Re: Daniel Howes: Prices we pay for gas drive behavior

Get real. Not enough BTUs, really? Better do a bit of geological
research. Speak to a spelunker or ask hunter or camper that goes to one of
the old mine shafts in summer to cool down, and in winter to get warm.

If one goes deep enough it starts to get warmer. Ask a miner that works in
one of South Africans extraordinarily deep miles

Who would want to drink 55 degree coffee in any event? . LOL

mike


"mark_digital©" <976-XXX@comcastnot.com> wrote in message
news:lOydnbkm4oSRJyjYnZ2dnUVZ_revnZ2d@comcast.com...[color=blue]
>
> "Ray O" <rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote in message
> news:a2079$45b5a21a$47c2b532$30571@msgid.meganewsservers.com...[color=green]
>>
>> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>> news:vrScndS0P-ye9SjYUSdV9g@ptd.net...[color=darkred]
>>> However what we us to 'take' it is very expensive and not very
>>> efficient. One would be better served going the other direction, down.
>>> Go down less than 50 feet with a heat exchanger, about the size of a
>>> small refrigerator, where the temperature is a constant 55 degrees or
>>> so. You can air condition at that temperature and one need only heat it
>>> 20 degrees to heat the house, both of which are much more costly to do
>>> than heat water ;)
>>>
>>> mike
>>>
>>>[/color]
>>
>> That seems like a practical and ecologically friendly solution; I am
>> surprised that it is not more widely implemented.
>>
>>[/color]
>
> There isn't enough BTU's down there per Mike's scenario to reheat a cup of
> coffee. Good try though.
> mark_
>[/color]

"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:kKednTogn4E1vivYUSdV9g@ptd.net...[color=blue]
> Get real. Not enough BTUs, really?[/color]
Yes, really.

What color is the sky in your world. LOL


mike


"mark_digital©" <976-XXX@comcastnot.com> wrote in message
news:Q6-dnZ4rra2PtSvYnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@comcast.com...[color=blue]
>
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> news:kKednTogn4E1vivYUSdV9g@ptd.net...[color=green]
>> Get real. Not enough BTUs, really?[/color]
> Yes, really.
>[/color]

"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:ha2dnTb2lMOBvSvYUSdV9g@ptd.net...[color=blue]
> Perhaps it is time we listened to the engineers, not the environuts? ;)
>
>
> mike
>[/color]

Geothermal heating and cooling seems like an environut's dream. No solar
panels to spoil the view in the back yard or the appearance of the roof, no
wind turbines for the birds to have to fly around, no batteries to pollute
landfills, no new hydroelectric dams, no greenhouse gases generated, no
holes in the ozone. Professional protesters and complainers would have to
come up with a new reason to convince the media to publish their stories.
Perhaps they could claim that robbing the heat from the ground is
contributing to global cooling in the winter and global warming in the
summer, that way they have all the seasons covered. ;-)

--

Ray O
(correct punctuation to reply)

"Ray O" <rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote in message
news:2465$45b6491e$44a4a10d$1597@msgid.meganewsservers.com...[color=blue]
>
> "mark_digital©" <976-XXX@comcastnot.com> wrote in message
> news:lOydnbkm4oSRJyjYnZ2dnUVZ_revnZ2d@comcast.com...[color=green]
>>
>> "Ray O" <rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote in message
>> news:a2079$45b5a21a$47c2b532$30571@msgid.meganewsservers.com...[color=darkred]
>>>
>>> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>>> news:vrScndS0P-ye9SjYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>>> However what we us to 'take' it is very expensive and not very
>>>> efficient. One would be better served going the other direction, down.
>>>> Go down less than 50 feet with a heat exchanger, about the size of a
>>>> small refrigerator, where the temperature is a constant 55 degrees or
>>>> so. You can air condition at that temperature and one need only heat it
>>>> 20 degrees to heat the house, both of which are much more costly to do
>>>> than heat water ;)
>>>>
>>>> mike
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> That seems like a practical and ecologically friendly solution; I am
>>> surprised that it is not more widely implemented.
>>>
>>>[/color]
>>
>> There isn't enough BTU's down there per Mike's scenario to reheat a cup
>> of coffee. Good try though.
>> mark_[/color]
>
> The idea is not to heat water enough to reheat coffee or take a shower, it
> is to get the air temp up to 55 degrees so that the structure's
> conventional heating system only has to raise the fresh air intake 20
> degrees if it happens to be below 55 degrees outside.
> --
>
> Ray O
> (correct punctuation to reply)
>[/color]

Even if you throw in a heat pump into this discussion it still won't work.
Period.

