with 
early adopters / adapters, a wide variety of niches/solutions and some 
societal laggards/protestors (for their own reasons)

> 
>  by the way, if you have a water district heating system, WHY
> > would you keep
> > an inefficient gas-fired furnace for backup?? the district heat would be
> > very RELIABLE.
> 
> Permaculture design teaches "Many elements for a single function" and
> "Prepare for disaster".  Also it is a selling point for people 
> afraid to get into a service as they can also back out of easily.
>

right, just my prefernce would be to dump the gas co. (and the furnace, 
purchased gas, associated wildlife habitat destruction from drilling and 
fugitive/unburned hydrocarbons in my home) entirely and use wood 
or electric backup if desired. Electric (especially in BC) is largely hydro 
and wind power is increasing its share. Also, electric heaters can be moved 
to heat the area / room being occupied - work where it is appropriate...

> > "...my gut feel (maybe
> > > > someone could challenge/confirm this with facts / figures in the
> > > > future???)
> > > > is it would be better to keep the existing infrastructure and
> > upgrade our
> > > > buildings rather than put in new infrastructure...I suspect
> > > > weatherstripping, insulating and adding a "solar engine"
> > would be energy-
> > > > wise and economically cheaper than bringing NEW pipelines down
> > > > the street,
> > > > installing NEW heat circulation systems (e.g. radiators),"etc
> 
> I've been told over and over again that it is cheaper (financially
> sustainable and sustainable) to build and design directly for 
sustainability
> than to try to modify in major ways an existing building.

kind of/sort of/in theory/maybe...for example, I live in an inner city 
housing co-operative built in 1978. Built during a boom, VERY poor 
construction, inadequate insulation and wasteful heating system (~50% 
efficient). In theory, we (the co-op) could knock down the buildings, and 
rebuild. At current construction costs of about $120 to $150 per square 
foot, to rebuild my home may (~840 square feet) cost $100,000 to $125,000. 
THis is a HUGE investment. I have already, for a few hundred dollars, made 
the place relatively weather-tight, insulated the accessible places, 
installed low flow shower fixtures and programmable thermostats and switched 
to high efficiency appliances (thanks to energy rebates from the province a 
few years ago)...if I wanted (or more properly had permission from the co-
op), I could do substantial construction improvements to reduce my energy 
consumption or even go  to solar water heating for MUCH, MUCH less than the 
$100,000 or so. My rough estimates for substantial work would be: passive 
solar heat engine / greenhouse on west side (no south access sadly) ~ 
$12,000; solar heating system ~ $15,000; backup wood stove and piping ~ 
$4,500; total cost about $31,500...a substantial savings by "reno-
fitting"...also end up with more usable space - an attached greenhouse and a 
newly empty furnace room!

 The vast majority
> of existing houses have no solar orientation, little insulation, few 
> big south facing windows etc etc.  There is more value to starting 
> over in most cases.  This is the problem of not working from the 
> edges in classic PC style where one can start over where as when one 
> starts from the centre - suburbia and an established house - things 
> are much harder. Alternately is would be wise to run down the asset 
> and take what is valuable (wood from the frame) and start over.
> 
see above...my home was built in the "poor" fashion but now uses about 1/4 
to 1/3 of typical Calgary homes in terms og GJ and kWh...is the situation 
different in vancouver?

> Actually, I am forced to think about CHP & district heating because solar
> hot water/space heating has such poor payback locally- still 20 
> years at current gas prices.  Ground source heat pump is good but a 
> pricey retrofit at Can$10,000-15,000. I suspect district heating 
> could be connected to a pipe in the street for less than a new 
> condensing  gas furnace CAN$3000- 4000 plus frequent repairs. $1000 
> minimum for putting an air to water heat exchanger into old gas 
> furnace and around CAN$1600 to install a hotwater pipe (my friend 
> just had her fresh water supply reinstalled for that price). 
> District hot water energy costs might be up to 1/3 gas energy costs 
> and much more stable.
> 
> The key to the cost effectiveness of a district heating system is the
> density of users  and the competition.

precisely. Also, is there a source of heat local? Around here, not. As well, 
is the source dependable? I am thinking of parallels to animal waste biogas 
systems that depend on large intensive animal operations to make energy. If 
there is a disturbance to the animal production system (e.g. a Mad Cow 
fear), a biogas operation could be bankrupted in a very short time. Is the 
heat/water source coming from a stable industrial producer (e.g. coal-fired 
electricity) or something perhaps more transient (perhaps cooling water from 
a Nortel manufacturing plant) that could leave "investors" (those with pipes 
in the ground and no furnaces) high and dry? I think there are lots of 
factors...

