The most innovative and fair method being developed world wide. congratulations Minn..
In the residential setting and with current design GHPs have a bigger carbon foot print than do heat pumps coupled with gas. As I've reported on this site before the GSHP uses resistance heat as a supplemental source and the resistance heat runs more the longer and harder the winter. If they sized the unit around this they wouldn't be able to sell them.
If you think a GHP works so well try putting them on an off-grid system. Not going to happen!
@ANONYMOUS, Great set of fears voiced here. Easy to tell the serfs what they want and need when you are setting on the Monopoly throne. I'm sure AT&T had the same fears when they were broken up. The current structure of highly regulated out-side-in central-station model that promotes all we can generate and consume is facing a paradigm shift.
Go to the Iowa IUB website and view the NOI-2014-0001 filings. The eye opener being that the likes of Facebook and Microsoft are wanting to locate in states with renewable energy options and they are letting regulators know this. The new Tesla battery plant will be made in a state that can also provide a high concentration of renewable energy.
The most innovative markets like technology are the least regulated. The innovation in electricity will only come when the regulated market monopoly structure is set free.
Great article John, you are spot on as usual!
Thermostat settings and operations are a huge factor.
I haven't reviewed the data here closely but we do evaluate the meter readings and kwhr usage on about 30 systems summer and winter and as I have posted on this site before...We have found that in long hard winters the loops become saturated and the electric resistance heat becomes the primary heat source. The happens a lot. We can spot a malfunctioning unit in the group and have around a 7% unit failure rate.
Buy a new heat pump with LP backup and a heat pump water heater and put the money saved into solar and you'll be way ahead.
We need to switch from net metering to a feed-in-tariff to create a level playing field with any new generation source built today. Solar can compete but net metering is a loser for all sides.
My son lives in Boston MA and he pays .20/kWhr of which .10/kWhr is delivery. I'm thinking solar can survive on the remaining .10/kWhr very nicely. I'm also thinking there might be some distribution and transmission savings that could be attributed to having solar during the peak hours. This might give solar and additional .05/kWhr bonus. So a FIT or Value of Solar Tariff of .15/kWhr should be fair play.
If the current monopolies won't work with inside-out generation then deregulate the industry and give the customer a choice.
Duke is but one good battery away from losing 25% of their load. If the average home had the sophistication of the Toyota Prius the shift would be closer to 50% of residential loads moving to off-grid solar.
The DG market and industry has but two choices; to push for a feed-in-tariff, or to push for total deregulation of the industry.
The problem with current residential GSHP's is the electric heat used to supplement and/or backup the units. Near the end of a hard winter, due to ground saturation, they may be running almost entirely on the electric resistance a majority of the time. This contributes to peak demand and decreases utility load factors. The best of both worlds would be a GSHP with Gas for the supplemental and backup heat. I have done the research however I wonder if the newer HP with Gas actually offers a lower overall carbon footprint than a GSHP with resistance elements would.
@Bob, I'm not talking about poorly designed systems. We meter over 30+ residential systems, including demand and kWhr energy readings for every day. They all at some point during the winter months utilize their resistance heat elements. Some of this depends on consumer use of the thermostat. The fact is, to be cost competitive designers and installers rely on the resistive heat not only as backup but as part of the system performance. If you don't believe me then every system you install should have the resistive coils un-hooked and you might find how your systems are designed.
I might add Bob that these are Iowa winters. I wish it weren't true but it is and it is by design.
These systems do little to discourage the building of new coal and nuclear plants. In fact they may increase the need. "The Red Queen Dilemma"
Bob--Thanks for coming clean on your resistance heat use. Unless you are talking about commercial systems it is common for residential systems to utilize the resistance heat for normal operation. Once you set that demand the power company has to have the capacity in place to serve you. Your transformer size is larger, your service is larger, your service panel is larger, and that is primarily due to the 15 kW to 20 kW of resistance heat that might hit the electric system. The point i'm trying to make is that if you had gas backup then the power company and you wouldn't have to invest in the capacity to serve that resistance load for the few times in a hard winter that it might get used. Someone has to invest in the electric capacity to serve that potential load. The newer heat-pumps that use gas have less of an impact on the grid as does your GSHP and they cost 1/2 as much to install. Try going off grid with your GSHP and its resistance heat and you will soon find its not possible.
Arizona, The root of the problem is net-metering. You need a State wide feed-in-tariff and or value-of-solar tariff to put solar on the same footing as any other generation source.
Wind is driving down wholesale pricing in Iowa and we are taking the savings and coupling that with State and Federal tax savings and putting in distributed site based solar. The combination should pay off and diversify out energy supply future. Natural gas should be reserved for heating American homes, but only after we have exhausted all efforts to cut consumption through energy efficiency and conservation.