energy and enviroment (debate)

[jdenyer]

Originally posted by geoexchangeman

Originally posted by jdenyer

Originally posted by nwgasman
It won't happen... unless more hydro or nuke power generation is built. NG is now becoming the fuel of choice for electric generation here in the west and is one of the demand forces that is causing the cost to rise.

As mentioned before, from a macro view, electric transmission loss is very high and doesn't make much sense to use NG to produce electricity. Direct use of NG is preferable.

Until fuel cell technology comes of age, NG is one of the best fuels we have.

Well said nwgasman. Fuels cells would allow on site power and heat generation, but what would fuel the fuel cells? Direct hydrogen is to volatile and explosive. I think we will end up seeing NG, oil and coal gas being run through reformers to give up its hydrogen. Also biodiesel is one way that greenhouse gas emissions could be cut, both in transportation and heating.

geoexchangeman, cost and efficiency are two very different things. How is generating electricity 500 miles away at 60% efficiency, tranporting it and distributing it, loosing another 30% more effiecient than burning it directly on site with an 80% or better efficiency? In the northeast we pay about 12cents a kwh, and $1.79/gallon for oil. For me to use electricity to generate 100,000 btu's it would cost me about $3.63. I could generate 112,000 btus of heat from one gallon of oil costing me $1.79, and that includes losing 20% of it's heat value up the stack. Hmmmm, which form of heat do you think I should use? Geothermal is not accesible in all areas, and on a residential scale would be very cost prohibitive. Sure geothermal would be great to produce electricity, but it alone will not solve our thirst for energy.

I can produce that some 112,000 btus with my GEO exchange unit for $.78 using your electricity prices. You are right GEO alone will not solve our thirst for energy, but it is the best we have for cooling and and heating and couple it with hydro heat using 90% gas fired units is the best we have.

Cool, can I move to where your at Seriously though, energy availability is a regional thing. If GEO was available here at that price people would be using it, provided the equipment was cost competitive with what is already in place. Most people don't want and can't afford a second mortgage just to have heat or have A/C. Here in Maine oil heat is the most common form of heat, due to availability, and a lack of NG infrastructure. There are a couple of oil companies that are starting to sell B-20 which is regular heating oil blended with 20% soy oil. It cost a few cents more a gallon but it's price is more stable. Eventually they will be using 100% soy oil to replace #2 distillate heating oil.

[lonnirat]

Oil, the worlds economic engine, is not going to be with us forever. China in the not to distant future will surpass the United States as the worlds largest consumer of energy. The demand for energy worldwide will only continue to increase as second and third world governments attempt to modernize and compete in a modern global economy. I wonder what will be the state of civilization a 100 years from now.

[jdenyer]

lonnirat

No oil will not be with us forever. There are still vast amounts of oil in the middle east. Kuwait alone sits on a lake of oil, and other Arab nations have massive amounts of oil. How much, well they won't say exactly Natural fuels like soy oil will provide a lot of energy, and petrochemicals can be gotten from corn waste. Any petrochemical that comes from oil can be had from corn waste. Over the next several decades there will be a lot of new energy sources explored, some will prosper and others will fail. China will eventually need to start using cleaner burning technologies, otherwise it's people will suffocate in smog. Within the next 10 years or so China will be relying more on nuclear energy to meet it's vast energy needs.

[pstu]

Gotta thank Geo for starting this thread. His original proposition is pretty bold and I don't yet agree, but it's got me to thinking that eventually he might be right. Except for that "regardless of cost" thing, capital cost will always be important. Money is money.

The old familiar NATURAL GAS (NG) is poised to take over as the energy leader. It's not utopian but has solid advantages over oil and coal as a BTU source. It's about time we stop thinking of *oil* as the main energy source, and start recognizing that gas is the fossil fuel for the near-to-mid future. Again, it's a fossil fuel and will *someday* be as tough to discover and deliver as oil is getting today. But that day is at least a couple decades off, and that makes it a prudent solution for now.

