Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

permaculture - [permaculture] yet another rocket stove construction picture set

permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: permaculture

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: negiliblek <negiliblek@yahoo.com>
  • To: permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [permaculture] yet another rocket stove construction picture set
  • Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 16:51:01 -0700 (PDT)

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







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page