Hi Marie.
I agree with Bucheron's opinion and I would like to develop his second point, by emphasizing the following parameters, which I let you discover via the net:
-bioclimatism or the integration of the house in its environment
-the advanced insulation of the house, both at the level of the walls, floors, roofs and glazing (or even passive house); saving energy is good, not consuming it is better; you can therefore talk about insulators and in particular natural insulators, requiring less gray energy for their manufacture and healthier for health, you can talk about the evolution of glazing, double and low emissivity, or even triple as of now and generalized in near future. You can also talk about future construction standards since the State is considering a "positive energy" standard for new constructions from 2020, ie a house would produce more energy than it needs.
https://www.econologie.com/forums/maison-a-e ... t5870.html .
FYI, in Germany and Switzerland today, building permits are only granted for projects of houses with insulated exterior walls with 15 to 20cm of insulation.
For geothermal energy, Christophe is a little harsh with your teacher, it is normal that she believes like everyone else in this "free and inexhaustible energy"; it seems indeed to be the right vein since it produces the same amount of heat as an electric heater for, on average, 3 times less electricity. In addition, it makes it possible to sell new products, to renew the fleet of fuel and gas boilers, to help the development of small businesses through subsidies (which come from our tax money) and therefore to increase collections. various, employer, employee, regional and VAT of course. Without forgetting the electricity consumption which will increase to benefit EDF and the nuclear branch (beware of the increase in electricity prices when everyone will have their heat pump because other plants will have to be built). In short, it turns money, banks, loans, ....
I still forgot qq something that I add afterwards, is that geothermal energy can be done in the same way as another heating mode, if you have a passive house. This obviously generates less tax revenue, less commercial transactions, but it is an approach to sustainable development, a reasoned way of thinking based on better thought out consumption.
Now, what you can do is compare performance between the primary energies needed to produce either heat or electricity.
When you heat water with a fuel or gas boiler, the efficiency of your boiler is around 90%.
When you produce electricity that will heat your water, the yield is much worse; indeed, to produce electricity, it is necessary to produce water vapor which will make turn an electric generator; the yield is then 33 to 45% maximum
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrale_nucl%C3%A9aire since a good part of the transformation of primary energy (hydrocarbons or nuclear) goes into unused heat (cooling towers). Then, the transport of electricity via the different power lines also generates significant losses. At least to avoid this, you should develop cogeneration (you can also develop this).
With your geothermal or aerothermal energy, you have a yield factor of 3 (COP), ie you recover part of the energy that was lost during the production and transmission of electricity, which is not so wrong.
But for now, the highest yield in the transformation of primary energy remains that of energy into heat, this is why we could move towards domestic energy production units heat / electricity (cogeneration) in each house.