Hammond Forever House

It was an emotional day for us. Our house, which has been literally up in the air for four months, was lowered onto its new foundation.

It may sound funny, but I gave it a hug.

Just like the day it was lifted in August, I took lots of photos, some video, and time-lapse video from a few different angles. Just like last time, it’s easy to share the time-lapse stuff, but the videos and photos are going to take a day or two.

I’d like to lead with the front view taken with my second-hand iPhone 4S, but the battery died just as it was getting good. I guess you can think of it as a teaser.

Here is a good look from the rooftop of the Little Yellow House next door. I set this going at about 9am taking photos every 20 seconds and by noon the house was down. [It’s a nice little app for the iPad called iMotion.]

Pretty cool, huh?

Starting even earlier, from the kitchen window of the Little Yellow House (I taped the iPad to the window with tea towels arranged to get the angle I wanted–did I mention I work in the film industry sometimes?) here it is again.

After the house was safely down, I changed the angle of “kitchen cam” to capture Nickel Bros. removing their steal beams and blocks from the basement.

That’s all the time-lapse I’ve got, but I took quite a bit of straight-up video footage and photos. I’ll throw those together for you in the next few days.

By the way, almost all of my videos can be seen on my Youtube channel. Search for Hammond Forever House or go to https://www.youtube.com/user/menopo and subscribe!

As you know, I’m running for School Trustee in BC School District 42. The election is coming up on Saturday and always the question is, “what is the best use of what little time I have left.” You can help by voting your advice. What should I do right now?

1. engage in conversation on Facebook groups?
2. knock on doors and hand out flyers?
3. hand out flyers at supermarkets or train stations?
4. attend meet-and-greet events?
5. spend time with my kids but make sure I get cute photos to post online?
6. update my trustee website and facebook page?

You may notice that writing a blog post for Hammond Forever House is not on the list, but I’m doing it anyway. That’s how I roll.

This post has been a long time coming. Now that it is here, it is going to be a little rushed. Why? See the list above.

First, the news. Last week at the School Board meeting, staff recommended to the board the hiring of an energy manager on a one-year trial basis. The board voted yes. This follows a conversation thread on Facebook on what Trustee candidates propose to do about the $100 000 per year the School District pays in Carbon Tax because our buildings are inefficient. Well, here is your answer!

You have no idea how pleased I would be to be a school trustee when the process of assessing school buildings for energy-efficiency and making upgrades is happening. Here is why.

By October 17^th, 2012, where we left off our story, I was starting to kick up a fuss about how long our Heritage Revitalization Agreement was taking to get into shape to present to City Council. While I was twiddling my thumbs, I investigated what features we could add to the house to make it more sustainable.

I got a quote on a geothermal heat pump, including drilling which came to about $20000. It sounds like a lot, but it would end our dependence on fossil fuels, reduce our bills forever and, with the Livesmart BC grant, which knocked off about $6000 (and considering we are planning to live here long enough to enjoy the energy savings) it would have been worth it. Unfortunately we discovered that we were not eligible for that grant because we had already received one for insulation and sealing in 2008. Suddenly it was not affordable and now the BC Government, bless their hearts, has eliminated Livesmart BC altogether. [The Federal EcoEnergy Grant is long gone and the Conservatives refuse to consider bringing it back, even though it works, creates jobs, diversifies the economy, etc. etc. Don’t get me started.]

I was looking at retaining rainwater to flush our toilets with, making the roof solar-ready, super-insulating the new walls and ceilings, and putting water pipes into the basement slab to deliver warmth and cool to the house.

All of these things have a significant up-front cost, but long-term savings and, of course, drastic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The reno itself was going to break our bank and I hated the idea of accepting the truth that we couldn’t afford to do the right thing.

Lisa Zosiak, Heritage Planner, had passed us on to another planner, but a few times she passed on some information on sustainable building. On October 17th she sent a quick e-mail that changed my life:

Hi Leanne and James,

Thought this session may be of interest to you.

Lisa Zosiak, Planner, District of Maple Ridge

Free Public Lecture

Lorraine in Maple Ridge

The Now House — Retrofitting for Zero Energy

October 24, 7 pm

SFU Harbour Centre, 515 West Hastings Street, Vancouver

Admission is free, but reservations are required. Reserve

A lot of focus has been placed on how to build homes that are increasingly more energy efficient and sustainable. But what about the existing stock of older homes across the country? In 50 years, two-thirds of our housing stock will still be here and housing is responsible for 15% of greenhouse gas emissions.

Join Lorraine Gauthier as she explores the approach behind the Now House® — the retrofit of a 60-year-old post-war house in an established neighbourhood in Toronto and its transformation into a net zero energy home. Just like a typical city house, the Now House® is connected to, and uses energy from, the local utility. However, unlike typical homes, the Now House® produces energy to send to the utility company. On an annual basis, the home produces as much energy as it consumes, resulting in a net zero energy bill.

Based on this success, the The Now House™ project team teamed up with Windsor Essex Community Housing Corporation to bring sustainable thinking and design to five similar wartime houses in Windsor. Come and discover how the Now House® offers a vision and a practical, affordable approach that can be applied to homes across the country.

Featuring panelists Michael Geller, architect, planner, and developer; and Dr. Guido Wimmers, director, Canadian Passive House Institute.

Sponsored by CMHC, Light House Sustainable Building Centre, and SFU Continuing Studies (City Program).

Now House Intro

The room was packed. In the midst of the greening of our consumer culture and its emphasis on new, shiny, energy efficient houses—LEED buildings, Passive Haus, etc.—Lorraine is one of the few voices talking about the huge challenge of retrofitting existing houses. It was exactly what I was looking for.

What foreshadowed my future struggles was the response to one of her questions to the audience.

She had just explained that the first Now House, which had achieved an annual energy bill of net zero as part of a national competition, cost about $80 000 to do. The Windsor 5, five similar houses retrofit in different ways to test the cost-benefit ratio, averaged around $45 000 each. Once they selected which of those five to reproduce en masse, Now House retrofit 95 of the same type in Windsor and each one cost, without solar panels, about $11 000. This was achieved by economies of scale: the trades moved from house to house doing more or less the same thing with the same bulk materials and appliances.

$80K down to $11K is amazing. My jaw was on the floor and I was ready to sign up, but there was nothing to sign up for.

The question Lorraine asked was how many people in the audience of green building enthusiasts would be willing to pay $11 000 to reduce their energy bill and be within reach of net zero? How many hands do you think went up? Most? Nope. Maybe a quarter of us. A quarter.

That moment was an enduring lesson for me. What stopped these people from putting up their hands? Was it simple cash flow problems (I don’t have $10 to buy those $100 boots)? Was it concern that they wouldn’t live in their house long enough to “pay off” the investment (I may suddenly want to sell the house in three years)? What was it?

The root of my ambition to be a School Trustee comes from the undervaluing of long-term thinking in my community. Investing sustainably in a robust education system now will lead to happier, healthier, more productive citizens in ten or twenty years as well as fewer homeless people, drug addictions, crime, and on and on. We know this, yes?

Is it our consumer “newer is better” culture of disposable goods that has rubbed off on our political sensibilities or is the short terms of political office to blame for our panicky need to balance the budget (or at least make the numbers dance so that the budget appears balanced) in two years? I’m all for efficient delivery of services like education but after 10 years of cuts we are clearly cutting into bone now which will be very expensive (not to mention socially disastrous) down the road, even if it looks fiscally responsible now.

Listening to Lorraine react to the few hands that were up, I didn’t understand the depth of the challenge before me. She said, “well that’s part of the problem.”

Over the next months I worked on bringing the concept of reducing the costs of retrofits to homeowners through economies of scale. Now House worked on 100 houses in Windsor which had a massive advantage over me: they all had a single owner. The Windsor Essex Housing Corporation owned all 100 and could make decisions unilaterally. Coordinating 100 separate owners of dissimilar houses is going to be a lot harder, but still worth the effort.

I will get into more detail soon, but I want to give shout-outs to key people who helped with this.

To Lorraine Gauthier who arranged to fit in another presentation in Maple Ridge Council Chambers on February 5^th, 2013 on her own dime.

To Dave Speers, Neighbourhood Coordinator at the District of Maple Ridge, who made it possible to host that presentation.

To Laura Benson, Manager of Sustainability and Corporate Planning (notice the double title) at the DMR who took the time out of her impossibly busy schedule to attend the meeting and had the inspiration to turn on Council Chamber’s recording equipment for it. That recording is there somewhere thanks to her.

To Monte Paulsen of Red Door Energy Advisors and Ian Ferguson who joined the expert panel at the meeting. Monte was able to provide a free energy audit as a door prize.

To Lance Jakubec of the Canadian Housing and Mortgage Corporation for his support and the $5000 we needed to take the next step in fleshing out the project.

Finally, To the 46 people who showed up!

You can read a news story about the meeting here.

I carried on in the belief that the chief barriers to everyone retrofitting their older homes was that they did not have the upfront cash to pay for it and that it is very difficult to get good information on how to do it. I was partially right.

The details will have to wait, but let me fast-forward to the reason you have not heard of the community retrofit project for a while.

Last year, after an all day meeting called a design charrette with experts and homeowners including Now House, BC Hydro, Vancity, Fortis BC, Envisions Financial, Ridge Meadows Recycling, Douglas College, the District of Maple Ridge, green builders, energy advisors and homeowners, I set out to formally launch the project under the District’s banner. I had donated a lot of time and energy into the concept and the team felt that now a part-time project manager was needed. At the charrette, we identified the best chance for funding was the BC Hydro Sustainable Communities grant which only municipalities can apply for. The offer at the time was up to $75K but the municipality had to contribute 25% (up to $18.5K) in direct funds or work-in-kind.

On a very frustrating day, in a meeting with district staff I was faced with a grim reality. A municipal program was not going to fly.

Why not? Well, briefly:

1. Maple Ridge does not have its own electrical utility as does Nelson, BC, for example. Nelson’s EcoSave home retrofit program benefits Nelson. The program I proposed for Maple Ridge would help BC Hydro, not Maple Ridge.
2. The other group that would benefit in direct financial terms would be only those homeowners who owned a house and were able to take advantage of the program. The project would help Maple Ridge meet its GreenHouse Gas emission reduction targets, but would not pay off directly.
3. To my mind, with climate change upon us, the above concerns are surmountable. In the long-term, the costs of climate change will make any investment now seem like a no-brainer later. However, think about how many candidates in the current municipal election campaign have, as part of their platform, keeping taxes low. In this political climate, how would City Council react if staff were to recommend spending even as little as, at most, $18.5K on establishing a retrofit project which would bring no financial return to the City but instead help a small number of homeowners and BC Hydro and put only a small dent in the provincial GHG emissions?

