2 ms·
Well of course when talking about efficiency you have to specify what you are being efficient with respect to: what's most energy efficient might be different t
by nicoburns 4y ago
Well of course when talking about efficiency you have to specify what you are being efficient with respect to: what's most energy efficient might be different to what's most cost efficient which might be different to what's most carbon efficient.
Cost is going to vary greatly on the electricity and gas prices in your area, so it's hard to give a definitive answer there.
With regards to energy efficiency, my understanding is that heat pumps can be up to 400% (300% typical), which is naively much better than gas which is at most 90% efficient (70-80% typical). This doesn't take into account the extra innefficiency of generating the electricity in the first place, but a quick google tells me coal plants are typically 33% efficient, with combined cycle gas plants being typically being 50% efficient. Even at those levels, heat pumps still look to be coming out ahead to me. And that's not even taking into the possibility of green energy generation through renewables or nuclear.
- zeroonetwothree 4y agoThere is also up to 10% loss from transmission/distribution. So that makes the two closer though heat pumps still win.
- elil17 4y agoYes, heat pumps do win. They win even more when you consider that the energy mix is not 100% fossil fuels. Globally something like 15% of energy comes from renewables or nuclear, plus 20-ish % from natural gas which is, as you said, 50-ish % efficient in turbine power plants.