The Department of Natural Resources recently permitted a residential geothermal heating unit on state tideland on North Douglas Island. The Mining, Land and Water geothermal permit marks the third that has recently crossed the desk of Southeast region manager David Kelley.
“We’re expecting more and more applications for these,” Kelley said. “There is a growing demand.”
A demand helped along by state and federal energy efficiency assistance. As an example, homeowners associations can apply for loans from Alaska Housing Finance Corporation to install geothermal heat pumps.
Kelley said his division is working to limit the waiting time for these types of permits “to allow people to start saving money and conserving energy,” Kelley said.
Why put a private geothermal system on public land?
“The area is going to have to be routinely covered by salt water for these things to work,” Kelley said. So the homeowner must install the heat exchange part of the system on state-owned tidelands below mean high water, he said.
The heat exchanger is a buried mat of coiled pipes that exchange heat with the earth and ocean by way of circulating water or antifreeze.
Those interested in installing a heat pump should also check with the U.S. Corps of Engineers and the City and Borough of Juneau for any additional requirements, Kelley said. Also, if a system is to be installed near an anadromous fish stream, consult with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, he said.
The recent geothermal permit was awarded to Joseph Newman of North Douglas.
He said he decided to install a groundsource heat pump for two main reasons.
“The price of oil is high,” Newman said, and “it’s carbon-free.”
Newman said buying and installing a geothermal system is kind of expensive. However, he said he was able to take advantage of the incentives offered by the state and federal government.
“Mr. Kelley has been very helpful and the Corp of Engineers were very helpful,” Newman said. “There is always a little roadblock here and there, but … they were able to make it work.”
Newman did say that his progress was slowed by the lack of a state Coastal Management Zone.
Dealing with tides, installation of the geothermal unit should take a couple days, Newman said.
“It really doesn’t take long, when people do this in their back yards [it] may take a day,” Newman said. He said he plans to start laying the geothermal pad on a little less than an acre within the next month.
• Contact reporter Russell Stigall at 523-2276 or at russell.stigall@juneauempire.com.
LINKS:
AHFC homeowners association loan
www.ahfc.state.ak.us/loans/association.cfm
International Ground Source Heat Pump Association
Comments (47)
Add commentHats off to Newman for utilizing a local energy resource
It would be nice for the Empire to follow up with where ground source heat pumps can be purcased, and who local contractors are that can assist residents in future installs. It would also be nice to see articles (success stories or not) on other homes in Juneau that have installed geothermal tidal and ground heat pumps.
Nice to see Dave Kelley, ADNR and Army Corp working to limit the waiting time on permits. Something all state and fed government agencies should be working toward.
Big Oil Give Away
The $2 billion a year would do wonders to advance the use of geothermal energy in Alaska.
Big Oil Giveaway?
Money was not being handed over to the oil companies, it is a tax break to entice further drilling. If Obama had not wasted $90B on failed green energy fiascos he could have bought geothermal units for everyone in Alaska. He would say "Do you love me?" and we would say yes!
He would IF,
obama would do as you suggest, if a lot of that revenue returned to him as donations. Wouldn't matter if the systems even worked!
juxtapositioning
the ability to change positions as in Romney's explanation that private equity investments have a failure rate that is acceptable while demonizing the government for having any failure rate for similar investments of the Bush Stimulus. Too bad the Romney followers can only find the business that failed with government investments and none of the business that succeeded.
90 billion on failed green energy
Oh yay, we have a chain email forwarding parrot on here...
banditrider, where did you get that number? Romney's debate speech? I had slightly higher expectations for you... I was wrong.
For some insight, that number that Romney sited, $90 billion, was in fact a lie. The $90 billion included everything from tax breaks to oil companies (hardly green energy) to modernizing the electrical grid. Ya, solyndra was in there... less than 1% of the $90 billion...
Just a suggestion, quoting romney's speeches is not the smartest thing you could do.
And in fact, geo-thermal upgrades qualify for federal tax credits as energy upgrades. You could qualify for federal giveaways if you upgrade to geothermal. I love your comment though:
"If Obama had not wasted $90B on failed green energy fiascos he could have bought geothermal units for everyone in Alaska."
This $90 billion equates to roughly $783 per household in America. Just wondering, but do you have any idea how much it costs to upgrade to geo-thermal?
groundsource heat pump, wow
groundsource heat pump, wow this is incredibly interesting.
interesting
"Newman did say that his progress was slowed by the lack of a state Coastal Management Zone."
Interesting... I thought the coastal zone management would hinder this kind of development. I think the No on 2 folks have some explaining to do...
@islander
I'm drawing a blank -- what businesses have succeeded under this administration? I mean, ones we can appreciate. The auto model doesnt count yet, as GM has only managed to stay solvent with govt investment: sales are up, but they are selling cars at a loss to incentivize the consumer. Doesnt that sound soviet? It begs the question: What is success under this administration?
