Yes why ?
Why a whole network of expensive pipes, buried, necessarily requiring maintenance ... and especially superfluous?
Why an expensive gas plant that will need to be properly amortized and maintained?
Why fossil energy consumption?
Why make an entire subdivision dependent, while autonomous 100% solutions exist?
Why primer such a project that is already a little outdated, while there is better elsewhere?
Why a system that holds captive lot owners a big complex infrastructure with operating, monitoring and maintenance costs ...
Why then become a homeowner if we are so dependent on the essential for which we had invested, without reaching the energy self-sufficiency, if this is not the case?
Why such a blur, cleverly maintained on the actual performance of the system? 80% saving, yes but on a difference, compared to what? On what real technology it rests (the point of heat "exchangers" that are reminiscent of a PAC, are far from convincing me) ...
Traditional "Minergie" standard houses with SIMPLE wood burning stoves are MUCH BETTER than the Canadian project ... simply and WITHOUT gas central! And since it is a wood heating, the carbon footprint is neutral, while the gas ...
Yes, it's a pity that there is a remote gas central heating station and that it is not a "ZERO EMISSION", as here
...> But while we are there, I re-re-re-re-re-put the link:
www.dlsc.ca
(
)
On the other hand
RIGHT HERE ...>, I think that we hold the GOOD method: without additional heating, "zero emission", "zero bill for heating", without the need for drilling and the savings made pay the building in the long term ...!
...>
... and of course, I am an ignoramus and I have understood nothing (
)