5 ms·

Heating via electrical resistance is 100% efficient. All energy goes into generating heat. There is no loss. Gas heating is something like 90% efficient now.

by timr 8y ago

Heating via electrical resistance is 100% efficient. All energy goes into generating heat. There is no loss. Gas heating is something like 90% efficient now. People, stop. Downvoting doesn't change facts.

klodolph 8y ago
Yes, 100% is inefficient because you can get higher ratios if you use heat pumps. The loss is that you are using more energy compared to how much energy you would use if you had a heat pump instead.
- timr 8y ago
  That's not efficiency. That's an efficiency ratio, which is different. Heat pumps have a higher EER, but also higher parasitic losses, which is the source of confusion on the whole thread. It's like claiming that rockets are "more efficient" than cars because they move you faster.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - jdmichal 8y ago
    The only reason behind that difference is because it's not generating heat, but moving heat. The difference to users is unimportant. As long as BTUs are pumped into / out of their closed environment, their needs are being met. And the bottom line is that for the same unit of energy used to generate 1 BTU from resistance heating, we can move several BTUs. EDIT: I'd also like to note that heat pump systems which include resistance heating systems will typically mark them as "emergency heating". Because they are less efficient, unless it's so brutally cold outside that the heat pump has dropped below 1 EER or can't even operate properly. EDIT2: I forgot that the units in SEER are not the same on both sides of the ratio. (That is, it's not actually a ratio, since those are supposed to be unitless.) So my original "13+ BTUs" was high. Changed it to a non-descript weasel-word instead.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - klodolph 8y ago
    The reason you are being downvoted is because your argument basically boils down to having an unreasonably narrow definition of what “efficient” means. In context, it’s obvious that “efficiency” here is the ratio between the amount of heat provided and the amount of energy spent. You might call it EER, I might call it COP, but it’s irrelevant because in context the word “efficient” is unambiguous. Narrow interpretations of definitions to support a point don’t actually provide much useful insight to the topic being discussed, and are seen as distracting. So these non-useful comments are being downvoted to make them less visible. It is not an issue of whether they are technically correct. You could probably make an interesting point about the electrical efficiency of heat pumps, or you could make a comment about terminology and explain that “technically” the correct term is X, but instead you chose to interpret a term in a way that contradicts the contextually obvious meaning and then base an argument on top of that.
    - timr2 8y ago
      My account is rate limited. Responding here, then going away. "arrow interpretations of definitions to support a point don’t actually provide much useful insight to the topic being discussed, and are seen as distracting. So these non-useful comments are being downvoted to make them less visible. It is not an issue of whether they are technically correct." Except, I'm not arguing for or against a "point", only that the terminology was wrong. But it does matter, because it leads to confusion, and if you stop to think about it for longer than it takes to jab at the downvote button, the reason why it matters is interesting. It's not that people here are thinking about the subject carefully, they're just disagreeing reflexively.
      - kbenson 8y ago
        > It's not that people here are thinking about the subject carefully, they're just disagreeing reflexively. Voting isn't specifically for correctness/incorrectness, but encompasses many things. In this specific case, I think the voting reasoning or on your comments can be likely be summarized as "is the comment contributing usefully to the discussion, or providing useful or insightful information in some other way". I think people aren't viewing your comments in this discussion as providing that, and some people may believe they are actually the opposite.
  - jsight 8y ago
    This one I don't agree with. Heat pumps are typically a few multiples as efficient in terms of KW in to heat BTUs out. I'm not sure what useful point you are trying to make with this particular comment. I often find that it surprised people to realize that a heat pump is effectively >100% efficient.
sp332 8y ago
Ok, it might be better than heating via burning gas or coal. It's still less efficient than a good air conditioner.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
ScottBurson 8y ago
> Heating via electrical resistance is 100% efficient. No, this is quite wrong. You're not taking into account generation and transmission losses. Gas heat is actually much more efficient than electrical resistance heating. Plus, as others are saying, using energy to move heat from one place to another allows you to move more heat than you could generate just by converting the energy to heat.
- timr2 8y ago
  No, I'm not taking that into account. And you're not taking into account the loss of the Deepwater Horizon or gas lost to well leakage. It's not that HN people dislike pedantry, they just reflexively dislike pedantry that doesn't support their preconceptions.
  - Spooky23 8y ago
    Your pedantry only works in a closed loop where all externalities are accounted for. There is no real world scenario in a place that has a beating season where the cost to the consumer is better with electricity versus gas or oil. Electric costs about 4x for whole house heating in my neck of the woods, and houses quote electric only heat sell at a discount. My guess is that your evaluation of electric externalities doesn’t include the health impacts of burning coal, ecosystem damage due to hydroelectric or long term storage and other capital costs incurred by nuclear generation.
    - twothamendment 8y ago
      > There is no real world scenario in a place that has a heating season where the cost to the consumer is better with electricity versus gas or oil. Electric costs about 4x for whole house heating... I guess I live an unreal life. All of my heating and cooling is electric. My bills are lower than anyone I've compared with and in every case I'm heating and cooling more square feet. The magic? Ground source heat pump. Several people tried to talk me out of it and I'm glad I didn't listen.
      - 8y ago
jsight 8y ago
I'm upvoting you, because it always irritates me when people refer to resistance heating as "inefficient". It is true in specific ways and its useful to understand those ways. It is nice to know that the conversion from electricity to heat is effectively 100% efficient and we are really making a cost comparison instead.

