<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 5:39 AM, Lynelle Hamilton <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lynelle@ca.inter.net" target="_blank">lynelle@ca.inter.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
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.<br>
</blockquote><div>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.' <br>
<br>Where do such rules come from? Do they now obtain everywhere? When did they start appearing? How do we get these changed? <br><br>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. <br>
<br><a href="http://www.energywatchgroup.org/Mitteilungen.26+M5d637b1e38d.0.html" target="_blank">http://www.energywatchgroup.org/Mitteilungen.26+M5d637b1e38d.0.html</a><br><p><b>Press Release from 11. November 2010:</b><br>
<b>"<span lang="EN-US">International Energy Agency confirms the EWG's Warning"</span></b></p>International Energy Agency Confirms<br>the Energy Watch Group's Warning<br>• "<span>Peak</span> <span>Oil</span>" through conventional production was reached in 2006<br>
• <span>IEA</span>'s assumptions about future total production unrealistic<br>• Accelerated expansion of renewables will safeguard supply more<br>economically<br>As early as three years ago, the Energy Watch Group (EWG) identified<br>
the highpoint of conventional worldwide <span>oil</span> exploitation as having been<br>reached in 2006. With its "World Energy Outlook 2010", the International<br>Energy Agency (<span>IEA</span>) expressly endorsed this conclusion for the very first<br>
time, corroborating that the production of crude <span>oil</span> will never again<br>achieve the 2006 level. The Agency, made up of 28 OECD countries,<br>represents the governmental interests of the largest "Western" energyconsuming<br>
nations.<br>In a comprehensive 2007 study, the Energy Watch Group's scientists<br>explained why "after attaining this maximum production, there is a very<br>high probability that in the coming twenty years – by 2030 – annual<br>
output of crude <span>oil</span> will halve." In each of the past few years, the <span>IEA</span> has<br>revised its annual forecast of worldwide <span>oil</span> production downward,<br>
converging toward the Energy Watch Group's analysis.<br><b>Unlike the Energy Watch Group, however, the <span>IEA</span> continues to espouse<br>
expectations that are far too optimistic in regard to the expansion of <span>oil</span><br>production from conventional and unconventional sources.</b> Thomas<br>Seltmann, the EWG's project manager, explains, "Leading<br>
representatives of the <span>IEA</span> regularly declare that 'several new Saudi<br>
Arabias' would need to be tapped only in order to maintain current output<br>levels. This would also be a condition for their current scenario, but these<br>oilfields simply don't exist. You can only produce <span>oil</span> that you can find."<br>
Moreover, the<b> <span>IEA</span> continues to make unrealistic assumptions about the<br>potential output from so-called "unconventional" wells: natural gas<br>condensates and tar sands – two putative substitutes for crude <span>oil</span>.</b><br>
Production of the latter is very complicated and detrimental to the<br>environment, and the availability of both is much lower. "Bringing them<br>online is absolutely not comparable with the familiar <span>oil</span> production on<br>
land and in the sea", Seltmann qualifies. Nonetheless, the <span>IEA</span> still<br>suggests that the <span>oil</span> supply can be raised to meet demand.<br>The unjustified optimism about <span>oil</span> is paralleled by an equally unfounded<br>
pessimism vis-à-vis the expansion of renewable energies, and the<br>
expansion rate outlined by the <span>IEA</span> is well below the current growth rates<br>for renewables. Seltmann says, "We urgently recommend that<br>governments ambitiously accelerate the expansion of renewable energy<br>
in order to counter the foreseeable shortages and price jumps of fossil<br>
fuels. More rapid expansion of renewable energy is more economical<br>overall than a slower approach. Even completely meeting our energy<br>needs with renewables is possible within a few decades and more<br>economical in total than the further consumption of <span>oil</span>, natural gas, coal,<br>
and uranium."<br>Press contact:<br>Thomas Seltmann, project manager<br><a href="mailto:seltmann@energywatchgroup.org" target="_blank">seltmann@energywatchgroup.org</a><br>Download of the study and updated graphic related to the EWG <span>oil</span> study:<br>
<a href="http://www.energywatchgroup.org/Crude-Oil.56+M5d637b1e38d.0.html" target="_blank">http://www.energywatchgroup.org/Crude-<span>Oil</span>.56+M5d637b1e38d.0.html</a><br>(<a href="http://www.energywatchgroup.org/" target="_blank">www.energywatchgroup.org</a> à Themes à Crude <span>Oil</span>)<br>
</div></div>