Grendal - Its not up to the
Grendal - Its not up to the Government to "create jobs", the Governments job is to help create an environment where everyone has an equal chance to live the American dream. I thought Repubs. understood this??
@janwoodings
you play loose and fast with generalizations. I just asked a question, because it doesnt appear that the govt is even performing up to your expectations, unless you envision "equal chance" to mean we should set the bar at the lowest common denominator.
@jw
2nd thoughts? (nice recovery, but we saw it)
oh you mean this part?
oh you mean this part?
" that actual Republicans these days are extremist nut jobs who think that banks should be LESS regulated, that tax payer money should be used to give welfare to corporations instead of fixing our deteriorating roads and bridges, that corporations should have even MORE freedom to buy elections and politicians (because that's free speech!), and that women should not have abortion rights, nor equal pay for equal work"
Maybe you can answer your own question.
Do you have a job right now?
jw: we're off-topic and I dont mind
I thought the PC term was "right to choose"? Did I miss something? Because that means I'll have to re-edit all my placards and newsletters! And the equal pay thing -- if POTUS can breachload the country with ACA, why cant he get his female staff on the same payscale as his hombres?
"What businesses have
"What businesses have succeeded under this administration? I mean, ones we can appreciate" - Grende
Maybe you can answer your own question Grende.
Do you have a job right now?
Do you appreciate it?
@jw
are you suggesting that everyone employed is a success for the administration? That's a bold statement, but I dont want to assume you meant that.
Jan seems to have a new found source
Jan you are new to the Empire but seem motivated to spread your BS. Please spread it as thick as you wish, doesn't change reality or anything else.
Cheesy you never say anything of value
There ya go again. Invective posts. No substance.
If Romney's $90B statement was incorrect maybe the President
should have called him on it.
to kdII
my opinion -- POTUS did not have solid handle on the facts related to his energy policies. The fact-checkers came out with lots of "yeah-buts" after the debate, and Obama probably recoiled at points Romney threw out there, but he wasnt going to counterpoint since he didn't have his own facts at hand. Generally unprepared, and it showed.
fmast50,
if you consider your posts to be valuable then I'll take it as a compliment.
ken dunker,
the 90 billion was a lie. Even Romney's own campaign has to correct his lies. Did you see the debate? Obama did a poor job calling him on anything. Romney changed his position on almost everything he's campaigned on the last 9 months. Where do you begin calling your opponent on these things? The president wasn't prepared.
grendel,
Obama wasn't prepared, but romney wasn't the same guy who was campaigning. Obama prepared to debate Romney's politics. Romney changed them without the public knowing. That's cool if you believe Romney's plans will magically work. I personally don't, but you can believe whatever you want. I watched the debate and my feeling was that Romney won with energy but not content. How long until election? And what do we know about Romney? Other than his chameleon-like tendencies?
good morning cheeesypoof
the purpose of a campaign is to WIN. The Obama campaign has no issue with the means, nor with characterizing the opposition in a dishonest light. The triumph of the debate was Romney's agility with his message and ability to dispel that characterization. Obama, on the hand, has no message (except maybe, Trust me - I know what I'm doing), and the factual picture Romney painted of the administration could not be refuted.
since you brought it up, what do we really know about Barack Obama? It seems very little, which is odd given that he's written two (2) memoirs and likes to couch himself with soft & sympathetic media. As an executive decision-maker, your policies and decisions reflect your principles, and POTUS has proven himself woefully indecisive (3 months to OK the US Commander's request for troops in AF to support OBAMA's objectives? Really? 3 months of mulling it over during a hot conflict, and then he dispatches a third of the forces requested!). Here's another -- now he's had a revelation to embrace gay marriage, after yrs of political tapdancing.
They are only chameleons if you can see them.
good morning grendel,
It's not about campaign gimmicks. The debate is an opportunity to air the candidates' primary differences.
Romney:
"I will repeal Obamacare, although I will keep all the good stuff."
I will repeal Dodd-Frank, although I will keep all the good stuff."
The primary differences that I noticed from the debate are not Obama's policies, because Romney admitted he approves. He took aim with Obama green initiatives... the 90 billion, which was in no way a green energy package, was called a failed green energy initiative by Romney. I don't know if he's lying or if he really believes oil is a green energy. Or the $716 billion cut to medicare that Romney said he'll recover. The $716 billion in reduced spending by the federal government because insurance companies will be picking up the tab. This isn't exactly lie. It's just "misinformation" intended to create a lie in the minds of listeners.
"the factual picture Romney painted of the administration could not be refuted."
I don't follow you here. Could you forward me the picture romney painted out of facts? I seemed to have missed it during the debate. Factcheckers seem to struggle in finding this picture as well. Maybe the factcheckers are wrong...
