Heating Help

Sustainability versus Eco-Bling

Sorry to rain on your parade - but there's a very unfortunate undercurrent beneath many 'sustainable' and 'energy efficient' projects.

No-one EVER does the sums properly.  The Martha's Vineyard project LOOKS fantastic and clearly cost zillions. Doesn't really matter on a global scale, since it's a one-off.  And it looks like the owner will be able to operate and maintain ths monster (!!) himself.  But what about the NEXT owner? And the difficulty of obtaining a replacement left-handed widget which was sourced specifically and / or custom built for the project??

OK - it illustrates what CAN be done to obtain the last watt of renewable energy from the air/ ground / wherever.  But if the total cost of doing so exceeds the total through-life cost of a 55% efficient, cast-iron clunker PLUS the additional overheads of additional complexity, what has actually been gained?  There's no serious prospect of such systems ever achieving low-enough cost and high-enough reliability (over a service life of 20+ years) to make them mass-market products.

You're right

but the first wave of such projects are almost proof of concept more than final solutions.

workable solutions can be distilled from the experiences of those doing more advanced stuff... one hopes. Outside of the passivehouse people, I'm slowly zeroing in on what I think the final goal should be for modern homes requiring mechanicals (still pretty much all of them): very efficient building design, very efficient air to water (or, if site conditions allow, water to water/geo tied) heat pumps for heating AND cooling, hydronic distribution, positive pressure ERV/DOAS dehumidification. all motors ECM. no fossil fuel needed.

this is expensive/difficult here in the US now. but I know there are A-W heat pumps in the world that would make this close to a no-brainer if they were available here. the piping/control for the heating/cooling hydronics does not have to be difficult. all of this would mean possible distribution energy consumption of 400 watts or less at maximum output for most homes, much less most of the time, for ALL mechanical needs (fresh air, dehumidification, heating/cooling). 3+ COP on the equipment means you use less energy than the building needs. hard to beat. Heck, there is a dehumidification solution that should be available in the next couple of years that will even remove hydronic/refrigeration from the dehumidification puzzle, and leave us with "high temp cooling"... even better COPs.

that's the final winning combo, I think. And I think it could be cost effective with current forced air technology... not the same price, but less than double for a much more comfortable and efficient system.

but it would require manufacturers to make a few items they could make but currently don't because there is no demand. but with just a couple of items (combination temperature/humidity/pressure control, simple cooling mixing, simple packaged cooling coil) this could be deployed without great difficulty.

I guess I'm just saying there is a light at the end of the "more mechanical" tunnel I think. it's advanced, compared to where we are now, and those "unrepeatable" projects are necessary to firm up the final answers.

I agree though, they are not solutions in themselves. they are just examples of the kinds of things that are possible.

Still need fossil fuels

Rob,
A-W HP, ERV/DOAS , ECM pumps still need electric to run them. Although somewhat outside the home, the grid needs to be addresses, and improved greater transmission efficiencies, and power plants. Of course making those improvements will mean higher electric operating costs vs. fossil.

So my two cents are all those things you mentioned , PLUS in house generated electric, or grid tied, via PV, COGEN, or Fuel cells.

PV's price is falling fast

if we were serious about getting off of oil, we could do an awful lot with distributed PV generation.

As of a year or two ago, larger arrays could generate electricity at 0.20/kwh. That's not ridiculous... it's more than now, but it's not "modern world grinds to a halt" expensive. and it's totally clean and renewable.

Some things need addressing there, like storage (flywheels, electric car batteries, lots of potential for options there...) and demand management (smart grid tech, which we could implement right now at least a little with only internet and plug adapters...), definitely.

but we don't "need" fossil fuels in the medium term. if we were serious about getting off them, we are in a time where that is possible.

larger arrays could generate electricity at 0.20/kwh.

"As of a year or two ago, larger arrays could generate electricity at
0.20/kwh. That's not ridiculous... it's more than now, but it's not
"modern world grinds to a halt" expensive. and it's totally clean and
renewable."

That is not ridiculous at all here in New Jersey. My recent bill was $0.1876/KWH, including customer charge, generation charge, delivery charge, taxes, etc. That is awful close to $0.20/KWH.

well

this is just generation. so you'd still have taxes and delivery and customer charges on your bill to add to that 0.20/kwh cited for solar PV generation.

I guess I misunderstood you.

I was thinking the cost of generating electricity with PV panels on or very near my house, so there would be no taxes (other than on the installation) and no delivery costs. I infer you had in mind solar generation by a power company elsewhere, so I would need to pay continuing generation, transmission, and tax costs.

yep

the 0.20/kwh number I've seen is for industrial scale PV.. nothing you'd have on your house, but that might be not too far away on the grid.

I can see each side of this

some eco/green stuff seems much more superficial than meaningful and that is both sad & frustrating

... and we're still in some of the early stages of the needed transformations, dealing with not-mature concepts & manifestations of "what's needed"

I live in an area that's hung a fair bit of identity on the "sustainability" concept, particularly using "The Natural Step" perspective, which came originally from Sweden. Karl-Henrik Robert, the Swedish doctor who is considered the founder of the Natural Step idea, came and spoke here once and the one thing from his talk that really stuck with me was his response to a question from the audience about compact fluorescent lights - asking are they a good or bad thing given the mercury they contain.

he said in his opinion its not a useful distinction to focus on whether they are good (saving energy) or bad (containing mercury). they are a step along the way from how things have been to how things will be. the more useful question is "do they move us in the direction we want to go, or are they a step backwards?"

which is to say not to hold things up to a standard of perfection - "is this the last word in what we need?" - and then find them lacking because they don't meet that high standard. but to appreciate that its all a process and each step along the way is not the completion of the process, but is a positive thing if it furthers the progression towards the ultimate goal.

so, by this criteria, the CFLs are good cuz they help with energy consumption, and are also imperfect with their mercury content, and leave room for further improvements.

for me, the biggest help from taking in this observation was to ease up on the judgments when I can see the imperfections in stuff, whether its eco-bling or whatever. hopefully it helps us along in the right direction. if not, then lets do it differently so it does help us along.

onward ...

about compact fluorescent lights...

One thing I have heard, and I have no idea if what I heard is correct, is that the small amount of mercury in a compact fluorescent light, even if it is broken in ordinary trash after its useful life is over, is less than the amount of mercury released into the environment by running a coal-fired power plant enough to power one over its lifetime. I guess I would prefer this to be true.