Suddenly...Windmills! Millions of them!

[jje1000]

I don't really know if the geography of Ontario can't support such things, but we should be going for hydroelectric electricity.

Geothermal energy should be extensively promoted by all levels of government, while wind should be built in the middle of Lake Ontario.

 

[old boy]

I am not aware of any government incentives for geothermal on new building. If anyone is aware of such, please let me know, as I understand the incentives had been for retrofit only. I can not see why our governments don't encourage new builds , in the same way as they have retros. I want to use this system on a retirement house I'm starting this spring but the costs are high.

 

[Eug]

Geothermal in Ontario seems to have a bit of a bad reputation at the moment, at least for some people, because there were fly-by-night companies installing geothermal setups that didn't work. Plus it's pretty costly to install.

I had actually considered installing solar since I have a lot of south-facing roof space. My family friends have done the same. However, in all of those, none of them actually used the solar energy for themselves. The reason to install solar from a practical point of view is because of the astronomically high electricity rates the Ontario gov't is paying to get people to install solar. Home owners that install solar can actually make money in the mid-term.

I'd consider solar to help out my hot water tank, but it would been a major PITA in my house (+ $$$$) so I didn't really consider it.

 

[howl]

I am not aware of any government incentives for geothermal on new building. If anyone is aware of such, please let me know, as I understand the incentives had been for retrofit only. I can not see why our governments don't encourage new builds , in the same way as they have retros. I want to use this system on a retirement house I'm starting this spring but the costs are high.

http://www.mei.gov.on.ca/en/energy/renewable/?page=geores_incentives

The Ontario government offers some of the most generous incentives in the world to promote the installation of renewable energy systems.

Wind, Micro-hydro Electric and Geothermal Energy Systems Rebate
This rebate is part of the Ontario government’s Common Retail Sales Tax Rebates and Exemptions for Energy Efficient Goods program. This program returns the retail sales tax paid on geothermal energy systems to homeowners and builders who install these systems into residential buildings, including houses and multi-residential buildings.

 

[howl]

Large scale wind turbines solve one problem (by providing clean enegry) while creating a raft of others (noise, dead birds etc.). Whether the trade off is worthwhile is currently the subject of much debate.

The real potential for harnessing wind power in urban areas is small scale rooftop windmills that reduce or eliminate energy costs on a building-by-building basis. If every flat-topped apartment building, commerical or indistrial building had an array of 4m high windmills on its roof our total energy costs would be a lot less. The problem with this scenario is the big enery companies don't make money on it so there is no large-scale inventment in it. The big energy companies want to make the power and sell it to you.

 

[Mongo]

Perhaps it is time for a cost/benefit analysis of wind energy versus nuclear and hydro. The following analysis is from a pro-nuclear site, but still seems reasonable to me -- that in economic terms, the cost of providing wind-generated power is higher than the cost of providing the same amount of hydro or nuclear power.

From The Economics of Wind Power:

Wind power fuel tradeoff with natural gas

Since wind power is a fuel saver, one of the questions that might be asked is exactly how much fuel is saved, or put another way: What is the economic tradeoff between wind farms and the fuel saved, such as in a natural gas power plant?

A simplified comparison shows that the worth of the natural gas saved is less than the cost of building and operating a wind farm. The details of the cost tradeoff are shown at the end of this article.

<snip>

Hydro backup

It should be noted that if hydro power is used to compensate for wind power, there is no compensating cost saving for the saved fuel. The saved fuel is the extra water that goes over the spillway and is wasted. It is cheaper to have no wind farms in this pairing and let hydro do the entire job of supplying the needed electricity.

<snip>

Wind-generated electricity is not free. The cost of fuel for any power plant is just part of the cost that a consumer needs to pay. Because the fuel cost is zero does not mean that the cost of the generated electricity is zero.

This is similar to the electricity generated by hydro. The cost of the water is zero, but the hydro-generated electricity is not zero. It includes O&M costs and the cost of building the hydroelectric dam.

