A home sized heat pumps draws about 15 kW to operate and typically consume 10-12,000 KwHs per year. That electricity has to come from somewhere.
Its worth noting that a geothermal plant the internal heat of the planet to generate electrical power, while a heat pump uses electrical power to transfer BTUs between a building and the ground.
Still expensive ($10k?) but with seasonal fuel costs at $2k and highly variable (spike in fuel prices are pocket book killers) geothermal is emerging as a viable solution. And does not take the square footage you think.
In my case if it came down to 5k I would consider installing it at my next furnace change out. For a new construction probably a no-brainer at that price.
Actually, heat pumps work just fine in cold climates. I know people who have them up here and use them year round. You can actually produce heat out of near freezing ground water.
I heat with natural gas and I would love to have geothermal. Small market so not viable as a retrofit for me (except for vanity installations). If I was building new it would be a no brainer.
Heating season is expensive where I live. Like sweaters and heating blanket expensive.
Those plants are built where they are because of the cheap cost of transport on the lakes and available energy and they are moved short distances, not across the country.
As I said it helps but it doesn’t generate power, it only makes the power you are using more efficient.
The ground is essentially used as a heat sink but at some point the ground temp falls below your comfort zone and you have to use electricity or gas to supplement it.
Passive solar as a component can be helpful too but if you have lots of snow you either shovel a lot or it fails.
Yes, there are actually some airlines who are already using a blend of biofuel with regular jet fuel (much like gasohol,) but it is not as energy dense and it takes a lot additional effort to make. Currently, it is also much more expensive than regular jet fuel. Primarily, it is being marketed as a means of reducing CO2 emissions, not as an economical fuel substitute.
Yes, whether it is vertical or horizontal it requires the same square footage and again, it isn’t generating power, and again, once the ground temp drops below your comfort zone you’re back to gas and electric.
Yes exactly, they are located close to energy and the ore is transported. Granted the transport follows an efficient route.
But the ore is being transported. To the location with the energy. Distances on order of 1000 miles (Canada to Louisiana for example)
So industry springing up in areas of localized solar production is something that does make sense. It does not need to be steel. That was an example to illustrate the point that energy availability is a factor in locating and energy intensive operation.
Note that sunny regions are also on water cargo routes.
Did you miss the thing about 10-12,000 KwHs per year? How does that compare to your natural gas cost? (And don’t forget to amortize the cost of conversion to the heat pump installation.
It does not require square footage of the lot. Cubic volume of the field yes. But available to a sub-acre lot occupant.
Why does it matter that it is not generating power. You keep adding that disqualifier. I don’t see why it is relevant.
The ground temp is constant. It does not drop below the first few feet.
yes the system requires additional energy input to operate. I am not claiming a 100% removal of any other energy source from the economy. This is about utilizing additional energy sources in ways that make sense and provide a net benefit.