A couple of links:
https://www.acciona.ca/projects/construction/port-and-hydrau...
https://www.toronto.ca/community-people/get-involved/public-...
A couple of links:
https://www.acciona.ca/projects/construction/port-and-hydrau...
https://www.toronto.ca/community-people/get-involved/public-...
So it helps with some eco-effects (ie: there’s no dumping of the heated water), but everyone’s municipal water is a bit warmer in summer. I don’t think the effects of that have been calculated. Can offset water heating a bit; but other office towers use that water for their a/c cooling needs.
They deepened the water intake too, so it definitely means colder tap water in winter too, which residents mostly have to heat up inefficiently.
In many eastern europe cities heating is centralised and uses quite expensive wood or oil burners. Wondering if extremely deep geothermal bores could serve 200-500k people.
All these factors mean that during summer you need to cool offices in Honolulu more than in winter, even though that the measured difference in temperature at noon can be minuscule.
But yeah, most freestanding houses have neither, and need neither active heading out cooling (aside from a ceiling fan for circulation).
For the last 30+ years though, it seems like there's been an importation of building design that rely upon air conditioned spaces (concrete with sealed windows basically) where buildings from mid century would have ensued outdoor access on two sides with louvered windows for cross ventilation.
I wonder if this deep water cooling proposal is basically an attempt to mitigate the rather short-sighted move to these more energy consuming buildings and the realization that they are needlessly expensive to operate and not in line with the community's purported environmental ideals.
Would it be so expensive to have two intakes?
Maybe collecting deeper water improved water quality in some other way. Dunno.