For a nuclear plant, the fuel cost is not zero, but it is a relatively small portion of the generation cost. It is certainly smaller than the fuel cost in a natural gas plant, where the fuel cost is about 80 percent of the generation cost.

For power providers that use oil as fuel, it appears that wind generation is worth the fuel-cost savings. Oil is not used extensively, however, because it is so expensive.

In conclusion, there appears to be no economic justification for building windmills except when low-cost alternatives are not available. This is especially true when windmills are placed on a grid with ample hydro, as there are no compensating fuel savings in that situation.

There is no free lunch.

Cost tradeoff of wind versus fuel saved

Inputs:

A 2-MW wind turbine costs approximately $3.5 million installed.

The O&M cost of a wind farm is approximately 20-25 percent.

The maximum life expectancy of wind turbines is 20 years.

The price of gas is about $4 per thousand cubic feet.

The price of a barrel of oil is $80.

It takes about 7.7 cubic feet of natural gas to generate 1 kWh of electricity (dividing the generation in Table 7.2a by the fuel consumption in Table 7.3a in these tables published by the U.S. Energy Information Administration ).

It takes 0.00175 barrels of oil to generate 1 kWh of electricity (using the same tables as above).

Assumptions:

The capacity factor of a wind farm is about 30 percent (land based).

The higher capacity factor of 45 percent is assumed for Hawaii.

The average life of a wind turbine is 15 years.

Interest costs for the wind farm are neglected.

The cost of transmission lines are neglected.

Analysis:

Cost of wind farms:

A 1000-MW wind farm costs $1,750 million to install all the turbines (500 turbines x $3.5M per turbine).

For a lifetime of 15 years, the costs is $116 million per year (1,750/15).

When including O&M, this increases to $145 million/year (116 x 1.25).

Electricity generated:

The amount of electricity that a 1000-MW wind farm is expected to produce in a year is 2,630,000 MW-hrs for a 30-percent capacity factor (1000 MW x 365d x 24 h/d x .3).

Cost of natural gas saved:

The value of the fuel saving in the backup 1000-MW natural gas plant is $81 million/year. (2.63 x 106 MW-hrs x 7.7 cubic feet/kWh x $4/1000 cubic feet x 103 kW/MW).

Cost of oil saved in Hawaii:

The value of the fuel saving in the backup 1000-MW oil-fired plant is $552 million/year. (2.63 x 106 MW-hrs x [.45/.3] x 0.00175 barrels/kWh x $80/barrel x 103 kW/MW).

Conclusion:

The yearly natural gas fuel-saving cost benefit for operating a wind farm is less than the yearly cost to install and operate wind farms. There is, therefore. no economic incentive to pair a natural gas plant with a wind farm, unless the price for natural gas goes up.

For a pairing of wind farms with oil-fired generation, there appears to be a significant savings. This is primarily due to the much higher price of oil versus natural gas for the same energy content. This is the reason oil-fired generation is not much used anywhere, except Hawaii, where there is not much other choice. At today’s prices, oil is 4.5 times more expensive than natural gas for the same extracted electrical energy (.00175 barrels/kWh x $80/barrel)/(7.7 cft/kWh x $0.004/cft)=4.5

 

[freshcutgrass]

I am not aware of any government incentives for geothermal on new building. If anyone is aware of such, please let me know, as I understand the incentives had been for retrofit only. I can not see why our governments don't encourage new builds , in the same way as they have retros. I want to use this system on a retirement house I'm starting this spring but the costs are high.

