I'm all for the "Chris_in_Iowa model?" if that is his free will choice. But what about the "Al_Gore_in_Tennessee" model. He has 3 houses and each house is an energy hog. Since this inconvenient truth about Gore was first revealed he has gone on the offensive by better insulating his house, installing solar panels and paying $4 extra per month to purchase electricity only from renewable resources. How do they split off that electricity from the power grid and route only "renewable resource generated" electricity to his house? Guess what happened? His power usage is UP by 10%. That is 10% increase on top of the already gluttonous usage at his Tennessee home which is already THREE times the average US home energy usage. Those heated pools require a lot of energy. So why should I cut back on my energy usage? Remember the Kyoto Treaty and Rio Treaty on global warming, both backed by Gore? Both treaties would have required the USA to cut back on our emissions by 20% or face international sanctions but would allow so-called developing countries such as China, Russia and India to continue to pump out pollution as they "grow" their economies. You must ask what these treaties would do to our economy which has already been stressed by factories moving to Mexico, India, Taiwan and China so they can escape US pollution laws? My inconvenient truth is my greenhouse uses a lot less energy than Mr. Gore's pool, not counting three homes. So I'm not going to worry about it until the green hypocrites turnover a new green leaf and have the best interest of America in mind rather than a warm swimming pool. I've been driving the same pickup truck for 17 1/2 year which even at 308,000 miles gets 28 mpg. Yes, I like clean air and I want to conserve resources, but not so another man can consume energy I have conserved or so he can breathe clean air while the power plant down the road from me pumps out SO/2 to provide his electricity. Finally, a Newsweek poll shows the majority of Californians now favor offshore drilling along the California Pacific coast. http://www.newsweek.com/id/150340. I think we coastal oil producing states need to impose a $4 per gallon extraction fee on oil exported to states which don't allow coastal drilling. Finally, Sen. Kennedy (MA) and former Sen. Warner (VA) blocked efforts to build windmills in Cape Cod Bay because they would ruin the views, vistas, sunrises and sunset. More hypocrisy on the part of politicians.

Thanks for your political rant, tsmith, now back to the topic.

You make some excellent points, stressbaby, but I feel tsmith makes a good point as well.

I do feel just a little twinge of guilt about heating my little greenhouse, despite the comfort and joy it brings us throughout the winter months, despite all the insulation efforts (as so many others here have done). But that twinge is greatly mitigated by the excesses I witness daily. Enormous development homes springing like mushrooms from former farmland and woodlands - homes that require resources to build as well as furnish, decorate, heat and cool. While motorized watercraft on the nearby bay has diminished noticeably, possibly due to fuel costs, I sense an actual increase in the air traffic overhead. Not commercial aircraft, but small, private aircraft. I have logged 20 or more per hour throughout day on Saturdays and Sundays, not counting the banner planes going to and from the beaches nearby. Now, that's a lot of fossil fuel being burned, and a lot of pollution ... noise pollution, as well.

Before I go on on my own rant, what I'm trying to say, and perhaps tsmith is too, is that depriving ourselves of this small luxury, this great satisfaction, however noble and well-intended, is a pittance in the whole scheme of things, and will probably do nothing to change the behavior of the "wasters" for the better. As a matter of fact, I came across an interesting article somewhere recently about the difference between gardeners and consumers and I think society and the environment would be well served if we were to convert more to our gardening ranks.

During times of drought, I've watched beautiful gardens dry up under heavy watering restrictions, while boaters/jetskiers were free to waste gallons of water rinsing their boats and engines and swimming pools were being built and filled. Utilities refused to set consumption limits and charge a surcharge for energy/water used over that limit ... although when the reservoirs were about to overflow, they were threatening to impose a surcharge if people didn't use enough water. As the saying goes, "what's wrong with this picture?"

In this world, there are givers and takers/users. The latter will continue to take and use, take and use, as long as there's anything left, while the givers go on giving until they've nothing left. There will not be a meaningful change until there's some serious attitude adjustment and we, as a society, realize we're all in this together.

In the meantime, my hat's off to those who decide to explore "greener" alternatives in greenhouse gardening; we all will be better off for any advances made in this area.

Oh boy did I pick the wrong week to quit smoking!

The reason I do what I do with a greenhouse and what I grow and when is the lack of money I have.

I do not grow anything that is out of my zone.

However, I will have a very serious rant on here about politics, energy costs, markets, and conservation.

Some background for the new ones here. I have a greenhouse made of wood and covered in plastic that I do not heat. It lets me start seedlings in spring and protects some plants in the fall. It makes spring come about 3-4 weeks early, and makes the first killing frost about 6 weeks later.

Yes and I will say I am now really good at this no heat, loads of thermal mass stuff. It is fun!

A hobby that is cheap!

I just got a circulating pump from a trashed Ice machine for free. Hydroponics (second attempt) here I go!

To cut a long story short. I am not "GREEN" because of some ideology and political leaning I am "GREEN" because I am broke.

I hope this puts a new light on this thread.

