GEOTHERMAL POND OPTIONS FOR

MOUNT HOPE FARM

Bart Johnsen-Harris
Diego Wedgwood
 Table of Contents

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………. p. 3

Objectives…………………………………………………………………………………………… 4

Glossary of Terms………………………………………………………………………………….. 5

Fundamentals of Ground Source Heat Pumps……………………….………………………….. 6-9

Financing……………………………………………………………………………………………..10-12

Reclamation and Aquaculture……………………………………………………………………. 13

Findings……………………………………………………………………………………………… 14

Recommendations and Alternatives……………………………………………………………. 15

Conclusion and Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………. 16

2
Introduction

Mt. Hope Farm is a 200 acre farm located in Bristol Rhode Island. Located adjacent to Brown’s
Haffenreffer estate, the farm has a long-standing relationship with the Brown community and the
town of Bristol. The farm is officially a land trust and thus there are many stakeholders involved
in approving any project. However, this also means that the farm has an increased capability for
educational and experimental projects, as opposed to the average farm. The land is used a
fully-functioning farm, but with the additional usage of various retreats, educational seminars,
weddings, and children-oriented programs among a random assortment of other community
events.

Recently under new leadership, Mount Hope farm has taken initiative towards reaching out into
the local farming community. It is becoming a hub of sustainable agriculture in the region, and
has a variety of projects in mind to further this goal. Most recently, the farm has received
funding towards becoming a research and educational center where local farmers can come
and learn the best ways to grow vegetables over the winter. They have just completed
construction of a traditional greenhouse to study various techniques currently in practice, but are
hoping to construct other, potentially cheaper and more eco-friendly, alternatives in the future.
Additionally, they have expressed interest in constructing a new visitor center that could serve
as overnight accommodation for both farmers studying greenhouse growing, as well as event
guests at the farm. This building or compound would combine both the rustic and historical
aesthetic currently in place with cutting edge green building technology.

Existing buildings on the premises include an inn, a greenhouse, and a welcoming center,
among other structures. Near these structures is a small pond, currently in poor environmental
health. The pond is highly eutrophied and does not support much, if any, actual wildlife.
However, there is potential to utilize the pond to install HVAC system that could be used to heat
and cool current and future buildings on the premises. The area of the pond is approximately
2.5 acres, well over the minimum 1/2 acre required for a closed loop geothermal pond system1.
In fact, at over 107,209 sq ft, one could theoretically fit at 35-ton system, provided the pond was
deep enough 2. However, at the present time we lack the resources necessary to determine the
depth of the pond, and so for the purpose of this report all recommendations are based on the
assumption that it is deep enough for such a system.

1 WaterFurnac e Installation
2 GIS Analysis of topographical map of Bristol. RIGIS. Accessed: November 2010.

3
Objectives

 Primary Goal: To assess the feasibility of -- and give a recommendation on -- the

installation of a ground source heat pump (GSHP) in an onsite pond at Mount Hope
Farm. This system would be intended to heat one or more of the following:

A) a proposed event and visitor center where farm guests or students

can host a variety of events and spend the night
B) the existing historical farm buildings, including the Gov. Bradshaw
House, the Cove House, the newly constructed greenhouse, and/or others in
the vicinity
C) a new, alternative, winter-growing greenhouse that is more energy
efficient and eco-friendly than the current structure

 Secondary Goal: Address the eutrophication of the freshwater pond on the premises,
as well as assessing the possibility of pond reclamation tied with the installation of the
GSHP (e.g. a filtration unit incorporated into the loop system) to establish a aquacultural
food production

4
Glossary of Terms

In any discussion of ―geothermal‖ technologies it is necessary to define certain terms to

differentiate between the various systems. For example, the geothermal systems described in
this report are not to be confused with geothermal electricity generation

COP – Coefficient of Performance

A unit less ratio of energy output to energy input

EER – Energy Efficiency Ration

Equivalent of COP but for cooling (Btu/hr/W)

GSHP - Ground Source Heat Pump (aka “Geoexchange”)

Any heating/cooling system that utilizes temperature exchange within the

environment

GCHP - Ground Coupled Heat Pump (aka “Closed Loop”)

Uses tube with no open ends to transport heated/cooled fluid- fluid never enters or
leaves system

