…Oh, that’s already the plan.

…Oh, that’s already the plan.

If MIT is doing it, it must be working!

If MIT is doing it, it must be working!

Using the fire protection piping as a means to meet this end is currently out of the question. International Building Codes require strict separation between the domestic water supply and the ‘fire water’. This is because fire protection systems inevitably have “dead ends”. This water sits stagnant for potentially years. This stagnation oftentimes leads to Microbiological Induced Corrosion (MIC) that literally eats the steel pipes from the outside-in, not something I want is my tap water.

Also, a fire sprinkler is currently a completely mechanical device, so the only way to know that a sprinkler has activated (in a conventional wet system, standard in most office environments)is to monitor for flow.

These may seem like insignificant problems, but it would be a hard sell to any legislating committee or insurance company that you are going to change basic principles of fire protection engineering and complicate a previously uncomplicated system in the name of energy savings. No one wants to take the chance of that technology backfiring on their watch.

In a perfect world, I do think the hurdles could be overcome and a mitigated benefit could be felt, but in this land of standards and legislation it would take decades to push this idea through. Just my opinion.

Using the fire protection piping as a means to meet this end is currently out of the question. International Building Codes require strict separation between the domestic water supply and the ‘fire water’. This is because fire protection systems inevitably have “dead ends”. This water sits stagnant for potentially years. This stagnation oftentimes leads to Microbiological Induced Corrosion (MIC) that literally eats the steel pipes from the outside-in, not something I want is my tap water.

Also, a fire sprinkler is currently a completely mechanical device, so the only way to know that a sprinkler has activated (in a conventional wet system, standard in most office environments)is to monitor for flow.

These may seem like insignificant problems, but it would be a hard sell to any legislating committee or insurance company that you are going to change basic principles of fire protection engineering and complicate a previously uncomplicated system in the name of energy savings. No one wants to take the chance of that technology backfiring on their watch.

In a perfect world, I do think the hurdles could be overcome and a mitigated benefit could be felt, but in this land of standards and legislation it would take decades to push this idea through. Just my opinion.

In building my new home a Viessman rep was trying to sell me a ground source heat pump with ‘natural cooling’. The closed loop unit used the compressor only for capturing heat and for cooling you simply recirculated water through the system using the cooler ground temps to cool the recirculated water. No water wasted.

We have 60 degree ground water at our location. I rejected the system as ineffective in our location plus the condensation worries. Not to mention that ground source heat pumps are more costly due to the initial price plus wells.

Turns out that even on the hottest 100 degree day we have not turned on the AC system the first summer as there is almost always a cool breeze we catch as we are up on a hill.

I may be wrong but this sounds like a problematic solution to me.

In building my new home a Viessman rep was trying to sell me a ground source heat pump with ‘natural cooling’. The closed loop unit used the compressor only for capturing heat and for cooling you simply recirculated water through the system using the cooler ground temps to cool the recirculated water. No water wasted.

We have 60 degree ground water at our location. I rejected the system as ineffective in our location plus the condensation worries. Not to mention that ground source heat pumps are more costly due to the initial price plus wells.

Turns out that even on the hottest 100 degree day we have not turned on the AC system the first summer as there is almost always a cool breeze we catch as we are up on a hill.

I may be wrong but this sounds like a problematic solution to me.

That’s why they said the temperature of city water was 55 degrees. It seems like it is a shallow geothermal system.

Not enough info to think otherwise.

That’s why they said the temperature of city water was 55 degrees. It seems like it is a shallow geothermal system.

Not enough info to think otherwise.

What is the least amount of fossil fuel reduction?

Perpetually with the maxima, never the minima….

What is the least amount of fossil fuel reduction?

Perpetually with the maxima, never the minima….