In my heartbreaking meeting with staff, they gently pointed out that the best way for Maple Ridge to reduce GHG emissions is to reduce the car traffic commuting in and out of the city daily. In that context, the new business incentive program and the successful downtown density incentive program have an important environmental aspect in addition to their stated goals of reducing municipal costs and residential taxes.

It was another learning moment just like the one at Lorraine’s first presentation.

By that point I had talked with many people who were homeowners and interested in joining the project. However, there were a lot more people who saw greater value in saving $100 on their property taxes than in creating an ongoing program to help residents reduce energy use in their homes. I was going to have to get a lot more people on board with the basic long-term strategy before I could launch or I was never going to get off the ground.

That is why this blog exists.

That is why I am moving ahead with the revitalization, renovation and retrofit of Hammond Forever House, before there is any program in place to help me do it. My hope is that our house can become a community inspiration or, at very least, a conversation starter.

Ah, how much easier it would be if I had authority over a large number of buildings like Now House did. Is anyone so lucky?

School District 42? Hey you’re right!

In fact, the Board has decided to follow a staff recommendation to do almost exactly what I would like to do with houses. The new energy manager will assess the buildings and recommend upgrades. Two schools will be upgraded and, if successful, more will follow.

Of course the first question is,  “how much will it cost the District?” I have already discussed the impossible funding situation we are in. The answer is…nothing! In fact it will reduce costs in just a few years. For a rough outline, read this Maple Ridge News article. According to the article, in addition to the $100 000 in Carbon Tax, the district pays $2.63 million in utility fees. Possible energy savings, after spending something like $4 million district-wide, are estimated to amount to $380 000 per year. That means the investment should pay for itself in just over 10 years, unless you figure in the reduced carbon tax, in which case it would be less.

The challenge will be making sure that the upgrades we do are effective so as to ensure BC Hydro agrees to continue the program and we get that $25K bonus.

The concept of retrofitting these schools is a lot like my home retrofit idea. My home will be the test case just as the first two schools will be. After an example and perhaps some best practices are established, more can be done more cost-effectively.

The biggest difference is motivation. This is the value of a carbon tax. To homeowners, the immediate environmental benefit is mitigated by a high up-front cost. With a carbon tax in place, the financial return is much more immediate. With BC Hydro sharing the cost, this became a very easy decision for the board, I imagine.

Meanwhile, back in the housing sector, governments are getting out of the home efficiency business and how many people do you know are concerned about how much carbon tax they are spending on fossil fuels in their home? I had to check whether we even pay it on our home fuels—and I thought I knew this stuff!

With natural gas, oil and electricity prices among the lowest in the world here in our mild lower mainland climate, it is not easy to justify with traditional economics what we know we must do: eliminate fossil fuel consumption. But do it we must and I am here to help.

If I may end with an appeal to voters, I would like to suggest that at a time like this at least one member of the Board of Trustees should be, among other things, a building retrofit enthusiast.

Vote James Rowley for School Trustee!

I told you about Walter’s house and how he built it as sustainable as possible. In his article for the ASQ Newsletter in 2010, Walter sums up a major housing dilemma that everyone knows about but nobody seems to be addressing. He writes:

Due to the high value of the property in West Vancouver, the decision was made to remove the old house rather than remodel. The old house was worn, leaking and poorly insulated. Any work would have required basically lifting the entire house and adding a whole new basement. In this part of the city, it was also likely that any renovations or additions would have depreciated to zero over the next 20 years as new owners would only have been willing to pay for the land value in preparation for tearing the renovated home down.

He is absolutely right.

Around here these days, the land a house sits on is worth far more than the house itself. You can see this on your property assessment every year. Walter’s house is an interesting example. A search for Walter’s address led me to the page for Property Insight which compares it to the local average.

There you see that Walter’s property is worth the same as the average property in the area: CAD$1.5 million. However, the house itself is worth about double the houses around it. Why? Because it is new, super-efficient and just generally awesome.

Will a potential buyer value its efficiency or will they prefer something more conventional? The thinking goes that if you have 1.5 million to spend on a property, look for the oldest, most run-down house you can find so you can build a new one the way you like it.

It’s right there on your property assessment: land has value, houses do not.

For those who can afford these prices, tearing down and building new is common practice these days. New homes are often bigger, have fewer problems and all the modern conveniences and are more energy-efficient. Weirdly, it is often the case that it costs less (in dollars) to build new than renovate the existing house!

There is another side to the coin, however.

1. The new homes are usually built to the maximum size allowed by municipal zoning, not because this is being demanded by home-buyers, but to maximize profits of builders, banks and the real estate industry.

2. All the energy and resources that went into building the existing home will be wasted.

3. The increase in energy-efficiency of the new home will never recover the energy wasted in demolishing the old one.

It would seem to me that attempts to mitigate  environmental concerns, such as reclaiming materials, using recycled materials from other sites, and insulating beyond code, all of which Walter did and more, must soon eliminate the savings that tearing down and building new brought.

A passive house, for example, is too expensive to fit into this tear-down and build-new model. Passive houses are built to last decades, not the five years it takes for us to get bored and feel like moving.

Everyone will tell you it doesn’t make economic sense to renovate. I’ve come to the conclusion that the way we think of the economy doesn’t make sense. There is so much not included in our assignment of value.

The market puts pressure on builders to use the cheapest possible building methods to the bare minimum standards that building codes allow. Builders are not evil, they are following the rules to make a living. We say we want cheaper, not better. We say we want granite countertops, not insulation.

So here’s what we do:

take all the existing houses and retrofit them until they are super efficient.

Can’t afford it?

Make it cheaper.

Simple!

 

 

Every wonder what Santa Claus does in July? Apparently, he soothes his obsession with chimneys by removing their caps.

Seriously, though, Ron-the-neighbour-across-the-street has helped us more than I can say. With his guidance, I felt confident enough to make the decision to lift at least part of the fireplace chimney so that we could preserve the brickwork of the fireplace inside. Most of the time when a house is lifted, the chimney is completely removed and that means the fireplace, too.

Ron is also the guy who builds the Hammond Community Libraries and donates them to the first Hammondite who volunteers to be a librarian. There are four branches now.

Ron let me borrow his scaffolding and showed me how to put it together. Then last Thursday he appeared at the top of it and removed the steel cap. Together we lifted the concrete top piece up an off. Then he lent me his masoner’s hammer and a couple of chisels and showed me how to knock the bricks off.

It looked like this:

We thought long and hard about what to do about the fireplace chimney on our house. I told you all about it but it came down to this:

On one hand, it looks great

On the other hand, it’s a big hole in the envelope of the house that lets heat escape

On the one hand, we can have a nice fire and heat our home with wood we scrounge for free

On the other hand, that is a very inefficient way to heat a house (most of the heat goes up the chimney even with our super-efficient wood-burning insert)

On the one hand, we didn’t have to buy any oil last winter

On the other hand, burning wood releases greenhouse gases, too, as well as particulates that cause health issues and smog

It comes down to personal preference, but it’s clear that chimneys do not belong in a modern, energy efficient house. I used to have the attitude that a heritage house is never going to be efficient so it’s a waste of time doing more than we did in 2008. Now I believe that every home must be made as efficient as possible no matter what their age, and tearing down the old ones to build new ones usually results in more greenhouse gas emissions, not less.

The compromise with the chimney was to remove the chimney down to the “shoulder” and expect someday to rebuild it for looks, if not function. The smaller the chimney, the easier (and cheaper) to lift the house and the better we can insulate the exterior wall. We’ll put an electric simulated fire unit in the hearth and hope we don’t pine for the wood heat too much. Compromise.

As the bricks were removed, most of them quite easily, the wall behind them was revealed. What was between the chimney and the triangular attic space at the front of the house was a rigid, rust-coloured type of canvas with gaps across it and all around the edges.

Ron spotted immediately that the bricks above the roofline were different (and inferior) to the original brickwork that remained below. The upper portion had been rebuilt with bricks from the 60s. The mortar would not come off them easily, he predicted and he was right.

The newer bricks are also grooved on the exterior and stamped with “HANEY BRICK & TILE” on the other side. That local company started before 1923 when the house was built, so I’m pretty sure the original bricks came from Haney, too, but I suppose they didn’t start stamping their name on them until later.

By the way, if you are burning wood in your fireplace, make sure it has a liner like the one Dave-the-father-in-law showed me how to install in 2008. The pieces were rivetted together which meant I had to drill them out. The black soot on the inside of the brick is from previous fires. Stuff can build up on the inside and then catch fire.

I was relieved to see that the spray foam insulation that was injected into the walls recently filled these cavities better than the ones I uncovered last week. However, it was impossible to spray into the space behind the chimney as you can see here. We’ll be able to do much better now. We’ll even be able to inject insulation down into the space between the remaining chimney and the living room.

When chimneys were built on to houses, it was because they were necessary. With that in mind, wouldn’t it be a natural evolution to simply leave the chimney off the house? This one, however, served only the fireplace which only heated the living room. Three sides are exposed to air which means it loses more heat. I think it would be against the spirit (if not the letter) of our Heritage Revitalization Agreement to do anything less than rebuild the entire chimney from authentic period bricks.

The central chimney which served the furnace, on the other hand…

I told you about the first retrofit we did on our house in this post here that I wrote last October.

I told you that we had an energy audit done by the House Whisperers and then implemented a lot of their recommendations. I did not, however, share with you the audit itself. My bad.

I’d like to say this was a calculated move–that I was keeping you in suspense–but the truth is I couldn’t find it. It may have had something to do with our second child being born in 2008, but I couldn’t find that oh-so-helpful paper that some of you might be itching to see.

When I was putting together that post last October I contacted Garry at The House Whisperers and he was happy to send it to me. Here it is:

It’s 11 pages long and gives a good idea of how to reduce our energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. Much of the advice was repeated by Monte Paulsen of Red Door Energy Design when he gave us notes on the computer energy model he made for us.

Garry also shared his views on the clawing back of energy efficiency incentives by both the federal and provincial governments. “At our peak we employed 15 energy advisors and 5 office staff. Today we have no employees. All of our employees moved on to other sectors.” I shared more of his letter in a post I naturally called, “Green Jobs”.

Here are a few things that struck me reading through the 2008 audit (see if you agree):

1. Right off the bat it says that by following all the recommendations we could reduce our energy consumption by 70%. With an oil furnace, what a huge improvement! What if every home that was going to be knocked down in Maple Ridge did that instead? We could lead the world.

2. The tragic mention so often of what measures are eligible for one ecoACTION grant or other, all of which, of course, were “ended”.

