Good News~!

Incredible Edible Todmorden from haymedia on Vimeo.

Sonnenschiff: Solar City Produces 4X the Energy It Consumes

Although net-zero projects have been creating a lot of buzz lately in the field of green building, the Sonnenschiff solar city in Freiburg, Germany is very much net positive. The self-sustaining city accomplishes this feat through smart solar design and lots and lots of photovoltaic panels pointed in the right direction. It seems like a simple strategy -- but designers often incorporate solar installations as an afterthought, or worse, as a label. Designed by Rolf Disch, the Sonnenschiff (Solar Ship) and Solarsiedlung (Solar Village) emphasize power production from the start by smartly incorporating a series of large rooftop solar arrays that double as sun shades. The buildings are also built to Passivhaus standards, which allows the project to produce four times the amount of energy it consumes!

The project started out as a vision for an entire community — the medium-density project balances size, accessibility, green space, and solar exposure. In all, 52 homes make up a neighborhood anchored to Sonnenschiff, a mixed-use residential and commercial building that emphasizes livability with a minimal footprint. Advanced technologies like phase-change materials and vacuum insulation significantly boost the thermal performance of the building’s wall system.

The homes are designed to the Passivhaus standard and have great access to passive solar heating and daylight. Each home features a very simple shed roof with deep overhangs that allows winter sun in while shading the building from the summer sun. The penthouses on top of the Sonnenschiff have access to rooftop gardens that make full use of the site’s solar resources. The rooftops feature rainwater recycling systems that irrigate the gardens and while supplying the toilets with greywater. The buildings also make use of wood chip boilers for heat in the winter, further decreasing their environmental footprint.

The project’s simple envelope design is brightened by a colorful and dynamic façade. Gardens and paths cross through the development as well, linking the inhabitants. Offices and stores expand the livability of the community while contributing a sense of communal purpose.

If you thought that manure was just for spreading on fields or in the garden, or just to provide an interesting smell during a drive through the country, it’s time to learn a thing or two. For years progressive farmers have been harnessing a byproduct of their animals’ manure, methane, and turning it into electricity. Some farms with several hundred cows have even been known to power small communities. But what about our, ahem, byproducts, our own human manure? It is little different from that of a cow’s, save for perhaps a little less hay, and will produce methane in the right conditions, ripe for harvesting to be burned and used to generate power through natural gas plants. Several small projects already exist in the US, but the city of San Antonio, Texas, is the first to take on a project of commercial scale to do just that.

The process is quite simple, and we’re surprised that existing sewage treatment plants have not already adopted the practice as it would not only save them money, but also create an additional revenue stream, but it has now begun, and the city is planning on using the 140,000 tons of human waste to produce fuel to send to the open market. They estimate that this amount of waste will yield a massive 1.5 million cubic feet of natural gas (processed methane) daily. That’s a lot of gas, and one that will be an arguably close to carbon neutral, when burned in a natural gas power plant. Either way the combustion of the methane is a great thing for the environment. Instead of just letting the gas escape as it might do if unharnessed, it wil be used to provide electricity, offsetting the fossil-based natural gas that would otherwise take its place. Also, since methane is a much more dangerous emission than CO2 when it comes to retaining heat in the atmosphere, there’s another plus for cooling down the planet.

The city also expects to recycle about 90% of the material that goes down the drain in its bathrooms, the liquids being used for irrigation and solids into compost.

A real green school

POO POWER: Chicken Manure to Power UK Homes

by Timon Singh

Chicken manure is becoming a renewable energy source of choice for many countries. The UK has a plan to convert a local Alfagy biogas station so that it uses agricultural waste, such as feedstock waste and manure, to create electricity.

The power plant, which is located on the southern outskirts of Cirencester, is scheduled to be opened on November 1. Its location in Cirencester was selected due to the area’s large chicken population and its proximity to other agricultural industries.

Various UK projects have looked at plans to use animal waste to create energy, including one that would have utilised cow manure as an energy source. this Alfagy plant will use the manure of smaller farm animals, as well as agricultural feedstock. Local farmers will deliver any agricultural plant waste, chicken litter, and pig manure that they have to the station, for which they will be paid for. They will also receive free heat for their animal barns, grain-drying bins, and homes. It is a fantastic opportunity for farmers, and it is hoped that many will join the endeavour.

