We live in a six-unit coop apartment building with an oil-fired boiler which
supplies radiator heat throughout the building.

We installed a new boiler in 2006 at a cost of $28,000. At the time we
considered switching from oil to gas, but were told that we likely would
have to run new gas supply lines from the street to the building, and this
could cost as much as $20,000. So we opted to continue with oil.

Based on current prices, gas costs only about half as much as oil to produce
the same heat. So we are reconsidering switching to gas.

Leaving aside the cost of installing new gas-supply lines, can anyone give
me a ballpark figure on how much it would cost to switch the new furnace
from oil to gas? Or possibly even have a dual supply system so that we could
switch to gas or oil depending upon the costs at a given time?

Ray wrote:
We live in a six-unit coop apartment building with an oil-fired boiler which
supplies radiator heat throughout the building.
....
Leaving aside the cost of installing new gas-supply lines, can anyone give
me a ballpark figure on how much it would cost to switch the new furnace
from oil to gas? Or possibly even have a dual supply system so that we could
switch to gas or oil depending upon the costs at a given time?

The installer of the boiler, perhaps???

--

On May 8, 11:14 am, "Ray" wrote:
We live in a six-unit coop apartment building with an oil-fired boiler which
supplies radiator heat throughout the building.

In STL, or Manhattan?

We installed a new boiler in 2006 at a cost of $28,000. At the time we
considered switching from oil to gas, but were told that we likely would
have to run new gas supply lines from the street to the building, and this
could cost as much as $20,000.

Well, I wouldn't ask that guy again.

How far is the street?

So we opted to continue with oil.

Leaving aside the cost of installing new gas-supply lines, can anyone give
me a ballpark figure on how much it would cost to switch the new furnace
from oil to gas?

WAG... as much as a new gas furnace of similar output. Or, you could
check one of the auction sites, if you're of that persuasion. The
market is flooded with everything from a-z, mostly commercial and
industrial grade stuff as smaller businesses are giving up and larger
ones continue to downsize.

Or possibly even have a dual supply system so that we could
switch to gas or oil depending upon the costs at a given time?

Or availability. I like the idea. Here, I don't have that kind of
space.

In MT though, I use (free) wood with propane backup. I wonder how
long it might be before more oil users start to consider wood...
Damn!
-----

- gpsman

On May 8, 10:14*am, "Ray" wrote:
We live in a six-unit coop apartment building with an oil-fired boiler which
supplies radiator heat throughout the building.

We installed a new boiler in 2006 at a cost of $28,000. At the time we
considered switching from oil to gas, but were told that we likely would
have to run new gas supply lines from the street to the building, and this
could cost as much as $20,000. So we opted to continue with oil.

Based on current prices, gas costs only about half as much as oil to produce
the same heat. So we are reconsidering switching to gas.

Leaving aside the cost of installing new gas-supply lines, can anyone give
me a ballpark figure on how much it would cost to switch the new furnace
from oil to gas? Or possibly even have a dual supply system so that we could
switch to gas or oil depending upon the costs at a given time?

20000 to run a gas line? the gas co might do it free, and all you will
need is the indoor line and a new burner with controls.

"Ray" wrote in message
news:eNEUj.638$Hh.556@trndny09...
We live in a six-unit coop apartment building with an oil-fired boiler which
supplies radiator heat throughout the building.

We installed a new boiler in 2006 at a cost of $28,000. At the time we
considered switching from oil to gas, but were told that we likely would have
to run new gas supply lines from the street to the building, and this could
cost as much as $20,000. So we opted to continue with oil.

My gas company was happy to run the line free if I heated the house and water
with it.

On Thu, 08 May 2008 15:14:18 GMT, "Ray"
wrote:

We live in a six-unit coop apartment building with an oil-fired boiler which
supplies radiator heat throughout the building.

We installed a new boiler in 2006 at a cost of $28,000. At the time we
considered switching from oil to gas, but were told that we likely would
have to run new gas supply lines from the street to the building, and this
could cost as much as $20,000. So we opted to continue with oil.

Based on current prices, gas costs only about half as much as oil to produce
the same heat. So we are reconsidering switching to gas.

Leaving aside the cost of installing new gas-supply lines, can anyone give
me a ballpark figure on how much it would cost to switch the new furnace
from oil to gas? Or possibly even have a dual supply system so that we could
switch to gas or oil depending upon the costs at a given time?

My residential boiler is certified for both oil and natural gas and I
chose this particular model for this reason. I'm told that all they
have to do is replace the current burner head with the equivalent gas
version. Perhaps this is possible for you too.

Cheers,
Paul

On May 8, 10:14*am, "Ray" wrote:
We live in a six-unit coop apartment building with an oil-fired boiler which
supplies radiator heat throughout the building.

