Google's New Startup Heats Your Home With Energy From Your Lawn (cnn.com)

WindBourne shares an article about Google's plans for "an extremely cheap form of HVAC." CNN reports: A new startup called Dandelion, born from the secretive and futuristic lab "X" of Google's parent company Alphabet, says it will offer affordable geothermal heating and cooling systems to homeowners. Existing systems are typically expensive with big upfront installation fees, discouraging homeowners from adopting the technology... Installing the pipes -- called "ground loops" -- under someone's lawn is a traditionally invasive, messy process. It involves using wide drills that dig wells more than 1,000 feet underground. Dandelion's drill is fast and lean, allowing for only one or two deep holes a few inches wide. The system will cost between $20,000 and $25,000, compared to conventional systems priced as high as $60,000.

Geothermal systems are better for the environment because they significantly cut down on carbon dioxide emissions... Buildings are responsible for 39% of carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S., according to the U.S. Green Building Council. Most of these emissions come from the combustion of fossil fuels to provide the building with heating, cooling and lighting, and to power appliances and electrical equipment.
Google has been studying the potential of geothermal energy since 2011. Dandelion will eventually partner with local companies to handle installations -- and is already accepting sign-ups from customers in New York.

Comments

No

[Richard_at_work]

No, not a start-up, a new subsidiary. Stop misusing terms - this has the full backing of Google as a throwaway corporation, it's not five people in a bedroom with a great idea struggling to pay their bills.

Re: No

[dougdonovan]

a min 20k investment for 50k+ added (equity, im guessing ) in your home. not a bad idea.

Re: No

[Anonymous Coward]

why would it add that much equity to your house?

Energy efficiency measures are generally undervalued in the marketplace. And once people know it's a dandelion system they'll know how much it cost - or more likely won't give a damn at all.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

what kind of valuable metrics and user data and such do they expect to get from pipes underneath people's lawns? it is so unlike google to make and sell an actual *product* that has no spying built-in to add to their massive databases.

Re: No

[geekmux]

a min 20k investment for 50k+ added (equity, im guessing ) in your home...

I know the salesperson will try and claim otherwise, but energy-efficient upgrades bump equity about as much as putting in a pool.

Re: No

[Z00L00K]

And keep your lawn deep-frozen all year!

Re: No

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed, unless its in a rural area where energy costs are high. Even if this system cut my energy bills in half (Which it probably wouldnt) it would take over 15 years to pay off at $20,000. But, thats because i heat on cheap natural gas and i cool on cheap city grid electricity. But in a rural area where energy is much more expensive, this kind of thing could be a boon for buyers when comparing looking at a big propane tank vs an empty yard AND a lower energy bill.

Re: No

[RicktheBrick]

1. Figure out how much one spends on energy now.
2. Figure out how much one would spend after the system is installed.
3. Divide savings into the cost of the system to determine how many years it will take to recover the investment.
4. If the system is so great the number of years will not be great so Google should be able to install system for free by just charging the same amount for energy as they were paying.
5. Google makes money at no expense to the homeowner.

Re: No

[Mr D from 63]

a min 20k investment for 50k+ added (equity, im guessing ) in your home. not a bad idea.

Yes, you are guessing. Why would you think that? My guess would be around $5-10K improvement in market value.

Re: No

[Ol Olsoc]

1. Figure out how much one spends on energy now. 2. Figure out how much one would spend after the system is installed. 3. Divide savings into the cost of the system to determine how many years it will take to recover the investment.

Those are the basic numbers. But I've found that there is a humongous wild card in there.

We exchanged oil heat for a super-efficient gas furnace (extracts so much of the energy that the chimney is made of PVC)

Then oil prices went nuts. Ended up recovering the gas furnace expenses in a couple years.

This was a real eye-opener for me, because my calculations were simply blown out of the water. But I hadn't accounted for the volatility of the fuel source.

So depending on how you heat/cool, and it's pretty much a given that oil prices aren't going anywhere but up beyond inflation over the long term, the recovery period is difficult to calculate. As well, what is the "payback" time on a standard efficiency oil furnace or a standard compressor AC unit.

I think it is a better approach to look towards efficiency, and likewise look into devices/methods that require as little replacement as possible, because that is another variable that adds cost that messes badly with the calculations.

Then there is incidental expenses. As another example, we dug up the old buried oil tank, and it was perilously close to leaking. If it had leaked into the surrounding soil and water table, the mitigation costs to me would have been around the entire value of the house. There's a reason new Oil tanks have to be double walled and above ground in my area. I could have opted to leave the tank in the ground to save money. Yikes! In a rare moment of intelligence I decided to pull it out, and thank goodness I did.

Re: No

[guruevi]

In most of NY, except NYC 25k is often more than 25% the equity of the property. It's simply not an investment I would make given energy prices being so low and property taxes making out most of the cost, 25k even without maintenance is about 20-30 years of heating costs and if it raises the value of your house by that much, any savings will quickly be overshadowed by the property taxes of the increased value of the property which could be as much as $2000/year for $25k

Re: No

[knightghost]

Where do you get that rural is more expensive? California pays 5x more for electricity than I do (in a border state) simply because of their over-regulation. That's common in "city" areas.

Re: No

[serviscope_minor]

We exchanged oil heat for a super-efficient gas furnace (extracts so much of the energy that the chimney is made of PVC)

I believe it's possible to get condensing oil fired burners too, though you do get a bigger benefit from gas since you get more water in of the fumes.

Re: No

[Anonymous Coward]

We exchanged electric forced air furnace for a 3 ton heat pump, cost $7500, split that over two new Chase Freedom cards, each one gave $150 back for putting a balance on the cards, and 1% on the initial balance. Power co then gave a $1500 rebate. 15 months 0% APR, had it paid down inside that time. Now we have cheap heating and cooling in summer. Yes heat pumps dont lend them selves to all climates in the US, but here in the Pacific North West they're ideal as we dont get too many days where the temp falls below the lock out set point (30F) and the system switches back to a set of 15kW electric heat strips.

Even Googles one at $20k, you'll be waiting a long time to recover the costs. It might make sense to get it installed if you're getting a new house built and plan on it being the last house you live in.

Re: No

[Ol Olsoc]

We exchanged oil heat for a super-efficient gas furnace (extracts so much of the energy that the chimney is made of PVC)

I believe it's possible to get condensing oil fired burners too, though you do get a bigger benefit from gas since you get more water in of the fumes.

The water extraction is amazing, our setup goes to a nearby bathtub, which is nice because we don't use that one much, and the condensate keeps the trap full. I have to pull the chimney and air intake off when I change the filters every month or so, and there is a lot of water in the exhaust PVC. It apparently runs down the vertical portion of the chimney and settles out along with the internal condenser.

And yup, they have really efficient oil furnaces too. I'm not certain how the condensers operate on those, as the oil flame is relatively sooty. We also lucked out because the gas company was laying new and bigger service lines along our street, (thanks fracking!) and did the lines and meter for free. Then they repaired a section of sidewalk that was sinking since the pipeline involved it. As you might imagine, I'm darn happy with the gas people.

Re: No

[Anonymous Coward]

"simply because of their over-regulation"

That's a simple-minded view.

Re: No

[blindseer]

First you say this,

Then oil prices went nuts. Ended up recovering the gas furnace expenses in a couple years.

and then this,

So depending on how you heat/cool, and it's pretty much a given that oil prices aren't going anywhere but up beyond inflation over the long term, the recovery period is difficult to calculate.

I agree that oil prices can be nuts but not that it's guaranteed to go up. Oil competes with natural gas, as you should well know. If natural gas goes down then oil will go down. That's just how the markets work.

I made a friendly wager with a co-worker on oil prices. At the time we'd see in the news of record highs of oil, which was trading at something like $120 or $140 per barrel that summer. I bet him that oil would be below $100 by the end of the calendar year. As I recall I had a lot of room to spare, it was $100 in weeks, and by the end of the year it was $80 or $90.

There's going to be a cap on the "long term" that people care about. If they are looking for a furnace then that long term will be something like 10, 20, or 30 years. They just want a payoff before they have to move or replace the furnace again. Same for any such item like a water heater, automobile, or kitchen oven where the energy demand is a large part of the cost of ownership and choices exist in getting that energy. So, if you say "long term" is 400 years then not only do I not dispute that but, neither of us will be here to argue over it.