Canada, the US and Mexico (North America) have no surplus of NG and our prices right now are high because there is little global supply. Transportation is the reason, at $2.00 price there was too little incentive to build LNG facilities but at $5.00 or higher it's go-time. If the oil market were local and not global, we would not be using nearly the oil we are today. Making a global market allows us to buy huge amounts of oil that we need today, making a global market in NG will do the same.

At today's energy prices every alternative energy source will expand to a higher market share if it is at all feasible. Wind seems one of today's leaders, the bird-killing thing is 1) overblown and 2) yesterday's news. Recent designs mitigate bird deaths a whole lot, and if the problem is small enough we don't really care. Try to guess what is the biggest human killer of birds today... surprise, it's cars and trucks! Yet no normal person is going to argue we should get rid of cars and trucks just because a few birds accidentally get killed from them. Same with wind power, it will be a minor problem.

I like nukes myself, with their heat-removing ponds they enhance wildlife and don't kill it. I'm partial to American nuclear plant designs, don't bother to even mention the Russian ones. Maybe the Canadian and West Europe designs too.

Regards -- P.Student

[paul42]

There are some natural limits to the cost of fuel oil. We aren't all that far from hitting them. Small plants have been built that can produce fuel oil from biomass (garbage) at about $70 a barrel.

[geoexchangeman]

Originally posted by jdenyer

Originally posted by geoexchangeman

Originally posted by jdenyer

Originally posted by nwgasman
It won't happen... unless more hydro or nuke power generation is built. NG is now becoming the fuel of choice for electric generation here in the west and is one of the demand forces that is causing the cost to rise.

As mentioned before, from a macro view, electric transmission loss is very high and doesn't make much sense to use NG to produce electricity. Direct use of NG is preferable.

Until fuel cell technology comes of age, NG is one of the best fuels we have.

Well said nwgasman. Fuels cells would allow on site power and heat generation, but what would fuel the fuel cells? Direct hydrogen is to volatile and explosive. I think we will end up seeing NG, oil and coal gas being run through reformers to give up its hydrogen. Also biodiesel is one way that greenhouse gas emissions could be cut, both in transportation and heating.

geoexchangeman, cost and efficiency are two very different things. How is generating electricity 500 miles away at 60% efficiency, tranporting it and distributing it, loosing another 30% more effiecient than burning it directly on site with an 80% or better efficiency? In the northeast we pay about 12cents a kwh, and $1.79/gallon for oil. For me to use electricity to generate 100,000 btu's it would cost me about $3.63. I could generate 112,000 btus of heat from one gallon of oil costing me $1.79, and that includes losing 20% of it's heat value up the stack. Hmmmm, which form of heat do you think I should use? Geothermal is not accesible in all areas, and on a residential scale would be very cost prohibitive. Sure geothermal would be great to produce electricity, but it alone will not solve our thirst for energy.

I can produce that some 112,000 btus with my GEO exchange unit for $.78 using your electricity prices. You are right GEO alone will not solve our thirst for energy, but it is the best we have for cooling and and heating and couple it with hydro heat using 90% gas fired units is the best we have.

Cool, can I move to where your at Seriously though, energy availability is a regional thing. If GEO was available here at that price people would be using it, provided the equipment was cost competitive with what is already in place. Most people don't want and can't afford a second mortgage just to have heat or have A/C. Here in Maine oil heat is the most common form of heat, due to availability, and a lack of NG infrastructure. There are a couple of oil companies that are starting to sell B-20 which is regular heating oil blended with 20% soy oil. It cost a few cents more a gallon but it's price is more stable. Eventually they will be using 100% soy oil to replace #2 distillate heating oil.

I did use your electricity prices with that calculation. My electricity rate is $.09. And I have Geoexchange with hydronic backup, this makes the duel fuel system. Dominion Power and Virginia power gives me a reduced price for high efficeint duel fuel systems from November to March of $.05 Per kwh so I am producing that 11200 BTU for $.33. Hey Come on down. Bring some Lobster when you come.

