7 ms·

Ask HN: Why not natural gas powered heat pumps?

• nasmorn 3y ago
  Generally the natgas lines to homes need to go as they leak way too much methane. This is very bad for global warming and much easier to control for in grid applications.
• tuukkah 3y ago
  Sure, you can have your own small power generator, but in general it's cheaper and more efficient to buy the electricity from the grid.
• flgb 3y ago
  I’ve seen one of these in a commercial building: https://www.yanmar.com/global/energy/ghp/vrf/ https://www.yanmar.com/global/energy/ghp/vrf/. But a renewable energy powered heat pump is better.
• huytersd 3y ago
  There’s an easier way that I almost got for my home. A hybrid system, gas powered heat when a heat pump can’t keep up (under around 25F), otherwise it’s all regular heat pump.
  • brianwawok 3y ago
    Modern high performance heat pumps keep 100% of performance down to 5F and often below. Shutoff is around -22f. Google “hyperheat” to see the Mitsubishi line. The shutoff at 25F heat pump thing is people installing a device not suited for their climate. I live in IN and 90% of the people around me bought a 25F crap heat pump “for the environment”, and are actually doing more harm and eating $600 electric bills. People don’t do enough research before buying heat pumps.
    • uxp100 3y ago
      Are the 25F devices cheaper? Cuz heat pumps are very expensive and I could see someone thinking a cheaper model was a halfway green measure. (Although with the way the midwestern winter has been so far it they might be fine this year)
    • huytersd 3y ago
      Yeah, I’m in NC. I need it for maybe one month, and only at night in a year. I also was replacing an existing gas heat system so I could reuse the underground tanks and plumbing so it made sense for me. I held off for the time being because I used that budget for a solar roof instead :)
    • oceanplexian 3y ago
      Look at a COP vs temperature chart for one of those “hyperheat” heat pumps. Once you get down to very low temperatures it’s no better than a resistance heater, and several times more expensive than gas heat.
  • Scoundreller 3y ago
    Now point your gas furnace exhaust at your heat pump. (Unsure how corrosive the gases are, but shouldn’t be given the amount of thin metal and/or ABS (PVC?) vent pipe used)
• kylehotchkiss 3y ago
  https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/absorption-heat-pumps https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/absorption-heat-pumps It’s more about utilities taking on the difficult work of making electricity greener (I recently learned California burns a substantial amount of natural gas for electricity production! But at least they are able to continually pick up the solar percentage in the daytime) and homeowners taking on the work of making their own consumption cleaner. Also it’s a natural security measure to try to reduce reliance on fuels that we may need to import one day.
  • philwelch 3y ago
    The national security concerns are not realistic. North America has more than enough natural gas to be self sufficient.
• tekla 3y ago
  Co-Gen already exists.
• quickthrowman 3y ago
  These already exist, combined heat and power (CHP). You can buy packaged units that come pre-assembled on a skid. These typically generate steam which either heats directly using radiators/heat exchangers or spins a steam turbine chiller for cooling. https://www.epa.gov/chp/what-chp https://www.epa.gov/chp/what-chp That being said, I’d much rather leave electricity generation to a utility, maintaining generators is expensive and you’re screwed if your primary generator goes down without utility backup power or a secondary backup generator.
• midasuni 3y ago
  A small home generator will be far less efficient than a central gas power plant, even after transmission losses. If you take 1 unit of gas and burn it you get ate 1 unit of heat If you take 1 unit of gas and make electicity in a power plant you get 0.5 units of electricity and can make that into 1.5 units of heat If you take 1 unit of gas and make electicity in a small home generator you make 0.1 j it’s of electicity and make 0.3 units of heat The ratios are likely to be off on the specifics but that’s how a heat pump powered by grid electicity from grid gas is better than gas directly and gas directly is better than a local generator.
  • derekp7 3y ago
    Note that I'm not proposing a home generator, but using the gas combustion engine to directly power the heat pump compressor. That way all possible power is extracted, both mechanical energy and waste heat
    • solardev 3y ago
      Basically it's the input vs output efficiency difference of your home generator vs the big ass grid one. For each unit of input fuel (like natural gas), the grid generator can get more electricity out of it than a small home gen can. It's true that you don't capture the waste heat of the home generator if you use grid power. But that's a lot of work to install and maintain too. You'd have to have a heat exchanger with the generator running in some sort of shell. You can't run the gen indoors because of exhaust gases. You also can't have it running too hot with no ventilation. So you'd have to enclose and insulate the generator outdoors, capture its heat output, heat exchange it with the home, tie it to the home thermostat, and still have a way to shunt extra heat (water heater, external exhaust, whatever) so the gen doesn't overheat. You usually can't just throttle down the generator either because they have some optimal RPM at which they run, and your heat pump depends on its output. It's just a lot of overhead for what would probably be a small improvement in efficiency (maybe not even that, if the decreased efficiency in home generation is bigger than the captured heat output). Now, at a municipal level or bigger, having to install such systems in homes, along with the natural gas infrastructure, is a much tougher thing than just running wires to each house. Many cold places outside major cities don't have reliable nature gas delivery to the home. It's a marginal improvement to a hard to fill niche, vs the simplicity of running a mini split off grid power. That can be installed in a few hours. I think a regular electric heat pump plus supplemental wood burning or kerosene stove in the home would give you simpler and more consistent results, personally, at the cost of having to breathe their exhaust fumes.