We installed a new boiler in 2006 at a cost of $28,000. At the time we
considered switching from oil to gas, but were told that we likely would
have to run new gas supply lines from the street to the building, and this
could cost as much as $20,000. So we opted to continue with oil.

Based on current prices, gas costs only about half as much as oil to produce
the same heat. So we are reconsidering switching to gas.

Leaving aside the cost of installing new gas-supply lines, can anyone give
me a ballpark figure on how much it would cost to switch the new furnace
from oil to gas? Or possibly even have a dual supply system so that we could
switch to gas or oil depending upon the costs at a given time?

Our gas company (Central Illinois) only charges for new lines for the
amount more than 60 feet. Check your supplier for similar fees.

Joe

"Ray" wrote in message
news:eNEUj.638$Hh.556@trndny09...
We live in a six-unit coop apartment building with an oil-fired boiler
which supplies radiator heat throughout the building.

We installed a new boiler in 2006 at a cost of $28,000. At the time we
considered switching from oil to gas, but were told that we likely would
have to run new gas supply lines from the street to the building, and this
could cost as much as $20,000. So we opted to continue with oil.

Based on current prices, gas costs only about half as much as oil to
produce the same heat. So we are reconsidering switching to gas.

Leaving aside the cost of installing new gas-supply lines, can anyone give
me a ballpark figure on how much it would cost to switch the new furnace
from oil to gas? Or possibly even have a dual supply system so that we
could switch to gas or oil depending upon the costs at a given time?

The boiler installer should be able to give you a close estimate on the
phone. The burner head and some controls have to be replaced. When figuring
in the cost difference, include the lower maintenance costs too. Gas burns
much cleaner so you save a few hundred bucks a year there too.

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

"Ray" wrote in message
news:eNEUj.638$Hh.556@trndny09...
We live in a six-unit coop apartment building with an oil-fired boiler
which supplies radiator heat throughout the building.

We installed a new boiler in 2006 at a cost of $28,000. At the time we
considered switching from oil to gas, but were told that we likely would
have to run new gas supply lines from the street to the building, and this
could cost as much as $20,000. So we opted to continue with oil.

Based on current prices, gas costs only about half as much as oil to
produce the same heat. So we are reconsidering switching to gas.

Leaving aside the cost of installing new gas-supply lines, can anyone give
me a ballpark figure on how much it would cost to switch the new furnace
from oil to gas? Or possibly even have a dual supply system so that we
could switch to gas or oil depending upon the costs at a given time?

The boiler installer should be able to give you a close estimate on the
phone. The burner head and some controls have to be replaced. When figuring
in the cost difference, include the lower maintenance costs too. Gas burns
much cleaner so you save a few hundred bucks a year there too.

You aren't suggesting that they can skip the annual service on the
boiler are you??? Gas may not need to have a nozzle and filter changed
like oil, but it certainly needs an annual service just like oil,
particularly for a commercial sized unit like the OP has. The cost of
that annual service isn't going to be any different since a nozzle and
filter account for about $10 worth of materials.

"Pete C." wrote in message
You aren't suggesting that they can skip the annual service on the
boiler are you??? Gas may not need to have a nozzle and filter changed
like oil, but it certainly needs an annual service just like oil,
particularly for a commercial sized unit like the OP has. The cost of
that annual service isn't going to be any different since a nozzle and
filter account for about $10 worth of materials.

We run two 125 HP boilers fired with gas. They are checked for efficiency
every two months. We are, in fact, putting on controls at $45,000 to gain
just 2% in efficiency. They get opened and cleaned once a year and the fire
side gets a quick brushing. Takes one person about an hour

We used to run a smaller (40 HP) oil fired boiler. It had to be opened
every three months and it took two men about 4 hours to clean, vacuum,
dispose of the soot, dispose of their now filthy coveralls, breathing
apparatus, and then another hour to clean up the boiler room.

Now you say the cost of annual service is not going to be different?

On May 9, 4:54 am, "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:
"Pete C." wrote in message
You aren't suggesting that they can skip the annual service on the
boiler are you??? Gas may not need to have a nozzle and filter changed
like oil, but it certainly needs an annual service just like oil,
particularly for a commercial sized unit like the OP has. The cost of
that annual service isn't going to be any different since a nozzle and
filter account for about $10 worth of materials.

We run two 125 HP boilers fired with gas. They are checked for efficiency
every two months. We are, in fact, putting on controls at $45,000 to gain
just 2% in efficiency. They get opened and cleaned once a year and the fire
side gets a quick brushing. Takes one person about an hour

We used to run a smaller (40 HP) oil fired boiler. It had to be opened
every three months and it took two men about 4 hours to clean, vacuum,
dispose of the soot, dispose of their now filthy coveralls, breathing
apparatus, and then another hour to clean up the boiler room.

