Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardhatdan
I was talking to someone and they are aggresively persuing geo-thermal. Their numbers breakdown was 7 years for the capital pay-off.
This was based of a geo-thermal with gas-fired back up. They said that this system would be good to approx. -20 deg and that to bring that to -40 deg would cost something like 300% more. So they go with a gas-fired back up. The difference is apparently the well depth you need to drill.
The cogen makes very little sense to me, unless they think they can insulate the building from growing electricity costs by securing cheap natural gas...but that boggles my mind.
|
But what type of building were the geothermal people talking about? If you have a lowish FAR then geothermal would be more attractive, because you have lots of ground to run pipes in, and not a lot of building above to heat and cool. So a school, firehall, house or that kindof thing.
But this building will have a very high FAR, tonnes of heat transfer from all of the glazing, and almost no site area to fill with pipes. Which means to get any use out of geothermal they will need to go down - waaaaaaaay down.
I still see that press release as "What can we throw in that sounds good? Condos on the podium, even though we don't have space for them - check. Geothermal, even though it's not feasible - check. Cogen - sure, why not?"
But yeah, it's BCM. The Zen, The Max, Fuzion and the Edmontonian - one of these things is not like the others.
Prev
Linear Mode