[Edited by geoexchangeman on 03-16-2005 at 11:07 AM]

[pstu]

Geo, I re-read your first post and want to approach from a different angle:

>>I believe it is always better for the environment and energy to use
>>heat transfer to heat home regardless of the upfront cost.

Are you only thinking about heating? Are you ignoring cooling? What if anything would you intend to do about humidity removal in a hot-humid climate?

Still think you should regret saying upfront cost does not affect the end conclusion. Nuclear power plants have always had very low fuel costs, fairly good operating and maintenance (O&M) costs, it's the capital cost which has in the past made it such a high price electricity source. In every case that capital cost must be paid off by the end of the plant life. With both nuclear plants and geothermal heating/cooling, the upfront cost is an item which deserves to be amortized over the life of the system.

Regards -- P.Student

[schmuck]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by perpetual_student
[B]

Are you only thinking about heating? Are you ignoring cooling? What if anything would you intend to do about humidity removal in a hot-humid climate?



Perp, Im not sure what you are asking here. You size Geo units by the latent and sensible heat cooling loads just like you would any other system. Just add back up heat in areas where it wont produce enough heat. Just as you would with an ASHP. Only difference is you are using a different heat transfer medium instead of air. Schmuck

[Edited by schmuck on 03-16-2005 at 12:17 PM]

[pstu]

I was trying to return to the idea that what we need is a healthy house, not tiny monthly bills. Geo did not originally mention either cooling or humidity control in his original post, which made me think these are unimportant to him.

That may be well and good in the North where you need heating, you don't need much cooling, and humidity control means *adding* humidity rather than removing it. The pitfall is that the "best" system for energy efficiency can be actually horrible for a healthy house, especially in a hot-humid climate.

In an ideal world, you would have previously done enough calculation and science that you know in advance how much latent and sensible capacity is needed. Would you be willing to believe even a quarter of all installs are done that way? What I am saying is connecting a theroretical question to the real world, is usually a good thing. Hence the worries that cooling and humidity control are being neglected.

Stepping back for a moment, it would be best of all for the environment (and energy) if we did no heating or cooling whatsoever. To say that moving BTUs around via heat pump, is inherently better than burning a fuel, is an interesting proposition but I'm not ready to agree.

Best wishes -- P.Student

[Edited by perpetual_student on 03-16-2005 at 01:38 PM]

[jdenyer]

Originally posted by perpetual_student

Stepping back for a moment, it would be best of all for the environment (and energy) if we did no heating or cooling whatsoever. To say that moving BTUs around via heat pump, is inherently better than burning a fuel, is an interesting proposition but I'm not ready to agree.

Best wishes -- P.Student

[Edited by perpetual_student on 03-16-2005 at 01:38 PM]

Heating and cooling have become a necessity to modern life. We use and waste far more energy in the transportation sector. Think about this for a minute, driving one person around in a 8000 pound SUV getting 12 miles/gallon? I'm not against SUV's at all, just their wasteful low gas mileage. Congress should grow some b#lls and double the fuel economy standard to 40mpg, for any vehicle, how the auto manufacturers achieve that is their bussiness. Every other energy using industry has embraced efficiency with open arms, the auto industry needs to get with the times. The argument has been made that Americans will loose jobs if they raise the fuel economy standard. Well if American auto makers won't make fuel efficient vehicles, foreign auto makers will, and with gas over $2 a gallon they will flood the U.S. market, now that is gonna cost American jobs.

[schmuck]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by perpetual_student
[B]I was trying to return to the idea that what we need is a healthy house, not tiny monthly bills. Geo did not originally mention either cooling or humidity control in his original post, which made me think these are unimportant to him.

That may be well and good in the North where you need heating, you don't need much cooling, and humidity control means *adding* humidity rather than removing it. The pitfall is that the "best" system for energy efficiency can be actually horrible for a healthy house, especially in a hot-humid climate.