Now you say the cost of annual service is not going to be different



When having to spend that much money, I'd start looking at Solar
energy.
Or you can keep paying out the monthly fees to the different power
companies.
Lou

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
You aren't suggesting that they can skip the annual service on the
boiler are you??? Gas may not need to have a nozzle and filter changed
like oil, but it certainly needs an annual service just like oil,
particularly for a commercial sized unit like the OP has. The cost of
that annual service isn't going to be any different since a nozzle and
filter account for about $10 worth of materials.

We run two 125 HP boilers fired with gas. They are checked for efficiency
every two months. We are, in fact, putting on controls at $45,000 to gain
just 2% in efficiency. They get opened and cleaned once a year and the fire
side gets a quick brushing. Takes one person about an hour

We used to run a smaller (40 HP) oil fired boiler. It had to be opened
every three months and it took two men about 4 hours to clean, vacuum,
dispose of the soot, dispose of their now filthy coveralls, breathing
apparatus, and then another hour to clean up the boiler room.

Now you say the cost of annual service is not going to be different?

Not for a boiler the size the OP indicates.

On May 9, 6:16*am, Lou wrote:
On May 9, 4:54 am, "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:





"Pete C." wrote in message
You aren't suggesting that they can skip the annual service on the
boiler are you??? Gas may not need to have a nozzle and filter changed
like oil, but it certainly needs an annual service just like oil,
particularly for a commercial sized unit like the OP has. The cost of
that annual service isn't going to be any different since a nozzle and
filter account for about $10 worth of materials.

We run two 125 HP boilers fired with gas. *They are checked for efficiency
every two months. *We are, in fact, putting on controls at $45,000 to gain
just 2% in efficiency. They get opened and cleaned once a year and the fire
side gets a quick brushing. Takes one person about an hour

We used to run a smaller (40 HP) oil fired boiler. *It had to be opened
every three months and it took two men about 4 hours to clean, vacuum,
dispose of the soot, dispose of their now filthy coveralls, breathing
apparatus, and then another hour to clean up the boiler room.

Now you say the cost of annual service is not going to be different

When having to spend that much money, I'd start looking at Solar
energy.
Or you can keep paying out the monthly fees to the different power
companies.
* * * * * Lou- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Solar, at his size might cost 200,000.00 minimum

- Show quoted text -

Solar, at his size might cost 200,000.00 minimum

Might, might not. You won't know if you don't find out.
Yes it probably will cost more, but what is the recovery time?
Lou

"Lou" wrote in message

We run two 125 HP boilers fired with gas. They are checked for
efficiency
every two months. We are, in fact, putting on controls at $45,000 to
gain
just 2% in efficiency. They get opened and cleaned once a year and the
fire
side gets a quick brushing. Takes one person about an hour




When having to spend that much money, I'd start looking at Solar
energy.
Or you can keep paying out the monthly fees to the different power
companies.
Lou


The boilers have input of 5,500,000 Btu each. Tell me how many acres of
solar I'll need to convert 350 to 450 gallons of water per hour (at 60
degrees) to steam at 100 psi, especially running at night.

The boilers have input of 5,500,000 Btu each. Tell me how many acres of
solar I'll need to convert 350 to 450 gallons of water per hour (at 60
degrees) to steam at 100 psi, especially running at night.

I don't know and neither do you. What I'm saying is that if I had
no choice but to spend that much money on heating just one thing
I would at the very least, get a quote instead of complaining about
it.
Lou

"Lou" wrote in message
...

The boilers have input of 5,500,000 Btu each. Tell me how many acres of
solar I'll need to convert 350 to 450 gallons of water per hour (at 60
degrees) to steam at 100 psi, especially running at night.

I don't know and neither do you. What I'm saying is that if I had
no choice but to spend that much money on heating just one thing
I would at the very least, get a quote instead of complaining about
it.
Lou

First off, I'm not complaining, I'm looking at reducing fuel costs. Just
stating a fact

The magnitude of steam that we use would probably need a few thousand acres
of solar panels in Arizona, not New England. Then we'd need accumulators
capable of holding massive amounts of high pressure steam during the dark
hours. There are NO industrial process boilers powered by solar because of
the utter impracticality of it.

On May 10, 6:35*am, "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:
"Lou" wrote in message

...



The boilers have input of 5,500,000 Btu each. * Tell me how many acres of
solar I'll need to convert 350 to *450 gallons of water per hour (at *60
degrees) to steam at 100 psi, especially running at night.