Once delivered to the power plant, the agricultural waste will be converted into biogas via an anaerobic digester. According to Alfagy, the station will then use a combined heat and power (CHP) system in which one 260-kilowatt CHP unit can perform at a 42.9 percent electrical efficiency. When the plant is operating at full capacity, it is expected to produce about 1 megawatt of electricity per year — enough to power about 350 Cotswolds homes (Cirencester’s population is about 19,000). The station will also create digestate fertilizer.

In a statement, Alfagy said, “This ‘digestate’ is a powerful fertilizer that decreases the average fertilizer costs by up to 100 percent, which is a major cost to farmers and the environment. Normal fertilizer production uses large amounts of fossil fuel [and emits] significant quantities of carbon dioxide, and the finished product is transported over great distances to farmers. Whereas [if] the fertilizer is produced locally at the power plant, there is no necessity in importing it from the U.S.”

Don't Believe Me? Ask Lloyd's of London

A newly released report from Lloyds Insurance and Chatham House does an amazing job of putting the case for Transition to a business audience (you can download it here).

We can expect dramatic changes in the energy sector in the coming decades. This report encourages businesses, both in the energy sector and beyond, to look at how this will impact on their firms. The transition towards a lowcarbon economy and the interim volatility in traditional fossil fuel markets presents businesses with numerous risks but also opportunities. In order to reduce potential vulnerability and seize opportunities, business should be aware that:

1. Energy security is now inseparable from the transition to a low-carbon economy and businesses plans should prepare for this new reality. Security of supply and emissions reduction objectives should be addressed equally, as prioritising one over the other will increase the risk of stranded investments or requirements for expensive retro-fitting.

2. Traditional fossil fuel resources face serious supply constraints and an oil supply crunch is likely in the short-to-medium term with profound consequences for the way in which business functions today. Businesses would benefit from taking note of the impacts of the oil price spikes and shocks in 2008 and implementing the appropriate mitigation actions. A scenario planning approach may also help assess potential future outcomes and help inform strategic business decisions.

3. A ‘third industrial revolution’ in the energy sector presents huge opportunities but also brings new risks. Of particular importance for new technologies is the risk of constraints on raw materials such as rare earth metals, as scarcity may drive up costs. The rapid and widespread diffusion of some new technologies may also incur negative environmental implications.

4. Energy infrastructure will be increasingly vulnerable to unanticipated severe weather events caused by changing climate patterns leading to a greater frequency of brownouts and supply disruptions for business. This throws out a critical challenge to energy providers, investors and planners in terms of choosing the location of new infrastructure and fortifying existing plants and networks. Those businesses for which uninterrupted access to energy is of fundamental importance should actively consider investing in alternative energy supply systems.

5. Increasing energy costs as a result of reduced availability, higher global demand and carbon pricing are best tackled in the short term by changes in practices or via the use of technology to reduce energy consumption. The wider use of renewable energy and even self generation, bring added price and supply security benefits.

6. The sooner that businesses reassess global supply chains and just-in-time models, and increase the resilience of their logistics against energy supply disruptions, the better. The current system is increasingly vulnerable to disruption, given the trends outlined in this report.

7. While the vast majority of investment in the energy transition will come from the private sector, governments have an important role in delivering policies and measures that create the necessary investment conditions and incentives. If the global carbon market is to become a reality then government action must be taken to bring additional price stability and transparency. Investing in a secure, low-carbon energy future may have higher upfront costs, but will deliver lower cost energy in the future. Sound renewable energy and demand side measures are crucial elements in delivering the necessary energy services for businesses and the expected return on investments.

