Comments on: Does a Geothermal Heat Pump Count as a Renewable Energy Source?

By: Algernon Bearded

Algernon Bearded — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 15:24:37 +0000

Indeed a very nice post. I am
Indeed a very nice post. I am also associated with Heat Pump , Air Source Heat Pump , Domestic Heat Pump . Thanks for writing such good posts and as I have subscribed to your blog, I do expect that you will be posting nice posts like this on a regular basis.

By: alan jacobson

alan jacobson — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 15:41:29 +0000

This is a great post since
This is a great post since many people overlook the fact that ground source heat pumps do need a bit of electricity to run. If someone really wants to be truly renewable they need to generate that electricity from an alternative source, which some people actually do. Solar and wind are more "pure" renewables.

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 22:27:46 +0000

Actually, shouldn't most, if
Actually, shouldn't most, if not all GSHP's be called water source HP's? They do run into trouble when the ground dries up, don't they?

By: David Butler

David Butler — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 01:10:23 +0000

GG wrote:

GG wrote:
> I really just want to know which system GSHP's or the ASHP systems touted in these aarticles has the lowest carbon footprint?

Then shouldn't the question be based on the total house as a system, not an isolated subsystem? In particular, we should ask how do we achieve the lowest carbon footprint within a given budget? Alternatively, we can ask, which combination of products and building techniques will yield net zero energy at the lowest lifecycle cost?

If the difference in cost between one system and another can be used for other improvements that would provide a greater reduction in energy and carbon, then why would we not do that? Those who advocate a particular technology as a means to achieving high performance are missing the forest for the trees. As in most things, the answer depends on the specifics of the project.

By: Girard Gurgick

Girard Gurgick — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 23:45:49 +0000
I do believe that GSHP's
I do believe that GSHP's provide one of the most rational renewable energy sources, because if you design them in a balanced condition, +BTU Summer = -Btu Winter, you do create a renewable system. It's a Btu rechargeable battery.

I really just want to know which system GSHP's or the ASHP systems touted in these aarticles has the lowest carbon footprint? Because, in the long run this will be what really matters.

It's true that with air source systems we are using the air in much the same way as GSHP's use the ground. The results are not exactly the same though. The air of course confronts us with the same conditions the writers described as causing overheating of the ground. Only it's already universally overheated. We may not want to acknowledge this. However, with global warming creating a 100 degree month out of our most recent July here in Virginia, are we blowing additional heat into an already overheated and overheating atmosphere? Is it time to raise the outside air design temperature to 100 degrees? When do I use 110 degrees? This is my personal opinion, but blowing heat into a too hot atmosphere is similar to thinking we an just continue to blow CO2 into the air and it is not our problem anymore.

How many heat pumps exhausting hot air into a region add how much to the heat island effect?

Isn't it smarter to work with the ground at 60 degrees or so? Where is the discussion of water to water GSHP's which are even more energy efficient?

Water is 30 times more efficient at absorbing heat than air. How many times is water to water heat pumping more efficient than air to air?

.....One day we'll have great answers. I am not satisfied yet! On the whole I just can't see that a GSHP with a EER of 40 can be beat. (This fall Climate Master, Water Furnace) If coupled with a VRF how efficient can we get? Can we get to net zero carbon?

By: Conor William Rickard

Conor William Rickard — Mon, 16 Jul 2012 11:53:28 +0000
Alison,

Alison,

I mentioned that you might not be worth your title as an energy consultant. This was offensive of me to say. This is an opinion that has no backing. I do not know you nor have I experienced working with you. It was very rude of me to speak of you in this way.

I am sorry if I offended you.

It most likely lessened the extent to which people gave my statements credence.

I was taken aback at the non plus information concerning ground source being given in the online forums. What I wanted was facts and not opinions or arguments for and against ground source without any kind of scientific study.

I also have a problem with the way things are rated, and overlooked, and sometimes flat out lied about by our government and the agencies frequently funded by it. I think that a lot of ground source people over-talk the technology so they can sell it to someone, but they have no real technical understanding of what goes into design, installation and maintenance. So, I suppose the topic hit a little close to home for me.

Mainly I want to learn from you, not listen to opinions concerning what other’s name things.

I suppose a real world diagnosis of ground source in the southwest will have to be done by me. I should use hard detailed and documented actions instead of shooting my mouth off online or in writing.

If I stepped on your toes in any way, I apologize. You did not deserve it. For any offense to you personally, I am sorry.

I can promise that I will be taking an indefinite vacation from blogs, or getting into an argument with anyone by way of writing, or calling anyone names. I do not wish for this to happen again.

I hope that we can somehow work together and figure out what is best for clients.

