consider it part of the geomorphological lore of blatchford

Bodies of water that manage not to be highly eutrophic around here tend to be reservoirs or very deep relative to their surface area. Naturally oligotrophic lakes in Alberta tend to occur more towards the mountains because having a rocky lakebed and being fed by rivers with rocky beds helps immensely.

I kind of like that our drainage pond looks a lot more like the kind of slough you get in hummocky moraine topography than a water hazard on a golf course or a farmer's dugout. But unfortunately eutrophication is a rather authentic aspect.
 
There's still no building permit issued for the EcoDen build, but there's some equipment on-site now. I wonder if the city told them to expect a permit soon?
20250830_161034.jpg
 
According to Taproot:
  • Administration plans to prepare amendments that will limit developers from opting out of connecting their homes to Blatchford’s district energy sharing system. Builders can currently choose not to connect to the city-owned system if they prove that the housing they are building is net zero. But the exemption process has generated operational and financial challenges for the utility, said a report that will be presented to council’s utility committee on Sept. 2. Administration will prepare an amendment that limits any further exemptions, and council will vote on the amendment in the fall.
In other words no more NetZero homes of any type for Blatchford. As I see it, all DEC homes will therefore experience utility costs “no more than the average for typical homes” on a rolling basis. Which makes the DEC homes more expensive to live in than comparable new homes elsewhere in the city.
 
According to Taproot:
  • Administration plans to prepare amendments that will limit developers from opting out of connecting their homes to Blatchford’s district energy sharing system. Builders can currently choose not to connect to the city-owned system if they prove that the housing they are building is net zero. But the exemption process has generated operational and financial challenges for the utility, said a report that will be presented to council’s utility committee on Sept. 2. Administration will prepare an amendment that limits any further exemptions, and council will vote on the amendment in the fall.
In other words no more NetZero homes of any type for Blatchford. As I see it, all DEC homes will therefore experience utility costs “no more than the average for typical homes” on a rolling basis. Which makes the DEC homes more expensive to live in than comparable new homes elsewhere in the city.
Why would this mean no more net zero homes? Wouldn’t a home connected to the district energy system with sufficient solar be pretty much net zero?
 
Why would this mean no more net zero homes? Wouldn’t a home connected to the district energy system with sufficient solar be pretty much net zero?
The report going to Council says Blatchford planned to have 5% of the homes in Blatchford being net zero and that they would be exempt from having to connect to the DEC. That exemption will no longer be available as they’ve already apparently reached that limit with one of the current builders.

As I understand it there are two things happening here. A net zero home is one where it generates as much energy for the grid as it consumes from the grid. It both buys and sells that energy and actually has the potential to earn more money than it spends, not simply break even over the course of a year. The utility savings are sufficient to capitalize the additional capital costs.

Without the exemption, all homes will need to incur the additional capital costs of connecting to the DEC and meeting their standards for in-home mechanical connections and equipment. The mandate from DEC is two fold. Other than the initial capital investment, it will operate on a break even basis from the city’s perspective and costs to the homeowner will be less than the average annualized costs for homeowners elsewhere in the city. Again, as I understand it, that’s the actual cost, not the cost per unit. So even if consumption is considerably less than that of those typical homes elsewhere, Blatchford homeowners may not actually end up saving any money.

The DEC system they’re part of may be “net zero” in regard to its non-consumption off grid utilities but that won’t be the equivalent of living in a net zero home with net zero utility costs. They may well feel good about what they’re buying every month but they won’t be as well off financially as someone in a net zero home.

I’d be happy to be wrong but if I am, why would anyone choose to build or purchase a net zero home in Blatchford (because it’s economically advantageous compared to DEC?), why would the city have capped the number of them in Blatchford and why are they proceeding to enforce that number by eliminating the exemption?
 
The report going to Council says Blatchford planned to have 5% of the homes in Blatchford being net zero and that they would be exempt from having to connect to the DEC. That exemption will no longer be available as they’ve already apparently reached that limit with one of the current builders.

As I understand it there are two things happening here. A net zero home is one where it generates as much energy for the grid as it consumes from the grid. It both buys and sells that energy and actually has the potential to earn more money than it spends, not simply break even over the course of a year. The utility savings are sufficient to capitalize the additional capital costs.

Without the exemption, all homes will need to incur the additional capital costs of connecting to the DEC and meeting their standards for in-home mechanical connections and equipment. The mandate from DEC is two fold. Other than the initial capital investment, it will operate on a break even basis from the city’s perspective and costs to the homeowner will be less than the average annualized costs for homeowners elsewhere in the city. Again, as I understand it, that’s the actual cost, not the cost per unit. So even if consumption is considerably less than that of those typical homes elsewhere, Blatchford homeowners may not actually end up saving any money.

The DEC system they’re part of may be “net zero” in regard to its non-consumption off grid utilities but that won’t be the equivalent of living in a net zero home with net zero utility costs. They may well feel good about what they’re buying every month but they won’t be as well off financially as someone in a net zero home.

I’d be happy to be wrong but if I am, why would anyone choose to build or purchase a net zero home in Blatchford (because it’s economically advantageous compared to DEC?), why would the city have capped the number of them in Blatchford and why are they proceeding to enforce that number by eliminating the exemption?

Net Zero homes in Alberta cannot generate a surplus. Utilities regulations.

Also I thought the DEC was powered by renewables & alternative energy sources?
 
Net Zero homes in Alberta cannot generate a surplus. Utilities regulations.

Also I thought the DEC was powered by renewables & alternative energy sources?
The DEC is currently powered by a geo-exchange field; 150 boreholes drilled 500m down under the storm pond. The future energy centres will either use geo-exchange, or sewer heat exchange. There's a backup natural gas system for peak summer/winter demand, but so far not has not been used.
 
^ ^^
My concern isn't how the DEC is powered, it's that it appears the homeowners in Blatchford are now effectively paying for it twice. They're paying for the capital costs in their purchase price and for its output regardless of whether they need that output or not.
 
Net Zero homes in Alberta cannot generate a surplus. Utilities regulations.

Also I thought the DEC was powered by renewables & alternative energy sources?
That may be the case currently but I'm not sure as power generation for the grid becomes scarcer that it will stay the case. If anything, I would think we will get to the point where microgeneration will be encouraged, not discouraged.
 
That may be the case currently but I'm not sure as power generation for the grid becomes scarcer that it will stay the case.
One can hope. Solar providers have been asking for it for years, and the AUC barely understands their own policy/enforcement of the microgen regulation. Might be stagnant on policy amendments today because of the oil lobby.

I asked the GoA about it a while back, and the main concern was about the capacity constraints of transformers, and that maxing out the grid (lol) would disproportionately benefit some microgen homes while blocking other neighbors from installing solar/alternative energies. Nonsensical.
 

Back
Top