» Komorowski’s Korner

Peak Oil – Who’s Using it all up? – Komorowski’s Korner by Richard Komorowski – Cornwall Ontario – July 28, 2010

admin — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 14:39:42 +0000

Cornwall ON – As we saw in the previous article, Peak Oil is something that will happen, whether we like it or not. No politician or government can stop it, and no amount of denial can stop it. It will happen, period.

The world’s three largest oil consumers are the US, Europe, and China and India. Europeans are smart, and way ahead of North Americans in their understanding of oil and energy, because it has always been more expensive there than here. Another reason is that, except for a brief period when North Sea oil was plentiful, it has always had to import its oil, primarily from the Arabs.

North Americans, on the other hand, have always been spoiled rotten when it comes to paying for energy, and very soon will have to start paying the consequences. As oil becomes scarcer, supply and demand will rear its ugly head. If anyone thought that 2008 prices for gas and diesel were excessive, “you ain’t seen nothing.”

However, it is the Indian/Chinese/Japanese bloc which should give rise to sleepless nights. This area is accelerating its oil consumption at ever increasing rates, far higher than North America, Europe and the rest of the world, but has very few oil reserves. Don’t forget, when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941, for them it was a war to secure natural resources in the Pacific, (what US administrations now refer to as “energy security”). Will this same pattern repeat itself?

Simple morals and ethics complicate the situation. Why shouldn’t the Chinese and the Indians increase their standards of living? Why shouldn’t the Japanese maintain their standard, which is comparable to our own? Who are we to say to almost two billion of the world’s population that they must remain in poverty so we can drive gas guzzling Chryslers?

In the middle of this free-for-all stands OPEC, which controls a major part of the world’s oil reserves, and which is steadily accelerating its own consumption, thanks to massive internal subsidies. At the moment it is in OPEC’s best interest to maintain stable oil production and prices. It tries to keep a fine line, keeping the price for crude as high as possible, to maintain their own economies, yet low enough not to push the world into another recession, which would lower both price and demand.

However, we must remember that OPEC began as a political organisation in response to the Arab-Israeli war in 1973, and it was never its intention to be a friend to the west. The aim was to end western support for Israel by withholding oil. This led to massive oil price increases, an almost continent wide 55 mph speed limit to conserve gas, and a recession. The sanctions were lifted only when the Americans forced Israel to get serious at the Camp David peace accord.

OPEC controls oil, and it can sell it to whomever it wants, and there is little the Americans, or anyone, can do about it. As Chinese (and Indian) demand increases, more and more oil is going to be diverted to the east, rather than to the north and west, especially if these countries are ready to offer the right price, or can offer OPEC countries goods for which there is a demand.

There would probably be little problem if OPEC could just turn the taps higher, and produce more to account for world demand. However, this simply isn’t going to happen, because OPEC doesn’t have the capacity. Even Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest single oil supplier, is starting to feel the effects of peak oil, and has to use enhanced recovery techniques to squeeze the last oil from one of its major oil fields.

Next time – the Impact of China – you can post your comments below.

Share on Facebook

McGuinty Government Deliberately Conceals its Cuts to Solar Power? By Richard Komorowski – Cornwall Ontario – July 12, 2010

admin — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 14:45:13 +0000

Cornwall ON - The Government of Ontario operates quite a nice news room on its website, highlighting some of the events happening around the province. It’s designed particularly for members of the press. It also has a service which will email press releases, media events including cabinet ministers, etc. I subscribe to this service.

Of course, this is the government website, so obviously everything in it is from the point of view of the government. I don’t have a problem with this; the provincial government, along with every other group or individual in the province, has the right to put forth its opinion. Indeed, I find this service very useful.

Since July 1, I have received 22 emails from this service. Three concerned the Royal visit, three were about the strike (now resolved) at INCO, in Sudbury, four were smog advisories, six were miscellaneous (appointment of a new OPP chief, for example), and six extolled the virtues of the new HST tax. One typical title is: McGuinty Government’s Tax Reform Benefits High-Tech Industry. Not ONE of these emails gave any hint of the cuts to the Green Energy Act’s MicroFIT program.

As anyone who reads this column knows, I have been a steady proponent of the Green Energy Act, passed last year. I believe it is a good act – indeed excellent, as it makes Ontario just about the only jurisdiction in North America to take the future fuel shortage seriously (e.g. Peak Oil), and proposes a workable plan to minimise this impact on the province. Although I am not a great fan of McGuinty, this act alone would have guaranteed him my vote in the next provincial election.

