Damian’s blog

The following is an article I came across explaining the German government's plan to roll out a new policy for incorporating renewable heating sources for the housing sector. After reading it, I came to the conclusion that if we want to have a real effect, we can't come up with junk like this. Many initiatives, companies, etc are coming out with policies and strategies that really don't address the issues at hand once you look into them critically. I have placed the article below for your reading, dare I say, pleasure. Following the article are my comments on the fallacies of the plan. Of course this is just my opinion, and comments are welcome.

Article

The following article was published on renewableenergyaccess.com website and is a direct quote from their site. It does not reflect any of my own study or opinions

December 10, 2007
For German Homeowners, Renewable Energy is No Longer a Choice
by Jane Burgermeister, Contributing Writer Berlin, Germany.

All new homes built in Germany from January 1st 2009 will be required to install renewable energy heating systems under a new law called the Renewable Energies Heating Law (Erneubare-Energien-Warmegesetz). The government is allocating 350 million euros [US $517 million] each year in grants for homeowners to install renewable energy systems such as solar panels, wood pellet stoves and boilers and heat pumps. Homeowners will have to use renewable energy sources to meet 14% of a household's total energy consumption for heating and domestic hot water. "The heating sector is the sleeping giant of renewable energy," Thomas Hagbeck of the German Federal Environmental Agency tells RenewableEnergyAccess.com.

"Using renewable energy for heating homes will not only significantly cut greenhouse emissions but also reduce heating bills as oil and gas prices surge," he says. Heating buildings accounts for 40% of the total energy consumption in the country. Renewables currently account for about 6% of the energy sources used for heating buildings. The new government legislation targets an increase in the use of renewables for heating to 14% by 2020.

Existing houses will also have to be remodeled to incorporate renewable-energy-based heating systems from 2010 on. For old houses, 10% of the heating and domestic hot water energy needs will have to be provided by renewables.
"The Renewable Energy Law gave a big boost to the renewable energy sector when it came to generating electricity in Germany and this law will give the same big boost when it comes to heating," says Hagbeck.

The use of renewable energy sources for electricity increased 300% in the last ten years in Germany while the use of renewables for heating increased by only 40% over the same period. It is estimated that updating energy performance in buildings could save 50 billion euros [US $73.9 billion] in heating costs in Germany up to 2020 alone.
According to a German government source, houses built in the 1960s use on average four times more energy for heating than updated, energy-efficient houses, which need 5 to 6 liters of heating oil for each square meter a year. Meanwhile, oil prices in Germany have tripled since 2001.

The government is allocating 350 million euros [US $517 million] each year in grants for homeowners to install renewable energy systems such as solar panels, wood pellet stoves and boilers and heat pumps. Most homeowners are expected to choose solar panels. Under the new regulations, the size of the solar panel required will depend on the size of the house: solar panels will need to have an area equal to 4% of the total area of a house.
Fines of up to 500,000 euros [US $739,000] will face anyone who fails to switch their heating systems.

Also, the government is launching a program to improve insulation in the country's housing stock, and to cut back on energy waste. The introduction of new energy ratings for all houses in 2008 will be further incentive to homeowners in Germany to invest in energy efficiency to protect the value of their houses, analysts say. The state of Baden-Württemberg in southern Germany has already passed a law requiring all building plans for new houses submitted after April 1st 2008 to include renewable energy heating systems.

People building new homes there will have to install a renewable heating technology that can provide 20% of the household's heating and domestic hot water needs. Energy used for heating homes in Baden-Württemberg accounts for 33% of the 72 million tons of carbon emitted by the state each year, officials say. Many of the 2.2 million homes built in Baden-Württemberg before 1977 use 7 times more energy for heating than updated, energy-efficient homes, according to Claudia Rist of the Climate Protection and Energy Agency Baden-Württemberg (Klimaschutz-und Energieagentur Baden-Württemberg).

The German federal government's new renewable energy heating law, which is set to be passed by parliament next year, is part of a comprehensive package of measures that aims to reduce the country's carbon emissions by 40% by 2020 when compared to 1990. It is estimated that the package will cost 31 billion euros [US $45.8 billion] a year to implement. But the costs will be offset by savings of 36 billion euros [US $53.2 billion] a year from lower bills for coal, oil and gas, experts say.