3. The mention of NRCan’s publication Keeping the Heat In. This book contains a wealth of objective, reliable information and advice to help improve home energy efficiency, lower heating bills, etc. When the ecoACTION funding was cancelled they were thrown away. I obtained a whole box of them from a member of the Maple Ridge Community Home Energy Retrofit Project team who had taken it because they were told the books were going into the dumpster. The publication is still available online, but I can’t understand why they would throw away the books. Perhaps it is true what Garry wrote, and our current government does not want a public that is educated about energy.

4. Right at the top is the Natural Resources Canada’s ecoACTION logo. The whole thing gives the impression that the federal government takes climate change seriously. There is no sign that the program will end suddenly when the new government decides its only purpose was economic stimulus (and it doesn’t believe in economic stimulus).

The results of your pre-retrofit energy evaluation show that your house rates 40 points on the EnerGuide scale. If you implement all of the recommendations in this report, you could reduce your energy consumption by up to 70% and increase your home’s energy efficiency rating to 79 points. The average energy efficiency rating for a house of this age in British Columbia is 47, whereas the highest rating achieved by the most energy-efficient houses in this category is 80.

The sooner you start your renovations, the sooner you will benefit from the energy savings. And let’s not forget how reduced energy consumption helps protect the environment.
Did you know that when you reduce the amount of energy used in your home, you also reduce the production of greenhouse gases (GHG) such as carbon dioxide? By improving your home’s energy efficiency rating to 79 points, you will reduce its GHG emissions by 11.7 tonnes per year!

The ecoENERGY Retrofit – Homes program stopped accepting bookings for pre-retrofit evaluations as of March 31, 2010. If there is a complimentary grant program offered by a province, territory, municipality, utility or other organization, your file will be transferred to them in accordance with your consent.

Note: If you notice any discrepancies with the above description of your home, contact your service organization immediately.

Service Organization: The House WhisperersTelephone: 1.800.706.3013
Date of evaluation: April 14, 2008 Date of report: Oct. 3, 2014 (re-issued)
Certified Energy Advisor: Garry Lowney

1. YOUR HOME ENERGY ACTION CHECKLIST

This is your checklist of recommended retrofits to improve the energy efficiency of your home. Included is information on the potential for energy savings and EnerGuide rating improvement. For more information on implementing the recommended retrofits, read carefully the ‘Recommended Energy-Saving Measures’ section of this report. Any reference in this report regarding the eligibility for, or availability of, grants under the ecoENERGY Retrofit – Homes program should be disregarded.

Before undertaking upgrades or renovations, find out about the appropriate products and installation techniques, and ensure that all renovations meet local building codes and by-laws. NRCan does not endorse the services of any contractor, nor any specific product, and accepts no liability in the selection of materials, products, contractors or performance of workmanship.
Note: Some provinces, territories, municipalities and utilities offer complimentary grants and other incentives for reducing energy use. For information on other energy-saving programs, visit ecoaction.gc.ca and follow the links to ecoENERGY Retrofit’s “Grants and Rebates” Web page for consumers or call 1 800 O-Canada (1-800-622-6232).

When replacing ANY of the equipment listed in this report, the new equipment should have an efficiency rating higher than that of the original equipment.

2. THE ENERGUIDE RATING SYSTEM

The EnerGuide rating system is a standardized method of evaluation that lets homeowners compare their house’s energy efficiency rating to similar sized houses in similar regions. The EnerGuide rating considers the house’s estimated annual energy consumption based on an in-depth evaluation of the house’s characteristics such as location, size, equipment and systems, insulation levels, air tightness, etc. In addition, standardized conditions are used when calculating the rating in order to compare the efficiency of one house to another. These conditions include: a complete air change approximately every three hours; four occupants; a fixed thermostat setting of 21°C on main floors and 19°C in the basement; average hot water consumption of 225 litres per day; average national electricity consumption of 24 kWh per day; and regional weather data that is averaged over the last 30 years.

Figures 1 through 3 show the results of your energy evaluation based on the standardized conditions. The results may not entirely reflect your household since your actual energy consumption and future savings are influenced by the number of occupants, their day-to-day habits and lifestyles.
4. SPACE HEATING ANALYSIS

Figure 2 shows the estimated percentage of energy used for the space heating of your home.

– The right side of the top bar shows the percentage of energy you could save if you were to implement all of the upgrades recommended in this report, excluding changes to the space heating equipment. You could save up to 42 percent by performing all of the recommended non-space heating system upgrades.
– The right side of the bottom bar shows the percentage of energy you could save if you were to implement all of the upgrades recommended in this report, including any space heating system upgrades. You could save up to 87 percent by performing all of the recommended upgrades.
Your Home’s Estimated Design Heating and Cooling Loads

If you were to implement ALL of the building envelope retrofits recommended in the section of this report entitled ‘Your Home Energy Action Checklist’, it is estimated that your home’s design heat loss would be 45839 Btu/hour (13434 Watts) and its design cooling load would be 22771 Btu/hour (1.9 tons). If you are considering replacing your space heating and/or cooling system, it is recommended that you provide this information to your heating/cooling contractor to help ensure a properly-sized system. However, this is only an estimate based on the data that was collected on your home at the time of the pre-retrofit evaluation. The design heat loss and cooling load can vary depending on different factors, such as the retrofits that you implement and other changes you may make to your home. Prior to having a new heating/cooling system installed, it is recommended that your heating/cooling contractor perform a heat loss/heat gain calculation on your home to determine the capacity and distribution flows for the new equipment. The contractor should hold current certification for Heat Loss/Heat Gain Calculations from the Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Institute of Canada (HRAI). For a list of certified contractors, visit www.hrai.ca and click on “Homeowners and Building Owners” and “SkillTech Academy Canadian Certification Listing”, or call 1-800-267-2231.

Important Information Concerning Vermiculite Insulation
Older vermiculite insulation installed in homes may contain amphibole asbestos, which can cause health risks if disturbed and inhaled. If the insulation is contained in the walls or attic spaces and is not disturbed or exposed to the home or interior environment, it poses very little risk. Vermiculite insulation was not detected during the energy evaluation of your home. However, if you find vermiculite insulation during renovations, avoid disturbing it in any way. If you suspect it might be in your home and you plan to undertake renovations (including insulation or air sealing work) that may cause the vermiculite insulation to be disturbed, contact professionals who are qualified to handle asbestos before you proceed with the renovations. For a listing of qualified professionals, look in the Yellow PagesTM under ‘Asbestos Abatement & Removal’. For information on vermiculite insulation that contains amphibole asbestos, refer to the Health Canada fact sheet It’s Your Health – Vermiculite Insulation Containing Amphibole Asbestos. Visit http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/iyh- vsv/prod/insulation-isolant-eng.php or call Health Canada at 1-800-443-0395 to order a copy.

5. RECOMMENDED ENERGY-SAVING MEASURES

Main Walls – General
I recommend insulating the exterior walls to a level of R12 or better. Retrofitting walls can help save energy, since walls can account for 10 to 30 percent of heat loss in a house. Depending on the house, and its characteristics, exterior walls can be insulated by filling the wall space (the wall cavity) with blown-in insulation, by adding insulation from the interior or exterior, or a combination of any of these methods.
Before you begin, first check the walls from the interior and exterior for evidence of moisture damage: stains, mould, rotten wood, flaking brick and peeling paint. Also, make sure that damage to the walls is not being caused by problems with the roof and that all flashings are secure. All these problems must be fixed before proceeding. Seal gaps and cracks in the exterior wall-finish, and around window and door frames to prevent water from penetrating into the walls. Do not seal, however, any drainage holes at the bottom of brick-veneer walls or window frames, as these holes are necessary to minimize the impact of water penetration on the wall assembly. Consider additional upgrades related to the walls before retrofitting them, such as electrical wiring, and the installation of air- and vapour-barriers.

Wall insulation upgrades are eligible for an ecoENERGY Retrofit – Homes grant. The grant amount differs, based on the insulation values installed, and the wall surface-area covered. A minimum of 20% of the total exterior wall surface must be insulated to qualify for a grant. Taking photos of the walls while the insulation is being installed then showing them to your energy advisor, during the post-retrofit evaluation, is recommended to ensure that you will get full credit for your newly-installed insulation.

For more information on insulating walls, as well as insulation materials, their properties and installation methods, consult NRCan’s Keeping the Heat In and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation’s About Your House and Renovating for Energy Savings fact sheets.

Recommendation:

I recommend that you insulate your main walls. [we did, with half-pound spray foam insulation, in 2008]

Foundations – General

Consider insulating the uninsulated concrete foundation walls with R24 and any empty joist headers with R20. Foundation heat loss can account for 20 to 35 percent of a home’s heat loss. A well-insulated foundation can improve home comfort, air quality, structural integrity, and energy efficiency.

Before insulating, first check for moisture in your foundation walls. Tell-tale signs are: staining or mould growth; blistering, peeling paint; efflorescence, a whitish deposit on the surface; spalling or surface deterioration; condensation on walls and metal objects; and a musty smell.

Repair water leaks through the floor and walls, caused by cracks, holes and construction joints. You should also control humidity levels and there should be appropriate damp-proofing or waterproofing on the foundation walls to prevent moisture from wicking through the foundation wall.

To prevent moisture problems, slope the ground away from the house exterior and direct eavestrough downspouts away from the foundation. Maintain and seal sumps and sump pumps, and install sewer backup equipment, if required.

The type and condition of your foundation will determine if you can insulate from the outside or from the inside. Exterior insulation is the preferred but more costly method. Foundations of rubble, brick, stone and concrete block are best insulated from the exterior. However, you may wish to have an engineer verify your foundation’s structural integrity before undertaking any work.

Poured-concrete foundations can be insulated from either the outside or inside, providing there are no serious water or structural problems. Preserved-wood foundations, made with sheathing and studs, are generally insulated by filling in the stud space. Slab-on-grade foundations are typically insulated on the exterior edge. Occasionally, they are insulated on top of the slab and under the floor finish. Basement- and crawl-space insulation upgrades are eligible for ecoENERGY Retrofit – Homes grants. The grant amounts vary depending on the insulation values added and the surface area insulated. Go to Your Home Energy Action Checklist in this report to see the recommended insulation value for your foundation and the eligible grant amount. Taking photos of the foundation during installation and showing them to the energy advisor during the post-retrofit evaluation is recommended, to ensure that you receive full credit for your installed insulation. For more information about insulating foundations, as well as insulation materials, their properties and their installation methods, consult NRCan’s publication entitled Keeping the Heat In and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation’s About Your House and Renovating for Energy Savings fact sheets.

Air Sealing
Reducing air leakage is usually the most cost-effective measure a homeowner can undertake; the leakier the home, the greater the savings! It is not unusual for air leakage to account for 35% of the heat loss in a home. In addition to reducing heat loss, air sealing improves comfort, protects the building structure and other materials from moisture damage, and reduces the amount of dust and noise that enters from the outdoors.

