Category Archives: Technical data

Technical Appendices for Research


Ann and I may be getting older and more grey which may explain the absence of the technical appendices for the technical science report  uploaded a few  years back.   So for those who have wanted to see the list of sensors, the sample data collected, design criteria, system schematics, etc… please accept our apologies for making you wait so long

Technical Appendices  to the technical report  Can be found here:

Technical Appendices ,

https://ecosenseliving.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/technical-appendices.pdf

Affordable, Sustainable Homes: Eco-Sense and the Future of Green Building


Here is link to the Cascadia report on Eco-Sense.  One year Research Project funded by a grant from Vancity and the Real Estate Foundation.  Gord and Ann have over 425 hours into this…250 of which was volunteer…we missed our summer.

Affordable, Sustainable Homes: Eco-Sense and the Future of Green Building  (Written for the public.)

Also a link to the Technical Report  which served as the basis for the Cascadia report.  Written by Gord Baird, Christina Goodvin of Goodvin Desgins, and Ann Baird.  Lots of graphs, tables, and building science analysis for the earthen walls in four seasons (temperature, humidity, dew point),  full technical analysis of sustainable energy systems (solar PV, Solar Thermal, wood gassification), full policy report, full water analysis (grey water, rain water harvesting, composting toilets, water balance tables, and more).

See research page on blog  for all the individual reports (water, solar PV, building code, wall performance, and energy comparison reports)

Smart Meters


Letter to Premier Clark from a friend of ours regarding SMART METERS.
Written by Steve Satow on August 3rd, 2011

RE: SMART METER PROGRAM

Dear Premier Clark and Mr. Coleman,

I am writing to you to express my serious concerns about the on-going installation of the so-called ‘Smart Meters’ by BC Hydro. I request that you do whatever is within your power both as official representatives of the citizens of BC and, hopefully, as concerned citizen to over-turn this misguided program.

I suspect that you may already be aware of the numerous reasons for challenging this program, but I would like to take a moment of your time to present my particular concerns:

1) Cost.

BC Hydro estimates that the installation will cost $930 Million. This equates to about $500 per household in BC. They claim that this money will be recovered within 10 year through savings, increased efficiency and a decrease in theft which, by their own estimates, amount to $100 million annually. This is highly questionable as their figures for theft have somehow risen from $12 million in 2004. Regardless of whether their estimates are realistic, the new smart meters can only detect theft that occurs at the meter (which only accounts for about 4% of total theft) according to a report by the Ontario Energy Board.

I quote:

“Theft of power may be detected more easily if it involves meter tampering.
However, theft accomplished by tapping conductors before they reach the meter would
not be detected by smart metering.” 
 Ontario Energy Boards “Smart Meter Initiative” Working Group.

Furthermore, these costs will be born by BC tax-payers or passed on to users through higher bills without generating any significant advantages for the user.

BC Hydro claim that power outages will be reported more quickly and accurately through automated reporting by the meters. But, in reality, this will not translate into problems being fixed any quicker than if users call in shortly after they discover an outage, since it is still dependant on the crew being dispatched based on workload or other considerations.

2) Loss of Jobs.

The majority of meter-readers are likely to be made redundant, since their service is no longer required. BC Hydro claims that they will be replaced by an undisclosed number of “technology-based” positions necessary to administer the metering program, but I strongly suspect that the number of new positions will be small compared to those lost.

Apart from the trauma caused by loss of employment, these redundancies will put an added strain on the BC welfare system. Furthermore, the loss of these jobs will make it harder to detect theft, since there will be even fewer on-site visits.

3) Economic justification.

BC Hydro claim that the new meters will help them to achieve significant reductions in power usage over the new decade, as mandated by the BC Clean Energy Act. They maintain that the meters will encourage people to implement reductions by becoming more aware of their usage. This has been clearly demonstrated as unrealistic, not only by the experience with the current two-tier tariff in BC, but also by studies in a number of other parts of the world where smart meters have been installed.

