1) What data are you looking at in terms of what the equipment can produce in this climate? If it's based on what was common during the 70s, then yes, absolutely -- but those products don't compare in efficiency to contemporary products.
2) Southern Ontario is at no more of a disadvantage for sustainable energy production than some of the leading world centres of same -- Denmark and Sweden, for instance. As it happens, I went on a tour of Home Alive at Everdale Farm last weekend -- their primary sources of energy are photovoltaic laminate and solar water heating collectors on the roof, and a wind turbine. The system is in fact connected to the grid, which means that when they produce more energy than they can use or store, it goes back to the grid -- and on a very bleak, windless day, if they get down below what they need, they can take it from the grid. The result is an energy neutral home. It's also built to passive solar standards, from strawbale, and has radiant floor heating, as well -- so, the sustainability is built-in from the get-go, not retrofit, which does make it more efficient than retrofitting a drafty north-facing house surrounded by tall apartment buildings, granted. However, there's currently a move to create an incentive by which homes in Ontario that produce and send more energy to the grid than they take back can actually get paid for that extra energy by their local hydro provider. Clearly the climate's not that bad, if a substantial number of homes create more energy than they need, here. :)
For my house in Toronto, at current prices, it will cost no more to replace our gas water heater, when the time comes, with a solar-based option -- house has a sloping roof, faces south, and gets plenty of passive solar as it is -- and we'd do just fine (based on an energy-conscious family of 3's hot water needs). Considering the energy it takes to produce a conventional gas water heater versus what it takes to produce a solar-reliant and efficient heating system, but that the latter has the benefit of not then relying on non-renewable resources to provide the bulk of a home's hot water needs, frankly, the advantage is clearly in favour of the latter.
It seems disingenuous to bring up the energy costs of production, and mining of materials, as a disadvantage to renewable energy products -- as if that's not a disadvantage (moreso, long-term) to products that rely on non-renewable sources, as well. We choose to live in this climate, therefore, we need to heat our environments for a certain portion of the year. How we choose to do that is up to us; given the options, and given that there will always be some energy cost to producing the means to create that heat, why not (when possible) choose the methods that, in the long-term, have less impact on the environment (and our wallets)? :)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-09-06 04:06 pm (UTC)2) Southern Ontario is at no more of a disadvantage for sustainable energy production than some of the leading world centres of same -- Denmark and Sweden, for instance. As it happens, I went on a tour of Home Alive at Everdale Farm last weekend -- their primary sources of energy are photovoltaic laminate and solar water heating collectors on the roof, and a wind turbine. The system is in fact connected to the grid, which means that when they produce more energy than they can use or store, it goes back to the grid -- and on a very bleak, windless day, if they get down below what they need, they can take it from the grid. The result is an energy neutral home. It's also built to passive solar standards, from strawbale, and has radiant floor heating, as well -- so, the sustainability is built-in from the get-go, not retrofit, which does make it more efficient than retrofitting a drafty north-facing house surrounded by tall apartment buildings, granted. However, there's currently a move to create an incentive by which homes in Ontario that produce and send more energy to the grid than they take back can actually get paid for that extra energy by their local hydro provider. Clearly the climate's not that bad, if a substantial number of homes create more energy than they need, here. :)
For my house in Toronto, at current prices, it will cost no more to replace our gas water heater, when the time comes, with a solar-based option -- house has a sloping roof, faces south, and gets plenty of passive solar as it is -- and we'd do just fine (based on an energy-conscious family of 3's hot water needs). Considering the energy it takes to produce a conventional gas water heater versus what it takes to produce a solar-reliant and efficient heating system, but that the latter has the benefit of not then relying on non-renewable resources to provide the bulk of a home's hot water needs, frankly, the advantage is clearly in favour of the latter.
It seems disingenuous to bring up the energy costs of production, and mining of materials, as a disadvantage to renewable energy products -- as if that's not a disadvantage (moreso, long-term) to products that rely on non-renewable sources, as well. We choose to live in this climate, therefore, we need to heat our environments for a certain portion of the year. How we choose to do that is up to us; given the options, and given that there will always be some energy cost to producing the means to create that heat, why not (when possible) choose the methods that, in the long-term, have less impact on the environment (and our wallets)? :)