Well, I think it did apply to new residential builds if it qualified for a warranty under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act. But I think that ended as of Jan 2010. But yea...it "should" apply to anything, but the gov't only has so much money allocated to this program, so it assumes it will get more bang for its buck by applying it just to retrofits (using the assumption that existing buildings are less energy efficient than new ones)

But while it's nice to get rebates, it shouldn't stop you from doing it anyway. The up-front capital costs for the loop can have a bit of a sticker shock, but the pay-back is fairly quick these days. Or you can look at it this way...finance it based on the money you save every month by not paying for fuel to heat your house and domestic hot water, plus the lower electricity costs for cooling your house (geo provides the same amount of cooling using 40% less energy). If you look at it as a monthly operating cost basis, then you start to get revenue-neutral, and in some cases, it's actually a positive cash flow situation. Then there are the intrinsic benefits....more comfortable environment...not being at the mercy of rising fossil fuel costs...knowing you are being "green"...knowing you are using the energy you OWN sitting on your own property.

Geothermal in Ontario seems to have a bit of a bad reputation at the moment, at least for some people, because there were fly-by-night companies installing geothermal setups that didn't work.

Well, geothermal will always work as long as the second law of thermodynamics works. But yea, years ago, when it was a "cottage industry" and completely unregulated, there were people designing and installing equipment and loops improperly. Geo systems are incredibly simple (which is what confuses most people). BUT...it must be designed and installed to precisely match the load it is supplying. If it is not, then its efficiency goes down accordingly. This is no different than any industry....if you install a 40,000 BTU gas furnace in a house that requires 80,000 BTU's to heat comfortably, then it's not going to work. There are many more factors to consider when designing a geo system, but you get the idea.

There should be no problems these days, as the industry is regulated. We now have the CGC (Canadian GeoExchange Coalition), which is a national body that regulates all equipment, designers, materials and installers. In fact, you can't qualify for any of these gov't rebates unless every aspect is CGC certified. You should never use "fly by night companies" for anything, and to be honest, you have no one to blame but yourself if you take that risk and are unhappy with the results.

 

[Eug]

Well, just about any schmuck can install a furnace and it will work. People usually don't have the problem of undersizing, because contractors generally do not undersize. In fact it seems they'll usually size it properly or else oversize it. Oversized units are inappropriate but they'll still work. Actually, with modern furnaces, oversized often isn't a huge problem either, because most of the good ones can reduce fuel usage to compensate. So, they'll be less efficient than a properly sized one, but they'll still work. And if it is a failure, you're only out a few thousand bux.

Geothermal is a completely different story. The up front costs are an order of magnitude higher, and the work is nowhere near as simple. There were a lot of people out there who simply didn't know what they were doing, and if they did it wrong, it was a disaster, so that's tarnished the image of geothermal. It will take a bit time for geothermal to get their reputation back with the general public I think. Also, while there are rebates for geothermal, there are rebates for gas furnaces too. Furthermore natural gas is still cheap in 2011.

I replaced my furnace last year. Geothermal wasn't even in the running as a consideration. I'd consider it for a new build - if it's a dream home that I plan on living in for 20 years - but for a retrofit for a house that already has a nicely landscaped yard, not a chance.

BTW, my previous furnace that came with the house was a 100000 BTU model (oversized). My new one is around 70000 BTU (which is appropriate as I had the load calculation done by an HVAC engineer), and it still only runs at about 40% capacity much of the time. However, I don't think I've ever come across anyone who was given a quote for a 40000 BTU furnace for a place that would need a 70000 BTU furnace, much less for a place that needed 80000 BTU. That just doesn't happen.

 

[freshcutgrass]

There were a lot of people out there who simply didn't know what they were doing, and if they did it wrong, it was a disaster, so that's tarnished the image of geothermal. It will take a bit time for geothermal to get their reputation back with the general public I think.

Where are you getting this information anyway? You sound like one of those guys I run across occasionally, who knew somebody, who mentioned they had a bad experience with it, and all of a sudden they are now experts about the industry. I remember being on a site one day, and a **DRYWALL INSTALLER** !!! blurts out to me..."hey, that shit doesn't work". Goes to prove the old saying that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

I've been involved in the industry going back...shit...20 years now? The industry doesn't have a bad reputation with the "general public", because it doesn't have any reputation, as the general public is oblivious to it (at least going back years ago). Residential geo systems were very rare years ago, as fuel & electricity was cheap, and nobody gave a rat's ass about the environment. The only people installing them were lake loops for cottages and people that had no gas lines to their houses. The vast majority worked fine. The industry had a very good reputation with those actually using it at the time...commercial buildings (especially schools). The up front capital costs were not an issue, as the ongoing operational cost savings were more important.

