4 ms·
So, you burn natural gas in a powerplant to create electricity somewhere around 55% (hopefully) efficiency; in most of the US, the heat output is wasted. You th
by coryrc 4y ago
So, you burn natural gas in a powerplant to create electricity somewhere around 55% (hopefully) efficiency; in most of the US, the heat output is wasted. You then lose 6% to transmission, getting to 52% efficiency, to put it into a 2x COP heat pump (which we mandate use gases with GWP in the thousands) to get 104% of natural gas heating.
Or, spend the same amount on air sealing reducing heating needs by about 30%, pay workers instead of factories, and get the same reduction in natural gas use, also without the refrigerant bomb waiting to go off, and not needing more power plants built. Mandate every rental have lower than 6 ACH50, since misaligned incentives mean they're usually worse than homeowner-occupied units.
- seoaeu 4y agoEfficiency percentages are the wrong way to look at it. If you instead frame it in terms of tons CO2 equivalent, then locking in the emissions every year between now and 2050 is going to be worse, compared to the alternative of burning a bunch of natural gas for electricity now but gradually phasing it out in favor of wind and solar.
- coryrc 4y agoMost heat pumps aren't going to last 30 years. Passivhaus only needs 1500W maximum of heating, so they usually don't use heat pumps. Wind and solar also lock in natural gas usage, because they don't provide inter-seasonal storage or even intra-day storage.