Maybe we'll get cheap nuclear power and windmills to replace coal, and electric prices drop. Or those cheap solar cells and the "smart grid" I keep hearing will come any day now. Electric resistor heat could be so cheap that no one bothers with a heat pump.

Re: No

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you work in the energy industry? Because I do. And over-regulation is exactly, precisely, without ambiguity, the exact reason California's rates are five times border states.

Re: No

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Is it possible it would been cheaper to have cleaned the tank very well and filled it with gravel or something and left it in place?

Re: No

[Anonymous Coward]

Specifically, over-regulation favoring wind. Which if you understand physics, you know is probably the worst generation source for an energy grid.

Re: No

[cayenne8]

I don't really give a damn about heat....

BUT...if they can figure how to Air Condition my house from my lawn, I'd be in on that....

I live in New Orleans...my AC system basically clicks on in late April, and it doesn't go off again till early November.

Cool me off.....heat is no problem.

Re: No

[Anonymous Coward]

This is thermal energy direct from the ground. you could add a ground Loop to a vapor compression system, that would bring efficiency.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_heat_pump

Re: No

[Stan92057]

Geothermal heating/cooling been around alot longer the google has lol

http://energyblog.nationalgeog...

Re: No

[Ol Olsoc]

Is it possible it would been cheaper to have cleaned the tank very well and filled it with gravel or something and left it in place?

In some cases. The deal we had was something like the contractor pumped the oil out, used it as fuel, and charged us a little extra to dig it out. So it wasn't too bad a deal.

Re: No

[Anonymous Coward]

My bill for AC in Phoenix is 350.00 per month.
So pay back is sooner than my car paid off.

Anyone with ac bills over 300 should be all over this,

Re: No

[Anonymous Coward]

why would it add that much equity to your house?

Energy efficiency measures are generally undervalued in the marketplace. And once people know it's a dandelion system they'll know how much it cost - or more likely won't give a damn at all.

I replaced all of the old single-pane, non-weatherstripped, starting to rot wood window on my house with modern low-e high-efficiency vinyl windows. While it made a large dent in our heating bill that following winter so far it hasn't significantly raised the value of my house at all as far as appraisers were concerned.

Re: No

[Anonymous Coward]

Adding a solar power system adds about $60,000 - $80,000 worth of value to the home, but costs about $25,000 to install (at least in California). The value is in the 25 years of electricity bills the homeowner will not have to pay. It's a rare case of super-simple math to calculate ROI. Solar is a crazy good investment.

Re: No

[Anonymous Coward]

And people call California insane, where $25,000 of property would be about $300 a year in property taxes.

Re: No

[anegg]

I installed a geothermal (ground source heat pump) system (two actually - two zones) in the house that I just sold a month ago. The total cost was around $40,000 for my system, installed in 2008. My tie to the "geothermal energy" was ground water in an open loop configuration rather than a horizontal or vertical closed loop. I selected this alternative over a like-for-like replacement of my air source heat pump system (also two zones) at a cost of about $20,000. Both options included some interior duct work in addition to the basic mechanical equipment. My system was projected to save about $1,000 in yearly energy costs (electric), so there was a 20 year payback. As far as I can tell (having just sold my house) the geothermal system did not add any equity to my home (in other words, I did not seem to have buyers who were willing to pay me $$ more than they would for a similar house without geothermal, and the real estate agents in my area didn't find the geothermal HVAC to be a selling point worth more than a bullet point mention).

During planning, I discovered wide disparities between the claimed installation costs by those pushing "geothermal" and the contractors in my area who do this type of work (contractors cost >> claimed installation costs). Once the system was in, I discovered (surprise!) disparities between the claimed energy savings (by those pushing geothermal) and my actual energy savings (actual savings I'm slightly confused by installation comparison in the article. For my project, I looked at a shallow ground loop (slinky tubing) that would be installed under my lawn using a fairly large area - I didn't have enough lawn area and I didn't want to tear up the woods behind my house. I also looked at vertical bores - I needed 6 (one per ton of space conditioning) which could go under my lawn or my driveway - the "drill width" was not a deal breaker as its the same as is used for a water well. In the end the vertical bore option was not viable because the well contractor refused to attempt 6 vertical wells due to subsurface materials that the contractor claimed would make digging a nightmare.

The article seems to be comparing a vertical bore process with a horizontal "slinky" installation process, and of course vertical bores are less disruptive to install under your lawn. If they are really comparing two different vertical installations, then one or two bores going down 1,000 feet sounds marginally better than 6 bores going down 400 feet or so each, but I don't think I would have been interested in 2 instead of 6 holes unless it was roughly the same cost (in other words, having 6 holes at a lower cost would have been just fine by me as the holes are not that obtrusive). Ultimately the number of bores and depth of the bores depends on the heat transfer capabilities of the subsurface material and the BTUs of space conditioning you are trying to achieve. Too bad the article wasn't a lot more specific about the claimed advantages of the installation method.

Re: No

[barc0001]

>Oil competes with natural gas

Only in an abstract sense for end users who use it as a heat source. They don't have to tightly compete as the cost for someone to switch their heating from one source to the other is a large barrier to change and ensures a very large percentage of lock in for both customer groups. It's not like deciding to buy Pepsi instead of Coke because one's half off this week.

Re: No

[barc0001]

> overshadowed by the property taxes of the increased value of the property which could be as much as $2000/year for $25k

That math seems off by a factor of 5. According to this:

https://smartasset.com/taxes/new-york-property-tax-calculator

the average property tax in NY state is 2.22% Even assuming it was 2.5%, a 25K jump in value would add $625/yr to the tax bill, not $2000

Re: No

[Anonymous Coward]

> Then oil prices went nuts. Ended up recovering the gas furnace expenses in a couple years.

A childhood friend of my father's has an oil, a gas, and a wood-burning furnace installed in his home for exactly this reason. He burns whatever is cheapest at the time.

Re: No

[angel'o'sphere]

Oil competes with natural gas, as you should well know. If natural gas goes down then oil will go down. That's just how the markets work.
It is actually the opposite way around.
When oil prices go up, the gas prices go up.

It makes sense to step back from basic economics 101 and actually loo how the world market works,
90% of all gas contrracts are bound to the oil price. I never have heard about a oil contract that was bound to a gas price.

And no: they are not traded independently in the wolrd markets.

The german russian gas deals (meanwhile expired) where 30 year long contracts where the gas price was bound to the oul price with simething like a 6 month delay and a 4 month average.

A typical household in europe basically can only get an oil bound contract for gas. There are exceptions with 2 year long fixed price contracts.

Re: No

[mcswell]

Blindseer wrote: "If natural gas goes down then oil will go down."
To which angel'o'sphere replied: "It is actually the opposite way around. When oil prices go up, the gas prices go up."

I don't get it. Blindseer said that the oil price goes in the same direction as the gas price, and you are saying the same thing. That's hardly the opposite.

But maybe this is supposed to be a joke? Like the line: "Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite."

Re: No

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Good, it worked out for you. Will remember this if I consider an oil heated property.

Re: No

[angel'o'sphere]

No, blind seer said, that the oil price is following the gas price.
And I said: the gas price is following the oil price. Usually with a delay of 4 - 6 month, depending on contract and using a similar 4 - 6 month price average of oil to adjust to. It is basically written in every gas contract that the gas price will be adjusted every X month, and that the new price will be based on the average of previous months oil price.

But maybe this is supposed to be a joke? Like the line: "Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite."
Actually yes, my grimm sense of no humor :D I just made it a bit more tricky, by using the "going up" reference and he was thinking about "going down".

Re: No

[rpstrong]

Changing the up/down direction distracted from the cause/effect argument - that gas prices are linked to oil prices, not to the general economy. A case of contracts trumping market forces.

Re: No

[guruevi]

The average property tax in NYS is indeed 2.22% but it's a false statistic. NYC has the lowest property taxes at 0.75%. Given the majority of the state's population lives there, it's indeed an average of 2.2%. I currently pay over 3.5% and I'm in a city, once outside the city, the suburbs are often 5-6% and even further in "the boonies" it can go up to 6-7% for higher-end residential properties.