To add a comment totally unrelated to this forum, this winter I will be, have to, use all the tips and tricks to capture solar heat, do the wood burning stuff and add thermal mass to my home.

Not because I am a "greenie" because it is cheaper!

Agardenstateofmind, good post, points well-made without the political baggage. The difference I see between you and tsmith is that in your case, the view of givers and takers serves to mitigate your "twinge of guilt," whereas tsmith's consumption seems to be part of a political position. Givers/takers, yes, but this really is not a partisan issue.

I'm not even going to touch "green hypocrites."

If I appeared to suggest, Chris, that you developed your model for any particular "green" purpose, then I misspoke. But the consumption, the carbon footprint of such a model is quite small, so we can still talk about it. I already alluded to the personal financial advantages of your growing method, obviously it is the absence of fuel costs. And I will go so far as to say that you seem proud of what you have accomplished with the resources you have. The question is that just because you could afford to heat the structure, is it the right thing to do?

Looking at it from a personal financial point of view, in the long run, am I going to be better off with that money invested in my kids education, or in my retirement fund, or in my business, for example?

Consider it from a food production point of view. I'm not talking about using the GH as a season extender or for seed starting; I'm talking about overwintering food plants and growing winter vegetables. For the most part, the yield on such plants is pretty low. It is difficult to justify it from a health standpoint; while the food produced my be very healthful, it constitutes a small portion of the food we eat every day.

Growing our own food does enhance our appreciation of food, and this is a good thing. More time spent in preparation of our food probably means more family dinners, better eating habits, fewer calories consumed, and an improved social culture around meals and food...all good. I posit that there are many other ways to this end, ways cheaper than burning propane all winter in the GH.

I hardly want to touch the global warming issue, because to discuss global warming in any forum is to invite all the global warming denialists to post. No thanks.

[long rant unrelated to global warming deleted here]

I agree with you, SB. In the U.S., up to 20 percent of the country's fossil fuel consumption goes into the food chain which points out that fossil fuel use by the food system in the developed world "often rivals that of automobiles". To feed an average family of four in the developed world uses up the equivalent of 930 gallons of gasoline a year - just shy of the 1,070 gallons that same family would use up each year to power their cars.

My wife and I drive less than 5000 mi/yr in vehicles that get nearly 20 mi/gal in the city. I supplement a NG furnace set at 64-65 degf with about four cords of wood. Am I entitled to heat a 8 X 8 ft GH with a 10K btu NG heater warm enough to grow lettuce, endive, scallions, tomatoes and peppers which are not safe to buy at the market these days?


John

I suppose since I work in the agriculture industry amid the very turbulant environment of exploding commodities futures, rising production costs for farmers, and our own personal rising costs of fuel & now food, I've become much more aware of the shrinking source of resources in the world we live in. We, for the time being, have taken a middle of the road approach to our responsibility for containing our energy usage. Like John, we are very conservative in our costs for heating/cooling our home, and are cutting the miles we drive on our vehicle that gets the mid 20's per gallon. We choose in our greenhouse to compromise by only overwintering plants that can survive at a fairly low temp & we are in zone 7. At least at this point, I feel that we are not being excessive, but am always looking for ways to further conserve energy & water as well.

I do agree that this is a very serious issue that we all should be mindful of, and if necessary be willing to reevaulate and perhaps modify our choices.

In considering the original idea of growing food in one's own greenhouse (albiet outside the normal,outside growing range) vs. buying the food at the grocery store, there would be some interesting comparisons. It would be fairly easy to calculate the energy/carbon cost per orange or tomato, based on all the energy inputs in growing the crop in your own greenhouse. For a fair comparison, and somewhat more complicated, what are the total energy costs to plant, culture, harvest, process, and ship an orange or tomato from its more natural source to your grocery store? I suppose we should also add in the energy cost to drive to the store, which in my case is 14 miles round trip. It seems the idea is also to not use pesticides in the home greenhouse, so all of that input into a commercial field operation should also be considered in the calculations. It may just be that growing your own oranges or tomatoes, even outside the natural range of the crop in a greenhouse, is not necessarily more energy/carbon demanding than grocery store produce.

Just hypothetical:

1. If all the hobby greenhouse growers in the USA were to NOT heat their greenhouses for one winter, what would be the equivalent carbon emissions reduction?
*Not taking into consideration the possibility that you will now drive at least a mile to the grocery store to buy tomatoes or pepper instead of walking over to the greenhouse to harvest it.

2. What will be the equivalent carbon emissions reduction if all fans of a certain sports league (NBA, NASCAR, NFL, etc) choose one game and decide to watch it on TV instead of driving over to the stadium?

3. What is the average DAILY carbon emissions of a non-compliant factory in China or India? or even in the USA?

In the grand scheme of things, I have a feeling that our sacrifice would be significant compared to the very little return it would have on carbon emissions.

Targeting one sector, while allowing others to run loose will not make much sense and only breed resentment among those who are negatively impacted.

It seems that many of the opinions are based on either its insignificant for the small # of greenhousers to do anything, or in my head, the cost and eventually the scarcity of fossil fuels (rationing, wars etc) will force decisions for us not heat (as much).

