[texas booster]

I understand that district heating systems have been used forever, starting with geothermal forced water systems. Idaho has used district heating for government buildings, and I think that many universities use it also. We recognize it mostly in eastern apartment buildings where the heat is either "on" or "off".

The Russians built many of their cities on master plans that would use waste heat from manufacturing to heat the rest of the city. The systems were not built with efficiency in mind, and can use a lot of upgrading. Entire cities such as Omsk (couple of million people) use district heating. With the closing of many factories, this source of heat has become very problematic for them.

[Dog Gone]

I can see that it would work for a single building, or even a complex or campus, although the drawbacks are fairly obvious. The concept I am wrestling with is how efficient it is to try to do it on a city-wide basis.

I'm sure it appealed to central planners, especially in the old Soviet system where everyone shares in the common plan, and there may have been no better alternative.

But it certainly causes problems when the system breaks, as we can see.

[BfloGuy]

There is nothing inherently wrong with district heating. It's only the economic development claims up here in deeply depressed upstate New York that I mean to disparage.

Spending to build the infrastructure creates a few short-term construction jobs.

Perhaps it could yet turn out to be worthwhile. There is certainly waste heat that isn't being harnessed. Proponents of district heating might change their tactics. Economic salvation does not seem to be a side-benefit.