GWHP - Ground Water Heat Pump (aka “Open Loop”) or

Tube has two open ends, one which takes in water and one which deposits water

SWHP - Surface Water Heat Pump (aka “Pond Loop”)

Typically closed-loop, uses coil installed at the bottom of a pond to freeze surrounding
water and extract heat

Direct Use

An open-loop system which utilizes naturally hot water, which eliminates the need for
pre-heating

Standing Column

A geothermal well system drilled into confined aquifer, utilizing the vertical temperature
gradient for heat exchange

5
Fundamentals of Ground Source Heat Pumps

For a developer deciding on an HVAC system for a project, GSHPs can be an attractive option
due to their associated energy savings and environmental benefits. According to the EPA,
GSHPS have been shown to be 22-44% more energy efficient than top line ASHPs and 63-72%
more efficient than standard electrical heating and air-conditioning systems3. The key to this
energy efficiency of a GSHP lies in its ability to harness the free and constant energy of the
earth to buffer the temperature requirements of the HVAC system. Unlike air source heat
pumps, which are subject to the fluctuations of ambient atmospheric temperatures, GSHPs can
utilize the near constant temperature of the ground (~55°F for GCHPS) as an effective heat
source and sink. This translates into much smaller energy expenditure is needed to heat and
cool the refrigerant (see below) to usable temperatures.

Figure 1.
Source: http://www.heat-pumps-systems.com/
The same principle applies to SWHPs, to a
slightly lesser extent. Due its unique molecular
properties, water is densest at 39-40°F. This
means that no matter how much a body of
water is heated or cooled, a sufficiently large
pond will maintain a constant temperature at its
bed as cool water sinks and warmer water rise,
creating a constant convection current (Figure
1). It is this current that ensures that even in
the coldest winters, water will not freeze deeper
than 4-6 ft allowing for use year-round.

In a typical pond-loop system, a closed and pressurized length of piping is laid at the bottom of
a pond connected to a heat pump inside the structure. Through this pipe an anti-freeze solution
is pumped with a sub-freezing temperature, which allows it to be heated to 40°F by the water at
the bed of the pond before returning to the heat pump for HVAC utilization (See below). The
same principle applies to all GSHPs: passive heating allows heat pumps to achieve efficiencies
of 300%-600% of energy normally required, or COPs of 3.0-6.0. However, surface water
systems are on the low end of this spectrum due to the lower temperature compared to
subterranean wells in GWHPS and GCHPS (40°F vesus 55°F).

Nevertheless, pond systems are not without their advantages 4. Installation costs are relatively
lower, since there is minimal excavation compared to GCHPS and no drilling at all. By the same
token, operating costs and pumping energy are minimal, as is maintenance. Additionally, by
maintaining a closed loop of relatively pure anti-freeze solution, systems avoid potential fouling
and damage from water with less than ideal pH or biomass, a potential problem for open loop
systems like GWHPs. There are certain trade-offs, however, beginning with the fact that pump

3 Office of Geothermal Technologies . September 1998. Environmental and Energy Benefits of

Geothermal H eat Pumps. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. DOE/GO- 10098-653.
4 1999 ASH RAE Applications H andbook. Chapter 31 Geothermal Energy.

6
efficiency drops slightly due to the lower temperature of the antifreeze (4-12°F below water
temperature). Secondly, anti-freeze is often corrosive over time, and the lightweight
polyethylene piping of most systems is more susceptible to this wear than heavier copper or
steel piping. A study of 6 types of anti-freeze against 7 criteria like corrosion, leakage, and
environmental risk found none to be completely satisfactory5. Similarly, there is always risk of
damage to these pipes -especially in mixed use ponds- that could result in environmentally toxic
leaks (a catastrophe if the pond is used for aquaculture).Finally, it should be noted that if the
pond is shallow it more susceptible to temperature variation, most drastically during periods of
drought if there is risk or the pond drying up completely. Therefore, it is crucial that the body of
water be sufficiently deep enough to prevent both this occurrence and the freezing of the water.

Heat Pump Basics

A heat pump is essentially a refrigeration unit -like an air conditioner or freezer- that it
relies on heat transfer to draw heat from one space and eject it to another. The difference lies in
heat pumps are reversible: like an A/C, they can remove heat in the summer but are also
capable of discharging heat into a room in winter. This versatility makes heat pumps a desirable
choice for any HVAC system.

