Tag Archives: energy

Taking local action

Posted on by
2

Minneapolis Skyline

Over at Grist, David Roberts lays down the brutal logic of climate change:

With immediate, concerted action at global scale, we have a slim chance to halt climate change at the extremely dangerous level of 2 degrees C. If we delay even a decade — waiting for better technology or a more amenable political situation or whatever — we will have no chance.

And what’s so special about 2 degrees C?  Well, that may be something like a point of no return.

The thing is, if 2 degrees C is extremely dangerous, 4 degrees C is absolutely catastrophic. In fact, according to the latest science, says Anderson, “a 4 degrees C future is incompatible with an organized global community, is likely to be beyond ‘adaptation’, is devastating to the majority of ecosystems, and has a high probability of not being stable.”

Roberts is citing the work of Kevin Anderson, former head of the UK’s leading climate research institution.  Other scientists are making similar predictions.  James Hanson, director of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, says, ”The target of 2C… is a prescription for long-term disaster“.  Increasingly, you don’t have to look far to find words like “apocalyptic” being used to describe the path we’re on.

So we need to reverse course on emissions by 2015, and in dramatic fashion.  But the latest round of international talks seem to be on shaky ground.  All US climate bills have so far failed.  So what’s a local planner or public official to do?  Decry the problem as global in scope and thus unsolvable? Shrug shoulders and pour a stiff drink?  While I have a healthy amount of skepticism about the ability of one jurisdiction or even one state to have a measurable impact on the global trendline, I think we absolutely must be making our best efforts now, for a number of reasons:

Continue reading →

World on track for 11-degree temperature rise

Posted on by
Reply

The chief economist for the International Energy Agency, the group first formed to respond to the oil crisis in the 1970′s, talks climate change.

According to the IEA’s most recent analysis, heat-trapping emissions from the world’s energy infrastructure will lead to a 2-degree Celsius increase in the Earth’s temperature that, as more capacity is added to the system, will climb to 6 degrees Celsius of warming by 2100.

Unless there is a shift away from some of the fossil fuel energy now used for electricity generation and transportation, Birol said, “the world is perfectly on track for a six-degree Celsius increase in temperature.

“Everybody, even the schoolchildren, knows this is a catastrophe for all of us,” he said at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Happy Tuesday!

Super energy efficiency for existing homes

Posted on by
Reply

 The Star Tribune has a story about the MinnePHit House in South Minneapolis.

Sometime in the next few weeks, Paul Brazelton will move his family into a 1935 Tudor in south Minneapolis that has no furnace. He’s just finished a massive renovation of the family home and even though winter’s bearing down, he removed the boiler and plans to use that basement space for his daughters’ home-school classroom.

He also took out the fireplace.

If this sounds like the most uninviting house (and classroom) in Minneapolis, there’s something else to know: Brazelton, a software engineer and passionate environmentalist, has nearly finished a retrofit of his house to the stringent engineering standards of the Passivhaus model, a German system of homebuilding that uses insulation and highly efficient doors and windows to save energy.

The finished 2,000-square-foot home could be warmed even in the dead of winter with a pair of small space heaters, Brazelton said, though the family plans to piggyback on their hot water heater and use an in-floor heating system in the basement.

The project is the renovation of an existing home to meet EnerPHit standard for energy performance. EnerPHit is a subset of the Passive House standard (hence the PH), which is an energy performance standard that requires very high levels of energy efficiency.  The Passive House Institute has a summary:

A Passive House is a very well-insulated, virtually air-tight building that is primarily heated by passive solar gain and by internal gains from people, electrical equipment, etc. Energy losses are minimized. Any remaining heat demand is provided by an extremely small source. Avoidance of heat gain through shading and window orientation also helps to limit any cooling load, which is similarly minimized. An energy recovery ventilator provides a constant, balanced fresh air supply. The result is an impressive system that not only saves up to 90% of space heating costs, but also provides a uniquely terrific indoor air quality.