And any blame for bad work is generally not a case of "geo" people not knowing what they are doing...it's usually a case of heating/cooling people (or engineers) who don't know what they are doing...because they aren't "geo" people. Most of the time, the geo people are only subcontractors of the mechanical contractors, and just installing what they are asked to instal via specs & drawings (usually just the loop itself...sizing, equipment, delivery system done by the heating contractor). This has mostly been eliminated, as all aspects of the business are done by qualified "geo" people. A P-ENG thinks he knows everything....especially more than lowly me (who isn't a P-eng). So when I show up to a site to purge and charge the entire system, and point out the flaw in the system he has designed and installed that isn't going to work...his first reaction is denial.

Today, the "general population" is getting excited with geo (as sales would indicate), because of rising fuel costs and the fact that it's "GREEN". They still don't have much idea of how it works, but they don't have any negative opinions about it...that's just the few guys like you (who heard from somebody...who knew somebody, etc, etc). Although a lot of people still seem to think it's some kind of "science fiction" crap and are skeptical about it.

I don't think I've ever come across anyone who was given a quote for a 40000 BTU furnace for a place that would need a 70000 BTU furnace, much less for a place that needed 80000 BTU. That just doesn't happen.

Well, the point I was making wasn't whether that would actually happen or not...but that you wouldn't think natural gas heating is a bad idea because somebody may have done a bad job at installing it There's plenty of people doing anything who don't know what they are doing, or do poor work. The solution is to hire competent people...not abandon the idea.

Also, while there are rebates for geothermal, there are rebates for gas furnaces too. Furthermore natural gas is still cheap in 2011.

Even if you think natural gas is "cheap", it hardly can match the free, lifetime supply of fuel that comes with a geo system. And last time I checked, your natural gas furnace doesn't cool your home.

 

[Eug]

Where are you getting this information anyway? You sound like one of those guys I run across occasionally, who knew somebody, who mentioned they had a bad experience with it, and all of a sudden they are now experts about the industry.

Sorry that you're annoyed, but I never claimed to be an expert about this. I'm just repeating my experiences that when the topic of geothermal comes up, people mention what they've heard about it, which sometimes is that it's a lot of money to risk up front and they've heard about disasters of it not working properly. If you don't believe me, then fine. However, I will point out that negativity did get some play in the Canadian press, even quite recently.

--

The shady side of the green building industry

Mike Preston was everything his environmentally friendly customers wanted in a contractor.

The Oakville entrepreneur promised homeowners across Ontario he could solve their energy woes with state-of-the-art geothermal systems. They’d be cool in the summer and warm in the winter, saving money and the environment along the way. He said he was an accredited specialist who could help them get government rebates.

What happened next — the complaints of shoddy and unfinished work, the utility bills that doubled, the missing money — is part of a growing problem in the loosely regulated green building industry, a Star investigation has found.

--

This may surprise you, but I actually think geothermal is a great idea. However, I'll admit I'm more biased by the almighty buck. In terms of up front costs vs. resale value I'd rather risk tens of thousands on a basement reno than retrofitting geothermal to my home.

I've been involved in the industry going back...shit...20 years now?

I guess that explains why you're so gung-ho about it.

Residential geo systems were very rare years ago, as fuel & electricity was cheap, and nobody gave a rat's ass about the environment. The only people installing them were lake loops for cottages and people that had no gas lines to their houses. The vast majority worked fine. The industry had a very good reputation with those actually using it at the time...commercial buildings (especially schools). The up front capital costs were not an issue, as the ongoing operational cost savings were more important.

Well, I was talking about primary residences. If I wasn't clear about that then I apologize for that.

