11-03-2014 03:13 PM
Dammed Heritage, Damned Consumers
Next week, a company called Swift River Energy Limited will start ripping up the landscape to dam the waterfalls at the heart of the town of Bala, Ontario. The 4.5 MW project, located where Lake Muskoka issues into the Moon River, would produce a trivial amount of useful power. Most of the output will be delivered when Ontario and neighbouring utilities are already over-supplied. Ontario consumers will pay far above market rates for every drop of its juice — up to 17.685 cents/kWh. For the foreseeable future, the consumers benefiting from this project will be in Michigan and New York. They will pay pennies on the dollar for the exported power. Lost will be an ancient portage route travelled for centuries by aboriginal people, explorers, fur traders, and more recently by recreational paddlers. Where there is today a public park with free parking and a place for folks to picnic, view the falls, swim and fish, in its place will be a concrete impoundment and powerhouse, probably surrounded with a barbed wire fence. As documented in this post from Mitchell Shnier, the project’s development has been facilitated by a bogus Environmental Assessment process administered by conflicted government agencies charged with implementing the government’s green-at-all-cost agenda. The process has been based on phoney information from the proponent. Reasonable compromises proposed by concerned citizens that could have preserved some of the historic and amenity values of this unique site were simply ignored. The destruction of Bala Falls is what we get when energy policy decisions are driven by public opinion polls. Most folks in Ontario think that hydro-power is environmentally friendly and cheap. All three political parties spout similar nonsense on how Ontario needs more hydro power. The reality of new hydro power in Ontario is very different than historic hydro power. The good power generation sites were developed long ago. The last hydro power project constructed in Ontario that delivers net value for consumers today is probably OPG’s 82 MW Arnprior GS, completed in 1977 for $89 million (that included the spillway dam too). Reflecting the fact that the only hydro power sites left have marginal production potential that is very costly to exploit, every project since then has been a loser for consumers. Ontario’s few remaining wild waterfalls are precious treasures, like old growth forests. Throwing them away for a miserable little bit of useful power at drastic expense is a testament to the current state of green thinking. Here is a previous posting on ruinous hydro power development referencing the excellent work of the Ontario River’s Alliance that might interest folks following the story: http://www.tomadamsenergy.com/2012/06/14/water-power-developments-ugly-side/ Post script 4:45 pm October 16: After posting this commentary, I found this news report indicating that there may be some chance of reprieve for Bala Falls. More details are available on here.
http://www.tomadamsenergy.com/2014/10/16/dammed-heritage-damned-consumers/#more-5387
11-04-2014 06:42 PM
@disisus wrote:Geothermal pumps work great even at 30 below here in Manitoba. No other heat source is needed depending on the size of the building and the land you have to work with.They can lower your heating costs by up to 70%.
My Pastor went Geothermal for his house years ago and has never looked back. Cheap to run, even heating in the winter and cooling
in the summer. He has no other source of heat.
Manitoba Hydro also offers to help finance anyone who wants to go Geothermal.
https://www.hydro.mb.ca/your_home/geothermal_heat_pumps/how_it_works.shtml
Geothermal is a different cat !
The heat pumps that art mentioned are air to air heat pumps. Great for air conditioning and location where the temperature very rarely goes below freezing.
11-04-2014 06:57 PM
From Green Building Advisor dot com Ground-Source Heat Pumps Don’t Save Energy
Ground-source heat pumps are sometimes seen as a magic technology that can provide an endless supply of environmentally friendly energy. There’s only one problem: ground-source heat pumps aren’t necessarily more energy efficient than traditional home heating systems.
To understand how a heat pump works, imagine using your refrigerator to keep your kitchen warm all winter. Let’s say you haul a bucket of 55° water from a backyard well and put it in your refrigerator to cool it down to 50°. Because the heat removed from the water escapes from the coils at the back of the refrigerator, you have just delivered heat to your kitchen. If you get tired of replacing the bucket of 50° water with new 55° water, you could just install a pump to circulate water to and from the pond.
With a large enough pump and a large enough refrigerator, this method could keep your kitchen warm all winter. A ground-source heat pump works in a similar way, except it has a larger refrigeration capacity and delivers its heat through ducts or radiators.
Do heat pumps save fossil fuel?
The catch is that while the heat in the groundwater is almost infinite, the electricity used to run the pump and the refrigeration unit is not. For a heat pump to actually save fossil fuel, it must deliver more heat to the house than is consumed in the process of making the electricity it uses, including the electricity used to operate the water pump.
Burning fossil fuel in power plants and transporting it through the electricity grid is about 31% efficient. If fossil fuel is burned in your home using a good sealed-combustion boiler or furnace, the annual efficiency might be about 92%—almost three times more efficient.
A heat pump that delivers 3 watts of heat for every watt of electricity it consumes is said to have a coefficient of performance (COP) of 3. This is about the level necessary if the heat pump is to actually save fuel compared to a good (not even super efficient) boiler or furnace that burns natural gas or fuel oil.
Don’t forget to factor in the water pump’s energy use
Most ground-source heat pumps are rated by their manufacturers at a heating COP of about 3.5 to 4. There is a catch, though: COP ratings do not include the energy used by the water pumps. Because pump size and electricity use varies significantly from installation to installation, it is impossible to know the COP of an actual system without measuring. But, in general, when the electricity used by the pump is added to the picture, the COP probably drops to 3 or lower, which means that heat pumps actually use more fossil fuel than a furnace or boiler.
Surprisingly, there has apparently never been a U.S. study measuring the COP of randomly selected residential ground-source heap pumps. One study that came close (“Measured Performance of Five Geothermal Systems,” NAHB Research Center, November, 1999) was prepared for the Ground Source Heat Pump Consortium — surely not a neutral party. The studied heat pumps were not normal installations: the air-handler blowers had very efficient electronically commutated motors (ECM, which in 1999 were rare and are unusual today), and the ducts were PVC pipe cemented together (almost leak-free). Even under these best-case installations, the heat pumps only managed to produce COP values a little over 3.
In other words, the best-case installations the industry could come up with barely saved any energy compared to burning fossil fuel in the building. And those measurements were for new installations; after months of use the groundwater will cool off, lowering the COP still further.
Because ground-source heat pumps probably use more fossil fuel than simply installing a good boiler or furnace, green builders shouldn’t see heat pumps as a renewable energy source. Remember, it’s always better to reduce the amount of energy a building requires than to look for a new source of energy.
11-04-2014 07:07 PM - edited 11-04-2014 07:08 PM
"Posted on Apr 6 2009"
How relevant is that old information in a world where technology changes bring improvements every year?
Why can't you guys look at the big picture - there is a real climate change problem out there - instead of finding examples of things that may not be perfect or may still be expensive until mass production reduces costs?
11-04-2014 07:14 PM
Most of us cannot afford the 20 - 25,000 required for a geothermal system. So we do the best we can and install a HENG furnace.
11-04-2014 10:11 PM
I had considered installing a solar panel installation on my house rooftop. However by the time it would pay for it's self makes it obsolete.