I don't know and neither do you. What I'm saying is that if I had
no choice but to spend that much money on heating just one thing
I would at the very least, get a quote instead of complaining about
it.
* * * * * Lou

First off, I'm not complaining, I'm looking at reducing fuel costs. *Just
stating a fact

The magnitude of steam that we use would probably need a few thousand acres
of solar panels in Arizona, not New England. *Then we'd need accumulators
capable of holding massive amounts of high pressure steam during the dark
hours. *There are NO industrial process boilers powered by solar because of
the utter impracticality of it.

11,000,000 btu whats your gas bill 100,000.00 a year, well maybe
2,000,000 of solar might do it, just pocket change, just curious are
those 83% efficient, how about condensing add ons do they work.

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

"Lou" wrote in message
...

The boilers have input of 5,500,000 Btu each. Tell me how many acres of
solar I'll need to convert 350 to 450 gallons of water per hour (at 60
degrees) to steam at 100 psi, especially running at night.

I don't know and neither do you. What I'm saying is that if I had
no choice but to spend that much money on heating just one thing
I would at the very least, get a quote instead of complaining about
it.
Lou

First off, I'm not complaining, I'm looking at reducing fuel costs. Just
stating a fact

The magnitude of steam that we use would probably need a few thousand acres
of solar panels in Arizona, not New England. Then we'd need accumulators
capable of holding massive amounts of high pressure steam during the dark
hours. There are NO industrial process boilers powered by solar because of
the utter impracticality of it.

A building the size that would house such boilers and the process
equipment using their output probably has enough roof area to hold a
reflector array and collector tower to generate the daytime steam. Not
going to help at night, but assuming constant three shift use could
cover 30% of the energy needs.

"Pete C." wrote in message
The magnitude of steam that we use would probably need a few thousand
acres
of solar panels in Arizona, not New England. Then we'd need accumulators
capable of holding massive amounts of high pressure steam during the dark
hours. There are NO industrial process boilers powered by solar because
of
the utter impracticality of it.

A building the size that would house such boilers and the process
equipment using their output probably has enough roof area to hold a
reflector array and collector tower to generate the daytime steam. Not
going to help at night, but assuming constant three shift use could
cover 30% of the energy needs.


To run at 50% capacity of 5,500,000 Btu it is not practical.
A very efficient solar panel can produce 20 watts per hour per square foot
at noon on a sunny day . I'd need 80,000 sq. ft. of the 30,000 sq. ft.
available to do it for even a portion of the day. Factor in cloudy day,
winter sun hours, loss of transmission and conversion, heat storage and
anything else, you see the practicality of it.

Anyone know what 80,000 square feet of solar collection is worth? Now we
have to store surplus energy to be used at other times of the day.

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
The magnitude of steam that we use would probably need a few thousand
acres
of solar panels in Arizona, not New England. Then we'd need accumulators
capable of holding massive amounts of high pressure steam during the dark
hours. There are NO industrial process boilers powered by solar because
of
the utter impracticality of it.

A building the size that would house such boilers and the process
equipment using their output probably has enough roof area to hold a
reflector array and collector tower to generate the daytime steam. Not
going to help at night, but assuming constant three shift use could
cover 30% of the energy needs.

To run at 50% capacity of 5,500,000 Btu it is not practical.
A very efficient solar panel can produce 20 watts per hour per square foot
at noon on a sunny day . I'd need 80,000 sq. ft. of the 30,000 sq. ft.
available to do it for even a portion of the day. Factor in cloudy day,
winter sun hours, loss of transmission and conversion, heat storage and
anything else, you see the practicality of it.

Anyone know what 80,000 square feet of solar collection is worth? Now we
have to store surplus energy to be used at other times of the day.

You're thinking of the wrong technology. You don't use solar PV or solar
hot water thermal, you use a concentrating steam boiler setup, like used
at a few CA commercial solar utility generating stations. An array of
tracking reflectors concentrating the energy on a single central
collector-boiler. For your application there are no transmission and
conversion losses since you directly generate the steam you need above
the plant that is using it. You do not bother trying to store any of the
energy for night use, you simply ramp the oil / gas fired boilers back
up for the evening. 30% energy savings using existing roof space. Think
tax credits too...

Boden wrote:
wrote:

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:


A very efficient solar panel can produce 20 watts per hour...



Wrong units. Just watts.

Nick

All to common mistake. My local utility thinks they sell me power, not
energy, or so their corporation name says.

Boden
Hi,
Power is unit of energy.

wrote:
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:


A very efficient solar panel can produce 20 watts per hour...


Wrong units. Just watts.

Nick

All to common mistake. My local utility thinks they sell me power, not
energy, or so their corporation name says.

Boden

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

A very efficient solar panel can produce 20 watts per hour...

Wrong units. Just watts.

