Sounds like a good idea. Hopefully more green tax credits will be approved by the new gov. Also hope the economy improves so we can afford the initial cost. Some states and cities offer credits too.

stlounick - is that a part of the recent energy incentive package passed by Congress? If so, I completely missed it in my reading. Could you point me in the right direction for this? I've not even gotten this information from any of the manufacturers. Thanks for the tip - more info, please!

Dear God in Heaven, thank you.... another heat pump fiend!

Jenn, beyond incentives, the "Infrastructure" push by Obama is also opening the door for heat pumps to break through. Installed individually, HP's find it brutal to beat gas furnaces since gas can hide its ongoing fuel bills, and have a lower upfront sticker price - partly because of economies of scale.

We're finding that putting in HP systems, not as a one-off, but as an Infrastructure that can serve hundreds of homes at once, offers incredible economics. (And this in the world's coldest large city.) We've got developers sinking 6-8 wells, connecting them with loops, then running the heat into 450 homes in 15 apartment buildings. Average, all-in costs of

At present, we write off power plants, pipelines, transmission lines etc. as capital spending or "infrastructure," yet even though HP's last 20-40 years, and provide the same service - they aren't counted because they're distributed across people's lawns & yards. They should be included as capital infrastructure, especially since you can walk into any major city & put in HP systems that will take public housing, low-income apartment buildings, university residences, etc. OFF fossil fuel, provide price stability, create local jobs & be drawing on solar energy stored in the ground.

So Amen to your Incentives pitch for individual installations, and maybe it could help to add an Infrastructure pitch for systems serving large numbers of homes to your approach.

Please.

Whatever you do don't -- I repeat don't -- write your Congressperson requesting one more tax dodge.

If you are concerned about global warming or the nation's dependence upon foreign oil, write that Congressperson and demand the imposition of a substantial carbon tax.

Thereafter, the market will take care of the problem of sorting out the most economical and efficient uses of energy without the "helpfulness" of special interest pleaders.

I have had this disagreement for a while with a "green building designer/contractor." In a very narrow set of circumstances, ground-source heat pumps make sense in a residential remodel, but for the most part, however, they are a lousy investment (high initial cost, specialized equipment required, and they don't necessarily lock in the energy savings). I would be the last person to lobby congress to subsidize the heat pump retrofits.

In terms of the retrofit market, we should skew the market to provide envelope improvements and duct sealing improvements, which have a far greater impact, at lower capital and embodied costs while creating a greater number of American jobs. Plus there are accompanying health benefits by reducing mold and airborne toxins in the home. Any subsidy should be limited to multifamily homes and single family homes under 3000 SF.

The fundamental driver of our wasteful residential energy (and transportation energy) consumption is our reliance on sprawling development which generates traffic and discourages infrastructure investments. An attached small urban rowhouse or condo uses between 1/4 and 1/3 the amount of energy (combined transport and space conditioning) of a large suburban detached residence. HVAC equipment is almost irrelevant in the argument.

Also that 400% efficiency doesn't compare apples to apples. One should compare source energy to source energy and look at time of day load factors and regional differences in heating and cooling demand. I would say that a ground source heat pump in a mild climate like Seattle (with a %400 coefficient of performance) that replaces an efficient natural gas furnace (90% AFUE) might result in a similar amount of carbon emissions from its operation. (35% electrical generation efficiency, with some consideration for the hydropower source of the electricity, but you have to discount that because we would otherwise offset coal fired plants in CA or MT, so we're back at 35%), plus 10% transmission losses is down to about 32%, so the that 400% efficiency becomes 128%, or about 38% better than the gas furnace. However then you have to add the seasonal adjustment. Most Seattle homes don't have air conditioning and adding a heat pump would simply generate addition energy use in the summer, likely discounting the efficiency savings. Then we add the embodied energy of the heatpump manufacture, the installation carbon budget and we are very very close to where we started.

However, equipment subsidies are great for making industry a bunch of money while not accomplishing anything important.

Petition your congress critters for green jobs and sensible land use controls and actual save the planet, stimulate the economy, and make our cities better places to live.