Canadians Want a Clean Energy Future

One goal of the Premier’s conference last month was to develop a national energy strategy. That did not happen. According to news reports, this failure occurred because Premier Christy Clark would not agree to any general energy strategy unless BC and Alberta could reach some agreement in their current dispute. Clark had laid down five conditions that would need to be met if the proposed Keystone oil pipeline, promoted by Alberta, was to pass through BC. The single condition that is generating the most controversy has to do with the sharing of the revenues resulting from the export of the bitumen/oil. 

At first glance there seems to be much wisdom in such a stance: if we can’t agree on the detail on this specific aspect of energy development, what’s the point of talking about general agreements. The devil is in the detail.

But on second thought, much of that wisdom evaporates. The dispute seems to be about who gets what revenue. The dispute framed that way assumes the resource, bitumen/oil, ought to be developed, exported and sold. But should and do Canadians accept this assumption?

A new survey commissioned by Tides Canada speaks to this. The results are striking. According to this new poll, Canadians believe the country needs an energy plan that reduces fossil fuel dependence, cuts energy waste, creates more clean-energy jobs, fights climate change, and sets aside a portion of oil wealth to help prepare for a clean and renewable energy future.

“Citizens are hungry for a smart plan that will move the nation forward on the emerging global clean-energy opportunity and tackle climate change at the same time,” says Merran Smith, director of the energy initiative at Tides Canada.

Tides Canada commissioned Harris/Decima to do the survey. Canadians were asked to indicate to what degree they would prioritize a series of objectives for a potential Canadian energy strategy. They identified as a “top” or “high” priority “improving energy efficiency” (82 percent), “creating more jobs in clean energy” (75 percent), “reducing Canada’s carbon pollution to slow down climate change” (66 percent), and “reducing our reliance on fossil fuels like oil, gas and coal” (66 percent).

In contrast, only 33 percent of those surveyed placed a “top” or “high” priority on “exporting more of Canada’s oil and gas resources.” 

 

Meanwhile, 82 percent of those surveyed said that they either “strongly agree” or “somewhat agree” that “Canada should set aside a portion of its oil wealth to help prepare the nation for a clean and renewable energy future.”

The idea of a Canadian energy strategy resonates strongly with citizens. Fully 87 percent of those surveyed either “strongly” or “somewhat” agree with the statement “the nation needs a Canadian energy strategy to plan its energy future.” 

Oh that our governments would listen!

Eric Rempel

Natural Systems Agriculture Field day

I attended the Ecological and Organic Farming Systems Field Day at Carman last Monday. As in previous years, the plots and the work we were shown was most impressive. In introducing the day, Dr. Martin Entz informed us that their work indicates they can produce field crops using 37% of the fossil energy needed in conventional farming. The 150 guests there spent the rest of the day seeing how the research team goes about achieving this remarkable efficiency.

This reported efficiency is astonishing for two very different reasons.

It is astonishing that, given this efficiency, only very few people produce food in this way. Why don’t they? Because current economics does not reward this efficiency. The current fossil energy price is artificial. True, the price is determined by free market forces. In that sense it is the free market price, but that price only includes the cost of extracting the oil, and does not even include all of those costs. Furthermore, that price includes no compensation to future generations who will not have access to this precious resource because it will be gone. Whatever that compensation ought to be, whether it is high or low, it is never included in the market price of fossil energy. The market price of fossil energy is artificially low. Because of this low market price, it currently makes economic sense to use fossil energy extravagantly, in the production of our food.

But the number is also astonishing because it shows what is possible when good science is applied to a problem. In conventional agriculture, the posed challenge is, maximize net economic return by managing fertility, weed control, pest control and genetics. Prodigious amounts of research dollars have been and are being devoted to addressing the challenge defined in this way, and the results have been truly impressive.

The Natural Systems Farming research team has redefined the challenge. Their focus is not on economic return, but on return to energy. Prior to the fossil era, prior to this era when fossil fuel has been readily available, the food production challenge has always been that: how to get the necessary food, while expending the minimal amount of energy. What was lacking prior to the fossil era, was the application of the scientific method, and world wide communications.

When my grandfather farmed with horses, he was very aware of energy in and energy out. There was no cheap energy. His tools to enhance fertility were summerfallow, alfalfa, sweet clover, and to a limited extent, barnyard manure. The Carman researchers, today, are able to choose for some twenty different potentially useful green manure crops. My grandfather was very limited in the tools he had available. Today many more tools are available to both researcher and farmer.

The work done at Carman needs to be nurtured. Input manufacturers will not do this research, because it does not result in a return for them. Such research needs to be and only will be funded by a forward thinking government.

By Eric Rempel

The Need for Resilience

In 2006 we became aware of The Omnivore’s Dilemma. Even if we did not read the book, author Michael Pollan effectively raised all of our awareness of the implications of our food choices: the distance some of the food on our dinner plate has travelled, the inputs used in growing our food, the labour conditions present in the production of other food, and the sustainability of our whole food system. Pollan’s other concern is agricultural policy, and how subsidies, some overt, but many covert, affect our food choices.

