Inspired by this thread - why are new homes being built without geothermal heating?
I understand why someone would not want to take on the costs of installing geothermal in existing homes, but a lot of the hassle/cost disappears when you are talking about new construction.
When we looked the initial cost was eight times that of a conventional forced air system. Cost of the well alone was twenty dollars a foot. Than you get to buy all the equipment and have it installed.
Geothermal isn’t applicable/feasible everywhere.
Also, there isn’t enough expertise out there yet, imo. What I mean is, say a new subdivision was being installed and every house was going to be geothermal. There aren’t enough companies/qualified labourers to install. Maybe some day, but not yet.
I replaced my air to air heat pump with geothermal a few years back. We have 4 vertical loops in the side yard. Could have gone with horizontal loops, but this was less invasive, but a little more money. This is on 5 acres.
Folks with smaller lots may not have room for the exchanger wells or loops. Many houses around here are on 1/4 acre or smaller lots.
Geothermal seems the best of all energy alternatives.
My understanding is that vertical installations can be done on relatively small lots - IIRC, a firm in the Chicago area was installing them on spaces the size of a 2-car garage.
I’m surprised at the 8x initial cost - will look into it. Also, how quickly that wold be recouped through energy savings.
My mother just bought a 2-year old house that has geothermal heating. She still has to run the gas fireplace when it gets really cold outside, but her energy bills are awesome.
Hard to get real cost comparisons, but this site gives some analysis.
Geothermal = ground loop heat pump, right? Not like some kind of Iceland-style geothermal hot springs deal?
I’d guess cost; many people would rather have a lower house note and pay less interest, and pay higher heating/cooling bills.
I’m guessing they don’t do TCO calculations over the life of their mortgage- I bet the geothermal solution would come out way ahead over 20-30 years, but they’re looking at monthly payments, not total expenditures.
Basically most people only live in a house for a few years–so they will not recoup the cost of the system in that period. So the big question is are house buyers willing to pay a premium for a house with a geothermal system installed when the original owner moves? I think the general feeling is that house buyers are not willing to pay a premium for energy savings features.
There are many things that people and thus builders won’t do on there own. The government would have to step in and require more efficiency. Geothermal, proper insulation, proper house orientation with preferably solar panels but at least thought to adding panels later, required high efficiency appliances, especially hot water heating are all things that should happen but need to happen via new house regulations.
We do this in small ways, some states/cities have certain requirements when it comes to insulation and the number of gallons for a flush. But we are a long way from where we should start being.
Passive solar is probably better.
Up front cost is the reason. Yes, it’s more efficient and will pay for itself in 5-10 years, and yes, it increases the value of the home. But they don’t put it in at construction for the same reason they put in builder’s grade carpeting and paint and sink fixtures- because they’re cheaper. But I agree, it should be done more, and doing it at original construction for a whole development would be much less expensive than the homeowner doing it later.
I know, because we recently put one in.
In certain situations. But geothermal works just about everywhere. It’s a heat pump, only the heat exchanging is being done underground where the temperature is fairly close to the mean annual temperature. Passive solar is good for heating where you’ve got a good southern exposure, and heating is more of a need than cooling.
Right now my town is looking into a couple of areas - stormwater runoff detention requirements for new residential construction, and inspecting whether existing gutters/sump pumps are improperly connected to the town’s sewers. ISTM that reducing heating costs for all new construction would be “low hanging fruit” in terms of increased efficiency and reduced fossil fuel dependence/pollution. But most Americans would undoubtedly consider tax incentives preferable to regulation.
well generally it’s feasible everywhere unless you’re sitting on an acre of solid granite (which is very possible).
I think the op is right but the reasoning shouldn’t stop there. Why not install passive air conditioning and 12" thick outer walls filled with insulation. It would cost very little to install PVC pipes in the ground that feed air into tubes in the interior walls. As the attic heats up it naturally pulls air up through the pipes which are sitting in mid 50 deg earth. They did this in older homes a century ago using the basements with vented windows. The hotter it gets the more cold air is pulled through the pipes in the walls. None of the air enters the house so any outside humidity drains back through a one way valve into the drainage system.
As for the outer wall thickness. That costs very little in terms of wood framing. Not sure how to engineer it beyond cantilevering the sill plate inward or pouring an angled cement cap.