Re: No

[Reziac]

Their cost estimate seems a trifle understated. Sounds like they're using standard water-well drilling equipment, and that'll cost you between $25 and $70 per foot, depending on how soon it hits rock and how expensive such labor is in your neighborhood. (Drilling rock is pricey.)

Re: No

[mcswell]

got it, thanks for the clarification!

Ground source heat pumps?

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect that they don't actually mean geothermal in the Icelandic sense but in the "hey, let's use the thermal mass of the earth as the heat reservoir for a heat-pump", where "heat-pump" is basically a reversible air-conditioner (it can move heat in either direction). Most air conditioners use the outside air as the heat resevoir, which is is not terribly good during summer if you're trying to cool. The earth a few feet down soon goes to a relatively constant temperature.

The problem with ground-source is avoiding locallized heating/cooling in the ground. You either need very heat-conductive ground or lots of contact space.

Of course, you can also do the same thing with a body of water that doesn't freeze in the winter or get too hot in the summer.

Re:Ground source heat pumps?

[cheesybagel]

Yeah a ground source heatsink is typically a lot more efficient than just a regular air conditioner with a fan using the atmosphere as the heatsink. Plus it also make it possible to heat buildings to room temperature even in cold places like, say, Sweden. I am kinda of curious about the efficiency of Google's proposed solution though. It is not like I haven't heard of people drilling for aquifers before and their solution seems kinda similar.

Re:Ground source heat pumps?

[Pax681]

my mothers "granny cottage" has this system for the hot water here in Scotland .
pipes from the hot water circuit get pumped into the ground pipes and this gets them to about 20C, giving it a "head start" at getting hot.
This reduces the cost and amount of energy needed to get it to being hot enough for washing/cleaning/heating purposes. The heating is underfloor heating which is also more efficient and cheaper to use
My mothers previous cottage, same size but cost about £1100 per year in combined gas/electricity unlike her present place which has cost between 350-400 per year for combined gas/electricity.
That's a big fucking saving people and now it means she can save a bit more and have an extra holiday per year... these systems are well worth it and when i am looking to a new place i am going to make sure it's got a similar set up to my mothers!

Re:Ground source heat pumps?

[Pax681]

just to add.. my mothers present place is AAA+ energy saving rated. it's triple glazed, underfloor heating, geothermal water loop.
you are not tapping into a subterranean water source.. you and pumping the water through an enclosed loop , a circuit of water from the home to the pipes in the ground and back into your house....

Re:Ground source heat pumps?

[Ol Olsoc]

My mothers previous cottage, same size but cost about £1100 per year in combined gas/electricity unlike her present place which has cost between 350-400 per year for combined gas/electricity. That's a big fucking saving people and now it means she can save a bit more and have an extra holiday per year... these systems are well worth it and when i am looking to a new place i am going to make sure it's got a similar set up to my mothers!

Exactly. I spend per year what most of the neighbors spend per month on heating during the heating season. And I keep the house at a higher temperature. Even with a efficient hot tub, I spend only 10 percent more on electric than my neighbor who is only home about 4 days a month and has no amenities - our electric company tells us what our bill is compared to our neighbors percentage wise.

Every energy saving device has saved us money over and above installation costs. And life has been more comfortable.

Re: Ground source heat pumps?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a very common solution in sweden. It is usually installed close to the surface (e.g. just underneath a lawn) or deep drilled holes into the rock.

  It often competes with central heating solutions.

Re:Ground source heat pumps?

[Anonymous Coward]

My bro in IA has a ground-source heat pump for heating & cooling. Two 150' holes of ordinary diameter drilled in the back yard. He can keep his well-insulated house at 72F 24x7x365 with no problems.

Real geothermal (deep, 3-5km) has promise for electricity generation almost everywhere in the US. Ironically, the oil industry developed the technology to drill through hard rock to get that deep. NREL had a thriving research program, but the GWB administration cut it way back.

Re:Ground source heat pumps?

[anegg]

Ground source heat pumps have been around in the United States for many years (https://igshpa.org/). I first looked at them in 1996 when I was planning to build a new house, and I looked at them again in 2007 when I needed to replace my failing air source heat pumps that could not be repaired in place because federal energy guidelines had killed the sale of the replacement parts I needed for my 7 year old system. I ended up going with the ground source heat pump to see how it would all work out.

It's a cool idea (no pun intended) and it works, but has its challenges. The contractors are somewhat specialized, as are the equipment vendors (I used Water Furnace equipment http://www.waterfurnace.com/). Similar to air source heat pumps, you have to accept a slower rate of change in your indoor temperature (i.e., you don't get the "ahhh" rapid heat like you do with a fossil-fuel force hot air furnace and you don't seem to get any measurable benefit from cutting back temperatures when you aren't home; I suspect that this is in part due to the challenge of heating/cooling the large thermal mass of your home with a smaller difference in the air temperature).

It is a huge advantage over air source heat pumps when temperatures fall below freezing; the ground temperature in my area was about 56 degrees F and its a lot easier to pull heat out of liquid at 56 degrees F than air at sub-freezing temperatures; same kind of benefit when cooling in the summer with outside temps in the 90s or 100s. Its a lot quieter than air source heat pumps because you don't have the noisy outside units running just outside your house.

Its worth looking at and I didn't regret doing it, but take all of the projected savings and especially any claims of "increased equity" in your home with a grain of salt. It was the soft benefits that sold it for me. Oh - to maximize efficiency when cooling and save yourself a few bucks, get an option for domestic hot water... in the summer the heat pump can exchange heat into your hot water reservoir first before dumping it into the ground. Free hot showers (yes, I like my hot showers, even in the summer).

Re:Ground source heat pumps?

[The123king]

Easy fix. Get some bull ants to colonise your lawn and then pour some molten aluminium down it. Then you're lawn will be very heat conductive!

Insulation is a better option

[geoff_syndicate]

What's the point of heating if it goes straight out a poorly insulated wall or roof? Follow the passive house standard and you won't even need extra heating.

Re:Insulation is a better option

[JaredOfEuropa]

That's actually the advice (honest) installers here will give you: insulate walls, roof, floor, and get that triple glazing filled with unicorn farts first, before spending money on a geothermal system. It's more cost-effective. But depending on your climate, you're still likely to need heating and/or cooling.

Still it's good news if they can really cut costs for such a system by that much. If you don't have natural gas (and that's the way we're going here), geothermal heating is by far the best option.

Re:Insulation is a better option

[Anonymous Coward]

Alternatively, keep the temperature above 40 degrees Fahrenheit, and wear more clothing. This may come as a shocker, but it's probably cheaper to warm a human body rather than an entire building. Sometimes I will put bits of wood in this thing called a fireplace, and use a flame to make the wood burn. This generates something called heat. Fire = hot.

Re:Insulation is a better option

[Anonymous Coward]

Geothermal the best option? Or a heat pump?

Bert

Re:Insulation is a better option

[Anonymous Coward]

Insulation.

Re:Insulation is a better option

[thegarbz]

The problem is in the retrofit. Replacing windows and insulating roofs is one thing. Insulating walls is quite another on many house designs.

Re:Insulation is a better option

[Anonymous Coward]

Only that most insulation doesn't consist of biodegradable unicorn farts, but of chemicals like styrofoam that are an environmental disaster. Also, Grenfell.

Re:Insulation is a better option

[JaredOfEuropa]

The geothermal systems also use heat pumps, using heat trapped underground rather than outside air. More expensive but also more efficient. Over here, the geothermal systems are attractive as they can also be used as an energy efficient aircon in summer.

Re:Insulation is a better option

[Anonymous Coward]

Only that most insulation doesn't consist of biodegradable unicorn farts, but of chemicals like styrofoam that are an environmental disaster. Also, Grenfell.

Insulation comes in many forms other than styrofoam or spray-in composite. As for any house built in the southern US, insulation helps keep the interior cooler but builders avoid insulation to reduce costs to themselves while ripping off home buyers.

