Talk:Ground source heat pump

message: Klbrain (talk) 07:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

message: I was reading an article on another site about ground source heating and it made a point that I think is missing from this article.
A typical power plant will achieve an efficiency of about 33% turning gas or coal into electricity, to power the heat pump. Whereas a condensing boiler will turn 90 -> 98% of the gas into heat. Meaning your heat pump will need to have a CoP of at least 2.7 to match the normal gas boiler in terms of efficiency; when considering the entire system from fuel to heat. 
I found this interesting as heat pumps are often touted as being an environmentally better options. But, unless the entire heat pumping system can achieve a CoP above 2.7, it's essentially the same as burning gas at the house. This seems similar to battery and fuel cell powered cars, which claim zero emissions. However, there are of coarse emissions; at the power plant generating the electricity to charge them or produce and bottle the fuels.
In terms of operating cost, gas in the UK is around 4 times cheaper than electricity per kWh. Meaning you'd need a CoP of 3-4 for it to compete in terms of operating cost alone.
I understand heat pumps can be useful, but it seems like there is a high potential for ending up with something that a.) is the same as burning fossil fuel on site in terms of emissions and b.) paying more for each unit of heat.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.249.56 (talk) 22:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Heating

message: This material on geothermal energy and heat-pumps is great example of the overweaning arrogance of 'science experts', and the self-referential antics of 'quasi-professional WikiP editors'. How about this: that the foundational difference, from the crucial perspective of basic energy engineering (esp. sustainable versions thereof), between geothermal energy and heat-pumps is that in the former case, the energy comes from 'below' (i.e. nuclear reactions, mostly, at earth's core or friction at tectonic edge), and in the latter, the energy comes from 'above' (i.e. solar radiation). Go ahead. Make it more complicated. But in doing so, you will neither be more scientific, nor will you be more useful to readers. 
What exactly are you trying to achieve with these preposterous complications? This article gets worse every time I need to refer to it for education and professional purposes. I would start to re-edit it, but I know I will be edited away by you guys. Hopeless. 
Don't remove this comment. 
Jmanooch (talk) 18:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite all this material

message: I do not agree with merging the above two b/c these three:
* Geothermal heat pump
* Geothermal exchange heat pump
* Geothermal heating
are all inaccurate and should be used to strengthen Geo-exchange which more precisely explains the topic.
~ bcoste1 3May'07
To follow the Wikipedia policy on most common usage, "geothermal heat pumps" or "ground source heat pumps" are most commonly used to describe devices for the extraction or buriel of heat in the Earth's crust. The introduction to this artile could be entitled "Geothermal exchange" to expalin the basic physics involved. Bewp 16:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually think the the present geo-exchange article is the worst of the present articles.  In any case, the various names should be discussed in the article.  Some argue the ground-source heat pump is the most technically clear and accurate description, although geothermal heat pump is becoming a more common name in the US.Ccrrccrr 03:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: When I inquired about geothermal HVAC in west central Florida (US) I was told that it was not used in this area because the ground is not as cold as further north.  This made little sense to me, despite being uttered by multiple HVAC companies.  However, If they are correct, perhaps some mention of latitude considerations should be included in this article.
PhiDeck 18:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: GSHP's have lower thermal efficiency but better cost efficiency in Northern climates. This is complicated to explain, but I've tried to give the outline in the article.--Yannick (talk) 04:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latitude considerations 

message: User PhiDeck makes a good point. The article presently states "These systems operate on a very simple premise; the ground, below the frost line, stays at approximately 50 °F (10 °C) year round". First of all, many places don't even have a frost line. For the U.S., see this map:
http://www.usace.army.mil/usace-docs/eng-manuals/em1110-1-1905/c-2.pdf#search='frost%20depth'
Second, deep earth temperature varies by location. 50 °F places whoever wrote this pretty far north -- Detroit, Michigan, perhaps. But in Atlanta for example the deep earth temperature is more like 65 °F. In South Texas it is around 80 °F. The reason geothermal heat pumps are more efficient than air source heat pumps is because in general, deep earth temperature is warmer than outdoor air when heating is needed, and cooler than outdoor air when cooling is required.
Pelkabo 19:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lots of Errors 