The Imminent Crash of the Oil Supply: What Is Going to Happen and How It Came to Pass That We Weren't Forewarned

Look at this graph and be afraid. It does not come from Earth First. It does not come from the Sierra Club. It was not drawn by Socialists or Nazis or Osama Bin Laden or anyone from Goldman-Sachs. If you are a Republican Tea-Partier, rest assured it does not come from a progressive Democrat. And vice versa. It was drawn by the United States Department of Energy, and the United States military’s Joint Forces Command concurs with the overall picture.
What does it imply? The supply of the world’s most essential energy source is going off a cliff. Not in the distant future, but in a year and a half. Production of all liquid fuels, including oil, will drop within 20 years to half what it is today. And the difference needs to be made up with “unidentified projects,” which one of the world’s leading petroleum geologists says is just a “euphemism for rank shortage,” and the world’s foremost oil industry banker says is “faith based” http://www.eia.doe.gov/conference/2009/session3/Sweetnam.pdf.

This graph was prepared for a DOE meeting on May 9, 2009. Take a good look at what it says, assuming it to be correct:

1. Conventional oil will be almost all gone in 20 years, and there is nothing known to replace it.

2. Production of petroleum from existing conventional sources has been dropping at a rate slightly over 4% per year for at least a year and will continue to do so for the indefinite future.

3. The graph implies that we are past the peak of production and that there are750 billion barrels of conventional oil left (the areas under the “conventionals” portion of the graph, extrapolated to the right as an exponentional). Assuming that the remaining reserves were 900 billion or more at the halfway point, then we are at least 150 billion barrels, or 5 years, past the midpoint.

4. Total petroleum production from all presently known sources, conventional and unconventional, will remain “flat” at approximately 83 mbpd for the next two years and then will proceed to drop for the foreseeable future, at first slowly but by 4% per year after 2015.

5. Demand will begin to outstrip supply in 2012, and will already be 10 million barrels per day above supply in only five years. The United States Joint Forces Command concurs with these specific findings. http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2010/JOE_2010_o.pdf, at 31. 10 million bpd is equivalent to half the United States’ entire consumption. To make up the difference, the world would have to find another Saudi Arabia and get it into full production in five years, an impossibility. See The Oil Drum, http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5154.

6. The production from presently existing conventional sources will plummet from its present 81 mbpd to 30 mbpd by 2030, a 63% drop in a 20-year period.

7. Meeting demand requires discovering, developing, and bringing to full production 60mbpd (105-45) of “unidentified projects” in the 18-year period of 2012-2030 and approximately 25 mbpd of such projects by 2020, on the basis of a very conservative estimate of only 1% annual growth in demand. The independent Oxford Institute of Energy Studies has estimated a possibe development of 6.5mbpd of such projects, including the Canadian tar sands, implying a deficit of 18-19 mbpd as compared to demand, and an approximate 14 mbpd drop in total liquid fuels production relative to 2012, a 16% drop in 8 years.

8. The curve is virtually identical to one produced by geologists Colin Campbell and Jean Laherrere and published in “The End of Cheap Oil,” in Scientific American, March, 1998, twelve years ago. They projected that production of petroleum from conventional sources would drop from 74 mbpd in 2003 (as compared to 84 mbpd in 2008 in the DOE graph) and drop to 39 mbpd by 2030 (as compared to 39 mbpd by 2030 in the DOE graph!) http://www.jala.com/energy1.php. Campbell and Laherrere predicted a 2003 “peak,” and the above graph implies a ‘peak” (not necessarily the actual peak, but the midpointr of production of 2005 or before.

So here we are, if the graph is right, on the edge of a precipice, with no prior warning from either the industry, which knows what it possesses, or the collective governments, which ostensibly protect the public interest. As Colin Campbell, a research geologist who has worked for many large oil companies and studied oil depletion extensively (http://www.peakoil.net/about-aspo/dr-colin-campbell) says, “The warning signals have been flying for a long time. They have been plain to see, but the world turned a blind eye, and failed to read the message” http://www.greatchange.org/ov-campbell,outlook.html. The world was completely transformed by oil for the duration of the twentieth century, but if the graph is right, within 20 years it will be virtually gone but our dependence upon it will not. Instead, we have:

zero time to plan how to replace cars in our lives;

zero time to plan how to manufacture and install milions of furnaces to replace home oil furnaces, and zero time toproduce the infrastructure necessary to carry out that task;

zero time to retool suburbia so it can function without gasoline;

