Shipping containers hold the potential to revolutionize urban housing. First of three parts.
In New Orleans, on the very spot where Hurricane Katrina breached a levee, more than 50 LEED Platinum homes have been built for an average cost of about $150,000 each.
In Philadelphia, on an inner-city infill site deemed worthless by mainstream developers, a two-storey LEED Platinum home has been built for only $100,000.
And on Lopez Island, just east of Victoria, B.C., a group of families have built their own net-zero homes for a net cost of just $112,000 apiece.
While megaprojects such as the Olympic Village helped introduce green building to the public, small homes like these may come to define green building in the next decade.
In New Orleans, a green neighbourhood rises
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita destroyed more than 350,000 homes. Another 146,000 suffered major damage. Five years later, much of New Orleans remains a ghost town.
The Make It Right foundation was created to help rebuild a 16-block area within the city's Lower Ninth Ward. Its founder, actor Brad Pitt, sought not only to rebuild one of New Orleans poorest districts but to transform it into a neighbourhood of green homes that cost less to operate, provide better indoor air quality, and are built to survive the next hurricane.
Make It Right has built 50 LEED Platinum homes housing 179 people. A hundred more homes are under construction.
Property owners are able to choose from more than a dozen green home designs. Some of the designs incorporate elements of the neighbourhood's architecturally distinct "steamboat houses." Others are distinctly modern.
The first 50 homes cost about $150,000 each to build. Make It Right hopes to build the next group for even less.
Though inexpensive, these homes aren't cheap. The list of features is impressive. Metal roofs absorb less heat and reduce the need for air conditioning. Photovoltaic panels, tankless water heaters and Energy Star appliances slash monthly power bills. Bluwood framing, spray foam insulation and mold-resistant drywall reduce moisture problems. Zero-VOC paint, formaldehyde-free cabinets and green carpet improve indoor air quality.
A Make It Right home in New Orleans.
And the Make It Right homes -- the first of which was built on the very spot where the Industrial Canal levee breached on Aug. 29, 2005 -- are designed to withstand the next hurricane.
They are built with advanced framing techniques designed to withstand winds of more than 130 miles per hour. They are elevated beyond U.S. government requirements to ensure they will stand above the next flood. They are landscaped with pervious concrete sidewalks and driveways that allow stormwater to drain freely. And they include roof hatches, just in case.
The new houses have been estimated to be 10 times more sustainable than the homes they replace. And the Lower Ninth Ward now boasts the largest community of LEED Platinum homes in the world.
In Philadelphia, a LEED home for $100K
Proof that one does not need to build 50 homes at a time in order to lower the cost of building green is provided by Philadelphia developer Postgreen, which built a 1,150 square foot LEED Platinum row house for a construction cost of only $100,000.
"The 100K House was conceived as an attempt to prove that green construction can be affordable if properly designed and executed," said Postgreen president Chad Ludeman.
The two-storey row house demonstrates how the modern construction methods (such as structural insulated panels) can update a familiar urban floor plan: two bedrooms separated by a bathroom upstairs, a living room and kitchen downstairs.
A Postgreen 100K House in Philadelphia.
The 100K house's roof uses solar energy to heat the house's hot water, and collects rainwater for use in the garden. Its walls are constructed from prefabricated panels of rigid foam insulation sandwiched between sheets of oriented strand board (called "SIPs") and fitted with high-performance casement windows to create a tightly sealed envelope.
The home is cooled through a ductless (mini-split) air conditioner, heated via a radiant in-floor system, and tempered year-round with a small energy recovery ventilator. The interior features low- or no-VOC finishes, while the small yard is landscaped with drought-tolerant plants and 100 per cent permeable walkways.
In addition to being certified LEED Platinum, the 100K House won a LEED for Homes Project of the Year award from the U.S. Green Building Council.
Interior of a Postgreen 100K House in Philadelphia.
