Cheap and Green Hot Water and Hot Air Heating

It began with the character who provided our entertainment for the day declaring: "I don't need the advanced course---just tell me how to do it for nothing and get hot water and heat for free." Quite a challenge! Wayne Groszko the Ecology Action Centre's Renewable Energy Coordinator met the challenge with an impressive degree of success.

The event was Shelburne's Renewable Energy Tour on March 22, 2014. A 7AM departure allowed arrival in good time for a 10:30AM start. The event was a great opportunity to see a community in action---spurred on by Women's Fishnet---and with ample help from the Ecology Action Centre.

 

From beginning to end the weather cooperated beautifully. I travelled with my husband Gerry Cudmore with two dogs.

 

Gerry and I have both had a long term interest in solar energy with two passive solar greenhouses in our history. The first was domestic, the second commercial. We are both committed to making good choices for the environment but he's the one with the practical skills and understanding needed to move forward. I'd have understood much less without him alongside! We remain fans of all things passive solar and yesterday brought new projects to the forefront. More importantly, I would like to bring a similar project to Shelburne's to a community in Kings County. This tour helped me explore that.

 

Blowing Hot Air---Cost---About $350 (DIY) or $3,500 (Certified for Rebate)

Certified Unit attached to Shelburne Home

This hot air heater is manufactured in Newfoundland and would qualify for a Efficiency NS Space Heating Rebate of $500.

 

Solar hot air space heaters work by drawing cool air out of your home, flowing it through a panel that heats it using free energy from the sun, and then blowing it back into your home at a higher temperature. Installations include a fan and a thermostat that turns the fan off when the sun can't do the good required. It's notable that even on dull days the sun can warm air through the use of a solar panel.

 

A solar hot air system can be made with recycled materials (aluminum cans, a computer fan, black stove paint, etc.,) for a few hundred dollars. Arrangements can be made to have a community workshop to build a solar space heater. Plans are also available on the internet.

There wasn't a DIY one on our tour but Wayne has seen several successful DIY installations!

 

Solar Hot Water Heating---Cost---About $2,000 (DIY) or $7,500 (Certified for Rebate) 

 

There are opportunities to build solar hot water heaters from recycled materials or from scratch.  For those with more cash a ready to install unit for several thousands dollars can be bought. This photo features recycled panels that a Shelburne homeowner refurbished and installed. It's connected to an indoor hot water tank. That tank preheats water when food grade anti-freeze cycles in a closed loop through the panels. The preheated water then enters a second water tank which would otherwise be served by very cold well water.

We visited this home at about 11:30 in the morning on a day that was barely above zero. We were able to remove a section of insulation from the piping indoors to assess the heat being transferred by the sun. Wow was that pipe ever hot! The homeowner did the conversion shown here for about $2,000 cash with lots of help over 4 days from several enthusiastic volunteers. 

A similar ready to install unit to this recycled one would likely cost about $7,500 and would qualify for a Efficiency Nova Scotia rebate. The program also offers the option of an interest free loan. Depending on the size and cost of the solar hot water heater your project could qualify for a rebate up to $1,250. Details on the rebates and loans can be found here.

The Heritage Centre in Shelburne operates a commercial laundry that serves the local hospital and hotels.

They must use hot water for these contracts. When they contracted with Wayne to come up with a plan a major issue was encountered: The centre didn't have a south facing wall or roof.

The installation was completed through the construction of a gazebo over a picnic area used by staff and volunteers.

The white pipe from the hot water solar panels works on the same principles as the domestic installation above. The white pipe between the panels and the roof line is well insulated and carries the heated antifreeze into an exchange system that preheats well water. Again, lots of plans are  available on the internet. For skilled DIY types there's even one here that combines a solar space and water heater.

Realistically, I think most homeowners would see these "easy" projects as difficult and daunting. By bringing Kings County community members together it may be possible to overcome this barrier and get more homeowners started on these cost-saving DIY projects that also reduce our reliance on fossil fuels.

 

COMFIT Windmill---About $50,000 per year Net Revenue for Shelburne County

 

At the last stop on the tour we saw a small wind turbine that is part of the province's Community Feed-In Tariff (COMFIT) program. The controls are in the metal shed and available to Emily Tipton (shown here via her I-phone. Shelburne has a Sustainability Department and Emily is its Engineer and Development Coordinator

 

The turbine is a 50-kilowatt one. It's fully owned by Shelburne County and located in Sandy Point. It generates between $4 and 5 thousand per month in revenue for the county. Shelburne County was approved for a much bigger wind turbine but couldn't afford its share of the larger capital investment required.