By: big Con (conor William Rickard of palm desert to be exact)

big Con (conor William Rickard of palm desert to be exact) — Mon, 16 Jul 2012 03:09:31 +0000
Thanks for not deleting the
Thanks for not deleting the second time Allison. Sorry that you felt the need to delete my previous thoughts. I find it very wrong of you and unintelligent. What's done is done, and I am thankful that you are keeping this one up.

In my second paragraph I meant to say that entering water temperatures will be hotter in the Winter -not Summer. Sorry. (most all size jobs need a thermal conductivity test. If it is done by the design build team; it will cost less.)

I am still waiting patiently for an intelligent and unbiased analysis of all possible variables. It doesn't seem like you guys are going begin to provide that. I will keep working at average speed on my end. Thank you for whatever facts you were trying to discuss. My respect will only be gained when I am supplied with information reflecting the caliber of ASHRAE articles, some of which need to be updated.

And no I do not think that an esoteric discussion about bureaucracies is beneficial to anyone. In fact it is harmful to the conscience of many. But I do not feel the need to silence you, only point you in a direction which reflects the most reality.

By: Allison Bailes

Allison Bailes — Mon, 16 Jul 2012 02:55:22 +0000
Conor Rickard
Conor Rickard (under pseudonym of Big Khan): If you believe GSHPs are a renewable source of energy, that's fine. If you believe I'm a useless energy consultant, that's fine. But I take exception when you say:

It did not take me sitting around in college pleasing professors for years in order to figure this out.

You give my readers the false impression that it was only a few years when in fact it was more than a decade. That's right, I sat around pleasing professors for 11 years! Oh, how I enjoyed that decade plus, going round and round the cup, thinking up metaphors in those smoke-filled rooms with my "friends," avoiding any kind of real doing because you know how professors dislike that. So please get that straight.

The point of the article, by the way, was educational. And I learned something, so it served its purpose. This is just a blog and it's written by someone you consider an overeducated, useless energy consultant anyway, so why are you getting all bent out of shape?

By the way, I deleted your previous comment, and would have done so even if David had not asked, because it was inappropriate. I probably should delete this one, too, because you're bordering on impolite, but sometimes the delete button just leaves too much fun on the table.

By: Big Khan

Big Khan — Mon, 16 Jul 2012 00:18:50 +0000
This is so simple, and the
This is so simple, and the fact that Allison likes to go round and round the cup deciding if it needs a metaphor and asking others what they think, only proves how useless he is as an energy consultant.

The GHX is renewable, because given the correct variables, when the building is in the cooling season or rejecting heat, this heat is being stored in the ground. This heat build up can then be used to heat the building in the summer, or rather -the EWTs will be hotter. This provides better EERs and COPs.

You can't store heat in your kitchen or in the outdoor air in order to reuse it in the same mechanical system.

Everything things else consumes energy without storing it anywhere else. The Blower, the Compressor, and the Water Pump to the loop. They are not "renewable". Not even metaphorically.

Simple. It did not take me sitting around in college pleasing professors for years in order to figure this out.

Again, the correct conditions need to be looked at, and the building and GHX have to be properly engineered. You don't just drill a loop before you do whatever you can to the building in order to decrease and balance the loads. So yes, energy raters and HVAC people are just as important, or more important, during the design build phase.

Again I ask the people who consider themselves professionals to have intelligent, informing and unbiased discussions. I would much appreciate if they would stop asking us to stare at a cup until our father smacks us. So far, all I have seen from either side is cheerleaders for the amount of water. No actual facts or comparisons. Amazing what a near century of comfort will get you.

Furthermore, who cares what all these agencies do. Are you for some reason scared that they will misdiagnose an HRV or ERV and a good paying client will somehow not get a measly tax credit? I don't get it. Do you think that these bureaucracies are any smarter or more organized than you?

Please! someone make me aware of a detailed and unbiased comparison or combination of technologies that includes but is not limited to;

Complete energy usage for a Design year by all devices
At full load, part load, or variable load/speed
What are the EERs for a design year and why?
The cost to install these devices and also the cost to make any other improvements on a building
The prediction for 20 years worth of maintenance including replacement of any equipment
Cost for engineering design
Cost for supervision during installation
When assuming indoor usage and schedules, please include sensitivity assumptions.

Information in 8760 hrs or in Bin/block load form would be best. Also, it would be preferable if you could delineate the waste heat per year of any device as we "might" be able to "reuse" that. I doubt that this is in anyones comfort zone, but you can wish.

The GHX is renewable everything else is not. As for government agencies -get to work instead of bickering over things you most likely can't change. Something I see from a lot of professionals who have spent too long studying, talking, and in smoke filled rooms with "friends" and not enough doing.

By: David Butler

David Butler — Sun, 15 Jul 2012 04:19:33 +0000
Conor, please do not post
Conor, please do not post private correspondence regarding a project in this blog! I have asked Allison to remove.