General: Is it ethical?

1 to 30 of 37

- CommentAuthorJonti
- CommentTimeSep 4th 2012
On another thread there has been a long discussion about the topic of GSHP and whether they lower the ground temperature CONSTANT or excessive use of such systems

If we have an agreement that such will lead to the ground temperature being lowered what effect will this have on the micro-organisms in the ground. It is known that even relatively small movements in the temp. effect them and as micro organisms make up the vast majority of life on this planet should we be concerned.

Some may argue that it is not on the same scale but neither was this the case when the first fire was lit, factory was opened, car motor was started or aircraft was flown. Who is to say how big GSHP will become.

So here is the question: Is there any difference ethically in causing drop in ground temperature or rise in climate temperature as in global warming?

Jonti
- CommentAuthorfostertom
- CommentTimeSep 4th 2012
I'd add to that - what about a rise in ground temp caused by in-ground interseasonal heat storage schemes? That has worried me.
- CommentAuthorSeret
- CommentTimeSep 4th 2012
Posted By: Jonti
So here is the question: Is there any difference ethically in causing drop in ground temperature or rise in climate temperature as in global warming?

Yes, because I'd expect a change in temperature to have far more effect in the atmosphere than in the ground. The atmosphere is a big machine that runs on heat. The upper crust isn't going to be nearly as sensitive to small changes in temperature that are highly localised.

The issue with the atmosphere is that we're altering it in a way that allows a significant heat source to have a larger effect, the amount of actual heat we pump directly into it isn't such a big deal. Extracting heat directly from the crust isn't AFAIK going to affect the normal mechanisms which heat and cool it, except to maybe draw slightly more heat from above and below, which in the case of heat drawn from the atmosphere would actually be a good thing.
- CommentAuthorSteamyTea
- CommentTimeSep 4th 2012
Ethics depends on your position, it is relative, not absolute.
Take forest destruction to create palm oil plantations that cause a decrease in the orangutan population. We tend to blame the country that has cut down its own forest (or the foreign investor), but do we think about it when we fill up with diesel or buy chips?
So if we pretend that, for sake of the debate, changing the ground temperature will have make a difference to the local flora and fauna, and that affect will be negative, I am sure we can blame the neighbours/later installation rather than our own.
One could extend this logic to globalisation, which makes each and every one of us responsible for each and every cubic millimetre of planet Earth. Seem like a nice idea, so who wants to punch out the postman for delivering unnecessary mail?
Dolphins are social and organised ruthless killers, I elect that they do it.
- CommentAuthorfostertom
- CommentTimeSep 4th 2012 edited
Posted By: SteamyTeawho wants to punch out the postman for delivering unnecessary mail?
Me! v much - but wd get arrested
- CommentAuthorJonti
- CommentTimeSep 4th 2012
Fostertom,

don't know much, if anything about that. Maybe you can enlighten me.

SteamyTea,

good points that you make and if sea levels rise enough maybe the posty will have to watch out for dolphins

Seret,

I agree the amount of change will be more in the atmosphere based on today's situation but you seem to be of the opinion that a little in the ground is no big deal. I would hope that we would learn from the mistakes of global warming and not do the same to the ground.

Jonti
- CommentAuthorTriassic
- CommentTimeSep 5th 2012
I'm not sure that the earth can be cooled to such an extent that ground heating (or cooling) can be considered unethical. The earths core is cooling over geological time and at the same time the earth is being warmed by the sun (4.5 hours of the suns energy hitting the surface of the earth is equivalent to the amount of electrical energy consumed globally in a year).

As ever BGS (British Geological Survey) have taken a look at the "The measured shallow temperature field in Britain" and the report may be of interest http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/14877/1/QJEGH_2011_44_373-387.pdf
- CommentAuthorSteamyTea
- CommentTimeSep 5th 2012
Posted By: Jontiposty will have to watch out for dolphins

They do down here when the tide is in.

