4 ms·

Anytime you have a technology that is marketed ubiquitously as if it's a silver bullet solution, you are going to have disappointed users and implementations th

Anytime you have a technology that is marketed ubiquitously as if it's a silver bullet solution, you are going to have disappointed users and implementations that under deliver. Of course it's extremely important to switch people to electrified heating systems, regardless of their efficiency. However it's a little disingenuous to pretend there is nothing but upside here. The upside is for humanity as a whole; for individuals there may be very little noticable changes or improvements, and the systems may be worse than what they are used to.

tcfhgj 4y ago
a (quasi) silver bullet solution, can have legitimate (individual) down sides
phkahler 4y ago
>> Of course it's extremely important to switch people to electrified heating systems, regardless of their efficiency. You could use a gas fired heat pump. It won't work as an air conditioner, but it won't stress the grid and could even work when the power goes out.
- tcfhgj 4y ago
  you are better of adding with a gas plant to the grid, which can be up to 84% efficient (if you reuse the heat generated by the turbine as well) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_cycle_power_plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_cycle_power_plant
  - osigurdson 4y ago
    Up to 64% as stated in the article. The 84% efficiency statement is in reference to the theoretical efficiency of a Carnot cycle.
    - tcfhgj 4y ago
      64% for the turbine only
      - osigurdson 4y ago
        No. Definitely not.
  - chongli 4y ago
    A home gas furnace can easily surpass 90% efficiency. Turning the gas into electricity and then including the transmission losses to the home is going to be way below 84% efficiency. Plus reusing the heat produced at the power plant is much more difficult than reusing the heat produced in the home, when the purpose is heating the home in the first place.
  - cornholio 4y ago
    And even if you don't, a 60% efficient gas turbine at the power-plant, paired with a 3+ COP heat pump in the home will be 2x more efficient than burning gas directly in the home. Using gas in an adsorption heat-pump is quite inefficient and unlikely to break even economically. Perhaps a gas turbine home boiler could be produced, that combines a mechanical heat-pump with a high efficiency combined cycle turbine; alas, they do not exist and would be very expensive. It's a startup idea.
- gruez 4y ago
  >and could even work when the power goes out. AFAIK gas furnaces still need electricity for the fans to work. When you have no electricity you at best have a glorified fireplace. It's probably going to be a worse than a regular fireplace because it's not designed to output heat to its surroundings.
  - dahfizz 4y ago
    The fan of a furnace takes little power. It can be run off of a small generator, which ~every homeowner in New England has. A heat pump cannot run off a small generator.
    - daydream 4y ago
      > It can be run off of a small generator, which ~every homeowner in New England has. This is absolutely not true. I actually don't know anyone who lives in an urban area in New England that has a generator. And I know some who live in fairly rural Maine that don't have one. Generators are not ubiquitous, or even common, in New England.
    - kkfx 4y ago
      Two notes: in a modern insulated home in not so cold climate 1kW absorbed is enough to heat a home with -20℃ outside, with is still far more than a simple fan but a power level a classic small generator can provide. The second note is that if you get gas from pipes the supplier need electricity to pump it, so it might have autonomous power or not, you can't be sure. As a safeguard I prefer a classic wood burning stove, witch is far from being comfy but works alone, reliably and I can stock enough woods or emergency source it almost anywhere... Living in the French Alps I do not know much about New England homes (insulation, ventilation, power system, ...) but IME gas heating systems are in the mean LESS reliable than heat pumps and electricity + wood is the combo to be comfy normally and backed up in case of trouble.
      - dahfizz 4y ago
        Yeah I totally agree. Heat pump with a wood stove / furnace as a second heat source is the way to go. It's not unheard of to go multiple days without electricity after a bad snow storm, so I would never trust a heat pump alone. When you need them the most, they are the least efficient and reliable. And I want to have a fireplace anyway, so it makes sense to make it functional.

tcfhgj 4y ago

a (quasi) silver bullet solution, can have legitimate (individual) down sides

phkahler 4y ago

>> Of course it's extremely important to switch people to electrified heating systems, regardless of their efficiency. You could use a gas fired heat pump. It won't work as an air conditioner, but it won't stress the grid and could even work when the power goes out.

tcfhgj 4y ago
you are better of adding with a gas plant to the grid, which can be up to 84% efficient (if you reuse the heat generated by the turbine as well) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_cycle_power_plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_cycle_power_plant
- osigurdson 4y ago
  Up to 64% as stated in the article. The 84% efficiency statement is in reference to the theoretical efficiency of a Carnot cycle.
  - tcfhgj 4y ago
    64% for the turbine only
    - osigurdson 4y ago
      No. Definitely not.
- chongli 4y ago
  A home gas furnace can easily surpass 90% efficiency. Turning the gas into electricity and then including the transmission losses to the home is going to be way below 84% efficiency. Plus reusing the heat produced at the power plant is much more difficult than reusing the heat produced in the home, when the purpose is heating the home in the first place.
- cornholio 4y ago
  And even if you don't, a 60% efficient gas turbine at the power-plant, paired with a 3+ COP heat pump in the home will be 2x more efficient than burning gas directly in the home. Using gas in an adsorption heat-pump is quite inefficient and unlikely to break even economically. Perhaps a gas turbine home boiler could be produced, that combines a mechanical heat-pump with a high efficiency combined cycle turbine; alas, they do not exist and would be very expensive. It's a startup idea.
gruez 4y ago
>and could even work when the power goes out. AFAIK gas furnaces still need electricity for the fans to work. When you have no electricity you at best have a glorified fireplace. It's probably going to be a worse than a regular fireplace because it's not designed to output heat to its surroundings.
- dahfizz 4y ago
  The fan of a furnace takes little power. It can be run off of a small generator, which ~every homeowner in New England has. A heat pump cannot run off a small generator.
  - daydream 4y ago
    > It can be run off of a small generator, which ~every homeowner in New England has. This is absolutely not true. I actually don't know anyone who lives in an urban area in New England that has a generator. And I know some who live in fairly rural Maine that don't have one. Generators are not ubiquitous, or even common, in New England.
  - kkfx 4y ago
    Two notes: in a modern insulated home in not so cold climate 1kW absorbed is enough to heat a home with -20℃ outside, with is still far more than a simple fan but a power level a classic small generator can provide. The second note is that if you get gas from pipes the supplier need electricity to pump it, so it might have autonomous power or not, you can't be sure. As a safeguard I prefer a classic wood burning stove, witch is far from being comfy but works alone, reliably and I can stock enough woods or emergency source it almost anywhere... Living in the French Alps I do not know much about New England homes (insulation, ventilation, power system, ...) but IME gas heating systems are in the mean LESS reliable than heat pumps and electricity + wood is the combo to be comfy normally and backed up in case of trouble.
    - dahfizz 4y ago
      Yeah I totally agree. Heat pump with a wood stove / furnace as a second heat source is the way to go. It's not unheard of to go multiple days without electricity after a bad snow storm, so I would never trust a heat pump alone. When you need them the most, they are the least efficient and reliable. And I want to have a fireplace anyway, so it makes sense to make it functional.