I recently priced up two systems for a client I'm building a modular home for. One was gas furnace, forced hot air and the other was geothermal. Long story short was after all tax rebates and incentives the geothermal came out to $9k more than the conventional system and was estimated to save this particular house approx $400 a year in energy costs. Problem is this would take 22.5 years to break even. How can I ever convince a client to go for something like that?

gas is cheap, out where I live we have three options, electric forced air furnace, propane forced air furnace or geothermal. With geo we are projected to save around $2800 a year on energy costs. To me, people on natural gas has no real incentive to go geo unless they are into the whole "green" thing. For those of us who live where you can't get gas it makes alot more sense, we anticipate the system to pay for itself in 4-5 years and even less if you take into account the fact that that is covering the full purchase of the unit and not just the differance between geo and a new electric furnace.

Although $400/year sounds reasonable, other savings estimates/projections I've seen appear to be estimates of a figure needed to get the homeowner to buy geo (ie, way off).

tell him that when President Obama passes cap and trade his electric bill willl likely double thus his payback is going to drop to 11 years. Also when you ran your numbers did you take into account that geothermal units last much longer? It is unlikely an ASHP will last 22 years.

Just curious, why do you want him in GT if the other is so much better for him? Do you make a much nicer profit off the GT unit?

The other is not electric it's natural gas so his electric bill will probably be lower without GT. The reason for pricing out the GT was because the client had asked me too. There are reasons I would like to do the GT system, one as you mentioned I make more money, but also I have never done a GT system yet and would like the experience. Problem is they are very rare where I live due to high cost. Only people who use them are buying them for the status symbol of being able to say they have this "green" technology.

He's right, since I installed a Geothermal system, I get a LOT more chicks now!

egg farm?

Not sure about the rest of the country, but where I live people love to have stuff like this in their home just so they can tell their friends they have it.

JO8M3 ~ I'm not sure how your last comment was intended, but it sounds to me a bit negative towards people who pay extra for geothermal. Whatever the motivation for these people to get geothermal, without early innovators (i.e. people who are willing to pay more for different/better technology) we would never see new technology develop into something that everyone can afford. These people combined with political incentives allow us to become more technologically advanced as a society. Through these real world experiences, we not only see great technology, but also where the problems are.

I realize this comes across as a lecture, and I must admit that I am one of the people who paid a lot to have geothermal installed, so this hits me on a personal note. But, just so you can hear first hand from one of these people... I did not do it so that I could brag to my friends, I did it for many other reasons - most importantly to put my money where my values are. In addition, I get to share my experience with people who are interested (not brag) so that perhaps the concept of geothermal becomes more well known and understood.

I am now stepping off of soap box...

I agree with Ona. If I may add, we decided to install our geothermal even it cost twice as the conventional is for economic reason. We want to save in the long run. We want to enjoy our home with great comfort (No smell of fossil fuel too). We didn't like to be dictated by price of oil which is always high. We don't want to pay for yearly maintenance of our boiler for $200 for 2 visit a year or maybe one. For other people, it's easier to buy a luxurious car for the same amount of geothermal. Now that's buying a status symbol.

twice as much? 9k more? mine was priced at 4 times as much (almost 30000 more)! Granted it came with AC and duct work (baseboard in the home). I find this extremely overpriced (although more likely just marked up an exorbitant amount) considering my single bore was spec'd at 340'. This is why the general public does not utilize this technology. Ona, I do feel that what you and others like you do is necessary and personally I feel you should be given a lot of credit for having the guts to do it. But it seems like, while the technology is becoming less expensive and the gov't credit should be making it more affordable, it is actually providing a way for these companies (hopefully not all of them) to enjoy greater profit margins.
Mat

Note: Several of the posts above appear to quote me as saying "Only people who use them are buying them for the status symbol of being able to say they have this "green" technology." I am wrongfully being credited with a hilarous comment.

And keep in mind, the cap and tax bill is going to hit natural gas too since it creates CO2. Only nuclear and solar will avoid the carbon tax. And no, I am not quite ready to install a nuclear HVAC in my house - even if they have reliably powered submarines for decades. :)

I agree with you, and don't take it so personally. I never said everybody goes geothermal for that reason! Some people do.

Natural gas has less than half the carbon per source BTU as coal. Half the electricity in the US is coal-fired, with around 30% net efficiency from fuel<==>load.  Even ignoring the other fossil sources that support the grid, the simple math sez that (on average) BTUs delivered to a structure by a 90% AFUE condensing gas-fired heating system has a slightly lower carbon footprint than geothermal with an average seasonal COP of 3.0. Geo breaks even condensing gas when it hits an average COP of 3.5-4.

25% electric-output gas-fired heat/power cogeneration with 70% thermal efficiency does even better, costs about the same (slightly less, on average) than geothermal.

Of course as the grid (hopefully) grows ever greener, geothermal eventually pulls ahead of even gas cogens (don't hold your breath, eh? ;-) ), but for the time being whether/where geo is greener than condensing NG is highly local-grid dependent.  In coal-fired local grids, NG heating systems are significantly lower carbon than geo.

Beyond solar & nukes, wind & hydro (& high-temp geothermal steam, not to be confused with heat-pumps) also have very small carbon footprints. Both nukes & hydro have a very significant embodied-carbon cost due to the large quantity of limestone baked to make the concrete (as well as other environmental costs.)

For lots of new construction, super-insulating to levels where the heating & cooling loads a miniscule, and the systems required to serve those loads are similarly diminutive (at which point their relative efficiency is unimportant) costs about the same or less than a full-on geo system supporting the larger loads of a less superinsulated house, with even lower operational costs.