 

Partial funding for the project came via federal gas tax funding aimed at sustainable green infrastructure. To my knowledge Kings County has yet to access the benefits of this fund.

 

Thank You Shelburne, Women's Fishnet, Wayne & Ecology Action Centre

 

I was so grateful to accept this invitation from the Ecology Action Centre. It exceeded my expectations and was an absolutely wonderful day of sharing useful information and inspiration. 

 

There's lots I am unqualified to describe! For anyone wishing to hear more about any of these installations I know Wayne has the smarts to answer just about anything. He can also tell you more about the Ecology Action Centre's Sustainability Projects here contact details.

Phone Wayne Toll-free at 1.866.315.9201; Email Wayne at: solargain@ecologyaction.ca

 

 

 

KINGS COUNTY Says NO to 10% Shift in Local Spending: Plus Ivany's Now or Never report on Local Product Support

On March 18, 2014, the "Ten Percent Shift" item I requested was discussed and a motion as follows was defeated 6 to 4 by Kings County's Committee of the Whole.

“That Committee of the Whole recommends Municipal Council support the Ten Percent Shift initiative with a social media campaign aimed at increasing awareness of Kings County residents of the power of shifting spending from non-local to local businesses.”

Against were: Councillors Atwater; Best; Ennis; Hirtle; Macquarrie and Warden Brothers. For were: Bishop; Raven; VanRooyen and Winsor. Councillor Lloyd was absent.

I was shocked this motion was defeated because it carried no significant cost to our municipality. About four years ago council invested cash in a “buy local” radio campaign featuring councillors of that day, notably our Warden and Atwater. As well, council once had a link on its website dedicated to drawing attention to the need to buy local and to assist residents' search for local businesses and products. From my perspective this motion represented a cost-efficient method to reignite interest and help market many excellent Nova Scotia products. It was also noted that our municipal partner, the Town of Kentville, does support CUPE’s 10% shift with a link to its novashift.ca website.

The sticking point for the Municipality of Kings appears to be a fear of making local franchises, such as Tim Hortons, less viable. This was linked by those opposed to the risk that such businesses would retaliate by, for example, pulling support for local sports teams. I’ve obtained the COTW audio tape and intend to have it edited so the debate on the 10% shift can be posted here.

Despite the defeat at council, I encourage you to visit Nova Scotia’s Ten Percent Shift website. Please consider “taking the pledge”. For some that may mean an even more conscious attention to each purchase they make to raise their percentage as high as possible.  For others it may mean the start of a modest shift to local spending. Since the debate at council I have learned that the neighbouring County of Annapolis is setting a 80% local food production target for 2050!

The 10% shift is an initiative of CUPE Nova Scotia, endorsed by the Municipality own local, and referenced in the Ivany report as an initiative with the potential to convert the personal weekly spending of Nova Scotians into “about a billion dollars” investment in Nova Scotia’s economy.

Here are some key references in the Ivany report about “buy local” that drew my attention:

Page 111

…A recent Conference Board report indicates that Nova Scotia ranks 4th among provinces in the share of food produced and consumed within the province.

The increased demand is encouraging local producers to innovate and bring new niche products to market.

… Local foods are a draw for tourists [thus local food and products become an export commodity that people are] “coming here to pick up.”

Page 197

… Our increasingly cosmopolitan product demands can drive innovation leading to new product development for the dual marketplace. The call for support for local producers through consumer selection, whether incentivized or simply encouraged, is not a call for protectionism, complacency, or insularity; it’s a call for investing in ourselves while connecting to the world.

… A 2010 study by the Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture and the Ecology Action Centre titled Is Nova Scotia Eating Local?, estimates that farmers in Nova Scotia are only benefiting from 13% of food dollars spent in the province. Clearly this is an area of opportunity to increase investment in ourselves. Choosing locally produced food will encourage retailers to supply more of it, which will, in turn, contribute to the viability of our food producing businesses while keeping more money in Nova Scotia.

… In 2012, the Provincial Government amended the Environmental Goals and Sustainable Prosperity Act to include a Food Goal of 20 per cent of the money spent on food by Nova Scotians being spent on locally produced food by 2020.”