> Yes, I missed the word perceived. I'm sorry. I attacked what you 
> said what others would say as what you said but I only attacked what 
> was said not you as a person.
> 
that's fine!

> I agree invisible structures must be dealt with and I am no good at that.
> Have you got hints?  District heating does not have to be marketed 
> in a socialist form. Gas companies might complain of predatory 
> pricing though. ;-)
> 
> Here in BC the pressure is on to increase electrical rates lest 
> natural gas become more expensive and  homeowners switch to electricity.
> 
> Perhaps Alberta has changed from the days when it was  leader with
> Saskatchewan in creating coops and developing the ideas behind the 
> old Social Credit Party. All I can say, and have been saying, is 
> that in densely populated neighbourhoods of Alberta, companies with 
> a district heating & combined heat and power operation can offer 
> cheap heat cheaper than any gas company.  There are 2 companies that 
> are doing this now in Canada one of them lately pairing up with 
greenhouses.
> 
I agree. This could happen, but currently, the infrastructure is not there. 
I think we would need a supply of excess heat in the city areas...this may 
have to overcome zoning regulations, etc (industry is relegated to 
special "parks" away from homes). This may be a good idea for an ethical 
investment fund however!

Saskatchewan still leads the co-op movement. Alberta was the precursor to 
Mike Harris in Ontario and the current BC government.

> 
> When  considering CHP operations the power is where money is made 
> where as the heating district might be considered gravy - extra. 

very much so. I looked at the feasibility of a waste to biogas plant 
recently. Making elecricity (about 1MW) instead of selling the methane 
(natural gas) made about 20 times the revenue, more than accounting for the 
cost of generators!

>  Cooperation in a formal sense of "a coop" is not necessary. 
>  Consumer aggregation is necessary and that is the job of marketing 
> just like every new condo - if the buyers sign up the building will 
> be built and the condo owners will get good value if all goes well. 
> (BTW Condo law was developed from coops needing each individual to 
> have financial holdings - people do not consider condo/strata title 
> to be socialist although they are a kind of non profit.) It does not 
> have to marketed as green socialist Kyoto Protocol positive etc. It 
> can win on price and the stability of pricing that green/renewable energy
> has which gas delivered to a home cannot.
> 
yes, I think you may be on to some good business ideas here...are you 
interested in establishing a utility company?

> I am certain that private developers will be doing it because permaculture
> thinking is becoming one of the few reasonable and profitable ways 
> to think. I want to encourage you to see the possibilities and not 
> to fear, as you are a very thoughtful engineer.  We need more 
> engineers/permaculturalists like you and I'd like to see you with 
> money too.  Lets assess options - they are needed now.
> 
no fear here...there are lots of opportunities, just limited resources 
(mostly time)...currently I'm trying to show personal restraint and do 
the "designer is a recliner" thing (while of course making a living, 
figuring out what permaculture looks like on the ground in the cold, dry 
foothills and keeping my mistakes relatively small)...then "working where it 
matters".

> Albertans see new services and utilities based on not locally used
> technologies by local businesses owned by investors or buyers as socialist
> then Alberta is in real trouble.

it may be in real trouble...currntly the sentiment seems to be "globalize" 
or bust...this week it has leaked out that the Calgary Health District (you 
know, funded by tax dollars from Calgarians, yet claiming to not have enough 
$$ resources) has been putting forward proposals to offer medical services 
in London England...this has caused barely a ripple of protest.

> Truth is  not determined by culture.

correct.