As far as Obama goes, he lost the debate. He still called Romney out as much as he could, but romney had nothing substantial during the debate that Obama could pin on him. I don't think debates in the future should be won or lost depending on how sly one opponent is over the other. Romney won on slyness. He's been flip-flopping for decades however, so it really is Obama's fault for not being better prepared to tackle the real chameleon.
3 months to ok commander's request for troops... that's your proof that he's indicisive? He gave the go ahead to covertly kill bin laden in Pakistan without Pakistani's being aware. One for indicisive, one for decisive. Gay marriage is not a question of decisiveness. Gay marriage is a question of political windblowing.
Obama is still campaigning on the same things he did 4 years ago. That's better than Romney who's campaigning on something different now, less than 5 weeks before the election. Dismiss it however you like, but I have a question:
How will Romney's tax plan that lowers taxes and closes loopholes lead to more jobs and a surplus? He won't say what programs he's gonna cut, so you can't just say cutting spending. 5 weeks before the election, you gotta start getting more specific than rainbows and butterflies.
Here's a very relevant report by the congressional research service:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/PDF/0915taxesandeconomy.pdf
This report essentially outlines its finding that taxes don't necessarily create jobs or destroy them. The conclusion is that taxes can be associated with economic equality. That's why for the last 4 decades we've seen economic inequality on the rise as taxes for the wealthy have fallen. Right now our big concern is the large gap in economic classes. And Romney's plan will add to it.
Sorry for the longwinded reply... got away from me.
to cheeesypoof
I’ll walk the dog thru your points. I use numbers to stay on track, not verbal fingerpointing.
1. The “good stuff” in ACA & Dodd-Frank appears to be their respective titles, as in Affordable Healthcare & Wall Street Reform and Consumer Financial Protection. Who isn’t for those? But the concepts got lost in partisan ideology;
2. Romney was grounded in numbers & statistics (ie. Mass. #1 in education under his watch). I know – numbers & stats are subject to interpretation, but they threw Obama for a 10 yd loss because he had no numbers or stats to defend his administration. True, Romney boasted about bygone days as Gov, but what could Obama boast about? Nichego; nothing;
3. The debate setting forces participants to be versed, articulate, and quick of wit – all admirable leadership qualities. Lack of prep demonstrated lack of effort. Off night? We will see next week;
4. Indecisive: Syria, Iran, Keystone, Russian provocations in Transkavkas (Transcaucusus). I would include Libya, but I think he was genuinely clueless & unresponsive (read: beyond indecisive), though if that were my son coming home to Andrews in a box and POTUS used the occasion to spout off about some irrelevant, degenerate video I would have a very personal axe to grind. We know what to expect from Pakistan – alliance of convenience; though, yes, Obama did decisively prosecute a drone war over Pakistani airspace. Is it any wonder they don’t like us?
5. Answer to your question re: taxes – speculation. But what Romney has said he will NOT do is raise taxes. That idea consternates Obama because he has no concept of economics, except for economic class warfare. BUT, Romney’s speculation is hard-grounded in economic principles with the bottom line being spur growth, not spread-load current wealth. The current trend of printing more $$$ is consistent with someone who has never operated with a budget – we cant just make more $$$ to pay the bills.
6. I don’t do hyperlinks in here. What I say and what you say should stand on their own merits.
Grendel,
You use numbers to stay on track... when were you going to get around to introducing them? The only number you presented was Massachusetts' education ranking, which for one, Romney didn't take credit for it, only stating its perceived ranking. I'll let it slide that you mistakenly misunderstood Romney.
Romney was grounded in false numbers and statistics. Yes, that's true. Grade his performance on skewing the numbers, like Mass. #1 ranking, which the nation has no clear cut standard for ranking education programs. Again, just because someone introduces numbers, i.e. 90 billion, doesn't mean they are grounded by them. Factcheckers have essentially proven that the numbers Romney introduced were just that: numbers.
After your first statement of using numbers to stay focused, it appears your post turned into verbal fingerpointing. I still stand by the fact that Romney has no stance.
Syria, Iran, Keystone, Russia might seem indicisive according to you. Polls have shown, for the first time in decades, that Americans trust a democrat more than a republican on foreign policy. You can call it indicisiveness, but not wanting to nuke Iran is common sense in my opinion. Not provoking Russia with a Syrian intervention is also what we're left with. Keystone is not indicisive. It's not necessary to put a pipeline in from the northern boarder to the southern boarder in order to transport oil to foreign nations. That's the only reason for keystone. These are issues that you consider indicisive, while others consider too complex to shoot from the hip on.
As far as hyperlinks, you don't have to read it. I summarized it for you and if you wanted to verify my merits, I gave you the opportunity. You shouldn't dismiss my merits just because you're too lazy to verify them.