"mark_digital©" <976-XXX@comcastnot.com> wrote in message
news:Zumdnd1wPMShBCvYnZ2dnUVZ_u-unZ2d@comcast.com...[color=blue]
>
> "Ray O" <rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote in message
> news:2465$45b6491e$44a4a10d$1597@msgid.meganewsservers.com...[color=green]
>>
>> "mark_digital©" <976-XXX@comcastnot.com> wrote in message
>> news:lOydnbkm4oSRJyjYnZ2dnUVZ_revnZ2d@comcast.com...[color=darkred]
>>>
>>> "Ray O" <rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote in message
>>> news:a2079$45b5a21a$47c2b532$30571@msgid.meganewsservers.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:vrScndS0P-ye9SjYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>>>> However what we us to 'take' it is very expensive and not very
>>>>> efficient. One would be better served going the other direction, down.
>>>>> Go down less than 50 feet with a heat exchanger, about the size of a
>>>>> small refrigerator, where the temperature is a constant 55 degrees or
>>>>> so. You can air condition at that temperature and one need only heat
>>>>> it 20 degrees to heat the house, both of which are much more costly to
>>>>> do than heat water ;)
>>>>>
>>>>> mike
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That seems like a practical and ecologically friendly solution; I am
>>>> surprised that it is not more widely implemented.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> There isn't enough BTU's down there per Mike's scenario to reheat a cup
>>> of coffee. Good try though.
>>> mark_[/color]
>>
>> The idea is not to heat water enough to reheat coffee or take a shower,
>> it is to get the air temp up to 55 degrees so that the structure's
>> conventional heating system only has to raise the fresh air intake 20
>> degrees if it happens to be below 55 degrees outside.
>> --
>>
>> Ray O
>> (correct punctuation to reply)
>>[/color]
>
> Even if you throw in a heat pump into this discussion it still won't work.
> Period.
>[/color]
Perhaps you do not understand the design intent of the system.

The system is NOT intended to provide ALL of the heat in a structure or
replace whatever conventional heater is already installed in the structure.
Even though the system could not replace a conventional heater, it would
provide SOME heat and reduce the conventional heater's work load, kind of
like a head start or a pre-heater.

When you say "it won't work, period" are you saying that the system will not
reduce the demand on the heater? If so, why would it not work?
--

Ray O
(correct punctuation to reply)

"Ray O" <rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote in message
news:43502$45b64573$44a4a10d$1518@msgid.meganewsservers.com...[color=blue]
> ...... No solar panels to spoil the view in the back yard or the
> appearance of the roof, ......[/color]

I actually like the look of the solar panels on my roof. It also starts
conversations constantly (viewed as a good thing).
Tomes