On the heels of that book came The 100-Mile Diet: A Year of Local Eating. This is one couple’s account of life when they had set themselves the challenge of eating only food grown within 100 miles for a year. Inspired by that account, others have set themselves identical or similar challenges. All the people I have heard talking about this experience say the same thing: the discipline was a good experience, one they encourage others to try, but it is not a discipline they intend to follow for the rest of their life. They do not advocate it as a lifestyle.

Now there is The Localivore’s Dilemma. The book seems to make some good points primarily in drawing attention to the fact that long distance transportation may not be as large an energy input in the production of our food as say, the heating of a greenhouse. Had they stopped there, the book would be a good contribution to the whole food discussion. Unfortunately, the authors seem exceptionally intent on debunking The Omnivore’s Dilemma and The 100-Mile Diet. Without that emphasis, the book would be much more helpful to us as we make food choices.

Perhaps more helpful is The Resilience Imperative, a book I have been reading lately. This book suggests that with regard to our entire way of life, things have been going well. Nevertheless, shocks will come, whether they be the result of financial breakdown, resource depletion, or political breakdown. How well are we prepared for such a shock?

Our food system is predicated on a number of largely unexamined assumptions. The first assumption is that cheap fertilizer made from distant fossil and rock deposits will always be available. Conventionally, large quantities of energy are needed in both the production and delivery of food. The second assumption is that this energy will always be available.

A few dedicated researchers at the University of Manitoba are devoted to developing a food production system independent of imported fertilizers, and less dependent on fossil energy inputs. If these questions concern you, consider attending the Natural Systems Agriculture field day in Carman July 23.

At the South Eastman Transition Initiative we discuss and delve into these important questions. Join us Thursday, July 26 as we spend the evening with Kim Shukla and Richard Whitehead of Stonelane Orchard discussing the challenges and rewards of growing food without chemical inputs.

Eric Rempel

When the Power Goes Off

Events of the past few weeks have again reinforced the awareness that as a society we are extremely vulnerable to extended electrical power outages.

In my world, three recent events have helped to focus my attention and concern. At the Annual General Meeting of Steinbach Housing, Inc. on June 27^th, it was reported that a faulty stand-by generator had recently been replaced with a new one. Shortly after the announcement, the power went out, leaving the gathering in semi-darkness. “Will the new, standby generator work?” could be heard here and there. Fortunately the power came back on in about a minute so the standby system did not get a workout.

Then about a week ago a severe storm passed through Prince Albert, Saskatchewan where my son is working at Camp Kadesh. In that case power was restored a day and a half later, just in time to begin their annual staff training sessions.

Last week Friday, my sister flew home to Virginia after spending a week with family here in Manitoba. She made it as far as Richmond and then was advised to seek shelter from the “derecho” storm instead of attempting the one-hour drive to her home. She barely made it into a motel before the deluge hit. As we all heard in the news, electrical power went down for three million people. Four days later, 1.2 million people still were without power, and that amid sweltering heat.

All this makes me wonder what impact an extended power outage would have on us in Southeastern Manitoba. Of course the winter season is of greatest concern, but our normal lives would come to a virtual standstill during any season of the year should our electrical power system fail for more than a few hours.

Most of us don’t want to think about how vulnerable our power supply really is and don’t make even minimal plans for life without electricity. There is a collective denial among us that extended power outages could happen where we live. We simply choose to believe that when the lights go out, they will be back on shortly. Sometimes that happens. What if it doesn’t?

Larger institutions in our area place their hope on stand-by generators. These are good for short-term outages, but are less reliable when the power stays off for extended periods of time. And even so, these generators do not bring power to the larger population in the area.

A sustainable solution to such an eventuality has become quite elusive because we have built dependency on electrical power into the fabric of our modern life styles. Our grandparents survived quite well without electricity and so could we if we put our minds to it. But we cannot ‘flick a switch’ to erase such dependency. We have to think long and hard about how to minimize our dependence on electricity.

The question is whether we have the courage and willingness to change our lifestyles to reduce the vulnerability we now live with.

Jack Heppner

Rethinking Global Finance (II)

Two  weeks ago I alerted readers to the fact that global financial institutions, like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), are presently in the process of rethinking the advice they give to governments around the world. They have become acutely aware that the present trajectory of financial practices is simply not sustainable.

Johnny West, founder of OpenOil, a Berlin-based consultancy in oil and other extractive industries, and columnist for Petroleum Economist, has written extensively about some of the new thinking that is happening in these global institutions.

At the heart of this re-orientation is the notion that much more of the profits of extractive industries like oil and mining should flow towards local governments. According to Paul Collier, governments should then use these funds to “Invest in investing: the creation not of industries but of the infrastructure to support them, that infrastructure being partly physical, such as roads and utilities, and partly social, such as developing trading and legal systems which encourage private investment.”

