Just saw this ‘bombshell’ update on one of the LinkedIn groups I belong to: LEED buildings are not necessarily more energy efficient than other buildings built in the same time frame (read more at http://lnkd.in/bksHRbh). This is not too surprising, as the points required to gain any level of LEED certification are broadly distributed across a big spectrum, and a building can reach enough points for certification in many other areas.
When LEED for Homes (LEED-H) first rolled into Canada, the energy benchmark for points was ***below*** the R-2000 standard at the time (2009 LEED for Homes standard was ERS76, R-2000 at the time was ERS80). In fact, the minimum requirements weren’t code compliant in Nova Scotia from Jan 2010 on. Pretty bad showing for a program with the words ‘energy’ and ‘leadership’ in the name. Part of the reason for this was the adoption of the standard US code and technical references. Details @ LEED for Homes Canada in comparison to code and other energy efficient standards in 2009 in this CHBA report.
In 2012, it was changed so that LEED-H gave a project all 8 points available under ‘energy and atmosphere’ if it gained an ERS80 rating, equivalent to the 2005 R-2000 standard (and equivalent to HERS72 in the US), and minimum code compliance in at least 5 provinces. Since then, the R-2000 standard has been boosted to ERS 86 (well, the rating system has been revamped, so that figure is not really relevant any more — but that’s another post or ten to descramble the updated ERS rating). Seems ridiculous that a LEED-H project should get full points for meeting code in most of the country. Industry capability is much higher and LEED builders are likely to be able to move way past that mark. Points should be based on how far the project gets beyond the industry benchmark for energy reduction.
We have builders who are consistently reaching Net Zero Energy in Canada. We have builders who now offer nothing but Net Zero Energy houses. We have R-2000 builders who hit ERS86 or better. We have BuiltGreen builders in Alberta and Ontario rockin’ the low-energy house. In 2012, ENERGY STAR for New Houses builders provided 20% of the new housing stock offered in Ontario. All of these programs step far beyond code compliance. LEED-H could be providing a much more impressive leadership position on energy.
Now that I got you all excited about the savings to be had with lightbulb choices a couple of days ago, I think you need more details about lighting choices check out this blog entry from the Canadian Energy Efficiency Alliance (CEEA). Lots of info about everything you need to know about lightbulbs post-January 2014.
Energy-Related Financing , Solar Thermal (Water and Air Heating)
Solar City: how you pay for it
Halifax Regional Municipality has a very cool program on the go, with a new round of registrations opening up 1 March 2014. The program is called Solar City, and it is a way that homeowners can benefit from installing a solar hot water system without having to pay all of the equipment and labour costs up front. The installation program is currently limited to a single system configuration that is provided by Dartmouth’s ThermoDynamics. There are a couple of ways to finance the installation of this system:
A traditional, but 0% interest, 5-year loan from Efficiency NS (via TD Trust)
A 3.5% interest, 10 year loan from HRM that you pay off via your property tax bill
The Efficiency NS financing option obviously has it’s merits in terms of no interest, but a shorter loan period means you will have a bigger monthly payment on the money borrowed. If you sell the house within that loan period, you end up paying for the whole cost of the system regardless of when you pay it out. The Efficiency NS financing option is also open to a wider range of system configurations, as long as they are CSA approved.
The HRM financing option (scroll down to #11 in the linked sample contract pdf) has interest associated with it, so you will be paying more over the long run for the system than with a no-interest loan, of course. However, it’s a longer loan period and so the payment will be smaller. The cool thing with this loan, is that the loan ‘stays’ with the property. So if you sell at the 2 year anniversary, for example, you are only paying for 2 years of the loan period and whoever buys your house pays for the rest of the system cost. The HRM financing is available only through the Solar City initiative.
HRM is clear that you can pay off financing at anytime with no penalty, but I couldn’t find that specific bit of info on the Efficiency NS site.