Passive House is a performance standard, meaning it doesn’t specify design features like LEED, but has performance characteristics that the building must meet after construction is complete.  Namely an airtight building shell at  ≤ 0.6 ACH @ 50 pascal pressure measured by a blower door test and a total heating & cooling demand of <4.7 kBtu/sq ft/yr.  Total energy use needs to be ≤ 38.1 kBtu/ft2/yr.

In layman’s terms, this means Passive House designs are 11 times more airtight than a conventionally designed and built modern home.  As for energy use, a typical single family detached home uses 76 kBtu/sq ft/yr.  My own house was built in the 1920′s and currently has no wall insulation.  In 2010, we used 89 kBtu/sq ft/yr in total, and I think we’re fairly frugal with our electricity.  That means when the Brazelton family finishes their home, it will use less than half the total energy of my house and be 15% larger.

The Passive House standard doesn’t require or depend on renewable energy to achieve this high energy performance.  It’s focused on minimizing, to the greatest extent possible, the loss of heat and capitalizing on natural heat sources like sunlight and even body heat.  The MinnePHit house will be renewable-ready, but it won’t have renewables to start with.  Paul, the owner, puts it eloquently:

 …we decided to use our limited resources in building a house with the highest level of efficiency and durability.  If maintained correctly, solar panels can last decades.  On the other hand, insulation can last centuries.  Looking again at the long term, the best investment is using less energy, not alternate energy.

Last but not least, this home is energy efficient because it is location efficient, located in South Minneapolis with nearby access to jobs, recreation and services.  The Brazelton’s definitely don’t have to use an automobile for every trip, and they likely won’t be traveling far to their destination.  The other local example of Passive House design can’t make that claim.

Piecemeal cuts won’t get us to 80 percent reduction

Posted on by
Reply

Jane C.S. Long has an interesting, and sobering, review of the work of the California Council on Science and Technology on what it will really take to get to 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.  This is the target that California has adopted, and what many scientists have said we need to aim for to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.  Minnesota has actually adopted this target in state law as well (remember the old Tim Pawlenty?), but hasn’t done much about it since.

So how can we get to an 80 percent reduction? Not easily.

Having done the maths, what did we discover? If California could very quickly replace cars, appliances, boilers, buildings and power plants with today’s state-of-the art technology, replace and expand current electricity generation with non-emitting sources and produce as much biofuel as possible by 2050, the state could reduce emissions a lot — by perhaps 60% below 1990 levels. But it would have to replace or retrofit every building to very high efficiency standards. Electricity would have to replace natural gas for home and commercial heating. All buses and trains, virtually all cars, and some trucks would be electric or hybrid. And the state’s entire electricity-generation capacity would have to be doubled, while simultaneously being replaced with emissions-free generation. Low-emissions fuels would have to be made from California’s waste biomass plus some fuel crops grown on marginal lands without irrigation or fertilizer.

To reach an 80% cut will take new technology.

That new technology includes “major advances in near-zero-emissions fuel”.  According to Long, “California can’t just spend or deploy its way to an 80% reduction or beyond — and neither can anywhere else.”

Study: city dwellers produce as much CO2 as countryside people do (but urban form still matters)

Posted on by
Reply

A new study of two metro areas in Finland proclaims to “illustrate that the influence of urban density on carbon emissions is insignificant”.  This study was published in Environmental Research Letters.  You might remember other studies that seem to indicate the opposite.

The idea that urban form has a significant impact on emissions and therefore should be considered during planning and land use decisions is embraced by many urbanists, environmentalists and scholars.  Others disagree with this position, saying us “sanctimonious urbanites“ may be overplaying our hand.  I don’t think this latest report really does anything to resolve the “GHG blame game” (or, as I prefer to call it, an accurate accounting of externalities).  In fact, if you look at the data, it supports the notion that land use and transportation decisions and patterns have a significant impact on emissions.  While trying to avoid sanctimony, let’s look at the details.