Imagine my surprise when I discovered, quite by accident, that the tariffs for alternate energy were changed without notice. The Green Energy Act includes a provision for individuals and companies to produce electricity from renewable resources, e.g. wind, solar, biogas, biomass, etc. As the technology for generating electricity this was is still in its infancy, and consequently relatively expensive compared to a coal-fired generating station, the prices paid to producers were significantly higher than what Hydro One charges.

Now, granted, the government is paying way more than market price for solar electricity, and this price cannot remain forever. The reason it is paying such a high price is to give producers (homeowners, farmers) a decent rate of return. The increased market for solar energy supplies encourages research and innovation in the industry, which in turn will lower the costs of generation.

However, the provincial Liberals played dirty. Announcing a cut in rates is one thing. But to cut the rates for people who have invested many thousands of dollars pending approval of their contract is unethical, even by Harper standards.

McGuinty seems to have learned about timing such announcements from Harper too. The news of the cuts was not made on any official government news website, but was buried in the Ontario Power Authority website. It was posted on Friday, July 2, when many people were celebrating an extra long weekend, which virtually guaranteed its secrecy.

The announcement cites too many people are applying, and it’s taking too long to process the applications. McGuinty claims the Green Energy Act will result in 50,000 new jobs in the province. Too bad half a dozen of these new jobs weren’t given to people who could process the backlog of applications.

There is a 30 day period where the Ontario Power Authority will hear submissions about the changes. However, because of the timing of the announcement, and the deliberate attempt to hide it, the appeal period is less than three weeks in reality.

Those affected, or wishing to comment on the situation, can contact the OPA. You can also email the Minister, Brad Duguid, and local MPP Jim Brownell, with your comments.

Share on Facebook

McGuinty Government Learns Lesson from Harper – MicroFIT Solar Power Program CUTS by Richard Komorowski – July 11, 2010

admin — Sun, 11 Jul 2010 11:04:02 +0000

Cornwall ON – Following the Harper government’s unprecedented lead in cancelling its part of the ecoEnergy refit program last March, a year ahead of schedule, the McGuinty Liberal government has announced it is cutting some of the rates paid to producers under the province’s MicroFIT program.

Until just recently, the province was guaranteeing a price of 80.2¢/kWh to producers, typically homeowners, small businesses and farmers, who installed solar panels capable of generating up to 10kW on their properties. However, the government has announced that for many installations, the tariff is being dropped to 58.8¢/kWh.

The Ontario Power Authority, which administers the program, cites an overwhelming popularity for ground mounted solar projects. Since the program was announced last October the OPA has received around 16,000 applications.

The Green Energy Act, passed last year, promised to bring 50,000 new jobs to the province. Some of these jobs have already been created – many more are in the works as installation of solar panels gains in popularity. According to industry sources, many of these jobs are now in jeopardy as potential customers cancel their orders.

The Green Energy Act also put the province in the forefront of preparing for a future without fossil fuels, so this latest step by the OPA seriously questions the act’s credibility.

The original idea of the MicroFIT program was to pay potential producers enough to make investing in solar technology financially worthwhile. Those who have their projects already up and running, or have had them approved by the OPA have nothing to fear at the moment. The price they receive is guaranteed in a 20 year contract.

The OPA right now is offering to maintain the 80.2¢ tariff for new rooftop installations, but is dropping the price on “ground mounted” installations, the ones that would be particularly suited to farmers, stating that ground installations are cheaper to install. This is contrary to what industry sources are saying.

According to their press release, “The OPA believes the new price category is fair, reasonable, more accurately reflects the costs associated with ground-mounted projects and maintains the long-term stability of the program,” says Colin Andersen, Chief Executive Officer of the Ontario Power Authority. “It enables the program to continue to meet its original goals and provides proper value to both generators and ratepayers.”

The OPA is promising a 30-day comment period on the proposed new price category. Please send all comments and submissions to the OPA. While all emails will be read, not all emails will receive individual responses.
Comments also can be mailed to the following address and must be postmarked no later than Tuesday, August 3, 2010.

Ontario Power Authority
120 Adelaide Street West, Suite 1600
Toronto, Ontario M5H 1T1

Attention: Ground-Mounted Solar PV

Brad Duguid, Ontario’s Minister of Energy and Infrastructure, said on Friday that in recent months the OPA has received around 10,000 applications for ground-mount projects that were essentially “flooding” the program. If the OPA were to honour all of those applications it would cost ratepayers $1 billion over the 20-year lifespan of those contracts.