A blower door test was performed on your home to measure the amount of air leakage, and to identify the main air leakage locations. The blower door test results are shown on the first page of this report and are explained below.

The Air Leakage Rate at 50 Pascals (ACH) is the number of complete air changes per hour that occurs in your house when a pressure difference between the inside and outside of the home is set at 50 Pascals (Pa). A 50-Pa pressure difference simulates wind blowing at 56 kilometers per hour on your home. The higher the ACH, the leakier the house.

The Equivalent Leakage Area (ELA) represents the total air leakage area. It’s like taking all of the air leakage areas (e.g., cracks, holes, etc.) in the home and putting them together to create one large hole in the building envelope. The larger the ELA, the leakier the house. An energy-efficient house might have an ELA as low as 258 cm2 (40 square inches) while a leaky house may have an ELA of more than 3226 cm2 (500 square inches) Leakage in your home at the time of my evaluation was 376 square inches in total, the majority coming from the unfinished basement , seal joist headers and use vapor barriers when insulating .

Air Sealing Options

Air sealing can be a do-it-yourself option. Another option is to hire a qualified, professional, air sealer who can locate and seal leaks in your home and likely do a more thorough job. This may be an important consideration if you want to air seal your house to meet a specific air leakage goal, and be eligible for a grant. Professional whole-house air sealing costs vary, depending on the size and complexity of the work.

Air Sealing Materials

Weatherstripping reduces air leakage by sealing gaps around moveable parts of windows and doors. Correctly installed, good quality weatherstripping is a cost-effective way to reduce air leakage. Check weatherstripping annually and replace worn materials before the cold weather sets in.

Caulking is used on the interior to seal small cracks and penetrations on the inside surface of your walls, ceilings and floors. Caulking is also used on the exterior to keep out rain, snow, wind as well as insects and rodents. Urethane foam is very good for filling larger joints and cavities.

For information on air sealing your home, consult NRCan’s publications entitled Air-Leakage Control, Improving Window Energy Efficiency and Keeping the Heat In, and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation’s About Your House, and Renovating for Energy Savings fact sheets.

Recommendation:

I recommend air sealing your home to achieve the air-leakage rate indicated at the beginning of this report, in the section Your Home Energy Action Checklist. You must meet or exceed the goal indicated to be eligible for an ecoENERGY Retrofit grant for air sealing. The results of the air sealing work will be measured at the time of your post-retrofit evaluation.

Insulating Cathedral Ceilings

Insulating a cathedral ceiling usually requires the services of a contractor. The main difficulty with cathedral ceilings is the limited space for insulation and ventilation.

When insulating a cathedral ceiling, you must minimize moisture penetration from the house into the roof space, which can lead to moisture problems, reduce the effectiveness of the insulation and damage interior finishes and the roof structure. Therefore, it is critical to seal all air leaks into the ceiling, to keep the humidity level in the house at a reasonable level and to eliminate existing moisture problems.

Thermal bridging occurs when joists or rafters, which have a relatively low insulating value, conduct heat directly from the ceiling to the exterior of the house. Therefore, it is preferable to eliminate or reduce thermal bridging through the ceiling joists or rafters when you insulate cathedral ceilings. In addition to the heat loss, thermal bridging can cause staining or condensation on the ceiling finish along the joists.

Cathedral ceilings can be insulated using one of the following methods:
– insulating from the exterior
– insulating from the interior by removing the existing ceiling
– insulating from the interior by insulating over the existing ceiling
– insulating the roof space

Insulating from the Exterior

Insulating from the exterior is the preferred method for cathedral ceilings but is one of the most labour intensive. This method usually requires that you remove the roof surface to expose the roof space. Therefore, it is more cost effective to perform this work if your roof needs to be repaired or replaced.

Insulating from the Interior by Removing the Existing Ceiling

Insulating from the interior by removing the ceiling is also labour intensive because it involves: removing the existing ceiling finish, possibly removing the existing insulation and vapour barrier; installing insulation and an air and vapour barrier; and installing a new ceiling throughout the house. As well, it is difficult to correctly insulate and seal the top of the interior partitions with this method.

Insulating from the Interior by Insulating Over the Existing Ceiling

This method is somewhat less labour intensive because the existing ceiling can be left in place and insulation and a new air and vapour barrier is installed over the ceiling, followed by a new ceiling finish. As with the method explained above, it is difficult to correctly insulate and seal the top of the interior partitions with this method.

Insulating the Roof Space

To insulate the roof space, loose-fill insulation is blown in to fill the cavity between the ceiling and the roof. This method is performed by an insulation contractor.

This method of insulating can eliminate ventilation and is not recommended unless extra care is taken to reduce air leakage into the roof space and prevent potential moisture damage. Unfortunately, air leakage locations in a cathedral ceiling, such as penetrations for electrical wiring, plumbing stacks and the tops of partition walls, are not easily accessible for sealing. In addition, this insulation method may not reduce thermal bridging if the joists are not covered with insulation.
For more information, refer to NRCan’s Keeping the Heat In and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation’s About Your House and Renovating for Energy Savings fact sheets.

Grant Eligibility: The insulation of cathedral ceilings is eligible for an ecoENERGY Retrofit – Homes grant. You must increase the insulation value of the cathedral ceiling by a minimum of RSI 1.8 (R-10).

Recommendation:

Have a qualified contractor insulate your cathedral ceiling to the insulation level noted in the section of this report entitled ‘Your Home Energy Action Checklist’.

Grant Eligibility: Attic insulation upgrades are eligible for an ecoENERGY Retrofit – Homes grant. The grant amount differs according to the existing insulation value and the total insulation value achieved. Information on the eligibility requirements when insulating attics can be found in the brochure entitled Retrofit Your Home and Qualify for a Grant!

Recommendation:
Increase the insulation value of your attic to the insulation value noted in the section of this report entitled ‘Your Home Energy Action Checklist’.
 
Air-Source Heat Pumps

Consider upgrading to a high efficient oil furnace, although there is no grant to change to an electric furnace that is a option also. I strongly recommend an air source heat pump in conjunction with the upgraded heating system that you choose. Air-source heat pumps, which include air-to-air and air-to-water heat pumps, extract heat in the air from outside and transfer it to a distribution system in the house during the heating season.

Different terminology is used for the efficiency ratings of heat pumps. For example, air-source heat pumps have seasonal heating and cooling ratings. The heating rating is the Heating Seasonal Performance Factor (HSPF), while the cooling rating is the Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio (SEER). However, in the manufacturers’ catalogues you may still see Coefficient of Performance (COP) or Energy Efficiency Rating (EER) ratings. COP is used to rate cooling or heating efficiencies and EER only rates the cooling efficiency. The higher the rating, the more energy efficient is the heat pump. ENERGY STAR® qualified heat pumps are among the most energy efficient in the marketplace.

For more information on air-source heat pumps, refer to the NRCan publication entitled, Heating and Cooling with a Heat Pump.

Grant Eligibility: ENERGY STAR qualified air-to-air and air-to-water heat pumps are eligible for an ecoENERGY Retrofit – Homes grant for the heating system. These air-source heat pumps are also eligible for an additional ecoENERGY grant for the cooling system, providing the heat pump replaces an existing central air conditioner. For more information, refer to the NRCan publication entitled, Retrofit Your Home and Qualify for a Grant!

Recommendation:

I recommend that you install an ENERGY STAR® qualified air-source heat pump to heat and cool your home.

Heating System Upgrade

Consider replacing your existing furnace (see Energy Action Checklist above) with an Energy Star rated system that includes a DC variable speed energy efficient motor. Because of their improved efficiency a high efficient furnace on average will use, on average 35% less fuel than an old furnace. High efficient equipment offering sealed combustion is more efficient and less likely to become a health risk.

Energy Star air source heat pumps can maximize energy savings, improve comfort and both heat and cool your home. In some cases they can reduce heating costs by up to 60%. Air source heat pumps use less energy than furnaces, boilers or electric baseboards.

Refer to one of NRCan’s 4 booklets Heating with Gas/Oil/Electricity/Heat Pumps on more detailed information on how to select a more energy efficient heating system. The publications are availabe online at http://0ee.nrcan.gc.ca/publications.

Toilet Fixtures

To meet the requirements for eligibility, new toilet fixtures must meet the certain performance criteria. They must have a water capacity of six litres or less and a flush performance of 350 grams or more. They must also meet the Los Angeles Supplementary Purchase Specification (SPS) for water savings sustainability. Information on the makes and models is available at http://www.veritec.ca/index.php.

6. ENERGY-SAVING TIPS

Although these actions may not be eligible for an incentive, they will help you save energy and money:

– Install and use a programmable electronic thermostat (set the heating temperature to 20°C while you are at home and 17°C at night and when you are away). For each degree of setback, you can save up to 2 percent on your heating bills.

– When replacing lighting, appliances, electronics and office equipment, look for ENERGY STAR® qualified products. ENERGY STAR® qualified products use less than half as much energy in standby mode (i.e. when they are turned “off”). For more information, go to http://energystar.gc.ca. You can also look for the EnerGuide label to help you select the most energy-efficient model.

– Replace your light bulbs with energy-efficient ones, such as compact fluorescents. They last longer and reduce electricity consumption.

– Insulate the first two metres of the hot and cold water pipes with insulating foam sleeves or pipe wrap insulation. By doing so you will save on your water heating costs and will reduce your water consumption. Besides saving energy, water will arrive at the faucets warmer or colder. Insulating cold water pipes will also avoid condensation from forming on the pipes. This prevents dripping on the ceiling finish or the basement floor. For a fuel-fired water heater, maintain a 15-centimetre (6-inch) clearance between the water piping insulation and the vent pipe.

– Install an ENERGY STAR® qualified kitchen or bathroom exhaust fan.

– Install a timer on your bathroom exhaust fan(s).

– Install low-flow showerheads (rated at less than 9.8 litres per minute [L/min]) and faucet aerators.

– Fix leaky faucets and outside hose bibs.

– Plug your home office equipment into a power bar that can be easily turned off when equipment is not in use. Refer to the fact sheet Standby Power – When “Off” Means “On” for information on standby losses.

7. INFORMATION RESOURCES

Home Energy Efficiency

Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) publishes a variety of publications that can help you improve the energy efficiency of your home. These publications are available online at oee.nrcan.gc.ca/publications or by calling the order desk at 1-800-387-2000.

Renovation Publications

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) publishes a large number of renovation planning fact sheets that are available at no cost. There are also some excellent in-depth publications for sale. Visit cmhc- schl.gc.ca or call 1-800-668-2642 to order your material of interest.

Hiring a Contractor

Before you have any work done, request quotations in writing from professional contractors and obtain a written contract. CMHC has a very useful fact sheet on this subject, Hiring a Contractor, which includes a draft contract. Visit cmhc-schl.gc.ca or call 1-800-668-2642 to order.