"Wherever possible we reduced complexity and finish level until we had a very clean, modern, simple home. Then we focused on those areas of green building where we saw the most value... location, site and energy efficiency," Postgreen wrote in accepting the award.
Postgreen's post-100K experience also proves there's money to be made in small green homes. The company sold the 100K House for more than twice what it cost to build, and is now developing a Passivhaus and other projects in the Fishtown, Kensington and Northern Liberties neighborhoods of Philadelphia.
On Lopez Island, a net zero co-op
By pooling their resources and providing much of their own labour, a group of Washington State families have succeeded in building 11 net-zero homes for a net cost of just $112,000 apiece.
Lopez Island lies due east of Victoria, B.C., in what the Americans call the San Juan Islands. As is the case on the Canadian Gulf Islands such as Mayne or Salt Spring, home prices in the San Juans have spiraled beyond reach of working families. According to a government report, "Working people and people who grew up in the islands have a hard time finding permanent housing in the county at prices local wages can support."
The Lopez Community Land Trust was created to address this problem. And Common Ground, a cooperative project of 11 family homes, is Lopez' newest development.
The project has functioned like a green building workshop since its inception. Residents were involved in the design and construction, and remain responsible for efforts to maximize ongoing performance. Dozens of volunteers, professionals and interns also participated.
Though the site is only seven-tenths of an acre, the project's design takes advantage of its strengths. These include solar gain for heating water, prevailing winds for ventilation, rain fall to offset potable water demand, and a climate suitable for gardening. Passive design strategies enable the project to minimize heating and cooling demand.
Lopez Common Ground uses 60 per cent less energy and 30 per cent less water than similar buildings. A solar photovoltaic system -- funded through a grant and a rebate program provided by the utility -- provides much of what power is required.
The total price per unit (including land, construction and soft costs) was $236,000. But after deducting grants and incentives such as those for the solar power panels, the net cost per household came to about $112,000 -- plus a lot of labour.
The Lopez homes were designed to produce as much energy as they consume, and data collected in the past year show that several have achieved net zero energy consumption.
Lopez Common Ground development in Washington.
Though the Common Ground project did not pursue any certification, the cooperative used the LEED for Homes, Built Green, and Energy Star programs as guidelines.
And last fall, the Home Depot Foundation awarded Common Ground its Award of Excellence for Affordable Housing Built Responsibly. The award came with $75,000 to help the Lopez Community Land Trust get started on its next project.
'Polishing the turd'
Consider what these three projects have in common with one another, as well as how they differ from the sea of (unsold) new housing built in the past few years.
Here's what you'll find in each of these affordable green homes: A high-performance building envelope. Each of these homes have walls that are almost twice the thickness of the minimum that code requires. Each of those walls contain high-performance insulation. (None of these builders use fiberglass batts.) The doors and windows in each of these homes are not only double-glazed but also tightly sealed. And each of the gaps between doors, windows, junction boxes and the high-performance walls are foamed, taped or otherwise sealed to prevent air leakage.
Here's what you won't find in any of these homes: Italian marble countertops, European faucets or Sub-Zero kitchen appliances.
In other words, these builders invested in the parts of a house that last for 100 years or more, rather than squandering money on fixtures that are typically replaced every 10 to 20 years.
"Why do production home builders and established developers, people who have been building homes for many years, have to spend 15 per cent more to get to LEED Platinum while us rookies are getting there at a discount?" Darling asked.
"Most of the builders and developers reporting high premiums for pursuing LEED are still trying to build the exact same home they have always built. They are simply adding features to make that same house energy efficient, healthy and sustainable," Darling continued.
"So, they polish the turd. Rather than redesign the house that has been successful for them in the past, they add solar panels, geothermal systems, high-end interior fixtures, extra insulation and other green features. The house gets greener. It gets certified, but it also increases significantly in cost. Since the features are add-ons and extras, the price rises as each one is tacked on."