This might well be true, however, the press release has been buried in the OPA website since July 2. It did not become common knowledge until last Friday. When the Harper government reneged on its promise to maintain its part of the ecoEnergy program, it did at least allow people who had already applied for the program prior to its closure to remain eligible. The Ontario Government, however, does not appear to be considering this option.

“All other ground-mounted microFIT projects, including those for which an application has been submitted but have not yet received a contract or conditional contract offer, will receive the price following consultations on the proposed 58.8¢/kWh. Ground-mounted microFIT applications will be processed following the 30-day comment period.”

You can also email the Minister, Brad Duguid, and local MPP Jim Brownell, with your comments.

please visit our amazing local sponsors;

Share on Facebook

What is Peak Oil – Everything you should know – A series by Richard Komorowski for The Cornwall Free News – July 4, 2010

admin — Sun, 04 Jul 2010 10:37:01 +0000

What is “Peak Oil”?

I have referred to Peak Oil several times in earlier columns, so I think now I should go into a little more depth on the subject, and explain exactly what Peak Oil really is.

Oil is created deep under the earth from dead animal life (mostly plankton) dating from the dinosaur age. The dinosaurs, depicted so well in Jurassic Park, would, under ideal circumstances, be in our gas tanks now. Oil isn’t something that can be created instantly, or even in an average lifetime – it takes millions of years. Oil itself is made of long chains of carbon atoms, with a lot of hydrogen attached. When it’s burned, it produces heat (which is what makes it useful), carbon dioxide (believed by many to be responsible for climate change and global warming), and water vapour.

Coal, incidentally, is created in much the same fashion, but is mostly plant material. It consists largely of carbon, but with other trace elements, such as radioactive uranium and thorium, and mercury, one of the deadliest poisons in the ecosystem. When it burns, it produces a lot of heat (more than the same mass of oil), a lot of CO2, and it releases various highly toxic elements into the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the soil we grow our food in.

There are two critical concepts about oil (natural gas, coal, etc.):

There is only so much oil in the world, and what we use will never be created again.
We have been using oil as an energy source, at an ever increasing rate, for about 150 years. Every year we use more than we did the year before.

Given these two facts, there is only one conclusion: we are going to run out of oil, and sooner rather than later. It doesn’t matter how much new oil we find to add to our reserves, it’s still going to run out. It’s like driving a car down an endless highway. It doesn’t matter how big the gas tank, and how many miles per gallon the car can get, once you drive past the last gas station, that’s it; a few hundred miles further on, your engine’s going to quit because your gas tank is empty, and there’s not a thing you can do about it.

The first graph shows oil consumption throughout the world between 1980 and 2007. As you can see, US consumption has been rising slowly since about 1984, while Canada, Mexico and South America have remained relatively constant. Europe, despite rising population and wealth, has also remained relatively constant. Eurasia shows a decline since 1990 – this was the end of the USSR, so many countries on the southern fringe of Russia (e.g. Kazakhstan, Chechnya, Georgia) lapsed into even greater poverty.

The major concern is Asia, primarily India and China. This region has more than doubled its consumption in the last 30 years, but with the increase of wealth in India (soon to be the world’s largest country in terms of population), and the new laissez faire capitalism in China, these figures will soon rise enormously, creating major strains on the world’s oil supply.

When Will Peak Oil Happen?

Estimates vary, but the general consensus is that the world’s peak is now, plus or minus about five years, i.e. something between 2005 and 2015. The most optimistic forecast is around 2020, but these are estimates from the oil producing nations and the oil companies, who don’t want to see any panic which would bother their bottom lines.

Since around 1965, we have been using more oil each year than we have discovered. If one compares it to a bank account, we have been taking more out than we have been putting in. If we look at oil as a bank account, we’re heading for inevitable bankruptcy.

Peak oil is the period when the world’s production of oil is at its highest. After peak oil, it will decline steadily, year after year, until it is no longer economical to produce oil.

Many people, and almost all governments, think like economists, and this is what causes the problems. They consider a supply and demand situation. Put simply, if the supply of widgets isn’t enough to meet the demands of the market, the price will go up. As the price goes up, it becomes more profitable to make widgets, so another widget factory is built, supply meets or exceeds demand, and the price falls. Eventually, supply and demand will stabilise, leading to a relatively constant and fair price for widgets.