zero time to plan for replacement of the largest military establishment in history, almost completely dependent upon oil;

zero time to plan to support nine billion peolple without the “green revolution,” a creation of the age of oil;

zero time to plan to replace oil as an essential fuel in electricity production;

zero time to plan for preserving millions of miles of roads without asphalt;

zero time to plan for the replacement of oil in its essential role in every industry;

zero time to plan for replacement of oil in its exclusive role of transporting people, agricultural produce, manufactured goods. In a world without oil that appears only twenty years away, there will be no oil-burning ships transporting US grain to other countries, there will be no oil-burning airlines linking the world’s major cities, there will be no oil-burning ships transporting Chinese manufactured goods to the billions now dependent on them;

zero time to plan for the survival of the billions of new people expected by 2050 in the aftermath of peak everything;

zero capital, because of failing banks ansd public and private debt, to address these issues.

For the rest of the article click here.

Action Now or Reaction Later

US military warns oil output may dip causing massive shortages by 2015

The US military has warned that surplus oil production capacity could disappear within two years and there could be serious shortages by 2015 with a significant economic and political impact.

The energy crisis outlined in a Joint Operating Environment report from the US Joint Forces Command, comes as the price of petrol in Britain reaches record levels and the cost of crude is predicted to soon top $100 a barrel.

"By 2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and as early as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10 million barrels per day," says the report, which has a foreword by a senior commander, General James N Mattis.

It adds: "While it is difficult to predict precisely what economic, political, and strategic effects such a shortfall might produce, it surely would reduce the prospects for growth in both the developing and developed worlds. Such an economic slowdown would exacerbate other unresolved tensions, push fragile and failing states further down the path toward collapse, and perhaps have serious economic impact on both China and India."

The US military says its views cannot be taken as US government policy but admits they are meant to provide the Joint Forces with "an intellectual foundation upon which we will construct the concept to guide out future force developments."

The warning is the latest in a series from around the world that has turned peak oil – the moment when demand exceeds supply – from a distant threat to a more immediate risk.

The Wicks Review on UK energy policy published last summer effectively dismissed fears but Lord Hunt, the British energy minister, met concerned industrialists two weeks ago in a sign that it is rapidly changing its mind on the seriousness of the issue.

The Paris-based International Energy Agency remains confident that there is no short-term risk of oil shortages but privately some senior officials have admitted there is considerable disagreement internally about this upbeat stance.

Future fuel supplies are of acute importance to the US army because it is believed to be the biggest single user of petrol in the world. BP chief executive, Tony Hayward, said recently that there was little chance of crude from the carbon-heavy Canadian tar sands being banned in America because the US military like to have local supplies rather than rely on the politically unstable Middle East.

But there are signs that the US Department of Energy might also be changing its stance on peak oil. In a recent interview with French newspaper, Le Monde, Glen Sweetnam, main oil adviser to the Obama administration, admitted that "a chance exists that we may experience a decline" of world liquid fuels production between 2011 and 2015 if the investment was not forthcoming.

Lionel Badal, a post-graduate student at Kings College, London, who has been researching peak oil theories, said the review by the American military moves the debate on.

"It's surprising to see that the US Army, unlike the US Department of Energy, publicly warns of major oil shortages in the near-term. Now it could be interesting to know on which study the information is based on," he said.

"The Energy Information Administration (of the department of energy) has been saying for years that Peak Oil was "decades away". In light of the report from the US Joint Forces Command, is the EIA still confident of its previous highly optimistic conclusions?"

The Joint Operating Environment report paints a bleak picture of what can happen on occasions when there is serious economic upheaval. "One should not forget that the Great Depression spawned a number of totalitarian regimes that sought economic prosperity for their nations by ruthless conquest," it points out.

Transition Town Movement (Some basics)

What does Copenhagen mean for you?

The "climate summit" was a real fizzle. I think we all knew that the realistic chances of meaningful change being made was almost nil as the United States (25% producer of carbon emissions) never spent any real time making the climate talks a priority. Obama's last minute trip was way to little and way, way to late.

But, realistically, what did we expect?