> People who think that truth is determined by culture are cultural
> relativists.  Untruth spoken, even if by Albertans, attracts 
> ridicule and what attracts ridicule is ridiculous.  To say that 
> something is ridiculous is to give warning of potential ridicule but 
> not to actually ridicule it.

touche!
> 
> > Also, I'm curious how paying "oil and gas suppliers high prices
> > when it is
> > cheaper..." is socialist? I think it is stupid, and basically
> > inefficient,
> > but fail to see it as socialist (or good for all)...please let me
> > know your
> > opinion.
> 
>  Socialists argue for government subsidy and control of a key part 
> of the marketplace, and offer services at costs often higher than 
> what a competitive market would and at the same time tie the hands 
> of individuals and small companies in the name of equity (lower 
> energy prices). Oil and gas companies receive corporate welfare in 
> tax breaks and subsidies and offer energy now at costs (including 
> energy policy gridlock/government bribery, foreign war, air 
> pollution, global warming, ground water contamination) higher than a 
> competitive (regulated competition) fair (regulated to reflect true 
> costs) efficient free market would. So collectively, preferentially 
> buying from oil, gas and  coal companies in the current 
> circumstances would be socialist.
> 
yes, of course oil and gas companies receive HUGE subsidies / corporate 
welfare...by this definition, Alberta is a definite "welfare" or "socialist" 
state...just not what most people think of...if I mentioned on the radio 
that Alberta was "socialist", people here would not understand at all...they 
WOULD understand to a degree about subsidies though...also of course, this 
is not a true "Free market" for all the reasons you mention (if it was, if I 
has asthma I could sue oil and motor car companies for damages, etc)

> > > Hot water districts work in surprisingly large districts so long as
> > > the density of use is high.  There are 100's of heating districts in
> > > NA in most downtown districts and universities - often old steam
> > > systems. Now it is much more economic to have 4 pipe systems cold
> > > and hot with returns.
> > >
> > yes, big ones work great...small ones are less viable - it comes down to
> > recapturing up-front design and infrastructure costs...
> 
> I'd disagree with the slant or tone.  3 years ago gas prices were 
> 1/2 what they are today. Mortgage payments are better than nat. gas 
> payments because they are predictable so fixed costs are  better 
>  than variable but recurring costs.  The concern about upfront costs 
> have just shifted down because of the high recurring cost of nat. 
> gas.  That is my key announcement - it is time to shift thinking 
> opinion/slant based on the financial and technological facts. Times 
> have changed - nat. gas is no longer the all conquering almighty 
> overwhelming competition to green and renewable energy.
> 
up-front costs exist for the "utility" too. investments are generally 
assessed against alternate investments...on very large investments (say $300 
million and up), companies seek return on investment of about 11% to 15% 
(varies by investor). THis money is generally raised from large money 
corporations, isurance companies or extending debt (bonds) from an 
established company. On smaller investments (e.g. $1 to $2 million for a 
biogas plant), I've approached venture capitalists and been told of 
expectations of 50% return per year. They feel they have investment 
opportunites in this range (high tech? GMOS? marijuana??). 
I suspect (a guess) a CHP system may have a return of about 8% to 12% (FYI 
the biogas had a return of 4% to 15% depending on elecrticity prices, etc). 
This would attract investor interest if it was a large investment (say for a 
large portion of a city at $500 million) but probably not appeal to the 
smaller investors I've spoken to if it was a "micro" system (say $1 
million). Hence, my coment about the largeer scale projects being easier. 
(Also less disruption if 5 customers leave a system with 50,000 customers 
compared to one with 20 hook-ups).

> The emperor (oil, coal, gas industries and government) has no 
> clothes - his energy is not the cheapest (not  good  for  equity)
>  and his advisors are socialists.

we agree about a lot of things it seems...

got to sign off for now...energy is a BIG topic.

ciao,
Kelly

--
Kelly Finigan, M.Sc. P.Eng. Permaculture Designer
~ Sustainability consultant & ecological designer ~ 

744 - 4 Street NW
Calgary, Alberta T2N 1P2
phone 1-403-283-7270