Most economists assume the same is true for oil. As supply goes down, price goes up. When the price goes up, it becomes profitable to extract oil which couldn’t have been extracted economically at the previous lower price. Production increases, and the price comes down for a while. If the price comes down too much, then the new sources of oil become uneconomical for the oil companies, so they stop producing it, supply goes down, price goes up….

This is what happened to the Alberta Tar Sands. Oil prices increased steadily, making it economical to manufacture synthetic crude from the tar sands; hence the boom in Fort McMurray, Alberta. After the oil price peak in 2008, prices nosedived, and oil plants in the tar sands started to shut down. Now, as oil prices are beginning a steady climb again, it’s almost full steam ahead in Northern Alberta.

In other words, supply and demand, just as economists predict with their widget model. The crucial difference, however, is that there is no theoretical limit to either demand or supply for widgets. And whilst there is no theoretical limit to demand for oil, there is very definitely a limit to supply, just as there is a limit to one’s bank account (even Bill Gates’s). The model breaks down – prices will go up, but the corresponding increase in supply is not going to happen.

Eventually, oil prices will be so high, no one is going to be able to afford it, big oil will go bankrupt, and nations which depend on oil, either as exporters or as consumers, will go bankrupt with them.

Share on Facebook

Komorowski’s Korner – Sudbury Electric Makes Electric Storage Heaters Make Sense – Cornwall – June 16, 2010

Moderator — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 20:38:26 +0000

Electric Storage Heaters Come to Sudbury by Richard Komorowski

Cornwall ON - Most of Ontario, with the notable exception of Cornwall, will be using Smart Meters by the end of this year.

The reason given for the conversion to Smart Meters is to balance the electric load on the Ontario grid and generating facilities. If we use more power at night, when demand is relatively low, and less during the day, this will save on the amount of power we have to generate during peak periods.

In turn, this reduces the need and cost of building ever more generating stations, and makes it easier to close coal fired stations, which generate incredible amounts of pollution.

Unfortunately, it is difficult for most people to adjust their power consumption to take advantage of the lower rates offered during low peak times. Typically, we heat our homes during the day, and turn the thermostat down at night. With Smart Meters, we will be heating our homes when electricity is expensive, and turning down the heat during the relatively cheap nights.

There are two major problems with the new power rates for smart meters. First, the high and mid peak periods are too complex, and vary according to the time of year. This in itself can make it difficult for people to adjust their consumption.

Secondly, and more importantly, the difference in the high peak and low peak rate is not sufficient to make it economically viable for the average homeowner to upgrade an electric heating system to take advantage of the new rates. In Europe, which is far ahead of North America in energy conservation, off peak rates are about 20 to 25% of high peak rates. Over here, the difference is far less.

Sudbury Hydro Ahead of the Pack

Greater Sudbury Hydro recognizes the need for load balancing, and the fact that the current Smart Meter Rates don’t make it easy for the homeowner. As a result, Sudbury Hydro is providing a major incentive towards installing storage heaters. They will pay (subject to certain conditions) 75% of the conversion cost, up to $2,500 per home.

With this incentive, the homeowner can upgrade their heating system and quickly pay for the upgrade with their reduced energy bills. These savings will continue year after year, long after the improvements have paid for themselves.

How does it work?

The easiest way to take advantage of the new rates, without sweating at night and freezing during the day, is with Electric Storage Heaters. These come on during the low peak rate period, and store the cheaper energy to heat your home during the day. Their operation is really simple: at night, electricity warms a heat reservoir, such as a specially designed high density brick core, to a high temperature.

Image courtesy of Steffes Corporation, Bakersfield, VT

They heat up the house so it is comfortably warm when morning arrives, but not too much, thanks to a specially designed insulation barrier around the bricks. During the day, some air louvers in the radiator open, to allow air to pass through the brick core. This may also be assisted by a fan.

During the day, air circulates around these hot bricks, and warms your house. The next night, the cycle repeats.

These systems really do work well – just ask anyone from England or Continental Europe. Moreover, as gas and oil become increasingly more expensive and scarce, electric heat, whether storage or through a heat-pump, or a combination of these two, will become the only form of heat for all houses.