In any thermodynamic Figure 2.

system heat naturally flows
―downhill‖ from a warm heat source
to a colder heat sink, which is why
houses tend to lose heat in winter to
the outside air, and gain unwanted
in summer. With a heat pump,
however, one can use a small
amount of energy from the grid to
reverse this process. The way this
is accomplished varies slightly for
different types of heat pumps, but
almost always involves the
compression and condensation of a
refrigerant to manipulate
temperature gradients so that heat
flows in a desirable direction. Most
closed loop GSHPs use a water-to-
air heat transfer, described in Table
1(below): Source: http://www.heat-pumps-systems.com/

Table 1.

5 Heinonen, EW and RE Tapscott. 1996. Assessment of anti-freeze solutions for ground-source

heat pump systems. New Mexico Engineering Research Institute for ASHRAE RP- 863 . ASH RAE.

7
 3-TON SYSTEM

[36,000 Btu/hr] HEATING CYCLE COOLING CYCLE

 Cold water or anti freeze solution  Hot indoor temperature raises

in geothermal loop is heated by
earth.
Evaporator
 Heat vaporizes refrigerant in
sealed and pressurized loop
[3 COP system = 24,000 Btu/hr]
the heat of the air coil
 Air coil heat vaporizes the
refrigerant, drawing heat from
the house
[ ~50,000 Btu/hr]

Reversible Valve  Determines which direction vapor Same as Left

travels, depending on cycle
 Vapor is pressurized, raising Same as Left
Compressor temperature
[3 COP = 12,000 Btu/hr]

―Desuperheater‖  A small fraction of this heat is Same as Left

exchanged with a water loop for
(Optional) domestic hot water [12,000 – 15,000 Btu/hr]

 Hot vapor passes through air coil  Heat from vapor is exchanged
and heat is extracted with cool geoexchange loop,
 Fan blows this heat throughout warming solution
Condenser
the structure  Heat is rejected into the cool
 Vapor condenses to a liquid earth, re-cooling the anti-
freeze
 Vapor condenses into a liquid
Expander/ Meter  Liquid cooled and depressurized Same as Left

Sizing and Installation

The sizing of a geothermal system is heavily dependent on the energy requirements of

the structure in question. It is very important to size the GSHP system correctly to avoid either
uncomfortable climatic conditions if undersized, or wasted energy and undue strain on the
system if oversized, followed subsequent loss of efficiency and longevity. Depending on the
climatic conditions of the area, however, it may be advantageous to oversize a system for
heating load provided this is limited to 10-25% of the cooling load 6.

6 National Rural Electric Cooperative Association. Clos ed-Loop-Ground-Sourc e Heat Pump

Systems: Installation Guide. Oklahoma: 40-41.

8
 As a general benchmark a 3-ton system is approximately sufficient to serve the needs a
typical residential home7. However, this is only a basic rule of thumb, and should not be applied
universally. Lacking exact structural data for the site, it is not possible to determine the exact
system sizing in this report. If such a system were to be pursued, it is therefore recommended to
seek the counsel of an experienced geothermal contractor to calculate the design, energy, and
ground loads specific for the site and project. Similarly, proper installation is crucial to ensure
the system functions well, so should not be attempted by anyone other than a professional.

Typically, pond loops utilize a number of 300-foot coils of narrow diameter (0.75-1‖
depending on material) for the bottom of the lake, which are connected to wider (1.25‖ or more,
depending on volume) headers that connect back to the heat pump through a straight buried
channel8. The lake coils can be spaced in various arrangements depending on the situation.
They can be stacked on-top of each other (Figure 3.) or spread out slinky-style. Regardless, it is
advisable to create separation between the coils in some fashion - through barriers or spacing-
to ensure that there is minimal horizontal transfer of heat between pipes that reduces system
efficiency and COP. The material used in these piping varies, but in general high resin
polyethylene (PE3408) that has been thermally socket fused and UV-protected are ideal
because they are much more resistant to damage than copper, PVC, or clamped jointed tubing 4.
However, since the PE coils are less dense than water even when flushed with anti-freeze it is
necessary to weigh them down. This can be accomplished by cinderblocks 5, tires 6, or even
concrete telephone poles 9.

