3 ms·
It's not more than I want to know. It seems ground-sourced is a much better idea than air-sourced, and it seems to me you could install the ground loop with/un
by jacknews 3y ago
It's not more than I want to know.
It seems ground-sourced is a much better idea than air-sourced, and it seems to me you could install the ground loop with/under/around the foundations for new builds.
As far as indoor distribution goes, it seems like a low-temperature hydronic system would be most efficient, and most comfortable. Or at least a hydronic (instead of refrigerant) loop to multiple chiller/heater units, which would be easier to install and change.
- andruby 3y agoTypically the installation cost for ground-sourced is a lot higher, especially when it's not a new build. Air-sourced is the same as regular A/C and thus about as cheap to install. You're right that ground-sourced should have better efficiency and thus running costs, especially in winter.
- bill38 3y agoA few years ago, Google had an advanced research project for ground source heat pumps. They spinned it off in Dandelion energy.
- frankus 3y agoGround-source real-world cost effectiveness for residential use isn't that great (see here, although unfortunately paywalled: https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/article/geothermal-heat-pumps-reputation-vs-reality https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/article/geothermal-heat...). The gotchas are the energy used to run the circulator for the ground loop, and the fact that over the course of a heating or cooling season the ground temperature lowers or raises, respectively, by enough that the COP isn't even much greater than an air-source system (but this would definitely vary by climate). Coupled with the much higher installation cost, it's a bit hard to make a system pencil out for a building the size of a single-family house.