Note: If you wish to contact the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure to find out when similar programs will be rolled out in other areas of the province, please email him directly at Brad Duguid

Share on Facebook

Komorowski’s Korner – No Adverse Health Effect from Wind Turbines – June 5, 2010 – Cornwall Ontario

Moderator — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 10:18:19 +0000

No Adverse Health Effect from Wind Turbines by Richard Komorowski

Cornwall ON - The scientific evidence does not demonstrate any direct causal link between wind turbine noise and adverse health effects, according to a new report from Dr. Arlene King, Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer of Health. The report, published today, was prepared by Dr. King, in consultation with the Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion, the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, and the Council of Ontario Medical Officers of Health. It summarises the scientific evidence from reputable sources worldwide on the potential health impacts of wind turbines.

The review concludes that while some people living near wind turbines report symptoms such as dizziness, headaches, and sleep disturbance, the scientific evidence available to date does not demonstrate a direct causal link between wind turbine noise and adverse health effects. The sound level from wind turbines at common residential setbacks is not sufficient to cause hearing impairment or other direct health effects, although some people may find it annoying.

The major complaint about wind turbines is the noise they produce. Modern designs, however, minimise the noise, so that at an appropriate distance, the sound from a turbine is no more than 40 decibels (about the same as a quiet room). By contrast, it takes consistent sound levels in excess of 75 decibels to cause ear or other health problems. (Note: 50 db is ten times louder than 40 db, and 60 db is ten times louder than 50 db, and 100 times louder than 40 db).

This does not imply, however, that turbine noise is not sometimes annoying, but studies in the Netherlands and Sweden have shown that people who were against wind turbines on principle (e.g. their visual impact), tended to be more annoyed than people who were neutral in their reactions to turbines, and far more annoyed than those who saw them as a good thing.

Anti-wind advocates typically cite very low frequency sound (below the range of human hearing) as a problem. These low frequency sounds, however, are everywhere, from natural sources such as wind and water movement, and also road traffic, aircraft and ventilation systems. Vehicles are the worst offenders. Generally, it is impossible to tell if a low frequency sound is from a wind turbine or is just environmental background noise.

Sensitive people can find this low frequency sound annoying, and at a high enough volume, severe ear pain can arise. All the same, there is no evidence of adverse health effects from low frequency sound below 90 db. Studies show that wind turbines can produce from 50 to 70 db of these “infrasounds”, which is well below levels that cause concern.

Another potential health hazard mentioned by anti-wind advocates is “shadow flicker”, caused by shadows of rotating blades. Epileptics can be especially affected by this; however, the flicker frequency of a wind turbine is well below the frequencies that cause epileptic seizures.

Other possible hazards sometimes cited include ice thrown off the blades, and sometimes the blade itself breaking and being thrown a considerable distance (up to 500 metres). These incidents are extremely rare, however, and the minimum setbacks required by provincial legislation appear to provide an adequate safety margin.

The minimum setback for a wind turbine is 550 metres from a residence. The setbacks rise with the number of turbines and the sound level rating of the turbines. For example, a wind project with five turbines, each with a sound power level of 107dB, must have its turbines setback at a minimum 950 metres from the nearest residence.

Opposition

Not everyone is satisfied with the report, and wind farm development remains controversial. Wind Concerns Ontario is a province-wide advocacy organization “whose mission is to protect the health, safety and quality of life of the people of Ontario from industrial wind turbines.”

According to their mission statement, “Wind Concerns Ontario provides a strong, unified voice of opposition to the unchecked rush of locating thousands of massive industrial wind turbines across the province which are too close to human habitation and are without the benefit of full environmental assessment.”

In a statement posted on their website, Wind Concerns Ontario criticises the report, claiming that the Ministry of Health or local public health units have, contrary to legislation, failed to investigate the claims of those who say their health is suffering from being too close to windmills. According to the statement, “Every single person who has gone to their local Public Health unit has been told there is nothing they can do, are sent elsewhere, are told it is beyond their scope of responsibility and they cannot investigate.”

In addition, they state that provincial report was lifted, almost word for word, from a CanWEA [industry sponsored] report.

Conclusions

The following are the main conclusions of the provincial report on the health impacts of wind turbines:

While some people living near wind turbines report symptoms such as dizziness, headaches, and sleep disturbance, the scientific evidence available to date does not demonstrate a direct causal link between wind turbine noise and adverse health effects.

The sound level from wind turbines at common residential setbacks is not sufficient to cause hearing impairment or other direct adverse health effects. However, some people might find it annoying. It has been suggested that annoyance may be a reaction to the characteristic “swishing” or fluctuating nature of wind turbine sound rather than to the intensity of sound.
Low frequency sound and infrasound from current turbines are well below the pressure sound levels at which known health effects occur. Further, there is no scientific evidence to date that vibration from low frequency wind turbine noise causes adverse health effects.