Mold

If you suspect mold growth in your home, it is recommended that the mold damaged area(s) be cleaned thoroughly or removed and properly disposed of. To control and reduce the potential for mold growth, maintain indoor humidity at appropriate levels, and remedy water infiltration and leakage issues. Refer to the CMHC fact sheet About Your House: Fighting Mold – The Homeowner’s Guide for information on proper mold identification and cleaning procedures. Visit cmhc-schl.gc.ca or call 1-800-668-2642 to order.

Radon

Radon is a radioactive gas that is colourless, odourless and tasteless. Radon is formed by the breakdown of uranium, a natural radioactive material found in soil, rock and groundwater. When radon is released from the ground into the outdoor air, it gets diluted to low concentrations and is not a concern. However, in enclosed spaces, like houses, it can sometimes accumulate to high levels, which can be a risk to the health of you and your family. For more information, refer to the CMHC publication Radon – A Guide for Canadian Homeowners or visit the Health Canada web site at http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/radiation/radon/index- eng.php.

Humidity Control

A relative humidity (RH) level of between 30 and 55 percent is recommended in the home. If you have a humidifier or dehumidifier, ensure that it is regularly cleaned and maintained, and that the humidistat is set at an appropriate humidity level. You can use a hygrometer to measure relative humidity and the CMHC fact sheet Measuring Humidity in Your Home gives good advice. In addition, dehumidifiers can help reduce moisture levels especially in basements.

GET STARTED TODAY!

Now that you have the tools to improve your home’s energy efficiency, you can look forward to enjoying the added comfort of your ecoENERGY improved home. Not only will you benefit from increased comfort, you will also save on your energy bills year after year. And let’s not forget your reduction of greenhouse gases!

 
What is stopping us? This document outlined in 2008 how we could save 70% (in one place it says 87%) on our energy costs. If we stay in our house long enough, the upgrades will pay for themselves. If we factor in Canadians’ collective costs due to climate change (healthcare, insurance, forest fires, droughts, etc.) it’s an even better deal for homeowners and governments alike.

Since 2008, there has been no huge leap in home energy technology. (In our 2013 energy model, many of the same conclusions were reached although the house had jumped from EnerGuide 40 to 63.) The myth is that we’re waiting for technology to become improve. We’re not. We’re waiting for the tipping point when large numbers of home owners start to retrofit their homes with or without government encouragement. That will bring the costs down for everyone.

If our governments won’t, it is up to us to leap forward, dragging them along behind us.

The first step is voting on October 19th.

[UPDATE MARCH 2016: since this post was written, Leanne and I have entered into a contract dispute with Ridgewater Homes. For more details, click here.]

It was my last chance to give you a good look at the way the basement was.

On Friday Ridgewater and Nickel Bros. will team up to lift the house up and support it on six cribs (which look like Jenga piles, but I’m sure they are much sturdier).

Here is a video walk around and guided tour. It’s 2m21s long.

A lot of people ask me how high we are lifting the house.

I answer that we are lifting it high enough to dig the basement deeper, pour a new foundation with super-de-duper insulation and put pipes in the basement floor for radiant heating. After that, we will put it back down to more or less the same elevation.

That’s when they give me a puzzled look. It’s a look that says, “you already have a basement and a foundation so why are you going to all this expense and effort to gain a couple of feet of basement ceiling height, a better foundation and more insulation?”

That’s what you’re thinking isn’t it? You look at this colossal project and think that there must be something seriously wrong with the house for us to go to these lengths. If not then why? Why not settle for good enough?

I’d like to tell you it’s because we’re going to recover the cost of this reno in savings on our fuel bills.

But I don’t think we will.

I’d like to tell you it’s because our energy advisor, one of the best in the province, Monte Paulsen, told us it would be a good idea.

But he didn’t. In fact he kinda tried to talk us out of it.

In fact, I came to the answer during a conversation with Monte a couple of months ago. The answer is, “because we want to.”

It’s a little more complex, I guess, but I want you to know that I’m not trying to tell you what you should do with your home because I can only speak for what we wanted to do, what is important to us and what brings us joy.

So why did we want to?

Mostly because we are fed up with the glacial pace of humanity’s response to climate change. We want to go further and do more.

I mean seriously, in 2013 the Canadian National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy, chaired by former Governor General David Johnston, released a report called, “Paying the Price: The Economic Impacts of Climate Change for Canada.” The report introduction states:

Canada – the fourth report in the NRT’s Climate Prosperity series – is the first national study to show what the economic consequences to Canada could be as a result of climate change, under four separate scenarios involving two factors: global GHG emissions and Canadian economic and population growth.

Although Canada contributes approximately 1.5% of global emissions, the report concludes that climate change impacts brought about by increased world-wide emissions have a real and growing economic cost to Canada. It also shows that adaptation – our capacity to manage the impacts to come – while not cost-free, is a cost-effective way to alleviate some of those impacts.

Based on NRT original economic modelling, the report finds that the economic impact on Canada could reach:

2020: $5 billion per year
2050: Between $21 and $43 billion per year

Just how much are those forest fires costing British Columbia right now in 2015?

This is valuable Canada-specific analysis and speaks to the need to address the problem head on. Instead, we are subsidizing the oil and gas sector and have eliminated job-creating incentive programs for home energy retrofits like Hammond Forever House. We are buying more gasoline cars and quibbling over how to pay for desperately needed regional transit.

Oh, and after the report’s release, our Conservative government hastily shut down the National Roundtable in the name of belt-tightening–as if stopping the flow of information will make the problem disappear.

Can we blame consumers who choose to install new countertops instead of insulating their attics? Yeah, okay, but aren’t we all just trying to get by and eek out a little happiness for ourselves and our kids? Aren’t we bombarded with advertising all day every day? Making us feel guilty about stuff we buy isn’t going to help!

Can we blame politicians who seem unable to act on the mountain of evidence that is at their fingertips? Yes, but when you are running to be elected for a four-year term, is it courage to propose investing in climate change mitigation and aggressive greenhouse gas reduction? Is it courage or political suicide? Our Conservative Federal Government is pretty voter-savvy, and they always choose to send a small cheque to voters instead of actually solving problems. I think a lot of us see through this doggy-biscuit tactic, but it seems to work. Can we blame them for doing what gets them re-elected?

With climate change, we all seem to be waiting for someone else to act. Oil companies and car manufacturers have billions of dollars to insinuate their messages into our brains, but who is telling the other side of the story? Scientists publish results, but they don’t advertise. Contractors make more money building a new house than retrofitting an old one. Homeowners who are passionate about reducing their carbon footprint are usually too busy doing it to tell the world about it.

That’s why I’m sharing this journey with you. I’m not pretending to be an expert on heritage houses and home energy retrofits, but I will share what I learn with you.

Now let me introduce you to an actual expert. Monte Paulsen of Red Door Energy Design got involved in our project via our architect, Annabel Vaughan. I can’t blame our decisions on him because I was already pushing for an extreme energy retrofit before he came on board. He was the one who questioned spending $300K on a $400K house and he has questions about promoting the idea of “Net-Zero Energy” as a reasonable goal.

I’m going to post Monte’s entire Preliminary Modelling Notes for you now because I know that some of you are going to geek-out and eat it up. It gives a base case and a selection of possible upgrades and what energy and greenhouse gas reductions we may expect from each. This document has proven invaluable and guided us through many decisions (which I will tell you more about, I promise).

WHITEHEAD RESIDENCE CONFIDENTIAL TO KOEHN/ROWLEY
Preliminary Hot 2000 modeling notes.
Monte Paulsen. Feb 21-24, 2013.

BASE CASE ASSUMPTIONS
The modeling exercise begins with a “base case” model. Often this is either the existing house, or the new house as planned. For this project, the “base case” is a bit of a hybrid. We consider components of the existing house that could be retained in the renovation, in conjunction with components of the new house if built to minimum specs. Here are some key assumptions of the base case:

— The WHITEHEAD base case is based on observations by Monte Paulsen (Feb 5 visit) and on plans provided by James Rowley. The base case assumes the basement, addition, and dormer will be built to the dimensions shown. (Interior floor = 2839 sf = 263.75 square meters.)

— The base case assumes that all existing exterior walls are retained where possible. These are modeled as: wood lap siding, ¾-inch exterior wood sheathing, 2×4 @ 16” centres filled with ½-pound spray foam (R-3.6/inch) , ½-inch interior sheathing, gypsum drywall (GDW) in some rooms.

— The base case assumes that new exterior walls are built to minimum standards: Wood lap, ½-inch plywood sheathing, 2×4 @ 16” centres w/roxul batt (R-4/inch, or R-14 nominal), air barrier, GDW.

— The base case assumes all wood-framed, single-pane windows are retained, and that new windows are also single-paned in wood frames. (As planned.)

James’ note: the windows are, in fact, double-paned, but Monte explained this doesn’t really make much difference to the calculations. 🙁

— The base case assumes both chimneys will be removed as part of raising the house, and none will be rebuilt during the initial renovation phase in order to conserve budget. (Per discussion on Feb 5.)

— The base case deviates from the plans provided in two significant areas. First, the base case assumes ICF forms are deemed too problematic for structural reasons. (Per discussion on Feb 5.) Instead, the base case assumes conventional concrete foundation walls, exposed to the exterior, framed with 2×4 @16 withy R-14 batt, GDW. The based case assumes 2” EPS foam underslab.

— The second significant deviation involves the way the upper ceiling is framed and insulated. The plans call for two distinct methods in a small attic: Kneewall and main floor ceiling insulation to the West, but cathedral ceiling insulation to the East. This is a problematic approach for several reasons. The base case assumes that the entire attic will be rebuilt using the insulated cathedral ceiling method (eg, eave insulation rather than kneewall insulation). The base case assumes that all ceilings are to plan: 2×8 @ 16” with R-28 insulation

— The base case assumes a median airtightness of 5.5 ACH@50Pa. This is likely tighter than the house stands now. This is likely looser than any target that will be chosen.

— The base case assumes the oil furnace remains the primary heat source. The Hot 200 model assumes this oil furnace has an output capacity in the range of 46,000 btu/hr and is operating at about 71% steady state efficiency. The base case assumes a 50-gallon (US) electric resistance DHW heater.

BASE CASE PROJECTIONS
Using these assumptions, Hot 2000 projects: EnerGuide = 63
Design Heat Loss (at 15.8F) = 46,000 BTU/hr.
Est. Annual Space and DHW energy consumption = 130,850 MJ = 36,347 kWh
(That’s about 137 kWh/m2)
Est. annual GHG emissions = 16 tonnes/year

UPGRADE CASE #1: ASHP
This upgrade case considers the sole effect of changing the heating source from the oil furnace to air-source heat pump (ASHP):
EnerGuide = 81.
Est. Annual Space and DHW energy consumption = 43,296 MJ = 12,026 kWh
(About 46 kWh/m2) .