Nick

"Pete C." wrote in message

You're thinking of the wrong technology. You don't use solar PV or solar
hot water thermal, you use a concentrating steam boiler setup, like used
at a few CA commercial solar utility generating stations. An array of
tracking reflectors concentrating the energy on a single central
collector-boiler. For your application there are no transmission and
conversion losses since you directly generate the steam you need above
the plant that is using it. You do not bother trying to store any of the
energy for night use, you simply ramp the oil / gas fired boilers back
up for the evening. 30% energy savings using existing roof space. Think
tax credits too...

And the cost of the equipment is????

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message

You're thinking of the wrong technology. You don't use solar PV or solar
hot water thermal, you use a concentrating steam boiler setup, like used
at a few CA commercial solar utility generating stations. An array of
tracking reflectors concentrating the energy on a single central
collector-boiler. For your application there are no transmission and
conversion losses since you directly generate the steam you need above
the plant that is using it. You do not bother trying to store any of the
energy for night use, you simply ramp the oil / gas fired boilers back
up for the evening. 30% energy savings using existing roof space. Think
tax credits too...

And the cost of the equipment is????

Substantial, but it's a long term "green" investment that would probably
generate revenue from selling emissions credits.

"Pete C." wrote in message

And the cost of the equipment is????

Substantial, but it's a long term "green" investment that would probably
generate revenue from selling emissions credits.

What credits? It would not cover the cost or needs of our operation let
alone allow for selling credits. Many of our products save energy yet we
get no credit for anything by doing that either. That brings up another
point. Starting later this year (EPA regulations) we must use our boilers
to oxidize what would otherwise be a VOC emission so we could not go 100%
solar even if it was practical.

That brings up another government mandated folly. We are installing
$400,000 in equipment to do this. The EPA says the payback is in 10 years
if we run a full capacity 365/24. Fact is, we only need this particular
equipment days 6 hours a day to support the rest of the plant. But they
still base their figures on 365 because we "could" run 8760 hours a year
even thought they'd never issue a permit to do so or we could ever need it.
..

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message

And the cost of the equipment is????

Substantial, but it's a long term "green" investment that would probably
generate revenue from selling emissions credits.

What credits? It would not cover the cost or needs of our operation let
alone allow for selling credits. Many of our products save energy yet we
get no credit for anything by doing that either. That brings up another
point. Starting later this year (EPA regulations) we must use our boilers
to oxidize what would otherwise be a VOC emission so we could not go 100%
solar even if it was practical.

That brings up another government mandated folly. We are installing
$400,000 in equipment to do this. The EPA says the payback is in 10 years
if we run a full capacity 365/24. Fact is, we only need this particular
equipment days 6 hours a day to support the rest of the plant. But they
still base their figures on 365 because we "could" run 8760 hours a year
even thought they'd never issue a permit to do so or we could ever need it.
.

That 6hr/day could align nicely with the 2nd/3rd shift when you'd have
to run the fossil fuel boilers anyway. You'd still be cutting some 33%
of both your fuel consumption and your emissions. Again, you are the
only one saying 100% solar, I have consistently said ~33% solar. What
would 33% of your annual oil/gas consumption amount to in $? Probably a
hefty chunk of change towards building the daytime solar boiler.

"Pete C." wrote in message

That 6hr/day could align nicely with the 2nd/3rd shift when you'd have
to run the fossil fuel boilers anyway. You'd still be cutting some 33%
of both your fuel consumption and your emissions. Again, you are the
only one saying 100% solar, I have consistently said ~33% solar. What
would 33% of your annual oil/gas consumption amount to in $? Probably a
hefty chunk of change towards building the daytime solar boiler.

We spent about 200,000 last year so the savings potential is $66,000. That
is assuming you get 33%. I'd guess we'd be closer to 20% considering
weather in New England. Sure, that would be a good savings, but what is the
equipment cost? You seem to have missed that question. Where does it get
installed and what has to be done to the infrastructure for it? What is the
heat potential?

Seems to me, if it was that simple and cost effective power plants around
the world would be using it.

Now if I have room for molten salt tanks, this may work
http://gizmodo.com/362271/280+megawa...ller-technique

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message

That 6hr/day could align nicely with the 2nd/3rd shift when you'd have
to run the fossil fuel boilers anyway. You'd still be cutting some 33%
of both your fuel consumption and your emissions. Again, you are the
only one saying 100% solar, I have consistently said ~33% solar. What
would 33% of your annual oil/gas consumption amount to in $? Probably a
hefty chunk of change towards building the daytime solar boiler.

We spent about 200,000 last year so the savings potential is $66,000. That
is assuming you get 33%. I'd guess we'd be closer to 20% considering
weather in New England. Sure, that would be a good savings, but what is the
equipment cost? You seem to have missed that question. Where does it get
installed and what has to be done to the infrastructure for it? What is the
heat potential?