message: I see some edits that need to be made and don't want to make a mess of it because I'm a n00b.  Someone want to show me?
The three bulleted lists under "Characteristics" are tagged "citation needed."  They are lifted verbatim from the PDF referenced under "External Links" as "GeoExchange Heating and Cooling Systems: Fascinating Facts."  Is this fair use?
Does this call for a single footnote reference or three separate ones?  Does the external link stay in "External Links" or does the link become redundant once the PDF is cited in "References"?  Does this count as a "verifiable" source, or do you have to actually know anything about the organization making these claims?
Note that a lot of the figures are cited incorrectly, e.g. he uses gigawatt-hours instead of kilowatt-hours! Ha!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Universe Man (talk • contribs) 18:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup of references/links 

message: Who's the DNR?  A state agency? 
Ccrrccrr (talk) 02:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DNR? 

message: This extra part was added:
;Geothermal heat pumps in combination with cold/heat storage: is used extensively for applications as the heating of greenhouses.Heat pumps combination with cold/heat storage (see page 28) In summer, the greenhouse is cooled with ground water, pumped from a aquifer, which is the cold source. This heats the water. the water is then stored by the system in a warm source. In winter, the relative warm water is again pumped up, which derives heat. The now cooled water is again stored in the cold source.[http://www2.vlaanderen.be/economie/energiesparen/doc/brochure_warmtepomp.pdf Heat pumps combination with cold/heat storage (see page 28)Heat and Cold Storage info The combination of cold and heat storage with heat pumps can be very intresting for greenhouses as it may be combined with water/humidity application. This obviously is a great advantage for greenhouses. In the (closed circuit) system, the water used as a storage medium for heat is done in a 1st aquifer, while the cold water is held in a 2nd aquifer. The heat and cold stored in the water mass is when needed spread as hot or cold air trough the use of fans. Schematic of similar system of aquifers with fans-regulation In the described system, everything can be automated (eg with the systems as those from HortiMax or other suppliers http://www.hortimax.com/content/Multima_water.aspx Automation of underground Heat and Cold Storage system by Hortimax
Please do not remove; if need to be altered, do so here and reupload info
Thanks.
Note: extra references added for claims not yet fully described in article:
diagrams of several types of cold/heat storage system with heatpumps 2 diagrams of heat/cold storage with heatpumps in summer and winter Explanation of regular and and electrified systems of cold/heat storage with heatpumps KVDP (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed part of the last sentence and the reference to a nn website not meeting WP:RS. I made the edit before I saw this section, but I'm not sure why you want to make edits here to a section that's already in the mainspace. Flowanda | Talk 21:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Does that greenhouse system actually use a heat pump? Not all geothermal heating requires a heat pump. This sounds a lot like downhole heat exchangers, which are documented on the web, but not yet on Wikipedia.--Yannick (talk) 05:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extra part added 

message: One picture was added, hope its not removed:
KVDP (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's really unclear (to me) what the picture is showing.  Could you possibly provide a caption explaining what it's showing.  At the moment it doesn't seem to add anything to the article and doesn't appear to be of any sort of pump... —Sladen (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Water pumps are implied, but I see no heat pump.--Yannick (talk) 05:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  picture added 

message: Can installed the loop under a garden ?. I imagine I would use short root vegetables.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.159.136.215 (talk) 15:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it needs to be at least a few feet deep below the frost line. See article.--Yannick (talk) 05:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