This dramatic one-item upgrade case is presented merely to illustrate an underlying point: The selection of a heat source will influence the energy efficiency of this home more than any other single decision.
In this climate region, nothing is as cost-effective as a high-performance ASHP with a low balance point. These ASHPs operate close to 300% efficient in our climate. Compare that to 100% for AC baseboards, 95% for condensing gas boilers, or about 70% for most oil-fired furnaces.
I recommend planning for a high-performance ASHP from the outset, regardless of other decisions.
With this in mind, I suggest for consideration, one possible approach to budgeting for this project: First, determine what you can afford and mark it down by 25% for contingencies. Second, determine whether you want to continue with forced-air heat distribution or convert to radiant floors and/or radiators. (More on that below.) Third, determine an accurate price for a high-efficiency ASHP (eg, Mitsubishi or Daikun) and distribution system. Fourth, once money for this mechanical system is set aside, use the remainder of your budget to make the most aggressive envelope upgrades you are able to afford.

UPGRADE CASE #2: WINDOWS
This upgrade case asks: How much of a difference do the single-pane windows make?
For the sake of this exercise, ALL windows in the house are replaced with common commercial units similar to Energy Star Zone C. These would include vinyl frames, double-paned glass, Low-E coatings (.2/hard), Argon gas in 13mm cavities, insulated spacers, and tight-sealing casement openings.
Under these conditions, projected ratings for the Whitehead house are as follows:

EnerGuide = 72
Design Heat Loss (at 15.8F) = 34,798 BTU/hr.
Est. Annual Space and DHW energy consumption = 89,400 MJ = 24,833 kWh
(That’s about 94 kWh/m2)

So we see that windows make a large difference to heat loss. At the same time, we understand that a significant portion of the heritage value of this house is related to these windows. Therefore, one of the most complicated decisions you will have to make is to choose which windows to upgrade, and how.
I recommend seeking expert advice on this question, sooner rather than later.
First, I suggest hiring a heritage consultant to give you specific advice about the heritage value of these windows. Are they the originals? Or have they been rebuilt? Is the paint scheme appropriate? What thermal upgrades would a heritage consultant consider acceptable?
Second, I suggest you call Keri Briggs at Vintage Woodworks. (250-386-5354 x154) Tell her I’m doing the energy modeling on your project and that I suggested you get a sense of the options and costs for your home. Who you choose to do the work will be up to you: I’m suggesting Keri (or someone on her team) will do a good job of walking you through the options.
In the upgrade models below, I will make certain assumptions about your windows. These will be made for the sake of outlining various options for discussion. Please understand that I am not a heritage window expert and I am not advocating one approach or another to your windows. Rather, I am recommending you seek professional advice and comprehensive price options.

UPGRADE CASE #3: ENVELOPE UPGRADES
This upgrade case model demonstrates the effectiveness of a range of “opportunistic envelope upgrades.” Together, these raise the Base Case to EnerGuide 75 (with the oil furnace).
The approach to this upgrade model is as follows: “The basement is being entirely rebuilt. The back wall is being rebuilt. The upper floor is being rebuilt. Since we’re rebuilding most of these components anyway, what efficiency gains could be achieved through a series of framing-and-insulation upgrades.”
The upgrades described here represent materials and skills at the high-end of normal construction practice. These do not involve exotic materials or building techniques.
(Start: ERS63)

FOUNDATION — First and foremost, you need to decide if there’s a way to affordably use ICFs. I don’t see one. They add three to five inches to the outside thickness. If you were adding insulation to the outside of the house, this would be no problem. But you are trying to preserve the heritage exterior. So, from a conceptual viewpoint, I think we may want to think about putting any and all additional insulation toward the interior, on all levels.
Stephen J Cote-Rolvink, the Maple Ridge building official who participated in the Now House meeting, would be a great person to talk to about this issue. I suggest you ask him what he thinks, and also ask who he’d hire as an affordable local structural engineer.
So, if you’re going to build a conventional foundation, what’s the most cost effective way to insulate it?
Consider adding a “U” of foam insulation that runs down the wall, under the slab, and back up the opposite wall. This arrangement separates the slab from the wall, so the slab can work as thermal mass inside the envelope.
The upgrade model assumes six inches of EPS foam (white Styrofoam) under the slab (R-24) and two inches of XTPS (pink or blue foam) along the perimeter of the concrete (R-12). Inside the XTPS, the model assumes a 2×4 @ 24” wall with R-14 batt (eg, Roxul) insulation and GDW.
The header area above the (full-height) concrete foundation wall is sprayed with ½-pound foam insulation (eg, Icynene) to R-24 depth. This will help create an airtight seal between the XTPS and the floor above.
Spray the exposed ceiling in the rear (under the porch) with two-pound foam to increase insulation.

FOUNDATION WINDOWS & DOOR — Foundation windows modeled preserve the shape and paintabiliy of the existing wood, but are built of fibreglass frames, double-glazed, Low-E and Argon, insulated spacers, hinged. Door is fibreglass polyurethane core; pay close attention to air sealing all four sides.
(ERS67)

HERITAGE FRONT WALLS — This upgrade case assumes no changes to the exterior heritage front walls in the sitting and living rooms. Repair the missing sections of spray foam.

MAIN FLOOR WALLS — This case assumes all other main floor walls are thickened to six-inch construction and insulated as close to nominal R-22 as the construction allows.

MAIN FLOOR WINDOWS — Case assumes rebuild of all first-storey windows to wood frames, 2x low-e glass.

HEADER — Spray to R-24 or more foam (Icynene). Focus on air sealing after reconstruction.
(ERS72)

UPPER STOREY WALLS — The walls of the new upper story will wind up being largely rebuilt. Also, they will wind up with quite complicated framing, once the existing framing and the dormer framing are considered. Achieving good airsealing will be challenging.
I recommend framing these (mostly new) walls to between 2×6 and 2×8 depths (7.25”). This will be done in a variety of ways. Either spray the entire cavity to R-24. (Alternately, to save some money, insert batt insulation along the outside half and spray the inside three inches.) The spray foam is part of getting a good airseal along these complicated wall forms.
I strongly recommend rebuilding the kneewall and cathedral ceiling area on the West side of the attic to conform to the construction and insulation stye being employed on the East side of the attic. Specifically, reframe the roof and insulate along the underside of the roof deck. This is a smaller and less convoluted surface than insulating along the ceiling, up the kneewall, and along the thin cathedral ceiling. (See sketch.)

UPPER STOREY WINDOWS — Upgrade case assumes upstairs windows preserve the shape and paintabiliy of the existing wood, but are built of fibreglass frames, double-glazed, Low-E and Argon, insulated spacers, hinged. Door is fibreglass polyurethane core; pay close attention to air sealing all four sides

DOORS — Retain heritage wood doors. Rebuild doorlights to double-paned.

CEILINGS — The plans call for a set of cathedral ceilings framed with 2×8 @16 and insulated to R-28. I recommend thickening all of this framing to 2×12 and widening to 24” OC where possible. Insulation to R-40, either with roxul batt and an excellent air barrier, or with a “hot roof” application of 1/2-pound spray foam.
(ERS75)

UPGRADE CASE #3 PROJECTIONS
EnerGuide = 75
Design Heat Loss (at 15.8F) = 24,400 BTU/hr.

UPGRADE CASE #4: ENVELOPE PLUS MECHANICAL
This upgrade case considers the effects of adding a series of off-the-shelf high-performance mechanical systems to the envelope upgrades described in case #3.
(Start: ERS75)

DRAIN WATER HEAT RECOVERY — Two four-foot sections.

HEAT PUMP WATER HEATER — Single-unit type, ducted through outer wall.

HEAT RECOVERY VENTILATOR — Dedicated low-volume ductwork. Ave 65% efficient.

IMPROVED AIRTIGHTNESS — Target 3.5 ACH@50Pa. (Hi end of ave new const.)
(ERS 80)

AIR-SOURCE HEAT PUMP — Mitsubishi Zuba-Central modeled. (See flyer.) This is a high-efficiency heat pump that powers a central air handler. This would readily replace your existing furnace, while retaining forced-air heat distribution. Under this scenario, I would recommend rebuilding your forced air duct network entirely. This is likely cheaper than installing radiant floors, and it allows more options for preserving heritage flooring. (Though you will likely wind up installing new subfloors regardless.)
(ERS 89)

UPGRADE CASE #4 PROJECTIONS
Using these assumptions, Hot 2000 projects: EnerGuide = 89
Design Heat Loss (at 15.8F) = 24,400 BTU/hr.
Est. Annual Space and DHW energy consumption = 14,829 MJ 4,120 kWh

Sometimes, I look around and wonder if anyone else is doing what we’re doing. When I meet people who are, it’s really heartening. I want to be that for you. Now that you have read this blog, anytime that you find yourself asking, “is anyone really taking aggressive action to reduce their personal carbon footprint?” you can say, “yes! James and Leanne are going at it whole hog!”

To recap, why are we spending so much time, energy and money making our house last forever? It’s not much different from why people buy those nice granite countertops–because we want to.

Mum, before you send that e-mail correcting my grammar to “Randy and I” let me explain that it is a reference to the documentary film, “Roger and Me” by Michael Moore. My story is a little different, however. I didn’t have much trouble meeting my Member of Parliament, Randy Kamp, and I encourage everyone to reach out and introduce themselves to their representatives.

I hope you won’t be too disappointed if I devote a post to politics. Unfortunately, politics has hampered the ability of Maple Ridge homeowners to afford to reduce their energy bills and carbon footprints.

The City of Maple Ridge did all they could (my post about that here).

The Province of British Columbia is supportive as far as their commitment to Liquified Natural Gas will seem to let them be (my post about that here).

The Government of Canada, however, in spite of the fact that the Climate Change buck stops with them (the signatories of international climate agreements, etc.) has moved steadily backwards.

It is more difficult to reduce an older home’s efficiency now than it was 10 years ago and local companies have disappeared as a result, taking good local jobs with them.

James Rowley, Politician

I ran for School Trustee of School District 42 (Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge) last October.

The central theme of my campaign was long-term thinking. Sensible funding for education now leads to smart, resilient people later and avoids future costs of youth who fall through the cracks and shortages of skilled labour, etc.

The School Board was being asked to “do more with less” year after year to the point where core programs were, and still are, under threat. The trustees take the hit for a Provincial government who sees the best way to get re-elected as balancing the short-term budget at the expense of the long-term well-being of the province.

