Anyone have experience with geothermal heating?

I am currently running on propane and have the option to pay about $13k, to switch to Nat gas. So at this price range I would also have the option to try geothermal heat/ac.

I would like to hear if anyone has real world experience with these systems? Im located in Michigan so its not unheard of to have a few weeks at a time in single digits or below zero.

thanks Nick

I once went to a persons house that had that type of setup (on a college geology field trip). He was very happy with how it worked, but if i remember correctly he was getting close to $60k into the whole thing. I think just a well is around $30k.

I shopped it and just couldn't make it work in my part of the country (the south). The initial costs simply couldn't be recooped in a reasonable period of time.

Basically it's about the same thing as the difference between an air cooled engine (traditional ac) and a water cooled engine (geo thermal) I had a huge pond to use as my heat sink and it still wouldn't work, they were going to have to drill 4 wells at a cost of over $4,000 apiece. The equipment itself itsn't all that much more expensive if you do a little shopping and it's a lot quieter than traditional.

I was at a home show this morning. Didn't ask for a complete system price, but I was talking to one contractor about geothermal. The outdoor portion of the system was about $6500 for a horizontal system and $8000 for a vertical. I have no idea what the work inside the house would cost. Several contractors threw out savings numbers that ranged up to 70% reduction in heating costs FWIW. The system also functions as air conditioning and a domestic hot water supply for relatively little additional cost. I'd call a contractor for a quote, none of them is overly busy these days.

They did to the middle school in my home town. It seems to work pretty well. It is expensive to begin with but I have heard it save a lot of money in the long term.

What is the difference between these systems, and the ground source heat pumps that people installed (and abandoned) in the 70's, and early 80's?

They're still a ground source heat pump. The hardware is probably "better" today, but the operating methodology is the same. I knew a guy that had a system running in a pond near Ottawa way back in the early 70's. I've no idea why the systems fell out of favour.

I know you asked about geo-thermal but have you looked into outdoor wood furnaces?

Here in WI I have a few friends that swear by them. They tend to have 8 to 10k invested in their systems (hot water included) and will never have another heat bill again. Biggest issue I see is the few weekends a year I see them gathering and chopping wood for the winter.

http://www.outdoorwoodfurnaces.org/

Edit: I forgot you asked about A/C also, obviously a wood furnace can't help there.

High upfront costs if you want one that will last. The payback estimates given by the companies are extremely generous/slightly exaggerated towards geothermal. The concept is sound. I think if you financed it a low rates you could stretch the amount over a longer time you would actually see a reduction in monthly out of pocket expenses.

MrJoshua wrote: High upfront costs if you want one that will last. The payback estimates given by the companies are extremely generous/slightly exaggerated towards geothermal. The concept is sound. I think if you financed it a low rates you could stretch the amount over a longer time you would actually see a reduction in monthly out of pocket expenses.

Yeah the payback is on a geothermal unit is like any energy saving device, contingent on the price of energy. Energy prices go up, you get a wonderful payback. Energy prices go down, not so great....

Might not be a bad hedge against the future, if you believe that Kuwaiti study that just came out.. 2012 peak oil.. ZOMG!11111111111111111111111111111111111

$30,000. That's the price we gave to a family out in Montana. It might be cheaper in a place that's not in the middle of nowhere, but not much. The bad thing is they'll never get your house above 50-ish deg. on it's own. Live in a cold climate and you'll still need a supplemental heater.

Appleseed wrote: $30,000. That's the price we gave to a family out in Montana. It might be cheaper in a place that's not in the middle of nowhere, but not much. The bad thing is they'll never get your house above 50-ish deg. on it's own. Live in a cold climate and you'll still need a supplemental heater.

My parents' gets the house (In the upper peninsula of MI) warmer than you could ever possibly want it. Don't know where your 50degrees comes from. It's not like it's a passive heat exchanger with the underground 50 degree temperature.

Costs to install are going to be heavily depending on the location, and so are very hard to generalize.

Their winter heat is way cheaper now (from propane so $$$ before) and their cooling is ~half what it used to be.

Ya Ive been told itll keep the house in hte 70s if you wanted that. Ive got a indoor woodstove now, would like to get away from that whole hassle without getting killed on propane. Ive seen prices in the teens for systems, and there are do it yourself systems available. Theres also a tax credit right now which would help a little.