Page 216

… The local economy movement, particularly in food production and consumption, is both vibrant and compatible with increasing the elements of our economy that are trade-oriented; For example… Haskapa Production

Local foods are a draw for tourists [thus local food and products become an export commodity that people are] “coming here to pick up.”

Behind Closed Doors 2

At 3PM yesterday a confidential report circulated by the CAO and Warden tasked councillors to close the Municipal airport. Startlingly, the decision was due that evening with discussions to begin at 6PM, In Camera. In my 16-months at council I have never seen a more blatant need for improved governance in the County of Kings regarding the use of In Camera meetings (see my blog Behind Closed Doors 1 of March 7).

The process chosen by our leadership yesterday was regrettable, including the fact that the community had not been provided the notice recommended by the Municipal Government Act.

Around 8PM council emerged to vote 10 to 1 in favour of the actions listed below. I supported this, under great duress, after working to provide some relief for the many individuals and/or businesses that rely heavily on the services provided at the Municipal Airport.

My heartfelt thanks go out to the Waterville Airport Cooperative Limited who have worked so hard to effect a smoother transition between the closure of the airport at Waterville and the expected creation of a new airport in Kings County. My expectation is that a properly conducted business case study, free of political interference, will result in a strong recommendation for a new airport to be located in the valley and east of the current airport. In the meantime, despite any warranty, councillors are being strongly advised by their leadership to make way, and fast, for a Michelin Expansion.

It is my sincere belief that a much more restricted use of "behind closed doors" discussions would have translated into a much more satisfactory transition trajectory. Despite this, I trust the aviation community will work, privately or with its governments, to enable the creation of an airport. I believe the talent and business skills present within the aviation community could eventually result in a new airport that valley residents and businesses will benefit from greatly and be proud to have in their community.

Motion Passed

Whereas the MOK recognizes that its primary concern is enabling Michelin to expand its operations at the Waterville Plant.

And Whereas the MOK remains committed to working with the Province and Michelin Canada to ensure that any obstacles to expansion are removed in an expeditious manner.

And Whereas the MOK will continue to plan for the relocation of the Municipal Airport and will establish the Airport Relocation Committee.

 

Now upon the motion of Deputy Warden Hirlte seconded by Wayne Atwater:

The MOK shall undertake an environmental assessment of the airport lands (if required by the Province) provided that the Province funds the total cost of the study and as well as any costs associated with the clean-up of the property.

The MOK shall make the lands available to the Province or Michelin as soon as possible taking into consideration the time-frame for the closure of the airport (as described immediately below).

The MOK shall close the Municipal Airport in Waterville effective September 30^th, 2014 (6 months notice) and Council directs the CAO to immediately give notice of the closure of the Municipal Airport to the WACL and the tenants.

The MOK shall give notice to the tenant hanger owners that their hangars can remain on the leased premises on the same terms and conditions as provided for in the leases until such time as the hangers can be moved to the relocated airport should the business case be positive and a new airport be established provided further that if the MOK decides that a new airport is not to be established then the MOK can provide notice of termination of the lease in which case the hanger owners shall be held to the termination clauses of the lease.

The MOK shall undertake a business case study for a new airport with terms of reference acceptable to Council provided that the Province funds the total cost of the study.

Council directs the CAO to prepare a draft Terms of Reference for the Business Case Study for COTW in April 2014.

The MOK shall support the tenants of the Municipal Airport in their discussions with the Province regarding financial contributions towards relocating to the new Municipal Airport provided that any funding received by the tenants does not negatively impact the relocation amount received by the MOK.

Behind Closed Doors 1

There’s a place at municipal council for In Camera Meetings. But “behind closed doors” is not where I want to be without proper procedures clearly defined. Without this In Camera meetings can take on a seemingly improper role in the decision-making process. Whether anything improper is happening or not---such meetings can quickly erode public trust.

 

In Camera meetings are needed to provide the correct amount of privacy for sensitive discussions. However, they can’t legally be used as a secret way to deal with issues that belong in public sessions. Without a method to assess if the reason for moving In Camera is valid, the public can be left shaking their heads as they are ordered to vacate chambers. An adequate understanding of what's going greatly helps with the real or perceived lack of transparency and accountability.

