On Monday a plumber and I replaced an ailing hot water tank with a new electric tank, and super-wrapped it.
No, it wasn't a Christmas gift, although the money the homeowner will save will be enough to add a gift or two under the tree every year.
What we did was to make that new tank significantly more energy efficient, especially compared to the old tank. In fact research reveals that super-insulating a tank will make it nearly as efficient as a "water-on-demand" heater! Not only is this method considerably less expensive than a water-on-demand heater one does not need natural gas or propane, thus reducing pollution, greenhouse gases, and the expense and danger associated with gas.
The most neglected part of insulating a hot water tank is that many of them sit on uninsulated, cold (and often damp) basement floors. Heat from the tank radiates in all directions, including down into that slab and, beyond it, mother earth. We put an R-10 barrier underneath the new tank, resulting in considerable energy savings right there. And the cost to do so was only about $15.
We finished off the project by insulating both the hot and cold water pipes going into the tank since those pipes otherwise radiate a lot of heat.
The total cost of super-wrapping a tank is only $200, including labour. Smart homeowners and renters can do it for half this price, saving that cost, and more, every year.
Wrapping it up. A great gift to oneself, and the planet!
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Transportation is key
I have just returned from a week of cycling around a few of our beautiful Gulf Islands, a great way to holiday! Here I get to slow down, ponder, reflect, experience nature, see far more than do people in automobiles, and get into shape!
While on Salt Spring Island I took public transportation to Victoria and back so that I could do a little business. It was a snap, and I was able to read a book en-route.
A writer to a local newspaper by the name of "J. Sharpe" keeps on advocating a complete reliance on automobiles, claiming that it costs too much to repair the railway and that bicycles and public transportation are not "viable."
Sadly we, through our governments, pay a very heavy price for the convenience of the private automobile -not only through taxes that subsidise the roads, hospitals, environmental destruction and even the extraction of fossil fuels(!), but we also pay hugely through greatly reduced physical and social well-being.
I have come to the conclusion that our collective and individual addiction to convenience, the "easy life", avoidance of nature (why is rain such a terrible thing to avoid?) and the consuming of the planet is quickly leading us to a premature death -individually and collectively.
If we plan on staying on this planetary home for much longer it is high time we moved away from the private automobile except whenever necessary (car pooling and car time-sharing are but two alternatives).
Dedicated bicycle paths have made a huge difference in Victoria, where the percentage of commuters travelling by bicycle is more than 20 times that of Nanaimo and other communities north of the Malahat.
Denser populations make car sharing, car pooling, public transportation, walking and cycling much more doable.
We need to collectively push our governments into more sustainable, livable, and affordable ways of living and travelling.
And we need to lead by example.
While on Salt Spring Island I took public transportation to Victoria and back so that I could do a little business. It was a snap, and I was able to read a book en-route.
A writer to a local newspaper by the name of "J. Sharpe" keeps on advocating a complete reliance on automobiles, claiming that it costs too much to repair the railway and that bicycles and public transportation are not "viable."
Sadly we, through our governments, pay a very heavy price for the convenience of the private automobile -not only through taxes that subsidise the roads, hospitals, environmental destruction and even the extraction of fossil fuels(!), but we also pay hugely through greatly reduced physical and social well-being.
I have come to the conclusion that our collective and individual addiction to convenience, the "easy life", avoidance of nature (why is rain such a terrible thing to avoid?) and the consuming of the planet is quickly leading us to a premature death -individually and collectively.
If we plan on staying on this planetary home for much longer it is high time we moved away from the private automobile except whenever necessary (car pooling and car time-sharing are but two alternatives).
Dedicated bicycle paths have made a huge difference in Victoria, where the percentage of commuters travelling by bicycle is more than 20 times that of Nanaimo and other communities north of the Malahat.
Denser populations make car sharing, car pooling, public transportation, walking and cycling much more doable.