Aside from believing I would be a good trustee, I had some ideas about bridging the gap between the Provincial government who sets the education budget and the citizens of Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge whose children and future suffer with inadequate resources. Good education is always a bargain. There is some fairly simple math there but people don’t vote based on numbers, they vote based their own internal compass. I wanted to bring the cuts home to the public by sharing more of their day to day impacts on the lives of people in the community.

I earned 3206 votes which is pretty good for a first foray into politics (the Mayor of Pitt Meadows was elected with fewer), but it didn’t earn me a seat on the School Board. (See the results here.)

Nevertheless, I promised to share my finances with the world, so here they are in a nutshell (you can see the full form here):

Contributions:
Amber Light Photography donated their services for my

campaign headshot to the tune of $309.75. Jennifer Zickerman, who runs the Hammond Neighbours website, donated my domain name and hosted my website, a value of $608.00. I had 6 people generously donate $100 each –namely my parents, my mother-in-law, Leanne’s aunt, Vicki Mcleod and Deb Pearce (thank you everyone!). I put up $1000 of my own money and managed to pay myself back, more or less.

Expenses:
$843.20 for postcards and flyers.
$623.00 for internet promotion.
$490.01 for 50 signs.
$404.63 for postage.
$70 for meetings and all candidates events.

I mention all this because I think of it when I see all those signs and advertising everywhere. Those small signs are $10 each! Those big ones must be…what? Fortunately for the candidates in the federal election, there is a lot more money coming from their parties, (Steve Ranta, Independent, is the exception) but they are still donating their time to win our support and only one can win.

My hat is off to them.

During my run for a seat on the School Board, I reached a few conclusions about local politics.

1. It’s tempting for a candidate to make dire predictions of terrible things that will happen if they are not elected. It gets attention and separates you from the pack. Unfortunately, because we live in one of the most highly evolved democracies in the world and we have competent, experienced civil servants, best practices, infrastructure and laws that prevent another holocaust from happening, these dire warning serve mostly to turn voters off the whole process altogether. They can see that things are basically okay. Maybe they conclude the hysteria is all just hype.

What we are really doing when we elect someone is choosing the best person for a job. It’s a job which requires, among other things, excellent communication skills, a broad understanding of the many challenges we face, the ability to tell fact from opinion and the strength to speak truth to power. The key, however, is the ability to work together with other elected representatives and achieve consensus on what action to take.

2. “Why are you running” is an important question, but a hard one to get an answer to. If there is one particular issue the candidate is passionate about, what will they do when faced with building consensus on a subject they have no interest or knowledge in? Similarly, if there is one segment of the riding that a candidate represents, he or she needs to demonstrate a commitment to the rest, too. Vague answers like, “I feel I can make a difference” are actually a good sign, (as long as they are followed up by thoughtful responses on a range of issues, of course.)

Being Conservative

Randy Kamp and his wife visited Hammond Forever House in July 2015 when I was giving tours of the house “before” and raising awareness of the possibilities and challenges of preserving and retrofitting existing houses. Since he is a conservative-minded person it was easy to chat with Mr. Kamp about older homes and the desirability of preserving them. We chatted about the history of Maple Ridge and agreed that things aren’t made like they used to be.

Putting some money and sweat equity into fixing up an old house seems like a conservative idea to me. You’re investing in the long-term and not wasting a perfectly good house. It’s like the boots analogy I made last year: buy the higher quality boots and you save money down the line.

It seems to me, however, that this Stephen Harper brand of Conservative that we have running Canada is different. He would prefer we buy the cheap boots made in China so we have to buy another pair in a few months and “grow the economy.” He would seem to prefer the destruction of older homes and the building of new ones.

Not true? How else can I explain what Randy told me next?

I told him my opinion that leadership on the slippery problem of Climate Change should naturally come from the Federal government. I said I hadn’t been able to figure out why the ecoACTION home efficiency grants had been cancelled when they were working so well–reducing emissions, building local green industry, etc.–until I realized that maybe it was considered economic stimulus and nothing more.

His response surprised me in that I had the impression that he was a little tired of life within the Harper bubble. He spoke of a budgetary process where stimulus measures were being discussed. As far as he was aware, he said, most MPs agreed that the ecoACTION grant should be the one to stay, but it was the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister who overruled them, saying that they believed economic stimulus must be short-term and targeted. If they made an exception they would be breaking their own rule.

I don’t remember if that was the moment he quoted Preston Manning, the founder of the Reform Party from which this current government grew, “Everybody has their say, but not everybody has their way.” (Mr. Manning has some criticism for the party he started these days.)

I pointed out that these efficiency incentives only work if they are sustained so that homeowners can plan a year or two ahead and the industry can stabilize. Mr. Kamp said the government’s concern was that people might get money for work that they would have done anyway. It seemed like a very cynical attitude toward homeowners who are willing to invest in reducing their carbon footprint. When you consider the much larger subsidies still flowing to oil companies it can’t be simple budget tightening.

What was most disturbing about my conversation with Mr. Kamp was his fatalistic attitude. There was not a moment of consideration for how he, as my MP, could help the situation. About the magnitude of our planned renovation he said, “better you, than me.” Physically, there was a kind of shrug that came out from time to time. It’s hard to describe but it seemed to say, “I hear what you’re saying and I wish there was something we could do about it.”

I’m now wondering if this is what laissez-faire capitalism looks like. Do not interfere. Government should be small and if the market says that older homes will be tossed away and replaced like last year’s smartphone, then so be it. The free market has spoken.

What happened to communities coming together like they did in Hammond in the 20s to assemble a neighbour’s new house? Are we all on our own now? Isn’t it still good economics and good neighourliness to pool our resources and buy in bulk?

What about the fact that Climate Change will cost Canada and its people an estimated $5 billion per year by 2020? We’re going to need to all pull together to get ahead of that, and we look to Ottawa for leadership. That number came from the Canadian National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy in a 2011 report. The report is very easy to read. Here is a taste:

Based on NRT original economic modelling, the report finds that the economic impact on Canada could reach:

• 2020: $5 billion per year
• 2050: Between $21 and $43 billion per year

In the 2050s:

• Timber supply impacts could range from $2 billion to $17 billion per year with high impacts in B.C.
• Flooding damages to coastal dwellings, resulting from climate change-induced sea-level rise and storm surges, could cost between $1 billion to $8 billion per year with higher than average cost impacts in Atlantic Canada
• Poorer air quality resulting from higher temperatures will lead to more hospital visits, resulting in millions of dollars in costs to local health care systems for four of Canada’s major cities – Toronto, Montréal, Vancouver and Calgary

WHAT DID WE FIND?

• Climate change is expensive
• There is a risk that the costs could be far higher than we expect
• Adaptation can save us money
• Global mitigation reduces Canadian economic impacts and makes adaptation cheaper
• The costs of climate change impacts and adaptation are uneven across the country

WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

• Ignoring climate change costs now will cost us more later
• Adaptation isn ’t cost -free but often yields benefits
• Adaptation policy and decision making can benefit from economic assessments

Shortly after this urgent report was released (download the full report here), in Spring 2012, the NRT was de-funded. Their reports are still kicking around, though. If you want the real story on Canada’s GHG emission targets (at least until 2011), check out this one:

It’s the same disconnect in logic that our current government demonstrates in saying it supports the CBC and its mandate to connect our diverse communities but that it should be able to support itself more through advertising. CBC is just not popular enough, they say, forgetting that Canada’s peoples are spread out across the second largest country in the world. No private enterprise can fill the CBC’s shoes. Without public funds, our outlying communities would be completely culturally ignored.

Mr. Kamp’s Department

As we wrapped up the tour by the garage where the Kamps had parked, Mr. Kamp told me that as far as tackling climate change, the other parties were no better than his. Other people higher up in the government have to think of the big picture. This wasn’t a surprising thing for him to say, but then his wife said to him, “It’s above your pay grade” and made everything clear. She was making light of the conversation, of course, and I don’t mean to attack Mr. Kamp for one off-hand comment his wife made, but I was struck by the ring of truth in her words.

Throughout all the radical changes the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has had to endure, my MP, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister, was but a cog in a wheel.

Here is a chilling paragraph from a well-researched book that reads like a horror novel. It’s called The War on Science, Muzzled Scientists and Wilful Blindness in Stephen Harper’s Canada by Chris Turner. Here Turner describes changes made to The Fisheries Act as part of Bill C-38 in 2013. (Incidentally, I recommended the book to Mr. Kamp in January, 2014, but eight months later he had been unable to obtain a copy from the library. That’s understandable for I imagine it would be a difficult read for him.)

The revised Fisheries Act is a categorical departure from some of Canada’s deepest traditions: the recognition of the inherent and immutable value of nature; the vital role of government in representing and defending the public good against the excesses of industry; the idea that the public good itself possesses a value beyond the near-term profit of any given commercial enterprise; and the baseline assumption that economy is an instrument in the service of the public interest rather than a higher goal to be protected against the needless intrusions of the public at large. For more than a century, the Fisheries Act had stood in defence of these traditions, asserting that industry, whatever its merits and needs, could not act with impunity in the public sphere; that it must first demonstrate unequivocally that its activities would not take too high a toll on the commonweal. In a few tiny deletions and insertions buried deep withing a budget bill of a scope without precedent in Canadian history, the Harper agenda has inverted the entire equation. The commonweal, whatever its merits, must now demonstrate how its claim on the preservation of fish and their habitat supersedes industry’s right to profit from despoiling them. What’s more, the same budget bill and several other acts of Parliament have shuttered or shrunk many of the agencies responsible for gathering the data necessary to establish the health of those ecosystems and their value to the public, and the government has forbidden its public servants from telling Canadians what they have learned about those topics.”

Randy Kamp served Maple Ridge in good faith and with integrity. He is a nice man. As a former pastor I’m sure he has been a valuable member of his community. However, it was clear to me in the Pre-Budget Consultation meeting he held in January 2014 that he, like Stephen Harper, doesn’t understand science. In answer to a question from a constituent concerned about “the restoration of science as a tool for responsible decision making.” Mr. Kamp said:

“We had to ask ourselves, okay, you know, we’re committed to science but science has to be something that supports our mandate. Yes, we would all like to do more because it’s interesting and it answers questions that we’d like to answer but, for us, is this particular science effort answering the questions that we need to have answered in order to fulfill our mandate as the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and in some cases we concluded that it didn’t fit anymore. That’s the way science works. Science changes over the years. If it doesn’t then it’s really not science.”

In his deep monotone Mr. Kamp sounds perfectly reasonable. What he fails to understand is that science changes because scientists pursue questions that are scientifically relevant, not because they are directed to by their political masters who know little of the implications of their research. What he failed to mention was that “supporting the mandate of the DFO” included giving the oil, gas and pipeline industries almost every change to environmental regulations that they asked for in a letter written to the Environment and Natural Resources Ministers on December 12, 2011.