Ontario’s Premier McGuinty has stated that the program’s expenses would not be recovered through the program itself. This is mirrored by the experiences in Connecticut and Maryland.

It has been clearly shown that these meters will not achieve the results that BC Hydro is claiming, namely to lower our electricity usage in order to relieve pressure on our aging generation and transmission infrastructure.

On top of this, it is estimated that 20 – 30% of the losses incurred by power companies are during long-distance transmission. If BC Hydro is serious about lowering peak and future loads on the system, it would make far more sense to invest in local renewable generation through incentives such as those implemented under Ontario’s MicroFIT program. This would have the other significant advantage of creating new jobs within the province.

One option might be to install renewable systems for customers, retain ownership of the systems and charge a fee for the energy generated as has been done successfully in other parts of North America.

4) Health.

The new ‘Smart meters’ will expose our homes and offices to almost continuous Electromagnetic Field radiation (EMF).

There is a growing, and very credible, body of scientific evidence to show that exposure to short and long-term EMF is hazardous to our health and wellbeing (as well as all living organisms including bees) and the World Health Organization (WHO) very recently classified it as a class 2b Carcinogen alongside DDT, Lead and car exhaust fumes. Would you allow any of those into your home on a voluntary basis?

BC Hydro claims that the ‘average’ emissions of the smart meters fall below the levels set by Health Canada but this is both untrue and subject to serious question.

BC Hydro deliberately uses the term ‘average’ because they know that the actual power of the individual transmissions is well above the 600 (for 900 MHz) or 1000 (for 2.4 GHz) microWatts per cm2 (uW) safety level set by Health Canada under Safety Code 6. Studies have shown that the transmission strength can and does exceed 4000 uW but by calling it an average, they are taking into account all the time when the meters are not transmitting. This is a highly spurious attempt to mislead the public.

Furthermore, the meters act as a grid, communicating with each other regularly throughout the day. This can increase the density of EMF emanating from the meters by orders of magnitude.

In addition, there is very sound evidence to show that the Health Canada limits are far higher than is actually safe. Medical studies in several parts of the world have shown quantifiable biological effects at exposures to 2 uW and below.

One of the reasons why Health Canada’s limit is so high is because it is based on the tests done by the US Military on large, fit, adult male subjects (hardly representative of the general population). These early studies were the first attempts to understand the effects of EMF and consequently were based on the very dubious assumption that EMF was only harmful once it was strong enough to raise core body temperature by 1 degree. The conclusion from those studies was that 10,000 uW was the safe limit.

Since then scientists all over the world have proven this to be dangerously high and the limits have been significantly lowered. Although Canada’s limits – at 600/1000 uW – are much lower than those of the original studies, they are still unacceptably high and far out of line with levels set by other countries.

5) Privacy and Security.

There are serious concerns about the security and privacy of the data transmission and storage related to these new meters. These concerns are currently being investigated by the Privacy Commissioner for BC, Elizabeth Denham.

In addition, these same meters being installed in various US states have the capability of communicating with other so-called ‘smart’ appliances within our homes, thereby monitoring our lives on an almost real-time continual basis and generating even higher levels of EMF pollution.

6) Lack of Choice or Consent.

Setting aside the fact that this whole program is based on highly spurious claims as to its benefits, safety and effectiveness, the manufacturer of the meters that BC Hydro are buying (Itron) produce the same ‘smart meter’ in a version that is capable of communicating via wires or cable as well as wirelessly.

BC Hydro has stated that, due to the geography of the province, using wired systems would be too difficult or expensive though I have yet to see evidence of why this is so, since virtually every house in the province is connected to a telephone line and/or cable capable of transmitting the necessary data.

The Clean Energy Act, 2010 also gives BC Hydro and its agents authority to install these meter ‘without consent’ of the homeowners. I regard this as a gross infringement of my civil rights as a Canadian citizen.