Jane Burgermeister is a freelance writer based in Vienna, Austria.
----
My comments on the article

I'll start by saying that I commend Germany for trying to figure out a way to cut GHG emissions and reduce energy usage and I think that all governments should be following suit by implementing bylaws in both the housing and commercial sector concerning renewables, insulation levels, electricity usage, and heating fuel choices. However, as with all government type initiatives, they generally cost much more than they should, and work much less than they should since most attack the problem the wrong way and/or don't have enough scientific backing to be useful.

First I would like to address the first paragraph of the article which states that they will be using "renewable" energy heating sources for new homes such as solar, wood pellet stoves, boilers, etc. Of which, the wood pellet stove will be discussed first. Last time I checked, we were losing forestland and rainforests about 1000 times (or some other really big number!) faster than we can replant and grow it, so I don't see how this qualifies as a renewable, much less sustainable fuel for heating. If many people switch to this type of heating source, then it follows that we will be dessimating at an even greater rate than we currently are (which as I said is already too much). Also, in the second paragraph they defend it by saying it will save costs; yet buying a chord of wood for a wood stove is much more expensive than buying natural gas for my furnace and will remain so even if gas prices doubled. They go on to say that this will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but looking at the thermodynamics of any combustion process (including burning wood) will show that a natural output is of course CO2 (a greenhouse gas). So I fail to see how this will reduce greenhouse gas emissions immensely.

Next, using boilers is a diplomatic way of saying "we don't know what we're doing". A boiler can be anything that boils a fluid (usually to create a steam which then drives a turbine). As an example, a nuclear reactor is in essence a giant boiler which boils water to use the steam and drive turbines to create electricity. So claiming that a boiler is a "renewable" energy solution is complete nonsense, since in essence it could use anything to boil the fluid, like; coal, oil, or roadkill. The real question that needs to be answered is what type of boiler is proposed and what process is the boiler involved in.

The third paragraph states that houses will need to be "remodeled to incorporate renewable-energy-based heating systems", which is innaccurate. Many forms of renewables used for heating systems can be incorporated without remodeling of the house, like a tank-less hot water heater for instance, or replacement of a natural gas furnace with an all electric system. Remodeling is only needed for major projects, like adding a ground-source heat pump system or similar. Even adding PV systems for electricity or pre-heating of hot water is not that big a deal and in many cases can be done without much intrusion to the household.

One of my favourite quotes from this article "updating energy performance in buildings could save [money]". This obviously took a team of 100 people working for 10 years to figure out (note the sarcasm). Geniuses.

Though I won't state for fact that I think the cost analysis in the final paragraph is complete rubbish, I will say that I doubt very highly whether those are "realizable values" for the cost vs. savings of this plan they wish to roll out.

The prosecution rests...

Recently Toyota announced that its newest form of personal mobility devices (PMDs), the i-REAL, is nearing the point of commercialization and hence, production. All jokes of jet packs and turbo-lifts aside, the PMD is in essence a high-tech wheelchair for able bodied people. Sleek aesthetics and boasting sports car like performance, the i-REAL seeks to capture the market for anyone using bikes, rollerblades, skateboards, or walking. The difference is that while all choices are more eco-friendly than using a car or public transit systems, using the PMD means not getting much needed daily exercise as one would with the other forms of transit.

As most are already aware, both the USA and Canada have an issue with obesity in the general population (albeit moreso in the US). And the problem is becoming worse in children due to them spending more time indoors with the computer and television. So, is the commercialization of a PMD going to make the problem worse by allowing an already fattening population to take the easy way out of even the little bit of exercising in their daily commute?

This leads to another question: are eco-friendly solutions and innovations going to be UN-friendly choices for our personal health? The uptake of electric bicycles and PMDs could perhaps lead to a large amount of people not getting their daily exercise. And in North America, we already see that a large part of the population can't find time to go to the gym on a regular basis. So, for most, they really need that short walk/ride to work or school every day in order to keep some amount of exercise in their daily lives. What designers need to rememberis that sustainability doesn't only concern itself with environmental issues, there's also the community and social responsibility aspects of sustainabilty and it is these aspects we have to think about a lot when considering things such as PMDs.

For those interested in the Toyota i-REAL, here's a link to an article in Gizmag:

http://www.gizmag.com/go/8157/

NB: Those wishing to comment on this post should be aware that it is set to be viewed by "anyone", so your comment will also be viewed by "anyone"