4 ms·
Yes, but ... At a high level the article is correct. At a tactical level there are a few issues: * If you don't have a "geothermal" system, heat pumps aren't
by powera 5y ago
Yes, but ...
At a high level the article is correct. At a tactical level there are a few issues:
* If you don't have a "geothermal" system, heat pumps aren't economical in regions where it gets below 0F/-20C.
* There is a 20 year depreciation cycle for furnaces, and it doesn't make sense to install them at a significantly faster rate.
* You lose a lot of the efficiency benefits when the electricity is generated from burning fossil fuels elsewhere. And we are nowhere near having enough electricity from solar and wind to heat houses in the wintertime.
- danhor 5y agoRegarding the last point: Together with the 20 year deprecation cycle, an expansion* of heat pumps makes sense now in anticipation of higher buildup of renewables as well as creating additional electricity demand, making construction of new renewable power sources more attractive. * I only know the numbers for germany, where even in new buildings there are a lot of fossil furnaces getting installed still. Replacements in older houses also usually don't switch to a heat pumps, pushing both numbers >80% would already be a major achievement in my book.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago> heat pumps aren't economical in regions where it gets below 0F You haven't defined economical but here's a quote from Mitsubishi: "Hyper-Heating INVERTER® (H2i®) technology which can provide up to 100 percent of heating capacity at 5° F and continue operation down to -13° F even without auxiliary heat. Select units equipped with Mitsubishi Electric’s H2i plus™ technology can deliver up to 100 percent heating capacity down to -5° F"