Unlike manufacturing that actually makes something people need, extractive industries are making massive profits by delivering products to people who own them in the first place. (Consider that in 2008 Exxon made a profit of $45 billion dollars – the largest profit ever recorded by a company.) Because of this unique dimension of extractive industries, it is argued that we can stay well within capitalist orthodoxy by also applying unique taxation practices for these industries without creating market distortions.

The traditional argument is that these massive profits are justified because of the huge risks these companies take in discovering their products. However, with present computerized data now available on the substructure of most of the earth’s surface, the risks are substantially reduced. Why, for example, should government not use this data to identify where oil and minerals are located and then auction off the rights of extraction to the highest bidder. Nova Scotia did just that recently. It invested $15 million in oil exploration and then sold extraction rights for $900 million. You could argue that the rightful owners got the lion’s share of the profits.

There is cause for concern, for example, when corporations are extracting large amounts of oil from some African countries which are largely fed by Save the Children or the World Food Program. What would happen if, in such cases, the IMF moved in to advise local governments to insist that most of those oil profits should go to feed their own people and strengthen local infrastructure?

Some of the impetus for this new way of thinking is coming from Latin America where an increasing number of countries are claiming ownership of their own oil and minerals. It is becoming clear, that if private companies want to stay in the game, they will have to be willing to make major concessions. The World Bank and the IMF should see the writing on the wall and begin advising governments differently in relation to their extractive industries.  

Jack Heppner

Oil Development = Wellbeing?

Canada has become an energy giant – at least this is what Wikipedia says. According to the US Energy Information Administration, Canadian oil reserves are the second largest in the world. Only Saudi Arabia has greater assessed reserves. Mind you, much of Canadian oil is hard to get. It is either tied up as bitumen in the Athabasca Oil Sands, it is in the frigid north, or it is off shore where drilling is difficult.

As world oil supplies become more and more scarce, there is, and will continue to be increasing interest in these Canadian deposits. The question is: how should Canada as a nation respond to this growing interest? Conventional wisdom seems to say that we view this as a bonanza: we need to cash in on it as quickly as possible. But why? Last week I suggested that the market for our oil will not disappear, and the price of oil will only go up.

We know that oil companies need to show their investors a quick return on investment, but this is not true of governments. Our government needs to take a longer term, broader perspective on the development of such a resource. It is probably not reasonable to expect an oil company to consider what is best for our children and grandchildren in its long term strategy. However, I think it is the responsibility of a government to take such a long term perspective.

This is simply good conservative thinking. I am very disappointed that our current government, which claims to be conservative, applies what I call “company thought” to an issue that requires “nation thought.”

Furthermore, because the oil reserves we will be wishing to develop in the future will be hard to get at, their development will be more labour intensive than the oil developments of the past. We see this already. Labour demand in Alberta is high, and anecdotes of problems associated with this high labour demand are abundant – a shortage of housing, weak communities, and jobs simply not being filled. At the same time, some of the cities in eastern Canada are in recession.

Will there be any real winners if jobs continue to be lost in Eastern Canada and people wanting work need to continue to move to those areas where the oil is? Will there be any real winners if some of the areas we have considered part of Canada’s natural heritage become tailings ponds and other scars of open pit mining for oil.

Once wealth, whether it is national or individual has risen beyond a certain point, happiness is not a function of GDP or income. Happiness then is a function of family and community stability. Happiness is consistent with a country has stable communities and a diversified economy exporting a variety of products.

Given that we are dealing with a much sought after, but also very limited resource, the role of a conservative government needs to be to temper and guide the development of that resource. Instead, we see our government cheerleading the unfettered development and export of our non-renewable [once it is gone it is gone!] oil resource.

By Eric Rempel

When in Doubt, Use Caution

When in doubt, proceed with caution! When an input is scarce, use it sparingly! To my way of thinking, these are two core conservative values. I believe in these values, and find it puzzling that these values seem absent from many of the policies and actions of our current conservative government.

Take the promise, in the recent federal budget, to streamline environmental approvals. In general we all agree that streamlining is good thing. It removes unnecessary bureaucratic blockages. But if statements made by Joe Oliver, Minister of Natural Resources, are any indication of government intent, the intent of this streamlining is to not to assess the process. Instead, it seems, the government simply wants to get the environmental review process out of the way as quickly as possible so it can get on with its real agenda. Where is the caution here?

Why the rush? A successful business needs to know when to bring its product onto the market. It is not uncommon for a business enterprise to have to make a choice. It can choose to bring an inadequately developed product onto the market early and capitalize on an “early delivery” premium. Or it can spend more time on product development, sacrifice the “early delivery” premium, but deliver a good product.

I can understand why the oil companies are in a hurry to get things done. Each company wants to get in ahead of the other company because there is a premium in that. I can understand why the oil importing countries are lining up to fund the building of Canada’s pipelines. If they get in early, they have a better chance to get Canada’s oil.