Thats absurd. A Geothermal unit removes humidity just like any other unit would. The indoor coil removes it as humidity condenses on it. Do you know what a Geothermal unit is and how it works?

[Edited by schmuck on 03-16-2005 at 04:16 PM]

[paul42]

sometimes you need humidity control without the cooling. Geothermal doesn't solve that problem by itself and is not the answer to all problems.

[schmuck]

If that were the case you would need other means of controlling humidity regardless of what kind of unit you have. I never said you could solve all your problems using Geo. I said that Geo works just like any other unit as far as the refrigeration cycle goes. Only difference is your transfer medium.

[paul42]

Originally posted by schmuck
If that were the case you would need other means of controlling humidity regardless of what kind of unit you have. I never said you could solve all your problems using Geo. I said that Geo works just like any other unit as far as the refrigeration cycle goes. Only difference is your transfer medium.

It isn't that simple. For example, there are several air systems that have dual compressors to let you run at a lower capacity when that makes sense. I have not seen a Geo system (yet) with that feature. The dual compressor air system can do a better job of humidity removal than a Geo system and on the smaller compressor they are extremely efficient.

Another factor is that it is hard enough to find a decent installer without limiting myself to only those that know how to do Geo and that is very limiting.

[pstu]

Can anyone document the idea that geothermal equipment removes humidity as well as conventional AC equipment? The thing I suspect is that geo equipment in particular, will use a less-cold coil (i.e. "lower Delta-T") in AC mode than will for example, a Carrier Infinity system. Using a lower Delta-T is one way to get higher EER and SEER -- because those measurements pay no respect to humidity removal. Inferior humidity control is one of the things that I would always suspect of an extra-higher EER number.

If indeed any system uses lower Delta-T to get that last point or two of EER, they have artificially scored a big advertising number at the expense of compromising humidity removal. In some climates that is OK, in a hot-humid climate that is a very bad trade-off.

If you could show me some literature with numbers to testify your favorite geo system excels at humidity removal, that would ease my concerns. Bet nobody can<g>.

I do believe somebody asked me if I even know what a geothermal heat pump is. I do. I would like to ask that person, do you even have an awareness of humidity problems in houses? Do you know the difference between a humidifier and a de-humidifier, and understand why I am concerned about one and not the other?

Regards -- P.Student


[Edited by perpetual_student on 03-16-2005 at 06:38 PM]

[geoexchangeman]

Originally posted by perpetual_student
Geo, I re-read your first post and want to approach from a different angle:

>>I believe it is always better for the environment and energy to use
>>heat transfer to heat home regardless of the upfront cost.

Are you only thinking about heating? Are you ignoring cooling? What if anything would you intend to do about humidity removal in a hot-humid climate?

Still think you should regret saying upfront cost does not affect the end conclusion. Nuclear power plants have always had very low fuel costs, fairly good operating and maintenance (O&M) costs, it's the capital cost which has in the past made it such a high price electricity source. In every case that capital cost must be paid off by the end of the plant life. With both nuclear plants and geothermal heating/cooling, the upfront cost is an item which deserves to be amortized over the life of the system.

Regards -- P.Student

I beleive Geoexchange systems always pay for themselves. They love what they do and keep on doing it for years. I have systems installed it the early 1970s and still work as good today as they did then. I have had no trouble with humidity problems. I would run the Evap. fan on a slower speed if I did.

[geoexchangeman]

Originally posted by perpetual_student
Can anyone document the idea that geothermal equipment removes humidity as well as conventional AC equipment? The thing I suspect is that geo equipment in particular, will use a less-cold coil (i.e. "lower Delta-T") in AC mode than will for example, a Carrier Infinity system. Using a lower Delta-T is one way to get higher EER and SEER -- because those measurements pay no respect to humidity removal. Inferior humidity control is one of the things that I would always suspect of an extra-higher EER number.