We need to collectively push our governments into more sustainable, livable, and affordable ways of living and travelling.
And we need to lead by example.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
The true cost
It has been argued that the current downturn in the economy, one that came close to becoming another depression, was caused by higher (fossil fuel) energy prices and the drive for short-term profits by corporations. There is likely a great deal of truth to both.
The solutions, of course, are in switching government subsidies from fossil fuels to renewables, adding carbon taxes to energy sources that are not renewable, and in restructuring the investment community so that it takes a longer view.
I note that these two destructive factors are strongly at work in the general population, not only amongst investors and corporate heads. When it comes to energy conservation/efficiency and renewable energy the question is always asked "what is the pay-back period?" This question is never asked when deciding to update one's kitchen, buying a car, and the like. People want to know how affordable it is to them, not what the energy savings are going to be, nor how much more energy secure they are going to be.
A very innovative funding program in the U.S. has recently been closed down because the mortgage companies were not convinced that homeowners paying less for energy are less likely to foreclose on their mortgages. The long-term viability of operating a home has been sacrificed for the short-term.
Homeowners here are usually far more concerned about borrowing more money, even when it can be shown that the reduced energy costs would pay for those borrowing costs. And once the loan is paid off then they would have more disposable income.
Unless we learn from lessons provided to us from "the great recession" we are far more likely going to repeat it. If we do learn then we can have improved financial security, a better environment, and a future for our children/grandchildren.
The solutions, of course, are in switching government subsidies from fossil fuels to renewables, adding carbon taxes to energy sources that are not renewable, and in restructuring the investment community so that it takes a longer view.
I note that these two destructive factors are strongly at work in the general population, not only amongst investors and corporate heads. When it comes to energy conservation/efficiency and renewable energy the question is always asked "what is the pay-back period?" This question is never asked when deciding to update one's kitchen, buying a car, and the like. People want to know how affordable it is to them, not what the energy savings are going to be, nor how much more energy secure they are going to be.
A very innovative funding program in the U.S. has recently been closed down because the mortgage companies were not convinced that homeowners paying less for energy are less likely to foreclose on their mortgages. The long-term viability of operating a home has been sacrificed for the short-term.
Homeowners here are usually far more concerned about borrowing more money, even when it can be shown that the reduced energy costs would pay for those borrowing costs. And once the loan is paid off then they would have more disposable income.
Unless we learn from lessons provided to us from "the great recession" we are far more likely going to repeat it. If we do learn then we can have improved financial security, a better environment, and a future for our children/grandchildren.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Vancouver Island University moves forward
I am pleased to see that the local university is working at improving the bus access to its Nanaimo campus, increasing the number of buses that can be there at any one time as well as the speed at which the buses can get on and off campus.
As 70% of our local greenhouse gases (and, likely, pollution) come from the transportation sector these kinds of improvements make a real difference. One of many they have made in the last five years.
Also of note is the fact they have discovered the abandoned and water-filled coal mines situated under their Nanaimo campus contain a great deal of water warmed by the core of the earth, a large source of heating for their buildings! Such will go a long way to reducing their energy costs, not to mention pollution and greenhouse gases. Congratulations to them!
You can read the whole article at the Nanaimo News Bulletin on-line.
As 70% of our local greenhouse gases (and, likely, pollution) come from the transportation sector these kinds of improvements make a real difference. One of many they have made in the last five years.
Also of note is the fact they have discovered the abandoned and water-filled coal mines situated under their Nanaimo campus contain a great deal of water warmed by the core of the earth, a large source of heating for their buildings! Such will go a long way to reducing their energy costs, not to mention pollution and greenhouse gases. Congratulations to them!
You can read the whole article at the Nanaimo News Bulletin on-line.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Being weird
I'm weird.
No, I don't mean socially isolated, inept, strange, or even curious. I'm "weird" because I don't own a car.