Re: Insulation is a better option

[fubarrr]

Rockwool and foamed concrete are your friends

Re: Insulation is a better option

[WindBourne]

Ground-sourced HP replaces heating AND AC. With most homes in America, we pay a great deal more for cooling than heating. In large part, that is because AC is so inefficient, it requires much larger ondemand systems for the summer. If all homes had ground-sourced HP then electric demand for HVAC would change very minor over the seasons.

Re: Insulation is a better option

[Anonymous Coward]

Heating a building means heating the air in it. Not heating it means not heating the air.

Cold, damp air is generally bad for your health. It will exacerbate existing illnesses, and can permanently damage the lungs of children and induce asthma.

Re:Insulation is a better option

[cheesybagel]

If you are worried about the insulation being biodegradable you can use cork. It can be quite expensive but since it is wood bark it is completely biodegradable plus the insulation is quite excellent.

Re:Insulation is a better option

[cheesybagel]

Good enough that cork is used in some spacecraft and space launcher thermal protection systems.

Re:Insulation is a better option

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not actually that bad; it's a bunch of 4" holes in the wall, which the drywall guy fixes with ease and efficiency. Same for both a drywall and a plaster and lath interior wall. Additionally, if you're resheathing an old house, there's no reason at all to not add better insulation.

Re: Insulation is a better option

[cheesybagel]

The problem with rockwool is possible asbestos like health issues.

Re: Insulation is a better option

[fubarrr]

Don't inhale Rockwool

Re:Insulation is a better option

[Anonymous Coward]

You can potentially use Cork https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cork_(material) if we don't consider scarcity.

Re:Insulation is a better option

[burtosis]

and get that triple glazing filled with unicorn farts first,.

TIL unicorns fart noble gasses.

Re:Insulation is a better option

[Anonymous Coward]

Honest installers will tell you triple-paned bullshit $1500-a-window is ridiculous compared to just putting brand new insulation and caulk in, along with smart window dressings (dense curtains to reject a lot of light in the summer). A geothermal system is in a whole other league of hard-to-justify. It generally only stands a chance in rural areas where the only other option is propane or heating oil.

Re:Insulation is a better option

[Anonymous Coward]

District heating is a damn good option if it's available at your location.

Re:Insulation is a better option

[green1]

That only works if you have no insulation at all in the walls to start. If you instead have decades old insulation that has a low R value and lots of gaps, you can't blow more insulation in that way and have to remove the drywall, or the exterior sheathing to replace it, or add insulation on the outside when residing.
Where I live that means that you can only really use this procedure on houses built 100 years ago as basically anything newer has something in the walls already, even if it's useless.

We're actually in the middle of adding insulation to our 1973 house as part of a major exterior renovation. The exterior sheathing is being removed, then the insulation is being replaced with spray foam before the sheathing is put back on and new siding is added. This should effectively double the R value we currently have, and improve the vapour seal as well. But it's not cheap, and only makes sense because we plan to be in this house for a very long time to come.

I have looked in to ground source heat pump systems several times, and in their current state the payback period on a retrofit is more than my expected lifespan. However on new builds they seem to make sense. I hope Google has some luck in changing this, but I'm not really holding my breath. (Especially with Google's product track record of quickly abandoning projects, and of not expanding then outside the USA)

Re: Insulation is a better option

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly - it's just as much about humidity control. Most people can handle temperature changes but damp air can be intolerable. This is the problem with heat pumps and why I can't use one in my climate. With this much humidity no heat pump or ground loop system can handle it. No there may be use cases for this, but for many high humidity is not acceptable.

Re:Insulation is a better option

[Ol Olsoc]

That's actually the advice (honest) installers here will give you: insulate walls, roof, floor, and get that triple glazing filled with unicorn farts first, before spending money on a geothermal system. It's more cost-effective. But depending on your climate, you're still likely to need heating and/or cooling. Like you said - it depends on the location. But you are spot on about the insulation. The previous owners had insulated the house well, and I added some more insulation to the attic. The trick is not getting it sealed too well. I also have oddball windows that are very deep and seem to offer really good insulation value.

Re:Insulation is a better option

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are worried about the insulation being biodegradable you can use cork. It can be quite expensive but since it is wood bark it is completely biodegradable plus the insulation is quite excellent.

Yeah, that's a great idea, and then have all the insects biodegrade your house.

Re: Insulation is a better option

[Ol Olsoc]

Don't inhale Rockwool

When I was a kid, me and me friends used to eat rock wool like cotton candy. And those of us who survived are doing just fine.

Re: Insulation is a better option

[Anonymous Coward]

They pulled a whole bunch of,fiberglass out of each of those holes in my house.

Re: Insulation is a better option

[fubarrr]

Nuclear district heating is a good option for as long as you live in Russia

Re: Insulation is a better option

[fubarrr]

>spray foam

Polyurethane burns well

Re: Insulation is a better option

[Anonymous Coward]

Most heat transfer to the environment occurs at the windows of a house. Double pane windows have an r-value of 2-3. Typical framed houses with traditional fiberglass insulation have r-values of 18. The attic even more, 36+, depending what zone you live in. The best option is to just spray in some cellulose in the attic, if itâ(TM)s not a useable attic, and you have poor insulation.

Typically drywall acts as a air barrier if the exterior is not air tight. If you have any draft coming from windows or doors another cheap option is to remove the moulding around the windows and spray in window and door polyurethane foam around the window frame, which is a totally DIY project. The foam doesnâ(TM)t expand as much and put pressure on the windows. After youâ(TM)re done just reapply the moulding. All you need is a hammer, some small carpentry nails, and a crowbar.

Re: Insulation is a better option

[Anonymous Coward]

Biomass is cheap in rural areas.

  And gasification fireboxes can reach 90% efficient.

Many people here in Western MA heat this way.

Re:Insulation is a better option

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the point of heating if it goes straight out a poorly insulated wall or roof?

Follow the passive house standard and you won't even need extra heating.

For many houses this means tearing the old one down and building an entirely new house, how green is that exactly compared to retrofitting an existing structure to be more efficient even if you can't get to the lofty "passive" standard.

Also building a passive-house is far less forgiving of design and construction errors, quite a few ended up being condemned due to unhealthy conditions that arose inside such tightly seal structures that came to be full of moisture and mold.

Re: Insulation is a better option

[Anonymous Coward]

which is why it cannot be left exposed. but in a closed up wall, no big deal.

I have a startup that does something similar:

[Anonymous Coward]

What we do is we create rectangular holes in your house, then we put glass in the holes, and then you can use the heat from the sun to heat up your house!

We have already been granted a patent for this, back in 2007, and it is called "Windows 9". We have also sued everyone that has infringed upon our patent, including Microsoft. Ever wonder why there wasn't a Windows version 9?

Now you know.

Re:I have a startup that does something similar:

[WallyL]

The reason for this number, is because if you have 2 vertical lines, and 2 horizontal lines, in the Window (TM), you will have 9 separate panels. Just imagine the UI possibilities with nine (9) Window (TM) panels! Each panel could have slightly different UIs to suit each and every customer use case, and all at the same time!

So it's a ground water heat pump...

[Anonymous Coward]

So it's your standard ground water heat-pump. Seems to be the actual technology is a way of installing the ground water loop that is cheaper, smaller footprint and easier.

Just to go over why the ground water heat-pump works so efficiently. It's sort of a reverse cycle air conditioner (air-air heat pump), except instead of pumping heat into hot outside air or extracting heat from cold outside air, it pumps it into water that is flowing through the ground. So the water is almost a constant cool but not to cool temperature like around 15 C. This makes the heat-pump much more efficient for heating and cooling.

Re: So it's a ground water heat pump...

[WindBourne]

Not quite. It is a close look, not open loop. Iow, they do not extract water from the ground to get the heat, just exchange heat within the pipe the way a normal air-sourced HP would do.

Re: So it's a ground water heat pump...

[JeremyR]

Open-loop systems also exist as an option for those with suitable ground water resources.

What they don't tell you in the article

[grungeman]

is that this only makes sense for very wll insulated housed. The efficiency of heat pump systems decreases with the output temperature. In old houses you need a high output temperature due to all the heat loss, which means that the efficiency is low. For well insulated houses a much lower output temperature is necessary, so not only is there less energy required for heating, it is also produced much more efficiently.

