Home Page link

Conversion to gas? ? ?

Home| Search | About
Login Password
Register Now! Lost Password?

Home Repair - - If it ain't broken, don't fix it. Otherwise look here. 

Page 6 of 9       < 1 2 3 > last >> Bookmark this page:  YahooMyWeb Yahoo!  Google Google  Windows Live Favorites Windows Live  del.icio.us del.icio.us  digg digg  Add to Netscape Netscape
Subject Author Date
Conversion to gas? ? ? Ray 05-08-2008
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Posted by Pete C. on May 11, 2008, 12:11 am

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>
> >
> > 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+megawatt-solar-boiler-uses-magnifying+glass-bug+killer-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.

Posted by Paul M. Eldridge on May 11, 2008, 8:47 am
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

Posted by Pete C. on May 11, 2008, 10:29 am

"Paul M. Eldridge" wrote:
>
> 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.

Posted by Paul M. Eldridge on May 11, 2008, 11:28 am
wrote:

>
>"Paul M. Eldridge" wrote:
>>
>> 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

Posted by Pete C. on May 11, 2008, 5:26 pm

"Paul M. Eldridge" wrote:
>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Paul M. Eldridge" wrote:
> >>
> >> 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?

Page 6 of 9       < 1 2 3 > last >>
Similar ThreadsPosted
120 to 12v conversion February 10, 2008, 12:43 am
Tub to shower conversion September 30, 2006, 10:27 am
Sell HID Conversion Kit February 25, 2008, 1:28 am
Oil -> gas burner conversion March 21, 2008, 3:22 pm
need insulation help w/ garage conversion ... October 31, 2005, 5:33 pm
Steam Boiler conversion November 6, 2005, 7:28 pm
Swimming pool conversion June 9, 2006, 7:39 pm
Oil to Natural Gas Conversion Costs August 2, 2006, 4:23 pm
Bathtub conversion into a shower September 10, 2006, 7:02 pm
shop vac hose conversion January 8, 2007, 10:20 am

Contact Us | Privacy Policy

XML SitemapXML Sitemap