whoa!! just got the price for a 3 ton, 4 zone geothermal heat pump system...26k. is it just me, or is that a wee bit high? out of my budget, that's for sure. i'm starting to think about it though and wonder if maybe the air to air could be played with. in my area, we do get enough of the below thirty to kick the heat strip in, don't really want propane back up..trying to get as independant of oil and electric company as i can (i'm one of those people who wants to install a micro hydro power station in my creek, but that's a later post). i'm wondering if one could build a cold frame around the condensor coil to take advantage of solar gain, maybe fill some drums with water to absorb the heat. i do some farming and hoop houses can really extend a season. i have lots of wood, am also thinking of marrying the system to a whole house wood furnace. what do you think?
geothermal sticker shock
- Thread starter farmerpsv
- Start date
- Views: 3493
That indeed sounds a bit on the high side. There are not many installers, so I think they might be benefiting from the "uniqueness" of the product.
A 3 ton GS unitized heatpump costs the installer $ 2200 - $ 2500. With the other required hardware you are under $ 3000.
The big factor here is your comment about 4 zones. If it is an air distribution (in the house), and you already ducted ? If not, that is a significant cost in an existing building. If you have ducts for a furnace/hot air, the ducts may be too small for a heat pump, which requires bigger ducts to handle the higher airflow needed for the lower duct temps.
The next factor is the zoning. The only practical way to zone heat pumps is to have 4 separate units, of smaller size. This would push the equipment cost to $ 8000 +. Zoning with duct dampers is not really practical in most residential systems.
Next is the ground source system. 3 tons is 2000+ feet of tubing, with 700 to 1200 feet of trench, depending on how the system is designed and installed. A few thousand bucks there.
Your best option may be to install a single zone GS unit. You mentioned a creek. If it flows all winter, and is deep enough it could be used for the GS heat pump, and virtually no trenching is needed. Efficiency on these water sourced are quite high.
Alternatively a 3 ton air-air unit would work as well. Instead of electric backup, consider an oil or gas fired furnace as the backup. In these systems when backup is needed, the furnace is used rather than electric strip. Usually a cost savings, of course a function of oil and electric prices. Solar absorbers are a nice idea, but not very practical and unfortunately no sun at night when the coldest temps hit.
I would get some bids on the air-air installations, and compare the costs to the GS unit. Each installer (air and gs) should be able to give you an estimated cost based on KWH rate. Up the rate to a guessed future value and see what the savings are, and see if it make economic sense to go with the GS.
paul
A 3 ton GS unitized heatpump costs the installer $ 2200 - $ 2500. With the other required hardware you are under $ 3000.
The big factor here is your comment about 4 zones. If it is an air distribution (in the house), and you already ducted ? If not, that is a significant cost in an existing building. If you have ducts for a furnace/hot air, the ducts may be too small for a heat pump, which requires bigger ducts to handle the higher airflow needed for the lower duct temps.
The next factor is the zoning. The only practical way to zone heat pumps is to have 4 separate units, of smaller size. This would push the equipment cost to $ 8000 +. Zoning with duct dampers is not really practical in most residential systems.
Next is the ground source system. 3 tons is 2000+ feet of tubing, with 700 to 1200 feet of trench, depending on how the system is designed and installed. A few thousand bucks there.
Your best option may be to install a single zone GS unit. You mentioned a creek. If it flows all winter, and is deep enough it could be used for the GS heat pump, and virtually no trenching is needed. Efficiency on these water sourced are quite high.
Alternatively a 3 ton air-air unit would work as well. Instead of electric backup, consider an oil or gas fired furnace as the backup. In these systems when backup is needed, the furnace is used rather than electric strip. Usually a cost savings, of course a function of oil and electric prices. Solar absorbers are a nice idea, but not very practical and unfortunately no sun at night when the coldest temps hit.
I would get some bids on the air-air installations, and compare the costs to the GS unit. Each installer (air and gs) should be able to give you an estimated cost based on KWH rate. Up the rate to a guessed future value and see what the savings are, and see if it make economic sense to go with the GS.
paul
edski
Gold Member
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2005
- Messages
- 275
- Location
- Northern Panhandle of Pennsyltuckey
- Tractor
- Kubota B7610 TLB & MF 253
Ouch...that's not sticker shock, that's shock therapy. /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif
I replaced my heat pump 2 yrs ago for $6K.
~2000 ft2 home/ Pitt, PA area/AC all summer.
Granted, an air unit, not geothermal...but where is your break-even pt? Too many years out for me.
I wish it were otherwise.
I replaced my heat pump 2 yrs ago for $6K.
~2000 ft2 home/ Pitt, PA area/AC all summer.
Granted, an air unit, not geothermal...but where is your break-even pt? Too many years out for me.