I am interested in the Lopez designs. I would like to know where to obtain building plans and/or names of builders constructing these types of home....Also suppliers of tankless water heaters and other energy efficient , sensible attributes.
I believe the use of more wood within the construction of new homes and commercial buildings will reduce the amount of gravel.
This would also reduce the massive use of cement that tilt up buildings use and save our environment from the gravel producers.
I tremble with excitement that Brad Pitt has improved his "brand" by putting up a few dollars (far fewer than he should have been paid in taxes)to build some houses. The idle rich have tons of $$$ they have paid accountants to avoid paying their fair share of taxes and now he/they throw a few $ at housing. Kind of like Pepsi holding a contest to fund public amenities that they choose and that Pepsi should be funding by paying their fair share... meanwhile schools, health care and social services suffer.
Good stuff, Monte. It's not a matter of if, but when this type of housing will be the norm.
I'm impressed by the cost savings in construction. These type of homes are ideal for our relatively moderate climate, and the Philadelphia model shows that they are also practical and viable in the the harsher climes as well.
However, land prices in New Orleans and Philadelphia are not though the roof. As well, most Lower Mainland neighborhoods would not accept a polished turd, a golden turd or a titanium one. The rallying cry is that we must preserve the 'character' of the neighborhood (a character that most of them had nothing to do with creating). If NIMBY attitudes and neighborhood vehemence against any change persists, you won't be able to build a bird house, never mind having a sustainable society.
People who live in towers against people living in more towers. What a world!
Looking forward to the series and hope more young folks read it.
Except for the inclusion of the uneconomic photovoltaic panels, most of these building make a lot a sense. The knock against fibreglass was unwarranted since the life cycle of fibreglass is well known while the blown foam is still relatively new. The keys to any building is, in order of priority, the foundation, the building structure, the envelope then the basic hard wear (the electrical wiring, the water and sewer piping, any heating system),then everything else. I liked the focus on not spending lots on short-term fixtures and more on the building itself.
The Hype on Solar Panels makes me wonder how accurate the entire article is. Solar PV/Battery Bank/Wind Generator/Fuel Generator is great for people living off of Grid. And in those cases the high cost of the system dictates using fuel - typically propane - for heat, stove energy and even refrigerator energy. So you are only supplying lights and minor appliance load.
People living on Grid, are using the Grid as their battery, which is a huge subsidy to their Solar PV. Which is still an outrageously expensive form of power. >$5k per kwpk installed and Victoria is 1019 AC kwh output per yr per kwpk. So that's $5k/116wavg = $43k per kwavg. NOT INCLUDING the INEVITABLE Shadowing Utility Energy/Battery Storage. Compare with Cleaner & Greener & 5X lower lifecycle CO2 Nuclear @ $2-5k per kwavg. At least 9X more expensive for the Solar PV and at least 5X higher emissions, not counting the shadowing NG power source. THAT IS NOT GREEN ENERGY OR A GREEN BUILDING.
Here is Australia's current system demand ( it's mid-summer there):
Peak is at noon. With 50% of peak @ 8am & 4pm. Output only from 7:30 to 5:30pm.
Any difference in the SHAPE of the two graphs MUST be met by expensive, fuel guzzling, Peak Output generators - chiefly NG. There is no advantage whatsoever to using Solar PV unless it has a large battery storage so that it actually does match Peak/Shoulder load profile. And that battery storage will double the cost of the already absurdly expensive Solar Power.
The only cost effective, green Solar Energy might be Solar Hot Water. I haven't seen a lot of info on the cost & performance of those systems, but they could be reasonable, maybe. Show me the numbers, seeing is believing.
By-the-Way, current per capita energy consumption for Canada is 131 kwh/yr. For a family of four that's 60 kw avg continuous. At $40k per kwavg that would be $2.4 million cost per family, just for their share of Canada's energy consumption. Replaced after 25 yrs. That shows the absurdity of Solar PV as an Energy Source.