And any blame for bad work is generally not a case of "geo" people not knowing what they are doing...it's usually a case of heating/cooling people (or engineers) who don't know what they are doing...because they aren't "geo" people. Most of the time, the geo people are only subcontractors of the mechanical contractors, and just installing what they are asked to instal via specs & drawings (usually just the loop itself...sizing, equipment, delivery system done by the heating contractor). This has mostly been eliminated, as all aspects of the business are done by qualified "geo" people. A P-ENG thinks he knows everything....especially more than lowly me (who isn't a P-eng). So when I show up to a site to purge and charge the entire system, and point out the flaw in the system he has designed and installed that isn't going to work...his first reaction is denial.

Most people don't really care that much who the cause of the problem is. They care that there is a problem.

Today, the "general population" is getting excited with geo (as sales would indicate), because of rising fuel costs and the fact that it's "GREEN". They still don't have much idea of how it works, but they don't have any negative opinions about it...that's just the few guys like you (who heard from somebody...who knew somebody, etc, etc). Although a lot of people still seem to think it's some kind of "science fiction" crap and are skeptical about it.

You just said people didn't have an opinion on it, but then you said they're skeptical. So it would seem that you also have experienced that skepticism that I've heard people mention. In contrast, I don't hear as much skepticism anymore about tankless water heaters for example.

Well, the point I was making wasn't whether that would actually happen or not...but that you wouldn't think natural gas heating is a bad idea because somebody may have done a bad job at installing it There's plenty of people doing anything who don't know what they are doing, or do poor work. The solution is to hire competent people...not abandon the idea.

I agree, but the big difference here is the up front cost.

Even if you think natural gas is "cheap", it hardly can match the free, lifetime supply of fuel that comes with a geo system. And last time I checked, your natural gas furnace doesn't cool your home.

Like I said, if I were building my dreamhome and planned on living there for 20+ years, I definitely consider geothermal. Otherwise, not so much.

 

[old boy]

I gather there are no government incentives for residential new builds.

 

[Eug]

I gather there are no government incentives for residential new builds.

Yeah, that's stupid.

I'd rather see more money being provided for geothermal on new builds than have the provincial government subsidize rooftop solar so heavily. Similarly, I'd rather see more incentives for geothermal than to encourage pet wind power projects close to the shore of Toronto in an area which isn't known to have strong wind speeds.

 

[freshcutgrass]

I'm just repeating my experiences that when the topic of geothermal comes up, people mention what they've heard about it, which sometimes is that it's a lot of money to risk up front and they've heard about disasters of it not working properly.

I'm not questioning whether anyone has ever heard bad things about the industry...what I'm saying is that there are "bad stories" about any industry...it's a reflection on a few bad apples and perhaps consumers being a little too naive. I mean, there are thousands of these things installed every year that work perfectly and have happy clients. A few cautionary tales are good...people should definitely do their homework when sourcing a contractor...there is fraud and mismanaged companies in every area of business, but it shouldn't affect their decision to choose the technology...it does exactly what it says it does.

I will point out that negativity did get some play in the Canadian press, even quite recently.

Ha! I know all about Max Air. I spent quite a bit of time at Gord Cooper's home (very cool guy by the way...former Air Force captain, Snowbird pilot, audiophile and collects muscle cars) finishing the job left behind by them. But that was a case of alleged fraud...he took deposits and then declared bankruptcy or knowingly installed undersized geo systems. That happens in every industry unfortunately. Gord isn't sorry he chose geo...he's sorry he chose a bad company to do it.

But hey...newspapers sell more papers with scandals than with happy ending stories. But my experience is that the vast majority of people have never even heard of it...or may have heard of it, but don't really know what it is, and aren't aware of good or bad stories about it. The fact that you have multiple encounters of people that have bad experiences in the industry is very unusual.

Most people don't really care that much who the cause of the problem is. They care that there is a problem.