But I can see no reason why Canada needs to be in a hurry. Why the hurry in exporting Canada’s oil resources? Why the desire to shorten the environmental approval process? Why the desire to attract non-Canadians to invest in the extraction of Canada’s oil? Why create jobs in the oil industry, when the jobs need to be filled by attracting immigrants? I could understand the hurry if it would be likely that we would lose if there were a delay in getting our oil onto the market.

But Canada won’t lose if we take our time in getting our oil onto the market, if we “take the time to develop a good product.” As the world oil supplies become harder to get; as the oil the world depends on comes increasingly from sources hard to get at (such a deep sea wells and Alberta’s tar sands), the price of oil will only go in one direction – up. The longer we delay in bringing this resource to the market, the higher will be the price. What’s to lose?

If Canada slows the delivery of tar sand derived oil onto the market, this delay will accelerate the rise in world oil prices. And this will affect what we pay at the pumps. That will hurt. It always does. Be that as it may, a substantial increase in the price of oil is inevitable. If not sooner, then it will be more later. Higher prices mean more pressure to find alternatives. We need that pressure. We need it soon.


By Eric Rempel

Local, Efficient Protein Production

Meat! I like meat. I also like eggs, cheese and other milk products. Meat, eggs, milk and plants contain amino acids that form proteins. Our bodies need eight different amino acids to survive. However, it takes ten vegetable proteins to produce one animal protein, so the production of animal protein takes about ten times as much space and resources as it takes to produce the equivalent amount of plant protein. In a finite, polluted, populated world, a world running out of resources, surely it makes sense to eat less animal product. Should we live without animal products? Probably not, but I say we need to do with less animal products? I do. I have been doing it for a several years.

Cereals (wheat, oats, barley) have six of the amino acids our bodies need. The two missing ones are present in legumes (peas, beans, lentils). If you eat your cereals together with legumes (a common, ancient practice in many traditions), you will get all the essential amino acids your body needs. It is equivalent eating meat – well, almost. Vitamin B12 is also essential, and this we cannot get from plants. Most of us get the small amount we need in meat and milk. However, vegetable B12 is available at your natural food store (food yeast, naturally brewed soya sauce, supplements). Alternatively, you can continue eating small amounts of local animal products.

Responsible eating also means we examine how far our food travels. Locally grown whole cereals, legumes, meats, eggs, milk products are available. We do not have to depend on food produced far away (In North America food travels an average of 2000 kms. between field and plate). There is no need to burn tons of fossil fuels transporting the food we need. If I have to burn fossil fuels, I prefer burning it to travel myself. My food cannot enjoy traveling anyway!

I am an organic gardener and I have found a relatively easy way to reduce my dependency on animal products. I now produce my own dry beans. For the last two years, I have been producing my own organic red kidney and pinto beans! Legumes grow well in poor soils and are good companions for potatoes because they confuse potato beetles and their roots fix nitrogen: they produce a natural fertilizer. Most of the beans dry on the plant, so you do not have to can, freeze or dry them. You simply throw the pods in a burlap bag, tread on them and beat them up a bit (excellent frustration spender and good exercise! Save on gym costs!). Then wait for a windy day and let the wind separate the beans from the chaff. Bonanza!

I can already envision the yummy chillies, soups, stews! Life is great! Yes, there are challenges, but solutions are available everywhere for those who want to find them!

The South Eastman Transition Initiative (SETI) gathers people who are concerned about the use of fossil fuel. We meet to encourage one another in the search for solutions to problems of this nature. SETI is sponsoring a workshop on organic backyard food production on Thursday, April 26. The workshop will be at the allotment gardens behind the Steinbach Mennonite Church, 134 Loewen Blvd. Anyone is welcome. Check southeasttransition.com for details.

Gabriel Gagne

Can Organic Farming Become Mainstream?

Had someone asked me five years ago to describe the organic food industry, I would have placed organic food production somewhere on the fringe. I knew of consumers who believed organic food was healthier than conventional food. These consumers are willing to pay a premium for organically grown food and are complemented by farmers who grow food organically. These organic growers need the organic price premium in order to compensate for lower yields. Everyone is happy.

But not everyone, really. Anyone prepared to take a critical look at conventional agriculture, has always been concerned about the vulnerability of that production system because of its dependence on scarce and exotic chemicals; scarce in that phosphate and nitrogen as inputs are non-renewable resources, and exotic because chemicals are carefully developed in order to address a defined problem under defined conditions. The understanding of how these exotic chemicals work and of their side effects is limited.

The above thoughts should really not be new to anyone. What follows may surprise you.

In February, I attended the first ever Canadian Organic Science Conference in Winnipeg. The conference was fascinating in many respects, but what struck me most was the growing awareness by the conference attendees that organic food production is able to compete with conventional food production on its own terms: that is, organic food producers are poised to compete in the same market place with conventional food producers.