Seems to me, if it was that simple and cost effective power plants around
the world would be using it.

Now if I have room for molten salt tanks, this may work
http://gizmodo.com/362271/280+megawa...ller-technique

I don't know the equipment cost offhand, but tracking down info on the
existing commercial solar stem electric plants in CA would provide a
wealth of information. Given the relative simplicity of motorized
mirrors reflecting the sun onto a collector tower, and lack of exotic
technologies, it may be less than you'd think.

As for location, it goes on your existing roof. Indeed if you have A/C
units up there to keep your plant comfortable, the shade provided by the
reflector array could significantly reduce the A/C cost as well. The
solar energy that is absorbed by all roofs is not only wasted, in most
cases it is a negative as well.

If we put appropriate solar energy collection devices on our existing
rooftops we can make significant gains in reducing demand for other
fuels and energy at the points of consumption, reducing demand on energy
that must be transported like electricity, gas or oil, as well as
without requiring more land to site collectors.

The other hurdle we need to get past is the all too common idea that if
you can't replace 100% of your energy needs with RE it isn't worth
pursuing at all.

On Sat, 10 May 2008 23:11:37 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:

The other hurdle we need to get past is the all too common idea that if
you can't replace 100% of your energy needs with RE it isn't worth
pursuing at all.

Hi Pete,

This is a critical point and one that causes me endless frustration.
When discussing air source heat pumps, the common objection raised is
that they can't typically satisfy 100 per cent of the home's space
heating demands and for some folks anything less than 100 per cent is
completely unacceptable. What they fail to understand is that you
don't have to satisfy all demand for it to be **cost-effective**; it's
a matter of determining the optimum solution that provides the
greatest **net benefit**. So who cares if you require backup or
auxiliary heat on the three or four coldest days of the year if, at
the end of the day, it has saved you more money than any of the other
alternatives.

We're not all engineers and we don't all hold advanced degrees in
economics, but if more of us understood (and embraced) the concept of
net present value, it would no doubt help us to make better choices.

Cheers,
Paul

"Paul M. Eldridge" wrote:

On Sat, 10 May 2008 23:11:37 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:

The other hurdle we need to get past is the all too common idea that if
you can't replace 100% of your energy needs with RE it isn't worth
pursuing at all.

Hi Pete,

This is a critical point and one that causes me endless frustration.
When discussing air source heat pumps, the common objection raised is
that they can't typically satisfy 100 per cent of the home's space
heating demands and for some folks anything less than 100 per cent is
completely unacceptable. What they fail to understand is that you
don't have to satisfy all demand for it to be **cost-effective**; it's
a matter of determining the optimum solution that provides the
greatest **net benefit**. So who cares if you require backup or
auxiliary heat on the three or four coldest days of the year if, at
the end of the day, it has saved you more money than any of the other
alternatives.

We're not all engineers and we don't all hold advanced degrees in
economics, but if more of us understood (and embraced) the concept of
net present value, it would no doubt help us to make better choices.

Cheers,
Paul

Ground source heat pumps take care of that problem for the most part.

On Sun, 11 May 2008 09:29:59 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:


"Paul M. Eldridge" wrote:

On Sat, 10 May 2008 23:11:37 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:

The other hurdle we need to get past is the all too common idea that if
you can't replace 100% of your energy needs with RE it isn't worth
pursuing at all.

Hi Pete,

This is a critical point and one that causes me endless frustration.
When discussing air source heat pumps, the common objection raised is
that they can't typically satisfy 100 per cent of the home's space
heating demands and for some folks anything less than 100 per cent is
completely unacceptable. What they fail to understand is that you
don't have to satisfy all demand for it to be **cost-effective**; it's
a matter of determining the optimum solution that provides the
greatest **net benefit**. So who cares if you require backup or
auxiliary heat on the three or four coldest days of the year if, at
the end of the day, it has saved you more money than any of the other
alternatives.

We're not all engineers and we don't all hold advanced degrees in
economics, but if more of us understood (and embraced) the concept of
net present value, it would no doubt help us to make better choices.

Cheers,
Paul

Ground source heat pumps take care of that problem for the most part.

Hi Pete,

That may be so, but when you compare the economic performance of a
high-efficiency air source heat pump to that of its geo-based
brethren, the former prevails nine times out of ten and ten times out
of ten if you apply the difference in their respective cost towards
measures that further reduce the home's space conditioning and DHW
requirements.

Admittedly, that's a pretty bold claim but I've run hundreds of
different scenarios using various heat loss factors, weather data,
utility charges, install costs, discount rates, etc. and in my
experience you have to push the assumptions to the far extremes before
you can reverse the results. That said, I'm more than willing to be
proven wrong if someone can provide me with hard data and I certainly
wouldn't object to sharing mine.