"Ray O" <rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote in message
news:a22b3$45b69fd1$44a4a10d$6500@msgid.meganewsservers.com...[color=blue]
>
> "mark_digital©" <976-XXX@comcastnot.com> wrote in message
> news:Zumdnd1wPMShBCvYnZ2dnUVZ_u-unZ2d@comcast.com...[color=green]
>>
>> "Ray O" <rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote in message
>> news:2465$45b6491e$44a4a10d$1597@msgid.meganewsservers.com...[color=darkred]
>>>
>>> "mark_digital©" <976-XXX@comcastnot.com> wrote in message
>>> news:lOydnbkm4oSRJyjYnZ2dnUVZ_revnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Ray O" <rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote in message
>>>> news:a2079$45b5a21a$47c2b532$30571@msgid.meganewsservers.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:vrScndS0P-ye9SjYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>>>>> However what we us to 'take' it is very expensive and not very
>>>>>> efficient. One would be better served going the other direction,
>>>>>> down. Go down less than 50 feet with a heat exchanger, about the size
>>>>>> of a small refrigerator, where the temperature is a constant 55
>>>>>> degrees or so. You can air condition at that temperature and one need
>>>>>> only heat it 20 degrees to heat the house, both of which are much
>>>>>> more costly to do than heat water ;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> mike
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That seems like a practical and ecologically friendly solution; I am
>>>>> surprised that it is not more widely implemented.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There isn't enough BTU's down there per Mike's scenario to reheat a cup
>>>> of coffee. Good try though.
>>>> mark_
>>>
>>> The idea is not to heat water enough to reheat coffee or take a shower,
>>> it is to get the air temp up to 55 degrees so that the structure's
>>> conventional heating system only has to raise the fresh air intake 20
>>> degrees if it happens to be below 55 degrees outside.
>>> --
>>>
>>> Ray O
>>> (correct punctuation to reply)
>>>[/color]
>>
>> Even if you throw in a heat pump into this discussion it still won't
>> work. Period.
>>[/color]
> Perhaps you do not understand the design intent of the system.
>
> The system is NOT intended to provide ALL of the heat in a structure or
> replace whatever conventional heater is already installed in the
> structure. Even though the system could not replace a conventional heater,
> it would provide SOME heat and reduce the conventional heater's work load,
> kind of like a head start or a pre-heater.
>
> When you say "it won't work, period" are you saying that the system will
> not reduce the demand on the heater? If so, why would it not work?
> --
>
> Ray O
> (correct punctuation to reply)
>[/color]

There isn't enough thermal mass. The recovery rate is less than thermal
loss. There isn't enough BTU's.
Do you own a home that has absolutely no thermal transfer?

"Ray O" <rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote in message
news:43502$45b64573$44a4a10d$1518@msgid.meganewsservers.com...[color=blue]
>
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> news:ha2dnTb2lMOBvSvYUSdV9g@ptd.net...[color=green]
>> Perhaps it is time we listened to the engineers, not the environuts? ;)
>>
>>
>> mike
>>[/color]
>
> Geothermal heating and cooling seems like an environut's dream. No solar
> panels to spoil the view in the back yard or the appearance of the roof,
> no wind turbines for the birds to have to fly around, no batteries to
> pollute landfills, no new hydroelectric dams, no greenhouse gases
> generated, no holes in the ozone. Professional protesters and complainers
> would have to come up with a new reason to convince the media to publish
> their stories. Perhaps they could claim that robbing the heat from the
> ground is contributing to global cooling in the winter and global warming
> in the summer, that way they have all the seasons covered. ;-)
>
> --
>
> Ray O
> (correct punctuation to reply)
>
>[/color]

I wish I had seen this post of yours before committing to the one I posted
earlier. You haven't any desire to understand the why's and the why nots. Ok
play your retarded games. I fold.

"mark_digital©" <976-XXX@comcastnot.com> wrote in message
news:2eadnXOlN51RTSvYnZ2dnUVZ_veinZ2d@comcast.com...[color=blue]
>
>snipped>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>>> There isn't enough BTU's down there per Mike's scenario to reheat a
>>>>> cup of coffee. Good try though.
>>>>> mark_
>>>>
>>>> The idea is not to heat water enough to reheat coffee or take a shower,
>>>> it is to get the air temp up to 55 degrees so that the structure's
>>>> conventional heating system only has to raise the fresh air intake 20
>>>> degrees if it happens to be below 55 degrees outside.
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Ray O
>>>> (correct punctuation to reply)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Even if you throw in a heat pump into this discussion it still won't
>>> work. Period.
>>>[/color]
>> Perhaps you do not understand the design intent of the system.
>>
>> The system is NOT intended to provide ALL of the heat in a structure or
>> replace whatever conventional heater is already installed in the
>> structure. Even though the system could not replace a conventional
>> heater, it would provide SOME heat and reduce the conventional heater's
>> work load, kind of like a head start or a pre-heater.
>>
>> When you say "it won't work, period" are you saying that the system will
>> not reduce the demand on the heater? If so, why would it not work?
>> --
>>
>> Ray O
>> (correct punctuation to reply)
>>[/color]
>
> There isn't enough thermal mass. The recovery rate is less than thermal
> loss. There isn't enough BTU's.
> Do you own a home that has absolutely no thermal transfer?[/color]

I guess I'm totally missing your point, or we're talking apples and oranges.
I am all for learning from someone who knows more about a subject than I do,
but "it won't work" doesn't help me understand much.