Continue reading →

Location Efficiency is More Important than Home Efficiency for Energy Savings

Posted on by
2

 

An EPA-supported study shows that if you’re concerned about energy use from urban development (in this case, residential buildings), you should look at location efficiency first, rather than building efficiency.  The study describes location efficiency this way:

Housing that is located in a walkable neighborhood near public transit, employment centers, schools, and other amenities allows residents to drive less and thereby reduces transportation costs.  Development in such locations is deemed to be “location efficient,” given a more compact design, higher-density construction, and/ or inclusion of a diverse mix of uses.

As the graph above shows, locating housing in location-efficient neighborhoods has a greater impact on the combined housing-transportation energy use than improving the performance of buildings and automobiles.  EPA says that locating homes in these areas, where some automobile trips can be replaced with transit or other transportation modes, lead to reductions in household energy use of 39 to 50 percent.  While I’m a little hesitant about the study’s assumptions of a 45 percent reduction in vehicle miles in TOD neighborhoods, the larger point is still valid: location has a large impact on energy use by urban development, larger than is often assumed, and deserving of more attention than it’s given.

The study uses energy consumption data for housing and transportation that was collected as national averages, not for any particular location.  The “energy-efficient” homes data was based on Energy Star homes.  So, of course, results from specific regions or cities may vary.  Also, Energy Star is not the most energy efficient way to build a home, but it’s relatively affordable and has large market share compared with other home rating systems.

While location efficiency may be more important than building efficiency in terms of energy savings, it’s obviously a more complicated and politically charged topic than building energy efficiency.  Improvements to buildings bring nearly immediate and focused benefits to owners, while decisions about density and location have benefits which are more widely distributed and whose paybacks accumulate over a longer period.  Matthew Lister, who works for the firm that prepared the study, told Environmental Building News we shouldn’t just focus on the energy savings, though:

“The underlying story is about quality of life.” The choice to live in a densely settled, mixed-use neighborhood, Lister argues, is not just about saving money or even the planet; it’s about “less time in the car and access to more choices,” as well as more work opportunities. The report also touches on social equity, he said. “People have to drive further and further out so they can afford a house,” but then end up “shackled to two car payments,” which raises the effective cost of their housing.

Property-Assessed Clean Energy could be coming to Minnesota

Posted on by
5

Photo CC licensed by flickr user Wayne National Forest

I write a lot about planning here, but the other half of my work is focused on energy and climate change.  I intend to post more about these topics in the near future, starting with this post.

Today Governor Pawlenty signed a Jobs bill contains many provisions, most of which don’t directly relate to energy.  However, a provision overlooked by most news outlets is enabling language for Property-Assessed Clean Energy (PACE).  PACE is a tool that helps overcome one of the largest barriers for homeowners to energy efficiency and renewable energy projects: upfront costs.  Local governments (cities and counties) sell bonds which are paid back through voluntary assessments on the properties of individuals who participate in the program.  Loan paybacks are much longer (15 to 20 years) than typical home equity loans or existing energy improvement loans, so the amount of energy savings can sometimes be greater than the loan payback cost.

Another advantage to these programs is that  the assessment stays with the property, not the individual, so homeowners do not have to assume they will live in one place for 20 years to see the benefits of a renewable energy system, for example.  These programs can also have significant benefits for the local economy.  Boulder County’s Climate Smart Loan Program, which distributed its first round of funding in 2009, has already paid out over $7.5 million to contractors for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects.  The vast majority of this work was done by local contractors, and the 75% of the bonds were sold locally, providing “green” investment options to residents.

PACE programs already exist in many cities and counties.  The enabling legislation that became law today means that cities and counties in Minnesota can begin building their own PACE programs.  If you’re interested in making it easier to do energy efficiency and renewable energy projects, start pestering your local elected officials now.  Tell them they now have the power to build these programs and you are interested!

