1) To make it really green and viable -> you „need” solar installation

2) To have solar installation you have to abaid to painfully stupid legistlation

3) In winter pump is as green as the diesel generator that produces energy for it to run

That's not true. A heat pump produces 1.5 to kwH of heat per kwH of electricity consumed, so it's already much more efficient than a diesel generator.

Even in winter, electricity from the grid is greener than burning diesel. I didn't find specific numbers for winter, but wind is about 30% of Germany's (just picking the biggest country out of DACH to support the point, not trying to come up with exact numbers) electricity production year-round, and wind doesn't tank in winter like solar does.

So, in short. Installing a heat pump and just taking electricity from the grid is still better for the environment. Of course, having your own solar is great if you live in a house, but you don't need it.

I'm sure you already made up your mind about heat pumps and that I can't convince you otherwise. But for other readers, let me add some thoughts to your points.

1) well, there's a grid. So as long as someone somewhere on your continent produces green energy it is viable and green.

2) arguable. Depends on your legislation.

3) Again, there's a grid. And even considering the worst case of no renewable sources at all: A heat pump (which uses 1kWh of electricity to provide 3-6kWh of heat) powered by a diesel generator is still more efficient than burning the diesel directly. Now add efficient combined cycle power plants, wind, biomass, hydro and battery storage systems...

Sounds like you're in a specific situation.

I wonder what it is and whether it applies to a lot of other people?