Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Home Repair (alt.home.repair) For all homeowners and DIYers with many experienced tradesmen. Solve your toughest home fix-it problems. |
Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Conversion to gas? ? ?
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? |
#2
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Conversion to gas? ? ?
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??? -- |
#3
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Conversion to gas? ? ?
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 |
#4
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Conversion to gas? ? ?
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 $20,000. So we opted to continue with oil. Based on current prices, gas costs only about half as much as oil to produce the same heat. So we are reconsidering switching to gas. Leaving aside the cost of installing new gas-supply lines, can anyone give me a ballpark figure on how much it would cost to switch the new furnace from oil to gas? Or possibly even have a dual supply system so that we could switch to gas or oil depending upon the costs at a given time? 20000 to run a gas line? the gas co might do it free, and all you will need is the indoor line and a new burner with controls. |
#5
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Conversion to gas? ? ?
"Ray" wrote in message news:eNEUj.638$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. |
#6
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Conversion to gas? ? ?
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 |
#7
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Conversion to gas? ? ?
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 $20,000. So we opted to continue with oil. Based on current prices, gas costs only about half as much as oil to produce the same heat. So we are reconsidering switching to gas. Leaving aside the cost of installing new gas-supply lines, can anyone give me a ballpark figure on how much it would cost to switch the new furnace from oil to gas? Or possibly even have a dual supply system so that we could switch to gas or oil depending upon the costs at a given time? Our gas company (Central Illinois) only charges for new lines for the amount more than 60 feet. Check your supplier for similar fees. Joe |
#8
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Conversion to gas? ? ?
"Ray" wrote in message news:eNEUj.638$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 $20,000. So we opted to continue with oil. Based on current prices, gas costs only about half as much as oil to produce the same heat. So we are reconsidering switching to gas. Leaving aside the cost of installing new gas-supply lines, can anyone give me a ballpark figure on how much it would cost to switch the new furnace from oil to gas? Or possibly even have a dual supply system so that we could switch to gas or oil depending upon the costs at a given time? The boiler installer should be able to give you a close estimate on the phone. The burner head and some controls have to be replaced. When figuring in the cost difference, include the lower maintenance costs too. Gas burns much cleaner so you save a few hundred bucks a year there too. |
#9
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Conversion to gas? ? ?
Edwin Pawlowski wrote: "Ray" wrote in message news:eNEUj.638$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. |
#10
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Conversion to gas? ? ?
"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? |
#11
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Conversion to gas? ? ?
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 |
#12
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Conversion to gas? ? ?
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. |
#13
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Conversion to gas? ? ?
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 |
#14
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Conversion to gas? ? ?
- 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 |
#15
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Conversion to gas? ? ?
"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. |
#16
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Conversion to gas? ? ?
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 |
#17
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Conversion to gas? ? ?
"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. |
#18
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Conversion to gas? ? ?
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. |
#19
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Conversion to gas? ? ?
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. |
#20
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Conversion to gas? ? ?
"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. |
#21
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Conversion to gas? ? ?
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... |
#22
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Conversion to gas? ? ?
|
#23
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Conversion to gas? ? ?
|
#24
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Conversion to gas? ? ?
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
A very efficient solar panel can produce 20 watts per hour... Wrong units. Just watts. Nick |
#25
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Conversion to gas? ? ?
"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???? |
#26
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Conversion to gas? ? ?
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. |
#27
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Conversion to gas? ? ?
"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. .. |
#28
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Conversion to gas? ? ?
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. |
#29
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Conversion to gas? ? ?
"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 |
#30
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Conversion to gas? ? ?
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. |
#31
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Conversion to gas? ? ?
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 |
#32
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Conversion to gas? ? ?
"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. |
#33
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Conversion to gas? ? ?
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 |
#34
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Conversion to gas? ? ?
"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. |
#35
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Conversion to gas? ? ?
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. |
#36
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Conversion to gas? ? ?
"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? |
#37
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Conversion to gas? ? ?
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 |
#38
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Conversion to gas? ? ?
"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... |
#39
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Conversion to gas? ? ?
"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. |
#40
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Conversion to gas? ? ?
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. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
$45us/pc H.I.D Conversion Kit | Home Repair | |||
$45us/pc H.I.D Conversion Kit | Woodworking | |||
DIY Loft Conversion | UK diy | |||
Bandsaw Conversion | Woodworking |