Xcel Hiawatha DEIS released, public meeting scheduled

Posted on by
1

Rendering from Midtown Community Works Partnership of potential overhead lines

The Office of Energy Security has released the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Hiawatha Transmission Line Project, Xcel’s plan to run high-voltage lines along the Midtown Greenway (careful, the PDF is huge and will bog down even newer computers).  They have also announced a public meeting to take comments on the document on February 10th.

The DEIS does identify above-ground lines as having negative impacts on visual quality, being inconsistent with local urban design standards and potentially discouraging additional residential and commercial development nearby.

As I understand it, although the EIS has to identify mitigation strategies for the impacts of the project, it does not require that these mitigation measures be implemented if the project is approved.  From this TC Daily Planet article, it sounds as though the PUC may have the final say about mitigation, but I assume that the Department of Commerce is the responsible LGU, and would also have to approve a route and mitigation measures.

Either way, the public meeting is a chance for anyone to comment on potential additional impacts, whether the scale of impacts has been adequately measured, and the effectiveness of mitigation measures identified.  This is a good time to get involved.

Dakota County Adopts Greenhouse Gas Reduction Target

Posted on by
Reply
Lebanon Hills Visitor Center - A LEED Certified Dakota County Building

Lebanon Hills Visitor Center - A LEED Certified Dakota County Building

Dakota County is the first county in Minnesota to complete an greenhouse gas emissions inventory for government operations and adopt a target for reductions.  Now the County has the beginnings of a plan to get there as well.

I am happy to say that I was heavily involved in the process to develop this plan for reductions and bring it to review and adoption by the County Board.  Our 15% reduction target for 2015 matches those adopted by the State of Minnesota, Hennepin County and the Midwest Governors Accord.  The plan includes energy efficiency improvements to buildings, improving fleet efficiency, exploring renewable energy alternatives and reducing employee commute impacts.  We will also be completing a county-wide emissions inventory, likely in 2010.

We believe the 15% reduction is totally doable, and will likely even save the County money.  However, even after tons of research, I can still say that the devil will be in the details, and the next year will be challenging.  Wish us luck!

How to replace the Xcel Hiawatha project, without spending $15 million

Posted on by
5

Let's just change our bulbs instead...

This post has been updated to account for my bad math.  Always make sure to check your Excel formulas!  Thanks Scott!

—

According to Xcel, energy conservation alone cannot meet their forecasted demand for power in Southwest Minneapolis and they must build a new power line over the Midtown Greenway.  Quoted in a Southwest Journal article, and in their Project Need documents submitted to the Minnesota PUC, Xcel claims that they forecast an increased demand of 50 megawatts by 2018 in the “focused study area” (see map on page D2 – 7 of the link above).  I think I can save them about $14.5 $12.5 million dollars and a lot of public meetings.

I did some quick figuring using GIS and the 2000 census figures, and the “focused study area” contains roughly 94,000 housing units.  This seems to make sense given that this area encompasses some of the most dense parts of the city.  If Xcel were to take a proactive approach to conservation, perhaps going door to door and volunteering to install new light bulbs for example, could they make a dent?  YES!  They could effectively eliminate the need for the Hiawatha project!  In fact, if they installed ten new CFL bulbs in one tenth 70 percent of the housing units in the study area, they would more than offset the forecasted growth in demand.  And it would only cost about $360,000 $2.5 million.  Even if they hired five full-time installers to do the job, it would still only cost around $600,000 $2.75 million.  Xcel could save about $14.5 $12.25 million, and the neighbors could go back to worrying about the future of NRP.  Check my math.  Is it really that easy? Apparently not since I flubbed it the first time.

Perhaps they’ve already factored in some type of conservation efforts, but the forecasted growth chart in the above document doesn’t seem to support that.  And even if they have, if you can get this much effect by simply replacing light bulbs, imagine what you could do if you spent the rest of the $15 milion on conservation.  Hopefully the EIS will include an independent estimate of just that.