upvote

points

by wood_spirit17 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby ninalanyon6 hours ago|
next
[-]
No it's not. It exists but it's certainly not common for individual dwelling to use ground source heat pumps, at least in Norway. It is more common in Sweden[1] but still far less common than air source and over 90% of heat pump installations in Norway are air source[2].

The only ground source installations I can think of in Norway serve large office buildings and similar. The largest heat pump installation I know of in Norway is actually a third kind: water source[3]. It takes heat from the Drammen river to provide heat for a district heating system and for keeping the town centre clear of ice in the winter as well as supplying the new hospital with heat.

I imagine that the rest of the Nordic region is similar.

See:

[1] http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JR...

[2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221313882...

[3] https://energiteknikk.net/2023/11/drammen-fjernvarme-storst-...

reply
upvoteby sumea3 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
If by Nordics you mean Norway, Sweden and Finland, then the most correct way to say would be that ground source heat pumps for redidential heating are (very) common in Sweden and Finland, especially in newer and larger buildings. Norway is somewhat different in energy and climate perspective than its eastern neighbours.

The biggest reason to not install ground source heat pump is high installation cost. This means that it makes more sense for larger residential buildings. Also If you have district heating available then this might be more economical in the long run.

reply
upvoteby deliciousturkey5 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
In Finland around 50% of new single-family homes use ground source heat pumps. So it's definitely popular here.
reply
upvoteby 4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
deleted
reply
upvoteby emil-lp4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
3 schools in my neighborhood (barneskole, ungdomsskole & videregående) all use ground source heat pumps.
reply
upvoteby jjtheblunt15 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
There was a new in 1988 house in Champaign, Illinois, USA that used the same system, and i mention that because it was a normal modern house, and it's the only one i've heard of with that system.

It seems so smart.

reply
upvoteby zdragnar11 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
There's a pretty significant upfront cost in getting them drilled, and many homes need the vertical drilling if they don't have sufficient yard space for a horizontal system. It gets harder if you have your own septic drain field too, as that will complete for yard space.

The cost difference is pretty massive- 3-10x for a vertical system. If you live in a city or a suburb with tiny lots, that's your only option though.

Nat gas and central AC are way cheaper.

reply
upvoteby Y-bar6 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
I paid about EUR 4500 for a 114 meter drill hole including installation of brine (ethanol in my case actually) and removal of spoils. My 8kW heat+water pump was about EUR 7000.

I can spec out a gas burner for about EUR 4000 and a central AC for EUR 5000, but I bet the efficiency of the ground source heater would quickly trump the cost of buying gas regularly.

reply
upvoteby zdragnar1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
That's insanely cheap compared to what we can get around here. Most installs I've heard of from people in the US are in the $20-50,000 range, depending on the size of their home and number of wells needed.
reply
upvoteby Y-bar50 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
Yet it did not feel very cheap to me. The price of the pump had increased from 4800 only a year earlier due to the war in Ukraine.

There were a number of steps I had to go through. First I had to file for permission at the County Office, where they verify that drilling in the area is acceptable and that the intended pump follows regulations with respect to cooling media, and that the drilling company was certified to drill for my needs. It did cost about 70 euros.

I needed effective zero plumbing work in the house as it was already prepared to accept heating from a pump like that. Perhaps that is one of the major costs in USA?

reply
upvoteby AngryData7 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Although if you needed a new septic field, I would think ground source thermal would be significantly deeper than a drain field which is only like a foot or so down so you could stack them.
reply
upvoteby IncreasePosts11 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Air source heat pumps are insanely more efficient and just plain better these days too. It used to be that if the air was below 40F you couldn't heat your house with a heat pump. Now, you can heat your house even when it's -10F
reply
upvoteby SR2Z10 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
If you can tolerate the price, I am _confident_ that you will pretty much always have better results using the Earth as your thermal exhaust, because you don't have to dig very far to find a large region that's pretty much always at 50 F.
reply
upvoteby wood_spirit8 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
The downvotes are unfair.

The price of things - heat pumps and alternatives - in different regions - even different regions within the US - varies by what people are prepared to pay not what they cost to produce.

The nordics have traditionally had cheap heat pumps whereas piped gas is only in the biggest cities and I’ve never seen bottled gas in the countryside. The competitor used to be cheap electricity and wood. Ground source heat pumps for rural install have been priced to compete with wood.

In the US the market could be shaped by regulation and taxation etc. It’s the choice of the US to have cheap fossil fuels and not embrace tech instead.

reply
upvoteby hvb27 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
> Air source heat pumps are insanely more efficient

Citation needed?

Efficient how? I'm sure a heat pump designed for a narrow range of input temperatures AND working with water which can transport a lot more heat should easily be more efficient.

https://www.energysage.com/heat-pumps/compare-air-source-geo... Seems to disagree

reply
upvoteby sgerenser2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I assuming he means insanely more efficient than they used to be, not more efficient than ground-source (awkward wording though). I suppose they can also be described as more efficient in installation time, cost and equipment than ground source, but clearly not in operating efficiency.
reply
upvoteby maxerickson13 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
It's expensive. A relative has one in the northern Great Lakes, they wouldn't have installed it if their house had access to natural gas.
reply
upvoteby zrail12 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Our house came with one and we upgraded the unit a few years ago. It's very efficient in terms of units of energy consumed, but in my area of the world gas is significantly cheaper than electricity so it ends up being expensive to run.

That said, we will install solar at some point and then it'll be "free" HVAC.

reply