Keethrax: Do you know what your parents installation cost was? Theyre happy with the system?

Marty! wrote: I know you asked about geo-thermal but have you looked into outdoor wood furnaces? http://www.outdoorwoodfurnaces.org/

Call to ban outdoor wood furnaces:

http://countytimes.com/articles/2010/02/05/opinion/op-ed/doc4b6b011d5738a953258860.txt

Connecticut Must Ban Outdoor Wood Furnaces

Published: Thursday, February 4, 2010 By Nancy Alderman

This Op-Ed is in response to the article “Salisbury Looking at Impact of Outdoor Wood Furnaces [The Litchfield County Times, Jan. 29].

An outdoor wood-burning furnace (OWF), also known as an outdoor wood boiler (OWB) is essentially a small-insulated shed with a short smoke stack. They burn wood that heats water that is then sent through underground pipes to heat a home or a building. These appliances emit smoke 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Outdoor wood furnaces are not to be confused with indoor wood stoves which are tested and certified by The Environmental Protection Agency—outdoor wood furnaces are not.

Most outdoor wood furnaces employ very primitive combustion technology and because of this they emit dense smoke that endangers the health of families and neighbors. The particles of wood smoke are so small that closed doors and windows cannot stop it from entering homes, even newer energy-efficient weather-tight homes.

The use of outdoor wood furnaces has increased over the past few years causing there to now be many complaints about their smoke making people sick.

Connecticut’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Web site has a fact sheet where the question is asked, “Are OWFs harmful to the environment and human health?” The fact sheet says, “Yes, OWFs produce a lot of thick smoke, which in addition to being a nuisance to neighbors, has serious health and air pollution impacts.

Smoke from OWFs contains unhealthy amounts of particulate matter, dioxin, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, hydrochloric acid, formaldehyde and other toxic air pollutants. Exposure to smoke from an OWF can increase adverse respiratory and cardiovascular symptoms. Exposure to other pollutants listed above is associated with a diverse range of harmful health effects, including asthmatic sensitivity, lung illnesses and cancer” (www.ct.gov/dep).

Due to the harmful impacts of these appliances, the State of Washington has banned them in the entire state. Eight towns in Connecticut—Granby, Tolland, Hebron, Woodbridge, South Windsor, Portland, Ridgefield and Haddam have also banned them.

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal has called on the General Assembly to ban them in Connecticut in the next session because their toxic smoke is sickening neighbors and polluting whole neighborhoods.

The American Lung Association, New England, has also urged the Connecticut legislature to impose a statewide ban on these wood-burning outdoor furnaces.

Because they are a closed shed system, one cannot see what is being burned inside of them. Although they are designed to burn wood, owners can add yard waste, packing materials, construction debris and even household garbage and tires without anyone knowing it.

Burning these other substances is illegal, however there is no way to see or know what is being burned. If these other substances are burned, it will increase the toxic and hazardous air pollutants that come out of the stack.

Different states have tried to protect people from these wood-burning appliances by passing regulations. However, none of these regulations have proven to be effective enough to protect people’s health. For instance, Connecticut has a setback regulation of 200 feet from neighbor’s property and it has a smoke stack regulation that requires the stack to be higher than the roof peak of the nearest house within 500 feet.

However, even with these regulations, hundreds of complaints have been received by the DEP from people being made sick by these furnaces.

Because of their basic design, it is possible that they will never be able to be made safe. Their smoke emissions problems are complicated by the fact that the appliances cycle between oxygen-deficient and oxygen-rich burning.

The smoke that leaves the top of the stack, irrespective of height of the stack, lacks the heat energy necessary for it to rise or to diffuse and be diluted by ambient air, and thus causes the smoke to fall to the ground engulfing the nearby homes. It is also why the smoke drifts for many thousands of yards, without dissipating, polluting whole neighborhoods.

Breathing air containing wood smoke on a continuous basis has many harmful effects. It can reduce lung function, increase asthma, emphysema, pneumonia and bronchitis. It can aggravate heart disease, irritate eyes, lungs, throat and sinuses as well as trigger headaches and allergies.

Environment and Human Health, Inc. joins the attorney general and the American Lung Association in asking the Connecticut legislature to ban outdoor wood furnaces throughout the state.

The DEP operates an Air Pollution Complaint Line at 860-424-3436. This line is open to all citizens with concerns regarding smoke and other air pollution. So far, the line has received hundreds of complaints from people who are sick from breathing in the smoke from these furnaces.