We have a ground heat pump installed in our house (which was built seven years ago). There are three holes, each 90m deep. The heat pump is of course driven by electricity, which then extracts about 3 to four times the heat energy from the ground. Basically you can think of it as an amplified electric heating. Installation cost is relatively high (especially compared to gas heating), but running costs are much lower.

And it would be a great system to store excess solar or wind energy, provided that large enough tanks for the heated water are installed.

Re:What they don't tell you in the article

[Anonymous Coward]

The heat pump is of course driven by electricity, which then extracts about 3 to four times the heat energy from the ground. Basically you can think of it as an amplified electric heating.

Wait a second. You use one unit of energy to get things started, and then you end up with 3 to 4 units of energy. So you could remove that initial power source (after getting the ball rolling, so to speak), and then the device could run perpetually under its own power, but it would then only generate 2 to 3 units of energy.

*makes the sign of the evil eye*

Re:What they don't tell you in the article

[BlackPignouf]

+1 But to be fair, it doesn't make sense to update *any* HVAC system before insulating the house. Plus, it's usually cheaper to insulate the roof, top-floor or windows than to install a new heat pump or pellet boiler.

Re: What they don't tell you in the article

[fubarrr]

+1

Re: What they don't tell you in the article

[WindBourne]

Not so. U can install a geothermal HP to a poorly insulated house with no problem, and it will have it just fine iff you design it right. Basically, it requires a much larger unit with more holes drilled. Iow, u can put the money into inexpensive insulation, OR into relatively expensive HVAC. So, u are better off having decent insulation, combined with a properly sized geothermal HP.

Re:What they don't tell you in the article

[hackertourist]

You can store excess heat in a water tank, but you need a lot of water. I remember seeing an experimental house built around a 50-ton water tank a few decades ago.

But with a geothermal system, you can store heat without needing a tank: basically you warm up the ground around the well during the summer, and draw heat from it during the winter.
This makes the geothermal installation more sustainable. Without warming up the ground, you'd eventually (in a few decades) end up with the entire area around your heat source too cold to extract energy from.

Re:What they don't tell you in the article

[Chas]

It's also an excellent argument for an indoor, heated pool...

And maybe even a hot tub.

Re:What they don't tell you in the article

[Mr D from 63]

It makes most sense for any home where a heat pump might already be an option, places where AC efficiency struggles with very high temps or a heat pump struggles when its very cold.

However, this statement from the summary is stupid;

Geothermal systems are better for the environment because they significantly cut down on carbon dioxide emissions... Buildings are responsible for 39% of carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S.,

Air conditioners and heat pumps don't emit CO2, nor do electric heat strips, nor is all that emission amount due to heating and cooling. Simply saying they are more efficient would have been sufficient.

Re: What they don't tell you in the article

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, of course you need a sterling engine to extract the energy because there's a very low delta-T. What you'd be extracting is the energy difference between the ground and the air, with your heat pump mostly pumping thermal mass, and gross inefficiencies.

Re:What they don't tell you in the article

[skids]

Mandatory wikipedia.

You can move more heat energy than the energy required to move it, for the same reason you can't get all the energy out of letting heat move.

Re:What they don't tell you in the article

[angel'o'sphere]

Air conditioners and heat pumps don't emit CO2, nor do electric heat strips,
But the power plants producing the electricity do.
So why are you nitpicking?

Re:What they don't tell you in the article

[Mr D from 63]

Not all the power plants. But you are right. These units would also use electricity from the same CO2 producing plants, a little bit less for most of the time, more when extreme temperatures are reached. But regardless, the summary said the CO2 comes from the buildings, mostly that would be from gas, wood, or oil burning.

Re:What they don't tell you in the article

[angel'o'sphere]

But regardless, the summary said the CO2 comes from the buildings, mostly that would be from gas, wood, or oil burning.
So an electricity driven heat pump will safe CO2. Or not? Probably I missed your point.

Re:What they don't tell you in the article

[Mr D from 63]

Yes, you probably did.

Used to call this a ground coupled heat pump

[bferrell]

The Google "secret sauce" in this seems to be a "special" drill for putting in the wells for the ground loops.

In the the videos I've seen of this, the drill looks to be about 18 inches in diameter. this seems to claim a smaller diameter drill.

The primary reason people tend to not use heat pumps is they are electric and electricity from the utility is expensive. very cheap renewables (wind/solar) is what is required for this to be feasible.

Re: Used to call this a ground coupled heat pump

[WindBourne]

Actually, the reason for not using heat pumps for heating was that air-sourced HP was cheap, but inefficient in most parts of the nation, while ground-sourced is expensive, but extremely efficient. However, an AC unit is nothing more than a one way air-sourced HP , so is very inefficient when pumping heat up a 30-40f gradient (72f to 102f). But if pumping it down from 72 F to 62f, it is dirt cheap. Likewise, come winter, pumping heat from 58F to 68F is again dirt cheap with even a basic heat pump.

Re:Used to call this a ground coupled heat pump

[Anonymous Coward]

In Germany it is beneficial to use heat pumps even for heat stored in the air in principle making your house a reverse fridge in winter. This is more expensive energy wise than geothermal installations (of which are also different types depending mostly on geology) and Germans still install it so either they cannot calculate and follow their herd instincts or they indeed have the eventual costs savings incentive even with higher electricity price than anywhere else in civilized world.

Re:Used to call this a ground coupled heat pump

[cheesybagel]

The problem is installation costs and hassle with heat pumps. Plus a lot of people in Germany live in cities. Good luck asking your apartment condominium for permission to drill a hole in the ground to install one in an already existing building. Compare that to a regular air conditioner where you only need to drill a hole in your wall.

Re:Used to call this a ground coupled heat pump

[blindseer]

Why does it have to be wind and solar to make heat pumps feasible? Why won't other energy sources do?

Also, wind and solar have an area problem, well laid out by the late Dr. MacKay.
https://www.ted.com/talks/davi...

The video is nearly 20 minutes but worth every minute. I'll highlight what I mean on the "area problem". Energy consumption and production can be compared by density, as in power over area. Developed nations like much of Europe consume energy at a rate of about 1 watt per square meter. Compare this with wind, solar, hydro, and bio-fuels which produce 0.5 to 20 watts per square meter. This means nation sized areas needed to meet nation sized needs, from far larger than the nation has to a still significant portion like 5%.

Nuclear power on the other hand has an energy density of 1000 watts per square meter, a gigawatt plant will easily fit in a square kilometer with a nice grass verge about it for safety and security. Granted this is not total area used, since mining was not accounted for but it still gives a ball park to deal with and mining was not accounted for to get the materials for the windmills and solar collectors. Wind and solar take roughly ten times the material for the same power produced compared to nuclear.

Land is a cost for energy production. Claiming that wind and solar can compete on cost with nuclear in the long term is suspect if only because of the land area required. I say long term because as expensive nuclear power is today, due to the complexities of building them, such costs will go down. If competing for large areas of land for energy then land prices will go up. I don't care if we are talking about Manhattan or Death Valley, land gets cheaper as demand goes down.

Re:Used to call this a ground coupled heat pump

[bferrell]

nuclear has a long term waste problem... We have NO clue about solutions for that (keep out signs that will be understandable for millennia?)

Re:Used to call this a ground coupled heat pump

[blindseer]

(keep out signs that will be understandable for millennia?)

I remember reading an article long ago in some science magazine about a bunch of linguists getting together to address the very issue you raised. I remembered it because it seemed so fascinating that people could conceive some kind of language that could be understood for thousands of years. What would this look like? Some sort of Egyptian hieroglyphics? Would they create a kind of Rosetta Stone with all known major languages of the time to aid in translation?

Then I found out later it was all a bunch of scaremongering bullshit.

Of the mass in spent nuclear fuel a very large portion is stable, as in not radioactive. I've read conflicting accounts on how much this is but it's somewhere between 2/3rds and 9/10ths. Then there are the actinides, formed when a heavy element like U-238 grabs a neutron but does not fission. It will form a relatively stable element with a very long half life. There are the long lived products, they have half lives even longer than the actinides, on the order of millions of years. Then there are the medium lived products, these have half lives of less than 100 years. There are no short lived products in spent nuclear fuel because they decay to something stable or medium lived before they can be removed from the reactor.

