# Geothermal experiences?



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

In the preliminary design stages on our next house. I have toyed with the idea of a geothermal system for a few reasons. Easy to add in floor radiant heat in basement, main floor (concrete floors) and garage, air conditioning possibilities, and can preheat the hot water tank. The upfront cost is high ($20K nowadays) and it uses a lot of electriciy. Does anyone have numbers on how much electricity it uses? I know one way to combat that is to install a solar array at the same time. $10K and a DIY installation would get you enough juice to power the whole geothermal system and more.

But if you only have a fixed amount to spend on these things, what would be better? Standard 2x6 construction with spray foam for a tight house and geothermal/solar PV? Or thick wall double stud (16" wide) super insulated walls with standard gas super efficient furnace and boiler for radiant heat? I guess one has to put a 'value' on having AC, even if our summers are short here. And there is also a value in the extra house width you can get with 2x6 walls vs double stud 16" wide walls.

We'll likely have a natural gas connection regardless as I don't think I could live without the gas bbq.

I am not looking to go net zero or minimize my energy use. Just looking for a practical and economical way to have a comfortable, responsible house.


----------



## rikk (May 28, 2012)

OT: I don't care for radiant heat because there's either no inherent air circulation/fresh air or air circulation will cost you extra ... high efficiency/forced air gas heating for me (supplemented with radiant as required) ... which also simplifies AC.


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

In the radiant heat, I would also have forced air (in both geothermal and gas-driven systems).


----------



## Retired Peasant (Apr 22, 2013)

We installed geothermal, however if gas had been available, we'd have gone that route.

Details - Our house is about 20 years old (2x6 construction, well insulated); all electric - it did have an air-to-air heat pump which was quite efficient for A/C (not so good for heating). With the price of hydro increasing so much, we had to find an alternative. No gas in this area, so choices were propane, oil, or stick with electric.

With the grants available at the time, we decided to install geo (still with electric furnace); figured it would pay for itself in about 9 years. Although you say it uses a lot of electricity, we cut our electricity by about 35-40% after geo. We use about 9600 kw/yr now - that includes everything - hot water/heat/lights/etc. We find the geo is sufficient to heat the house in winter - backup heating rarely (if ever) comes on. Ours is forced air system.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

nobleea said:


> I*n the preliminary design stages on our next house. I have toyed with the idea of a geothermal system for a few reasons. Easy to add in floor radiant heat in basement, main floor (concrete floors) and garage, air conditioning possibilities, and can preheat the hot water tank. T*he upfront cost is high (*$20K nowadays*) and it uses a lot of electriciy. Does anyone have numbers on how much electricity it uses? I know one way to combat that is to install a solar array at the same time. *$10K and a DIY installation would get you enough juice to power the whole geothermal system and more*.


 $20K + taxes (even with only 5% in Alberta) is a still a lot of money. Certainly from the standpoint of not having to depend on fossil fuels says something if the insulation is adequate for the colder winters.

As far as the solar array ($10k?) you are not going to get very much for the money and up where you are, you would need a sun tracking solar array which is more expensive still. Problem is the relative lack of sunshine present in our winters,.
which has tendency to reduce the actual amount of electricity the solar array can generate...sometimes less than 50% of it's rated capacity and that would be inadequate to supply most normal household needs.
http://www.affordable-solar.com/residential-solar-home/Residential-Calculator

If your normal daily electricity consumption is around 3kw hrs you will need a 3Kw solar array,
http://www.amazon.com/Grape-Solar-G..._sbs_hi_3?ie=UTF8&refRID=1C5NRG1YP2KSGYVZA6EY

This may be adequate for most things but fridges take a lot. Also up in Alberta where you are, *you would have to ensure that the solar panels are not obscured with snowfall and face the optimum sun angle in the winter*, 
since most solar arrays are fixed to a roof and can't track the sun. In winter, the sun is low on the horizon compared to the summer months, it would definitely drop off on production and some days hardly any at all..
so you would still have to be connected to the hydro grid as backup.


----------



## tygrus (Mar 13, 2012)

I have a hybrid gas/geo system because the gas connection was already run to the house and a full geo system would have been about double the price.