The amount of temperature change, and therefore heat in the different systems is quite easy to calculate from the specific heat capacity of air, rock and water. Air is 1 kJ.kg^-1.K^-1, rock/earth is about 0.8 kJ.kg^-1.K^-1 and water is about 4.2 kJ.kg^-1.K^-1.
Sea surface temperatures have been rising along with air temperatures, I assume that ground temperatures have to, though not seen or looked for evidence. Though sea ice temperatures have risen (SHC of ice is about 2 kJ.kg^-1.K^-1, half that of the water it sits on).
One could surmise that earth temperature has risen at about a 1/3rd of the rate of the air temperature (about 0.16°C per decade), but getting the true signal from the normal variation is probably difficult because of the margin of error. It does have the advantgae that it does not move about like water and air though, though is affected by rainwater, rivers etc.
My personal view is that even on the mega city scale, changes in local ground temperature are insignificant compared to other environmental issues such as air pollution, deforestation and water extraction.
- CommentAuthorEd Davies
- CommentTimeSep 5th 2012
Posted By: SteamyTeaOne could surmise that earth temperature has risen at about a 1/3rd of the rate of the air temperature

Sorry, why? I'd have expected ground temperatures to follow air temperatures though with increasingly long lags the deeper you go. Remember that most of the heating of the air starts at the ground (the air only absorbs a small fraction of the incoming short-wave radiation - most reaches the surface and is absorbed as heat which then gets into the air via various mechanisms. Heat that goes up can also go down.

My personal view is that even on the mega city scale, changes in local ground temperature are insignificant compared to other environmental issues such as air pollution, deforestation and water extraction.

That's my view, too. Decreases in ground temperature might have a small detrimental effect on the future efficiency of GSHPs but are unlikely to make much difference otherwise.
- CommentAuthorSteamyTea
- CommentTimeSep 5th 2012 edited
Posted By: Ed DaviesSorry, why?

Because of the differences in heat capacity, though I should, as always, have been much more specific and said that it is only the ground that is affected by solar radiation. It is the transfer of heat between earth and air, in all directions and from all places that is partly responsible for the mean temperature, direct solar forcing is only one of them, there is conductance into ground water, that then gets taken away, this lowers the mean temperature as well, there is conductance between the ground and the air that swings wildly by the second, sometimes causing a loss of energy and sometimes causing an increase in energy and often making no difference at all (though the stored energy at below ground level will still peculate downwards and sidewards, have I mentioned thermal inertia before, it seems to get forgotten).
It is the same problem that occurs with high and low mass dwellings and what you actually measure (or what you are trying to achieve).
So if you do genuinely lower the ground temperature, have you lowered it enough to make a measurable difference to the performance of a GSHP (as in a domestic one that really uses solar heat stored in the ground), I doubt it. There may be issues with the ones with horizontal 'slinkies' that are fitted and designed incorrectly, but that is another issue.
Has anyone worked out the amount of energy that a GSHP can collect from any given square metre of ground and compared it to the solar resource that is hitting it, could do the same with ASHP, ST, PV, biomass and wind and see which comes out on top. I suspect the ST is first, followed by PV, but have no idea for sure.
- CommentAuthorfostertom
- CommentTimeSep 5th 2012 edited
Jonti is talking about local disturbance to biological eco systems, and half a degree can make a big difference, even if insignificant in global energy balance terms.

Whenever I hear someone saying that some human intervention will have 'insignificant' impact on some vast global resource, I think ' they used to say that with equal common-sense certainty about the atmosphere, the sea, rivers, aquifers etc - nowadays we can't believe 'they' used to be so complacent'.

That doesn't mean that we must have no impact - it means we must gauge our impact on what is a vast immune system. Are we well withing the global immune system's capacity to adjust and self-heal, or are we going to over-run its capacities in certain small but vital respects? The knowledge isn't there, and it's massively complicated - but that's what we have to learn, otherwise we will certainly carry on making the global ecology worse, rather than assisting its recovery.
- CommentAuthorSeret
- CommentTimeSep 5th 2012
Biomass would be well down the list ST, efficiency is only about 6%.
- CommentAuthorSteamyTea
- CommentTimeSep 5th 2012
Posted By: SeretBiomass would be well down the list ST, efficiency is only about 6%.

