Increased boiler costs
The WRA and NHR are both reporting on the cost of the Norton School boiler delay. Reported by the NHRs Luther Turmelle:
The planned replacement of an aging boiler at Norton Elementary School has already been out to bid twice, and could go through the bidding process a third time because of a technicality.Tim White
Although the Town Council voted 8-1 Wednesday night to accept the $194,996 low bid from Middlebury-based Connecticut Combustion Corp., plans for the work might have to be put out to bid again because the town missed a 45-day window for which the price was valid. The company had asked town officials to pay an additional $16,000 for the job....
Part of Sima’s concern over the boiler replacement project is that the problem with Norton’s boiler system dates back to early 2006. Both school boilers were corroded and although one has since been replaced, Sima said he wonders how long the second unit will continue to function.
10 comments:
we are making a huge mistake looking at replacing one boiler at a time
We need a complete audit of the HVAC replacement and enhancement needs of the entire school system.
This should include issues like windows and insulation as well.
We need to overhaul the whole car, not just replace spark plugs. Schools designed in the Eisenhower era are not going to be effective energy consumers in this century, and we will need to anticipate greater cooling needs as well, if for no other reason than we may go to a full year school year at some point in the future.
I agree. That's why I've been pushing for a townwide review of infrastructure, including energy consumption.
But the question of "bond rating" vs "energy conservation" remains.
I come down on the side of energy conservation.
Retrofitting some of todays more energy efficient systems may not ever be feasable given their architecture and we cannot expect to be replacing our school buildings whether they are Eisenhower or Nixon era buildings. Five or six new schools... a mere $300 Million vs. rising energy costs. You are correct...fix the windows, consider HVAC but I think we're better off with upgrades that work vs new construction.
unless we do a cost analysis of all possible retrofits we will not know what is the least expensive life cycle cost for the possible alternatives.
What if we drop $1M in a boiler today with a $200K annual operating cost---and then fuel prices triple.....we might end up junking the boiler very early in its useful life and having to bite the bullet on an alternative we should have bought in the first place
Can we put the turf in the hallways at Norton. If we keep the little kids running, they will stay warm.
may god destroy all the sinners and evildoers in Cheshire and there are many. There is only one true voice who speaks the truth in Cheshire.
We should carpet the cement floor classrooms at Doolittle with some of that turf too. Or maybe we should use it to cover over the bubble on the pool as the turf is reported to hold in higher temperatures.
The Public Building Commission and the BOE should have asked the Norton design guy to look at alternatives for performance contracting. What is wrong with using a boiler that burns gas and generates electricity? Isn't it good to generate your own electricity and not pay then higher rates to CL&P?
3:26 and 8:54
Where do you propose we install the nuclear reactor at Norton. Will the gas company bring in gaslines from Route 10 to Norton at no cost or will we install LNG tanks on site?
What retrofit are you suggesting be installed. If you have an idea, regardless of its cost spell it out. Simply urging a review of any and all alternatives sound like the the curiculum committee around budget time...new courses for the hell of it.
What alternatives have you made to your fuel plant at home??/windmills, solar, gas? Did you engage a consultant to make these big decisions?
Anon 10:35
Specific suggestions were made to install either a microturbine or another form of a combined heat and power system (CHP) for Norton. The school has a more than sufficient gas supply to run the equipment. The size of the equipment is the same or smaller than the boilers.The process is simple, power the CHP with gas, use the heat from the exhaust to heat the hot water for domestic and heating use. As a result of running the engine the equipment generates electricity that is more than enough to fulfill the requirements of the school, excess electricity generated is sold back to the CL&P grid. The downside to the project as stated a few years ago is the school is not used 24/7/365 and the cost of generating electricity by natural gas did not pay off, well it does today. Add in battery backup and an inverter, charge the batteries overnight, sell electricity to the grid and use less fuel than a boiler. Systems like this are being installed in schools around the country, it makes sense. Personally I have reduced my energy bill by 52% on electricity, 35% on fuel oil and I did not hire a consultant. The microturbine would have cost less than the boiler a few years ago. These ideas go against the thinking of the decision makers in town,it is a different but to them an unproven approach.
Post a Comment