I have about $20-25k into the system including radiant heating in the floor and upstairs forced air. It also provides some cooling in the summer as well. All in all, my gas bill was reduce by about 40-50% but the system struggles on more than a minus 30 day so the gas is pretty much providing 100% heating on those. So on average, if my regular gas bill would have been about $100-150/month and now is half that, well you can see this takes almost 20 yrs to pay for itself. 

One thing about the heat, its a softer more even heat, but humidity is higher from it.

Personally, I think money is better spent on insulation, lots of it including exterior sheathing, and best windows. The location of your house is important too. Mine is a walkout backing a very open area. We get a lot of brutal winter winds and hot sun.


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

carverman said:


> $20K + taxes (even with only 5% in Alberta) is a still a lot of money. Certainly from the standpoint of not having to depend on fossil fuels says something if the insulation is adequate for the colder winters.
> 
> As far as the solar array ($10k?) you are not going to get very much for the money and up where you are, you would need a sun tracking solar array which is more expensive still. Problem is the relative lack of sunshine present in our winters,.
> which has tendency to reduce the actual amount of electricity the solar array can generate...sometimes less than 50% of it's rated capacity and that would be inadequate to supply most normal household needs.
> ...


It may be hard to fathom, but the prairie cities are actually the best locations in Canada for solar arrays.
http://pv.nrcan.gc.ca/?lang=e&m=r
Our winters are cold, but they are generally sunny. And the summers we obviously get a LOT of sun since the days are so long.
But in general in Canada solar is a tough sell. There are a few net-zero or near NZ homes in the city that share their production data and experiences. It's a very popular home tour every year. You get 1kwh of production per year for every kw of installed PV. Not great. You can buy panel kits for DIY installs (including the inverters) for 1-2$/W.

I am currently heading towards a super insulated and sealed home with a high eff furnace and small boiler for radiant heat. Will have to do without AC, but with proper window, eaves placement and cross flow, it's not necessary.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

nobleea said:


> It may be hard to fathom, but the prairie cities are actually the best locations in Canada for solar arrays.
> http://pv.nrcan.gc.ca/?lang=e&m=r
> Our winters are cold, but they are generally sunny. And the summers we obviously get a LOT of sun since the days are so long.
> I* am currently heading towards a super insulated and sealed home with a high eff furnace and small boiler for radiant heat. Will have to do without AC, but with proper window, eaves placement and cross flow, it's not necessary.*


Well as they say,YMMV, but the difference between Edmonton (where the OP is from) and Ottawa (where I am) is only 47kw per year if you can believe the data. If last winter's amount of sun in Ottawa is any indication, that
study results would be way off. 

You would need a larger battery bank to generate the required electricity on the gray days..of November, (gray days due to rain) and December (lots of freezing rain here in Ottawa). January, where the temperatures are colder
with more high pressure areas, probably would be enough..maybe February. March would be ok along with the rest of the year, but the winters (at least here in eastern Ontario would require supplementary electricity from
the grid, so a FIT installation would be required. 

Not saying that if you spend enough money on a solar system it can't be done, but solar arrays are DC and there are conversion losses to turn it into 120Vac or 240Vac..so you cannot run A/C compressors (normally work off 220V) or stoves,dryers, fridges, freezers or vacumn cleaners, kettles, or any other heavy household appliance without starting to take more out of the battery bank than what the solar cells produce.

If you are running 12volt or 24volt DC lighting system, and a flatscreen tv, with small demand appliances in the home, it is workable...but for the money spent to generate 1 kwh of 120vac..it is very expensive power
on a per kwh basis.


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

I've only seen one solar install in the city that had any battery component. And that was just for emergency backup. The vast majority of solar PV systems are grid tied. They strive for net zero consumption on an annual basis, which is easier to achieve as there's a massive surplus in the summer and a deficit in the winter. They use the grid as a battery, in effect. With the amount of sun we get here, you can create surplus back in to the grid as early as March with a super insulated building.

