this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2023
484 points (98.4% liked)
Technology
59402 readers
2949 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.
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.
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