The information on these sites that I got from a google search "geothermal
heating" lead me to believe that the systems work and are already in use:
[url]http://www.eere.energy.gov/consumer/your_home/space_heating_cooling/index.cfm/mytopic=12640[/url]
[url]http://www.geoexchange.org/about/how.htm[/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_heating[/url]

When you say that there isn't enough thermal mass, are you talking about the
mass of the ground, the house, the system for conducting the heat from the
ground to the air in the house, or something else entirely?

Some of the sites mention high installation cost and lack of qualified
installation contractors as a drawback, but those drawbacks can be overcome
somewhat with economies of scale and more widespread adoption.

"mark_digital©" <976-XXX@comcastnot.com> wrote in message
news:t9KdnelZMK-VSivYnZ2dnUVZ_qarnZ2d@comcast.com...[color=blue]
>
> "Ray O" <rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote in message
> news:43502$45b64573$44a4a10d$1518@msgid.meganewsservers.com...[color=green]
>>
>> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>> news:ha2dnTb2lMOBvSvYUSdV9g@ptd.net...[color=darkred]
>>> Perhaps it is time we listened to the engineers, not the environuts? ;)
>>>
>>>
>>> mike
>>>[/color]
>>
>> Geothermal heating and cooling seems like an environut's dream. No solar
>> panels to spoil the view in the back yard or the appearance of the roof,
>> no wind turbines for the birds to have to fly around, no batteries to
>> pollute landfills, no new hydroelectric dams, no greenhouse gases
>> generated, no holes in the ozone. Professional protesters and
>> complainers would have to come up with a new reason to convince the media
>> to publish their stories. Perhaps they could claim that robbing the heat
>> from the ground is contributing to global cooling in the winter and
>> global warming in the summer, that way they have all the seasons covered.
>> ;-)
>>
>> --
>>
>> Ray O
>> (correct punctuation to reply)
>>
>>[/color]
>
> I wish I had seen this post of yours before committing to the one I posted
> earlier. You haven't any desire to understand the why's and the why nots.
> Ok play your retarded games. I fold.[/color]

Mea culpa, "environut" was a poor choice of words. I believe that the
advantages of geothermal heating that I listed are real, and I also believe
that professional protesters and complainers aren't happy unless they have
something to complain about. By "professional protester," I am not talking
about people who are trying to make a positive difference in the world; I
applaud those individuals. By "professional protester," I am talking about
people all over the political and social spectrum who never have anything
positive to say and look at a problem as a means to further their "cause"
instead of as an opportunity to silently do the right thing without calling
the media first.
--

Ray O
(correct punctuation to reply)

Re this discussion on "geothermal heating"... I think much of
the confusion arises from mis-use of the term "geothermal". I
understand that to mean the serious amount of heat produced by
processes such as localised leaking from volcanic vents: think
of geysers in (eg) Yellowstone Park.

The process being advocated for heating a building in a normal
situation would be "ground sourced heat pumping", qv. This is
a very close cousin to the "air sourced" pumping we know well,
exemplified by those a/c units hanging outside many US windows
which exchange heat with the air.

AIUI, ground sourced heat pumps are vastly more effective than
air sourced units because, at latitudes of nations like the US
and central Europe, digging down a couple of metres brings you
to where the temperature remains around 12C (53.6F) throughout
the year. 12C is closer to temperatures required of a typical
a/c unit (I like 16C warm, 21C cool) than temperatures handled
by typical air sourced units (40C+ to sub-freezing), so effort
needed to pump heat up the thermal gradient is smaller.

Ground sourced heat pumps have arrived. Anyone who doubts the
cost advantages needs an education, in a big fat (hot) hurry.