On a number of occasions since the current council formed (16-months ago) there has been reference to the need for improvement regarding how In Camera meetings are conducted by the Municipality of the County of Kings. We’ve been told by our leadership that work is underway. Nevertheless, over this 16-month period, In Camera meetings have occurred frequently, and without the benefit of clearly outlined procedures, or a record of the discussions that have occurred. This situation has not been acceptable to me, and its my opinion that this can no longer continue if we want to be better stewards of Kings County business.

Sometimes patience isn’t a virtue!

We have completed a full one third of this council's term without the benefit of In Camera procedures. That’s why, at the March 4 regular council meeting, I gave notice of a motion to have procedures for In Camera meetings of the Municipality of the County of Kings tabled and discussed at the next regular assembly of councillors (Committee of the Whole March 18, 2014).

 

The outcome I’m promoting is that councillors will recommend and soon approve in-camera procedures no less powerful than those used by the Halifax Regional Municipality.

 

Approving procedures for In Camera meetings of the Municipality of the County of Kings, could occur as soon as April 1, if a simple majority of councillors are ready to address this major gap in how we do business.

My motion is a simple one that will give your Municipality the tools required to:

1. Restrict its In Camera agenda to those items that really cannot be addressed in an open session.
2. Properly record and store In Camera minutes and reports.
3. Bring into public sessions the information required to give the public the best indication possible of what occurred In Camera.

Minutes of the Halifax Regional Municipality stand in sharp contrast to our absence of procedures. Below are some of the key rules applied by our urban neighbours that I hope we will adapt to our council's needs and then adopt without further delay.

Please do not hesitate to be In Touch if you want to talk about this or anything else about municipal politics. 670-2949.

• The Clerk (at our municipality our Chief Administrative Officer is also our Clerk) lists In Camera items at the end of the agenda of regular meetings of Council.
• Items are identified by the type of matter to be discussed, with additional information, where possible, to further identify the item but not as to disclose the confidential information.
• A brief description or summary of the subject matter of the items to be discussed In Camera shall be made available to Council no later than the commencement of the Council meeting at which time such items are intended to be discussed In Camera. Such a summary will identify the reason In Camera discussion is warranted.
• Council may, at the request of one or more of its members, and with the agreement of two-thirds majority of Council members present, agree to enter into In Camera discussions without meeting the requirements above, if the request is supported by information which explains a legitimate reason for the necessity of In Camera discussions taking place.
• No In Camera meeting may proceed in the absence of the Municipal Solicitor, or delegate.
• The rules of procedures for regular meetings of Council shall apply to In Camera discussions except as otherwise specifically provided for in the In Camera section.
• Minutes of In Camera meetings will be taken by the Clerk or a designate and kept in the office of the Clerk. Such minutes are not considered to be of public record.
• Recommendations resulting from discussions taking place in the In Camera meeting shall be brought forward as an added item for approval by Council in open session immediately following dissolution of the In Camera session and the rules of procedure will apply to the adoption of such recommendations, provided, however, that the motion to adopt a recommendation shall not be debated.
• Staff reports submitted to In Camera Meetings of Council and details of the matters discussed at and the minutes kept of such meetings, except background information, shall be maintained by the Clerk as confidential information unless Council determines that the information or any part thereof be made available to the public pursuant to… A determination by Council, following a recommendation of staff, that the release of information identified as confidential, has the potential to unduly damage or embarrass or in other ways be detrimental to an individual or individuals, Council may decide to maintain the confidentiality of the information for a further specified or unspecified period of time. This clause will not, however, be used to protect an elected official from potential embarrassment or damage arising from a position taken, or remarks made, during In Camera meetings.
• Reports and other information arising out of In Camera meetings, for which Council determines no legitimate reason exists to maintain such records as confidential information, will be made available to the public upon request in writing to the Clerk.
• When any member of the public requests access to In Camera discussion information, which is classified as confidential, the Municipality, under the signature of the Chief Administrative Officer, shall provide reasons in writing addressed to the inquirer why such information is so classified… Merely identifying the requested information as being access restricted because it is considered to be of a confidential nature will not constitute a satisfactory response to a request for information.
• Where a request for information from an In Camera meeting has been denied on the grounds of it being confidential, or where such information is considered by the inquirer to have been withheld for an unreasonable period of time, the inquirer may in writing request Council to review the decision, whereupon the inquirer shall be granted the right to make a formal presentation either orally or in writing and by a two-thirds majority vote of the Council members, Council may direct the release of the information.