The longer the half life the less radioactive it is, just like the saying of "the candle that burns twice as bright burns half as long". With so much of the mass being inert, or half lives so long it may as well be, the really dangerous stuff is pretty small and all of this stuff is effectively gone in about 300 years. After that the spent fuel is as inert as the dirt the fuel was mined from. We know how to store stuff for 300 years without having to label them with hieroglyphics.

If we allow ourselves to reprocess this then we can separate out the inert products, which can be disposed of like any inert material. It's still dangerous, like lead and mercury, but not radioactive. Most of the stuff that is radioactive is either fuel, like plutonium, or an industrial feedstock, like cesium. The teeny tiny bit that is left over can be sealed in glass and buried for 300 years just like we would if we didn't reprocess the spent fuel, only now it is a small fraction of the mass we started with.

That's a much longer post than I originally intended but I think it is important to make myself clear. There is no long term waste problem. Those that tell you there is are lying to you. I could be charitable and call them ignorant but I won't. This is not a mystery to anyone that wishes to understand the issue. There just seems to be a lot of people out there that would rather induce fear than inform.

Re:Used to call this a ground coupled heat pump

[bferrell]

ummm... Plutonium in VERY small quantities IS highly toxic, radioactive and has an incredible half life. There is a LOT of it in spent reactor fuel and it's very difficult to reprocess.

There is NO FUD when it comes to spent reactor fuel. It's nasty like your ex-brother-in-law-who-hates-you.

The low level stuff from medical waste et al.. Yeah, not so much. But there is a reason even people who work witht he stuff are afraid of it. Only the execs aren't.

Re:Used to call this a ground coupled heat pump

[blindseer]

ummm... Plutonium in VERY small quantities IS highly toxic, radioactive and has an incredible half life. There is a LOT of it in spent reactor fuel and it's very difficult to reprocess.

Assuming that's true, then don't eat it. Is it that hard?

It's not like this stuff is spilling all over the place. it's a solid at room temperatures. Is very dense so it's not like it blows away in the wind, if someone were stupid enough to spill some in the open. Is not soluble in water. Generally it stays where you put it.

And this part...

radioactive and has an incredible half life

Either it is highly radioactive or it has an incredibly long half life, both cannot be true. Truth is that it has an incredibly long half life, which adds further to it's stability. It's not going to decay into radon any time soon and float away.

Sure, this is nasty stuff, what is it not is a hazard for millennia.

Re:Used to call this a ground coupled heat pump

[bferrell]

Ok, the radiation it puts off for an incredible amount of time is extraordinarily toxic. does that make you happy?

Re:Used to call this a ground coupled heat pump

[blindseer]

It is not extraordinarily toxic. It's toxic, like any heavy metal, but not extraordinarily so.

http://www.radioactivity.eu.co...

Because of its lack of mobility, medical data do not confirm the reputation of plutonium as the most deadly substance known to man. It is not as immediately harmful as many chemicals. The danger resulting from its alpha radiation does not become effective unless plutonium is present in the human body after inhalation or ingestion.

To handle it one should wear gloves, goggles, and face mask. Not that different than handling many household cleaning solvents.

Re:Used to call this a ground coupled heat pump

[bferrell]

You do that. I won't underwrite your insurance policy

Japanese $5-8k VRF systems beat geothermal heat pu

[fubarrr]

Japanese $5-8k VRF systems beat geothermal heat pumps hands down =>

VRF heat pump

$5k 1:2.5 pump ratio throught the year

Energy From Your Lawn!

[Anonymous Coward]

All that energy is totally coming from your lawn! Amazing!

Now get off my lawn...

Re:Energy From Your Lawn!

[Anonymous Coward]

Only, it won't be your lawn once the google system is installed. They'll claim ownership in return for letting you use their IP.
Then you will have to lease access to YOUR Lawn back from Alphabet.

Re: Energy From Your Lawn!

[ClickOnThis]

There'll be a free option if you let Google use your lawn to display ads. It'll be called ... [sunglasses] ... Google Grass.

Re:Energy From Your Lawn!

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Now get off my lawn...

Are you sure? I'm generating free heat on your lawn.

you had me at deep holes

[Anonymous Coward]

"allowing for only one or two deep holes a few inches wide"

Re: you had me at deep holes

[fubarrr]

Must be those glassholes everybody are talking about

Somehow I think...

[h33t l4x0r]

Heating our homes won't be a big problem for much longer.

Re:Somehow I think...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, be careful when using geothermal. Al Gore says it is several millions of degrees down there..https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGV7Dr2iDvU

A bit steep IMO

[nospam007]

In Europe such systems are much more common and prices much lower than the ones proposed here.
I included a link (in German) where such systems cost between 10 and 12000€ for a system getting the heat out of the air, out of the soil or out from the ground water.
The latter depending on local regulations, since it's impossible for everyone in a street to cool down the ground water, so they have to be a bit more apart, usually around 300 Meters.

http://www.erdwaermepumpe.de/k...

Re: A bit steep IMO

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed, also in Belgium, Netherlands, ... this is not very uncommon. As mentioned above, first rule is to insulate and then get the few kW's of heating energy e.g. from the soil.

No idea why this is innovative or mentioned hete on slashdot...

Re:A bit steep IMO

[bill_mcgonigle]

Your prices are for a pump without a new heat source - air, existing well, existing ground water.

The Dandelion project is for installing a new heat source. The old method is to drill a new well (works OK) or to remove an entire lawn below the frost line (ideally, during new construction before the lawn is put in) and then lay down about 3000' (typical home) of coiled PEX to circulate the heat-transfer/antifreeze solution through.

I'm not sure if this is the same as an existing system that uses copper "branches" from a main "trunk" forced into the ground like an upside-down tree. Not enough details in TFA.

Dirt work isn't all that expensive, though. Removing and replacing a lawn really isn't more than an $8000 project in most places, so Dandelion will have to watch its prices. Just because Tesla Powerwalls are expensive doesn't mean that they aren't cheaper than competitive options - most people aren't willing to pay extra for "new-hotness" into the tens of thousands of dollars. In fact, Google kills so many of its "play" projects that I would need to see a discount to invest in one of their systems.

Re:A bit steep IMO

[Anonymous Coward]

It's expensive for the US too. We put a "geothermal" aka ground sourced heat pump in our previous house, 10-ish years ago and it came in ~15k for the device itself as well as 3x 150' ground loops. I believe the cost breakdown we paid was 12k for the pump and 1k per bore. Now I'm sure the bore cost varies based on location and underlying rock and such. Being in the midwest with glaciation events may be helpful for reducing that bore cost substantially.

Re:A bit steep IMO

[CanadianMacFan]

I don't know where they get $60k for the current cost which is shown in the summary. I've looked into it for my current house in the suburbs. My yard isn't big enough to lay the loops out below the frost line so I'd have to drill holes and I was only looking at $30k to $40k. Maybe they looking at the case at having someone come out of the city a fair distance.

I'd really like to get rid of natural gas. Not just for the environmental reasons. They charge $20 a month just to be a customer. It doesn't matter if I don't use any gas at all in the month I still pay the charge. Add tax and it's over $250 a year just for the privelidge of getting natural gas from them. It doesn't matter if I switch providers they will still deliver it and I'll still have to pay that charge.

Re:A bit steep IMO

[WindBourne]

well first off, Germany is a different area than America is.
Your temps are fairly mild. I grew up on ill/wisc border where we saw temps of -40C up to 40C (and that did not include the humidity; uggh).
So, to HVAC an OLDER home that has poor insulation, you either spend 50-100K re-doing the insulation, OR you spend maybe 10K on windows/insulation, and then switch to decent amount of geo-thermal units. Some of these places will take 10-15 kw of HVAC. Even by your prices, that will be EXPENSIVE. Heck, according to your link that is about 20K euros JUST FOR THE WELLS, not including the rest of the equipment.
Sad to say, our equipment currently is not competitive, but I think that it is about to change in the same way that solar did. That is what I am counting on with dandilion.