If I were to use solar, it would be in a limited fashion. Small array to batteries to drive irrigation system and exterior LED lights. The big power hog would be the irrigation pump, which is really only needed when there is a lot of sun, hence a lot of power generation.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

nobleea said:


> The vast majority of solar PV systems are grid tied. They strive for net zero consumption on an annual basis, which is easier to achieve as there's a massive surplus in the summer and a deficit in the winter. generation.


So what do they really save then for the sizeable investment in the solar array if they are stiill connected to the grid?

There is a standard monthly charge by the local utility for being connected up to the grid with a smart meter.

As well, I believe they (utility/power authority) only pay *market price for any power going out on the grid* _but you pay full retail +all the extra charges_ (like we have in Ontario) and any applicable taxes on top of that. 
If you take a $10,000 investment in a 3Kw solar array, that will be a L-O-N-G payback on investment.


----------



## fraser (May 15, 2010)

We have seen a few new developments in Calgary that feature thermal energy.

We have also noticed a huge increase in solar. Apparently the drop in tariffs and the technology advances have made the paybacks reasonable. SAIT, a technical institute in Calgary, now has waiting lists for students to get into the program. Lots and lots of demand by industry here for people familiar with this technology.


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

All of these net zero homes aren't constructed for an economic payback. More like the warm and fuzzies. Same as getting the leather and gizmos on the car rather than the base 
http://www.techlifemag.ca/net-zero-home.htm


----------



## tygrus (Mar 13, 2012)

I think the best bang for your buck is on the building envelope, insulation and a few features inside the home.

2x6 construction would allow for like R40 in those walls, insulate the underside of your attic roof as well, then use polyboard sheathing on the exterior and stucco it in. Find low-e argon triple pane windows but use windows sparingly. I have some in my house that people can't look out of and they don't even let sunshine in. Stay away from great rooms with the high vault ceilings cause these are just heat traps. Put a couple ceiling fans in too. Building your house under shade and inside a center part of a subdivision to get winter wind blocking and summer shade. 

many people want a west facing rear of their house. This is a mistake cause the yard is going to get too hot and winter winds are going to swirl in there. Go the other way - east facing back yard.

Oh and also, this may not be environmentally correct but a big wood fireplace can really shave your heating bill.


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

tygrus said:


> I think the best bang for your buck is on the building envelope, insulation and a few features inside the home.
> 
> 2x6 construction would allow for like R40 in those walls, insulate the underside of your attic roof as well, then use polyboard sheathing on the exterior and stucco it in. Find low-e argon triple pane windows but use windows sparingly. I have some in my house that people can't look out of and they don't even let sunshine in. Stay away from great rooms with the high vault ceilings cause these are just heat traps. Put a couple ceiling fans in too. Building your house under shade and inside a center part of a subdivision to get winter wind blocking and summer shade.
> 
> many people want a west facing rear of their house. This is a mistake cause the yard is going to get too hot and winter winds are going to swirl in there. Go the other way - east facing back yard.


We have a west facing backyard right now. It's wonderful in the winter and the sunsets are great. But you have to wear sunglasses to do the dishes, the deck gets uncomfortably hot in the summer and the house bakes in the summer.

The new lot has a south facing backyard. We'll be going with larger south facing windows and concrete floors on the main floor for thermal mass. Proper overhang and foliage design can make the windows useful in both summer and winter. Ceiling fans for sure. There are lots of tall deciduous trees on the lot right now (too many for my tastes), but we'll keep a few. It's a large pie lot in a mature neighbourhood with all trees taller than the homes, so winter wind isn't as much of an issue.

The staggered stud, 16" wide walls with blown in insulation is only supposed to add 20K in cost and is something we'd consider. The lot is wide and large, so we wouldn't miss the extra 18" lost to the wider walls.


----------



## tygrus (Mar 13, 2012)

Have you given any thought to doing the entire house with ICF? including the main floors? I read somewhere that it is almost comparable with stud framing and you get a real house with a solid structure. No creaks and squeaks or expansion contraction or drafts and the R rating is far superior that anything else you could do.