Reminds me of the story of the boy on the seashore looking at thousands of starfish washed on the shore. He would pause his walk to throw a starfish back in the ocean ever so often. A man said to him, "Look at all these starfish, you can't possibly make a difference." The boy simply said, "It makes a difference to that one" as he thow another back in.

~tom

Point well made, tom; I very much like that story and often follow that example [story below]. But just imagine this: There's a horde of boats out there with rakes, skimming up those starfish faster than the boy can throw them back, to be dried and sold as souvenirs. In that case, how long do you think the boy would continue his noble effort?

I work in a public garden, and last October, discovered an -wheeler had apparently pulled in to turn around in our lot, thought he could back up the walk [fool] and the wheels of the trailer dug deep, wide, trenches in our beds of freshly-planted spring-flowering bulbs. As he drove out, his wheels left a trail of soil and bulbs through the parking lot all the way out to the road. Like that boy on the seashore, I picked up every bulb I could find and deposited them in a safe place for our gardeners to re-plant. They laughed, because we'd received thousands of bulbs that year, but I can't bear wanton waste and destruction.

Without boring anyone with specifics, I'll summarize that our family's carbon footprint is relatively small - and has been since long before it was "fashionable" or "politically correct". My greenhouse is not to raise food, though we do enjoy the bit it produces and the culinary herbs, it's purely for enjoyment and a refuge for the restoration of body and soul in this mad world. From reading the threads in this forum for the past few years, I think many, if not most, of the people who post here are similarly conscious and careful about their impact on the environment.

BTW, we practice and teach IPM at the garden at which I work, and I practice it at home as well.

It's a sunny Sunday afternoon and the private pilots are out in force, enjoying their bird's-eye view of the nearby wetlands, bay, and sea, spewing exhaust into the sky, while I garden - organically - below.

Give up my heated greenhouse? When pigs fly ... or, maybe they already do ;-

Hi
Always have to laugh when I read this type of threads I happen to live in the Land of Conspicuous Consumption
Florida lol.
During the ongoing water crisis. Fines were levied for watering your lawn. Surchages fot not lowering your consuption. By merely asking the people dropped consumption
almost 30 percent in not quite 3 months. Guess what. Due to the fact water revenues had dropped due to less consumption rates were raised 20 percent.
I got a citation for watering 1 hour after "curfew" even though I could prove I was actually using less water than last year I average less than 4,000 gallons per month
down from 6 in two years . Was I rewarded?/ Got a "sewer" tax rate hike lol
At the same period of time a private home on the island was consumming 1.1 million gallons per month!!!!! What is he doing with the water??? None of your business it's a private home lol Is the water going into the sewer system therefore the sewer tax rate hike must apply ??? That is between the residense and the water co. In other words none of my business??
Anway , enjoy what you have now because when it comes time to stop it will be decided by you guessed it the politicians .
I agree with Garden . I'll give up my air conditioned GH when they pry it from my cold dead hands, lol
gary

SB, it seems not too many of us are concerned that we are eating fossil fuels.

~tom

I don't read those responses that way. I see people who love plants and being near the earth enough to use a major chunk of their disposable income in pursuing something they enjoy and also getting something back for their investment. People like that usually respect nature, since they choose to spend their time as close to it as possible. I suspect nearly every human on earth has the need to do something they find enjoyable and relaxing, and what they are trying to say is that although.......yes........they are consuming resources to do it, so is everybody else in one way or another. I also suspect they would give up their greenhouses with a lot less fight if they saw the authorities also remove every jet ski, motor boat, ultra light, home theater, SUV, swimming pool, and well the list is endless, I guess. Yes, I believe that a multitude of people making a small contribution can have as much of an impact as a few people making large contributions. But, who are we to judge in what other ways the greenhouse owners are limiting their 'footprints' in order to have the priviledge of growing their own out of season foods. They may be virtual Luddites for all we know.

No, I don't crank up my g'houses to grow out of season food so I'm not trying to make excuses why anybody should or should not do it. I do, however, have a tremendous amount of space under plastic compared to the hobby grower, and I have changed the way I handle winter heating issues tremendously over the last twenty years. Not only because of economics, but out of moral considerations.

tom_n_6bzone, are you telling me that you do not eat any foods that reguire fossil fuels in growing processing, preserving or delivering to your table?


John

calliope, SB's question wasn't whether we should give up our greenhouses, but he was questioning if we should weigh the impact of heating it in the winter (and I imagine, ac in the summer in the southern zones). I've abused his question with my agenda of trying to make aware people of peak oil.

I am always amazed at how few people understand the impact of fossil fuel on our way of life. Yes, John, I am also fully dependent on oil. I wear shoes made from oil and processed by oil. I drive a car and even if I rode the bus, it drives on oil. I eat foods too along with almost everything that has been touched by oil via transportation and or processing. I like oatmeal sometimes and I don't mill it, I buy it in a package.