According to "normal" I don't have much of an identity without one. I'm backward, too poor, too young, or simply not "with it." Many people have difficulty knowing what to say to me other than some niceties such as "good for the environment, eh?" People who care about me worry about my safety. That's okay, I worry about their health, since those who mostly get around by car are usually in poor physical condition, are more likely to suffer from depression, illness, a much higher risk of disease (heart, lungs, and pretty well everything else) and more.
Not owning a car also means having a lot more money in my jeans. I save thousands every year, about the equivalent of a half-time job at minimum wage (after taxes).
In order to qualify to be "weird" one has to rearrange one's life so as to live near work (as about half of us already do), perhaps have groceries delivered, arrange rides, take transit (I use the time "wasted" reading, meditating, visiting, etc.), and use the car (time-) share co-op.
With about 70% of the greenhouse gases coming from transportation (the majority of this from single occupancy vehicles) the "convenience" of the car is not only killing us and our pocketbooks, it is killing the planet. Everyone loses in the end.
Since I spend more time with people, get more exercise and fresh air, and my life is slower and more meaningful, the quality of my life is immeasurably better.
So, go ahead, call me "weird." My friends still love me.
No, I don't mean socially isolated, inept, strange, or even curious. I'm "weird" because I don't own a car.
According to "normal" I don't have much of an identity without one. I'm backward, too poor, too young, or simply not "with it." Many people have difficulty knowing what to say to me other than some niceties such as "good for the environment, eh?" People who care about me worry about my safety. That's okay, I worry about their health, since those who mostly get around by car are usually in poor physical condition, are more likely to suffer from depression, illness, a much higher risk of disease (heart, lungs, and pretty well everything else) and more.
Not owning a car also means having a lot more money in my jeans. I save thousands every year, about the equivalent of a half-time job at minimum wage (after taxes).
In order to qualify to be "weird" one has to rearrange one's life so as to live near work (as about half of us already do), perhaps have groceries delivered, arrange rides, take transit (I use the time "wasted" reading, meditating, visiting, etc.), and use the car (time-) share co-op.
With about 70% of the greenhouse gases coming from transportation (the majority of this from single occupancy vehicles) the "convenience" of the car is not only killing us and our pocketbooks, it is killing the planet. Everyone loses in the end.
Since I spend more time with people, get more exercise and fresh air, and my life is slower and more meaningful, the quality of my life is immeasurably better.
So, go ahead, call me "weird." My friends still love me.
Monday, June 7, 2010
Solutions to greenhouse gases
This last week the provincial government released its semi-annual Community energy and Emissions inventory (CEEI). The mid-island area has some challenges ahead!
While Nanaimo and area are doing better than the province as a whole, this isn't difficult considering that the population density of most of the province is very low. When we instead compare ourselves to similarly-sized cities such as Victoria proper (population 81,000), Saanich (pop 112,000), Kamloops (pop 93,000, and Chilliwack (pop 81,000) to that of Nanaimo's (pop 81,000) our per-capita output was the worst.
Fully 70% of these emissions come from motor vehicles. While we often excuse ourselves because of the stretched-out city and poor public transportation, the reality is that fully half of us commute fewer than 5 kilometres (3 miles) by car or light truck! While some of us need our vehicles at work, the vast majority have made such things as time, convenience, and laziness our priorities.
What is of particular interest to me is that the cost of operating these vehicles (over $10,000 per year) results in people screaming about their taxes, failing to invest in energy savings in their homes, buying local food, and other activities that make our planet and pocketbooks more sustainable.
What will it take to make the necessary changes? Some ideas being tried include: charging vehicle insurance per KM, road taxes based on usage, much higher fuel taxes, closure of downtowns to motor vehicles, far more committed bicycle lanes (separated from vehicles and pedestrians), the Car Share Coop (two vehicles in Nanaimo), and vastly improved public transportation.