Don’t tell me this was a budget belt-tightening excercise! This was part of the frontal assault on any research that was inconvenient to the industries, representing a small part of the Canadian economy, that Stephen Harper gambled would pull our economy out of the gutter. (It didn’t do that, of course, and instead of taking advantage of low oil prices to divest of fossil fuels and nurture clean energy, Harper doubled down.)

Another specific example of this attack on science is the Polar Environmental Atmospheric Research Facility (PEARL). Apologies to Chris Turner as I chopped this next passage up quite a bit:

PEARL is a modest facility, a simple red cube deposited on the desolate permafrost of Ellesmere Island. It sites well north of the Arctic Circle, just north of 80 degrees latitude and a mere 1100 kilometres south of the North Pole….PEARL provided the only Canadian window on weather and climate during that yawning four-month interval of unbroken winter darkness known as “the Arctic night.”

In exchange for this one-of-a-kind research facility, which produced dozens of globally important scientific papers and trained more than fifty scientists in the atmospheric sciences in its first six years of year-round operation, PEARL required $1.5 million per year in funding from CFCAS[Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Studies] After Bill C-38 passed, PEARL’s money vanished and its directors had to scramble for new sources of funding simply to keep the lab open during the warmer months.

The issue with PEARL was not financial. After all, the government had no trouble finding $270000 to fund a single six-week mission to find the remains of John Franklin’s doomed Arctic voyage and gather extensive sonar data on the Arctic Ocean’s sea floor. And just months after slashing CFCAS’s funding, Prime Minister Stephen Harper travelled to Cambridge Bay, 1800 kilometres south of PEARL, to announce $200 million in funding for a new Canadian High Arctic Research Station (CHARS), which is expected to begin operations by 2017. “The right place to do research about the North is in the North,” Harper told the CBC in Cambridge Bay. …On the officieal CHARS website, the first priority listed is “Resource Development” The third priority –after “Exercising Sovereignty”–is “Environmental Stewardship & Climate Change.”

Notice here that the Harper government can now claim to have saved money by reducing CFCAS’s funding, but when accused of not supporting scientific research, they can point to massive investments like CHARS and say their science budget has, in fact, increased. It’s very clever, but fundamentally dishonest.

There is, however, a logic at work in the closure of PEARL and the lavish funding for CHARS and the Franklin ghost-chasing mission. Here it is: if you intend to begin large-scale exploration for resources in the High Arctic but don’t want to know if it’s safe and ecologically sound to exploit those resources, the Harper agenda makes perfect sense.

The last part of the PEARL story is the sudden restoration of funding in May 2013 which coincided with The Obama Administration’s debate over whether to approve the Keystone XL. On this Turner surmises, “PEARL evidently possessed little value to the Harper agenda in and of itself, but it was useful as window dressing on a public relations campaign.

When you meet Randy Kamp you get the sense that he is a reasonable person who tends to plot a reasonable course. His low key manner, however, is in contrast to the reckless restructuring of the DFO and of Canada on his watch. All of his fellow MPs wanted to keep ecoACTION alive, but they were overruled because decisions like that are above their pay grade. Can we have any confidence that this situation will improve with a new Conservative Party MP elected in our riding? Our Conservative candidate worked in Mr. Kamp’s office for the past few years and he, like Kamp, is a former pastor, serving the Calvary Chapel in Pitt Meadows for seven years (the website of the chapel is http://www.goodnewscalvarychapel.com/ but it seems to have been deleted for some reason).

Okay, by now you have gathered that I am strongly against voting Stephen Harper back into power. So who do I support?

As I said, ordinarily, Canadian society chugs along basically okay. We have regulations and research and good people working for us that make sure our elected officials get the best information to make the right decisions. If public opinion is at odds with the best advice of experts, then a discussion takes place, compromises are made and the public learns a little in the process. I would like to say that we don’t need a revolution, we just need to hire good people, but I can’t. Not this time.

This Harper agenda is wilfully blind and we must rise up and vote it out.

Without Harper’s party, things would hopefully, slowly, return to normal. We could discuss the merits of the ideas and candidates of the other three parties: the NDP, the Liberals and the Greens (I would even support bringing back a Progressive Conservative Party, for gosh sake!). All three other parties support ending the divisive First-Past-The-Post system that resulted in a third of voters electing a majority government last time.

While the Liberals, Greens and NDP may try to convince us how different they are, I have no doubt that when these three parties get in a room together, they will be able to reach consensus. With Harper in the mix, all bets are off. Am I exaggerating the gulf between Harper’s Conservatives and the rest of the field? Take a look at the Vote Compass tool.

“Vote Compass is an educational tool developed by political scientists designed to help you explore how you fit in Canada’s political landscape.” says the front page. Enter your postal code and you will be asked a series of policy questions pertinent to this election. For example, one question is:

How much tax should corporations pay?

Much less     Somewhat less     About the same as now     Somewhat more    Much more.

(You can also select “Don’t Know”.) At the end of the questionnaire, you are placed on a graph based on your answers together with the 4 major parties. Even more interestingly, you can go over the questions and see where each party stands on each one. If you answer “about the same as now” or “neutral” for each question, you appear dead in the centre of the graph which means it is calibrated correctly. The positions of the parties, however, remain where they are because their answers did not change when you took the quiz.

It’s really cheating if I show you the final result. You should really do it yourself, but okay, here it is:

I think we can understand the basic economic scale of left and right. I’ve always thought of myself as a little left of centre, but lately I have come to understand that being a little further left doesn’t make me a communist. In fact, with long-term challenges looming like climate change, and an aging poplulation, investing more in the short-term will make for a stronger economy in the long-term.

Canada has a long tradition of sensible social programs which create a more resilient economy and compassionate society. These are predicated on the conservative notion of buying high quality goods once, instead of poor quality goods many times or fixing an old house instead of building a new one.

As you can see on the graph, Stephen Harper’s CPC is in a field of its own. Economically, Harper’s unreasoning belief in the trickle-down theory is matched by his social conservatism that, I suspect, is more extreme than most of his Progressive Conservative base. The other parties, meanwhile, are correctly positioned closer together because, in my humble opinion,  they share a common respect for information-based policy making. Their policy platforms are based on facts, not ideology.

Now, I have to remind myself that this tool does not tell me where Canadian voters stand. A significant number of Canadians voted for the CPC in the last election and the Vote Compass graph then looked quite similar to this one. It is disrespectful to suggest that those voters didn’t know what they were doing, but I really hope they reconsider this time around.

From where I’m sitting–raising two kids in a heritage house and trying to reduce our impact on the planet–we’ll be okay if any of those three parties are elected.

I’m an optimist, but if the CPC get back in, I don’t think things will be okay.

Here is the latest BC Hydro electrical consumption data from the house. I know you are as fascinated as I am.

 

As you can see, the temperature dipped pretty low there for a few days, (I’m sure people in other parts of Canada are scoffing right now) and we had to ramp up our efforts to keep the house warm if we weren’t going to turn on the oil furnace. There is a jump in electrical consumption there on Tuesday and Wednesday because we added a new element to our heating repertoire.

Weeks ago Leanne reminded me that we had a portable air conditioner in the basement and asked, “doesn’t it have a heating function?”

When we moved in to the house, my dad was concerned with how hot it got in the kids bedrooms upstairs in the summer. He likes to solve problems so he went ahead and bought us this air conditioner. Since then, perhaps because of the insulating we did in 2008 and also because we became accustomed to the warmth upstairs as the kids got older, we have stopped using the A/C unit. (It was quite cumbersome to set up, too.)

On Tuesday, we put it in the kitchen by the door to the basement where it can blow heat towards the bedroom, office and bathroom. The unit doesn’t seem to kick out a lot of heat, but the fan certainly helps circulate the air in the house from the warmer front rooms toward the rear ones.

As we grow used to keeping a fire going and the minor discomfort of a slightly chilly bedroom and bathroom, I start to think what an example it would set if we took out the oil furnace altogether in the middle of winter. Everyone is so busy it is hard to find time to imagine life without fossil fuels. If someone in the neighbourhood sets an example, how much easier does that make it for everyone else?

There is a protest going on now in Burnaby, BC, where an oil pipeline is working its way through an extremely biased approval process. Regular folks are being arrested for disobeying a court order to allow the pipeline company to conduct tests on Burnaby mountain.

If these people are willing to be arrested, doesn’t it fall to the rest of us to at least examine our lives to see where we can, for example, reduce our use of fossil fuels? Any small action in the right direction that you can think of doing. I encourage you to do it.

I love looking around other people’s houses and I’m assuming part of the appeal of this story is you get to peek.

I told you that, for years, water has been allowed to spill on to the bathroom floor and seep into the floorboards and walls below.

I told you that as a result, carpenter ants have enjoyed nesting there.

I also told you that there is an exterior wall that is completely unsupported by the foundation below it.

This is what I’m talking about.

We don’t spend a lot of time down here, as you can tell. One reason is that I am almost 6’1″ tall (185cm) and, in this corridor under the rear addition, the height from the floor to the subfloor above is 6 feet (183cm). The lowest joist, however, is 67.5 inches (171cm) and, even lower (and the thing I bash my skull on all the time) is the bathroom drain pipe which hangs down to 63 inches (160cm).

When my Dad was helping us in the basement when we first moved in, he brought a bicycle helmet to wear down here. Smart man, my Dad.

You can see in this photo our best attempts to seal and insulate.

We used to be able to stick a pencil between the bottom 2X4 and the top of the concrete and touch dirt. You could feel the air blowing in. At least we can’t do that anymore since we sealed it up!

We can speculate how Carl Whitehead, Leanne’s grandfather, made little mistakes like this, but if you put yourself in his shoes, was it a big deal? As-built, the house had no insulation except a little rock-wool in the attic so who cares about a little gap in the basement? The house was heated by burning sawdust and, later, burning oil so gaps like these kept the air fresh. And hey, it wasn’t as if this wall was load-bearing–all it had to hold up was the roof of the shed extension. What is an issue for us, was not for him or his family.

Now about those carpenter ants…

Last year there was a pile of sawdust in the same spot that was at least three centimetres high. I remember squirting a solution of Borax and sugar into every hole and it looks like it was pretty effective. The pile is smaller this year and, although we still have ants crawling through the kitchen and bathroom, the nest is not nearly so active.

Another issue you can see clearly in that last photo is the weakened joists. Those 2X6″ joists running left to right are holding up the floor above. It is not a good idea to put great big notches in them to run pipes, even if you lose some headroom. I like the solution seen on one joist at the bottom of the photo which has a piece of metal tacked on to it. Problem solved!

All of these issues–the ants, the rotting wood, the possible mold, the weak wall, the leaking air, the damp concrete, the compromised floor joists–all of them will be solved by renovating. Oh boy do I want to renovate!