Figure 3.8

7 http://www.energysavers.gov/your_home/s pace_heating_cooling/index.cfm/mytopic=12670
8 WaterFurnac e International, Inc.Pond/Lak e Loop Installation. 900 Cons ervation Way, Ft.
9 Zimmerman, Mike. Personal Interview. Dec. 1, 2010.

9
Financing

The breakdown for what is needed for financing falls into three categories: materials costs and
labor costs, and operating costs.

Materials costs

This would include the costs of any necessary purchases before the project commences. As
such, any necessary piping would fall into this category, as would the heat pump itself. Both of
these device purchases are dependent on the intended load of the heating system, which
cannot be predicted at this time for this project. However, according to energysavers.gov, a
typical rule of thumb is a $2,500 investment per ton of capacity for a geothermal system.
Additionally, any other necessary purchases would be added into this category, such as the
purchase of cement to weigh down the coils. In general, this investment is larger than that of
comparable fossil fuel systems.

Labor costs

This subsection includes the costs of installation. This is highly dependent on the type of project
in question. If the intention is to bury the coils under the pond bed, which would increase
efficiency somewhat, the labor costs are much higher, as they include dredging. This also
includes the cost of hooking the retrofit geothermal system up to the existing heating system.

Operating costs

These costs are not part of the initial investment, but are associated with running the system.
These costs are based upon the heating load of the house. However, they are generally lower
than the associated intervallic costs of fossil fuel systems. For a typical geothermal ground-
based system, this can range from 30%-60% savings, based on information from
energysavers.gov. However, this is a higher efficiency than would be obtained by a pond loop
system, even including all the proper installation, sizing, and pre-emptive research to guarantee
a successful location. A successful pond loop, however, would still obtain higher efficiency than
a fossil fuel system. Thus, while operating costs are uncertain, they would illustrate some level
of savings over a conventional heating system.

Financial incentives in Rhode Island are applicable to this kind of project. Generally, labor costs
are fixed but, materials costs can be alleviated when these incentives are utilized. Additionally,
the incentives can be applied in other realms, such as a tax credit, which would create net
savings, but which cannot be directly applied to either the materials or labor costs.

Incentives in Rhode Island with relevance to this project include 10:

10 All information in this list was taken from the Database of State Inc entives for Renewables & Efficiency
(DS IRE ). Additional information on eac h of these incentives can be found there, at
http://www.dsireusa. org/

10
 National Grid – Commercial Energy Efficiency Incentives Program
Utility Rebate Program
Eligible Technologies: Lighting, Lighting Controls/Sensors, Chillers, Furnaces, Boilers,
Heat pumps, Central Air conditioners, Compressed air, Motors, Motor-ASDs/VSDs,
Custom/Others pending approval, Led Exit Signs, Commercial Refrigeration Equipment,
Dry Type Transformers, Time Clocks, Occupancy Sensors, Walk-in Coolers
Applicable Sectors: Commercial, Industrial, Schools, Local Government, State
Government, Multi-Family Residential, Institutional, Retail Supplier
Amount: Schools and New buildings (custom): 75% of additional cost for efficiency
upgrades
Existing buildings (custom): 50% of the project cost
Small business: 80% of equipment installation cost
Variable Speed Drive: $1700 -$10,200
Fluorescent Fixture Replacements: $10-$50/fixture
LED Exit Fixtures: $10/fixture
Metal Halide and High Intensity: $50-$100/fixture
LEDs: $15-$150/fixture
Controls/Sensors: $20-$60
Air Compressors: $180-$280/HP
Hotel Occupancy Sensors: $75/sensor
Energy Management Systems: $200-$300/ EMS strategy point

 RIEDC – Renewable Energy Fund Loans

State Loan Program
Eligible Technologies: Solar Water Heat, Solar Space Heat, Solar Thermal Electric,
Photovoltaics, Landfill Gas, Wind, Biomass, Hydroelectric, Geothermal Electric,
Anaerobic Digestion, Tidal Energy, Wave Energy, Ocean Thermal, Fuel Cells using
Renewable Fuels
Applicable Sectors: Commercial, Industrial, Nonprofit, Schools, Local Government,
Multi-Family Residential, Low-Income Residential, Agricultural, Institutional
Amount: Varies by project
Funding Source: Rhode Island Renewable Energy Fund (RIREF)