I wish it were otherwise.
thcri
Elite Member
Is your loop horizontal or vertical. Around here we figure about a grand for each ton horizontal and 1500 for each ton vertical. The unit installed in an existing system may run around 5 grand. Now if you are getting a full duct system in a new house with and add in wirsbo heat and things like that I have seen systems hit over 30,000. They are expensive.
murph
murph
Jagmandave
Veteran Member
I looked into these as I was planning my new house and conclude that even tho I really liked the idea, the saving just weren't there. Plus the complexity of the design meant possible complications later, plus plus I was worried about resale 10 or 15 years out. I decided to go with a high efficiency forced air gas/central a/c instead. It gets too cold here in the winter to justify a heat pump, to me. I'm building an insulated concrete form house, coupled with the high efficiency unit it should do the trick.
slapshot
Silver Member
I just went through the same thing. I was getting quotes for 6 ton, vertical loop for a 2900 sq ft house, and they were all around $20,000. I have an uncle near Peoria who just built a 5000 sqft house and paid about $16,000. I called his installer in Bloomington IL he gave me a quote of around $15,000. He wouldn't come to Missouri to do the work though.
Too late for a long story short....is that the price seems to very WIDELY geographically mainly dependant on how common geo-term units are in the area.
In the St. Louis area nearly every geo-term dealer I talked to tryed talking me out of it to a heat pump instead. Almost like they didn't want to mess with them.
In the end I went with two (2ton,3ton)14 seer heat pumps for $8000. I just couldn't get the return on my investment math to work out with the geo-term units.
-dave
Too late for a long story short....is that the price seems to very WIDELY geographically mainly dependant on how common geo-term units are in the area.
In the St. Louis area nearly every geo-term dealer I talked to tryed talking me out of it to a heat pump instead. Almost like they didn't want to mess with them.
In the end I went with two (2ton,3ton)14 seer heat pumps for $8000. I just couldn't get the return on my investment math to work out with the geo-term units.
-dave
kensfarm
Veteran Member
"26k" Wow.. just think of the solar/wind system you could put in.. then you could run electric heat.
SLOBuds
Gold Member
For the kind of money we are throwing around here, you can drop a LOT of bucks into passive measures.
If you are still in the design phases I would highly recommend adding to insulation costs. Plus intelligent passive solar features.
This was the big 'ah ha' experience during the investigation period with our new house. In the middle of highly technical writings about photovoltaics, the author simply stated, in one sentence, that the most cost effective way to keep energy costs at their lowest possible level is to be as smart as possible with passive design. Insulation, window placement and efficiency, ventilation, shading, in-ground rooms, etc.
And ... conservation.
Those are permanent expenses that will result in lowered energy costs as long as you own the house. Then it will also be a gift to the next folks as well.
After you do all of those things you will find that auxiliary heating and cooling systems are greatly reduced.
In my case, I will be able to eliminate all forced air conditioning through use of all the measures I mention above. Even considering that the house will be built in an area which experiences teens heat every summer. We are going with straw bale walls and some in-ground rooms. Window placements that are strategically placed. Etc.
Good luck.
If you are still in the design phases I would highly recommend adding to insulation costs. Plus intelligent passive solar features.
This was the big 'ah ha' experience during the investigation period with our new house. In the middle of highly technical writings about photovoltaics, the author simply stated, in one sentence, that the most cost effective way to keep energy costs at their lowest possible level is to be as smart as possible with passive design. Insulation, window placement and efficiency, ventilation, shading, in-ground rooms, etc.
And ... conservation.
Those are permanent expenses that will result in lowered energy costs as long as you own the house. Then it will also be a gift to the next folks as well.
After you do all of those things you will find that auxiliary heating and cooling systems are greatly reduced.
In my case, I will be able to eliminate all forced air conditioning through use of all the measures I mention above. Even considering that the house will be built in an area which experiences teens heat every summer. We are going with straw bale walls and some in-ground rooms. Window placements that are strategically placed. Etc.
Good luck.
slapshot
Silver Member
Speaking of insulation and sticker shock.....I just got a quote from a local BioBased dealer (soy based foam insulation similar to icyene), it was almost $11,000!!! Fiberglass was <$2000.
-dave
-dave
Jagmandave
Veteran Member
Well, in SLO you can probably get away with no A/C, I didn't have it in my house in San Diego either. But here in KC where you get 100*+ days and it only gets into the high 80's at night, PLUS about the same humidity, you need A/C.
I'm also trying to be "smart" about my new house, with lots of energy efficient windows on the south side, limited exposure on the north, and I'm planning to build using ICF's, so I agree with your theory............