One problem they do have is, because of that thermal gradient,
heating water to higher than gentle temperatures (suitable for
washing and under-floor c/heating) gets more expensive, due to
the greater effort required, so wall radiators are tricky.
--
Andrew Stephenson

"Andrew Stephenson" <ames@deltrak.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1169644388snz@deltrak.demon.co.uk...[color=blue]
> Re this discussion on "geothermal heating"... I think much of
> the confusion arises from mis-use of the term "geothermal". I
> understand that to mean the serious amount of heat produced by
> processes such as localised leaking from volcanic vents: think
> of geysers in (eg) Yellowstone Park.
>
> The process being advocated for heating a building in a normal
> situation would be "ground sourced heat pumping", qv. This is
> a very close cousin to the "air sourced" pumping we know well,
> exemplified by those a/c units hanging outside many US windows
> which exchange heat with the air.
>
> AIUI, ground sourced heat pumps are vastly more effective than
> air sourced units because, at latitudes of nations like the US
> and central Europe, digging down a couple of metres brings you
> to where the temperature remains around 12C (53.6F) throughout
> the year. 12C is closer to temperatures required of a typical
> a/c unit (I like 16C warm, 21C cool) than temperatures handled
> by typical air sourced units (40C+ to sub-freezing), so effort
> needed to pump heat up the thermal gradient is smaller.
>
> Ground sourced heat pumps have arrived. Anyone who doubts the
> cost advantages needs an education, in a big fat (hot) hurry.
>
> One problem they do have is, because of that thermal gradient,
> heating water to higher than gentle temperatures (suitable for
> washing and under-floor c/heating) gets more expensive, due to
> the greater effort required, so wall radiators are tricky.
> --
> Andrew Stephenson
>[/color]
Just want you to know 4 years in heating and refrigeration, and
apprenticing in heating and cooling, doesn't mean I'm capable of teaching
special ed.
I'm glad you joined the discussion.

"Andrew Stephenson" <ames@deltrak.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1169644388snz@deltrak.demon.co.uk...[color=blue]
> Re this discussion on "geothermal heating"... I think much of
> the confusion arises from mis-use of the term "geothermal". I
> understand that to mean the serious amount of heat produced by
> processes such as localised leaking from volcanic vents: think
> of geysers in (eg) Yellowstone Park.
>
> The process being advocated for heating a building in a normal
> situation would be "ground sourced heat pumping", qv. This is
> a very close cousin to the "air sourced" pumping we know well,
> exemplified by those a/c units hanging outside many US windows
> which exchange heat with the air.
>
> AIUI, ground sourced heat pumps are vastly more effective than
> air sourced units because, at latitudes of nations like the US
> and central Europe, digging down a couple of metres brings you
> to where the temperature remains around 12C (53.6F) throughout
> the year. 12C is closer to temperatures required of a typical
> a/c unit (I like 16C warm, 21C cool) than temperatures handled
> by typical air sourced units (40C+ to sub-freezing), so effort
> needed to pump heat up the thermal gradient is smaller.
>
> Ground sourced heat pumps have arrived. Anyone who doubts the
> cost advantages needs an education, in a big fat (hot) hurry.
>
> One problem they do have is, because of that thermal gradient,
> heating water to higher than gentle temperatures (suitable for
> washing and under-floor c/heating) gets more expensive, due to
> the greater effort required, so wall radiators are tricky.
> --
> Andrew Stephenson[/color]

Great explanation! Thanks
--

Ray O
(correct punctuation to reply)

In article <1169644388snz@deltrak.demon.co.uk>
[email]ames@deltrak.demon.co.uk[/email] "Andrew Stephenson" writes:
[color=blue]
> [...]
> The process being advocated for heating a building in a normal
> situation would be "ground sourced heat pumping", qv. [...][/color]

There is a bit of practical info on this web site (ignore wrap):

[url]http://www.wolseleysbc.co.uk/active/features/features/[/url]
heat-pumps/index.html

Note that this is a UK-oriented site. "Economy 7" is an off-peak
electricity tariff: typically, between 0100 and 0700 the price is
about halved.

However, Wolseley are a huge international company, doing roughly
half its business in the US, so they may have a US-oriented site.
(Mainly, they sell bits for houses. I own a few shares in them.)

Other pages, about other green hardware, may also be of interest.
But not everything they offer is necessarily the best deal. AIUI
rival solar collector schemes are available. But the basic facts
may be useful.
--
Andrew Stephenson