permaculture

[negiliblek <negiliblek@yahoo.com>]

Built this one in NM to heat a shower floor (and perhaps the water too)... 

...it was my first large rocket stove!

http://twobirdstone.blogspot.com/

Since these pictures were taken, I've finished the hot water circuit too. 
I'll post 'em later if I can get to Internet access



      
>From christopher.nesbitt@mmrfbz.org  Sat Aug 29 20:48:01 2009
Return-Path: <christopher.nesbitt@mmrfbz.org>
X-Original-To: permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
Received: by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix, from userid 3002)
        id 149354C00B; Sat, 29 Aug 2009 20:48:01 -0400 (EDT)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on malecky
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RDNS_DYNAMIC,
        REMOVE_BEFORE_LINK autolearn=disabled version=3.2.3
Received: from oceanus.meccahosting.com (207-234-130-70.ptr.primarydns.com
        [207.234.130.70])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 840E64C017
        for <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>;
        Sat, 29 Aug 2009 20:47:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.2] (host67142001697.direcway.com [67.142.97.16] (may be
        forged)) (authenticated bits=0)
        by oceanus.meccahosting.com (8.14.3/8.12.8) with ESMTP id
        n7U0lGSS003480
        for <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>; Sun, 30 Aug 2009 00:47:41 GMT
Message-Id: <BAEE9DA1-93A2-4A8B-B12D-8D74B67B6A13@mmrfbz.org>
From: christopher nesbitt <christopher.nesbitt@mmrfbz.org>
To: permaculture <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
In-Reply-To: <7379.17035.qm@web38104.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v935.3)
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 18:47:14 -0600
References: <7379.17035.qm@web38104.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.935.3)
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset=US-ASCII;
        format=flowed;
        delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.9
Subject: Re: [permaculture] rural vs urban design
X-BeenThere: permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: permaculture <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Id: permaculture <permaculture.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture>,
        <mailto:permaculture-request@lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/permaculture>
List-Post: <mailto:permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa@lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture>,
        <mailto:permaculture-request@lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 00:48:01 -0000

Nicely said.
On Aug 29, 2009, at 1:26 PM, Rain Tenaqiya wrote:

>
> The September/October 2009 edition of Sierra magazine has a very  
> telling pair of images on page 21 that shows greenhouse gas  
> emissions per acre versus emissions per household for the Phoenix,  
> Arizona area.  The first image shows the highest density of  
> emissions in the urban cores, as you'd expect.  However, the second  
> image shows the highest levels of emissions coming from the rural  
> areas.  The fact is, with current consumption habits, rural dwellers  
> use way more energy than urban dwellers, an idea that has been  
> floating around a lot lately as folks start looking at their carbon  
> footprints.
>
> However, the kneejerk reaction is to start supporting "smart growth"  
> planning, which emphasizes increased density, in addition to  
> integrated residential/business zoning and good mass transit and  
> bicycle lane systems.  I would argue that if we are planning to  
> avoid global warming and to anticipate energy descent, increased  
> density has a limit.  In order to have enough space for rainwater  
> catchment, greywater distribution, solar and wind energy harvesting,  
> biomass energy production, food production, and composting within  
> residential areas, I would guess that most buildings cannot be  
> higher than 2 or 3 stories and that there needs to be enough open  
> space around these buildings to grow around 50% of the population's  
> food requirements.  This, incidentally, is what older neighborhoods  
> and the much-maligned suburbs used to look like.  Higher density  
> structures also have less access to ventilation and contain more  
> thermal mass, resulting in more energy
> required for cooling.
>
> Higher density zoning only outcompetes lower density zoning in  
> energy efficiency when it comes to building materials, heating  
> needs, consumption patterns, and transportation, with transportation  
> being the main weak point of lower density designs.
>
> It takes less material to create higher density buildings because of  
> all the shared walls.  However, the materials must be of a higher  
> quality, and often more massive, due to the taller designs.  This  
> results in a trade-off in energy savings.  In smaller and shorter  
> structures, on-site and more basic materials may be utilized to a  
> greater extent, possibly resulting in less embedded energy overall.
>
> As for heating requirements, higher density structures require less  
> heating overall due to the insulating effects of shared walls,  
> floors, and ceilings.  However, it is harder to include passive  
> solar design in structures that are deeper than one room north to  
> south, and taller structures block solar access to the buildings  
> next to them.
>
> Consumption patterns are probably more sensitive to culture than the  
> other factors mentioned here, but there is a potential for less  
> consumption of goods in denser areas than in rural areas.  The  
> ability to share laundry facilities, food processing equipment,  
> energy technology, farming and landscaping equipment, entertainment,  
> etc., is greater where the population density is highest.  However,  
> an individualist culture prevents this to a large extent.   
> Regardless, as prices go up, we should expect more sharing, and  
> designs should encourage this.
>
> Transportation is the Achilles' heal of low density zoning.  Since  
> personal transportation accounts for over 40% of the energy  
> currently used by the average person in the US (see www.coolcalifornia.org 
> ), it is easy to see how smart growth got its name.  However, this  
> will have to change (and already is) as energy prices go up.  As an  
> example of what personal behavior and technology improvements can  
> do, my partner and I use 87% less energy for transportation than the  
> average US household of two, and our transportation sector is only  
> 22% of our total.  This is true even though we live about six miles  
> out of town and our closest neighbors are half a mile away.  We are  
> able to do this through personal restraint and the use of a Prius  
> and electric bicycle.  However, I realize that few will be this  
> committed to energy conservation in the near future and this is why  
> I believe that no settlement designs will be successful without a  
> serious consideration
> of transportation needs.  Siting work areas next to housing and  
> providing abundant opportunities for walking, bicycling, and mass  
> transit are essential for a low energy future.  Permaculture  
> homesteads spread out over rural land are definitely not a  
> sustainable design.  (Unfortunately, the price of land, current  
> zoning and building rules, and idiotic cultural practices make it  
> very difficult to live a permaculture lifestyle in most urban areas,  
> today.)
>
> All this is to say that sustainable settlement designs are likely to  
> look more like a neighborhood or village than a big city or rural  
> country.  City councils and planning departments that focus on  
> increasing density, rather than on encouraging things like local  
> rainwater and energy harvesting and conservation, biomass and food  
> production, and composting are creating communities that will  
> continue to be dependent on vast hinterlands and massive energy  
> inputs.  There may be some economies of scale realized in  
> centralized projects outside of the urban zones, but I believe that  
> cities will need to be more self-reliant in the future, as has  
> happened in Cuba.  Beyond this, the quality of life is much better  
> where there is open space integrated into the places where we live,  
> and where our needs are being met within the local community.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> permaculture mailing list
> permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
> Subscribe or unsubscribe here:
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture
> Google command to search archives:
> site:https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/permaculture searchstring
>
>



_____________________________
Christopher Nesbitt

Maya Mountain Research Farm
San Pedro Columbia, Toledo
PO 153 Punta Gorda Town, Toledo
BELIZE,
Central America

www.mmrfbz.org