[Greenbuilding] one more pleasure (or not) of heating with wood

Lynelle Hamilton lynelle at ca.inter.net
Fri Dec 31 09:38:59 CST 2010


Tradition, fear of the (old) new? I don't know, but have had no success 
in swaying folks. "Liability" concerns dictate a lot of this, and is out 
of the hands of the local inspector.

For me, I just hope to not have to switch on the fossil fuel heater if 
at all possible....

Lynelle

On 31/12/2010 10:21, Reuben Deumling wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 5:39 AM, Lynelle Hamilton 
> <lynelle at ca.inter.net <mailto:lynelle at ca.inter.net>> wrote:
>
>     I agree with John. My house had to have a "primary" heat source,
>     even with R-42 in the walls, R60 in the ceiling, R-34 in the
>     floor, Thermotech windows etc. etc. and a /wonderful /masonry
>     heater. Everyone who has looked at the house has said that the
>     heater will actually be the primary, but it can't be designated as
>     such. Thus, I have a propane fired high efficiency tankless heater
>     to drive the radiant and provide hot water, and a /lot /of redundancy.
>
> I want to hear lots more about your house, about its thermal 
> performance, and about the marching orders from 'everyone who argued 
> that your masonry heater can't be designated the primary heater.'
>
> Where do such rules come from? Do they now obtain everywhere? When did 
> they start appearing? How do we get these changed?
>
> I'm not trying to sound naive here. I just think the time has come to 
> leave such 20th Century flights of fancy behind. Even the IEA has 
> finally admitted the peak oil (for conventional sources) occurred in 
> 2006. Houses built today to these specs will outlast the ready 
> availability of the fuels on which they are (apparently) meant to rely 
> for heat. This is demonstrably imprudent.
>
> http://www.energywatchgroup.org/Mitteilungen.26+M5d637b1e38d.0.html
>
> *Press Release from 11. November 2010:*
> *"International Energy Agency confirms the EWG's Warning"*
>
> International Energy Agency Confirms
> the Energy Watch Group's Warning
> • "Peak Oil" through conventional production was reached in 2006
> • IEA's assumptions about future total production unrealistic
> • Accelerated expansion of renewables will safeguard supply more
> economically
> As early as three years ago, the Energy Watch Group (EWG) identified
> the highpoint of conventional worldwide oil exploitation as having been
> reached in 2006. With its "World Energy Outlook 2010", the International
> Energy Agency (IEA) expressly endorsed this conclusion for the very first
> time, corroborating that the production of crude oil will never again
> achieve the 2006 level. The Agency, made up of 28 OECD countries,
> represents the governmental interests of the largest "Western" 
> energyconsuming
> nations.
> In a comprehensive 2007 study, the Energy Watch Group's scientists
> explained why "after attaining this maximum production, there is a very
> high probability that in the coming twenty years – by 2030 – annual
> output of crude oil will halve." In each of the past few years, the 
> IEA has
> revised its annual forecast of worldwide oil production downward,
> converging toward the Energy Watch Group's analysis.
> *Unlike the Energy Watch Group, however, the IEA continues to espouse
> expectations that are far too optimistic in regard to the expansion of oil
> production from conventional and unconventional sources.* Thomas
> Seltmann, the EWG's project manager, explains, "Leading
> representatives of the IEA regularly declare that 'several new Saudi
> Arabias' would need to be tapped only in order to maintain current output
> levels. This would also be a condition for their current scenario, but 
> these
> oilfields simply don't exist. You can only produce oil that you can find."
> Moreover, the*IEA continues to make unrealistic assumptions about the
> potential output from so-called "unconventional" wells: natural gas
> condensates and tar sands – two putative substitutes for crude oil.*
> Production of the latter is very complicated and detrimental to the
> environment, and the availability of both is much lower. "Bringing them
> online is absolutely not comparable with the familiar oil production on
> land and in the sea", Seltmann qualifies. Nonetheless, the IEA still
> suggests that the oil supply can be raised to meet demand.
> The unjustified optimism about oil is paralleled by an equally unfounded
> pessimism vis-à-vis the expansion of renewable energies, and the
> expansion rate outlined by the IEA is well below the current growth rates
> for renewables. Seltmann says, "We urgently recommend that
> governments ambitiously accelerate the expansion of renewable energy
> in order to counter the foreseeable shortages and price jumps of fossil
> fuels. More rapid expansion of renewable energy is more economical
> overall than a slower approach. Even completely meeting our energy
> needs with renewables is possible within a few decades and more
> economical in total than the further consumption of oil, natural gas, 
> coal,
> and uranium."
> Press contact:
> Thomas Seltmann, project manager
> seltmann at energywatchgroup.org <mailto:seltmann at energywatchgroup.org>
> Download of the study and updated graphic related to the EWG oil study:
> http://www.energywatchgroup.org/Crude-Oil.56+M5d637b1e38d.0.html 
> <http://www.energywatchgroup.org/Crude-Oil.56+M5d637b1e38d.0.html>
> (www.energywatchgroup.org <http://www.energywatchgroup.org/> à Themes 
> à Crude Oil)




More information about the Greenbuilding mailing list