Well, there isn't a "problem" in the first place. There are "problems" with home builders...doesn't stop people buying homes...you still have to live somewhere. Just be careful not to buy a crappy built home. You still need to heat and cool your home, so why would you exclude geo on the basis there could be a "problem"? Just don't buy a crappy geo system.

I guess that explains why you're so gung-ho about it.

No...it just means I know more about it than most people. And anybody who does, is always gung-ho about it...what's not to be gung-ho about? It's the biggest band for your buck...other than a nuclear reactor, nothing is more efficient...and I don't see nuclear reactors being installed in homes anytime soon. For the record, I haven't been involved in a couple of years, so i really don't have a vested interest in misleading anyone.

You just said people didn't have an opinion on it, but then you said they're skeptical. So it would seem that you also have experienced that skepticism that I've heard people mention.

Ok...I'm really getting tired of continuing this circular argument with you. The people I run into PROFESSIONALLY...not the general public at large. Obviously if I'm there, they have some awareness of it. The reason they are skeptical, is because they are confused or ignorant about how it works, because it sometimes sounds "too good to be true". Once they have been educated on the subject, and understand it (because it's far more simple than they imagined it to be), they are no longer skeptical. There's nothing to be skeptical about...it's proven technology and based on basic physics that can't NOT work.

If your argument were to hold any water, there wouldn't be such a growth explosion in the industry. Look, I know you're just speaking from "your experience", but your experience is limited.

but the big difference here is the up front cost.
Like I said, if I were building my dreamhome and planned on living there for 20+ years, I definitely consider geothermal. Otherwise, not so much.

Depending on what it is replacing, and the type of loop that needs to be installed, the payback is waaaay less than 20 years. It can be as little as 3-5 years. The increased comfort, longer lifespan, less noise, safer, lower monthly operating costs, insurance against rising fuel costs, and very green, sustainable nature of it is all gravy.

And you're completely discounting the resale equity the system adds on your home. When you add this, the payback could actually be instant. If you list your house for an amount that takes into consideration the cost of the geo, then the people looking are looking for houses in that price range anyway. When comparing the various houses in that price range, don't think that the much cheaper monthly operating costs on the house with the geo isn't going to be a major factor in their decisions...probably more so than your "finished basement". There is no installation sticker shock for them....it's already built into an asking price they are already ok with.

I'd rather see more money being provided for geothermal on new builds than have the provincial government subsidize rooftop solar so heavily. Similarly, I'd rather see more incentives for geothermal than to encourage pet wind power projects close to the shore of Toronto in an area which isn't known to have strong wind speeds.

But the government is just jumping on the bandwagon, because solar and windpower are the big, sexy buzz words the public has a hard on for. Geo is about energy "efficiency"...not about energy "generation". Solar and wind generation is never going to fill the gap.

What they should do, is change the name to "GeoSolar", as it really is solar heat we are tapping into (the surface of the earth is a heat sink from the sun). The term "geothermal" is not used by the industry anymore...people confuse it with tapping into the (steam) heat from deep in the earth. The terms used now are "geoexchange" or "ground source". Use the word "SOLAR" and people get an instant hard on.

 

[Eug]

And you're completely discounting the resale equity the system adds on your home. When you add this, the payback could actually be instant. If you list your house for an amount that takes into consideration the cost of the geo, then the people looking are looking for houses in that price range anyway. When comparing the various houses in that price range, don't think that the much cheaper monthly operating costs on the house with the geo isn't going to be a major factor in their decisions...probably more so than your "finished basement". There is no installation sticker shock for them....it's already built into an asking price they are already ok with.

Well, this is clearly a bias from your end. Geothermal is an unknown entity for a lot of people. People I've talked to would NOT pay a $20000 premium for a house with geothermal. You said it yourself. People are skeptical. The same people would pay a $50000 premium for a finished basement.

I think the bias comes from the fact you work in the industry. Sure if you are dealing with people looking at geothermal as a heating option for their existing home, they'd consider paying extra for a new or resale home that already has it, esp. if they plan on living in that place for a long time. But for your average buyer? Not so much.