Oats

1. Delivery to the mill 2. Cleaning 3. More cleaning 4. Kilning 5. Separating 6. Hulling 7. Paddy Separating 8. Cutting 9. Steaming 10. Rolling 11. Cooling 12. Packaging 13. Delivery to the distributor 14. I drive to and from the store.

Can you imagine the process to make tennis shoes and how far it travels to the retail store?

I have read tons of materials on peak oil and I have doubted much of it at times. When the Senate last month held a homeland security panel hearing on energy with Leiberman preciding, they listened intently to T. Boone Pickens explaining his plan's necessity because of peak oil. They did not laugh or jeer or question peak oil. It was a matter of fact to them. The Dept of Energy has put out reports on peak oil. The GAO has also written reports on the impact of oil and its lessening availability. But does the average person in this country even understand what this is, or have they even heard of it?

So, what's the point? Obama said everyone in this country should inflate their tires correctly.

~tom

SB - Look at the scientific studies generated in the past three years on whether coffee is good or bad for your health. Then consider the amount of factors that go into determining whether heating a greenhouse is a plus or minus. I can easily come up with 100 pros and cons to consider and I am sure there must be thousands more. There simply isn't the data out there to make an accurate guess.

That said, there certainly is no debate that if you do heat common sense says that you should do it in the most efficient manner. Do you heat with oil? If so, do you have your burner cleaned regularly? Use wood? Ensure it is well seasoned. Etc. etc.

Then there's the steps beyond. I am in the Chris in Iowa camp. I simply could not afford to have a greenhouse if I heat the world. But I want to grow crops all year round. How can I do that?

I had built a small (8x12) lean-to glass greenhouse years back. In the Winter I stapled a plastic sheet on the inside of the 2x4 frame. Daytime temps inside could soar to 90F when the outside temps were in the 30s. Seems likely I could capture that heat and get through the night. Sold the place before I took that step but I keep thinking.

The big issue to me is insulation. No different than your house. The more insulation the warmer it stays, the less heat you need. How the heck do you insulate a greenhouse? I thought about insulating batts, and blown in Styrofoam beads but where the heck do you store that stuff during the day? I looked at double walled designs and bubble wrap - just not enough. Finally, about 6 years ago I came across two ideas that both made some sense.

SHCS - Subterranean Heating and Cooling System
Solaroof

The SHCS design takes the warmed air and recalculates it underground where it stores the heat to be released at night.

The Solaroof design is also being called "dynamic liquid insulation" and is a double walled greenhouse that the cavity between the walls is filled with soap bubbles at night to insulate the greenhouse.

In the last two years, a group of students at the Appalachian university have won two grants, one at $70K to build and get data. The last phase ran through this past winter and the results were to put out on a website in the spring and summer, but I have not seen those yet. Time to contact the University on that. The preliminary results were encouraging.

I plan to incorporate something of both in my greenhouse. I have to get off my butt and finish it. My GH is ~48' x 24' With a 2 foot sidewall cavity and up to 3 feet along the roof. In addition to the solaroof aspect, I may add a 4x4 trench down the centerline which will be filled with 20 oz. soda bottles of water. A blower will circulate the warm air through that channel and transfer the heat to the bottles to be returned at night. I may not add that feature as I also plan to incorporate aquaponics in my GH, so I will have tanks running under my grow tables and I may use these to store the excess heat. I am not sure how much of a fluctuation that could cause though and it may be fatal to any fish I grow. It may be that with enough water the increase would be minimal. I have to play.

Anyway, back to your question. I think that the potential for meeting any concerns exists, but there is work to be done to find the answers. The real answer lies in just how much effort goes into efficiency.

Poppa

calliope, SB's question wasn't whether we should give up our greenhouses, but he was questioning if we should weigh the impact of heating it in the winter (and I imagine, ac in the summer in the southern zones).

I was aware of that, Tom. I didn't mean it in the most literal sense. For the most part, however, not heating a greenhouse pretty much equates to giving one up.

Cuestaroble has a handle on it...there is a tremendous footprint to the food from the box store. We will have trouble comparing that footprint to that of the food produced in a winter GH, but I'd wager that the order of magnitude is the same or similar. OTOH, we CAN produce food of superior quality, with a smaller footprint, using alternative methods.

I don't find the "my consumption is just a small fraction of the total consumption" argument persuasive at all, and it certainly cannot be used to abrogate your responsibilities in this context. Ultimately, one might argue that the cost of that conspicuous excessive consumption will be factored into the activity and demand will adjust accordingly. That's what I would hope for, anyway.

Poppa's coffee analogy is not useful. [Really, the picture with coffee is not that unclear...possibly a slight increased risk of miscarriage weighed against a reduction in colon cancer, biliary tract disease, cirrhosis, parkinsons disease, diabetes, and possibly depression and asthma makes the picture pretty clear to me.]

I have kept an eye on the SHCS for years now. I find it intriguing and potentially very useful. I must ask, is there a design problem that has kept this model from becoming popular? Or is it the complexity of the system that has apparently slowed the adoption?