After reviewing all the plans we already had in place to save energy, we concluded the geothermal heating wasn't cost effective - at least in our lifetimes, so we're going with a 95% eff. forced air gas HVAC with a fresh air heat exchanger.
I'm also trying to be "smart" about my new house, with lots of energy efficient windows on the south side, limited exposure on the north, and I'm planning to build using ICF's, so I agree with your theory............
After reviewing all the plans we already had in place to save energy, we concluded the geothermal heating wasn't cost effective - at least in our lifetimes, so we're going with a 95% eff. forced air gas HVAC with a fresh air heat exchanger.
SLOBuds
Gold Member
I would not disagree with that a bit. And I suppose that I should clarify my first post by saying that I was able to achieve comfort without air conditioning, not meaning to say that everyone can achieve the same results. I am fortunate enough to live in an area which always dips to 65 degrees at night, even after day temperatures in the mid-teens.
The point I wanted to make is that auxiliary heating and cooling can be minimized through good planning and implementation of passive measures. AND that those measures are far more cost effective than buying the most energy-conserving auxiliary device available.
There are limits to how far you take this concept though. If you dropped the entire house 5 feet into the ground, you would achieve constant 65 degree temperatures. Year round. But your family would start acting like gophers!
Basements are not typical in California homes, like they are in almost every other state. Did you consider going down into the ground with your KC home? Or berming? I believe that you will find constant temperatures in the mid-60s at that depth. Some designers will then bring cool air up from the basement and through the fresh air heat exchanger. And if you combine that with a mechanism to remove hot air from the ceiling areas, it turns out pretty effective.
But I don't really know if it will make a dent on your 3 months of 100* days/80* nights.
It does suprise me a that you can't achieve passive heating. I was under the impression that winter heating is fully possible in all points of the globe. Maybe I'm wrong about that.
You made a remark about not paying back in our lifetime. The geothermal. That's my problem too. I don't mind going the extra mile for myself, and even part of the way for the next guy (might be my kids or grandkis anyway!). But I think the paybacks are so far out on some of these things that the mechanicals will break before we reach that point.
In my case with geothermal, as an example, the ground tends to shift here in California. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif Even if the thing has only a 30-year payback, I'm not sure that all of those holes or trenches in the ground won't be on some massive fault and therefore busted come 18 years into the payback period.
The photovoltaics is another story. With tax rebates we have a fairly short payback period. And I've designed the system so that I can add capacity when needed. In my mind, these technologies have a discrete payback period which will SHORTEN over time as the cost of energy increases.
The point I wanted to make is that auxiliary heating and cooling can be minimized through good planning and implementation of passive measures. AND that those measures are far more cost effective than buying the most energy-conserving auxiliary device available.
There are limits to how far you take this concept though. If you dropped the entire house 5 feet into the ground, you would achieve constant 65 degree temperatures. Year round. But your family would start acting like gophers!
Basements are not typical in California homes, like they are in almost every other state. Did you consider going down into the ground with your KC home? Or berming? I believe that you will find constant temperatures in the mid-60s at that depth. Some designers will then bring cool air up from the basement and through the fresh air heat exchanger. And if you combine that with a mechanism to remove hot air from the ceiling areas, it turns out pretty effective.
But I don't really know if it will make a dent on your 3 months of 100* days/80* nights.
It does suprise me a that you can't achieve passive heating. I was under the impression that winter heating is fully possible in all points of the globe. Maybe I'm wrong about that.
You made a remark about not paying back in our lifetime. The geothermal. That's my problem too. I don't mind going the extra mile for myself, and even part of the way for the next guy (might be my kids or grandkis anyway!). But I think the paybacks are so far out on some of these things that the mechanicals will break before we reach that point.
In my case with geothermal, as an example, the ground tends to shift here in California. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif Even if the thing has only a 30-year payback, I'm not sure that all of those holes or trenches in the ground won't be on some massive fault and therefore busted come 18 years into the payback period.
The photovoltaics is another story. With tax rebates we have a fairly short payback period. And I've designed the system so that I can add capacity when needed. In my mind, these technologies have a discrete payback period which will SHORTEN over time as the cost of energy increases.
Jagmandave
Veteran Member
I agree with practically everything you wrote there...........
Our house will be two story, built with ICF's, and since the lot is sloped, the back and most of the two sides of the basement (or, actually, the lower level) will be underground. The front faces south, and we have lots of large windows on that side for some thermal heating in winter, and the right sized roof overhang to keep the direct sun out during the hottest part of the days, so we're doing what we can with the design. I also want to build the house for resale at some point in time, so I have to be somewhat sensitive to the market here, so no straw bale walls for me. Consequently I also won't be putting any solar water heating panels on the roof.
