Cheap Gas=Unnatural Capitalism

[Fbloogyudsr]

"Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote
> "fbloogyudsr" <[email protected]> wrote
> > No. You are wrong.
>
> False. You are a smart idiot, I will admit.

Interesting. I write a very correct description, and you have to use insults to attempt to
refute it.

> > Theoretical energy efficiency in a closed system
>
> The system is not closed.

*IF* the mine - and Earth's radioactively heated core - is not considered part of the system it
isn't. But I don't see how you can say that when the heat transfer coil is down there.

> > is defined as:
> >
> > E = (Ti - Tf) / Ti,
> >
> > Where Ti is initial temperature, Tf is final temperature. But, you have to remember that these
> > temperatures are defined in degrees absolute. You can only get efficiencies of 1 if you have a
> > heatsink at zero
> absolute.
> > You can never go above 1 - 2nd law of thermodynamics.
>
> Not applicable. You are moving heat from OUTSIDE which is by definition
not
> a closed system.
>
> >
> > Heat pumps are definitely more efficient than other forms of heating and cooling, but are *NOT*
> > zero-cost, which is what E of 1 means.
>
> Nobody said they were. What is said is that for every BTU of electical energy they can deliver
> three to fifty BTUs of heat. Heavily depending on the exact nature of the source and the
> temperature difference. For mine water at 100 meters and 18C it can deliver more than ten BTUs
> for every
btu
> of electicity.

Yeah, I know that. So what? Your use of the term "efficiency" is incorrect, because, by any
reasonable scientific method, you must include the mine in the system and calculation of efficiency.
By not doing so, you are just using junk science.

FlodR

 

[Ian St. John]

"fbloogyudsr" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> "Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote
<snip>.
>
> Yeah, I know that. So what? Your use of the term "efficiency" is incorrect,

Technically correct. The term should be COP but this isn't that deep a discussion.

And your efficiency equation is even harder to understand in the light of this nitpicking.

> because, by any reasonable scientific method, you must include the mine in the system and
> calculation of efficiency. By not doing so, you are just using junk science.

I'm discussing the economics of heat pumps using abandoned coal mines as geothermal power vs
direct heating. Chris lives on Cape Breton near suchg a mine. I guess you just can't keep up with
the thread.

 

[Marc]

"Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Marc" <[email protected]> wrote in message news[email protected]...
>> "Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> I don't have a mine to pull heat from. I don't have my own wind generators. The electric driven
>> heat pumps cost more to buy and operate than natural gas fueled home heat methods.
>
>More like than natural gas USED to cost.

What is the average cost of natural gas? Mine may be cheaper because I'm in a state that
produces NG.

>> Please address your comments only to commercially available products
>driven
>> off the regular electric grid designed for the consumer market, as that is the only type of
>> product I could use for my home.
>
>My comments were in response to Chris. Are you Chris?

In Message-ID: <[email protected]> you responded to a post by David
Kerber in response to a post by me. I never responded to a post by Chris. I was addressing a post by
you that was directed to either me or David, not Chris.

Don't bother trying to "educate" me. You are obviously as asshole that is more interested in
belittling those that don't agree, rather than actually sharing information, otherwise, you wouldn't
have used such a condescending tone, especially when you were the one that is wrong about who your
post was in response to.

When the alternative is abusive assholes like you, is there any wonder why people listen to the
salesmen you also berate?

Marc For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

 

[Fbloogyudsr]

"Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote i
> "fbloogyudsr" <[email protected]> wrote
> > because, by any reasonable scientific method, you must include the mine in the system and
> > calculation of efficiency. By not doing so, you are just using junk science.
>
> I'm discussing the economics of heat pumps using abandoned coal mines as geothermal power vs
> direct heating. Chris lives on Cape Breton near suchg
a
> mine. I guess you just can't keep up with the thread.

In any discussion of economics of ground-heat-sink HVAC, you should include the cost of the mine.
When I checked (live in Seattle), such a system would cost about US$15K-$20k. Most of the cost is
the exchange coil (also most of the maintenance if it ever leaks...) My guess is that SOMEONE owns
the mine and that you should have to pay for it's use. Even if you believe that you own the mine,
my guess is not. Reason? Most companies that sell the land a mine is on retain any
mineral/exploitation rights.

My guess is that the mine cost a lot to excavate...

Just one more place you are fudging...

If you want to continue discussing this, please take rec.autos.driving off it, or att OT: to
the subject.

Floyd

 

[Ian St. John]

"fbloogyudsr" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> "Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote i
> > "fbloogyudsr" <[email protected]> wrote
> > > because, by any reasonable scientific method, you must include the
mine
> > > in the system and calculation of efficiency. By not doing so, you are just using junk science.
> >
> > I'm discussing the economics of heat pumps using abandoned coal mines as geothermal power vs
> > direct heating. Chris lives on Cape Breton near
suchg
> a
> > mine. I guess you just can't keep up with the thread.
>
> In any discussion of economics of ground-heat-sink HVAC, you should include the cost of the mine.

Abandoned. Free. Costs are for drilling down 50 to 150 meters to get at the warm water deeper
in the mine.

> When I checked (live in Seattle), such a system would cost about US$15K-$20k. Most of the cost is
> the exchange coil (also most of the maintenance if it ever leaks...) My guess is that SOMEONE owns
> the mine and that you should have to pay for it's use.

