BCT Editorial – 4/22/09

This page was last updated on April 23, 2009.

Pump up the savings; Editorial; Beaver County Times; April 22, 2009.

The editorial subtitle is “Schools in Aliquippa show the importance of investing in energy.”

In its zeal to promote energy conservation, the editorial appears to misrepresent what was reported in the news story “Aliquippa building project will save energy costs.”

The editorial seems to assert “Superintendent David Wytiaz said” the geothermal system will recoup the $1.5 million premium over “a conventional heating and cooling system … in six or seven years.” That’s not what Mr. Wytiaz claimed according to the aforementioned news story. The story reported Mr. Wytiaz said the new system would recoup its cost “in six or seven years” vs. “the ancient boiler systems the district uses now,” not vs. a new conventional system. New conventional systems are a lot more efficient than Aliquippa’s “ancient boiler systems.” When I shopped for a new furnace last fall, I found new gas-fired systems are 80% efficient at the low end and the upgrade to systems in excess of 90% efficiency was relatively inexpensive given then-current gas prices. High-end gas systems are 95% efficient.

When I made this comment on the Times website, “shameful” responded, “according to the EPA, geothermal heat pumps save 30 to 70 percent on heating and 20 to 50 percent on cooling costs over conventional systems. Geothermal heat pumps provide a high level of occupant comfort.” This comment is widespread on the Internet, but a look at the Department of Energy website indicates it’s misleading. Based on the DOE website, the comparison appears to be between geothermal and conventional (air-source) heat pump systems at the low end (30%) and electric resistance heating at the high end (70%). The figures don’t appear to include a comparison between geothermal and new gas-fired conventional systems.

Comments about “occupant comfort” make no sense. Occupant comfort is determined by the method (forced air, hydronic, et cetera) used to distribute heat/cooling in the building, not the source of the heat or cooling. For example, if you distribute heat via hot water, the occupant can’t tell if the water was heated via gas, electric resistance, heat pump, et cetera.

Neither the news story nor the editorial provided the figures used to calculate the alleged payback figures or mentioned if taxpayer “green” subsidies figure into the claimed payback calculations.

The geothermal system may indeed provide the savings claimed vs. a new conventional system, but there’s no way to tell based on the data provided in the story or the editorial.