The Rhodale Institute in Pennsylvania has been a leader in the research, development and promotion of organic food production methods since 1947. They have been running a farming systems trial for 30 years comparing conventional and organic farming systems. The Institute has recently published a report thirty years into the study. They have found that:

• Organic yields match conventional yields
• Organic outperforms conventional in years of drought
• Organic systems build rather than deplete soil organic matter, making it a more sustainable system
• Organic farming uses 45% less energy
• Organic systems produce 60% of the greenhouse gases a conventional system does
• Organic farming systems are more profitable than conventional

Organic food production is not simply the elimination of chemicals in the growing of food. An organic producer told me recently, that a conventional farmer monitors his field, and when he detects a problem, he goes to his agricultural input supplier, buys the appropriate chemical and applies it. An organic producer, on the other hand, needs to be aware of the problems he is likely to encounter two or three years earlier, and begin to deal with them then. Organic production requires an understanding of the biological systems at work in the field or garden, and a familiarity with the wide array of tools now available to the organic grower.

Nobody said organic food production is easy, but as fuel prices go up and weeds and insects develop chemical resistance, more and more of us will need to embrace organic food production.

Eric Rempel

What About Wood Heating

A series of columns on home design and home heating with a view to energy efficiency would not be complete without a discussion of the potential wood has for heating our homes.

Mary and I heat our home with wood. We like it. It helps us maintain our connection with the earth that supports us. This connection with the earth is so much more vivid when I am splitting wood in the morning or watching the flame in the glass window than if I were simply to set the thermostat higher and feel the heat come out of the forced air register of a natural gas furnace. For me that is one up side to heating with wood. The satisfaction I get from heating with wood is similar to that of growing the vegetables I eat.

But heating with wood is also energy efficient. We need to learn to pay attention to a new insight called EROEI (energy return on energy invested). When oil was first discovered in the 1930s, the EROEI for that oil was 100:1. Now all the readily accessible oil is gone. We are now developing the tar sands where the EROEI is only 5:1. If I apply that insight to wood heat, I consider the fuel used by my chain saw and my pickup truck. If I get my wood fuel about 45 km from my home, the EROEI is about 24:1. So for residents of southeastern Manitoba, where there is plenty of bush and forest, wood fuel is one of the most efficient sources of home heating.

Furthermore, as we become increasingly dependant on hard-to-get-at oil supplies, notably tar sands and offshore oil, the price of oil-based fuels is going to become increasingly volatile. There is comfort in being dependent on a local fuel resource, wood, the price of which is likely to be considerably more stable in the years ahead.

Now before we all run out and install wood burning heaters, there are some cautions to consider. Wood heaters produce smoke. Outdoor wood boilers are the biggest culprits in this regard. New, certified, indoor wood heaters produce much less smoke. In the last twenty years much research and development has gone into the development of improved heaters. The results are impressive. Nevertheless, where there is a wood fire, there is at least some smoke. If everyone in Steinbach heated with individual wood heaters, we would likely have an air pollution problem. A comprehensive solution to that problem exists and that is district wood heat. In Scandinavia, district wood heating is common.

Maintaining a wood fuel supply is labour intensive. That human energy is not included in the EROEI. This is because human energy is not fossil energy; it can be replaced. Furthermore, much, if not most of the labour going into the maintaining of a wood supply is wholesome energy, energy that ought to be expended in order to maintain the health of our body. Maintaining a wood fuel supply is good, healthy, outdoor exercise.

Eric Rempel 

Building for Tomorrow

It seems today’s home owners and home builders would rather bury their heads in the sand than work at envisioning the future. Conventional, contemporary home building technology has been developed in a situation when energy for home heating was cheap. It still is cheap – but for how long?

As we make decisions about the houses we build today, we ought to be making our best guess as to what energy will cost twenty or thirty years from now, and build accordingly. But we don’t. We go to default mode, and expect implicitly that energy prices in the future will not change significantly. We all know that’s absurd, but we do it anyway. In reality, humans are remarkably uncomfortable with forward thinking.

These were the thoughts going through my mind at the information event Solar in the Southeast last Thursday evening. The South Eastman Transition Initiative had organized the event. Three southeast homeowners shared their experience with building and living in energy efficient homes. Listening to these homeowners, there was little doubt that they, at least, are convinced that most of us are headlong into a herd mentality.

An annual heating bill of $800 or $1,000 is acceptable today for most homeowners. But energy prices will go up! Then what?

Today it is practical and cost effective to build a house that can be heated for $100 annually. In Europe, where energy prices are much higher, passive house design is becoming normal. In North America, innovative builders, here and there, are building energy efficient houses. CMHC has a program promoting energy efficiency in housing. But interest in these housing technologies remains far from the main stream.

Donald and Randy Proven are strong advocates of energy efficient home construction. They have concentrated on infill housing. They have done both, built new houses as well as retrofitted old, drafty houses. Where standard construction today expects walls with R20 insulation, they strive for R60. Where many houses today have 6 air changes per hour, they strive for 0.6. Most of the heating their houses need comes from solar, but when the sun don’t shine, they do use electric heat.

