Comments
susinpgh OP t1_irmpajs wrote
It sounds like some of them are still being maintained. Vicinity Energy talks about how they've upgraded over the decades.
This solution is under discussion because it decreases the carbon footprint. That is a growing issue that does need to be addressed.
worstatit t1_irmqh96 wrote
Seems little different to me whether a central facility or an individual building boiler makes the steam, carbon wise. Effectively, transporting heated steam over distance results in dissipation of the energy used to heat it, whatever the source. It made sense when steam was a byproduct of electricity generation via carbon based fuels, but won't renewables eliminate the excess heat factor?
susinpgh OP t1_irmrehq wrote
I think that's why the National Parks facility opted out. But maybe this is a solution for compact areas that would cover several blocks with each station. My point is that if these are already in place, they should be utilized. Anything that can be done to decrease the carbon footprint is on the plus side.
WGSpro t1_iroxkj5 wrote
So the steam is a byproduct of electricity generation. They need to adjust their prices. Can’t imagine how expensive steam must be for natural gas bills and cost of maintaining/purchase/install new equipment to be less. Wonder if labor unions or lobbyist have something to do with this?
[deleted] t1_irv1e05 wrote
[removed]
worstatit t1_irmbby4 wrote
Haven't these systems been ripped out en masse over the last few decades because of inefficiencies and high cost of operation and maintenance?