"chris French" wrote in message
...
In message , Pete C
writes
On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 19:33:40 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

Eh? Why not leave the church alone and build your eco house elsewhere,
I bet the church will stand a lot longer!

That building is environmentally a disaster. It will consume far more
energy
than needed. It also looked crap. It looked like a lousily designed
church,
of which I have seen countess better looking churches over the past 25
years
demolished.

More mentalism...

BTW was there a natural gas supply where it was? If not it might
explain the use of a heat pump.

Oil and LPG would be cheaper. The capital cost of the heat pump was
10,000
euros. The extra they paid for a fad would buy a lot of oil.

Was the church a new house build to look like a church or and existing
church?

It was an existing church, on the west coast of Ireland, in Co. Mayo.

Small old stone church, had been burnt out (after a lightening strike,
about 100 years ago. It was very sympathetic restoration. Masons rebuilt
the bell tower (damaged in the strike), Inside was divided up a bit of
course for practical use, but the whole internal structure was pretty
much free-standing (basically wood frame). whatever happens to the
internals the structure will still be there for a few more hundred years
I imagine.

Did it have a lot of thermal mass?

Thick solid stone walls, I should think so :-)

Seeing as the geothermal heat is 'free' (ok electricity is needed for
the heat pump), I can't see what the fuss if it consumes more energy
than needed. and if it pays itself back in 6 years seems good value to
me

10,00 euros. So, 10,000 divided by 6 divided by 52 = 32 per week. That is
416 per quarter. Not cheap at all. It didn't say how they calculated the
payback. So after 6 years it will still cost a fortune to that uninsulated
structure., I saw no insulation in the roof. None whatsoever in the wall.
A total waste of time. and this sort of conversion gobbling energy should be
discouraged.