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

I will almost for sure do ICF in the basement (forming them myself), but had not considered it for the main and second. For a similar R-value as the double wall, the wall thickness would be almost the same. Will definitely look in to it when the time comes.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

nobleea said:


> All of these net zero homes aren't constructed for an economic payback. *More like the warm and fuzzies*. Same as getting the leather and gizmos on the car rather than the base
> http://www.techlifemag.ca/net-zero-home.htm


I agree that solar is becoming a lot more poopular as the years go by. Lots of progress has been made in the crystalline panels to make them more efficient...but right now they are still expensive for the amount of
power they produce on sunny days, and they don't work 24/7 obviously. In the US some companies are using sun tracking panels which follow the inclination of the sun and these are a better technology.
its a matter of time until technolgy catches up here in these northern climates and prices start to come down.

I can see why NAIT/SAIT would want to start a solar tech program..as these become popular.

The Chinese already have this..here is one that is featured on alibaba. This tracking system adds a lot more efficiency and subsequent panel output over the fixed roof setups, which may become obsolete
as these tracking systems become readily available.
http://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/2013New-mini-solar-tracker-solar-pv_1529850155.html?s=p


----------



## Barwelle (Feb 23, 2011)

I haven't read through all the posts, so I may be repeating some information here.

In college, about 5 years ago, I did a research report on forced-air geothermal heating vs forced-air natural gas furnace for single family homes in Edmonton.

Fun fact, the proper term in this application is "Ground Source Heat Pump" or GSHP. Geothermal refers to systems that go potentially thousands of feet into the ground, and uses heat from the core of the earth, whereas in these applications, the loops are either laid out horizontally a few feet below the surface, or drilled only a hundred or so feet deep.

Environmentally, a natural gas furnace wins. 
- Our electricity comes largely from burning coal, which is one of the worst ways in terms of pollution to generate electricity. 
- You'll consume less energy in the form of electricity than you would with natural gas, but using a GSHP will produce more pollution than a natural gas furnace. 
- I looked at greenhouse gas pollution generated to heat a home over 25 years, though one thing comes to mind - I didn't compare the pollution required to install each system. 
- Also, this is very location dependent - in Quebec, BC, Ontario, etc, the GSHP will win environmentally because electricity is produced using cleaner methods.

Financially, the furnace won out as well over a 25-year life cycle.
- Based on $23,000 initial cost for the GSHP vs $4,500 for a 90% efficiency furnace
- Based on $0.103 per kWh for electricity, and $9.02 per GJ for gas (no idea what those numbers are at now)
- Replace furnace once, due to expected lifespan of 15 years
- no replacement for GSHP - longer lifespan
- After 25 years, calculated total of $6,000 additional cost for the GSHP - the savings in annual energy costs didn't make up for the huge initial cost.
- At the time, there was a $3,500 rebate for GSHP, don't know if that exists but you still came out more expensive with the GSHP.
- I have some notes saying that Albertans pay 30-40% less than other Canadians, so that changes the calculations for non-Albertans.

Remember that this was from 2009... things have changed since then, I haven't kept track of the industry since I did this report, but I hope this helps.


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

Thanks Barwelle, those numbers are similar to what I have seen as well. Both electricity and natural gas are cheaper than the assumed prices above. For a true comparison, I believe you would have to add the cost (both capital and operational) for an air conditioner in the natural gas furnace case, as that is a positive feature of GSHP that would get used.
Certainly using a GSHP attached to a coal generated grid is counter productive and shouldn't be done in the interest of saving the planet. Using a GSHP with a solar array for net zero consumption of the GSHP/PV combination throughout the year makes it more attractive, environmentally, but certainly not economically.

Air source heat pumps are also showing up in some applications here. You get the benefit of heating and cooling with one smallish unit. They start to use a LOT of electricity when the temperature drops below about -25/-30. It'll be interesting to see how they work long term.


----------



## Barwelle (Feb 23, 2011)

Nice to know prices are cheaper now than they were before!



nobleea said:


> For a true comparison, I believe you would have to add the cost (both capital and operational) for an air conditioner in the natural gas furnace case, as that is a positive feature of GSHP that would get used.


Yes and No. I did not include any energy use for cooling using the GSHP because (anecdotally) there aren't many homes in this area with A/C, so my comparison stands - but if you wanted A/C, then yes, you have some costs to add, to both sides.

