Economic and energy analysis of domestic ground source heat pump systems in four Canadian cities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study provides an economic and energy analysis of the implementation of geothermal systems to meet the needs of a typical 130 m2 dwelling of a Canadian individual. The objective is to determine the monetary balance after 22 years, the net present value, the internal return rate, and annual savings for the same system operating under different climatic conditions and in different provinces (legislations, costs of fuel) to determine whether or not an individual should implement such a system in 2014. The geothermal system is used for both space heating and cooling, and to provide for 25% of the total amount of domestic hot water. The simulations are performed with RETScreen® for four Canadian cities: Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver. For the investigated configurations, it appeared that the cost of energy and its sources, which varied greatly according to the location, are the factors that most strongly influenced the economic viability of the proposed geothermal system, while climate was only a secondary impact. The impact of carbon taxes and equivalent monetary subsidies does not significantly modify the economic outcomes for Halifax and Montreal. However, for Toronto and Vancouver, these would need to reach between 280 and 300 Can$/tCO2eq to attain economic balance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".