Despite these conclusions, the verdict about whether large scale wind farms are safe seems to be still open. While there seem to be no direct safety concerns that cannot be addressed by having an adequate setback (e.g. falling windmills), the problems of a minority of people, living in the vicinity of these wind farms, and claiming poor health as a result, do not seem adequately addressed. Are these health problems (including heart palpitations, stomach problems, sleep deprivation and cognitive problems) actually directly caused by the wind turbines, or are they caused by anxiety about the turbines?

The provincial government report itself states:

Community engagement at the outset of planning for wind turbines is important and may alleviate health concerns about wind farms.
Concerns about fairness and equity may also influence attitudes towards wind farms and allegations about effects on health. These factors deserve greater attention in future developments.

Are large scale wind farms truly safe in all aspects, or do we need further regulation in order to protect the minority of residents who may indeed be suffering?

Links:

Ministry of Health Study:

http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/public/publications/ministry_reports/wind_turbine/wind_turbine.pdf

Wind Concerns Ontario:

http://windconcernsontario.wordpress.com/

Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA):

http://www.canwea.ca/

Share on Facebook

Towards a Greener Ontario – Provincial Government Supports New Solar Technologies by Richard Komorowski – Cornwall Ontario – May 20, 2010

Moderator — Thu, 20 May 2010 02:36:55 +0000

Towards a Greener Ontario – Provincial Government Supports New Solar Technologies by Richard Komorowski

Cornwall ON - The Ontario Government today announced that it is supporting Morgan Solar Inc. to the tune of $1.86 million to help the company start commercial production of new, highly innovative solar electricity generating panels. The panels use a radically new design to concentrate the light from the sun without using bulky mirrors or lenses. The result is a sturdy, light-weight panel which can better withstand the rigours of Ontario’s weather, and deliver electricity at a lower cost than traditional panels. As many as twenty new, long-term jobs will be created.

Ontario faces the challenge of providing enough energy for its population as conventional sources dry up or become cost prohibitive. Setting up a solar energy farm is expensive, but as production increases, these costs come down. This sort of government investment helps create new jobs, makes research into alternative energy sources feasible, lessens our reliance on fossil fuels, and reduces the highly toxic mercury and uranium pollution from coal-fired plants such as Nanticoke.

According to Nicholas Morgan, Vice-President of Morgan Solar Inc., “Morgan Solar Inc. has delivered on its mission to develop a highly efficient, low cost solar technology. With Ontario’s support we can take another step toward achieving our goal of making solar energy one of the most widely used and affordable power sources in the world.”

Solar Energy is one of the world’s fastest growing energy technologies. Since 2002, worldwide production of solar electricity has doubled every two years.

Commenting on the grant, John Milloy, Provincial Minister of Research and Innovation, stated that: “Ontario has a vision of being the North American leader in clean energy. By helping Morgan Solar, we are delivering on this vision while creating good jobs for Ontario families in a growing industry.”

These new modules comprise a few pounds of aluminum and optical material (principally acrylic), some electronics and tiny slivers of multi-junction photovoltaic cells. By eliminating almost everything that isn’t concentrating light or converting it into electricity, Morgan Solar has developed a lightweight, easy to assemble system that can be built at a fraction of the costs of competing photovoltaic systems.

please visit our sponsors:

Share on Facebook

Komorowski’s Korner – US Congress Votes in Favour of Upgrading US Homes – Cornwall Ontario – May 17, 2010

Moderator — Mon, 17 May 2010 12:48:01 +0000

US Congress Votes in Favour of Upgrading US Homes

Cornwall ON - Recently the Harper Government suddenly cancelled the ecoENERGY Retrofit Program, which was designed to help homeowners and landlords upgrade the energy efficiency of their homes. Among things which were eligible for a grant were energy efficient furnaces and hot water heaters, energy efficient central air conditioners and heat pumps, and insulation. The program, which was matched dollar for dollar by the Ontario Government, helped make these vital improvements affordable to most Ontarians as the province begins moving forward to a green economy.

Despite the Federal Government pulling out of its commitment to a stronger future economy, the Ontario Government is remaining true to its promise, and will continue its funding, at least for the time being.

On the other hand, south of the border, the US Congress has passed, by a non-partisan vote of 246 to 161, the Home Star Retrofit Act, a bill very similar in concept to Canada’s Retrofit Program.