by timr 8y ago

klodolph 8y ago

Yes, 100% is inefficient because you can get higher ratios if you use heat pumps. The loss is that you are using more energy compared to how much energy you would use if you had a heat pump instead.

timr 8y ago
That's not efficiency. That's an efficiency ratio, which is different. Heat pumps have a higher EER, but also higher parasitic losses, which is the source of confusion on the whole thread. It's like claiming that rockets are "more efficient" than cars because they move you faster.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- jdmichal 8y ago
  The only reason behind that difference is because it's not generating heat, but moving heat. The difference to users is unimportant. As long as BTUs are pumped into / out of their closed environment, their needs are being met. And the bottom line is that for the same unit of energy used to generate 1 BTU from resistance heating, we can move several BTUs. EDIT: I'd also like to note that heat pump systems which include resistance heating systems will typically mark them as "emergency heating". Because they are less efficient, unless it's so brutally cold outside that the heat pump has dropped below 1 EER or can't even operate properly. EDIT2: I forgot that the units in SEER are not the same on both sides of the ratio. (That is, it's not actually a ratio, since those are supposed to be unitless.) So my original "13+ BTUs" was high. Changed it to a non-descript weasel-word instead.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- klodolph 8y ago
  The reason you are being downvoted is because your argument basically boils down to having an unreasonably narrow definition of what “efficient” means. In context, it’s obvious that “efficiency” here is the ratio between the amount of heat provided and the amount of energy spent. You might call it EER, I might call it COP, but it’s irrelevant because in context the word “efficient” is unambiguous. Narrow interpretations of definitions to support a point don’t actually provide much useful insight to the topic being discussed, and are seen as distracting. So these non-useful comments are being downvoted to make them less visible. It is not an issue of whether they are technically correct. You could probably make an interesting point about the electrical efficiency of heat pumps, or you could make a comment about terminology and explain that “technically” the correct term is X, but instead you chose to interpret a term in a way that contradicts the contextually obvious meaning and then base an argument on top of that.
  - timr2 8y ago
    My account is rate limited. Responding here, then going away. "arrow interpretations of definitions to support a point don’t actually provide much useful insight to the topic being discussed, and are seen as distracting. So these non-useful comments are being downvoted to make them less visible. It is not an issue of whether they are technically correct." Except, I'm not arguing for or against a "point", only that the terminology was wrong. But it does matter, because it leads to confusion, and if you stop to think about it for longer than it takes to jab at the downvote button, the reason why it matters is interesting. It's not that people here are thinking about the subject carefully, they're just disagreeing reflexively.
    - kbenson 8y ago
      > It's not that people here are thinking about the subject carefully, they're just disagreeing reflexively. Voting isn't specifically for correctness/incorrectness, but encompasses many things. In this specific case, I think the voting reasoning or on your comments can be likely be summarized as "is the comment contributing usefully to the discussion, or providing useful or insightful information in some other way". I think people aren't viewing your comments in this discussion as providing that, and some people may believe they are actually the opposite.
- jsight 8y ago
  This one I don't agree with. Heat pumps are typically a few multiples as efficient in terms of KW in to heat BTUs out. I'm not sure what useful point you are trying to make with this particular comment. I often find that it surprised people to realize that a heat pump is effectively >100% efficient.

sp332 8y ago

Ok, it might be better than heating via burning gas or coal. It's still less efficient than a good air conditioner.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

ScottBurson 8y ago

> Heating via electrical resistance is 100% efficient. No, this is quite wrong. You're not taking into account generation and transmission losses. Gas heat is actually much more efficient than electrical resistance heating. Plus, as others are saying, using energy to move heat from one place to another allows you to move more heat than you could generate just by converting the energy to heat.

timr2 8y ago
No, I'm not taking that into account. And you're not taking into account the loss of the Deepwater Horizon or gas lost to well leakage. It's not that HN people dislike pedantry, they just reflexively dislike pedantry that doesn't support their preconceptions.
- Spooky23 8y ago
  Your pedantry only works in a closed loop where all externalities are accounted for. There is no real world scenario in a place that has a beating season where the cost to the consumer is better with electricity versus gas or oil. Electric costs about 4x for whole house heating in my neck of the woods, and houses quote electric only heat sell at a discount. My guess is that your evaluation of electric externalities doesn’t include the health impacts of burning coal, ecosystem damage due to hydroelectric or long term storage and other capital costs incurred by nuclear generation.
  - twothamendment 8y ago
    > There is no real world scenario in a place that has a heating season where the cost to the consumer is better with electricity versus gas or oil. Electric costs about 4x for whole house heating... I guess I live an unreal life. All of my heating and cooling is electric. My bills are lower than anyone I've compared with and in every case I'm heating and cooling more square feet. The magic? Ground source heat pump. Several people tried to talk me out of it and I'm glad I didn't listen.
    - 8y ago

jsight 8y ago

I'm upvoting you, because it always irritates me when people refer to resistance heating as "inefficient". It is true in specific ways and its useful to understand those ways. It is nice to know that the conversion from electricity to heat is effectively 100% efficient and we are really making a cost comparison instead.