On Sep 1, 10:42*am, dpb wrote:
phil scott wrote:
On Aug 31, 12:11 pm, dpb wrote:
...
W/ energy prices unlikely to retrench greatly, it only makes the payback
period shorter.

I'll stick w/ the recommendation that it's worth investigating...
...
energy is going a lot higher, real incomes are going a lot lower...
saving energy is crucial.

So geothermal is a good bet...what's to argue????

My take on the water furnace is this... Ive been in the business 40
years. * WATER FURNANCES ARE TERRIFFIC! * *If they are installed
correctly, your local water is not too hard, or corrosive, your local
contractor has good talent working for them (not common) and you are
lucky.

One out of four ain't too good.

WaterFurnace is a good brand; that's what I said. *There's no need to
use open-loop or well necessarily. *One very good thing about
WaterFurnace (the company) is that they "vet" their authorized
dealers/installers so your chances of competence is greatly increased.

I agree that a groundloop system needs an installer who's got experience
w/ the technology. *I'll disagree it takes much luck on the part of the
homeowner--all it takes is reasonable due diligence in evaluating the
proposals and the contractor.

There are plenty of sources for additional information on geothermal
from TVA, O(klahoma)SU, T A&M, etc., ...

...

There are many options. *Ive listed them, the pro's and cons. * Your
mileage may vary... it always does. *One thing that never varies
though, the more complex any system is, the more nodes there are for
failure and the more service it needs over a life time. * * The water
furnace is an exceedingly complex piece of equipment.

It is no more complex than any other heat pump; in some ways it's
simpler as the external exchange unit is nothing but a simple pump
(again for the closed loop).

And, again, if you'll just shut up and read what I said instead of
arguing against them, I said specifically they are worth evaluating.

If you don't want to and have prejudices against them, fine.

...

Any recommendation for anything needs to have the relevant caveat's.

The relevant caveat is "they're worth evaluating". *Period. Plonk.

--

Ive installed a good many ground source (pool source, cooling tower,
and solar water source) systems.... they look fantastic on paper....
the larger ones can pay off too. the smaller you get the less likely
a pay off.

I will exagerate an example: say its a 1 ton system, anual operating
cost 700 dollars in its particular circumstance.. and you can put in a
system that saves 50%...but it costs $5,000 more... thats a 10 year
pay back...but then the system is worn out.. you have to buy a new
one.. no net savings... servicing the 5k loan over 10 years cost you
another 4,000 dollars or so... a net looser.

You do not see these listed on many contractor or manufacture
evaluation forms...and thats why Ive mentioned them here. you had not
either.


some of this stuff, solar voltaics for instance has a 20 year pay pack
in some if not most applications.



Luck enters into all things.. some good brand name cars for instance
are lemons..it happens. same with contractors.

thats why you see so few of these water source heat pump systems...
they simply do not pay back within their life cycle...often they cost
a lot more...actually thats predominantly the case.


and yes I know this offends the dealers and those sold on the
alternatives but thats just how it is...and the installed base proves
that... if these approaches really saved enough to pay for themselves,
and the capitol loan costs etc.. they would be more common.

I was retained in 1982 by Daikin Kogyo corp (japan) to assist in the
develpment of their split system ductless heat pumps, then present
them and assist in the field application around the US... I did
seminars in most states... always there were ground source heat pump
people there, claiming that their systems were the best... always,,
and vocal and sometimes tried to interrupt my presentations.... I
always assured them that they were right about ground source... its
the best for energy efficiency in many cases..

I still like it. But it does not pay back in most smaller
applications ... so now here we are 25 years later.. these guys are
still beating the drum...I am still agreeing with them...and they are
still in a miniscule market share...

thats because when you run the numbers with *all of the considerations
re replacement, cost of money etc... they dont even come close to
paying off.

But i still recommend them in some cases, lately in calif we have 3
tier electric utility rates...first tier is 10cents a KWH for the
frugal folk...carefully calculated to barely run a refrig.. second
tier is 20 cents or so... and third tier is 35 cents a KWH! Most end
up in the highest rate range. Electric bills have skyrocketed.

a ground source heat pump can keep a home within the 2nd tier usage
range...thats a significant savings...no matter how you slice it.
Or you can simply set your stat up to 78F or so on a hot day, with a
zoned system and save the same amount.


There are many options. One should be careful to note what each
leaves out of their evaluation criteria... no offense.

thats just how it is, especially in the ground source business.





Phil scott