The people I run into PROFESSIONALLY...not the general public at large.

Yes, I would expect that, but the people you run into professionally are presumably those who are already interested in geothermal.

The increased comfort, longer lifespan, less noise, safer, lower monthly operating costs, insurance against rising fuel costs, and very green, sustainable nature of it is all gravy.

I'm not so sure what you mean by increased comfort and less noise. If the temp and humidity are maintained with natural gas or electricity or geothermal, then comfort for all of the above should be about the same. Well, noise I can sort of understand, but if you spend a little extra on the non-geothermal options, the noise is often pretty much negligible.

Lower monthly operating costs most definitely. Insurance against rising fuel costs maybe, but some people don't necessarily want to pay for that insurance in up front costs.

Depending on what it is replacing, and the type of loop that needs to be installed, the payback is waaaay less than 20 years. It can be as little as 3-5 years.

I think you'd agree that it's fair to say that it usually is not 3-5 years.

But hey...newspapers sell more papers with scandals than with happy ending stories. But my experience is that the vast majority of people have never even heard of it...or may have heard of it, but don't really know what it is, and aren't aware of good or bad stories about it. The fact that you have multiple encounters of people that have bad experiences in the industry is very unusual.

You're putting words in my mouth. I never actually said that. I just said the people I've talked to are either skeptical of the claims or else are concerned about having to put up so much money up front for a technology they don't know a lot about. And then some people have heard about bad experiences with geothermal.

So this brings me back to the point in my original post. There is still a long way for geothermal to go in the PR department. I'm glad you're a champion of the tech, because I think it's a good tech, and it needs champions. However, educating people about geothermal needs to the fair and relatively unbiased. If you go around telling your potential customers that the pay back is 3-5 years, they'll be inclined not to believe you, unless you specify exactly the situation.

What they should do, is change the name to "GeoSolar", as it really is solar heat we are tapping into (the surface of the earth is a heat sink from the sun). The term "geothermal" is not used by the industry anymore...people confuse it with tapping into the (steam) heat from deep in the earth. The terms used now are "geoexchange" or "ground source". Use the word "SOLAR" and people get an instant hard on.

Well, to honest, I'd personally hate that term. It'd sound almost like geothermal people are trying to jump on the solar bandwagon, for no good justifiable reason. Too gimmicky, but that's just my useless opinion.

 

[freshcutgrass]

Geothermal is an unknown entity for a lot of people.

Which is why it needs to be a known entity.

People I've talked to would NOT pay a $20000 premium for a house with geothermal. You said it yourself. People are skeptical. The same people would pay a $50000 premium for a finished basement.

Well obviously, I have talked to a lot more people than you have. I also have a real estate background (I've been educated at OREA...have you? ). Your "opinion" is based on limited knowledge and facts.

And they aren't really paying a "premium" at all....they are looking at houses in their price range. If somebody is looking at 5 houses in the same price range, size and location, how could you possibly say the one with the geo system that has lower monthly utility bills to operate isn't going to be an extremely attractive attribute when making their decision? Of course it is. And at this point, there is nothing to be "skeptical" about...it's already installed and running. It's stupidly simple to prove...just look at the utility bills.

And you must be completely unaware of the value placed on "green" these days. And geo isn't just an expensive "sacrifice" for the sake of being "green" (like buying Bullfrog power)...it actually PAYS you back for doing it.

I think the bias comes from the fact you work in the industry.

Well, like I said, I am not working in the industry. And my bias comes from knowledge of facts, and experience. I'm not biased because I have something to gain from misleading people.

Sure if you are dealing with people looking at geothermal as a heating option for their existing home, they'd consider paying extra for a new or resale home that already has it, esp. if they plan on living in that place for a long time. But for your average buyer? Not so much.

Again...I don't know where you get your "opinion" (a couple of your drinking buddies who know even less than you do? ). I'll stick with facts and reality. When people are educated about it, they are very interested. The huge annual growth in the industry is proof of that.