Kyle Friesen, who lives near Mitchell, has put a large solar array on the roof of his house. The array is hooked into Manitoba Hydro. When Kyle’s array generates more electricity than his household uses, Hydro buys his surplus. When the sun don’t shine, Hydro makes up the difference. Manitoba Hydro does not pay much, so this is not a great money maker, nevertheless Kyle expects to recover his investment over the long haul. Kyle admits, “If I had invested this money in the Alberta Oil Sands, I would be getting a better return on investment, but” he adds, “an investment in the oil sands is not an investment in the future.”

Herman Unrau of St. Malo has had vacuum evacuated tubes on his roof for three years. He continues to be very happy with them.

If energy efficient housing interests you, there is more information on our web site southeasttransiton.com.

By Eric Rempel

Does Solar Thermal Make Sense Economically?

Anybody who has used a black garden hose in summer knows that solar energy will heat water. But that same garden hose in winter will be useless. This has been the problem with harnessing solar energy to heat our water or our homes. In winter, when we need the heat most, the heat loss to ambient air is such that collected energy becomes useless for the heating of water. Passive solar, that is south facing windows, certainly collects solar heat during the day, but unfortunately, much of that heat is then lost at night.

But new technology has significantly changed what is possible. This new technology is vacuum evacuated tubes. Vacuum evacuated tubes make it possible to heat a liquid in a roof panel in the middle of winter, and deliver hot water into the house. In other words, technology that allows us to heat water in a useful way in the middle of a Manitoba winter now exists.

The question is how much does an installation cost and will it save me money? Well, that depends on what you want.

If you are solar dependent and want your hot shower in the morning, the necessary water will have been heated the previous day and will have been kept hot all night. Hot water when the sun is shining is relatively easy to deliver, whereas hot water first thing in the morning brings its challenges. The challenges can be overcome, but it costs money.

Furthermore, a system that can fully utilize the sun’s energy every day of the year will pay back  more quickly than a system that utilizes the sun’s energy in winter, but finds the sun’s heat in summer a liability.

In other words, a system designed to only heat water for domestic use will pay back quite quickly, especially if the homeowner is willing to accept the discipline of doing the tasks that need hot water when the sun shines. Some solar proponents say the system will pay for itself in less than four years.

On the other hand, it is also possible to design and build a solar hot water system that will keep the house warm in winter. Unfortunately such a system will not be doing anything useful in summer. In fact such a system needs to be protected from overheating in summer. It will take longer to pay back the investment in this case.

The other factor affecting the economic viability of a solar hot water system is the future price of hydro and fossil energy. We know the price will go up. We don’t know how fast.

A practical solution will probably be something in between: a system designed to deliver enough energy to only look after domestic hot water needs in December and January. This system will deliver surplus heat which can be used to heat the house as the days get longer.

Join us Thursday, February 23, at the Eastman Education Centre. A panel of solar users that will discuss their experience with solar energy.

Eric Rempel

Lights Out…

Although it was only 8:30 p.m. on February 9^th, the temperature outside had slipped to minus 25 Celsius. John and Mary were enjoying a quiet evening in their home on First Street in Steinbach when the lights went out.

“They’ll be back on in a few minutes,” declared John confidently.

Meanwhile Mary felt her way to a drawer where she found a candle. 

“Where are the matches, honey?” she called from the kitchen.

“Check the junk drawer in the utility room,” responded John.

Once a candle was lit, John and Mary huddled around it, even feeling somewhat romantic. By 10:00 p.m. the power was still off, and the temperature in the house had dropped by one degree.

“Let’s go to bed to wait this out,” said John. “We like it cool at nights anyway, and surely by morning everything will be back to normal.”

The next morning John stuck his foot out from under the covers. The cold shock quickly shot up to his groggy mind and suddenly he was wide awake. 

“Mary, wake up! The power’s still off!”

Once up and dressed in multiple layers they noticed the temperature in the house had dipped to 14 degrees.

“Let’s check the radio to see what’s happening,” muttered John under his breath.

“The only working radio we have is in the car,” replied Mary.

A few minutes later, huddled together in a cold car, they heard a Manitoba Hydro representative saying that the outage was widespread and that no one knew when the power would come back on. And, as though to comfort himself, he added, “But we know that everyone has a plan for such an emergency.”

“So what is our plan?” inquired Mary. Only silence from John.

“I know we’re out of milk,” said John, “so I’ll pop over to Extra Foods so we can at least have a normal breakfast.”

As John approached the supermarket he noticed the lights were out and no one was around.

Then he noticed a commotion around Main Bread and Butter. As he got closer he noticed a sign in the window, CASH ONLY.  “Lucky me,” he thought, “I have ten dollars in my wallet!” He managed to leave with a litre of milk in hand.

“So how do we cook our lunch?” Mary wondered after finishing their granola with milk.

