deicer Posted April 7 Share Posted April 7 What makes it even more interesting and humourous is that it's in Alberta. Oh the irony..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Posted April 7 Share Posted April 7 Of course there was an earlier attempt to go net zero but is currently failing.\ Drake Landing, a solar energy community south of Calgary, loses its sizzle as system starts to fail | CBC News Drake Landing Solar Community (dlsc.ca) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deicer Posted April 7 Author Share Posted April 7 10 minutes ago, Malcolm said: Of course there was an earlier attempt to go net zero but is currently failing.\ Drake Landing, a solar energy community south of Calgary, loses its sizzle as system starts to fail | CBC News Drake Landing Solar Community (dlsc.ca) Not comparable. The reason I say that is that after reading that the Drake Landing system is failing, you have to realize that it was at end of life for the system, not because the system didn't work. They did get 25 years of good service out of it. Maintenance and replacement is the key to any working object. How well do airplanes work if not maintained? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Posted April 7 Share Posted April 7 12 minutes ago, deicer said: Not comparable. The reason I say that is that after reading that the Drake Landing system is failing, you have to realize that it was at end of life for the system, not because the system didn't work. They did get 25 years of good service out of it. Maintenance and replacement is the key to any working object. How well do airplanes work if not maintained? the secret is, if you are going net zero, you must look ahead and plan for wear and tear etc. Just like aircraft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted April 7 Share Posted April 7 46 minutes ago, deicer said: Not comparable. The reason I say that is that after reading that the Drake Landing system is failing, you have to realize that it was at end of life for the system, not because the system didn't work. They did get 25 years of good service out of it. Maintenance and replacement is the key to any working object. How well do airplanes work if not maintained? It's not just about maintenance. Take a look at the actual costs; $15 million for the initial installation and services 52 homes for 25 years. By my math that works out to $1000/month per home. The system certainly didn't save any money. The article states that the system provides for 90% of the heat with natural gas providing the rest so the true cost is even higher. Did it produce less greenhouse gas? Maybe, but you'd need to figure out how much was produced in the production and installation of the hugely complicated system. The article above says that the homes were significantly more insulated and airtight than standard home construction and they are 1500-1700 sq feet which is smaller than the average. With this in mind the heating cost should be significantly less than the average. So, the state-of-the-art system managed to heat 52 homes are greater cost than a regular heating system. But, it was a research project, right? So now it could be rebuilt to be more efficient and lower cost, right? I wouldn't bet on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deicer Posted April 7 Author Share Posted April 7 2 hours ago, Malcolm said: the secret is, if you are going net zero, you must look ahead and plan for wear and tear etc. Just like aircraft. 1 hour ago, Seeker said: It's not just about maintenance. Take a look at the actual costs; $15 million for the initial installation and services 52 homes for 25 years. By my math that works out to $1000/month per home. The system certainly didn't save any money. The article states that the system provides for 90% of the heat with natural gas providing the rest so the true cost is even higher. Did it produce less greenhouse gas? Maybe, but you'd need to figure out how much was produced in the production and installation of the hugely complicated system. The article above says that the homes were significantly more insulated and airtight than standard home construction and they are 1500-1700 sq feet which is smaller than the average. With this in mind the heating cost should be significantly less than the average. So, the state-of-the-art system managed to heat 52 homes are greater cost than a regular heating system. But, it was a research project, right? So now it could be rebuilt to be more efficient and lower cost, right? I wouldn't bet on it. You are both correct, and wrong. Yes, that system was expensive, but it was the first of it's kind. It was a bold step to take. It doesn't state in the story what maintenance requirements it had, just that it had come to end of life. Like anything, mechanical or human. Yet like all ground breaking technology, refinements and improvements come fast and furious. What would be the cost today? Nowadays solar panels, and ground source heat pumps are within the financial reach of a lot of homeowners. Just look at the improvements on heatpumps. Cars in the 70's got 15mpg, yet cars today that are twice the size get 40mpg. Only if you maintain them though, and they too will eventually wear out. You can post all the negatives you want, but the only constant is change. Systems will change, systems will get more efficient, and I will throw in a big 'however'.... Corporations are addicted to profit so they don't want to make products that last forever. Just like the freezer in my basement that was built in the mid 70's and is still going strong. Compare that to appliances and cars built today. The ability is there, it's just that big money is making too much money off not changing to instigate change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted April 7 Share Posted April 7 27 minutes ago, deicer said: You are both correct, and wrong. Yes, that system was expensive, but it was the first of it's kind. It