My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-13-15-R
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2015
>
04-13-15-R
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/13/2015 1:58:39 PM
Creation date
4/13/2015 1:49:55 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
233
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
TCAAP Energy Integration Resiliency Framework <br />Energy Source Implementation <br /> <br /> <br /> 54 <br />Lastly, to validate that this system is the optimal means of capturing ground-source energy, the Project <br />Team compared the life-cycle cost for the low-temperature district energy system to a scenario where <br />homeowners would install independent geothermal systems that would serve each home. In this <br />comparison, both homes would have heat pumps to meet their comfort needs. Because this would add <br />initial cost to the developer, it was assumed that the developer would pass this cost along to the home <br />owner in the form of a premium added to the mortgage amount. This analysis is summarized in Table <br />22. <br /> <br />Ground-Source Loop System Life Cycle Cost <br /> Initial Cost 30-Year Cost Average Annual Costs Per Home <br />Individual Geothermal1 $9,6002 $45,596 $1,521 <br />District Service $ - $46,862 $1,562 <br />District Service Savings (Cost) $9,600 $(1,266) $(41) <br />Notes: <br />1. Assumes that home owners would be required to pay a premium to the developer for the construction of geothermal well field. <br />2. Estimate provided by S&B Geothermal, $2,400/well, assumed four wells. <br />Table 22: Independent geothermal loop system life cycle cost comparison <br />Independent geothermal systems could be built for the residents in TCAAP, and would be less costly <br />than the district energy system capturing energy from the treated groundwater. However, the <br />relatively small gains in cost over 30 years would be offset by the volatility of natural gas markets, <br />inconvenience of maintaining independent systems in each home, the initial cost of the systems, and <br />the future flexibility provided by installing district energy infrastructure. <br />3.3.5. Potential Savings Opportunities <br />Under the assumptions provided in this Framework, the implementation of a low-temperature district <br />energy system that utilizes energy from the treated groundwater appears to be technically and <br />financially implementable. The economic benefits of this system could be improved by realizing one or <br />more of the following cost reduction opportunities. <br /> The distribution piping is the single largest cost for the implementation of the low- <br />temperature system. The primary opportunity to reduce this cost is through coordinating the <br />distribution piping construction with the construction of the public utilities. This coordinated <br />construction has been assumed in the financial model.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.