“Hey, our barbeque has a cooking element on it! I’ll haul it out,” John answered cheerfully as though congratulating himself.

By evening the house had cooled to eight degrees. “Let’s go to bed early and just hope and pray for the best,” suggested Mary. “I’ll throw on an extra comforter.”

Once under the covers, John and Mary cuddled a little closer than usual to keep each other warm.

“So what do we do tomorrow, my dear,” queried Mary.

“Don’t worry, honey,” replied John, “All we need is for the power to be restored by morning.”

“But what if it isn’t?” probed Mary.

“Don’t worry, my love. I’m sure the city has a plan.”

Join us for a discussion of solar possibilities Thursday, Feb 23. 

Jack Heppner

Electricity and Resilience

I have been thinking recently about how reliable our electrical power supply really is.

It started while reading the Kindle Book, “Farming 101: Transitions.” In this short novel, Gary Martens of the University of Manitoba is making a case for Natural Systems Agriculture. He does not have much success until he interjects into the plot a major, electrical power outage in the middle of winter.

The power failure embraces all of North America and the electricity simply does not come on again. And it is in that context that some enterprising farmers rediscover a more natural and sustainable way of farming.

“How ridiculous!” I hear someone say. Power always comes back on within a few hours or days at the most. But what if it didn’t? I began asking people what they would do if the power went off in mid-winter and didn’t come back on. A look of incredulity usually was followed by some statement like, “I just don’t want to go there.”

I googled for information about the massive power failure in the Eastern USA and Canada in 2003. I discovered that at least 50 million people lost power, some of them for 33 days. Reading through the government report about that event was not encouraging. It revealed dozens of weak links in the electrical grid and documented how, because of the integration of multiple systems, one part can affect another to bring down the whole. In the end the report made 46 recommendations to improve the system. Yes, forty-six.

Hmm! This led me to a book I found at the U. of M. library; “Brittle Power,” by Amory and Hunter Lovins (1982). It is a major work outlining the vulnerability of all of North America’s energy sector, including its electrical systems. They document how all the systems society depends upon for survival are vulnerable to major disruption because of internal flaws, human error, natural disasters and sabotage of various kinds.

The authors point out that because all the energy systems are so interconnected, both within each sector and with each other, it would not take much to bring down all the systems at one time.

Some people tell me to be quiet about such things. This kind of “fear-mongering” is not helpful, they say. But why was it okay to consider the fearful possibility of Winnipeg being totally flooded once in 700 years, which led to our building a massive floodway at huge expense? Just to be prepared.  But to anticipate an inevitable collapse of the electrical grid is off limits.

The Lovins leave us with something to ponder. “It is not pleasant to have in the back of one’s mind that the next time the lights blink out, they may take an exceedingly long time to come back on again (140). Personally, I think a responsible society needs to think about such things. Especially in mid-winter.

In future articles we will explore possible ways to be better prepared for major electrical outages.

Jack Heppner 

Why I Ride My Bicycle

A few months ago, Eric Rempel posted a column about why he biked. This motivated me to share my story.

Were I to choose a personal zodiac, 2011 would be the year of the Bicycle. Last summer I found my self completely smitten with a mode of transportation that was simply too intimidating and/or inconvenient a few years ago.   This epiphany occurred because I had become increasingly aware of the effects of “unconscious living” and that such a lifestyle was destroying the very environment I love.  I realized that I had a responsibility to do something. I also needed to save money.

In the past few years, some friends at the University of Winnipeg have opened my eyes to the concept of sustainable living.  I have become alarmed by the realization that our lives are completely dependent on petroleum, a resource that is finite and non-renewable, causes wars, and is becoming increasingly expensive. I had been living in ignorant bliss for most of my life and suddenly I became painfully aware.

This awareness placed me at a fork in the road, with a map and no compass. I knew where I was and where I wanted to go, but had to find a way to get there. I had friends who were vegan, others were dedicated winter cyclists, and some attempted to follow a 100 mile diet.  That was all too extreme. I was overwhelmed but decided to take baby steps. I have begun by composting, noting where food I buy comes from and riding my bike.

I have never been athletic and the mere thought of biking exhausted me at first. I had no leg muscles, no endurance, was terrified of cars on the road and did not know what traffic laws to follow. 

Then I decided I would like to travel, and go back to school.

I hate to make it seem like money is the ultimate motivator, but a tight budget is.  Driving my car less was an easy penny saver and that meant biking more. And then I began to love it! Biking was actually exhilarating! Not only was I saving money, I was gaining muscle. It was like I was on Body Break – staying fit and having fun!

When I returned to Steinbach this past June after a two-year hiatus, I needed to share my new discovery with my old town. Some friends and I organized group bike rides. I wanted people to realize that riding a bike doesn’t have to mean that you can’t afford a car, or that you are an athlete. It can simply mean you like riding your bike and want to consume less gasoline.