text: yes, as long the loop is deep enough to work properly as a heat-exchanger. I have PV-T (water-cooled Photo-Voltaic solar energy collectors) and I dump the "waste heat" from the panels into three x 100m 'slinky' coils buried 1.2m deep. I have built vegetable beds above each coil. There is a significant difference in soil temperature, measured at a depth of 0.3m, compared to adjacent beds. In January, in South-East England, the difference is circa 3 centigrade. There is also a significant difference in productivity between the beds of about 15%, by weight, of harvested vegetables.AncientBrit (talk) 17:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Garden 

message: "Earth Tubes" are entirely different from "geothermal heat pumps" and require a separate category!  Both are ground coupled installations that exchange heat, however "geothermal heat pumps" use a liquid or a refrigerant to achieve the exchange of heat from or to the earth and "earth tubes" rely on the incoming air to pick up or lose heat by the contact of the air with the walls of the earth tubes.  My experience with "earth tubes" or "air tunnels" is their use for tempering the outside fresh-air supply using the thermal mass of the surrounding earth to absorb excess heat to cool the incoming air in the summer or to warm incoming air in the winter.  This is an alternative to heat recovery ventilators or enthalpy wheels that are more commonly used in applications where a more active (less passive) approach is desired and where the conditions are unfavorable for "earth tubes".  The below-grade temperature of the earth varies with the region and with the depth below grade.  The depth required to achieve temperatures from 52 to 55 degrees F may be 5 or 6 ft below grade in most parts of the world.  It is not necessary to be at that depth to achieve the benefit of earth tubes.  The temperature surrounding a below grade "earth tube" or "air tunnel" is always more stable than the outside ambient air temperature.  Safety and health factors to consider include: planning for proper drainage, safeguards against pollutants and irritants, safeguards to prevent insect and animal intrusion, and proper sizing for the desired air flow.  Donoberlin (talk) 23:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See Earth tubes.--Yannick (talk) 05:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earth Tubes 

message: Ground-coupled heat exchanger or earth tubes are completely different to Geothermal Heat Pumps.  Firstly these systems use air and not water glycol mix that is used in heat pumps.  Secondly heat pumps use large amounts of electrical energy to provide useful heat.  Earth tubes are not heating systems but modify the incoming air adding useful energy in winter and cooling the ventilation air in summer.  A typical heat pump system will produce 3 or 4 units of heating energy for every unit of electrical energy used in the heat pump.  Earth tube require very little electrical energy just a fan to push the air through the tubes and it is possible to get as much as 100 units of energy out for one unit of energy in.  The design, construction and operation of earth tubes are covered in a very useful VDI guideline VDI 4640 part 4.  I very useful document in both German and English.VDI 4640 part 4 Mikem001
::I think what was needed was a disambiguation hatnote at the top of ground-coupled heat exchanger. Done.--Yannick (talk) 05:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: I don't really like the new sentence order in the first paragraph. Ending the paragraph with the distinction from traditional geothermal power puts too much emphasis on that sentence and gives the impression that deep geothermal sources do not contribute heat to geothermal heat pumps. In fact, this source often dominates, especially for open loop or closed vertical loop systems. I would like to revert to the old sentence order, where the contrast statement was immediately followed by a clarification. But if there's a better way to say it, I'm always open to that.--Yannick (talk) 04:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point, I have restored the sentence ordering back. LK (talk) 02:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro paragraph, source of heat 

message: It has been suggested that Deep water source cooling should be merged into this article.— V = I * R (talk) 09:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And I take it deep lake water cooling would be merged as well. I see a couple of possible problems though: first, do these systems always use a heat pump? In theory, they could simply work with a heat exchanger, but I don't know how common that is, if it's done at all. Second problem is that this seems to be a misnomer. "Geothermal" implies taking heat from the ground, whereas deep water cooling only works against geothermal power.--Yannick (talk) 03:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

text: This poll is pointless because this is not a black-and-white issue. How would you classify an open loop heat pump that draws water from a small lake? Does it make a difference how deep the lake is? What if it's small enough to call it a pond? What if you use a closed loop at the bottom of one of the great lakes? All of these things are done. There's plenty of overlap between geothermal heat pumps and lake water cooling. What we should be doing is brainstorming ideas about where to draw the line, and comparing those ideas to the way these technology names are used in practice.--Yannick (talk) 14:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