 RIEDC – Renewable Energy Fund Grants

State Grant Program
Eligible Technologies: Solar Water Heat, Solar Space Heat, Solar Thermal Electric,
Photovoltaics, Landfill Gas, Wind, Biomass, Hydroelectric, Geothermal Electric,
Anaerobic Digestion, Tidal Energy, Wave Energy, Ocean Thermal, Fuel Cells using
Renewable Fuels
Applicable Sectors: Commercial, Industrial, Nonprofit, Schools, Local Government,
Multi-Family Residential, Low-Income Residential, Agricultural, Institutional
Amount: Varies by project
Funding Source: Rhode Island Renewable Energy Fund (RIREF)

 Renewable Energy Sales Tax Exemption

Sales Tax Incentive
Eligible Technologies: Solar Water Heat, Solar Space Heat, Solar Thermal Electric,
Photovoltaics, Wind, Geothermal Heat Pumps, Solar Pool Heating
Applicable Sectors: Commercial, Residential, General Public/Consumer
Amount: 100% exemption

11
Additionally, there some federally applicable programs:

 U.S. Department of Treasury – Renewable Energy Grants

Federal Grant Program
Eligible Technologies: Solar Water Heat, Solar Space Heat, Solar Thermal Electric,
Solar Thermal Process Heat, Photovoltaics, Landfill Gas, Wind, Biomass, Hydroelectric,
Geothermal Electric, Fuel Cells, Geothermal Heat Pumps, Municipal Solid Waste,
CHP/Cogeneration, Solar Hybrid Lighting, Hydrokinetic, Anaerobic Digestion, Tidal
Energy, Wave Energy, Ocean Thermal, Microturbines
Applicable Sectors: Commercial, Industrial, Agricultural
Amount: 30% of property that is part of a qualified facility, qualified fuel cell property,
solar property, or qualified small wind property
10% of all other property
Funding Source: The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)
 USDA – Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) Grants
Federal Grant Program
Eligible Technologies: Solar Water Heat, Solar Space Heat, Solar Thermal Electric,
Photovoltaics, Wind, Biomass, Hydroelectric, Geothermal Electric, Geothermal Heat
Pumps, CHP/Cogeneration, Hydrogen, Anaerobic Digestion, Small Hydroelectric, Tidal
Energy, Wave Energy, Ocean Thermal, Renewable Fuels, Fuel Cells using Renewable
Fuels, Microturbines, Geothermal Direct-Use
Applicable Sectors: Commercial, Schools, Local Government, State Government,
Tribal Government, Rural Electric Cooperative, Agricultural, Public Power Entities
Amount: Varies
 USDA – Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) Loan Guarantees
Federal Loan Program
Eligible Efficiency Technologies: Solar Water Heat, Solar Space Heat, Solar Thermal
Electric, Photovoltaics, Wind, Biomass, Hydroelectric, Geothermal Electric, Geothermal
Heat Pumps, CHP/Cogeneration, Hydrogen, Anaerobic Digestion, Small Hydroelectric,
Tidal Energy, Wave Energy, Ocean Thermal, Renewable Fuels, Fuel Cells using
Renewable Fuels, Microturbines, Geothermal Direct-Use
Applicable Sectors: Commercial, Agricultural
Amount: Varies

The possibility of an Energy Efficient Mortgage (EEM) also exists. The theory behind the
program is that increased efficiency of a system, and the associated savings, are factored into
the income of a borrower. This increases the purchasing power of the borrower. The value of
the system is then included in mortgage payments. In this way, it can often make the project
free, or even have a positive cash flow, since the annual savings can exceed the annual costs
factored into the mortgage. This program can be applicable in certain cases, depending on the
system in question, location, and the lender. For more information, http://geothermal-house.com
recommends EEM expert Bill Sweitzer at National City Bank (bill.sweitzer@ncmc.com or 815-
788-2701)

12
Reclamation and Aquaculture

In general, the eutrophication of the pond can be thought of as a positive aspect in this
circumstance, since there are so many roadblocks in place when installing systems in
functioning ecosystems. This is due to conservation of existing species. One example of this
kind of barrier can be seen with Narragansett Bay, which we targeted for a short while during
the planning process. We thought that because of the proximity, if the pond proved infeasible,
we could look into the possibility of using Narragansett Bay as a source of geothermal energy.
According to Mike Zimmerman, an expert in geothermal energy and installation, the bay would
be able to provide enough energy to heat all of Rhode Island, thanks to ideal temperatures and
scale. However, the Army Corps of Engineers prohibits any such use of these waters, under the
ideology that it would harm the ecosystem. This is strictly enforced.