Just a serious note of caution regarding "tankless water heaters" or "on demand hot water heaters", here in BC. For the coastal regions with soft water supplies they are absolutely fine, BUT, in the interior of BC where our water is very "hard" with mineralization, they are VERY high maintenance. You either have to put in an online water $oftener or plan on exchange/cleaning of the radiator unit every year. $$$$s
You miss the point - which is to reduce dependency on centralized systems. These are the "natural" breeding grounds for corruption, empire-building, and inefficiencies - due exclusively to a captive market.
Independence does have a cost, and at this juncture one of those costs is the larger cost of solar panels.
Further comment on Tankless vs Conventional water heaters. A couple years ago Fine Homebuilding Magazine had an article on the subject and basically came to the conclusion that the (electrical)conventional hot water tank is about equal to the (gas)tankless model. Considerations are the initial purchasing and installation costs. Also the conventional unit should be set no more than 120 degrees F. Here on Vancouver Island this last summer I changed out my hot water tank after 21 years (soft water). I have heard that it's quite common for people in the interior only get about 3 years on a hot water tank.
Tankless hot water heaters are best when installed right over the sink or other place of use. I lived in Japan and used them there, and they are great.
Inserting this style of heater into our kind of building, with a central utility room and lots of pipe leading to baths and kitchens, and you end up with heat loss, meaning running the heater to warm, meaning a loss of efficiency.
Hopefully the articles reveal enough of the importance of design to green buildings, and the importance of judging improvements in a design that has the parts working together intelligently, rather than a checklist of green features pasted onto design that is fundamentally ungreen...
And as for the discussion of solar vs. nuclear. The mistake of taking current average consumption and forecasting the cost of green energy is so prevalent that we should agree on a name for it, maybe The Consumptive Fallacy, or some such. The cheapest energy is that which we don't use. The next cheapest is that which we get from the sun, through the glass. And then, after we have been clever with these two, let's look at what we actually need.
By the by, claims of the cost of nuclear power which do not include repayment of public investment - always significant - for construction, AND decomissioning, are misleading at best, fraudulent at worst. Perhaps that is why opponents merely ask that nuclear be forced to stand upon it's own two feet, without public subsidy. Then projects can die natural deaths, based on economics alone.
RickW, you miss the point, that I made pretty damn clear. Solar is not feasible, will not work, you are talking mass death & destruction of both human civilization & the environment. Do you seriously think people will starve, in order to bow down & worship the Solar Religious Dogma? Nope, they will burn coal until the sky turns dark, and every tree and living thing is sacrificed in order to sustain them. You cannot achieve a sustainable civilization on an Energy source that costs upwards of 30 cents per kwh and is intermittent & unreliable. Quite flatly impossible. Face reality.
KD Brown, you have zero knowledge of Nuclear Energy. Decommissioning costs are included and are 0.1 to 0.2 cents per kwh. Solar & Wind decommissioning costs are NOT included, and since they use 20 to 100X the material of Nuclear, per kwh produced, they are VERY significant.
Repayment of public investment? – duh – that’s called Capital Cost and its $2-5k per kwavg for Nuclear $10-20k per kwavg for Wind and $25 to 60k per kwavg for Solar. Unlike Wind or Solar, Nuclear is standing on its two feet without public subsidy, latest long term contracts OPG with Bruce Power for Nuclear (all costs included) are 5-6 cents per kwh. Wind in Ontario is getting 13.5 to 19.5 cents per kwh, plus 1 cent federal, plus federal tax exemptions, plus property tax exemptions, plus other secret “encouragements” that McGuilty refuses to release info on. And Solar is getting 44-80 cents per kwh. Yep, that’s standing on its own two feet alright. And neither of the above includes the HIGH cost of integrating a fluctuating, intermittent non-dispatchable energy source into the Grid. According to OPG they need to charge the consumer 3-4X base rate for peak power consumption, well Solar and especially Wind causes the same costs as peak power consumption does – even worse.
