820
Oxford study proves heat pumps triumph over fossil fuels in the cold
(www.nationalobserver.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 12 Sep 2023
820 points (98.0% liked)
Technology
60035 readers
3464 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Maybe someone can help me answer this question as I'll be replacing my old furnace in the near future and am curious about the heat pump systems.
Studies like this are only looking at efficiency and not total energy usage or heating capacity so how do you compare apples to apples? A high efficiency forced-air furnace using natural gas is something like 95% efficient, and a heat pump can be something like 150%-200% (because you're moving the heat instead of creating it), but the total output capacity matters as well as the efficiency of generating and transmitting the electricity. Also, I don't think the power needed to run the fans gets factored in from what I can tell and I expect a heat pump system to need fans running far more often and for longer. Since heat is constantly being lost to outside then whichever can work faster might have an advantage keeping ahead of that entropy too...
I'm living in a climate considered "extreme cold" in this study btw. Best I've been able to figure out, a gas furnace is still much cheaper to install/operate (it's pretty cheap here) but is also still be better for the environment as my electricity tends to be generated primarily from natural gas and coal (at an efficiency lower than a natural gas furnace does).
Under the conditions you describe, a hybrid setup will work best.
In a hybrid setup, the heat pump is providing most heat when it isn't very cold, while the traditional heat source is providing heat on really cold days.
A few years ago, the temperature where the system would switch was 5 C. Nowadays it's more like -10 C. As heat pumps get better, hybrid loses territory, so you could also just wait a few years and then switch.
Hybrid gives best of both worlds at the cost of added complexity.
If you have A/C then the cheap way to do hybrid is to keep the traditional heating system but use the A/C in heating mode on mild days.
If you are comparing gas to heat pump efficiency, it is more like 85-90% vs 350-500% efficiency.
Because in the gas furnace efficiency they only calculate the efficiency of burning gas but miss to include the auxiliary electricity that is needed to run the system.
In a heat pump system everything (running fans etc.) is included in the efficiency calculation. The efficiency itself is depending on the source of the heat pump. In a really harsh climate a ground / geo thermal source might make sense. But usually the average temperature is higher than you might think.
And for the environmental effect: modern gas power plants run at 50-60% efficiency so with a heat pump you are always burning less gas even if the gas plant is less efficient then the gas furnace.
It would be interesting to know what extreme cold means.
That's a good point about the furnace fan!
I'm using what the study calls extreme cold, which would account for about 3 months of the heating season where I live, and that's where I got the lower efficiency numbers from too as they state the COP is around 2.75 (roughly 3 months of the year here) in the "mild cold" and only around 2 at best in the colder months.
We have a bit of an unusual climate here with fewer people so most of the info I find tends to focus on where more people live and the climate is different so it's tough to figure out. There's a good three months where no heating is required at all (and increasingly, ac units are in demand). A couple of years ago we had close to an 85°C temperature swing from the end of February to mid June!
Natural gas is plentiful and cheap so it's used for central heat and hot water here, sometimes clothing dryers too but that's less common. I still end up paying a gas bill in the summer months essentially just for admin fees and such, so the temptation is to go fully electric (would have to change the HWH) with a heat pump system and resistive backup heat. The problem is from what I can tell, the additional cost isn't quite worth it yet (the system might not even save any money and is more expensive to install/maintain), and the emissions difference is tough to calculate when a third of the power comes from coal and over half from natural gas....
You're right to be concerned about emissions, if you live in a place where a significant portion electricity comes from coal its almost certainly cleaner to just burn the natural gas. Which area of the world is this if you don't mind saying?
I'm in Alberta (Canada)
Haha yeah that would do it. Even here in Ontario we still have a lot of houses with gas hookups despite our clean and (relatively) cheap electricity, but I see more ads for heat pump installs now so it's definitely changing.
For sure look into any subsidies available to you and see if they make a dual fuel system feasible. In your situation if you buy a high efficiency furnace, it may never make economic sense to run the heat pump, but things could always change and it's a simple enough task to find your break even (economic balance) point when fuel prices change. My current break even point is well beyond the temperature you would consider running heat, but I still run my heat pump in the shoulder seasons to exercise it.