Heating and Insulation Options
Sharon August 12th, 2008
Ok, what if you aren’t already living without heat? What if you are planning, and want to know what to do when your current, fossil fueled option becomes untenable, either because of reduced availability for fuels, because of limitations on carbon outputs, or because (and most likely) you can’t afford to pay the bills.
This is something that I recommend people begin to address *QUICKLY* if you can. Various lenders are freezing home equity loans even to people with plenty of equity and money - Ilargi in his commentary on today’s Debt Rattle at The Automatic Earth I think puts his finger on things - if you are going to need to borrow money to do this, the opportunity is rapidly disappearing. Now only you can tell if you should be borrowing in the first place - but if most of us have to do our adaptation with the cash we have on hand or with the subsidies the government is likely to grant, we have a very, very short window indeed. So plan now, and begin adapting.
In addition, since nearly everyone else is seeing the writing on the wall, accept that you are going to be making your adaptation plan with everyone on the planet - the waiting list for wood and pellet stoves is already getting long in some places. Insulation companies are busy - if you can afford to do this, do what you can now!! We don’t know whether this will be a cold winter or not - but we can be pretty sure that there will be some cold ones in the future, despite global warming.
Let’s talk about the problems with the way you may heat now - here are the choices, and the pros and cons.
Oil: Mostly in the Northeast US, a comparatively small percentage of US heating as a whole (about 8%), but heavily concentrated in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont - some of the coldest places in the US.
Pro: Used to be cheaper than gas, can be used where there are no gas lines, bigger tanks than propane mean fewer deliveries in snowy, icy, cold places, cleaner than coal fired electric.
Con: Crazy expensive now, not getting cheaper, minimum deliveries mean untenable for many, dirtier than natural gas, because it is a minority heating option gets less attention than the others.
Gas: The primary method of heating in the US
Pro: Cleanest fossil fuel option, no running out, great in urban areas where minimizing pollutants is important.
Con: Getting more expensive, caps set to expire in many areas quite soon, if Canadians get pissed enough that they have to sell it south, massive supply constraints, North American gas past peak, or nearly so.
Electricity:
Pro: Good if you’ve got wind, hydro, etc…, can reduce you to one major utility bill, may be cheaper in some places than natural gas or oil at this point.
Con: Can mean you only have one big bill and inability to pay means you freeze as well as sit in the dark, inefficient way to generate heat, most comes from coal which is distrous for the climate, rising rapidly in price, caps coming off, prohibitions against winter shut-offs due to be renegotiated, privatized energy companies have sky is the limit prices.
All of these potentially come with rapid, prohibitive price rises in the coming years (and are already prohibitive for some people). All of them are vulnerable to supply disruptions in the coming years. Oil is potentially the most vulnerable, but gas and electricity, depending on what you think is likely, are also subject to supply constraints and systemic problems - potentially quite serious ones.
So what options do you have? Basically, they come in two varieties - you can need less (or in some places, no) heat, by increasing your insulation, or you can use some other mechanism of heating yourself, your immediate area and part of your house. Again, I emphasize that most of should not be thinking in terms of heating a whole, American super-sized house, but instead living in smaller spaces, with less heat - period.
First, there’s the insulation problem. The Community Solution and the Affordable Comfort Institute have been working together to find solutions for retrofitting American homes along the Passivehaus lines - but the data they have come up with is incomplete, and at last check, the costs extremely high. The least expensive version of their solution looks to be adding rigid board insulation to existing inside walls, but they are still putting their materials together, but this is a job to be worked on carefully, as ventilation, outgassing and mold issues are concerns.
So what can you do in the interim - well Robert Waldrop has done amazing things with his house in Oklahoma City - this is a great model to work with, particularly if you have some money - but it is worth noting that at last check he had spent 23K, over some years. And since Bob lives in a fairly moderate climate, this might need some adaptation for places like the North.
There are some useful books out there - among them the books _Insulate and Weatherize_ and _The Consumer Guide to Home Energy Savings_. They have a lot of tips for do-it yourself solutions. And, of course, if you can afford it, you can have a professional reinsulation done. For many people in the southern half of the US, that should pretty much eliminate the need for heating, and if you can afford to duplicate the Passivehaus designs, you probably could need minimal heat even in the North. But while I definitely think that this is where to put your cash if you have it.
But a lot of people don’t have it - without outright grants for weatherization for the poor and lower middle class on a huge scale, most people won’t make major retrofits, simply because the cost of the retrofit is utterly prohibitive - coming up with 4K to heat your house is simply more feasible than 10K to retrofit it for most people who are not quite wealthy. And for those without either, well, on to the next options.
Heating with something else - or heating less with something similar: Here are the choice as I see them, the pros and the cons:
1. Electric space heaters: Newer ones are much, much more efficient than older ones - don’t waste money on an old used one if you’ve got a choice.
Pro: Cheap to buy, can provide localized heat when the furnace doesn’t work, widely available used, most places don’t permit electric shutoffs in the coldest months.
Con: Vulnerable to grid failure, won’t help you during intermittent power outages, mandatory no-shut offs may be overturned, can bring about grid failure if enough people add them to winter electric loads, expensive, you may end up without power all summer if you can’t pay your bill, dangerous - can cause fires.
2. Propane heaters: MAKE SURE THESE ARE PROPERLY INSTALLED - every year people die of CO poisoning using these improperly in a power outage.
Pro: Cheap, can be installed through walls, propane is cheaper than oil, can be used during electrical failures.
Con: Not much cheaper than oil, vulnerable to supply constraints, delivery issues, dangerous if not properly installed, must be used carefully.
3. Kerosene heaters: Note: There are two kinds of these - cooking stoves, often used by the Amish as summer stoves, and heating stoves - both will create ambient heat, the heaters are more efficient, but one you can cook on has advantages.
