[superkuh]

I'm not. The problem with air-source heat pumps is that they don't work when it gets really cold (ie, a typical -15F minnesota average low for months at a time). They freeze up and stop working and cannot provide heat.

So for heat pumps to work in the northern parts of the USA (say, Minnesota/Wisconsin/etc) they cannot just be pumping heat from the air. They require geothermal loops.

So that's the two problems I described: weather a heat pump will work for your region of the USA is a complex issue. It's safer and easier to just pick a normal heating system. This uncertainty makes choosing heat pumps less likely in marginal climates like, say, Iowa. Of course this doesn't apply to places, like, say, Texas, which only get brief minor cold. Adoption of heat pumps there is straightforwards.

The follow on is that if you still want a heat pump in the cold parts of the USA you need a ground loop heat pump. And that has a very high initial capital cost, which means they basically only get put in during initial construction, not as add-ons to existing houses.

[antisthenes]

It's not a complex issue at all.

95% of US population are in temperate climate zones.

Saying "it's a complex issue" is the same kind of ignorant self-induced panic as worrying about EV range for a single digit percentage of long trips.

> The follow on is that if you still want a heat pump in the cold parts of the USA you need a ground loop heat pump.

No, you don't. You just need to accept that your payback period on a system will be longer than in a more temperate climate. It might pay back for itself in 7 years instead of 5, for example.

[superkuh]

Spoken like someone with no lived experience of winter. But yes, the vast majority of people do live in temperate regions on the coasts. And for them heat pumps are a great idea. I'm not anti-heat pump. It's great technology.

But saying, "It's not a complex issue at all." is an extremely provincial mindset. For California? Yes. But there's more to the USA than the coasts and south.

And re: capital cost, because of the required in-ground loops the payback is much, much longer than air units which require no excavation. Still, a great choice for new construction if there's a normal heating backup and you can roll in the extra cost to the bank loan. Not so attractive for existing houses.

[jpd25]

The "heat pumps don't work in cold climates" myth has not been true for years. Modern cold-climate systems are rated down to -20F. In some regions, for some households, it may make sense to install a "dual-fuel" or hybrid system that retains the gas/propane/oil furnace for backup. The heat pump switches over to the furnace at a designated temperature threshold. The homeowner gets to keep their FF backup while still reducing carbon footprint by 80-90+%.

Anyone saying "heat pumps don't work in the cold" is perpetuating unfortunate misinformation that will slow the adoption curve.

[superkuh]

>perpetuating unfortunate misinformation

You're assuming I have no lived experience and am just making stuff up. But I live here in the cold and I rented a house heated by a heat pump in my cold region of the USA. The winter experience was quite bad as it struggled with colder snaps and it was an in-ground loop!. And I can't be the only one with this bad experience with heat pumps in their past.

I'm getting sick of people extrapolating their temperate climate experiences to cold climates and painting me as an ignorant at best spreader of misinformation. It's the other way around. I actually live here. I actually have direct experience. Do you? Or are you just repeating the hopeful beliefs that support your opinion you read somewhere? I want heat pumps to work too. They're great tech and save energy. It just doesn't match reality.

You also literally just explained that having two heating systems is sometimes required while saying that heat pumps work by themselves. I'm not sure how to take such a contradictory statement.