Efficiency First is a national nonprofit trade association that promotes Green Building Standards in the US. According to its chairman, Mike Rogers, “Home Star will create good American jobs in construction, manufacturing and related industries. It will help American homeowners improve the efficiency of their homes and save money. And it will provide a solid foundation for our country’s energy policy and energy security.

‘

“Home Star will create hundreds of thousands of good quality jobs, while saving families money on energy bills.”

The American Congress is to be congratulated for taking such a concrete step to reduce its carbon footprint and its dependence on coal and OPEC. Equally important as we try to recover from the recession and prepare for the next, the Americans are actively creating jobs in the new Green economy, despite obvious pressures from Big Oil and Big Coal.

So why is Canada stepping backwards in a journey towards a better world?

For more information on the US Home Star Program, see http://homestarcoalition.org/HOME_STAR_Overview.pdf

please visit our sponsors:

Share on Facebook

Komorowski’s Korner – Insulating The Basement by Richard Komorowski – Cornwall Ontario – May 4, 2010

Moderator — Tue, 04 May 2010 14:48:12 +0000

Insulating the Basement

Cornwall ON - The average basement typically accounts for a major heat loss unless it is properly insulated. The good news is that a poured concrete basement (as opposed to concrete block or field stone) can be easily and effectively insulated by the homeowner.

The first and most important step is to make sure the basement is dry. If you try to insulate a wet basement, the result will be mould and a toxic living environment. Don’t forget, too, that fibreglass and cellulose insulation only work when they are dry.

If the basement is prone to leaks, you must fix these leaks first. Several factors contribute to a leaky basement:

Cracks in the foundation or basement wall itself. These may be minor, and could possibly be patched with hydraulic cement, or they could be structural, which means that one day your whole house might suddenly come down. If you’re not sure, contact a qualified, licensed contractor.
Outside ground that slopes towards the basement wall will carry rainwater towards the basement, not away from it. If this is the case, consider doing some landscaping.
Is there an adequate eaves trough, and if so, is it functional? Without an eaves trough, the rain from the whole roof concentrates a few inches away from the basement wall, which quickly saturates the soil.
Does the downspout drain to a suitable point, downgrade and several feet from the wall? If not, the ground in this area saturates very quickly and the water might force its way into the basement.

If the leakage is relatively minor, it can often be controlled by attention to the above points, and possibly by installing a sump pump, with appropriate drainage channels, within the basement itself.

If none of these steps work, then it will necessary to have a contractor with a back hoe dig around the entire basement, repair or install tile drainage around the foundation footing, and then seal the entire wall with tar. This is expensive, especially the labour cost, but you can add a lot of usable living space to your house. As a bonus, with the outside all dug up, you can very easily insulate the basement from the outside, using rigid foam panels.

There is some controversy about how to insulate a concrete block or fieldstone foundation. Some authorities maintain that these basements can be insulated from the inside without problem, whereas other experts think that this will eventually cause structural failure.

The reason is that if the basement in not insulated, it warms up the soil around the wall, preventing it from freezing. Because it is not freezing, the soil around the walls remains stable, and the walls do not go through a continual freeze/thaw cycle that eventually crack the mortar (which will then cause the basement to leak).

When wet soil freezes, it tends to heave up. If the soil also freezes to a block or field stone wall, it will want to try and lift the wall with it, causing potentially severe damage. However, if the wall is insulated on the outside, the wall’s temperature remains above freezing throughout the winter, and heaving soil has no effect because it is not in direct contact with the wall. Poured concrete walls, being relatively smooth, do not suffer from this effect.

Insulating from the inside is quite simple – build a stud wall (preferable 24” on centre) and insulate with either fibreglass batting (R12 or R20, depending on whether you use 2 x 4 or 2 x 6 studs), cover with a proper vapour barrier (very important), and then finish with dry wall or panelling. As an alternative, you can also use rigid foam boards, which often have a higher R value per inch of thickness. However, if you use any kind of foam insulation, it is mandatory to cover it with some sort of rigid material. Dry wall is the safest and, in my opinion, the most aesthetically pleasing, but the Ontario Building Code will allow other materials. The reason for covering foam is for fire safety. If a fire starts and comes in quick contact with the foam, toxic fumes can kill you and your family before the smoke alarm can go off.

The current Ontario Building Code recommends insulating from the top of the basement to the floor. If this is going to be a potential problem because of dampness, it’s fine to leave the bottom 12 to 18 inches clear, without insulation.