text: The systems we are discussing here are "passive" in that they do not generate electricity,in the case of the ocean thermal energy conversion it does.we could call this, "Passive water thermal cooling and heating" and have that article referenced with any passive geo system.For our readers all of this should be called passive cooling and heating pump and then its source of thermal difference.--Infocat13 (talk) 01:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested merge 

message: The Geothermal Heat Pump Consortium http://www.geoexchange.org/component/content/article/370-front-page/69-whats-in-a-name.html
owns the trademark GeoExchange in the US.
In Canada, at least two organizations, Earth Energy Society of Canada (earthenergy.ca) and Canadian Association for Renewable Energies (renewables.ca), have encountered legal problems for using the trademarked term GeoExchange.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.85.43 (talk) 20:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how the trademarks work, but the word and logo is used by the Canadian Geoexchange Coalition: http://www.geo-exchange.ca/ This is an industry association that is developing a system of certification for heat pumps that meet their standards.--Yannick (talk) 11:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  GeoExchange is a trademark 

message: The intro repeats things and contains boring and obvious statements.  This is possibly caused by its length - someone adding a sentence to the 2nd paragraph may not have read the 5th paragraph.  I hope to come back and normalise that text some day, but wanted to note this problem in case someone else with writing skills has some time for it. 109.128.216.198 (talk) 06:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poorly written, inaccurate, repetitive intro 

message: This section is far too long and wordy.  It gets in the way of the reader's interest in and ability to comprehend the actual subject at hand.  Some of it could be moved to or merged with geothermal (disambiguation) which actually needs more explanatory text.  I don't object to it remaining in a much much shorter form that would list the various names ground source heat pump, geoexchange, etc. as well as have a quick list of what it isn't (geothermal power, etc.).  It should be no more than a paragraph, maybe two.  By the time the reader reaches the end of this (first) section, they have been told three times that geo heat pumps are not the same as geothermal power, and the reader is probably ready to know what geo heat pumps actually are. Jaywilson (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section titled Differing terms and definitions needs rewrite, shortening 

message: The article states that “ a heat pump is always more efficient than an electric heater” but this is not true. A heat pump becomes less efficient as the outside air becomes cooler. In fact this is the main reason why it is becoming popular to use below ground loops these days. I can’t remember at what point its efficiency drops below that of an electric resistance type heater but I believe its somewhere between ten degrees and zero degrees Fahrenheit. This is also why some houses in very cold climates, but where gas is very expensive, use a heat pump for heating when the outside air is above a certain temperature (about 40 degrees) and a furnace kicks in only when the air temperature drops below this point. Anyway the point is that the colder the outside air is the less heat there is to extract from that air so the heat pump must work that much harder and is therefore less efficient. It is only reasonable to assume that there is a point at which it will be less efficient than an electric heater.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slobeachboy (talk • contribs) 08:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in claim of heat pump efficiency vs. electric heater. 

message: The article obscures  that when you heat a building by extracting heat from the ground source, you, so to say simultaneously dump the cold from the building in the heat source. I think it is necessary to add this explanation, because it makes the average reader understand that a potential problem with ground source heat pumps is that they accumulate cold in the ground source, year over year. Skipping over this fact results in people choosing to save costs by under sizing the ground source, which leads to installations that work reasonably for a year, and then starts to gobble more and more electricity every year. Cold accumulation is not a problem when the heat source is big enough, and its effect can be annulled by using summer heat to regenerate the ground source.Pieter Felix Smit (talk) 09:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Passing note ten years after: the above applies to heating-driven climates. The opposite applies to cooling-driven climates, where ground hearing becomes an issue. The goal is to have sufficient wells or coils for the situation, and the necessary measures are decidedly location-dependent. Acroterion (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