And the only economics problem with Nuclear is allowing every paid-by-Oil&Gas, pseudo-Greenie to put roadblocks in the path of Nuclear Licensing & Construction, unlike with Oil, Gas & Wind where Legal Edicts blockade any such actions.
"I have heard that it's quite common for people in the interior only get about 3 years on a hot water tank."
WOW !! That's just ugly. Our first nat. gas-fired tank lasted 21 years. Our second one, with me draining the sludge build-up out of the bottom end every year, lasted 14 years. We have very high calcium content in our water, tastes great, builds up around faucets to beat hell !!
YCSTS - why not quote a source or two while you generate so much heat and nasty invective. Why should I believe you any more than those you dismiss?
Typically the decommissioning costs of a nuclear project (Chalk River?) are borne in the years of decomissioning, not magically included in a present cost per KWH to the best of the news coverage I've seen so far. Especially where there is a Pub/Priv partnership, this is something that is not clear... What insurance coverage is there for this 'far off' eventuality that will come within my lifetime?
And what about assurance that costs related to regional-scale issues of safety and waste are included in that cheap per KWH rate? (Chalk River's leaks come to mind again in recent news http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/05/18/isotopes-chalk-river.html. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/02/25/chalk-river.html
What about the high risk mining, giant cement-related emissions of building alone, high-risk decomissioning, and all the relatively recent reactor accidents and community exposures since 1950 in Canada, the US, and the UK? (Canadian government documentation of recent trouble at Bruce generator leaks http://www.scribd.com/doc/26960282/Bruce-Power)
There is a thorough CBC Radio Documentary podcast 'Counting the Costs' documenting nuclear politics and accidents in Canada, USA, Europe and the UK recently:
Is the energy that isn't used. Passivhaus is the way to go. Biogas from humanure is another engineering frontier that has been crossed in Asia but not in Canada yet. But, can we afford to ignore one of our only growing and free resources?
My folks built a passive solar and wood furnace house in Ontario at the end of the 1970s alt building boom. We were squarely in the centre or slightly lower of the middle class, without inheritances, and with one 9-5 breadearner and one housewife. Labour costs were kept down by my dad and friends supplying much of the labour of framing, laying floors, drywalling, and such on weekends and in summer, and by hiring student labourers.
Thick walls and ceilings, and thermally broken windows, doors and foundation were the secret to holding indoor temperatures at comfortable levels. Large windows were a big cost, but in winter let in heat, while in summer they let in breezes. Overhangs provided shade and cooling in summer, and protection from rain on the walls in winter. A lot of wood was used in siding, as it was more insulating than vinyl. The house I live in in Vancouver now has such thin and poorly insulated walls that they feel chilly even when the furnace has been on for an hour.
With a little design help (to avoid the awkward look of my parents home), the energy savings available to dwellers in better insulated buildings would be very attractive. No sick home there, it was not an office building or full of foams and glues.
The discussion for this story is closed. No more comments can be added.
17
Login or register to post comments
Cynic
2 years ago
Very good comment from Nic
Very good comment from Nic Darling. Leave the frills to those who can afford a custom home.
freebear
2 years ago
We seem to prefer the 'polished turds' according to
development industry and politicians.
Funny, same could be said about provinical leadership races and elections in general-choosing between polished turds!
Grania
2 years ago
Building Plans? Builders?
I am interested in the Lopez designs. I would like to know where to obtain building plans and/or names of builders constructing these types of home....Also suppliers of tankless water heaters and other energy efficient , sensible attributes.
mcik prince
2 years ago
wood frame construction
I believe the use of more wood within the construction of new homes and commercial buildings will reduce the amount of gravel.
