[Eug]

You've obviously made your mind up...fair enough. Luckily, there's enough people that are not like you, which is why the industry is growing.

I find it odd you're so quick to dismiss. I've already said I like the tech, and would consider it in a dreamhome where I'd live for 20 years, but happen to be less enamoured with the idea in a different situation (ie. a refit to a home with a gas furnace) because of the high up front costs. Well, the tone of your responses can be summarized as that you know better than everyone, and people who are skeptical and don't automatically agree with you are foolish and uneducated. You may be partially right, but I don't understand the nose-in-the-air attitude.

Quite frankly, I don't understand why you'd get so worked up over this. Not everyone wants to pony up 5-digit $ if it means they won't break even until double-digit years from now. Given the costs, that seems reasonable to me, but obviously not to you.

You aren't sure what I mean, because you don't know enough about what you are talking about. Without going into it...NO..."all of the above" is NOT the same.

Thank you for that helpful and educational post.

Then you would think wrong. It would be fair to say it is NEVER 20 years though, even in the worse case scenario (replacing natural gas and using a drilled vertical loop). And even in these worse cases, there aren't enough drill rigs in Ontario to keep up with demand. You clearly don't know what you are talking about.

So, what is it 3-5 years, or less than 20 years then? That's a rather large range. Why so cryptic?

And yes, I am talking specifically of those considering replacing natural gas, not electric or oil. It's obvious the numbers would be very different for electric or oil. Are you talking 3-5 years for someone with electric heating?

I am not working in the industry.

Well, you might want to be a bit more clear about that then. I quote:

I've been involved in the industry going back...shit...20 years now?

 

[freshcutgrass]

I find it odd you're so quick to dismiss. I've already said I like the tech, and would consider it in a dreamhome where I'd live for 20 years, but happen to be less enamoured with the idea in a different situation (ie. a refit to a home with a gas furnace) because of the high up front costs.

I haven't been quick at all...I've taken the time to explain that your assumptions are mostly unfounded and your "statements" not very factual....but you are still not having any of it. Ok...you seem very stubborn about it....people are that way sometimes. If you want to keep repeating your mantra that Geo is handicapped by its terrible reputation and that it is not financial viable unless you plan on spending more than 20 years with it...fine. It's complete BS, but keep on repeating it...you're as entitled to your opinion as anybody.

Thank you for that helpful and educational post.

Hey...YOU made a statement that was completely false. Be honest...you have no idea if that is true or not...so why would you say it? If you had said.."oh, I wasn't aware there were comfort benefits with geo...could you point them out", I would have gladly done so. But you are one of those people who think they know it already and have already made their minds up...so what's the point.

So, what is it 3-5 years, or less than 20 years then? That's a rather large range. Why so cryptic?

There's nothing "cryptic" about it. There are too many variables to give "one" average number for everyone. I can give an "average" timeframe for the "average" 2000 sqft house that can accommodate a horizontal loop with good access/poor access, replacing a gas furnace (or oil, or propane, or electric) and gas or electric water heater, and electric air-to-air cooling. And I can give you an "average" timeframe for an urban dwelling with limited access that requires a vertical loop. But I can't give one number to fit all scenarios.

You seem to think there is one number, and it's in the 20+ year range (or "double digits" as you are now saying, which means at least more than 10)...which is complete nonsense, and you are asking me to agree with you. You also seem to think the only way to calculate the payback is by adding up monthly utility bill savings until it equals the initial capital cost, which is also not true either.

And yes, I am talking specifically of those considering replacing natural gas, not electric or oil. It's obvious the numbers would be very different for electric or oil.

Well no, it's not so obvious as you think. Yes, natural gas is more cost efficient than oil or electric resistance heating at current rates. But there's a lot more to it than that. How are you cooling your house? (geo will give you a 40% saving right there). How are you heating your water? (the geo heat pump will supplement that about 40% absolutely free as a byproduct of the system).

The major cost factor difference is the loop itself...not equipment. And it is the loop cost that has the biggest effect on payback time because it is the loop costs that fluctuate the most.

Another thing to remember, is that most people decide to get geo when it's time to replace equipment anyway (furnace, boiler, cooling units). You're already having to spend money anyway, and the cost of a GSHP isn't "that" much more...especially when you factor in it has twice the lifespan of a gas furnace, and replaces both your furnace AND noisy, inefficient cooling unit sitting outside your house. You can also tell the gas company to shut off your connection...have you ever seen what you pay for the convenience of just having it connected to your house, regardless if you don't even consume a single drop? Another little bonus, is you will find you can get cheaper insurance rates as a result.

Like I said...it is not a simple as you think.

Well, you might want to be a bit more clear about that then. I quote:

I've been involved in the industry going back...shit...20 years now?

I think I was pretty clear about it in a previous post...

For the record, I haven't been involved in a couple of years, so i really don't have a vested interest in misleading anyone.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Windmill turbines bad, nuclear turbines good... ?

Tell me again why windmill turbines are worse than nuclear?

 

[old boy]

Windmill turbines bad, nuclear turbines good... ?

Tell me again why windmill turbines are worse than nuclear?

I'm not sure there is consensus that windmills are damaging to biological systems, but they are a blight on the landscape. Drive through western Ontario to the Bruce and see for yourself. Nuclear is the safest source of big power we have in this province, and the oldest plant, Pickering, will be decommisioned in a few years.