Because there seem to be no fauna in the pond in question, these roadblocks do not exist in
this situation. Thus, at the very least, the project is legally plausible. However, one of the
questions we originally posed related to the dual usage of the pond by both installing a
geothermal heat exchanger system AND rehabilitating the pond. There were a couple problems
we ran into.

One of our original ideas was to install some kind of filtration as part of our geothermal loop
system. However, once we settled upon a closed loop system as being a better option for this
instance, the possibility of incorporating a filtration unit was ruled out automatically. Our
proposed system does not actually draw water from the pond, and thus cannot be coupled with
any kind of water treatment device.

Furthermore, we were not able to discover anything with regards to the initial cause of
eutrofication. We reasoned that before reclamation is to take place, the source of the problem
must be addressed. If this source is, for example, the farm itself, then reclamation may not be
an option at all. This could very well be the case, as farms are often sources of runoff. There are
many known cases in which fertilizers have been attributed to algae blooms, due to increased
nitrogen. The algae bloom then depletes the water of oxygen and makes it unlivable for most
other inhabitants.

The last problem was estimating the impact of the heat exchanger itself on aquaculture, .if all
other factors were accounted for and fixed. In the winter, the piping would be effectively freezing
surrounding water to draw heat energy for use in the building(s). Jack Hermance, Professor of
Hydrology at Brown, expressed much concern about the introduction of an additional variable
into an already volatile system. Aquaculture has, in fact, been coupled with geothermal systems
in ponds, but the examples we found applied to engineered ponds, as opposed to existing ones.
Additionally, geothermal systems are often used in productive larger bodies of water, such as
lakes, but in these examples the heat exchange has a much lower impact than it would in a
smaller ecosystem. There are fish that would be able to survive more extreme circumstances.
Karp, for example, have the ability to freeze in winter and reanimate in the spring. However,
Mike Zimmerman advised us not to aim for creating a habitat. In general, it is not accomplished
with existing small ponds.

13
At this point, we ruled out the possibility of accomplishing both reclamation and geothermal
usage in the pond.

Findings

Most of the following data was drawn from a conversation with Mark Zimmerman

The Coefficient of Performance (COP) mentioned earlier plays are large role in the findings of
our study. In essence, COP represents a multiplier for the efficiency of a system, comparing the
input electrical energy and output heat energy. As an example, in approximately 30 degree
Fahrenheit water, the COP is 3.

As a rule of thumb, the temperature at the bottom of a body of water remains at 40 degrees
Fahrenheit. This is because H2O is densest at 40 degrees. This is assuming that the water is
deep enough, approximately 10ft, that it will not be affected by air temperature in winter. In
winter, the surface will freeze, creating a buffer layer of ice. This ice proves to be a very good
insulator, keeps deeper water temperatures relatively unchanged.

In this example, it is also important to look at the chemical formulas for burning—and thus
extracting energy from—fossil fuels. In the case of coal, for instance, each particle is simply a
carbon atom with covalent bonds to 4 hydrogen atoms. When it ―burns,‖ it combines with
oxygen to for CO 2. The remaining hydrogen atoms combine with oxygen to form 2 H2O
molecules. This reaction gives off a certain amount of energy, based off the breaking and
creation of old and new bonds. A different proportion of energy to CO 2 is resultant with oil, as is
a third proportion with natural gas. To paraphrase, the when it comes to harvesting energy with
the smallest release of carbon dioxide, natural gas is more efficient than oil, which in turn is
more efficient than coal.

This relationship is important, since one must remember that harvesting geothermal heat energy
requires an electrical input. In the end, if the COP is below 4, efficiency of burning methane
(natural gas) is about equal to the geothermal unit. The COP at 40 degrees, which is the
temperature at the bottom of this pond, is about 4. Additionally, with this COP, the amount of
carbon being emitted (by the power plant where the electricity for the geothermal system is
produced) is about equal to the carbon emitted by burning natural gas on site as a heat source,
as opposed to geothermal energy.