Pro: Cheaper than oil, don’t have electric ignition so can be used during power outages, not terribly popular so not hard to find, can cook on some of them.
Con: Not a terribly clean fuel, dangerous if not properly installed, smelly, ventilation must be good.
4. Geothermal Heat Pumps: These are good choices for a lot of areas, particularly if you have a lot of local geothermal energy. The technology seems to be improving rapidly, too, so do your research.
Pros: Uses a cheap source to both heat and cool, uses much less energy than heating and cooling with electricity directly, low carbon.
Cons: Requires electricity to operate, some use more power than others, may not regulate temperatures as much as you like.
5. Wood Stoves - note, I am *only* talking here of fairly new, airtight stoves. Don’t use anything but a newer UL stove - period, unless you are desperately poor and have absolute no other choice. The pollutants and the efficiency issues are so great that you simply shouldn’t use it if you have a very old stove, unless the choice is to freeze or use it. Don’t buy old stoves. Buy the tightest, most efficient stove you can buy, and the smallest one appropriate to your space, and burn only seasoned hard wood if possible. We’ll talk about cooking later this week, but if you are going to buy a stove and need to heat and cook, a cook stove is a lot more versatile, and only slightly less efficient.
Pro: Technically carbon neutral (I’m going to do a post on wood heating ASAP, so we’ll debate the details of this at a later date), depending on how you get it, abundant, renewable fuel in most very cold places, output (ashes) can be used to fertilize garden and keep soil healthy, extremely cheap fuel if you have a woodlot, can cut wood in national forests, use waste wood, or downed trees, many with baskets and adaptors can burn multiple fuels including corn, pellets and coal giving you the greatest possible adaptability.
Con: Pricey if you have to buy it, legal issues in some areas, a lot less carbon neutral if it has to be moved around, can lead to deforestation, has particulate emissions issues that can cause health problems, expensive if you rely on purchased wood, you have to have a place to put it.
6. Corn Stoves: I gather that these and pellet stoves are experiencing a big boom in sales, and are backordered in many areas - just fyi.
Pro: Uses something that some low-forest areas of the midwest have a lot of, at least it doesn’t make ethanol, fuel can be cheap, possibility of growing your own and being even cheaper, low emissions, legal in many cities, cheaper than comparable woodstoves, with a dramatic reduction in feedlot meat consumption and ethanol (ie, the corn goes to heating and human food instead of cars and cows) might be sustainable… but would require massive changes in agricultural practice.
Con: Most corn is grown with artificial nitrogen so heavy global warming impact, increasingly expensive, uses human food for fuel, on a large scale would increase food prices dramatically, added to ethanol and heavy meat consumption could be an absolute disaster, require electricity.
7. Pellet Stoves: See above
Pro: Uses a waste product of the construction industry, can be stored, low emission, possibilities for cities, no stovepipe.
Con: Backorders, pellets use a glue that may be toxic when breathed, pellet supply issues already exist, construction industry in the toilet so its by products will rise in price and decrease availability, requires electricity to run, relies on delivery from distant places.
8. Coal Stoves: Ok, using these will be freakin’ apocalyptic for the planet if we do it on any scale. My worst nightmare is that the northeast responds to freezing temperatures by looking for the cheapest option and discovering coal stoves - the air pollution, global warming and quality of life will suck. That said, however, I mention them, because if you are poor and have no choice, this may be your best option. I do recommend people who get them consider trying to get ones that can burn both coal and wood, so that you can convert to the somewhat better, renewable option later. And may G-d have mercy on my soul for mentioning this.
Pro: Cheap. Cheaper than any of the above options. While coal is rising in price, it still may remain cheap for some time, particularly in coal producing areas. The stoves are cheap too.
Con: Are you kidding? This is the single worst way to create heat ever.
9. Natural gas stoves - These are also comparatively inexpensive and more available than corn or pellet stoves.
Pro: Cheap, use less natural gas than a furnace, easy to install, comparatively clean burning?
Con: Subject to all the disadvantages of natural gas
10. Wood Masonry Stove: These are amazing - everyone should have one. Except, of course, that they cost a million dollars and can collapse your floors .
Pro: Use minimal wood, produce gradual heat, very clean burning, beautiful, can be made with bread ovens and warm benches - probably the ideal solution to all our problems, if only we could afford it.
Con: Heating even a small house costs 10K plus - bigger ones in the range of 20K. Prohibitive for many - require floor reinforcements if added to an existing house in some cases.
11. Rocket Mass Heaters: These deserve much, much more attention: http://www.dirtcheapbuilder.com/rostforcobbu.html
Pro: Cheap, with all the advantages of the above. These are probably the best option we’ve got.
Con: A major DIY project, Big.
12. Passive Solar heaters - Pat Murphy at the Community Solution is rather dismissive (and based on extensive research) of most passive solar designs or retrofits, saying that most don’t actually do what they say. Still these are worth exploring. I’m not going to list pros and cons, because the options are so varied and each project has its own issues - do your research before you do this: http://www.dirtcheapbuilder.com/rostforcobbu.html. I’ve heard mixed things from various plans.
So what’s the best choice? The best choice is to change your thinking, get used to winter, deal with the cold, adapt your house and yourself as best you can, and use the absolute minimum amount of heat from the cleanest source you possibly can. There is no perfect option - and we’re not going to get to one without a massive commitment in the US to retrofitting our dwellings. Sometimes people will have to do the best they can - but most of us can do rather better than we do at minimizing our heat use and expectations, and thinking about our neighbors and the future as well as ourselves when we make our choices. We need to plan now for a long term with less energy - and as difficult as that is, we need to do so carefully and wisely.
Sharon