The HRM loan is known as a PACE (Property Assessed Clean Energy) bond or loan, where the municipality went out and found financing to be able to offer this to homeowners. It’s a great way to make a big change in local markets, depending on how it’s structured.
Low Energy Housing , Net Zero Energy Homes , Research Work , Surveys
Survey @ Low Energy Housing Technology Costs
I’m working with the Net-Zero Energy Home Coalition to deliver a survey for Natural Resources Canada. The aim of the survey is to get a better sense of cost-effective design and construction of Low Energy Houses (near NZE, NZE-ready, NZE, any program or standard that you are involved in). Survey is open until midnight, 14 March 2014.
The survey is best filled out by the person who is most familiar with costing the projects.
Here’s the official invite:
The Net-Zero Energy Coalition is seeking costing information from builders across North America who have direct experience building net-zero energy (NZE), net-zero energy ready (NZEr), or near net-zero energy (nNZE) homes. The Coalition is collecting this data in partnership with Natural Resources Canada.
Your participation will help to validate cost effective design and construction of NZE / NZEr / nNZE homes and support the development of guidelines for building these homes.
Individual responses will be kept anonymous – results of the survey will only be communicated in summary form. Participants will receive a copy of the summary report.
This survey will be open until midnight (Eastern Time) on Friday, March 14th. You can access the survey here.
I posted this on FB the other day, but then got to thinking more about the comparison for cost-effectiveness. So being the wonk that I am, I had to go all OCD on it.
So to recap:
David Dodge at Green Energy Futures posted this infographic
which came from this report (and yes, I read the whole thing…so you wouldn’t have to).
Gordon Howell, PV Engineer in Edmonton, added in a FB comment: the lifetime energy consumed in operating these bulbs:
Incandescent: 1330kWh
CFL: 330kWh
LED: 310kWh
The LED consumes only 23% of the energy consumed by the incandescent.
So, that’s pretty impressive. How does that work out for cost to use/cost to buy?
At today’s prices from Lowes.ca:
Incandescent: standard issue 60W units 8-pack for $6.47 is most common in the online offering, but there was a 24 pack for 11.98 (really?!?!). So $6.50/8
CFL: 2 pack of 15W anywhere from $5.98 for base model to $14.98 for daylight. Lets go for the daylight version, so we’re happy in the winter (we’ll buy 2 packs, just in case).
LED: 12W Soft White $18.98 to $24.98. Middling cost: $22/bulb.
I pay about $0.136/kWh.
| Purchase | kWh Cost | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Incandescent | $19.50 | $180.88 | $200.38 |
| CFL | $22.47 | $44.88 | $67.35 |
| LED | $22.00 | $42.16 | $64.16 |
Well. Are you sold on energy efficiency yet?
That’s a 68% reduction in overall costs between incandescent and LED lights.
I personally don’t like CFLs because of the unresolved issue of how to dispose of them safely (I know the mercury is minimal per bulb, but it’s not minimal when it’s hundreds of thousands of bulbs and they’re broken in landfills and leaking into groundwater — because we know that there are limited CFL recycling operations, and, just like the batteries that are stacking up in the garage, waiting to get taken to the hazardous waste drop off — the bulbs are likely to get pitched in the regular garbage in a spring cleaning frenzy). And yes, it’s true, the amount of coal-fired electricity that CFLs displace reduces mercury emissions from that major source. But if the LED bulbs are available and cost-competitive, why not use them instead?
OK, the time has come to debunk the flowerpot space heater idea. People are going to die. They will be cold, asphyxiated or burned to death.
The flowerpot + tealight heater wonder of the world don’t ever use any other heat source article has been coming across my feed for weeks now, with people gaga over the cheap and amazing heating source. It’s not. Four tealights produce about 800 Btu/hr. To put this in perspective, one 100W incandescent bulb produces 340 Btu/hr, 90% of which is heat, so if you are burning two of those bad boys in a room, you are providing 600 or so Btus to to space.