I'll keep heating my GH is winter. I've started hanging my clothes on the wash-line to dry, only washing full loads, making sure lamps are not left on in empty rooms, TV shut off if no one is watching it. I use the small toaster oven rather than the large on in my stove and started more recycling by buying my clothes at the Goodwill store in town. We make 2 shopping trips to town a month now instead of three of four.

I have kept an eye on the SHCS for years now. I find it intriguing and potentially very useful. I must ask, is there a design problem that has kept this model from becoming popular? Or is it the complexity of the system that has apparently slowed the adoption?

It depends on the # of sun-days for solar use to be effective. Here in SW PA it is about the worst conditions for SHCS in the USA. Another consideration should be there is always more winter damage to unheated structures, particularly a GH with knee walls like yours. The damage may not be apparent but through time, it will destroy the foundation.


John

SHCS? The argument that I've read somewhere (cannot recall where, sorry) is that you can not clean the ADS perf pipe and it would therefore be a home for mold, mildew and rodents. Ventilation air being pulled through these pipes could be tainted and possibly toxic.

From Sunnyjohn's site, he says: No, using heavily perforated tubing, and 4" size, the soil microbes influence the tubing zone so intimately that 'bad' mold doesn't have a chance to get established, there is too much diversity for any one variety to take over. Circulating organically laden air might be different though - so air from composting and animal housing might be a problem - it could provide the nutrient to get something going that is unusual in normal soil strata. I've never seen problematic mold in normal scenarios.
Which is right?

So, I'm wondering about the use of below frost level ground. A below grade greenhouse could be built. Another thought is Earthtubes? Or is that so inferior to SHCS that its not worth the comparison? Earthtubes can be completely passive and they can be cleaned with bleach easy enough.

The first g'house we put in was earth-banked on the north side halfway up the house, and the banking tapers to nothing on the south side, to pick up maximum solar gain. Of all my g'houses it has always been the easiest and most cost-effective to heat and maintains its temperature best. I do use double poly on this house with an inflation fan, and Infra-red heat trapping poly to boot, with deciduous trees situated that leaf out and give it partial shade just about when we start cranking it down and using it as a holding and propagating house in early summer. I also have a row of evergreen trees as a windbreak running the length of the g'house range to the north side and further on up the property on the hill to the west side.

Proper orientation and small details can make your designs more energy efficient, if you must heat.

So many things can be grown under lights inside the home during winter. Why bother heating a greenhouse, unless you are determined to grow very large plants that won't fit under lights? Outdoor light levels are poor in winter; day length is short. With indoor growing, nearly all of the energy from your light fixtures goes into heating the house. You could argue that it is 100% efficient.

The moral argument is very difficult. With an exploding human population in the US and elsewhere, and growing economies in Asia, what are the chances that conservation on our part will prolong the availability of fossil fuels? No chance at all, I would say. Until governments all over the world wake up and mandate family planning and conservation, rampant consumption will continue.

We all must make choices in accordance with our circumstance and conscience. Some people don't have the space inside their homes to grow plants satisfactorily.

FWIW, I live in a 2,000 square foot cape cod with my husband, four children, all over age 19, and dog. There is not room to add on to this house (except to the north - not very energy-efficient) without a variance. Besides, I keep thinking that soon these children will begin moving out into their own homes! The reality is that housing in this region, whether owned or rented, is extremely costly.

It's difficult enough to find room for us all, and our gear (the boys love camping, the girl is an english lit major and could use a room just for the books!), let alone find space for growing plants. In addition, the air in heated homes tends to be drier than most plants like.

The little greenhouse sitting out back is my refuge. We don't go away on vacations - winter or summer. There is nothing so restorative on a winter's day as tromping the 75 feet through icy chill to once again feel the warmth of the sun as I tend the plants, get some dirt under my fingernails again, and snip a few herbs to season the evening meal. Even my husband, who is not a gardener at all, enjoys the space - he can often be found out there with a book and cup of coffee.

When our sons got to the age where they wanted to get out on the bay nearby, our investment was in a canoe, kayak and sailboat, rather than something motorized.

As I write this, I'm listening to my next-door neighbor who uses a gas blower to blow his 150x150 yard clear of goodnessonlyknowswhat every day year 'round regardless of weather. He also climbs up on the roof of his ranch once a month and blows that clear as well.

Did I mention the doc around the corner who periodically does something with his backyard swimming pool which results in blue-green slime running out of a pipe in the curb and into the storm sewer? (There's a supposedly protected salt-water marsh just a few hundred feet away)

And the fellow with the thick, green lawn pumped up with fertilizers who mows frequently and, rather than take the stuff to the town yard for recycling, blows it into the gutter, where it washes down the storm drain (along with the blue-green slime) into aforesaid supposedly-protected salt water marsh. These estuaries, to my understanding, are the nurseries of the oceans.

I realize I've digressed from fossil fuels, and I've contributed nothing in terms of the technical aspects of heating a greenhouse or building an "alternative" structure ... I'll leave that to those with experience in these ares. But all this isn't just about fossil fuels, it's about the environment and resources in general; it's about an awareness of the effects of our day-to-day lifestyle choices.