was a bold step to take. It doesn't state in the story what maintenance requirements it had, just that it had come to end of life. Like anything, mechanical or human. Yet like all ground breaking technology, refinements and improvements come fast and furious. What would be the cost today? Nowadays solar panels, and ground source heat pumps are within the financial reach of a lot of homeowners. Just look at the improvements on heatpumps. Cars in the 70's got 15mpg, yet cars today that are twice the size get 40mpg. Only if you maintain them though, and they too will eventually wear out. You can post all the negatives you want, but the only constant is change. Systems will change, systems will get more efficient, and I will throw in a big 'however'.... Corporations are addicted to profit so they don't want to make products that last forever. Just like the freezer in my basement that was built in the mid 70's and is still going strong. Compare that to appliances and cars built today. The ability is there, it's just that big money is making too much money off not changing to instigate change. Yeah, don't know if I'd call it "bold". Centrally heating a number of buildings from a single main heating plant has been around since forever. If anything I'd call it "derivative". You are correct in that a modern system might be made better than this version but don't forget that everything else has improved too. Natural gas heating systems have gone from 75% efficiency to 95% or 98%. Insulation, heat recovery systems, argon filled windows - all improved. I'd be willing to bet that a modern gas furnace in a modern home would cost significantly less to build and run than any hot water system. If you really want efficiency you'd build homes with in-floor radiant heating electrically powered from the nearby modular nuclear plant. One more point - if the system was so bold and forward-looking how many similar projects have been built since? The article has this interesting statement: "at one point welcomed guests from around the world to show off the groundbreaking technology. The international visitors wanted to see first-hand how energy from the hot summer sun could be collected and stored and then released in a harsh Canadian winter to heat the community's houses." Great. So how many of those international visitors went back home and built similar systems? Zero, as far as I can tell. Why? Because it wasn't economical at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deicer Posted April 7 Author Share Posted April 7 21 minutes ago, Seeker said: Great. So how many of those international visitors went back home and built similar systems? Zero, as far as I can tell. Why? Because it wasn't economical at all. New tech usually isn't 'economical', but it's part of the baby steps towards change and efficiency. The Swiss were trying it: https://newatlas.com/renewable-energy-heat-storage-empa/47334/ The British as well: https://www.icax.co.uk/thermalbank.html The Austrians: https://www.naratek.com/en/2022/heat-store-summer-use-winter It's science that is ever evolving..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted April 7 Share Posted April 7 Your first article is from 2017 - research stage, looking for partners. No takers and no project. Even with current energy prices it's s no-go. So, yeah, it works but isn't economical. Your second article actually refers to a couple of large commercial projects - no word on whether they are economic or virtual signaling. Your third article refers to the concept but, alas, no projects. My point stands - it's not an economically viable. BTW, I'm not arguing against doing research or looking for new ideas. I'm simply saying this particular project did not lead us where we want to be and I'd be surprised if it produced much value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Posted April 7 Share Posted April 7 6 minutes ago, Seeker said: Your first article is from 2017 - research stage, looking for partners. No takers and no project. Even with current energy prices it's s no-go. So, yeah, it works but isn't economical. Your second article actually refers to a couple of large commercial projects - no word on whether they are economic or virtual signaling. Your third article refers to the concept but, alas, no projects. My point stands - it's not an economically viable. BTW, I'm not arguing against doing research or looking for new ideas. I'm simply saying this particular project did not lead us where we want to be and I'd be surprised if it produced much value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deicer Posted April 8 Author Share Posted April 8 15 hours ago, Seeker said: Your first article is from 2017 - research stage, looking for partners. No takers and no project. Even with current energy prices it's s no-go. So, yeah, it works but isn't economical. Your second article actually refers to a couple of large commercial projects - no word on whether they are economic or virtual signaling. Your third article refers to the concept but, alas, no projects. My point stands - it's not an economically viable. BTW, I'm not arguing against doing research or looking for new ideas. I'm simply saying this particular project did not lead us where we want to be and I'd be surprised if it produced much value. Ok, so it currently isn't 'viable'. So how do you keep moving forward to a better solution? The oil industry would love to have you still burning fossil fuels to great profits for them. As Raymond Alberta has shown on a small scale, net zero is achievable. My opinion is that you have to overcome the lobbying against renewables to gain momentum forward. North America is far behind the rest of the world when it comes to moving forward to renewable energy? Please explain that to me. https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/11-countries-leading-the-charge-on-renewable-energy/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now