Not getting into that debate again
- CommentAuthorSeret
- CommentTimeSep 5th 2012
Posted By: Jonti
Seret,

I agree the amount of change will be more in the atmosphere based on today's situation but you seem to be of the opinion that a little in the ground is no big deal. I would hope that we would learn from the mistakes of global warming and not do the same to the ground.

I'm certainly of the opinion that a little in the ground would be less of a deal than the same amount in the atmosphere. The forces and temperatures in the ground are much, much higher. A couple of degrees of localised cooling aren't going to make any difference to processes which operate at temperatures of hundreds of degrees and GPa of pressure. The situation in the atmosphere is vastly different, I don't think it's reasonable to assume there's a connection unless you've got some actual evidence for one.

You might get a localised problem for some microcritter that likes a certain temperature regime to do it's thing, but I'd be surprised if that was going to be a critical effect on larger ecosystems. I could be wrong about that, of course.

TL;DR version: it's apples and oranges.
- CommentAuthorJonti
- CommentTimeSep 5th 2012
Posted By: fostertomJonti is talking about local disturbance to biological eco systems, and half a degree can make a big difference, even if insignificant in global energy balance terms.

Whenever I hear someone saying that some human intervention will have 'insignificant' impact on some vast global resource, I think ' they used to say that with equal common-sense certainty about the atmosphere, the sea, rivers, aquifers etc - nowadays we can't believe 'they' used to be so complacent'.

That doesn't mean that we must have no impact - it means we must gauge our impact on what is a vast immune system. Are we well withing the global immune system's capacity to adjust and self-heal, or are we going to over-run its capacities in certain small but vital respects? The knowledge isn't there, and it's massively complicated - but that's what we have to learn, otherwise we will certainly carry on making the global ecology worse, rather than assisting its recovery.

FosterTom,

you seem to be the only one who has got what I am getting at. I find it quite disturbing that for the most there is a very short term thinking. Though I am all for GSHP I think more research into to its effect on the micro-life in the ground and also what effect that might have should it be removed would be a good idea. I fear another case of all switching to diesel because it is better for lower emissions and health.

Jonti
- CommentAuthorSeret
- CommentTimeSep 5th 2012
Posted By: Jonti
FosterTom,

you seem to be the only one who has got what I am getting at.

I don't think it's a case of people not getting you. For myself I'd be much more likely to agree if you could back your point up with some actual proof or data. Just suggesting that any kind of change must be bad isn't persuasive IMO.

The fact that sucking heat out of the ground changes the environment down there is worth keeping in the back of your mind, but until someone can actually show it does harm it's a somewhat premature to call it unethical.

I'd be far more concerned about the impact of large geothermal systems, which do genuinely deplete massive amounts of energy and water from dynamic systems than a few folks using shallow GSHPs which, lets face it, aren't going to become widespread any time soon.
- CommentAuthorfostertom
- CommentTimeSep 6th 2012
Posted By: SeretI'd be much more likely to agree if you could back your point up with some actual proof or data. Just suggesting that any kind of change must be bad isn't persuasive IMO.
Oh god that old line again and again, designed to kill any disturbing idea. He's not trying to persuade or get you to agree - just to open your mind and discuss, explore. 'What if?'
- CommentAuthorJonti
- CommentTimeSep 6th 2012
Seret,

what Fostertom says. I am neither pro nor negative. What surprises me is firstly your unwillingness to discuss this and secondly the idea that if it is not proven then it is not of concern. It seems to me that your stand point could just as easily be used against GSHP. If you don't know what effects GSHP have on the environment you shouldn't use them.

Seret,

can you provide the info that PROVES that GSHP has no adverse effect on the environment.

Contrary

Jonti
- CommentAuthorSeret
- CommentTimeSep 6th 2012
I'm not unwilling to discuss it at all, I'm here discussing it now. I'm just reserving judgement on any possible negative effects.

I don't have proof that there's no harm because like you say I'm not sure it's been studied (I didn't find anything in the quick search I did). However, neither has anybody reported any problems from existing installations. That means the default position should probably be that it's ok until we've got reason to suggest otherwise.

