227
A call to replace air conditioners with heat pumps in California
(www.canarymedia.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 May 2024
227 points (99.1% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5197 readers
716 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Every heat pump is an air conditioner, not every air conditioner is a heat pump. They require a reversing valve to function both ways.
The furnace doesn't need to change. I have a nat gas furnace with an electric heat pump. You can also do electric heat pump with an electric air handler. There are plenty of combos.
That said, every year I run the numbers and despite my heat pump being ~300% efficient my 95% efficient nat gas furnace is still cheaper to operate (based on the cost of each energy source). I'd LOVE to go solar and operate as close to 100% electric as possible but with my old growth trees and shitty house orientation I wouldn't even break-even in the lifetime of the panels. :(
Just curious, so numbers are the deciding factor for heating, not environmental impact? For example if your were wealthy would you choose lowest impact option, or would numbers still dictate your choice?
It is a good question.
Where I live, electricity costs around $0.28/kWh, but generation is typically >85% renewable (predominantly hydroelectric).
My heat pump (4.7 COP when heating) would cost $0.06 to run for every 1kWh of heat it produces, with only 0.03kWh of that electricity coming from fossil fuel sources.
Gas - which I don't have at my house - would have pricing in the neighbourhood of $0.15/kWh. Even at 95% efficiency getting 1kWh of heat from gas would cost $0.16, using 1.05kWh of gas.
35x the fossil fuel usage and 2.5x the price, for the same quantity of heat. Some luck of living in a moderate climate where an air-source heat pump almost never loses efficiency, to be fair.
This is correct. And given the way the grids interconnect it would be hard if not impossible for me to be able to quantify environmental impact. I would assume even though there is still a lot of coal generation in-use it would still be more environmentally friendly for me to run the heat pump but I just don't know.
If money was no object I would absolutely choose the lowest impact option. I would even do a solar install even though it would likely end up being a net-loss for my specific case.
Thanks for your honest answer.
I think many people believe gas is at least preferable to coal environmentally wise, but turns out in quite a few instances it's worse. (fossil fuel companies did a good job marketing gas as cleaner for a long time)
https://theclimatecenter.org/energy-efficiency/study-shows-natural-gas-fracking-more-harmful-than-coal/