Further, the GSHP system can also be used to heat domestic water, so you wouldn't need a standalone water heater, though there would still be some additional capital costs and operational costs.

I wanted to look at that but didn't have the resources.



nobleea said:


> Air source heat pumps are also showing up in some applications here. You get the benefit of heating and cooling with one smallish unit. They start to use a LOT of electricity when the temperature drops below about -25/-30. It'll be interesting to see how they work long term.


That's something else I wanted to look at too, but gave up on that early because there was basically no information on it in this area due to the inefficiency in cold temps.


----------



## smihaila (Apr 6, 2009)

rikk said:


> OT: I don't care for radiant heat because there's either no inherent air circulation/fresh air or air circulation will cost you extra ... *high efficiency/forced air *gas heating for me (supplemented with radiant as required) ... which also simplifies AC.


It may be out of context, but you make it look like a radiant/hydronic system is not highly efficient. On contrary, the gas-based boilers nowadays can achieve 98.x% combustion efficiency, with a fully modulating gas valve, and abysmal gas + electricity consumption (100 watts/hour for the main boiler and 7 (seven) watts for the main hydronic pump. I own a system like that myself.


----------



## rikk (May 28, 2012)

smihaila said:


> It may be out of context, but you make it look like a radiant/hydronic system is not highly efficient. On contrary, the gas-based boilers nowadays can achieve 98.x% combustion efficiency, with a fully modulating gas valve, and abysmal gas + electricity consumption (100 watts/hour for the main boiler and 7 (seven) watts for the main hydronic pump. I own a system like that myself.


It could very well be that forcing a liquid through a house to heat it is more efficient than forcing air through a house to heat it ... no argument there ... I'm just saying I prefer the air movement. For example, in winter my main room facing south-west inputs considerable heat on a sunny day. That heated air gets circulated throughout the house by the forced air system rather than the room becoming unbearably hot. Another example of air movement, this time of year I'm not heating or cooling, but we do use our finished basement for home gym, home theater, computers ... by turning on the forced air (just the fan, not the heat ) and with the furnace access panel removed (and air filter fitted in its place), I can draw that cooler damp air from the basement floor making the basement much more habitable and also help with cooling the upstairs. There's more to it than that, but that's the gist of my preference for forced air ... air movement.

How do you refresh the air in your radiant heated home, especially the basement, especially in the summer, without some sort of (forced air) air exchange system? I assume an add-on forced air air exchanger is required?


----------



## smihaila (Apr 6, 2009)

You said it very well - the heat capacity/conductance of water is about 4,000 times greater than air's. Air is good....well, for insulating. That's the reason for using it as separating medium in a double glazed or triple glazed window.

Not to mention that here in North-America, nobody seems to care about AIR LOSSES. As longs as it's not creating a liability for the builder or the neighbour houses, why should they care about the fact that your air ducts are NOT 100% air proof and they are leaking??? After all, it is YOU paying out of the pocket for those losses.

But if when we speak about gas or water leaks, everybody suddenly starts to be worried. Especially the insurance companies. **** them! They are a big Mafia here in Canada....

So, a hydronic convection + radiant heating system is super-proof. No leaks. Reasonably optimal.

Also, there seems to be this UNHEALTHY / alienated mentality here in North-America, about NOT being energy efficient/energy conscious: a conquerer's / imperialist power's mentality: why should you be energy efficient if you have access to cheap oil and you can wage wars against other powerless nations, to steal their natural resources or to pay cents on the dollar for them?

This is the reason why Germany decided to go full-throttle with energy efficiency - being at the mercy of Russia/Gasprom and not having too many resource, the Government had to enact a law around 1980 to BAN anything that is not energy efficient. The PassivHaus concept and high-efficient uPVC window frame design (minimum 70 millimeters thickness and at least 5 air chambers, and with 1-1.2 millimeters steel reinforced frames and Uw transfer factor no more than 2.0) and other wall-hung heating system designs emerged from them.