While in the basement, also check that the smoke alarm and CO (carbon monoxide) alarms work. A few seconds holding your ears and testing them might save your family’s lives, as well as lessening the property damage.

please visit our sponsors:

Share on Facebook

Komorowski’s Korner Insulating your Attic – Part 2 – Cornwall Ontario – April 23, 2010

Moderator — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 12:53:07 +0000

Insulating your Attic – Part 2 by Richard Komorowski

Cornwall ON - At the end of the last article, I promised to deal with basement insulation. However, because of space and time constraints, I left a lot unsaid about insulating the attic.

Last time, we dealt mostly with fibreglass insulation, which is relatively cost effective, and easy for the home owner/handyman to install, thus saving labour costs if the budget is tight.

However, there is another form of insulation which deserves more attention – blown cellulose. This insulation needs little energy to produce (as opposed to fibreglass, which is made from molten glass), and the major material is almost 100% recycled. The Ad Bags, Seaway News, Standard Freeholders and Guy Lauzon broadsheets can achieve a long and useful second life, keeping the heat in.

This insulation is made basically by grinding up newspaper into little pieces, and treating it with chemicals to retard mould growth and fire. Like fibreglass, it is compressed and packed into plastic bags.

Fibreglass is normally laid down in batts, by hand, although it can be chopped and blown into an attic. Cellulose is normally blown by a machine which works like a high power vacuum cleaner in reverse. One can rent these machines, although it is probably better to leave this kind of insulation to an experienced contractor. For the handyman on a really tight budget, it is possible to open the bags in the attic itself, and spread the contents around evenly, with a garden rake.

There are advantages and disadvantages to both fibreglass and cellulose insulation in the attic. Fibreglass is (relatively) easy to install, (but very itchy). Cellulose is more work, but has a higher R value per inch – around R3.7 per inch of cellulose vs R3.15 per inch of fibreglass. In addition, cellulose, being denser, is somewhat more airtight than fibreglass.

When it comes to upgrading my own attic sometime this summer, I shall probably use cellulose. There are 4 reasons.

Budgets are limited, but I can install fibreglass or cellulose myself. With fibreglass however, once the level goes over the joist height, it will be hard to find them later on when I want to put in more insulation. With cellulose, however, I can simply blow in more, without having to walk on the joists.
I have some cellulose insulation in place, which I plan to keep. I could cover it with fibreglass without problem, but when it comes time for another upgrade, for best effect I would have to continue with fibreglass, which could be difficult for reasons stated above.
Cellulose insulation is fairly dense and solid. For this reason it does not sit well on top of fibreglass, as the weight would squash the batts and reduce their R value.
Because fibreglass is such a light weight material, it suffers from a “wind effect”. If there is a draft above the fibreglass, such as might occur in a well-ventilated attic, the insulating value of the top two or three inches is reduced. Covering the insulation with a semi-permeable material, such as house wrap, which allows moisture to pass one way, but not the other, would solve this problem, but why go to that trouble and extra expense?

Regardless of the insulation used, it only works properly when the insulation is dry. Try lifting a hot dish from the oven without burning yourself! This is because the heat travels much faster through the moisture in the cloth than it does through the air it replaces.

Three factors help keep the attic insulation dry:

A water tight roof. If the roof leaks, you’ll have soaking wet insulation which, if it becomes heavy enough, will crash down through the ceiling into the room below.
The attic needs to be properly ventilated, so it can get rid of excess moisture. The Ontario Building Code states that for a typical attic, the total ventilation area must be at least 1/300^thof the attic area, and should be distributed as evenly as possible between the top and bottom of the attic. As an example, a 1000 square foot attic needs at least three and one third square feet of ventilation area.
In order to keep moisture from the house itself from penetrating the insulation, there must be a vapour barrier. The vapour barrier (typically 6 mil polyethylene) goes on the warm side of the insulation, behind the drywall, and it must be completely sealed, without tears or holes. In the case of a ceiling, it would go above the drywall, between the drywall and the joists and insulation.

There is one more factor to consider for keeping your house comfortable. When it comes time to replace the shingles, don’t even think of using black or dark coloured asphalt shingles – use the lightest colour available. Black is the most effective colour for absorbing the sun’s heat. During the height of summer, the attic of a black roof can be as much as 40° hotter than that of a light coloured roof, and this will reflect significantly on your comfort and air-conditioning bill!

please visit our sponsors:

Share on Facebook