undefined

points

[-]

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.

by wood_spirit8 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

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.

by hvb27 hours ago|

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

by 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.