Regarding the need for air flows - I'm not pretentious. My house is oriented front/north-west, and rear/south-east. We get considerable amount of sun and heat for 2 out of 3 bedrooms + kitchen and living room. The solution for air flow is simple in our case: German-made tilt-and-turn system for both the windows and the French doors. We are tilting some of the windows/door and we let the nature do the rest. For the basement, it's too cold to be in need for additional air flow. I hate noise, dust, and especially silly/inneficiently designed systems nonetheless . I personally consider the forced air systems a joke (inefficient and a way for the contractors and builder to make a quick buck with the least amount of work). But hey, that's me, an old-fashioned guy.

And the mechanical room has enough vents in it to allow proper air circulation.

It's funny that you could leave the pump running during summetime, and it can actually provide some cooling indirectly.
Btw, the rads are over-sized, and water temp during winter never goes higher than 60-65 degrees Celsius. At relatively low water temps, the losses are diminishing. So it's not like an 180-200F baseboard system. My father and I built the whole system ourselves. We are originary from Europe - whereas such systems are so common. And the Lochinvar boiler's fire tube design is absolutely astonishing in terms of (low ) pressure loss. It kicks Viessmann's ***!!! Viessmann/Germany as a matter of fact should be a bit put to shame here in Canada/USA due to that. They design and sell only over-sized/suboptimal systems for North-American needs.


----------



## rikk (May 28, 2012)

Alrighty then ...


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

rikk said:


> Alrighty then ...


+1 ^


----------



## rikk (May 28, 2012)

Barwelle said:


> ... In college, about 5 years ago, I did a research report on forced-air geothermal heating vs forced-air natural gas furnace ... the proper term in this application is "Ground Source Heat Pump" or GSHP.


Fwiw ... my first real job was in the 70s with the NRC, Division of Building Research ... at that time, we found the GSHPs of the day had a problem ... the ground collectors _could_, depending on soil conditions, dry the soil around them leaving an air gap ... that gap would result in a considerable loss of efficiency over time ... presumably that's been fixed ... fwiw.


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

rikk said:


> Fwiw ... my first real job was in the 70s with the NRC, Division of Building Research ... at that time, we found the GSHPs of the day had a problem ... the ground collectors _could_, depending on soil conditions, dry the soil around them leaving an air gap ... that gap would result in a considerable loss of efficiency over time ... presumably that's been fixed ... fwiw.


For sure, the success of GSHP depends a lot on the type of soil under your property, water tables, etc. While there is some historical information available, it's very coarse, so you never know for sure if it will work until you start drilling.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

nobleea said:


> Air source heat pumps are also showing up in some applications here.
> 
> You get the benefit of heating and cooling with one smallish unit. They start to use a LOT of electricity when the temperature drops below about -25/-30. It'll be interesting to see how they work long term.


My parents had an air source heat pump for about fifteen years.

Theirs was a different design than what was generally available in two respects. The first was that the inventor who was in Niagara Falls, ON figured out that after about -15 or so, more time was spent keeping the system running properly than heat was taken from the air. To solve this, he put a small gas burner (my parents had to use propane as there was no gas lines close to their house) to provide heat when it was below the balance point for efficiency.

The second was to keep the temperature more constant (and run the fans less frequently) he used a higher speed fan to move more air.


Compared to what they were spending on oil, my dad calculated that it was significantly cheaper. 

The only complaint he had was that eventually it became clear that the majority of sales were going to be Europe, the Ontario section was shutdown with the maintenance contracted out to a third party. So when it needed adjustment at about the twelve year mark, what had previously been a simple change took the outside company around three weeks to get right.


The challenge I see with comparing to today is that electricity in Ontario is far more expensive than it was plus the Niagara region within a couple of miles of Lake Ontario likely has far fewer cold winter days than a lot of other areas.


Cheers


----------



## hystat (Jun 18, 2010)

I have worked in a shop with in floor heating. It was awesome to bring a vehicle in all covered in snow and have the puddles melt and be warm on a creeper. 

However, in a house, it wouldn't suit my lifestyle (or at least the efficiency wouldn't be realized economically). We go away for the weekend or a week here and there. You can't turn the heat down with in floor heat. It takes too long to get back up to temp. 