Hey, give it a go! Start small. Next time you need to dash to the store or return a movie, ride your bike. January may be a difficult time of year to start, so maybe you wait till spring. But now is the time to resolve to ride your bike more. The city of Steinbach has done a great job of making the city bicycle friendly. For cycling information check both www.steinbach.ca and southeasttrasniton.com.

Hilary Klassen

We Need a Resource Consumption Tax

Most taxes in Canada do not encourage the right activities. Behavior that should be encouraged is taxed, and behavior that should be discouraged has no tax. That was the assertion I made in last week’s column and applied that thinking to property tax. But this thinking is relevant to other taxes as well.

Most taxes in Canada are based on income earned, both for the corporation and for the individual. The more income the person or company earns, the more taxes are due. But why tax income? So many other things could be taxed: consumption, land, the use of resources, energy use, capital gain, inheritance, to name the most obvious. Of course, to a limited extent, all of these items are being taxed, but the heavy tax remains the income tax.

But why tax income. It only makes sense if there are no better options. But there are many better options. To make my point consider just one simplified example. A factory pays a certain amount of tax. Under today’s tax policy, most of that tax would be based on income. As the company becomes more profitable, it pays more tax; less profitable, less tax. It follows then, that there is only one incentive the tax gives to the company and that is to hire more accountants and lawyers. Their skill lies in finding ways to avoid the payment of tax.

But now assume our tax policy changes. The same amount of tax is paid, but the tax now is based on consumption. The tax could be on overall consumption (like our GST), but better would be a tax on a scarce resource, say oil. Note this tax shift would not affect the disposable return of the factory. The same amount of tax is paid. The firm still has the same freedom to invest and procure, but the more oil it consumes, the more tax it pays; the less oil it consumes, the less tax it pays. This tax shift creates a huge incentive for the factory to reduce its oil consumption and become more energy efficient. Conceivably the incentive would result in more jobs as the company re-focuses from energy efficiency to labour efficiency.

The simple tax shift from income focus to oil focus will result in other beneficial changes over time. Nobody forfeits any freedom. Those who wish to continue to consume oil at a high rate, are free to do so, but it will cost them more. Those who find ways to reduce their oil consumption, save. Obviously, factories become more efficient. Nation-wide, less oil is consumed, so more oil is left for future generations. Pollution generally accompanies oil consumption. There is less pollution. Transportation costs increase, so there is less traffic. Everyone walks and cycles more, with concomitant benefits to physical and mental health. The tax shift has redefined efficiency.

A tax shift away from income tax to a tax based on consumption benefits everyone. It is more fair, encourages more efficiency, and encourages conservation.

Why I Ride My Bicycle

Three reasons, really! It is good for my health, it is economical, and it is the only sensible thing to do if one takes the long view. Which of these I consider most important depends on which day you ask me.

When I retired from my last paying job three years ago, I realized that if I wanted to maintain my health I would need to discipline myself in terms of exercise. Necessary exercise could take the form of a regular workout at a gym, or on some exercise equipment in my basement. It could take the form of a disciplined walk or jog every day, but I knew from experience, that I do not take to this kind of discipline well. As I thought about my options, I realized that the most pleasant discipline for me would be to deliberately limit my options with respect to getting around Steinbach.  I resolved that I would not use motorized transport to get myself between points within Steinbach and environs.

For the most part, I have stuck with my resolve. I am grateful that my health allows me to cycle. I do need a car to carry goods from time to time, but the bike trailer I now have handles most of the things I need to carry. Winter riding is a challenge, but that challenge is not insurmountable. Studded tires reduce wipeouts, and appropriate clothing protects me from the weather. At minus thirty, properly dressed, I arrive at my destination warmer than if I had ridden in a car.

Was I not committed to cycling, Mary and I would need an additional vehicle. According to a recent Globe and Mail article, car ownership in Canada costs at least $6,000 annually, in some cases as much as $13,000. So because of my cycling habit, we can manage with $6,000 less pension income.

Then there is the long view. What do we expect our city to look like in 20 years, in 30 years or 50 years? Will we still be dependant on the gasoline-powered automobile? I do not think so. The current gasoline dominated era will end soon. When that happens, a sprawling city of large parking lots and wide streets will not be a welcoming city.

Some people place their hope in plug-in vehicles. But plug-in vehicles are no more energy efficient than gasoline powered vehicles. They merely substitute hydro energy for oil energy.

Today, if I ride my car from my house to the Clearspring Mall, I consume more than a million calories. If I walk that same distance, I consume 185 calories. If I cycle, I also consume 185 calories, but cover the distance in one-third the time.

If we want our city to survive into the future, we need a city built around energy efficiency, not around the squandering of energy. The planet will give us no choice. By riding my bike, I am sending a signal, however small, to whoever will listen, that we need to, much more consciously, move towards energy efficiency in our city.

Cycling is one expression of voluntary simplicity. Join us at the Eastman Educational Centre November 24 for a discussion of voluntary simplicity with Val Hiebert, sociology prof at Providence. 

Eric Rempel