So what do you and I do now? Well the same thing I have been pushing since I started this blog. It comes down to a simple concept:

"THINK GLOBALLY, ACT LOCALLY".

So, let's commit ourselves to pursuing transition on a local level. Start a transition steering committee. Begin making the type of changes in your personal life that can be an example to neighbors.

Refuse to spend money in the Wal Marts and Targets of the world. Direct your spending toward local businesses, that sell local or fair trade products. Do not be seduced by cheap anything.

Shop in local food stores, farmers markets and as much as possible directly from the farmer.

Almost every developed nation is now seeing a locavore movement, plug in!

Folks, we know that the kind of change that is needed will not happen if we wait for government. The kind of change that will make a difference is beyond hope of being achieved, so at this point the call is to adapt and get out ahead of the curve.

Our Katuah bioregion is a great area to weather the coming storms (literally!).

Remember, make the start and begin the discussions because we do not know how long before the situation becomes critical!

Defining the Continuum from here to Post-Carbon Sustainability

Here is a really interesting piece on transition.

reThink Roanoke’s ‘Star City Summit’ is Tuesday, December 1st at The Water Heater in Old Southwest Roanoke

Guerilla Gardening

Here is a great and fun article on Guerrilla Gardening.

Yard Sharing

For folks in close proximity to each other check out this site:

http://hyperlocavore.ning.com/

More on the Cuban Reaction to Peak Oil

Here is another cool video about the Cuban reaction to the cut off of petrochemical fertilizers and fuel after the fall of the USSR.

How Cuba Survived Peak Oil

Cuba has had a preview of the upcoming peak oil changes. They had to deal with a sudden collapse in oil following the fall of the Soviet Union. Watch this inspiring video to see how they dealt with it.

"How Cuba Survived Peak Oil"

Transition Town Movement (Some basics)

As I make suggestions regarding Katuah I want folk to understand the Transition Town movement. It is in it's infancy (maybe toddlerhood). The movement "starts off when a small collection of motivated individuals within a community come together with a shared concern: how can our community respond to the challenges, and opportunities, of Peak Oil and Climate Change?"

The movement sees a very local/regional approach to energy decline. I think there is a lot of sense in the approach they are taking. The Transition Primer is a very brief introduction on how to start a transition intiative in your area. Also, the Kinsale Energy Descent Plan (KEDP) is the first transition document that tried to envision what a town with less oil looks like.

Honestly, the KEDP feels a bit rose colored and brief for me. I envision a much more comprehensive and regional document coming out of Katuah. So if you are reading this, have an interest in transition, and feel like you would like to participate in starting the process of transition in Katuah, email me and let me know.

Next steps for Katuah

Well, after expounding on the transition movement and bioregionalism, I guess I need to start to put some concrete ideas down for folks to mull over.

First, I think it is important to recognize the social reality in which we reside. In the US, more especially in Katuah, we are in a very conservative region, with very conservative ideas about change, meaning many folk think, if it's new or different from what I think it is bad, not only bad, but threatening! When i was younger, i charged full steam into controversy with those that disagreed with me, now after many bumps and bruises I see the wisdom in soft power, or letting the world move and working your magic with the flow rather than trying to change it. It is the difference between American boxing and Chinese kung fu. Work with the momentum of your opponent.

Second, the thoughts I am expressing here are not my own, they are merely a compilation of ideas from others. I am fully aware of this and as such make no claims or boasts, rather I am just trying to think out loud so others can chime in and maybe together we can work towards change.

Third and lastly, I recognize that what I am proposing will change and that those of us that work diligently over the next few years to assess where we are, where we are going and how to get there, will be trailblazers. When the majority of folks look around in a few years at 6 dollar a gallon gas and ask "what should I do?", I feel we should be there with some answers. I also know that whatever we have developed and tried and worked on, once there is a large majority of society searching for the same things, our ideas and voices though maybe heard at first will become diluted and overrode with those of others with more ability and position to "run things". This is to say that to get involved with this, one should go in knowing that there will be time and energy devoted to something that hopefully will make everyones lives better, but there will come a time when your and my hard work and effort will move beyond our group and we will step or be shoved aside. I do this with eyes open, expecting nothing, just hoping that my children will benefit from some future planning done now.