With forced air fossil fuel, we can leave in the morning, dial the tstat back to 55F. Come home at 5 pm and have it a toasty 70F by 5:30. That saves a lot of money.

In floor must be super-comfy on the tootsies though, and being silent would be a bonus.


----------



## rikk (May 28, 2012)

hystat said:


> With forced air fossil fuel ... In floor must be super-comfy on the tootsies though, and being silent would be a bonus.


OT: silent ... I get a kick out that guy on TV that converts basements to "luxury" money making apartments ... not a word about that inherently noisy forced air furnace that in many of his shows also lives down there ... retrofitted basement living, not for me for many reasons.


----------



## hystat (Jun 18, 2010)

I think in-floor geo, supplemented with a gas fireplace on each level would suit me. Then would have fast heat if needed.


----------



## rikk (May 28, 2012)

OT again: We're in Ottawa, temperatures can range from +40C to -50C over the year ... our plan is to eventually relocate to the west coast ... we'll require a complete re-education on heating cooling, e.g., heat with only a couple of gas fireplaces, are you guys crazy ???


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

hystat said:


> With forced air fossil fuel, we can leave in the morning, dial the tstat back to 55F. Come home at 5 pm and have it a toasty 70F by 5:30. That saves a lot of money.


What saves a lot of money is not having to turn it down at all since the house is so well insulated and sealed that it stays at 70F and actually heats up during the day just from passive solar. Most passive solar houses here in Edmonton don't turn their heating systems on until about Dec. October is actually the worst month for overheating in these homes as it's not very cold out yet, but still sunny and good sunshine hours.


----------



## rikk (May 28, 2012)

nobleea said:


> October is actually the worst month for overheating in these homes as it's not very cold out yet, but still sunny and good sunshine hours.


Because I'm still logged in ... both spring and fall can be hotter because the sun is lower on the horizon, shining more directly into the windows ... experienced that first hand in the last building I worked in ... alrighty then, to the basement, the gym awaits.


----------



## hystat (Jun 18, 2010)

nobleea said:


> What saves a lot of money is not having to turn it down at all since the house is so well insulated and sealed that it stays at 70F and actually heats up during the day just from passive solar. Most passive solar houses here in Edmonton don't turn their heating systems on until about Dec. October is actually the worst month for overheating in these homes as it's not very cold out yet, but still sunny and good sunshine hours.


well, there have been plenty of threads on this forum and others about monthly heating costs. The most efficient designs ever reported on usually take similar amounts of energy as mine does to heat in the winter. No amount of insulation completely negates the need for energy input to maintain temperature. 

Heat energy always goes from warmer to colder. The greater the difference in temps in and out, the greater the heat loss. Period. If you can turn indoor temp down in the winter, you save money, in any house, in any climate.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

smihaila said:


> But if when we speak about gas or water leaks, everybody suddenly starts to be worried. *Especially the insurance companie*s. F*ck them! T*hey are a big Mafia here in Canada.*...
> 
> +1 ^ Couldn't have said it better myself.:biggrin:


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

hystat said:


> well, there have been plenty of threads on this forum and others about monthly heating costs. The most efficient designs ever reported on usually take similar amounts of energy as mine does to heat in the winter. No amount of insulation completely negates the need for energy input to maintain temperature.
> Heat energy always goes from warmer to colder. The greater the difference in temps in and out, the greater the heat loss. Period. If you can turn indoor temp down in the winter, you save money, in any house, in any climate.


There's about 100 of these superinsulated houses in Canada right now, so I would doubt that one of the owners happens to post here. They are insulated enough to not require a gas hookup (mainly to save the ~$45 in monthly connection fees and fixed charges). On the coldest day in winter, they need a couple hair dryers to heat a 2000 sq ft place. I have yet to see one in Canada that is truly net zero though. It might work in a sheltered location in southern alberta or southern sask where there is more sun than anywhere else in the country.

I agree with you about heat going from hot to cold and turning down the thermostat will decrease your required heat input. What I was suggesting is that in these superinsulated houses, you don't need to touch the thermostat and the temperature will go up during the day due to solar gain, even on the coldest day of the year (at night you need to add heat).


----------