Re: A bit steep IMO

[skids]

Here in the U.S., heat pumps, geotexchange systems like this, and solar hot water, has always been a niche market handled by a bunch of very small corporations which cannot ever seem to bring their prices down as there is no economy of scale. The news is in the price... though it's probably still too high to get the purely financial-minded to actuate.

Re:A bit steep IMO

[skids]

Well, you also pay distribution charges for the electricity network, just... you need electricity for other stuff anyway so yeah, not having multiple networks terminating at your house would be less expensive. Of course, then you have to worry about the heat going out when there's a power outage.

Re:A bit steep IMO

[angel'o'sphere]

Agreed, the quoted prices in the summary looked insane expensive.

Re:A bit steep IMO

[CanadianMacFan]

There's the customer charge of $20 a month, the distribution charge from the company based on your consumption, and then the charge for the natural gas consumed which I can get from another supplier. But if I turn off the furnace and hot water heater and make sure that the pilot lights (if they have one) stay off I still pay $20 that month. Just for the privilege of being a customer. For my electricity that's bundled in with the distribution charge.

Say a sinkhole opens up near my home and it takes a just over a month to fix but during that time my electricity and natural gas are shut off. My electricity bill will be $0 but my natural gas bill will still be $20 plus tax.

Get off my trailer parking ground

[Anonymous Coward]

I work in Bay Area tech and earn 100k, so I get to sleep in my own trailer!

No fucking lawn, and you can get off it!

Solar powered aircon

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty please Google... solar powered aircon, using an amonia absorption refrigerator principle.... i.e. a heat driven air cooling, driven by the differential in heat between hot and cold side of house. Since that would be more powerful on sunnier days it would be nice to save the shit load of electricity aircon uses.

Re:Solar powered aircon

[skids]

I've often wondered how much it would add to the cost of an AC unit to rework the motor/pump to run directly off a solar panel with minimal intervening power conversion... the motor being able to handle maximum power point tracking and the pump being able to handle high variations in input power.

You'd have additional grid-wired ACs, but this one would just opportunistically run and shave load off those.

With the low cost of solar panels these days and eliding the cost of whole 120/240VAC grid tie, it might actually work out cost-wise.

Re:Solar powered aircon

[Anonymous Coward]

Most modern AC units have inverter drives to improve efficiency - incoming AC is rectified to DC then converted back to variable-frequency AC according to the amount of load required by the compressor to maintain a consistent temperature.

I doubt it'd be much of a problem to modify a system to take a direct DC feed from PV panels.

Really, google fracking (beta) is ok now?

[MrMr]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

Many Eastern Locations...

[Anonymous Coward]

Near the Great Lakes there are a lot of salt deposits, which means natural gas. We can't install geothermal in our area because drilling that deep releases enough methane to be a hazard. Not enough gas to use or exploit commercially, just enough to be dangerous.

Re:Many Eastern Locations...

[Chas]

Actually you can. You just can't go deep with a well. And may benefit more from horizontal loop placement which is a bit more labor intensive since you have to dig up the property a lot more.

At least someone is doing this

[portwojc]

Trying to come up with a cheaper way of doing the ground loop system is an excellent idea. Most of the cost is in drilling from what I was told by an installer who does those. This is something Elon Musk should have focused on instead of the Boring company. I have thought that ever since reading about the Boring company that they should have focused on ground loops. More chance for a return on investment instead that could then lead to those bigger dreams.

Next step solve the insulation problem. Figure out how to make aerogel cheaper or something makes a leap in other more easily made stuff and in a way that can be deployed easily in existing homes.

Re: Wait a second.

[Anonymous Coward]

STFU

So what's Google getting out of it? Oh. DATA!

[Chas]

So they're basically putting their monitoring hardware and apps into your house, and mining the data for all they're worth.
Tie it into Google Assistant and you basically have volunteered to bug your own home to the point where they know every last little detail of your private life.

Yeah. No thanks. I'd rather go with a more traditional provider where *I* can control what sort of data leaves my premises. If any.

consequences

[Lehk228]

so, how many of these will be installed before we discover the consequences of greatly increasing seasonal temperature changes in and near bedrock ?

Re:consequences

[WindBourne]

none. This is heat that is in the ground and works its way upwards. By storing heat in the summer, and then pulling it back out in the winter, it MIGHT see a slight lowering of the ground temp over a 50 year period, though that is doubtful. In addition, it would have to be with homes stacked one on top of the other.

Re:consequences

[Lehk228]

it's not about more or less heat in the ground, it's about the speed of the seasonal changes, in particular in areas with a large number of installations that are not evenly distributed. maybe the difference is insignificant, maybe it is not insignificant, the question is, has it been evaluated at all.

Re:Japanese $5-8k VRF systems beat geothermal heat

[Anonymous Coward]

Except during winter at -25C when they stop working.

Confusing and uninformative article

[lfp98]

OK, so they save some money by using thinner boreholes, but how? The width of the boreholes is determined by the need to insert a loop of 2 pipes with big enough diameter to handle the coolant. If you decrease the pipe size, the resistance increases dramatically and pretty soon you're so much energy to pump it you're not saving anything. Maybe they are running the refrigerant directly into the loops, instead of water/methanol as is typical, but that's just a guess. In any case, you're not going to save $35,000 on the wells. We put in geothermal 2 years ago, I researched it pretty thoroughly and I've never heard of a system costing $60,000, so that's just a wild exaggeration. The estimates for our house ranged $31,000-36,000 and it's pretty rare for a system to top $45,000. I've never heard of anyone with 1000-ft deep wells, either. We have two 360-ft wells (although the house is small ~1500 sf). In the end, I acted as my own contractor. I paid the driller $14,000 to put in the loops, bought a heat pump on ebay, and paid a plumber to link it to the existing cast iron radiators, so no messing with the ductwork. Total cost was ~$21,000, or ~$15,000 after the (now expired) tax credit. But my point is, the loops aren't the only reason these systems are expensive. The fancy heat pumps they typically use are pretty pricey, especially after a nice markup by the HVAC contractor. If alterations to the ductwork are necessary, that's a lot of expensive labor. If Dandelion can do it cheaper, great, but I remain skeptical of how much they can save just by making the wells thinner.

Re:Confusing and uninformative article

[WindBourne]

First off, I live in Colorado.
And Like you, I have been dealing with geothermal for a LONG time.
Why? Because it is very efficient and cheap to run. However, I have heard of these costing up to $50,000 in the Denver Basin. Namely in the city here in small yards/large house. And yes, we have California style building here.
Dandilions approach is not the small size, but the way that they drill it. They spent a lot of time trying to come up with a cheap way to drill. It appears that they combined drilling with impact. IOW, they are focused on the drilling.
Now, geo-thermal HVAC is all about moving heat between the ground to the house. Generally, dirt is an insulator. Some of it, such as clay, conducts heat nicely. As such, most companies have different strategies on how to do this. Some will dig trenches 3-4 meters down and then lay horizontal piping. Ok if you have a large yard. Others will drop a couple of pipes into ground water and then open loop it from there (horrible idea; raises water temp and encourages growth). Then the closed loop wells involve 2 different approachs; dig multiple wells(2-10 of these) down to say 300' OR dig just 2 wells DEEP;
Starting new wells is actually expensive. As such, dandi has apparently chosen to limit the wells to 2 of them and simply dig deeper/faster.

You mention about the heat pumps, and basically imply that these are bad. The answer it that these are needed to actually shift heat. For example, here in the west, pulling 55F out of the ground does not heat a house up to 68/72F. Far too many of the cheap ones go out. So, you need DECENT ones. Dandilion will apparently use water furnace 5 series, which several of them are well known for good service. Neither cheap,nor expensive. But once geo-thermal really starts moving foward, bet on it that these HPs will drop in price. BUT, the real issue is that the local contractors really stick it to the retrofits. HORRIBLE prices. I mean horrible. They talk 30-50K in this region. That is just plain crazy. I will say that adding geothermal while constructing a new home is the right way to go, but, few builders do it. Oddly, it can be done for about 15K, even down to 10K, depending on the situation.