The conclusions that can be drawn are that the geothermal system would be inefficient on two
fronts. One, it would not be more productive than a natural gas-powered system. Two, the
system would not have a net positive environmental impact, since the carbon emitted to power
the system would equal that of a comparable natural gas system. The circumstances under
which such a pond loop would be efficient are that natural gas is not an option- however, in
Rhode Island, it is.

14
Recommendations and Alternatives

Unsuitable productivity makes this project questionable, but does not rule it out. If it were to
have an environmentally beneficial purpose, it may prove a handy educational tool, for instance,
especially for a group such as the people on Mount Hope Farm who have further goals than
maximum immediate economic gain. However with the project’s ―environmentally benign‖
outcome at best, these conclusions lead us to say that a pond loop system at Mount Hope Farm
is a poor investment.

That said, there are other factors to consider. Earlier, it was mentioned that a pond loop system
in this circumstance should not be attempted with the additional goal of pond reclamation.
However, since the pond loop system has been ruled out, reclamation presents itself as
potentially attainable once again. Initial research would need to be done on the cause of the
eutrophication in the first place, to ensure that work put in to cleaning up the pond is not in vain.
If the initial source is not ongoing, or if it persists but can be counteracted or compensated for,
then reclamation can move to the next step. We would urge careful planning when it comes to
floral and faunal species to be introduced to the ecosystem. However, with proper preparation
and implementation, we see the possibility for a thriving ecosystem, with aesthetic benefits,
environmental benefits, and educational benefits. Thus, we would advise that the concept of
pond reclamation is not ruled out simply because it shall not be coupled with a geothermal
system.

Furthermore, there are many other options for geothermal energy that we did not get the chance
to investigate in depth. The prospect for using Narragansett Bay must be ruled out, as
mentioned earlier, but there are other sources that could definitely be harnessed. First, if a pond
system is still desired, a man-made pond might be a good alternative if other uses for the pond,
such as agricultural irrigation or aquaculture, are integrated into the design. The multiple other
benefits associated would make such backfilling cost-effective and a pond loop could be
installed for minimal cost. Alternately, if enough initial capital could be obtained, an open loop
system or a standing column well might be a more efficient geothermal option. Mount Hope
Farm sits on a bedrock of granite, which though expensive to drill through, has good thermal
conductivity compared to the soil heavy wells in most of the extant studies. This would require
significant water testing to ensure proper pH and water hardness, but conceivably water
pumped from a well could be flushed into the pond in a fashion that might allow for aeration and
reclamation. If an open GWHP is not feasible, it is possible to have a two column well to ensure
proper flow, but this would need to be done very carefully to prevent salt-water intrusion. Finally,
if by some chance an underground hot-spring fissure is located or deep enough well is drilled, a
direct use system could conceivably be installed. This would be a ideal, if admittedly unlikely,
situation as the hot water from the well could be used to heat a sustainable greenhouse, warm
the necessary structures, and heat a significant warm-water aquaculture operation, as has been
demonstrated in places like the ―Gone Fishing‖ aquaculture farm in Klamath Falls, Oregon 11.

11 Geo-Heat Center. October 2005. Geothermal Direct-Use Case Studies. Oregon Institute of
Technology. Klamath Falls, OR.

15
Conclusion

In this study of the functionality of a pond loop geothermal system on Mount Hope farm, we
found the system to be an inefficient expenditure on multiple fronts. This inefficiency factors in
both financial opportunities and external benefits. There are many other opportunities for
geothermal energy that we were unable to look into fully, however, and would urge an
investigation into other techniques on Mount Hope farm. Additionally, we think it is important not
to give up on the possibility of revitalizing the pond in question, even if it is not usable in terms of
heating.

Acknowledgements

We enjoyed working with the people at Mount Hope farm very much, are enthusiastic about the
many great projects going on within the grounds. Our thanks to David Ford and Nancy Stratton
for allowing us to participate in this planning phase. Also, many thanks to our other references:
Jack Hermance and Mike Zimmerman without whose help this project would not have been
possible. Finally, thanks to Kurt, Rob, and Emelia for allowing us the opportunity to learn in
such an free and interesting manner.

Title Image: Heat Spring Institue and Kevin Rafferty. 2008.

Closing Logo: http://www.northcoastirwmp.net/Content/10360/2/Geothermal_Energy.html

16