BTUs delivered to a structure by a 90% AFUE condensing gas-fired heating system has a slightly lower carbon footprint than geothermal with an average seasonal COP of 3.0. Geo breaks even condensing gas when it hits an average COP of 3.5-4.

Of course as the grid (hopefully) grows ever greener, geothermal eventually pulls ahead of even gas cogens (don't hold your breath, eh? ;-) ), but for the time being whether/where geo is greener than condensing NG is highly [i]local[/i]-grid dependent.  In coal-fired local grids, NG heating systems are significantly lower carbon than geo.

Shhh. Don't say that too loud or they might take back the tax credit pork! This is the geo industry's dirty secret - as you say the AVERAGE performing system with the AVERAGE power mix will break even at best or be slightly worse than NG in terms of CO2. As you said a geo system can be truly "green" if you increase the seasonal COP to the 4+ range or live in an area with relatively clean power. Also if NG isn't available and you're comparing to an oil buner or coal stove geo looks pretty good in comparison.

Really, I'm a fan of geo systems when applied logically - it's just that some of the "green" marketing hype really gets to me.

It does pay.1. There is a 30% tax deduction for a geo heat pump 2. $400 per year to heat a home? must be down south.My cost would be over $3000 per year in the NE. 3. If your mortgage would be increased by $9000, what would be the extra cost per year for that? Now figure your payback, 4. Figure in your maintenance costs. My system does not need an annual cleaning, replacing nozzles etc. 5. In comparing a geo heat pump to an oil burner: no chimney costs,no oil tank costs. 6. You get AC and part hot water free.

I should add two things - first, my mini-rant about geo not always being the "green" option was based purely on heating as that is the limit of my experience and interest. Obviously any increase in efficiency over a conventional AC system would be beneficial from a CO2 standpoint since the fuel being replaced is also electricity. So in cooling dominated climates I would assume geo is nearly always the "greenest" choice. Other than building more reasonably sized and better insulated homes, of course as Dana mentioned above.

Also getting back to the original intent of the thread, geo can certainly pay and pay big in the right circumstances. Depending on how much complexity I get into and what I assume for oil prices the payback on my system will be in the 5-7 year range, certainly less than 10. If oil had stayed at 2007-2008 levels it could have been as little as 4 years. Too many factors are involved to make blanket conclusions - each case must be evaluated individually.

J08M3 ~ I did not take it personally, just wanted to get on my soap box  :o)

 

Dana1 ~ while my carbon footprint did play into my decision in selecting geothermal (with respect to environmental considerations), it was by far not my only environmental consideration.  I will admit that I am a moderate environmentalist (even though it appears to have become a negative term over the past 9 years).  But I have not jumped on the “climate change is the MOST important environmental factor” bandwagon.  Don’t get me wrong, I know and understand that climate change is scientific fact, but there are several other air quality issues which have direct human health impacts which I considered.

 

SO2 (sulfur dioxide), NOx (nitrogen oxides) and PM (particulate matter) have been proven to result in negative health effects like asthma, heart attacks, and other respiratory diseases/issues.  Using fuel oil resulted in higher SO2, NOx and similar PM.  If I convert my btu’s to the equivalent amount of natural gas, it would result in higher NOx and PM.  This info coupled with the fact that my State (New York) gets most of its electricity from hydro, nuclear and gas led me to the local decision of geo.  In addition, I do not have natural gas available to me in my rural home.

 

Your comment on whether geothermal is “green” is well taken, but there are other considerations for air quality other than carbon footprint.  Most of the people that I have discussed geo with and who have converted seem to have started with fuel oil, making it the obvious greener choice (so it's actually not a "dirty little secret").

 

I most appreciate your comment on my whole house envelope.  I must admit that insulation was a big pain in the butt and we only did what was the easiest… so I probably didn’t take advantage of every insulation opportunity I had… something to consider for future projects.

Don't worry- comparing a new geo system to the typical pieces o' shi-nola heating most homes & buildings in the US at 55-65% efficiency, the geo wins on carbon footprint almost every time.  It's just benefit comparison with high-efficiency NG heating (at a much lower up front cost) is not so clear.  But clearly either would be a huge improvement over the national average.

Only in the very cleanest of local grids would geo beat a NG fired cogenerator on total carbon footprint for heating. The COP would have to be 7+ to beat condensing NG on carbon footprint in the most carbon-intensive coal-fired local grids (the operating costs would still likely be lower though, unless carbon gets taxed directly & heavily, which ain't gonna happen.)

For areas without NG available or for cooling dominated climates, the cost/benefit comparison needs to be made with air-source heat pumps, which also can be a tough sell without the subsidy factored in.

But whatever method one uses to heat/cool, you can buy a heluva lot of insulation & air sealing for half the cost of geo, and it's worth doing if it can cut the size & cost of your geo by more than half, or reduce the load to the point where cheaper, less efficient systems still don't use much.  For new construction this is a valid approach to take using your sharpest accounting pencil, but high(er) efficiency building envelopes + smaller (or absent) mechanical systems usually win the numbers game, but not always entirely.

The super-insulated Urbana Illinois PassiveHouse uses a 1kw resistance coil in the ventilation system for space heating, and it runs at such low duty cycle that the house still uses less than half the national average for total power use (not just heating/cooling power).  The maintenance & operating cost of that insulation is lower (and life cycle longer) than any high-efficiency heating/cooling systems we can come up with.  It's operating & maintenance costs aren't very likely to rise very quickly with the price of fuel either. ;-)