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

Kathy Cochran kathys_old_house at goldrush.com
Fri Dec 31 11:17:49 CST 2010


I am really enjoying this post.  I actually thought I had (at one point)
outwitted my building department, because when it came time to figure out
how I was going to heat my house, I figured if I got a wood stove big enough
(the Morso 3610) that it would be sufficient.  So I wrote the building
department a very nice & respectful letter asking them for permission to use
wood heat as my “sole source of heat” because when my house was built in
1939 the laws and rules about these sorts of things were not in place.  They
actually said “Yes” – with a contingency that I had to take out a separate
permit for the wood stove  because they wanted to check it at every step
along the way.  I had no problem with that, because my primary concern was
safety anyway, so finally -  VOILA -  I had a sole source of heat in my wood
stove.  (They also agreed with me that the old oil stove that the house was
originally outfitted with was not a great idea.)

 

HOWEVER, even with ceiling fans, unless I wanted to go around dressed as an
Eskimo in cold weather, it really didn’t do a great job of keeping much of
the house warm, (because of the way the house is laid out) so last year I
broke down and bought the Fujitsu mini-split systems to heat/cool different
areas.  That is nice!  But when the power goes out

.there’s nothing that
can beat a wood stove, is there?

 

Kathy

San Andreas, CA

 

 

 

From: greenbuilding-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
[mailto:greenbuilding-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Reuben
Deumling
Sent: Friday, December 31, 2010 7:22 AM
To: Lynelle at lahamilton.com; Environmentally-preferable design, construction,
building elements
Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] one more pleasure (or not) of heating with wood

 

 

On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 5:39 AM, Lynelle Hamilton <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
Download of the study and updated graphic related to the EWG oil study:
http://www.energywatchgroup.org/Crude-Oil.56+M5d637b1e38d.0.html
(www.energywatchgroup.org <http://www.energywatchgroup.org/>  à Themes à
Crude Oil)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20101231/50a472b6/attachment.html>


More information about the Greenbuilding mailing list