Slashdot Mirror


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.

32 of 168 comments (clear)

  1. No by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    1. Re: No by geekmux · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re: No by Z00L00K · · Score: 2

      And keep your lawn deep-frozen all year!

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    3. Re: No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re: No by RicktheBrick · · Score: 2

      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.

    5. Re: No by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    6. Re: No by guruevi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    7. Re: No by blindseer · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    8. Re: No by cayenne8 · · Score: 2
      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.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    9. Re: No by barc0001 · · Score: 2

      > 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

    10. Re: No by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  2. Ground source heat pumps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Ground source heat pumps? by cheesybagel · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:Ground source heat pumps? by Pax681 · · Score: 3, Informative

      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!

    3. Re:Ground source heat pumps? by Pax681 · · Score: 2

      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....

    4. Re:Ground source heat pumps? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    5. Re:Ground source heat pumps? by anegg · · Score: 4, Informative

      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).

  3. Insulation is a better option by geoff_syndicate · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Insulation is a better option by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    2. Re:Insulation is a better option by thegarbz · · Score: 2

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

    3. Re:Insulation is a better option by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    4. Re: Insulation is a better option by WindBourne · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    5. Re:Insulation is a better option by green1 · · Score: 2

      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)

  4. I have a startup that does something similar: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  5. What they don't tell you in the article by grungeman · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --

    Signature deleted by lameness filter.
    1. Re:What they don't tell you in the article by BlackPignouf · · Score: 2

      +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.

  6. Used to call this a ground coupled heat pump by bferrell · · Score: 2

    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.

    1. Re: Used to call this a ground coupled heat pump by WindBourne · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  7. A bit steep IMO by nospam007 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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...

    1. Re:A bit steep IMO by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  8. Re: Energy From Your Lawn! by ClickOnThis · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  9. Confusing and uninformative article by lfp98 · · Score: 2

    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.