I think part of the problem with public awareness is that geothermal heat pumps are not an easy thing to understand - at least, it doesn't seem intuitive. How is the constant 55 degrees in the ground going to heat my house to 70 degrees? You could say it works like an air conditioner or refrigerator using coolant to draw heat, but my guess is that most people have no idea how the A/C or fridge works either. Maybe it would help the public if the geothermal industry came up with a good analogy to explain in an easy nutshell how a geothermal heat pump works.

My heat pump is a nanotechnology one. It is even more difficult to understand than a classical mechanical pump. However I do not despair of it being adopted. For one thing it is cheap and another it is free.
Visit my website Elisa and try to imagine how it works
http://www.freewebs.com/thtaylor
Regards T.H.Taylor

I believe the low temperature geothermal has tremendous potential as renewable energy source. I see two main obstacles stopping its wide acceptance, first is the upfront cost of installing the pipes in the ground, the second is the fact that the compressor necessary for its operation consumes mainly electrical energy. A good heat pump will produce four units of heat per one unit of electrical energy input, and in terms of cost four units of output per three units of input, as electricity in average costs three times more than natural gas.

I do not think it matters that public does not understand how heat pump works, not everybody using TV understands how it works either. If high efficiency heat pumps are manufactured that really save money, public will use them.

Our school district (Indian River Central) is located twenty miles from Canada and two of our schools have been totally using geothermal heat pumps for over four years. We are currently under construction of adding more classrooms and along with them, more geothermal heat pumps. This has worked so well that the Army's Fort Drum and some of the near by schools has started using geothermal heat pump in some of their buildings.
Indian River is currently looking at a wind/solar study to compliment the geothermal.

In the interest of clarity it should be recognized that geothermal is an efficiency technology and not a renewable technology and in fact without the addition of a renewable system to provide power is yet another demand on our electrical infrastructure.

Solar heating ratios are way over 10 to 1 and can reach to 100 to one at a per watt electiical input basis. Infinite ratios with PV powered circulation pumps. Even with storage for off sun times added to the costs, it is still cheaper to operate and install. This can easily be accomplished without costly heat pumps.

Geo-thermal is an electirc utility money maker. It is only most practical in certain limited situations and where cooling is the main offset. This may change more as absorbtion cooling is introduced for small scale installations. Germany and China have made interesting mods here.

Personal experience has left me with the impression that, in general, the subject of geothermal technology's application to environmental conditioning is one that is poorly represented as a whole. There appears to be little if any coordinated effort to establish a focused, marketable message by which to gain consumer mindshare and therefore, significant market momentum. This is a shame considering that these highly-efficient and ecologically-sound technologies are already proven through use in various geographies over a period of many decades.

The costs to PROPERLY implement Geothermal for environmental conditioning are substantially higher than those of traditional alternatives for a variety of reasons. Often not given due consideration are the indirect costs associated with structural preparation, such as to 'tighten the envelope' of existing structures. While not unique to Geo-conditioning, air penetration of the structural envelope must be minimized to produce optimal conditioning results. This could include remediation or replacement of all doors and windows, improving overall insulation, etc.

There are also up-front engineering and design requirements to ensure proper sizing of the Geo System. Improper sizing can reduce overall operating economies as well as the life of the system.

While initial costs are relatively high as compared to traditional combustion-based alternatives, the benefits can prove significant, particularly over the long term.

Given that Geo is a 'no flame' technology, it reduces or precludes risks associated with Carbon Monoxide and accidental fires associated with ignition of volatile vapors

Geo, unlike its traditional counterparts, does not consume fossil fuel. While it DOES consume electricity to operate the 'pump' [a compressor and related circuitry], such electricity can be derived from RENEWABLE sources, including wind and solar. As our renewable infrastructure grows, so too will our opportunities to reduce the rate at which we deplete finite fossil resources. As renewable capacity grows, an additional benefit of Geo will be experienced via economic factors that lend to a general stabilization of electricity prices as opposed to the plight of users of traditional systems that remain subject to the price volatility of fossil fuels - commodities, the prices of which generally trend upwards.