Not all changes made to the "natural" order of things are inherently bad. Natural systems can cope with fluctuation. It's one of their defining characteristics IMO.
- CommentAuthorfostertom
- CommentTimeSep 6th 2012 edited
Posted By: SeretNot all changes made to the "natural" order of things are inherently bad. Natural systems can cope with fluctuation. It's one of their defining characteristics IMO.
All true. But how do you know whether what you do is within the 'coping' limits of the natural order? Really, we don't, because we don't think in those terms - and we're frequently caught out by unexpected environmental consequences of what 'everyone' assumed was OK. Until proven otherwise, by which time it's too late.

We don't even have it on our wish list, that what we do could actually assist the natural order in making good previous accumulated damage. We ignore the fear that human life on earth may depend, medium to long term, upon speeding up the natural order's remediating process. As it is we're still going ever faster in the opposite direction.
- CommentAuthorSeret
- CommentTimeSep 6th 2012
It would certainly be worth looking into anyway. Much of the academic interest in boreholes seems to be physicists interested in coming up with accurate models of heat flew in them. It's still quite niche technology, but it's probably about time to get some biologists in on the act.
- CommentAuthorfostertom
- CommentTimeSep 6th 2012
I think I heard there's more of both animal and plant biomass living below the surface, than on or above it. Fungi alone, on whose processes all life depends, make up some fantastically large mass. Ignore them and their unseen ecological sensitivities, and we're all in trouble. Which we are.
- CommentAuthorJonti
- CommentTimeSep 6th 2012
I think one of the problems is in the world of product pushing it is usually necessary to make the factual case very black and white for a product where by the negative is played down or not even raised and the positive is over amplified.

It would be better if it were discussed openly with the pros and cons fairly laid out. I suspect that although there maybe many negatives that the positives might still have the upper hand. Where knowing how negative a new technology is might be more important in deciding how much it can be used as apposed to if it can be used at all.

Jonti
- CommentAuthorgustyturbine
- CommentTimeSep 6th 2012
I know Fungi can be bad news and cause trouble but what about No10? You could have a better conversation with Fungi though............
- CommentAuthorSteamyTea
- CommentTimeSep 7th 2012
Did not hear it yesterday, but I think that Material World on Radio 4 was talking about old mines and heat pumps (would work well down my way)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01mdkrg#programme-broadcasts
- CommentAuthorBrianwilson
- CommentTimeSep 7th 2012
Steamy- This is another proposal for using heat from old mineworks.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/sep/07/flooded-mines-glasgow-heating-needs

We need to get impact of removing heat from the ground into context,what is impact of extreme winter temperatures,proposed massive increase in building, solar arrays covering large areas of land etc?
- CommentAuthorfostertom
- CommentTimeSep 7th 2012 edited
Posted By: BrianwilsonWe need to get impact of removing heat from the ground into context
You mention various kinds of impact but, like most on here, continue to disregard the bio-ecological impact, as if the OP's original question was just a dream. Very interesting, the resistance to getting into that.
- CommentAuthorCliff Pope
- CommentTimeSep 7th 2012
Surely the biggest negative impact is by building the house in the first place, regardless of how, or whether, it is heated? What happens to all the worms and micro organisms in the soil when you build an eco-house? Do you carefully re-home them somewhere in an appropriate environment, or just plonk the house down on top?
How ethical is that?
- CommentAuthorjms452
- CommentTimeSep 7th 2012
Posted By: Cliff PopeSurely the biggest negative impact is by building the house in the first place, regardless of how, or whether, it is heated? What happens to all the worms and micro organisms in the soil when you build an eco-house? Do you carefully re-home them somewhere in an appropriate environment, or just plonk the house down on top?
How ethical is that?

+1

plus rainwater diverting, floor slab insulation, foundations, quarried materials, buried services,....
- CommentAuthorSteamyTea
- CommentTimeSep 7th 2012
But remember that the victor rewrites the history

1 to 30 of 37



	Site Map \| Home \| View Cart \| Pressroom \| Business \| Links	Contact Us
Logout
© Green Building Press

Green Building Forum

Categories

Feeds

General: Is it ethical?