Perhaps there could be a problem, there's no way of knowing because he doesn't have monitoring. Troubleshooting this would be like figuring out what's wrong with a PV system if someone's electric bill didn't drop without having PV monitoring.
The data suggests the opposite of the best applications, GSHPs are most economical in commercial and district HVAC applications and in extreme climates where the runs times are the most extreme.
Agreed, that article is referenced in the second link of the article
Brian, perhaps. But eliminating the ITC (see the UK as an example, the FIT was eliminated and the price suddenly dropped to ~$2.15/watt from $3.20+) will cause installed prices to drop, which will increase adoption at a faster rate.
Great analysis. You hit the nail on the head. The idea that 3rd party financing is the best alternative for everyone is frankly bullsh%^. Cash sales will also be more and more attractive as installed costs drop, rates increase, and risk declines. http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/guest-post-betting-on-the-decline-of-residential-solar-pv-financing
Thanks for the comment. I agree, it's not true in the absolute sense just for the mass market customer, for the average homeowner with a grid tied solar PV project, it's not directly displacing oil, but may be displaying nuclear, coal, hydro, etc depending on where it is.
Agreed on all your points. Especially for #3, there's a strong case for all electric homes with passive homes and using PV to supply the electricity to power a air source pump which double the output of the electricity. Because the load in these homes is so low, ground source and biomass tend to be too large.
Thank you for your comments. However, please do research before making comments. I'm talking about the massachusetts market. You can download the whole list of every solar pv installation in the state of MA here and I assure you 5.50/watt is not a high price (http://www.masscec.com/index.cfm/pk/download/id/13416/pid/11163). Yes, UK prices are much lower.
Again, thank you for your comment. All of these calculations were made in the calculation of the baseline building. Feel free to send me an email at firstname.lastname@example.org and I can share them with you.
Thank you for your comment. I have to disagree for New England. Look at the citations for solar pv costs, $5.50/watt is reasonable.
Regarding geothermal, the yearly COP of 3.75 is taking into account the small amount of time operating at COP of 1 for electric resistance. The analysis is assuming the heat pumps delivers 63MM BTU over a heating season, typically for the Northeast, at an average COP of 3.75. I have data on this from Ground Energy Support which monitors system in real time: http://groundenergysupport.com/.
I assure you, the numbers and my basic analysis are solid for it's purpose.
I agree, air source and biomass will be part of the mix. To say that they're the only real choice is nonsense.
Give me a call to discuss 800 393 2044 ex. 33.
There are a few data points I have that are in direct contradiction to what you're saying.
1 - GSHP do not have high failure rates. This is a myth.
2 - The power coil in GSHP has less impact then you think, it will run less in electrical resistance than ASHP. If you wanted, you can also run GSHP with Gas, if you have gas.
3 - Regarding demand side reduction for utilities, GSHP wins hands down. Here's a well done study by Western Electric Coop that found ASHP feel short on their EERs and didn't reduce peak demand for cooling as much as promised: http://www.geoexchange.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6315:seer-vs-eer-for-utility-dsm&catid=376&Itemid=33
Not trying to have an argument. There is simply a substantial amount of misinformation about geothermal that is myth and not based on fact, "high failure rates" being one of them.
Thank you for the comment. To be blunt, no, that's not the point of the post! I don't think PV incentives should be stopped, reduced, or put into another source. I think they are a wise investment and make a lot of sense. The purpose of the article is to show that 1) if we agree that PV incentives make sense in the northeast then 2) thermal incentives make even more sense and should be invested in. Most of the debate around this has stopped because no one has put specific numbers to anything. This post is the first attempt to do that, and I'll be working on more in the future.
Again, this is a yes and conversation, not a solar PV bashing conversation. I sell solar PV projects for a living, and I own systems too. They're great.
I felt that I made this message clear in the article, sorry if I did not.
Just a quick thought. We should stop wasting time talking about the technology and start talking about implementing policy so we can stop wasting so much money on oil. That's the purpose of the article, not to discuss the finest points of technology efficiency, etc, etc.