With all that off my chest, I can now propose some concrete ideas.

Initially we need to form some local groups to assess their particular geographic region. Both the current and future assets and liabilities. The transition town movement has some very good ideas and tools to do this. I think we should borrow them and arrange for a mass training in the not too distant future, for those of us wanting to move this concept forward.

As we do this, we need to envision what Katuah will look like with 2% less oil, with 10%, with 50%. We need to plot a scope of change that can address these reductions. I think that it will be very important to tie the vision to the reduction in energy (which will be conversely proportional to the price of energy). I think that tying the vision to energy reduction milestones rather than to years, will set up a more realistic concept of the transition schema. None of us (I think) know when or how long it will take for the world to see a 10% spread between the amount of energy available and the amount of energy demand, but many of us know that it is coming. I have learned from past experience that trying to tie a vision to a time frame, rather than to the circumstances that will necessitate change, makes for potential feelings of failure, as the expectations are tied to time rather than to what is really driving change.

When addressing this vision, I think we need to have plans based on various transition scenarios. What if the descent is gradual (50 years), what if it is sudden (1 year because of war or natural disaster), what if it is stop and start (wild fluctuations of energy supply), etc. There needs to be a lot of thought and discussion about this as different scenarios will need different transition plans.

The next step is to start to implement aspects of these plans regionally in different communities. To share our experiences, to support each other in the early days, to help build a solid infrastructure that can be built upon and stand up to quick up sizing. We may find that our scheme for local food production or local energy production has to be scaled up slowly (5-10%) annually or very quickly (1000% ) in a year or something in the middle. The point is that we do not know, but we do know it is required.

How exciting is this stuff! I see a future that we can sculpt into a blend of new technology and old time community that can make us all healthier and more connected to each other and the earth. Cool stuff. More later!

Bioregionalism and the Transition Movement

For about 25 years i have been interested in the concept of bioregion. (From Wikipedia:"Bioregionalism is a political, cultural, and environmental system based on naturally-defined areas called bioregions, or ecoregions. Bioregions are defined through physical and environmental features, including watershed boundaries and soil and terrain characteristics. Bioregionalism stresses that the determination of a bioregion is also a cultural phenomenon, and emphasizes local populations, knowledge, and solutions.")

I was introduced to the concept in the early eighties by the folks at Katuah journal. These folks brought the concepts of permaculture and a regional economy & society to many of us in the area. As I have learned more about the Transition Town movement, i realize that the concept as defined in the UK could very easily and productively be combined with the concept of bioregion to create a forward looking sustainable bioregion that looks to solve post peak energy issues through regional interconnections. Where the transition town movement sees a very localized economy, I see a more regionalized economy based on coordinated resource exchange, mutual economic support and localized innovation.

The region of Katuah has traditionally been one of relatively isolated mountain communities, grouped around larger trading centers. There is absolutely no reason why this model (think 1930 timeframe) could not be applied to the coming societal changes. My belief is that, while i know that there is a significant change coming, the pace of that change will be influenced by outside forces that we have little control over. We may see the pace continue on the long glide path we have seen over the last 35 years or the pace may be quickened through outside influence of war, disease, economic distress, who knows? It does not matter really! Once you look at the realities of the coming changes, the idea of approaching them with your eyes wide open makes a lot of sense.

Those of us who are interested and motivated to push the envelope of this movement should start the process. At some point (for my vote, I would rather it be farther down the road then closer at hand), society as a whole will be forced to change. If we start the planning and implementation of a shift, it will be a much easier transition when the majority sees there is no other choice. My hope is that it will be a gentle push rather than a violent shove, but I certainly have no idea or predictions which is more likely. In the early eighties I thought by 2010 we would all be aware of the issues and consciously moving to correct our mistakes of the past, but boy was i wrong!

So i am asking, calling, begging those of you reading this in our bioregion to contact me to bring the initial phases of bioregional transition planning together. There are already many groups doing good work in this area, from carpool groups to urban gardeners, we can make a start at assessing what we have and planning for what we will need.

Transition Town Primer

Watch this video for a great introduction to the transition town movement.