Nancy Alderman is president of Environment and Human Health, Inc. in New Haven (www.ehhi.org).

That's what I've been told about them.

If you have neighbours, you'll get a lot of complaints. I've also heard that the boilers don't last, even the SS ones.

So people want to ban them because - They MAY burn something that's not wood?

But this won't include indoor wood burners which pretty much are burning 24 hrs. too?

You Know what I say to that?

The city I live in has a ban on all types of burners. I can agree with that in a city enviroment. But to place a outright ban on them for people out in the country is kinda insane IMO. Just another way to give in to huge power lobbyists.

My wood burner is just as efficient as my gas furnace.

We currently have a hybrid heat pump/gas furnace setup, and everyone agrees that the gas is just superior. The air coming out of the ducts is actually warm air. I think it has something to do with convection currents, but if we switch the thermostat from heat pump to gas the house feels much warmer without even changing the temperature setting.

Appleseed wrote: $30,000. That's the price we gave to a family out in Montana. It might be cheaper in a place that's not in the middle of nowhere, but not much. The bad thing is they'll never get your house above 50-ish deg. on it's own. Live in a cold climate and you'll still need a supplemental heater.

You can size the system to do whatever you want it to do. Many places sell smaller ones because they are fine most of the time and don't require as large a well setup meaning less up front costs. If they find the right balance of pure geothermal use and supplemental you would probably come out cheaper than a pure geothermal unit.

I glad everyone here understands the basic concept. It was really fun trying to explain to the Board at my work how we could use ~70 degree water to heat the pool to 82.

Keep in mind that the mediterranean basin used to be known for it's forests and Lebanon for it's tall cedars that were used as masts for shipping. They were all burned up in people's fireplaces.

Wood is renewable, but only if you plan ahead which most people don't do nowadays because wood isn't thought of as a fuel.

MrJoshua wrote: I glad everyone here understands the basic concept. It was really fun trying to explain to the Board at my work how we could use ~70 degree water to heat the pool to 82.

I'll show my lack of understanding...how would you do that?

As for the post topic, I'd love to be able to keep my house at ~72 degrees all year round. That would be ideal!

I work for the Conservation and Load Management Department at my local utility as an Energy Engineer. Geothermal systems are very efficient, but as several people have already stated they have extremely high up front costs due to well drilling ($30K is not unheard of). That said, we offer incentives and rebates through the utility and our local Clean Energy Fund to help offset the high costs. With these rebates and incentives you can see a simple payback in less then 10 years. However you said you live in MI. Check this link http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/index.cfm?re=1&ee=1&spv=0&st=0&srp=1&state=MI These are the rebates and incentive programs for energy efficiency and clean energy in your state. It doesn't look good for geothermal, but you can get rebates for high efficiency natural gas heating.

dyintorace wrote:

MrJoshua wrote: I glad everyone here understands the basic concept. It was really fun trying to explain to the Board at my work how we could use ~70 degree water to heat the pool to 82.

I'll show my lack of understanding...how would you do that? As for the post topic, I'd love to be able to keep my house at ~72 degrees all year round. That would be ideal!

On a very basic level it is about moving energy from one place to the next. What made sense the most to the people at my work was that you took water out of the ground at 70 degrees, took 2 degrees worth of heat from it, and sent it back into the ground at 68 degrees. You then took that 2 degrees of heat and gave it to the pool water to heat it 2 degrees warmer.

Once you get past that you start to have to explain how an air conditioner works which caused their eyes to totally glaze over.

I may have misunderstood the question. I was talking about using heat generated naturally from within the Earth to heat your home, not what essentially equates to in floor heat, heated from a boiler.

I had an estimate done. I was told I had almost a worst case scenario, had to do vertical, not horizontal and no pond to use either. I was told 20K. I almost pulled the trigger and I will one day. A buddy of mine was on propane. He was spending $1800 to $2000 for 4 months of winter (now, his house was poorly insulated). His house burned down and he rebuilt using geo-thermo. Last winter was as cold as any other and he spent less than $300 for the winter. He can keep it as warm or cool as he likes year round. No issues at all. He kept his normal furnace because he was told in a unusual cold spell this geo might not keep up. We had about 10 days of sub zero weather and his furnace came on once or twice a day during those 10 days. My furnace never shut off for those 10 days.