This would also reduce the massive use of cement that tilt up buildings use and save our environment from the gravel producers.
tonyinvan
2 years ago
th rich and paying their fare share
I tremble with excitement that Brad Pitt has improved his "brand" by putting up a few dollars (far fewer than he should have been paid in taxes)to build some houses. The idle rich have tons of $$$ they have paid accountants to avoid paying their fair share of taxes and now he/they throw a few $ at housing. Kind of like Pepsi holding a contest to fund public amenities that they choose and that Pepsi should be funding by paying their fair share... meanwhile schools, health care and social services suffer.
TommyBoy
2 years ago
Neighborhoods won't accept polished turds.
Good stuff, Monte. It's not a matter of if, but when this type of housing will be the norm.
I'm impressed by the cost savings in construction. These type of homes are ideal for our relatively moderate climate, and the Philadelphia model shows that they are also practical and viable in the the harsher climes as well.
However, land prices in New Orleans and Philadelphia are not though the roof. As well, most Lower Mainland neighborhoods would not accept a polished turd, a golden turd or a titanium one. The rallying cry is that we must preserve the 'character' of the neighborhood (a character that most of them had nothing to do with creating). If NIMBY attitudes and neighborhood vehemence against any change persists, you won't be able to build a bird house, never mind having a sustainable society.
People who live in towers against people living in more towers. What a world!
Looking forward to the series and hope more young folks read it.
Sask Resident
2 years ago
Photovoltaic panels?
Except for the inclusion of the uneconomic photovoltaic panels, most of these building make a lot a sense. The knock against fibreglass was unwarranted since the life cycle of fibreglass is well known while the blown foam is still relatively new. The keys to any building is, in order of priority, the foundation, the building structure, the envelope then the basic hard wear (the electrical wiring, the water and sewer piping, any heating system),then everything else. I liked the focus on not spending lots on short-term fixtures and more on the building itself.
YCSTS
2 years ago
Solar PV panels are NOT GREEN!
The Hype on Solar Panels makes me wonder how accurate the entire article is. Solar PV/Battery Bank/Wind Generator/Fuel Generator is great for people living off of Grid. And in those cases the high cost of the system dictates using fuel - typically propane - for heat, stove energy and even refrigerator energy. So you are only supplying lights and minor appliance load.
People living on Grid, are using the Grid as their battery, which is a huge subsidy to their Solar PV. Which is still an outrageously expensive form of power. >$5k per kwpk installed and Victoria is 1019 AC kwh output per yr per kwpk. So that's $5k/116wavg = $43k per kwavg. NOT INCLUDING the INEVITABLE Shadowing Utility Energy/Battery Storage. Compare with Cleaner & Greener & 5X lower lifecycle CO2 Nuclear @ $2-5k per kwavg. At least 9X more expensive for the Solar PV and at least 5X higher emissions, not counting the shadowing NG power source. THAT IS NOT GREEN ENERGY OR A GREEN BUILDING.
Here is Australia's current system demand ( it's mid-summer there):
http://windfarmperformance.info/
Notice the shape of the demand profile. It is max at 4 pm and high (shoulder demand) 8am to 9pm.
Here is typical Solar PV output profile:
http://minnefuels.pbworks.com/f/1264719011/solar-PV.jpg
Peak is at noon. With 50% of peak @ 8am & 4pm. Output only from 7:30 to 5:30pm.
Any difference in the SHAPE of the two graphs MUST be met by expensive, fuel guzzling, Peak Output generators - chiefly NG. There is no advantage whatsoever to using Solar PV unless it has a large battery storage so that it actually does match Peak/Shoulder load profile. And that battery storage will double the cost of the already absurdly expensive Solar Power.
The only cost effective, green Solar Energy might be Solar Hot Water. I haven't seen a lot of info on the cost & performance of those systems, but they could be reasonable, maybe. Show me the numbers, seeing is believing.