Nope. Cape Breton is in *CANADA*, not the U.S. Coal mines were public assistance for the last decade
or so.. and abanadoned mines under the sea are pretty much public property.

> Even if you believe that you own the mine, my guess is not. Reason? Most companies that sell the
> land a mine is on retain any mineral/exploitation rights.

Obviously you have not done a lot of investigation into the thread or the mine.

>
> My guess is that the mine cost a lot to excavate...

My guess is that you are right because it didn't made a profit in the last decade.

>
> Just one more place you are fudging...

Not fudging nuttin. I gove you facts.

>
> If you want to continue discussing this, please take rec.autos.driving off it, or att OT: to the
> subject.

http://town.springhill.ns.ca/geotherm1.htm "Extracting heat from minewater which maintains a
temperature of 18 to 20 degrees Celsius is relatively simple. All it takes are two wells drilled to
a depth between 50 to 150 meters to reach the warm water, some pipe, and heat pumps in the building.
One well draws warm water up while the other returns it back to the mines. "

"MBB Power Services Ltd., a leading Canadian boiler construction and maintenance company,
manufactures pressure parts such as superheaters, economisers, headers and generator tubes. The
company doubled its building size, linked its fabricating shop to geothermal energy and saved about
$50,000 a year while improving working conditions. MBB Power Services invested $100,000 in 10 heat
pumps, each operating at about $40-$50 monthly. Their old heating system used $55,000 in fuel
annually. "

"Geothermal energy has provided ROPAK with energy savings in the range of 60%. Their Springhill
plant is entirely climate controlled, environmentally clean and energy conserving. Geothermal's
payback to ROPAK is more than $160,000 annually.

ROPAK's geothermal system was also designed to provide cooling in the summer. It is estimated the
system is 70% more efficient than conventional cooling sources. ROPAK received the Canadian
Electrical Association's (CEA) Industrial Award in 1990 for it's achievement in energy conservation"

http://www.feta.co.uk/downloads/Heat%20Pump%20News%20No.1.pdf shows a study of the Springhill
development and the temperature profile of the mine.

http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/publications/default/tech_papers/18th_Co
ngress/downloads/ds/ds3/ds3_7.pdf "Ground-source ("geothermal") heat pumps combined with
low-temperature heat distribution systems achieve seasonal performance factors (SPFs, ratios of
useful heat to electricity as drive energy) of 4 and higher,"

http://cipco.apogee.net/ces/hpbcop.asp "With resistance type electric heaters, heat produced =
energy consumed (COP is l.0). The COP for heat pump systems varies from 2 to 3 for small air to air
space heating systems, to 5 or 6 for closed cycle IHP systems, and up to 40 to 50 for open cycle
systems! "

Note: IHP = Industrial Heat Pumps" i.e. commercial scale units.

rec.autos.driving ( and rec.bicycles.misc ) removed by request from followup.

>
> Floyd

 

[DurangoKid]

Originally posted by Don Quijote
"Bald Headed John Kane" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:25:38 -0700, Don Quijote wrote:
>
" -M.L. King
> What people don't realize is our military (US) costs are huge to ensure cheap oil, they only look
> at the pump price and ***** about taxes.

That's right, you pay a price, one way or another...

Honest Accounting -- The Real Cost of Going to War With Iraq Colonel Daniel Smith, USA (Ret.)

October 31, 2002

(snip)

One question that is almost never asked is how much does "cheap oil" really cost U.S.

<snip>

http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote

It's refreshing to have the argument quantified. These costs could be considered as subsidies to the oil corporations. Now we see in concrete terms how corporations could not function without the nanny state and the tribute it extracts from us. Then to add insult to injury we have an administration that was not elected bent on setting up a police state to make sure the game stays the same. If anyone wonders what fascism looks like in America, look around you.

 

[Mark Weaver]

"DurangoKid" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Don Quijote wrote:
> > "Bald Headed John Kane" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:<[email protected]>...
> > > On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:25:38 -0700, Don Quijote wrote:
> > >
> > " -M.L. King
> > > What people don't realize is our military (US) costs are huge to ensure cheap oil, they only
> > > look at the pump price and ***** about taxes.

But it's quite silly. OPEC doesn't keep oil cheap because of US miliary might, they keep it cheap
because it is in THEIR interest. Why?!? Because they are afraid that high oil prices will lead to
conservation, to greater investment in energy efficiency, to the development of alternate sources of
energy, etc. Which, of course, is exactly what high oil prices would do.

The war in Iraq isn't going to make Iraqi oil cheaper -- the US (and everybody else) are *still*
going to have to buy it at market rates. And in the short term, of course, the war has reduced the
flow of oil from Iraq to a trickle which, of course, does not tend to lower prices.

To the extent that the war was about oil, it was about it in the sense that it is dangerous to let a
brutal nut case like Saddam Hussein have access to a huge stream of oil money. We (and/or Europe
and/or Japan) are going to be paying that money to Iraq regardless of the outcome of the war, but
now it won't be going to Saddam (and definitely not to Uday and Qusay) to support their police
state, torture and execute their citizenry and acquire weaponry to threaten the Middle East.

Mark