Using ICF's (insulated concrete forms) can yield R values between 30 and 50, depending on construction methods, so this will help too. One of the other benefits of using concrete for your walls, at least here in Tornado alley, is it's easy to construct a "storm room", and ours will have that as well.
I like the idea of solar thru photovoltaics, but our local utility does not "buy back" power or offer rebates, so the payback will be limited and slow. I actually was planning to move to SLO from San Diego, as I really like that area, but I got married. I had a home, family and career in Ca, she had the same here in KC. Guess where we're living...............sighs.........
Our house will be two story, built with ICF's, and since the lot is sloped, the back and most of the two sides of the basement (or, actually, the lower level) will be underground. The front faces south, and we have lots of large windows on that side for some thermal heating in winter, and the right sized roof overhang to keep the direct sun out during the hottest part of the days, so we're doing what we can with the design. I also want to build the house for resale at some point in time, so I have to be somewhat sensitive to the market here, so no straw bale walls for me. Consequently I also won't be putting any solar water heating panels on the roof.
Using ICF's (insulated concrete forms) can yield R values between 30 and 50, depending on construction methods, so this will help too. One of the other benefits of using concrete for your walls, at least here in Tornado alley, is it's easy to construct a "storm room", and ours will have that as well.
I like the idea of solar thru photovoltaics, but our local utility does not "buy back" power or offer rebates, so the payback will be limited and slow. I actually was planning to move to SLO from San Diego, as I really like that area, but I got married. I had a home, family and career in Ca, she had the same here in KC. Guess where we're living...............sighs.........
SLOBuds
Gold Member
I am surprised that you still need auxiliary heating with all that you say is there. With all of those south-facing windows. Did your architect do one of those heat-load calculations on your house?
People in the early days of trying to implement passive designs felt that 'more windows are better windows.' Those people ended up shading those windows.
My day job is in Los Angeles. I'm looking forward to full-time SLO life!
People in the early days of trying to implement passive designs felt that 'more windows are better windows.' Those people ended up shading those windows.
My day job is in Los Angeles. I'm looking forward to full-time SLO life!
Ken_f
Member
Just got one istalled a few months back. Made a web page about it:
http://home.earthlink.net/~kjfrazi/project.html#DX
So far I like it. Used the A/C a few times and I must say it really cools the house down fast.
Still not 100% sure it was worth it yet.
Ken
http://home.earthlink.net/~kjfrazi/project.html#DX
So far I like it. Used the A/C a few times and I must say it really cools the house down fast.
Still not 100% sure it was worth it yet.
Ken
Westonium
Silver Member
Has it shown to be a monthly energy bill saver? You don't tell us on your web page. I was really excited to do this as well, but if it is going to be 4X of the price of a regular heatpump - it doesn't sound very attractive.
newcountry
Silver Member
I always said I would have a geo-thermal unit when I built because it was such a great use of natural resources and energy-efficient. Then I saw the bid for my new house and did many of the same things as Jagman. High-efficiency heater and A/C cost about 1/2 to 1/3 what geo-thermal would've. I just could not justify that.
heehaw
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2000
- Messages
- 2,076
- Location
- russellville, arkansas
- Tractor
- Kubota M4900, B7510 and RTV
i don't know how they would do the zones without separate units, so maybe thats what is driving the price up..around here they say about 200ft of pipe per ton, so you would only be looking at about 600 ft...3, 200ft wells...thats how they ususally do it here..but, that said, i only know one person that installed a geothermal system that hasn't had any problems..and he uses the water from his well, instead of the loops..the rest of the systems seem to be high maintenance, and short life...3 people i know had to replace their units within 8 years, so any savings they had went out the window.
i have a video on new house building, actually cowboydoc had it and has mailed it to the next person that wanted to look at it, when i get it back i can send it to you..i think it could save you some $$$
heehaw
i have a video on new house building, actually cowboydoc had it and has mailed it to the next person that wanted to look at it, when i get it back i can send it to you..i think it could save you some $$$
heehaw
Zoning can be done with motorized ducts, along with variable speed blowers. There are a number of units on the market to zone this way, but they are not cheap.
As for the geo, a horizontal pipe system needs 400'-600' per ton. Your 200' is way too low. You can put 2 or 4 pipes in a trench. This will shorten the overall trench length, but the feet of pipe goes up. For example, 4 pipes in a trench requires about 1.25 times the pipe length of 2 pipes in a trench, due to heat flow in the ground.
paul
As for the geo, a horizontal pipe system needs 400'-600' per ton. Your 200' is way too low. You can put 2 or 4 pipes in a trench. This will shorten the overall trench length, but the feet of pipe goes up. For example, 4 pipes in a trench requires about 1.25 times the pipe length of 2 pipes in a trench, due to heat flow in the ground.
paul