By-the-Way, current per capita energy consumption for Canada is 131 kwh/yr. For a family of four that's 60 kw avg continuous. At $40k per kwavg that would be $2.4 million cost per family, just for their share of Canada's energy consumption. Replaced after 25 yrs. That shows the absurdity of Solar PV as an Energy Source.
cboo44
2 years ago
"Tankless water heaters"
Just a serious note of caution regarding "tankless water heaters" or "on demand hot water heaters", here in BC. For the coastal regions with soft water supplies they are absolutely fine, BUT, in the interior of BC where our water is very "hard" with mineralization, they are VERY high maintenance. You either have to put in an online water $oftener or plan on exchange/cleaning of the radiator unit every year. $$$$s
RickW
2 years ago
YCSTS
You miss the point - which is to reduce dependency on centralized systems. These are the "natural" breeding grounds for corruption, empire-building, and inefficiencies - due exclusively to a captive market.
Independence does have a cost, and at this juncture one of those costs is the larger cost of solar panels.
Van Isle
2 years ago
Further comment on Tankless
Further comment on Tankless vs Conventional water heaters. A couple years ago Fine Homebuilding Magazine had an article on the subject and basically came to the conclusion that the (electrical)conventional hot water tank is about equal to the (gas)tankless model. Considerations are the initial purchasing and installation costs. Also the conventional unit should be set no more than 120 degrees F. Here on Vancouver Island this last summer I changed out my hot water tank after 21 years (soft water). I have heard that it's quite common for people in the interior only get about 3 years on a hot water tank.
KD Brown
2 years ago
Tankless again
Hey Folks
Tankless hot water heaters are best when installed right over the sink or other place of use. I lived in Japan and used them there, and they are great.
Inserting this style of heater into our kind of building, with a central utility room and lots of pipe leading to baths and kitchens, and you end up with heat loss, meaning running the heater to warm, meaning a loss of efficiency.
Hopefully the articles reveal enough of the importance of design to green buildings, and the importance of judging improvements in a design that has the parts working together intelligently, rather than a checklist of green features pasted onto design that is fundamentally ungreen...
And as for the discussion of solar vs. nuclear. The mistake of taking current average consumption and forecasting the cost of green energy is so prevalent that we should agree on a name for it, maybe The Consumptive Fallacy, or some such. The cheapest energy is that which we don't use. The next cheapest is that which we get from the sun, through the glass. And then, after we have been clever with these two, let's look at what we actually need.
By the by, claims of the cost of nuclear power which do not include repayment of public investment - always significant - for construction, AND decomissioning, are misleading at best, fraudulent at worst. Perhaps that is why opponents merely ask that nuclear be forced to stand upon it's own two feet, without public subsidy. Then projects can die natural deaths, based on economics alone.
Cheers.
YCSTS
2 years ago
erroneous comments by RickW & KD Brown.
RickW, you miss the point, that I made pretty damn clear. Solar is not feasible, will not work, you are talking mass death & destruction of both human civilization & the environment. Do you seriously think people will starve, in order to bow down & worship the Solar Religious Dogma? Nope, they will burn coal until the sky turns dark, and every tree and living thing is sacrificed in order to sustain them. You cannot achieve a sustainable civilization on an Energy source that costs upwards of 30 cents per kwh and is intermittent & unreliable. Quite flatly impossible. Face reality.
KD Brown, you have zero knowledge of Nuclear Energy. Decommissioning costs are included and are 0.1 to 0.2 cents per kwh. Solar & Wind decommissioning costs are NOT included, and since they use 20 to 100X the material of Nuclear, per kwh produced, they are VERY significant.