It is responsible to raise the question about heated greenhouses. I think it's important to consider, and give some thought to just why we have a greenhouse - what is our purpose? Can it be better served another way? But, coming back to my first sentence, it is, thankfully, still a personal choice.

I've let the U.S. Dept of Energy win out my wonderment if Earthtubes could be any good, especially in comparison to SHCS. Essentially, they say Earth Tubes are not very good.
(grumble grumble, I still want to think about it.)

Unfortunately, I could find nothing on their site for SHCS.

So, I'll grow tomatoes in my unheated solar shed until sometime in December. I'll have arugula, leaf lettuces, parseley and pak bok choi's and carrots in there through February. All of this courtesy of the sun heating my water containers. I use no fossil fuel and my average nights will be between 33 and 45 degrees. In early March, my cole crops will be sprouted indoors and placed in the Shed. The temperatures will stay above freezing in my solar shed all most the entire winter.

My point? If prices of fuel causes you to consider turning down or turning off the heat, why not grow plants that do not need 55 or 60 or 65 degrees? We can adapt.
~tom

"...our food chain has become one no longer based on energy from the sun, but instead has become one based on energy from fossil fuels. On a large scale, fossil fuels are used in the production of fertilizer and the pesticides..."

The advent of "modern agriculture" including the use of pesticides and fertalizers is one of the fundemental principals that have allowed the population explosion on planet earth. If you like living in modern times rather than wandering around in a small group like a stone-aged hunter-gatherer you should consider this to be a very good thing! Anyone who has taken so much as a plant science 101 class at any university would be well aware that mechanization and scientifc progression in agriculture have allowed for every other major advancement in human history. When food is plentiful and readily available you have time to advance medical care, industry, and allow for a generally higher standard of living. Mr. Pollan's masters degree is in English and his livelihood is selling controvercial books that he profits directly from so I can see why he may fail to address this point in his literature.

"...The oranges from my citrus trees are pesticide-free and grown close to the point of consumption (good), but at what cost to myself, the environment, and society?"

If you are worried about society and the environment you might want to re-evaluate your position on pesticides and man-made fertilizers. These 'nasty' chemicals allow the production of more food in a smaller space. This efficiency in food produced per land unit prevents the need to bulldoze more rainforest to plant new fields. Organic farming may seem like a great idea but in reality it does not produce enough food from existing farmland to feed the world's ever-growing population.

sdrawkcab, I agree completely that modern agriculture has enabled the explosion of the human population. As we all know, modern agriculture is enabled by fossil fuels. Some time in the next couple of centuries, fossil fuels will be exhausted. It will then become painfully clear that the bloated human population is a fossil fuel "bubble". It's going to be a very wild ride.

You refer to the world's ever-growing population as if it were an immutable law of physics. I contend that we must reduce population starting now, and not just population growth. The fewer people consuming dwindling resources, the longer those resources will last, and the more gradual will be the changes in our way of life. I couldn't care less about the effect of fewer consumers on the economy. As things presently stand, there will be 430 million Americans in 2050, almost a 50% increase from today. You don't have to be very smart to figure out that this is a recipe for disaster. We are headed towards the cliff with our foot on the accelerator.

Because certain groups feel entitled to have very large families, family planning will have to be mandatory and government enforced, globally. Otherwise you will have the situation that we have today, where conservation in one market simply enables more consumption in other markets.

It is not just fossil fuel that is being depleted; it is everything: water, arable land, fish, minerals, topsoil, you name it. And there is the wild card of global warming. How can we stupidly keep accelerating population growth in the face of these certainties? Maybe we overestimate the intelligence of our species.

"Organic farming may seem like a great idea but in reality it does not produce enough food from existing farmland to feed the world's ever-growing population."

That's not quite as clear cut as you make it seem. There are times and crops that outpace conventional agriculture. Certainly, we may be able to equal the output with a much smarter approach than to blanket spray everything all the time. I am not saying you are wrong, just not completely correct.

Additionally there are methods for farming/greenhouse production that FAR out pace modern agriculture. Take a look at some of the Aquaponics numbers from the University of the Virgin Islands (Google UVI Aquaponics). Again, not saying it's the end all answer, but that the answer is going to include a variety of approaches.

I guess i'm just saying don't throw the greenhouse out with the bathwater.

"There are times and crops that outpace conventional agriculture. Certainly, we may be able to equal the output with a much smarter approach than to blanket spray everything all the time. I am not saying you are wrong, just not completely correct."

Can you provide some examples of crops that can be grown organically and produce higher (or even comperable) yeilds than plants grown with chemicals such as fertalizers and pesticides?

When you say "Blanket spraying everything all the time" I'm not sure what you mean? In real life, farmers don't spray unnessicary chemicals 'just because'. Think about it from the farmers point of view- they have to buy the chemicals, and pay for the labor and equipment to apply those chemicals. Why would they incur all this expense that can not be passed along to the consumer to treat pest or disease problems they are not experiencing? Remember, produce is a comodity; if my tomatoes cost me 65 cents a pound becasue I have so much tied up in all the chemicals I sprayed them with and the farmer down the road is selling his tomatoes for 42 cents a pound because he didn't spray as much, buyers will be purchasing his tomatoes and not mine.