If indeed any system uses lower Delta-T to get that last point or two of EER, they have artificially scored a big advertising number at the expense of compromising humidity removal. In some climates that is OK, in a hot-humid climate that is a very bad trade-off.

If you could show me some literature with numbers to testify your favorite geo system excels at humidity removal, that would ease my concerns. Bet nobody can<g>.

I do believe somebody asked me if I even know what a geothermal heat pump is. I do. I would like to ask that person, do you even have an awareness of humidity problems in houses? Do you know the difference between a humidifier and a de-humidifier, and understand why I am concerned about one and not the other?

Regards -- P.Student


[Edited by perpetual_student on 03-16-2005 at 06:38 PM]

I have a 32000 Square foot building on a college Campus that has a number of duel compressor units in it. They share a closed geothermo loop field. No problem with humidity they are located in NC. Mabe some one in Ga or FL has problems, If so the units are over sized or they need to change the fan speed to change the delta T for more Humitiy control.

[schmuck]

Geo, It sounds like you know what you are talking about and are very "On top of things". I guess people are just having a hard time trying to justify the cost of these installations. If they would just install one in their own house and see for themselves they would be sold on it as well.

[billygoat22]

I think poo richard's almanac had something to say on this a good while back:

Waste not, want not" or as Moma used to say "turn off the light, you're wasting electricity"

There's something we can agree on now, and the technology is there to save energy and extend the life of resources. When people won't insulate energy hog houses and make 5 trips a week to the corner store in their explorers, all the technology in the world won't make up for gross waste.

[Shophound]

Originally posted by perpetual_student
Can anyone document the idea that geothermal equipment removes humidity as well as conventional AC equipment? The thing I suspect is that geo equipment in particular, will use a less-cold coil (i.e. "lower Delta-T") in AC mode than will for example, a Carrier Infinity system. Using a lower Delta-T is one way to get higher EER and SEER -- because those measurements pay no respect to humidity removal. Inferior humidity control is one of the things that I would always suspect of an extra-higher EER number.

If indeed any system uses lower Delta-T to get that last point or two of EER, they have artificially scored a big advertising number at the expense of compromising humidity removal. In some climates that is OK, in a hot-humid climate that is a very bad trade-off.

Regards -- P.Student


[Edited by perpetual_student on 03-16-2005 at 06:38 PM]

I don't have much experience with geothermal or ground loop heat pump systems, so I'm just offering my opinion. Which is if the geothermal heat pump is sized properly for the structure's heat gain and loss load, it'll do fine. Geothermal's main advantage is a more consistent heat exchange medium (the ground) than air, which varies with ambient temperature. Ground temperatures do swing but not nearly as wide or at the same rate as air, obviously.

So, on a hot, humid day, when both sensible and latent heat loads are high, the ground source unit could, let's say, be set to maintain a steady condensing temperature of 110 degrees, whereas an air coold unit might be experiencing condensing temperatures on the same day somewhere closer to 130 degrees. Effectively, the geothermal unit will have more latent and sensible heat removal capacity under the same conditions than the air cooled unit.

The main drawback, IMO, of geothermal loops is the added cost of the loops and the additional maintenance factor of the loop if water is used. Of course, air cooled units also must have their outdoor coils cleaned regularly to maintain performance, but this is likely an easier maintenance item than a drain, flush, and fill of a loop.

If the geothermal OEM is trying to maintain a lower compression ratio by keeping the evap a tad warmer - hence a "lower Delta T" - (combined with reduced head pressure), then he's likely done the math to have the unit BTU rated at that evap temp to keep the building properly cooled and dehumidified.

Even a builder model 10 SEER piston flowrater system will dehumidify adequately if it and the ductwork are sized and installed properly for the expected sensible and latent heat loads of the building. It just won't be as efficient or precise. The variable speed, TXV equipped, modulating systems do the same thing with more finesse and less energy.