Repayment of public investment? – duh – that’s called Capital Cost and its $2-5k per kwavg for Nuclear $10-20k per kwavg for Wind and $25 to 60k per kwavg for Solar. Unlike Wind or Solar, Nuclear is standing on its two feet without public subsidy, latest long term contracts OPG with Bruce Power for Nuclear (all costs included) are 5-6 cents per kwh. Wind in Ontario is getting 13.5 to 19.5 cents per kwh, plus 1 cent federal, plus federal tax exemptions, plus property tax exemptions, plus other secret “encouragements” that McGuilty refuses to release info on. And Solar is getting 44-80 cents per kwh. Yep, that’s standing on its own two feet alright. And neither of the above includes the HIGH cost of integrating a fluctuating, intermittent non-dispatchable energy source into the Grid. According to OPG they need to charge the consumer 3-4X base rate for peak power consumption, well Solar and especially Wind causes the same costs as peak power consumption does – even worse.
And the only economics problem with Nuclear is allowing every paid-by-Oil&Gas, pseudo-Greenie to put roadblocks in the path of Nuclear Licensing & Construction, unlike with Oil, Gas & Wind where Legal Edicts blockade any such actions.
cboo44
2 years ago
Tank Vs Tankless
"I have heard that it's quite common for people in the interior only get about 3 years on a hot water tank."
WOW !! That's just ugly. Our first nat. gas-fired tank lasted 21 years. Our second one, with me draining the sludge build-up out of the bottom end every year, lasted 14 years. We have very high calcium content in our water, tastes great, builds up around faucets to beat hell !!
Countrytype
2 years ago
Solar vs Nuclear heating up
YCSTS - why not quote a source or two while you generate so much heat and nasty invective. Why should I believe you any more than those you dismiss?
Typically the decommissioning costs of a nuclear project (Chalk River?) are borne in the years of decomissioning, not magically included in a present cost per KWH to the best of the news coverage I've seen so far. Especially where there is a Pub/Priv partnership, this is something that is not clear... What insurance coverage is there for this 'far off' eventuality that will come within my lifetime?
And what about assurance that costs related to regional-scale issues of safety and waste are included in that cheap per KWH rate? (Chalk River's leaks come to mind again in recent news http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/05/18/isotopes-chalk-river.html. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/02/25/chalk-river.html
What about the high risk mining, giant cement-related emissions of building alone, high-risk decomissioning, and all the relatively recent reactor accidents and community exposures since 1950 in Canada, the US, and the UK? (Canadian government documentation of recent trouble at Bruce generator leaks http://www.scribd.com/doc/26960282/Bruce-Power)
There is a thorough CBC Radio Documentary podcast 'Counting the Costs' documenting nuclear politics and accidents in Canada, USA, Europe and the UK recently:
Part 1
http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/listenerschoice_20080606_6127.mp3
Part 2
http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/listenerschoice_20080711_6588.mp3
Part 3
http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/listenerschoice_20090130_11461.mp3
Part 4
http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/listenerschoice_20090410_14127.mp3
Countrytype
2 years ago
The cheapest energy
Is the energy that isn't used. Passivhaus is the way to go. Biogas from humanure is another engineering frontier that has been crossed in Asia but not in Canada yet. But, can we afford to ignore one of our only growing and free resources?
Countrytype
2 years ago
Great to read about the green and affordable
My folks built a passive solar and wood furnace house in Ontario at the end of the 1970s alt building boom. We were squarely in the centre or slightly lower of the middle class, without inheritances, and with one 9-5 breadearner and one housewife. Labour costs were kept down by my dad and friends supplying much of the labour of framing, laying floors, drywalling, and such on weekends and in summer, and by hiring student labourers.
Thick walls and ceilings, and thermally broken windows, doors and foundation were the secret to holding indoor temperatures at comfortable levels. Large windows were a big cost, but in winter let in heat, while in summer they let in breezes. Overhangs provided shade and cooling in summer, and protection from rain on the walls in winter. A lot of wood was used in siding, as it was more insulating than vinyl. The house I live in in Vancouver now has such thin and poorly insulated walls that they feel chilly even when the furnace has been on for an hour.
With a little design help (to avoid the awkward look of my parents home), the energy savings available to dwellers in better insulated buildings would be very attractive. No sick home there, it was not an office building or full of foams and glues.