Cheers,
Paul

"Pete C." wrote in message
I don't know the equipment cost offhand, but tracking down info on the
existing commercial solar stem electric plants in CA would provide a
wealth of information. Given the relative simplicity of motorized
mirrors reflecting the sun onto a collector tower, and lack of exotic
technologies, it may be less than you'd think.

You've again provided nice sounding fluff with no figures. Are we talking
$50,000 or $5,000,000 or $50,000,000? We certainly don't have the recources
that a utility company has. Just a WAG that cost would put it out of the
reach of most of us. This is not quite "off the shelf" equipment or
technology so the engineering alone can be tens of thousands of dollars.



As for location, it goes on your existing roof. Indeed if you have A/C
units up there to keep your plant comfortable, the shade provided by the
reflector array could significantly reduce the A/C cost as well. The
solar energy that is absorbed by all roofs is not only wasted, in most
cases it is a negative as well.

No AC in the plant. The cost would put us out of business.


The other hurdle we need to get past is the all too common idea that if
you can't replace 100% of your energy needs with RE it isn't worth
pursuing at all.

Payback. Unless the investment can show savings quickly, most buyers have
no interest. Many people move every few years and they are not interested
in 10 year paybacks. I'm surprised that more had not been done with solar
over the past 20+ years since the last oil shortage got things rolling.
There is also dumb zoning. A fellow in our town was told he had to take
down his wind turbine because it was too high.

There is also dumb zoning. A fellow in our town was told he had to take
down his wind turbine because it was too high.

Dumb zoning, I like that. That could describe so much more than
this thread.

As for being surprised that more hasn't been done with solar over the
past 20 years, I'm new to the solar scene but I'm amazed at what has
been accomplished in just the past 10. And I'm thinking that the next
10 years are going to be amazing.

"Paul M. Eldridge" wrote:

On Sun, 11 May 2008 09:29:59 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:


"Paul M. Eldridge" wrote:

On Sat, 10 May 2008 23:11:37 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:

The other hurdle we need to get past is the all too common idea that if
you can't replace 100% of your energy needs with RE it isn't worth
pursuing at all.

Hi Pete,

This is a critical point and one that causes me endless frustration.
When discussing air source heat pumps, the common objection raised is
that they can't typically satisfy 100 per cent of the home's space
heating demands and for some folks anything less than 100 per cent is
completely unacceptable. What they fail to understand is that you
don't have to satisfy all demand for it to be **cost-effective**; it's
a matter of determining the optimum solution that provides the
greatest **net benefit**. So who cares if you require backup or
auxiliary heat on the three or four coldest days of the year if, at
the end of the day, it has saved you more money than any of the other
alternatives.

We're not all engineers and we don't all hold advanced degrees in
economics, but if more of us understood (and embraced) the concept of
net present value, it would no doubt help us to make better choices.

Cheers,
Paul

Ground source heat pumps take care of that problem for the most part.

Hi Pete,

That may be so, but when you compare the economic performance of a
high-efficiency air source heat pump to that of its geo-based
brethren, the former prevails nine times out of ten and ten times out
of ten if you apply the difference in their respective cost towards
measures that further reduce the home's space conditioning and DHW
requirements.

Admittedly, that's a pretty bold claim but I've run hundreds of
different scenarios using various heat loss factors, weather data,
utility charges, install costs, discount rates, etc. and in my
experience you have to push the assumptions to the far extremes before
you can reverse the results. That said, I'm more than willing to be
proven wrong if someone can provide me with hard data and I certainly
wouldn't object to sharing mine.

Cheers,
Paul

Are you comparing the labor intensive old style deep hole or large
trench array, or the newer much better and much less labor intensive
trenched vertical coil installation?

On Sun, 11 May 2008 16:26:42 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:

Ground source heat pumps take care of that problem for the most part.

Hi Pete,

That may be so, but when you compare the economic performance of a
high-efficiency air source heat pump to that of its geo-based
brethren, the former prevails nine times out of ten and ten times out
of ten if you apply the difference in their respective cost towards
measures that further reduce the home's space conditioning and DHW
requirements.

Admittedly, that's a pretty bold claim but I've run hundreds of
different scenarios using various heat loss factors, weather data,
utility charges, install costs, discount rates, etc. and in my
experience you have to push the assumptions to the far extremes before
you can reverse the results. That said, I'm more than willing to be
proven wrong if someone can provide me with hard data and I certainly
wouldn't object to sharing mine.

Cheers,
Paul

Are you comparing the labor intensive old style deep hole or large
trench array, or the newer much better and much less labor intensive
trenched vertical coil installation?