Now,if these dandi can do it at 20-25K ALWAYS, then they are doing great and will make major changes to America. COmbined with a small solar set-up, and some decent insulation on a home, this is IDEAL.

Killing the earth

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, I'm gonna suck the cool and warm out of the earth to benefit myself?

What about the worms and bugs? They'll freeze and cook.
That'll start a chain reaction that'll kill birds, bugs, bees, fauna and floras.

Better option is to insulate and read Bill Gate's eugenics.

Save the planet.

Re:Killing the earth

[skids]

We're talking about a lawn here, not a forest. Much work has already gone into, and continues to go into, killing the ecosystem off in these areas.

1000 feet wells not required

[darthsilun]

... wide drills that dig wells more than 1,000 feet underground.

Since when? I've read about ground loops buried horizontally about two meters below the surface that are very effective. Temp year round – even in cold climates – is a constant 10C (50F).

And stop calling it geothermal.

Re:1000 feet wells not required

[skids]

And stop calling it geothermal.

If you're going to complain, you might want to mention the correct term is "geoexchange".

Re:1000 feet wells not required

[Anonymous Coward]

... wide drills that dig wells more than 1,000 feet underground.

Since when? I've read about ground loops buried horizontally about two meters below the surface that are very effective. Temp year round – even in cold climates – is a constant 10C (50F).

And stop calling it geothermal.

That's the horizontal method which only works on a big yard without trees and is very expensive if you already have a lot of landscaping to tear out so it only makes sense for new lots. This is the vertical method that's used in more congested spaces, they were doing it for a building retrofit on my college campus around the time I was graduating and in an existing area not much more than 100 sq ft.

Remember this is Google

[Anonymous Coward]

Google has a penchant for embracing, developing, then dropping (see Titan Aerospace). Combine this with a new way to do something with an expensive critical house system, then I'll say no thanks. I'm willing to bet this new geothermal install technique will have issues either in how it's installed or the materials they use leading to very expensive repairs or premature replacement years down the road. By then Google will have long ago dropped this and whoever took it over is long bankrupt.

Disclaimer: I had kitec plumbing in my home and had to spend $25k to get rid of it. So anything new in residential building construction gets the stink eye from me.

How deep do my property rights go?

[mark_reh]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Price is the same, just marketing fluff

[Solandri]

Read carefully:

The system will cost between $20,000 and $25,000, compared to conventional systems priced as high as $60,000.

Note they're comparing to conventional systems "priced as high as $60,000." In other words it's a useless marketing comparison designed to trick you into thinking the alternative is expensive by comparing an average price to the highest price you'll ever see.

The $20k-$25k is for a typical U.S. home which is nearly 2700 square feet (250 m^2). Average home size in Germany is about 160 square meters (~1700 square feet).

So to heat/cool a German-sized home would require about 65% the size system, which translates into $13k-$16k. Which at the current exchange rate is about 11.5k-14k Euros. Nearly identical to the prices you've quoted. The heat pump in your link for earth systems is cheaper than for air or water. Typically, the earth systems are most expensive because of the additional digging which is needed to bury the water loops. Air systems simply vent to the air (a backwards air conditioner), while in water systems you just drop the loops into the bottom of a pond or lake. I suspect the prices you're quoting don't include installation, which is a huge part of the cost.

Re:Price is the same, just marketing fluff

[angel'o'sphere]

Neither is the average home size in Germany 160sqm nor is the average home size in the US 250sqm.

No idea where you get such absurd numbers from.

Heat loss

[Anonymous Coward]

Most heat transfer to the environment occurs at the windows of a house. Double pane windows have an r-value of 2-3. Typical framed houses with traditional fiberglass insulation have r-values of 18. The attic even more, 36+, depending what zone you live in. The best option is to just spray in some cellulose in the attic, if itâ(TM)s not a useable attic, and you have poor insulation.

Typically drywall acts as an air barrier if the exterior is not air tight. If you have any draft coming from windows or doors another cheap option is to remove the moulding around the windows and spray in window and door polyurethane foam around the window frame, which is a totally DIY project. The foam doesnâ(TM)t expand as much and put pressure on the window frame. After youâ(TM)re done just reapply the moulding. All you need is a hammer, some small carpentry nails, and a crowbar.

Nice idea, but won't work

[p51d007]

In my neck of the woods. The last ice age, pretty much stopped in our neck of the woods. You should see the problem with building anything around here. Drill a few feet down and you hit nothing but rock. About the only black dirt you have around here is near rivers. Otherwise, it's mostly red dirt/rock.

We have had this for decades in Scandinavia...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is how we get the heating in my house (combined with a deeper borehole) Problem is that if to many people do it you lower the temperature in the ground and the frost goes deeper. There are rules on how close installations can be so make sure you get it installed before your neighbour! :-)

Where is the innovation??? It's all already done

[Anonymous Coward]

Strange, but where i live
1. Drilling the vertical wells for heat pumps pipes (like 50-70m deep, no need to go deeper) does cost like $7-8K and every local drilling company will do that
2. The wells are few inches wide (just as wide as the drill)
3. You have also an option to bury the pipes horizontally just 1m underground, without drilling at all (but then you have to dig a lot on the property)
4. For like $15K you get the full heating system (I mean, the heat pump + all the pipes buried underground + controls, not including the home appliances and pipes in walls/floors - but this costs the same no matter what heating tech you use).
So where exactly is the innovation in this google stuff?

Total non starter, fails the pencil test

[ShooterNeo]

I don't know why google's money men backed this venture, it's a complete non starter. Here's the reason : for several years now, you've been able to purchase 30+ SEER rating (30 EER) mini splits anytime you want, for between $1300-$1800 per packaged system. With installation that's $2500 to $3k. So with installation, you would need 3-4 for a normal sized house, or about $10k cost.

Look here : for closed loop geothermals, 30 EER is equal or better performance to every geothermal system you can buy : https://www.energystar.gov/ind...

Unlike geothermal, you can DIY your mini split installs. I did, and it cost me $5k to install three 33 SEER Fujitsus. They heat and cool the whole place (1700 square feet). You just drill a hole through the wall and mount brackets on either side and it's just a prepackaged system ready to go. You need 2 sizes of ordinary hand wrench for the refrigerant connections, a few drops of some special goop to put into the connections to make sure it won't leak, and a vacuum pump you can borrow for free from autozone. Also used a $100 micron gauge to make sure I was pulling a hard enough vacuum that I sold back on ebay afterwards.

Re:Total non starter, fails the pencil test

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you have a good point of view there. But isn't there a problem with those mini-splits at zero degrees (F)? Maybe they have improved, but when I looked five years back they quit working at very cold temps. Maybe you want backup heat (pellet stove/wood stove?) anyway, instead of relying on electricity. We've lost power twice in the last three years in the winter, fortunately came back after 1-2 days, about when I was looking at draining the plumbing.

We installed a WaterFurnace geothermal system in 1999. It was a smaller unit, maybe 45000BTU) Cost was only about $10K back then, before they got more popular with the environmental crowd. But that was a "pump-n-dump" system, using my well water and dumping it out (20 acre property - surprisingly it soaks back into the ground within 30' of drain endpoint). We do like the AC aspect of it,

I would sort of like to switch over to a ground loop. That would be about 1200' of piping buried 4-5' deep, Loop would go out and back in the same trench, so 600' of backhoe work. I was quoted $5000 for that. Including the special piping. However, the unit is now 17 years old, warranty ended after 5. They tell me that it has two sub-units (condenser? exchanger?) that could fail anytime, and repair parts aren't available. They suggest a new unit, about $15000 + the $5000 trenching, $20k total. But that would be eligible for the 30% tax credit, so net price $14K.

On the other hand, solar panels are very cheap now. Possibly I could do a DIY system of 20,000 KWH /year for the same $20k less 30% tax credit. That would pretty much wipe out my electric bill.

Re:Where is the innovation??? It's all already don

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, the actual drilling cost is like $30 per meter of the hole. So assuming you need 2 holes 70m each it's $4200

sounds like i'll need to install...

[Anonymous Coward]

...a get on/off my lawn switch.