"Rob Halgren" wrote in message
...
Ted Byers wrote:


Now wait a minute Rob. Aren't you more than a thousand miles from the
nearest tundra? ;-) I'd be surprised if Michigan got much colder than
central Ontario. Neither of us tries to cram spring, summer and fall
into
July and August, as happens in Churchill which, IIRC, has the tundra
nearest
to you.

No, but Wendy thought it was cold up here. I think it is pretty
pleasant. Think London, ON as a suitable meteorological substitute.
Actually I'm in USDA zone 5 (well, maybe 4.5). We think it is pretty
warm here compared to much of the northern US, and we do have two very
big heat sinks to either side (Lake Michigan and Huron). Of course it
is a bit cloudy for most of the winter, which doesn't help.

Yup. We're USDA zone 5 here, perhaps near the boundary between USDA zone 5
and USDA zone 4, about a two hour drive to the northeast of London, most of
southern Ontario is USDA zone 5 or warmer. There are remnants of Carolinian
forest as far north as London. This forest is made up of trees that are
common in the Carolinas! I'd agree it is quite pleasant here. I'm not sure
about London, though, as it seems to get more freezing rain than most parts
of southern Ontario. I couldn't begin to explain why.

You could say we share a mild temperate climate.

Had a friend who's husband went to one of the Artic islands
(Victoria?) in June to do some work on stabilizing fuel for winter. To
repeat, in June. I guess winter starts in late July up there. Sheesh.

Well, not quite. Winter that far north would start in late August and end
in early July, and summer would not really happen, unless what would be a
cool spring day here counts as summer. ;-) But there is some interesting
ecology up there, both on the tundra and in the water. The marine
environment up there is especially rich!

One of the things I'd look at is the potential for passive heating as a
supplementary source of heat. A certain amount of heat will enter the
greenhouse, and if you have rain barrels, full of water painted black,
and
sitting in the sun, they will absorb a certain amount of energy. The
other
thing I'd look at is the potential for using a wood burning stove. I
know
my sister and her family save a bundle using one to heat their home. I
would suppose that similar potential exists for heating a greenhouse.


I have trouble keeping enough wood split for indoors... But it
might be an interesting solution as a backup heater in the greenhouse.
That is why we have a woodstove inside the house, and it comes in darn
handy when the power is out (like last Thursday), or the furnace conks
out (all last spring). I'm planning on spending several extra dollars
to maximize solar gain, including water barrels and insulating the
foundation. Every penny spent in construction comes back as dollars on
the heating bill. I'm also dreaming a bit about a solar electrical
backup system (a few panels and a battery bank, to be expanded as funds
permit). It seems a shame to waste all those photons that fall on the
barn roof.

Hah!! A man after my own heart. :-) I am very interested in solar
energy too. And wind energy! And Susan's idea of building it half
underground is a great one too. Earth is a great insulator and heat sink.
The annual variation in temperature decreases considerably as one goes
deeper, and below about one metre, or so, at our latitude, it is quite
modest and at no time does temperature at that depth get close to freezing.

Here is yet another idea to consider. In thinking about using water to help
with passive heating, it occured to me that there are few materials that
have as high a heat capacity as does water, and at our latitude and with our
winters, humidity is often a problem, so why not kill three birds with one
stone and put in in-ground swimming pool underneath the greenhouse? It
might be costly to put in, but, for the family it provides some recreation,
the air above it is likely to be close to 100%RH amost all of the time, and
you'd have a massive heat sink. But you also have an advantage in that,
with your knowledge of biology, you could set it up so that the use of
chemicals could be avoided. You could, for example, have a sandy bottom,
and maintain some cyprinids and clams. The clams are filter feeders and
will keep algae from reaching problematic densities. There are some carp
that do the same, except that they're not as effective as clams (but then,
some clams need fish to serve as a host for their larvae). And, you'd have
a great indoor environment for a potentially amazing water garden. The
principle limitation would be the cost of figuring out how best to suspend
the plants in the greenhouse, and how to have a transparent walkway, in such
a way as to get as much light into the water as possible (while not
restricting air flow from the surface of the water to the top of the
greenhouse, perhaps aided with fans), and how to do it all in such a way as
to make it a pleasant environment for recreation. There remains, of course,
the question of whether or not this last idea is cost effective, but I'll
worry about that after I figure out how to do it. I am sure a little
creative thought would end in a relatively inexpensive way to do it. Maybe
not as inexpensive to build as other options, but perhaps much cheaper in
terms of operating expenses. I am reminded of two of the pools at the
athletic centre at the U. of T. There, on the west side of the building are
a couple swimming pools under glass, and the pools are a good two to three
metres below ground level while the glass rose to several metres above
ground. That room was always humid. All that was missing was a means to
suspend plants and a means to get at them. I'm sure, though, that they did
that to create a pleasant, bright environment for various competitions, rath
er than for the sake of energy efficiency or a desire to create a humid
environment.

Wife thinks this is cheaper than a tractor... Hah!! I tricked her
by asking for the cheapest thing first.

Now that is probably something I would not have put in writing! ;-) After
all, somebody might send it by email to her, or if she is curious about how
you spend your time on the web, she might do a search on your name and find
it that way. If she does, you might be sharing accomodation with your
favourite pet for a while. ;-) You do have a dog, don't you? ;-) It
would be bad if she sent you to the dog house and you didn't have one to go
to. ;-) And somehow I don't think practicing our convenient hearing would
work. ;-)

Cheers,

Ted