Hi Pete,

According to the IGSHPA, vertical closed loops are typically more
expensive than their horizontal equivalents, as quoted below.

"Horizontal installations are simpler, requiring lower-cost equipment.
However, they require longer lengths of pipe due to seasonal
variations in soil temperature and moisture content. Since a
horizontal heat exchanger is laid out in trenches, a larger area is
usually required than for a vertical system. Where land is limited,
vertical installations or a compact Slinky horizontal installation can
be ideal. If regional soil conditions include extensive hard rock, a
vertical installation may be the only available choice. Vertical
installations tend to be more expensive due to the increased cost of
drilling versus trenching, but since the heat exchanger is buried
deeper than with a horizontal system, vertical systems are usually
more efficient and can get by with less total pipe."

Source: http://www.igshpa.okstate.edu/geothermal/faq.htm

Are you referring to something other than what is described above and,
if so, can you point me to some online references?

FWIW, I was told by a HVAC contractor based in Moncton, New Brunswick
that a typical 3-ton GSHP installation (new construction) runs in the
range of $25,000.00 for horizontal closed loop and $30,000.00 for
vertical (CDN). Does that more or less jive with your figures?

Cheers,
Paul

"Pete C." wrote:

Are you comparing the labor intensive old style deep hole or large
trench array, or the newer much better and much less labor intensive
trenched vertical coil installation?

Considering there is about 12" of dirt before you hit miles of granite and
fractured limestone where I live, his point is still valid...

"Paul M. Eldridge" wrote:

On Sun, 11 May 2008 16:26:42 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:

Ground source heat pumps take care of that problem for the most part.

Hi Pete,

That may be so, but when you compare the economic performance of a
high-efficiency air source heat pump to that of its geo-based
brethren, the former prevails nine times out of ten and ten times out
of ten if you apply the difference in their respective cost towards
measures that further reduce the home's space conditioning and DHW
requirements.

Admittedly, that's a pretty bold claim but I've run hundreds of
different scenarios using various heat loss factors, weather data,
utility charges, install costs, discount rates, etc. and in my
experience you have to push the assumptions to the far extremes before
you can reverse the results. That said, I'm more than willing to be
proven wrong if someone can provide me with hard data and I certainly
wouldn't object to sharing mine.

Cheers,
Paul

Are you comparing the labor intensive old style deep hole or large
trench array, or the newer much better and much less labor intensive
trenched vertical coil installation?

Hi Pete,

According to the IGSHPA, vertical closed loops are typically more
expensive than their horizontal equivalents, as quoted below.

"Horizontal installations are simpler, requiring lower-cost equipment.
However, they require longer lengths of pipe due to seasonal
variations in soil temperature and moisture content. Since a
horizontal heat exchanger is laid out in trenches, a larger area is
usually required than for a vertical system. Where land is limited,
vertical installations or a compact Slinky horizontal installation can
be ideal. If regional soil conditions include extensive hard rock, a
vertical installation may be the only available choice. Vertical
installations tend to be more expensive due to the increased cost of
drilling versus trenching, but since the heat exchanger is buried
deeper than with a horizontal system, vertical systems are usually
more efficient and can get by with less total pipe."

Source: http://www.igshpa.okstate.edu/geothermal/faq.htm

Are you referring to something other than what is described above and,
if so, can you point me to some online references?

FWIW, I was told by a HVAC contractor based in Moncton, New Brunswick
that a typical 3-ton GSHP installation (new construction) runs in the
range of $25,000.00 for horizontal closed loop and $30,000.00 for
vertical (CDN). Does that more or less jive with your figures?

Cheers,
Paul

Yes, something quite different than the two earlier techniques. I'm not
sure of references, but for the trenched vertical coil method you cut a
fairly narrow (~6" wide) trench something around 8' deep with a big
ditch witch and then take the plastic tubing coil and stretch it out
sideways so the coils of tube overlap at modest intervals and place the
coil in the trench. You then back fill and you're done. Far less labor
intensive then drilling holes or digging a big grid of trenches to put
single tube runs in. What they found was that the soil was such a good
thermal mass that you didn't need to cover nearly as much physical area.
This newer installation method takes perhaps 2 hrs to instal vs. all
day. Otherwise, it's the same tubing and same equipment, just a lot less
installation labor.

Robert Neville wrote:

"Pete C." wrote:

Are you comparing the labor intensive old style deep hole or large
trench array, or the newer much better and much less labor intensive
trenched vertical coil installation?

Considering there is about 12" of dirt before you hit miles of granite and
fractured limestone where I live, his point is still valid...

You could modify the technique a bit for your area, by digging a 6' wide
trench to the ledge, laying the coil in horizontal and then back filling
and covering with another foot or two of dirt. Slight grade change, but
still no drilling or blasting.