When viewed independent of other related considerations, properly engineered and applied geothermal technology is efficient in that it yields the benefit of heating and cooling environments for an OVERALL cost that is substantially lower than traditional fossil fuel-based alternatives. Such systems, properly engineered and applied, cost distinctly less to operate and maintain over their useful lifetimes than do their traditional counterparts.

There are many aspects of Geothermal conditioning that are in need of 'official' specification and/or clarification so as to affect any reasonable expectation of entering consumers' decision making processes. Notable among them is the confusion surrounding the concept of 'efficiency' and the use of this term to compare and evaluate alternative heating and cooling systems.

The 'efficiency' of traditional fossil-based systems is measured in terms of a percentage. For example, a '90% efficient' gas furnace may be understood to yield 9 units of 'heat' for each 10 units of fuel consumed. In this case, 1 of every 10 units of fuel is forfeit - attributable to 'elements of inefficiency' within the particular furnace system. In monetary terms, the designated efficiency rating of a furnace (expressed as a percentage) can be multiplied by associated fuel costs to provide a monetary estimate that approximates the cost-effectiveness of that furnace technology. Even the most efficient of combustion technologies have elements of waste associated with their operation; therefore, efficiency designations of such furnace technologies are seen to be lower than 100%.

In stark contrast to traditional combustion-based systems, Geothermal consumes NO FOSSIL FUEL. Relative to 'heating fuel' there is therefore NO COST over the life of the system's operation. Electricity IS required to operate the system; however, electricity IS NOT expended to fuel the source of heating such as occurs in the resistance heating elements common to electric stoves, ovens and clothes dryers. Prices of electricity and fossil fuels must be known to serve as a basis for accurate comparison between systems; however, a 'rule of thumb' that I have seen consistently applied to Ground Source Geothermal (GSG) technology proposes that for each unit of cost expended in a traditional natural gas system to yield a percentage of one unit of heat, a GSM system will instead yield between 4 and 5 units of heat. Expressed in terms that are roughly equivalent to operational efficiencies then, traditional fossil fuel combustion systems operate at less than 100% whereas GSG systems typically operate at equal to or greater than 400%.

Properly designed and installed GSG systems are noted to be highly reliable, have long useful lifetimes, require little maintenance, operate relatively quietly and deliver consistent and satisfying warmth for their owners. The same can be said of GSG for cooling during warmer months.

Fiscal planning that employs reasonable pricing assumptions can provide an estimate as to when such a system will have paid for itself relative to the use of traditional alternatives. For those who wish to consider the prospects of using this technology, I suggest that you first locate successful implementations that most closely approximate your own structure. Ask for recommendations to gain insights that may influence the prospects of success for your project. As would prove wise for any such endeavor, seek to model successes and be certain to heed failures. The path of required learning can thereby be shortened, and the project rendered far less painful.

I wish you the best of luck - from one who admittedly holds an appreciation for the prospects of this technology.

Ground Source Heat Pumps are a renewable technology. Horizontal closed loop systems are 100% solar thermal. Solar penetration of the earth's surface in mid latitudes is about 25 feet. Surface water sources are also 100% solar thermal. Vertical bores are more earth core heat. In New York where I live the load is much more heat. Wind power is available from the grid. GSHPs retrofitted to buildings with existing central air lower the summer load and raise the winter load substantially when it is more available. They, along with air source heat pumps (100% solar thermal) are good options for retrofits, particularly in dense urban areas and on buildings where solar isn't possible. My system draws via open loop on my existing water well and we dump in to a very large dry well. Heat pump numbers are very commercial and the systems are very reliable. The sizing and design people are early in the learning curve. The public does confuse the different types of geothermal. The HVAC industry needs to educate its people. They will be a major technology.
(