I've done a lot of work with hydroponics in college and in my free time. Aquaponics uses the same basic methods ony with fish providing the bulk of the nutrients for plant growth. Any form of "ponics" can be successful in a lab setting where all variables are monitored and controlled but it will be a while before the deserts of north Africa can be converted to fertile aquaponic farms.

If you are interested in this type of culture, i've attached a few pictures of some of my hydroponic systems:

{{gwi:301205}}

{{gwi:301206}}

{{gwi:301207}}

{{gwi:301208}}

{{gwi:301209}}

{{gwi:301210}}

doesn't 'ponics' rely on electricy and nitrogen based man-made fertilers? Or is the payback so great that is it worth it despite the cost? I'm not being smart, I don't know.
~tom

What a hodge podge. I can't sort out whether people are complaining we are using our natural resources, or destroying the environment.
I hate oil, gas etc. It's all nasty, smelly and dangerous to breathe, burn and touch.
I'm not a greeny, and certainly not worried about carbon footprints, but choose to stay away from the sludge as much as possible. I don't have any fuel on my property except for a 5 gallon can for my chainsaw and small tractor. No oil tank, no propane tank. I just hate chemicals.
I heat with wood, period.
If I have to plug in an electric heater if I'm down with the flu and don't feel like stoking a stove, I will. I couldn't care less about footprint.
People worry too much.
IMHO :-)

Tom,

Quote:doesn't 'ponics' rely on electricy and nitrogen based man-made fertilers?

Yes, most hydroponics systems do use electic pumps and timers to automate the process. There are some systems that do not require a power grid but they are very labor intensive and are not widely used. Most hydroponics also use manufactered chemicals to provide the macro and micro nutrients and manage the pH of the nutrient solution. As with the power, there are folks who are working on so-called "organic" hydro fertalizers but these are not frequently used and have many drawbacks.

Quote:is the payback so great that is it worth it despite the cost?

The main advantage of hydroponics comes from it's ability to recycle the same water and nutrients over and over. Traditional soil based agriculture is thousands of times more efficient than it was 500 years ago but we still waste a lot of water and nutrients through run-off and evaporation. Hydroponics holds great promise in areas like the deserts of northenr Africa where famine is caused by a lack of fresh water for irrigating traditional crops. If the people in arid regions could grow their own food, the quality of living would increase.

There are of course other benefits-

less pest/disease problems because the growing media can be steralized.
grow more in a smaller space becasue roots don't compete for food/water
clean fingernails
no weeds
there is some evidence that hydroponic crops can be higher in nutritional value than soil-grown equivilents
less chance of human disease entering the food supply as the recent tomato scare or the green onions from a few years ago.

There are downfalls as well:
when things go wrong they go wrong fast, you can kill an entire crop in a couple of hours if the pumps don't come on or you mix the nutrients incorrectly.
it is expensive to build/operate hydroponic systems.
Hydroponics requires a better working knowledge of plant physiology and "how plants work".
There is a stigma about hydroponics being 'unnatural' because it is so different than soil-based agriculture.

I hope this answered your questions.

sdrawkcab, thank you for explaining hydroponics. But my one question that wasn't answered fully (because I didn't detail the question properly), is, if peak oil is happening (or happening soon), then will hydroponics be an option if the prices of fertilizer and electricy and the equipment needed, double and then continue to rise in price thereafter?

Why do I get the feeling that hydroponics and organic gardening are opposites?
~tom

http://www.garagetv.be/video-galerij/blancostemrecht/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle_Documentary_Film.aspx

I am so glad that I found this thread, it really hits home with me. I have a small greenhouse that I ceased using years ago because I just didn't feel I could justify the expense of heating it in the winter. As a result, we end up hauling in thousands of pounds of heavy clay pots with ten foot trees in them every winter...difficult to live with the furniture stacked up against the walls for five months out of the year and every thing comes out in the spring at death's door.

The moral dilemma of carbon footprint vs. getting rid of palms, lime trees and ficus trees carefully nurtured for twenty years has been a difficult one. all of the ranting about Al Gore's house really seems beside the point, there will be no alternatives to fossil fuels until new technologies are required, and they will not be required until there is some pain.

Hypocrisy and denial have only served to make the eventual pain felt more...painful in the end. Had we investigated these technologies thirty years ago, as Jimmy Carter had urged, we would not be in our present position. This is not something that can credibly be blamed on developing economies like China or India, for they use the technologies which the first world has developed, to even bring them up is merely a transparent excuse for further delay.

I was reading an article about evacuated tubes using solar warming of water for heating of structures. This sounds ideal for greenhouse culture. Simple, comparatively inexpensive and infinitely renewable without carbon consequence. There is a lot out there, we just need to invest in them and then, someday, we can all get the thousands of pounds of palm trees out of the house without guilt. I am willing to wait a little longer. until then a cold green house will be fine for me. I am heartened that this is on the radar!

