5 ms·

I think many people suddenly realized that moving heat translates to efficiencies far north of 100%, also for heating. Moving in opposition to creating heat, wh

by brnt 3y ago

I think many people suddenly realized that moving heat translates to efficiencies far north of 100%, also for heating. Moving in opposition to creating heat, which tops out at 100% in the best case. Plus, they can run on any power source, including green and/or decarbonized.

t0mas88 3y ago
Above 100% being 350-400% in home heating cases. They're quite popular in the Netherlands due to high natural gas prices (since the Ukraine war) and two types of government subsidies. One is a direct subsidy on buying a heat pump device, the other is based on our energy pricing. Basically you can offset all energy-taxes across the year with solar production. Everything you over-produce in summer carries over to the winter. So if I assume for example that my solar system is written off in 10 years to zero (reality is probably better than that) my total energy cost per kWh is only 7 cents all year round. A pretty low capacity heat pump is able to provide 90% of the heating and cooling of a normal house. They're combined here with gas based systems to cover for the few days a year that it's exceptionally cold or when you need more hot water than the heat pump could deliver. That means you can buy a much smaller capacity (cheaper) heat pump. If you compare the running cost of heating at only 7 cents per kWh with a heat pump to natural gas prices "pre Ukraine" it'a already roughly about 4 to 5x cheaper. Now with gas prices nearly doubled you're looking at a 8x cost saving with a heath pump vs using natural gas. The only hurdle is that you need to buy and install a heat pump device, so it takes some time to make that back. The government is planning to slowly reduce the energy-tax offset from 2025 to 2031. But even without that it's expected that the move from gas to heat pumps will continue.

5 ms·

I think many people suddenly realized that moving heat translates to efficiencies far north of 100%, also for heating. Moving in opposition to creating heat, wh

by brnt 3y ago

t0mas88 3y ago
Above 100% being 350-400% in home heating cases. They're quite popular in the Netherlands due to high natural gas prices (since the Ukraine war) and two types of government subsidies. One is a direct subsidy on buying a heat pump device, the other is based on our energy pricing. Basically you can offset all energy-taxes across the year with solar production. Everything you over-produce in summer carries over to the winter. So if I assume for example that my solar system is written off in 10 years to zero (reality is probably better than that) my total energy cost per kWh is only 7 cents all year round. A pretty low capacity heat pump is able to provide 90% of the heating and cooling of a normal house. They're combined here with gas based systems to cover for the few days a year that it's exceptionally cold or when you need more hot water than the heat pump could deliver. That means you can buy a much smaller capacity (cheaper) heat pump. If you compare the running cost of heating at only 7 cents per kWh with a heat pump to natural gas prices "pre Ukraine" it'a already roughly about 4 to 5x cheaper. Now with gas prices nearly doubled you're looking at a 8x cost saving with a heath pump vs using natural gas. The only hurdle is that you need to buy and install a heat pump device, so it takes some time to make that back. The government is planning to slowly reduce the energy-tax offset from 2025 to 2031. But even without that it's expected that the move from gas to heat pumps will continue.