I still would like you to explain how Obama's consternation with a magical tax plan suggests he has no understanding of economics in general. Obama's tax plan is reasonable. Cut programs while also raising income slightly on those who can afford to go back to pre-bush era rates. This IS a plan. Not a magical fairy dust notion that we can make a deficit disappear by saying it enough times. Which is funny because Romney made that statement in regard to Obama... too bad he didn't catch the irony of it.
CP
you should not take offense that POTUS is demonstrably incompetent. He entered office with the nation's (majority) backing and has since failed to deliver (Obamacare doesnt count -- we wont enjoy that dog-knot until 2014 and there's always the prospect of defunding it before then). When I said numbers I meant:
Number 1. "Romney was grounded in false numbers and statistics." So what? Really, so what? Who WON the debate. That is my point -- in 2012 whoever WINS the debates WINS the election. Any second-rate thug from Chicago should know this, which is why calling your opponent a LIAR is not an unreasonable proposition considering the source.
Number 2. related to Number 1. Romney does not need to have a stance on matters he has no engagement in (ie. foreign policy). All he has to do is point out that Obama is incompetent, indecisive, etc. To be fair, Obama has helped him out a great deal with recent events (gaffing Netanyahu @ UN, fumbling Libya, congratulating Morsi on presidency) -- these point to no comprehensible vision. I mean, try EXPLAINING his vision to someone. You cant, because no one knows. That is disconcerting.
Number 3. It's a misconception that going nuclear is the only big stick we have in our inventory. We have oodles of unpleasantries for potential adversaries before the nuclear option, but what will the neighbors think? We need good neighbors, and Obama has failed miserably on that item.
Number 4. Keystone...what part of 100,000 JOBS tomorrow did he not like? Did something get lost in his loop between "NUMBER 1 CONCERN" and "JOBS"?
Number 5. I'm willing to roll the dice with millions of voting Americans that Romney's "magical" tax plan has merit. I wont let a failed president with no resume of achievements and nothing fresh in his sack of tricks dissuade me.
NUMBER 6. (bonus input) I have to laugh everytime Paul Ryan gets raked for his credentials. Why is it Biden gets a pass? He's an unapolegetic buffoon, exposed plagiarist, loose cannon in front of any crowd -- and next in line for the presidency! THAT debate will be a hoot.
I did not verbal finger you, cheeesy. I'm letting your barbs go unanswered, but dont be surprised if you get dislikes on style alone.
grendel,
I know it doesn't matter to you if Romney won the debate or not. In your mind he won and that's all the matters.
My initial post was in response to your statement that Obama didn't have the facts at hand. My point was that neither did Romney. He just had the numbers... and it worked. It worked to fool those who don't pay attention long enough to smell the BS.
I then provided examples. That doesn't matter to you, just like hyperlinks don't matter to you. The only thing that matters to you is that you perceive Romney as a leader. That's fine, just don't try to explain your reasoning to me. If you don't want to argue facts then don't pretend facts matter to you. I foolishly introduced them and you dismissed them without a second thought.
You like Romney and that's all that matters. I just don't think you should try to rationalize your opinion on here. It gives people the impression that reason and logic were involved when in fact they were absent for orientation.
And my questions... er... "barbs?" go unanswered consistently. I honestly want to know how you have confidence in a man who is unwilling to provide a single detail on his grandmaster plan to save the economy. That was my barb...
And what's with the focus on likes/dislikes? That's the third time someone has mentioned it. Are we worried about likes/dislikes on here? Did I mistake the Juneau Empire message boards with a high school chat room?
cp
it's not that I dont take your word for it. I dont trust talkingpointsmemo site because it's a leftwing mouthpiece and, as we agreed, numbers and stats can be manipulated to mean what you want. The majority (51%) of likely voters would NOT vote Romney for president today.
But you're wrong -- I never said I liked Romney. I commented on his tactics, his effectiveness, and my willingness to roll the dice, but I dont have a "Romney & Ryan" sign in my yard. We have 2 options, and one is proven failure in leadership, vision, and solutions, and also has not impressed me principly or ethically. In short, the current president is an opportunist who had his opportunity, and failed. I necessarily reject that 1. My rationale.
The only good question you had (again, not an attack, just observation): "how (can) you have confidence in a man who is unwilling to provide a single detail on his grandmaster plan to save the economy(?)"
Answer: his record. He has one. This is what he's good at and what we need now. Incentivize small business; generate revenue; revenue creates broader tax base and creates real jobs. So simple even I understand it.
Try explaining continued confidence in the current president, who trillions of $$$ and 3 1/2 yrs later got us right back to where we started with him. Plus interest & lost time.
But if you're going to attempt that, you should include a blurb on his foreign policy. I am dying for someone to explain his foreign policy. Next Tuesday perhaps he will.