It is hard to get anyone to pay attention to dwindling resources when despite massive population gains, the price of fossil fuels and commodities of all kinds have dropped dramatically in price since the summer.

I point to one and only one reason why those prices dropped: worldwide recession. When all economies are buring fuel at growth rates, we will see the prices rise again, and continue to rise.

~tom

Good posts x 2. Thanks, guys.

I was just thinking earlier today about how I could convince my wife to let me build a south-facing pit GH in the backyard. How warm would it be? How wet would it be?

For those who claim the reason oil prices are so high is because of (we are running out of oil) Supply & Demand, read the attached article from 60 Minutes, 01/11/09. It seems those stalwarts of Wall Street who have begged for taxpayer bailouts were making big profits from oil - Morgans-Stanley, AIG, et al. Also, there was a 60 Minutes article several weeks ago about two big oil fields being developed in Saudi Arabia. Please don't tell me about trusting CBS after someone else cited CNN.

tsmith, none of this was news to those sufficiently interested to look into it several years ago. Reading something like the Shock Doctrine by Naomi Wolf might make sense of the revelations you are apparently just now having.

Stressbaby, pit greenhouses really seem to be quite a bit more efficient given you have some slope on your property to allow for drainage. I have a design that I have been playing with which takes advantage of the insulative qualities of the soil which should give me quite a bit of the height I need without all of the insulation necessary for knee walls. South facing with a solid north wall and nearly half height knee walls to the east and west (block masonry painted a dark color or faced with dark red recycled brick). Triple glazing for the clear walls and roof (old french doors sandwiched with plexiglass), with automatic passive vents in the south knee wall and roof peak (knee wall vents composed of standard automatic foundation vents and roof vent cupola (same?)). Heated by circulating water pipes in the gravel floor (for dispersion of heat and humidity), underlain by a cement pad with drainage pipes leading down grade. The one factor missing was a good solar hot water heater system, these evacuated solar tubes just sounded like they would be a perfect fit! I could probably bury the hot water storage tanks behind the back wall so that they would have the soil for insulation as well. Plastic oil drums would probably be sufficient for storage.

I think that they are a neat idea to play with. Probably pretty cheap too with craigslist recycled materials. The most expensive things would be the pad and the tubes. The only ongoing expense seems like an electric pump, probably hooked up to a thermostat, for water circulation!

It doesn't take much more that reading Stressbaby or Birdwidow's posts to want to have a more efficient pit based greenhouse!

The world doesn't seem to want to be economical on reduction of fossil fuels. When we are forced into it, it will be painful, if not chaotic.
~tom

Tom, I wonder if it is so much that they don't want to be economical or they do not have the information/wherewithal with which to make economical choices? The good news is that this economic downturn, used wisely, just might be an opportunity to overcome these problems before the issue of energy reliance on resource poor decision making becomes a cataclysmic issue.

Its ironic that the more energy efficient greenhouses seem to be either homebuilt or heavily modified store bought ones.

Digging a large pit only requires a spade and a strong arm :)

"I contend that we must reduce population starting now, and not just population growth."

Just wondering which group of people you would nominate for depopulation first?

The historical precedents for population reduction have been war, disease, and starvation. Hopefully, we have matured. If we could keep the birth rate below the death rate, population would decrease. This would have to be enforced globally. If we do nothing, in roughly 100 years we will be thinned by war, disease, and starvation. Which would you prefer? We are facing a future in which all resources will be exhausted, at a time when the planet is packed with people. There will be no escape. Remember that I am talking about resource depletion, not global warming. They are completely different issues.

Human population in pre-petroleum 1900 was 1.6 billion; it will soon be 8 billion, an unprecedented rate of growth. The US, whose percapita rate of consumption dwarfs everyone else, is growing its population like a third-world country: 130 million more in 50 years. That's equivalent to 35 more cities with the present population of Los Angeles. Think about that.

It is very, very hard for people to think about scenarios which are outside of their experience base. But we had better learn how to do it. The future will be nothing like the past, not at all. IMHO, of course.

"The US, whose percapita rate of consumption dwarfs everyone else, is growing its population like a third-world country: "

Growing like a third world country, or growing from third world countries? I'm probably imagining it, but it seems like I read somewhere that the US birthrate actually has declined; it's immigration (and I suppose the birthrate of those new immigrants) that's the main cause of our population growth lately.

US native birthrate is right near replacement. The gain in population growth rate is mostly due to immigration (this is not bad per se).

The recent historical precedents for declining birth rate are the following indicators: wealth, female education, overall educational attainment. For 3rd world countries, female education is the key indicator, for the developed world it is wealth.

Nonetheless, despite the clear indicators that our overall population is likely unsustainable, it is morally and ethically important that individuals expend effort to reduce their consumption and resultant footprint, so that others may learn from our example.

Dan

Cut your electricity bill; make your power company pay to you and save the planet from pollution
http://electricity2all.blogspot.com/2013/06/electricity-bill.html