The claim on the video is 8p (14¢ CAD)/day. However, Presidents Choice 8 hr tealights cost 16¢ each ($8/bag of 50, tax not included). So the cost for 800 Btus of heat = 64¢ + HST for 8 hours. If you were to compare that to burning 2 – 100W and 1 – 50W lightbulb over 8 hours, in Nova Scotia, with electricity charges hovering around $0.13CAD/kWh, you would be shelling out a total of $0.26 + proportion of base charge etc. Not to mention the fact that you would have the non-energy benefit of enough light to read by anywhere in the room.
It’s kind of a moot point since incandescents are now banned in Canada (but that’s another rant for another day).
Let’s look at other claims, or misrepresented/misinterpreted statements:
The flowerpot does not act as a radiant heat source (that’s the candles), nor does it amplify the heat source (that’s impossible), it only acts to concentrate the heat produced by the candles in a very constricted area, before it dissipates to the rest of the cooler air in the room (yes, that is the convective aspect of the construction). Not only does the flowerpot add nothing to the available heat, it does not store any of the heat for any appreciable length of time. It is not ‘like’ a thermal mass heater — it is only similar in concept. A masonry heater typically has 5+ tons of masonry absorbing then radiating heat — not your average clay pot or two — and a fire box that essentially recreates the conditions of a blast furnace to heat the mass. Clay has a specific heat capacity just slightly higher than air. To serve as useful thermal mass, the clay would have to be much thicker than a flower pot and preferably mortared into a large surface that is buffered on at least one side by another mass that minimizes heat loss to lower air temperatures and colder surfaces.
Let’s look at how the tealight-flowerpot gadget stacks up, performance-wise, against a standard-issue radiant-source room heater (to compare apples to apples), because that’s what it’s replacing. Room heaters that work off radiant heat sources, such as oil-filled electric units are cost-effective (and healthier), as mineral oil has a specific heat capacity that is more than 1.5 times that of air. These room heaters use electric elements to heat and circulate mineral oil in a series of fins that then radiate heat to the room via an expanded surface area.
A standard 2kW room heater can provide 10K Btu/hr. To match this amount of heat would require 13 4-candle teapots. That’s 52 candles that last for 8 hours. So let’s do the math. First let’s look at purchase prices and value-for-money:
I bought such a room heater for $80 (+HST) last month at Canadian Tire…that means it’s worth 10 bags of tealights, which will give me heat for 80 hours, and then I have to replenish my supply. Its cold in Nova Scotia for way longer than 80 hours. So lets say I buy 20 bags of tealights in total, which will keep me warm for 160 hours. Still not adequate for winter. Even if I’m willing to put on six sweaters, four pairs of socks, a toque and chop my candle-flower pot heating system in half so that I get 320 heating hours out of it, I’m still nowhere close to adequately providing absolute minimal comfort levels. Now I’ve paid out $160. and I’m not comfortable and I don’t have enough heat for the winter, and I’m subjecting myself to crappy indoor air quality, meaning I have to fill my asthma prescription twice this winter instead of once. Oh wait. I haven’t accounted for the cost of the flower pots. Assuming I don’t have them handy, that will add some more cost and what if I can’t find them in the off season?
Well, let’s say I’ve got the flowerpots on hand so we don’t have to factor them in. But the asthma prescription is $30 a shot.
So I bought the radiant heater for $80. If I use it at it’s full 2kW heating capacity, providing me 10k Btu/hr every hour, I can use it for 423 hours before I hit $110 (the second delivery of 10 bags of 50 candles + my asthma prescription. And I’ve been toasty (possibly overtoasty) for each of 423 of those hours. And I haven’t had a single poor indoor air quality-induced asthma attack or asphyxiated any pet birds or burned down the house.
PS. In the original video, the premise was the heat was provided by one flowerpot thingy (producing 260 Btu/hr) and the computer running (producing 1365 Btu/hr). The flowerpot thingy is not heating the room.
PPS. Regardless of how big your candle is, it will still ONLY PROVIDE 260Btu/hr.
Leave A Comment