Without acting now we will continue to see our current problems multiply. Shifting away from single occupancy vehicle use will create rewards of all kinds -better physical and emotional health, improved finances, better air quality, improved work and school performance, and a planet worth inheriting.
While Nanaimo and area are doing better than the province as a whole, this isn't difficult considering that the population density of most of the province is very low. When we instead compare ourselves to similarly-sized cities such as Victoria proper (population 81,000), Saanich (pop 112,000), Kamloops (pop 93,000, and Chilliwack (pop 81,000) to that of Nanaimo's (pop 81,000) our per-capita output was the worst.
Fully 70% of these emissions come from motor vehicles. While we often excuse ourselves because of the stretched-out city and poor public transportation, the reality is that fully half of us commute fewer than 5 kilometres (3 miles) by car or light truck! While some of us need our vehicles at work, the vast majority have made such things as time, convenience, and laziness our priorities.
What is of particular interest to me is that the cost of operating these vehicles (over $10,000 per year) results in people screaming about their taxes, failing to invest in energy savings in their homes, buying local food, and other activities that make our planet and pocketbooks more sustainable.
What will it take to make the necessary changes? Some ideas being tried include: charging vehicle insurance per KM, road taxes based on usage, much higher fuel taxes, closure of downtowns to motor vehicles, far more committed bicycle lanes (separated from vehicles and pedestrians), the Car Share Coop (two vehicles in Nanaimo), and vastly improved public transportation.
Without acting now we will continue to see our current problems multiply. Shifting away from single occupancy vehicle use will create rewards of all kinds -better physical and emotional health, improved finances, better air quality, improved work and school performance, and a planet worth inheriting.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Nanaimo's latest "Greenhouse"
Yesterday the public was invited to see a house under construction in Nanaimo that is being built by the local chapter of the Home Builder's Association using volunteer labour and materials.
It is intended to be a platinum rated Built Green home. This program (and its predecessor, the R-2000 program) have helped to give builders the training and hands-on experience of how to improve a house's energy performance by 20 - 40% over the older homes.
A local reporter privately told me he was rather disappointed with how "green" the house was. He had overheard me ask if they were going to use waste-water heat recovery. (They aren't planning it.) Why would they not want to recover over a third of the energy invested in heating the hot water, especially when it can be done for less than $1000? A very good question.
They are also using windows that don't perform as well as a truly green building needs, and are using forced air heating. And no heat recovery ventilation. Soon this will be required in all new homes.
I know that there are real cost barriers involved in adding any of these better options, and that the purpose is to showcase some of the things they are doing (such as sealing it up well) before selling it to raise money for the home builder's headquarters in Victoria.
As electricity prices rise close to 10% per year for the foreseeable future the homeowner will be glad for what they did do, but may be disappointed that their home, for an additional $10K - $20K, could end up costing them half as much to heat and cool.
The next generation of "green" homes will do this, and even more.
It is intended to be a platinum rated Built Green home. This program (and its predecessor, the R-2000 program) have helped to give builders the training and hands-on experience of how to improve a house's energy performance by 20 - 40% over the older homes.
A local reporter privately told me he was rather disappointed with how "green" the house was. He had overheard me ask if they were going to use waste-water heat recovery. (They aren't planning it.) Why would they not want to recover over a third of the energy invested in heating the hot water, especially when it can be done for less than $1000? A very good question.
They are also using windows that don't perform as well as a truly green building needs, and are using forced air heating. And no heat recovery ventilation. Soon this will be required in all new homes.
I know that there are real cost barriers involved in adding any of these better options, and that the purpose is to showcase some of the things they are doing (such as sealing it up well) before selling it to raise money for the home builder's headquarters in Victoria.
As electricity prices rise close to 10% per year for the foreseeable future the homeowner will be glad for what they did do, but may be disappointed that their home, for an additional $10K - $20K, could end up costing them half as much to heat and cool.
The next generation of "green" homes will do this, and even more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
