HenryGifford

Yes, heating with a heat pump can cost less money than heating with fossil fuel, while also using more enrgy. Yes, using more energy can save money, the explanation being political. Nothing I wrote mentioned money, because it is impossible to talk about energy cost without talking about politics, and about people forced to pay for things for others, which most geothermal fans don't want to discuss, because most geothermal systems are largely paid for by other people.

I don't advocate forcing anyone to do anything or pay for anything for anyone else. I do advocate looking at how much energy different heating and cooling options use.

As for the environmental impact of natural gas drilling, it is higher with a heat pump, as almost all new electric generating capacity added in the US recently burns gas. The impact can be lowered by burning gas directly in a house, because less will be burned.

Gas burning appliances, especially the sealed combustion type I advocated, stay almost as efficient when old as they were when they were new. I base this on having measured the efficiency of thousands of gas and oil burning appliances over the years. The decline in efficiency is slight, and can be corrected, yet with geothermal it is significant, with no solution avaialable.

As for summer cooling and hot water production, yes, water cools refrigerant to a lower temperature than air, but at the offsetting energy use associated with running a water pump. If data was available it would be possible to know if energy is saved or not, but despite many reports of data, none has been published.

Saving money is great, but if the cost is merely shifted to other people, none is saved overall, just like shifting energy use to the power plant saves no energy overall. Enough people advocating an approach that has someone else paying money to save them money, and eventually there is no more someone else to pay the extra cost.