this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2023
484 points (98.4% liked)
Technology
59402 readers
2997 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I bought into the heat pump hype until I bought a house with a furnace. Up until then I lived in apartments with heat pumps. I was stunned about how much better it was than any place I've lived before. It was used for it taking forever to get warm and always feeling colder than the thermostat would indicate. With a furnace it got warm quick, and it truly felt warm once it reached temperature. My power+heat bill was significantly lower per sqft than my power bill in my apartment.
I've lived in the Midwest, the Mountain West, and the South. I experienced the shortcomings of heat pumps in every place.
This article, which I believe to be geared at convincing US readers that heat pumps are great, also does some things that are extremely disingenuous.
For one, most heat pumps in Norway are geothermal heat pumps. Those are extremely different units that are well known to both be more energy efficient and function at much lower temperatures than air source heat pumps that are typically pushed in the US. The example where they interview a guy with an air source heat pump seems like an almost intentional misdirection.
Second, the author uses a comparison to electric furnaces. That has been widely known for years to be hilariously inefficient. As such it's fairly rare to see in the US. The most common sources of heat in the US are air source heat pumps (in places like AZ and Texas), oil radiators, and gas furnaces. Depending on energy prices, these could be significantly cheaper depending on utility cost. I understand Norway has specific conditions that make oil and gas usage much less appealing but, again, this article is clearly targeted towards westerners.
I feel like this is EVs all over again. Heat pumps have a lot of potential. They will one day before the de facto standard almost everywhere. However they have serious shortcomings and the idea that they are ready to be a drop in replacement in the vast majority of cases is hopium.
EDIT: Since everyone is getting caught up over the word "efficient". Electric furnaces are hilariously expensive.
By this, I'm thinking you mean "electric resistance heating" - i.e an electric heater.
Electric resistance heat is 100% efficient. Heat pumps can easily be 200%+ efficient.
For those reading wondering if this guy knows what he's talking about, he says that electric furnaces are "hilariously inefficient". They were in fact the most efficient option before heat pumps - more efficient than the most efficient gas furnaces. Electricity is expensive, so depending on the situation, it may cost more than inefficiently burning super cheap gas, but calling electric heating "hilariously inefficient" demonstrates a severe lack of knowledge of the area. So, with that in mind, consider whether anything else claimed here is worth retaining.
I think it's just a matter of what you're comparing.
Heat pumps are ridiculously "efficient" in terms of operation (like 200% efficient, etc. etc. etc.)
But from what I am seeing with them they are claiming efficiency as "is it smarter to run an electric heat pump vs. a gas furnace" for your money. In that sense, a heat pump can be super efficient but still not as "efficient" for your wallet compared to a gas furnace given how much cheaper gas is (in the states that is.) Someone else commented that even after all the rebates and everything else, it would take >20 years to reach a payoff in terms of buying a heat pump vs a standard gas furnace. That timeline is generally outside what a typical homeowner looks at here.
I mean- you even acknowledge you pick up what they're saying so...?
Perhaps we should set new terms like "operational efficiency" which is for the most part indisputable and "monetary efficiency" which is fluid and can definitely be varied around a single country, let alone the globe.
They know exactly what I mean. They are arguing semantics so they can dance around the fact that Heat Pumps aren't nearly as cost efficient as billed in most parts of the US.
You can argue that the savings are achieved by both not requiring a separate heating device and not having to construct a home to handle gas/oil.
However then you get into the heating issue. Most models just can't handle any sort of truly cold temperatures. Models that can are often more expensive than a gas furnace and AC unit combined.
There is a way around this: dual source heat pumps. Basically they are heat pumps with a gas furnace that kicks in if it's too cold outside. They work, and have been adopted in states like Maine, albeit with subsidies. However they aren't encouraged by traditional media sources because at the end of the day they still use gas.
Again, I feel like we've been through this with EVs. There was a narrative widespread adoption was around the corner. That once you hit seven percent you'd have runaway adoption. That by 2030 the vast majority of cars will be all electric. However at the end of the day demand slowed. While EVs worked in some places, there were huge issues (price, range, and charger availability) that prevented wider adoption. The experts were surprised because they were wealthy urbanites who didn't experience those flaws firsthand.
EVs are the future. Heat Pumps are the future. All I'm saying is that things that are billed as around the corner often take longer than you'd expect.
Honestly I feel like I'm just older than everyone else in this thread. I feel like anyone 30 or above has seen things like this play out multiple times.
It(electric furnaces) may not be as efficient in terms of how much money you have to spend to keep your house warm, and obviously this is the efficiency most people will care about because we are not Jeff Bezos with his deep pockets
Fine. Electric Furnaces are hilariously expensive. Happy?
Compared to gas? Nope. They are not hilariously expensive. Gas furnaces cost more to purchase, install and maintain than electric, and they have a shorter life span. For some people, especially those with minimal heating needs, electric furnaces are most cost effective than gas ones. Again, more basic info you are unaware of.
Compared to heat pumps? Maybe. Ground source heat pumps have huge installation costs and although they are far more efficient it may not make up the cost for everyone. Air source heat pumps aren't much more expensive than traditional options, but they're much more efficient. If you're in an area where an air source heat pump is an option, almost certainly it's more cost effective.
None of this is what you're saying though, that heat pumps are unproven, unready technology, which is bunk. They're not an option for everyone, no option is, and they may not be the right option for you. However, they are an option for most people. If anyone is looking to replace a furnace they should absolutely consider an air source heat pump, and potentially should consider a ground source one.
Okay before I go further I need to ask the following questions:
I don't want to waste my time breaking down how wrong you are if you're a 19 year old posting this from a college dorm.
You have this wrong. The problem isn't the age of other people on the Internet. It's that you don't understand that anecdote and limited knowledge are not a basis for judging the feasibility of a technology or making conclusions about what's useful for broad swathes of people.
Sure.