Yes, I would expect that, but the people you run into professionally are presumably those who are already interested in geothermal.

Some of them are. And why do you think they are interested...because they have been educated about it. A lot of the time, people just learn that I am in geo, and start asking questions about it. Most of them have no clue what it is, how it works, or what the benefits are....it's a very rare occasion that I run into somebody who has a negative opinion about it.

I think you'd agree that it's fair to say that it usually is not 3-5 years.

Then you would think wrong. It would be fair to say it is NEVER 20 years though, even in the worse case scenario (replacing natural gas and using a drilled vertical loop). And even in these worse cases, there aren't enough drill rigs in Ontario to keep up with demand. You clearly don't know what you are talking about.

I just said the people I've talked to are either skeptical of the claims or else are concerned about having to put up so much money up front for a technology they don't know a lot about.

Right...so what you are really saying is...that the people you have talked to about it lack the knowledge and facts to draw an informed opinion. I wouldn't advise anyone to invest money in anything they don't know a lot about. So...the solution is...get to know about it.

I'm not so sure what you mean by increased comfort and less noise. If the temp and humidity are maintained with natural gas or electricity or geothermal, then comfort for all of the above should be about the same.

You aren't sure what I mean, because you don't know enough about what you are talking about. Without going into it...NO..."all of the above" is NOT the same.

Insurance against rising fuel costs maybe, but some people don't necessarily want to pay for that insurance in up front costs.
What do you mean "maybe"?

"Some" people won't of course. Because "some" people simply like to do what they are already doing...no matter if it's in their best interest or not. I can't help that.
The "fuel" for geo is free and is located on your own property, and will continue to be free forever (well, for about 5 billion years anyway...until the sun becomes a red giant and we won't be around anyway).
Is the cost of fossil fuel or electricity plus the cost of delivering it to your home going to increase or decrease in the future? My guess is...it's going to increase. It already costs a lot now. And this is significantly less than "free". The fuel for geo might be free, but there is a cost in "moving" it around. But it takes a lot less energy to "move" BTUs than it does to "create" BTU's.

5 years from now, are you still going to be heating your home and water? Are you still going to be cooling your home? Yes you are. You can continue paying the utility companies whatever they are charging...or you can continue to pay yourself. If you sell your home before you can recoup initial investment in energy savings, the increased equity this system has added to the value of your home will probably make up for it (or more than make up for it). As time goes on, do you think a house with a geo system is going to be more attractive...or less attractive? Me thinks the former. Keep in mind many little things...like the lifespan of a ground source heat pump is roughly double that of a gas furnace or conventional air conditioner.

However, educating people about geothermal needs to the fair and relatively unbiased. If you go around telling your potential customers that the pay back is 3-5 years, they'll be inclined not to believe you, unless you specify exactly the situation.

I would never, and have never quoted anybody a specific payback time unless an analysis of their specific scenario stated such. There's nothing "unfair" or "biased" about stating facts...the client can make the decision when he has the facts.

Well, to honest, I'd personally hate that term. It'd sound almost like geothermal people are trying to jump on the solar bandwagon, for no good justifiable reason. Too gimmicky

There's nothing gimmicky about it...it IS solar power. What's the difference if I stick a panel on my roof that acts as a solar heat sink and extract that power from it...and using an already existing solar heat sink (the ground)....the only difference is that the ground source is far more efficient and comes with a lifetime warranty and I've already paid for it....it works 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and it can also cool my house, which a solar panel on your rood can't do.

but that's just my useless opinion.

Calling it an "uneducated opinion" would be more accurate. And this uneducated opinion is fairly "useless" in helping the geo industry, as you purport to support. The more intelligent people that I run into that are uneducated about it tend to ask questions...rather than make statements and draw conclusions based on their lack of knowledge.

You've obviously made your mind up...fair enough. Luckily, there's enough people that are not like you, which is why the industry is growing.