text: I think most of us live in a bi-thermal climate: we need to heat in the winter, and cool in the summer.  In which case I would think the year-over-hear effect would be effectively zilch. Mcswell (talk) 20:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heat pumps dump cold in the heat source, thereby depleting it 

message: I came across several heat pumps that used much more electricity then the specs promised.  In almost all cases this was caused by slightly underdimensioned ground source piping, or by one or some of the loops not functioning.
On the other hand I came across two heat pumps that used significantly less electricity then specs. Both had ground source piping, longer then advised for the capacity of the heat pump.
Appearantly, the size of heat source (the amount of meters of underground pipes) has huge influence on the energy efficiency of heat pump system. The more the better. The influence is much bigger then the 4.3 or 4.6 difference in theoretical COP between two competing A-brands. There is huge potential to achieve energy reduction even with existing heat pumps, simply by putting double the amount of pipes in the ground.
I know that most developers of heat pump systems innovations also earn lots of money in selling electricity and electricity plants, so I understand their focus is not on making current generation heat pumps use less energy. But for the sake of neutrality and for serving those who want to go further in carbon reduction, this angle deserves more exposure then it had. 
I already put it in the article, I hope everybody accepts.Pieter Felix Smit (talk) 10:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size of heat source has huge influence on the energy efficiency of heat pump system 

