4 ms·

I don't understand why people on this thread are discussing installing resistance heat in new housing stock. It is not 1974. Modern heat pumps are cheap, have 3

I don't understand why people on this thread are discussing installing resistance heat in new housing stock. It is not 1974. Modern heat pumps are cheap, have 300% efficiency even in cold places, and their cost has plummeted. They also double as AC units, which will almost certainly be installed in virtually all new housing anyway.

hirundo 6y ago
Where I live it's essential to have a backup to electrically powered heat. Power just isn't that reliable, especially in a big, freezing winter storm. In California, add their notoriously unreliable grid to the calculation. Also, for my house a winter's worth of electrical heat costs about $1,700. Propane heating costs about $1,400. If I use my woodstove and buy the wood it costs about $600. If I cut my own wood it costs about $150 for fuel and maintenance. So forcing electrical heat also amounts to a large implicit tax.
- matthewdgreen 6y ago
  I wasn't aware that this article was about proposing to force the use of electrical heat vs. woodstoves. The discussion was about whether we should have natural gas hookups in new homes. Obviously backups are good, as is increased electrical reliability -- but it's not clear that building parallel natural gas and electrical infrastructure is a better use of resources than just using those resources to make the electrical infrastructure more reliable. PS I grew up in a wood-heated home in Vermont and stacked cords of wood every year. Except for freezing my ass of every morning until the fire was going, I think wood heat is great. Unfortunately it does have some particulate issues in urban areas, and (related) doesn't scale well. But I'm not saying people shouldn't use it where it makes sense.
  - hirundo 6y ago
    Wood heat is cheap, makes me exercise more, and it clears out wildfire fuel near my home. So it's really a no brainer for me. But it's also a royal pain in the ass compared to twisting the dial on a thermostat. There's a large cost in time, energy and attention.

hirundo 6y ago

Where I live it's essential to have a backup to electrically powered heat. Power just isn't that reliable, especially in a big, freezing winter storm. In California, add their notoriously unreliable grid to the calculation. Also, for my house a winter's worth of electrical heat costs about $1,700. Propane heating costs about $1,400. If I use my woodstove and buy the wood it costs about $600. If I cut my own wood it costs about $150 for fuel and maintenance. So forcing electrical heat also amounts to a large implicit tax.

matthewdgreen 6y ago
I wasn't aware that this article was about proposing to force the use of electrical heat vs. woodstoves. The discussion was about whether we should have natural gas hookups in new homes. Obviously backups are good, as is increased electrical reliability -- but it's not clear that building parallel natural gas and electrical infrastructure is a better use of resources than just using those resources to make the electrical infrastructure more reliable. PS I grew up in a wood-heated home in Vermont and stacked cords of wood every year. Except for freezing my ass of every morning until the fire was going, I think wood heat is great. Unfortunately it does have some particulate issues in urban areas, and (related) doesn't scale well. But I'm not saying people shouldn't use it where it makes sense.
- hirundo 6y ago
  Wood heat is cheap, makes me exercise more, and it clears out wildfire fuel near my home. So it's really a no brainer for me. But it's also a royal pain in the ass compared to twisting the dial on a thermostat. There's a large cost in time, energy and attention.