3 ms·
Unfortunately, phasing it out of use for heating in favor of electricity is quite likely counterproductive. Burning natural gas for heat is more efficient than
by DuskStar 7y ago
Unfortunately, phasing it out of use for heating in favor of electricity is quite likely counterproductive. Burning natural gas for heat is more efficient than burning it to produce electricity, transporting that electricity, and then sending it through a resistor to create heat.
Which means it's only an emissions win if the electricity is carbon neutral or the multiplier for a heat pump compensates for the generation/transmission losses.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- toomuchtodo 7y agoElectricity grid gets cleaner every year. You can generate closer to load centers to avoid transmission losses. Natural gas distribution network and consumption never does. Heat pumps work all the way down to 0F. Insulate, insulate, insulate.
- oppositelock 7y agoHeat pump based electric heat in out mild climate emits less CO2, even factoring in transmission and conversion losses, than burning the gas in the most efficient condensing gas heater. It still costs about 3x as much in terms of energy cost, but emits less CO2. However, the city regulators, like I said above, are stupid, so you often can't get a permit for a heat pump, because of noise ordinances. These things sound like an A/C compressor, so you can only install it if there is enough distance to your neighbors, and that's usually not possible in newer, denser developments, precisely the kinds where natural gas is banned, so you are now forced to use resitive heating, which uses 3-4x as much power as a heat pump, and costs more than 3x as much, due to our tiered electric prices (additional units cost more than early units)