Furthermore, BC Hydro has failed to engage the public in the process of deciding whether to implement this program and it has been exempt from oversight by the BC Utilities Commission, a fact that raises considerable concern among many people, including myself.

7) Higher Electricity Bills.

The evidence in numerous parts of the world is that the installation of these new meters has caused higher bills for many users without any increase in their usage. In part this will result from the transition from our current two-tier system whereby we pay less for the first few hundred kilowatts, regardless of when we use that power, to a system where we will pay a high rate for all electricity used during the day.

Also, there is justifiable concern that these wireless meters may be susceptible to errors resulting in false billing due to erratic power fluctuations. A class-action law-suit has been initiated against GP&E in the US by a large group of people who have seen their electricity bills double or triple after the installation of the meters.

While I acknowledge that we pay a very low price for our electricity in BC – and arguably should pay more – higher bills should not be based merely on the ill-conceived installation of new meters.

In conclusion, I thank you for taking the time to read this message and hope that you will seriously consider revoking this program.

Tour with Naomi Yamamoto, Minister of State for Building Code Renewal


Here is a quick summary of the meeting with John Horgan, Naomi Yamamoto and her assistant Raechelle Williams.  Jeff Vasey, Executive Director, Building Standards was unable to attend as he was ill.

  • new ministry just created, lots to learn and set up.
  • Likely not too many big changes will happen until the new Liberal leadership is sorted out.
  • Laying groundwork for future changes once the political scene gets established
  • Very impressed that both John (NDP) and Naomi (Liberal) were so willing to work together for common goals leaving any politicking behind. See attached photo.
  • We discussed how useful Alternative Solutions could be now and in the future ESPECIALLY with a less prescriptive code.  Education of all involved parties is critical.  All seemed to agree that moving towards more sustainable building practices does involve less prescriptive codes.  We briefly discussed ASRi.  (Alternative Solutions Resource Initiative)
  • We emphasized that a truly sustainable building is customized to the site to maximize system integration with the available features of the site…like a living building.
  • We also emphasized the benefits of passive solar as the most cost effective way to build greener.
  • We discussed the critical need to allow some innovation.  Discussed the Living Building Challenge and that Clark County is allowing 5 special permits (projects) per year for LBC innovation.  We discussed how this could be a very useful way to advance green building policy here in BC.
  • We put in their hands a number of items.
    • Info sheet on our home
    • Policy/barriers report written by Ann for Cascadia as part of the full case study to be completed on Eco-Sense paid for by the Vancity grant
    • The BCSEA report “Ten Barriers to small scale Renewable Energy Systems” http://www.bcsea.org/solutions/government/policy/ten-barriers-to-small-scale-renewable-energy
    • All the current graphs from our energy monitoring and mass wall performance data
    • David Eisenberg’s card (shared info on DCAT)
    • Building cards for local green building professionals (engineers, designers, builders, etc)
  • Both Raechelle and Naomi seemed very friendly, personable, and they seemed very much to enjoy their tour.

Once again, BIG thanks to MLA John Horgan for organizing this tour.

 

 

John Horgan (MLA), Gord, Ann, Minister Yamamoto

Energy Composition: Solar Thermal, solar PV and Wood


The latest data from the research and data loggers for the energy inputs.

Energy composition:  Solar PV, Solar thermal and Wood.  Solar thermal brings in a LOT more kWhrs than Solar PV.  The wood used so far this year translates into 1.26 cords of Douglas Fir.

Energy Composition for 6 months

In this graph, this documents the generated energy, not necessarily the energy used; the solar thermal gain in the summer time is partially used.  From this graph we can easily see that trapping and storing the solar thermal would have been a wise investment, possibly with the addition of another 30 tubes, we may not have needed the gassification boiler.  The $6500 put into the boiler could have gone into a large highly insulative storage medium, thus avoiding combustion.