message: This article takes the most pessimistic view possible for geothermal emissions – tying it primarily to coal generated electricity - while taking the opposite tact for natural gas and overlooking the fact that AFUE doesn’t account for the electricity used/required by a furnace. Not only do natural gas furnaces get a free pass for electricity usage and emissions, they also get a free pass on total GHG emissions since methane is 21 times more potent in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide. The section is missing key facts and the end result is misleading.
At least the text makes an attempt to explain that not all energy is derived from inefficient coal - and that GHPs overall impact can be 0 with renewable energy. Unfortunately, this is negated by a large table that draws attention away from the text (as all tables and graphs tend to do) to reinforce the idea that GHPs are dirtier than natural gas – despite the facts being skewed in favor of natural gas.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.18.132.230 (talk) 13:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Environmental impact section is inaccurate by omission and skewed  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Geothermal heat pump. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100528045631/http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/projects/projects.cfm/ProjectID=108 to http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/projects/projects.cfm/ProjectID=108
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716140006/http://www.cres-energy.org/techbasics/geothermal_div1.html to http://www.cres-energy.org/techbasics/geothermal_div1.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100626095818/http://www.hvac.okstate.edu/research/Documents/Orio_Johnson_Rees_Chiasson_Deng_Spitler_05.pdf to http://www.hvac.okstate.edu/research/Documents/Orio_Johnson_Rees_Chiasson_Deng_Spitler_05.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090403212025/http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca:80/publications/infosource/pub/home/heating-heat-pump/gsheatpumps.cfm to http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/publications/infosource/pub/home/heating-heat-pump/gsheatpumps.cfm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120813041725/http://carsologica.zrc-sazu.si:80/downloads/392/Sass.pdf to http://carsologica.zrc-sazu.si/downloads/392/Sass.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070903210053/http://www.econar.com:80/faq.htm to http://www.econar.com/faq.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Geothermal heat pump. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081004020606/http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/geothermal_basics.html to http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/geothermal_basics.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/projects/projects.cfm/ProjectID%3D108
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/publications/infosource/pub/home/heating-heat-pump/gsheatpumps.cfm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://carsologica.zrc-sazu.si/downloads/392/Sass.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081206122801/http://www.capitalelec.com/Energy_Efficiency/ground_source/index.html to http://www.capitalelec.com/Energy_Efficiency/ground_source/index.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.econar.com/faq.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150224174436/http://toolbase.org/Technology-Inventory/HVAC/geothermal-heat-pumps to http://www.toolbase.org/Technology-Inventory/HVAC/geothermal-heat-pumps
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Ground heat exchanger is a small orphan that seems to cover the same topic as Geothermal heat pump, and therefore the two should be merge towards the better article. Klbrain (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Klbrain (talk) 07:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heat Exchanger merger 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Geothermal heat pump. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.epa.gov/etv/pubs/600etv06063.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080222100703/http://www.dsireusa.org/searchby/searchtechnology.cfm?&CurrentPageID=2&EE=1&RE=1 to http://www.dsireusa.org/searchby/searchtechnology.cfm?&CurrentPageID=2&EE=1&RE=1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition to the above, the link to the openthermal website (currently link #45), while not broken (and therefore I would guess not detectable by the bot), does not go to anything having to do with geothermal heat pumps. It's supposed to link to a 2012 or so Maryland study, which I couldn't find with a quick search. Mcswell (talk) 20:44, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: The claim is made that ground source heat pumps can achieve a COP of 3 to 6.  3 I believe.  6 I do not, or at least not for any commercially available equipment and not for any real life building , because, if achievable, delta T would have to be extremely low.    The link provided does not contain anything about COP.  I will remove the line after a week if not substantiated. Nakashchit (talk) 22:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsubstantiated COP claims 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Moved   (t · c) buidhe 02:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Geothermal heat pump →  – A Google search shows that both terms are used about equally often. I believe the term 'geothermal heat pump' is confusing, as it implies the heat pump is geothermal energy, while it's usually not classed as such. Academic literature seems to prefer the term 'ground source heat pump'. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really see the current title as having ambiguity. Your claim that the "geothermal" in "geothermal heat pump" has nothing to do with Geothermal energy seems inaccurate to me, as our article on geothermal energy discusses geothermal heat pumps in some detail. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, our article about geothermal energy isn't great ... I didn't claim it has nothing to do with geothermal, I said it's typically not considered geothermal energy (see for instance ) FemkeMilene (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: However... the lead of the Geothermal energy appears to talk almost exclusively about 'deep' geothermal energy, ie heat from the earth's core and then refers to 'geothermal heat pump' without a suggestion that it is not using deep heat. As such I suggest that a reference to heat pumps in the article should at least clarify the difference more clearly, and in my view one good way to do that would be to use a term with more clarity as the title of the article for geothermal/ground source heat pumps. PeterEastern (talk) 06:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Could you come back to this discussion in response to the more recent comments? Personally I am still of a view that the current title creates confusion rather than clarity (for the reasons I have already presented). If you are still in opposition to this move then I would appreciate your thoughts on the issue. PeterEastern (talk) 15:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I do still oppose the move based on my previous reasons. I don't find it to be a confusing term. It's actually the only term I've ever heard used for this particular topic, probably because I am American and that seems to be the overwhelmingly common term for it here. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is of course a global resource so should not necessarily follow North American English (or indeed British English - as a UK citizen I exclusively know these devices as ground source heat pumps). Out of interest, is it your view that the scope of the geothermal energy article should be enlarged to encompass near-surface heat buffering or do you intend to clarify that 'geothermal heat pumps' do not use 'geothermal energy' in that article? PeterEastern (talk) 07:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: My position is that there is nothing wrong with either term, but that since the current title is both the most common name in English generally and the most common name in the U.S. specifically, that per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RETAIN the article should remain at its current title. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that this interaction has run its course. For the record (again), WP:RETAIN has an exception for where a change of name would reduce ambiguity. I note that you still have not responded to my question about whether you will propose to expand the scope of the geothermal energy article to cover near surface heat buffering so I assume you won't, which means that not only is the word 'geothermal' confusing in this usage, it is also inconsistent with a related WP article. Also.. in the UK, the produce is almost universally referred to as a ground source heat pump, so I don't know on what basis you claim that 'geothermal heat pump' is 'the most common name in English generally'? For sure, it usage according to Google is very slightly higher that ground source heat pump overall, but only by a small amount. PeterEastern (talk) 08:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 24 May 2021