• travisb 3y ago
  It would be more thermally efficient, but not as economically efficient. Firstly, consider the capital costs of an engine + natural gas pipeline + heat pump (excluding electrical motor) versus either a natural gas pipeline + burner _or_ a heat pump + electric motor. A high guess on the lifetime of a suitable natural gas engine under consumer quality maintenance (variable and generally late) would be 10,000 runtime hours. On heating duty cycle that's about 5 years. You can reduce runtime hours with more starts and stops, but that reduces the engine life -- probably more than it saves. So the extra capital costs of the engine must amortize over five years out to less than the lost efficiency. Importing electricity has economies of scale in capital costs. Direct burning of natural gas has low capital costs. Secondly, there's the efficiency question. A moderate-sized heating system has a peak power of around 100,000 BTU/hr or about 29 KW. That's about 37 horse power. Engines of that size are piston engines with around 20% efficiency. Therefore out of every 5 units of fuel-heat you get 1 unit of mechanical energy you have 4 units of waste heat. That mechanical energy put through a heat pump will net you around 3 units of heat for a total of 7 units of heat for every 5 units of fuel. That's better than just burning it, but 140% thermal efficiency is only ~45 points better than a natural gas furnace and comes with much higher maintenance costs (oil changes, filters, etc.). Importing electricity has economies of scale in production, even if generated using natural gas, because the 'engines' are of more efficient types with 40-60% thermal efficiency. Further, an electric motor is low maintenance and long lasting. So for every 5 units of fuel-heat in a power plant you can get between 6 and 9 units of heat through an electrical heat pump. Not too different overall, but with much lower per-house capital and maintenance costs. So compared to a natural gas furnace it's not a win because of the capital costs and maintenance costs versus the much cheaper equipment; a ~$3000 engine every five years is $600 per year, which buys a lot of natural gas. Compared to an electric heat pump it's not a win because the efficiency of engines that small aren't great.
• g8oz 3y ago
  An interesting option are the natural gas powered heat pumps from Robur, an Italian company. https://www.robur.com/en-us/applications/solutions/solutions-for-residential https://www.robur.com/en-us/applications/solutions/solutions... https://www.robur.com/en-us/products/gahp-a https://www.robur.com/en-us/products/gahp-a
• philwelch 3y ago
  The goal is to get rid of utility gas. Its not a goal I agree with but it’s what regulators are consistently pushing towards.
• calamari4065 3y ago
  If you go one step further you end up at a much better solution. Since large centralized power generators are much more efficient, yet still put out prodigious waste heat, why not use that waste heat to heat homes? You get the benefits of an electric heat pump while recovering a large portion of the plant's waste heat. District heating plus heat pumps is probably the most efficient you can make a combustion plant. Once we get off of fossil fuels, we can recover waste heat from industrial processes, or convert the district heating system to be purely electric or concentrated solar or something.
  • solardev 3y ago
    It's a thing in big campuses, data centers, some municipalities, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogeneration?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogeneration?wprov=sfla1
  • RF_Savage 3y ago
    Attitudes about nuclear power are also changing and we are seeing more talk about using small reactors for district heating. Pushing all the "spare" thermal energy from nuclear plants into the sea or lakes has been a tremendous waste. Apparently while others talk about it, it is actively being worked on in China. https://www.nucnet.org/news/city-of-haiyang-first-in-country-to-have-district-heating-system-powered-by-nuclear-11-5-2021 https://www.nucnet.org/news/city-of-haiyang-first-in-country...
• MrDresden 3y ago
  Loads of points already mentioned here but I haven't seen the gas loss in the pipe network mentioned. I have seen reports (do not have reports to link to sadly) on massive losses in the pipe infrastructure. While there is loss in the electric grid too, at least it wont contribute to more emissions, as well as probably being overall less costly than the lost gas.
• K0balt 3y ago
  Yes, this would be more efficient. Because the vast majority of the waste heat created by the relatively inefficient generator would be used for heating the home, the electricity produced is nearly free. If you run the heat pump compressor directly from the engine, even more so. The main caveat is that the generator (which would need to be a well insulated, liquid cooled type) would be expensive and would require rebuilding every 10000 hours or so. The efficiency of a small generator is about 1/2 of that of a power plant, but between harvesting 90percent of all waste heat and having no distribution losses, the fuel consumption cost would typically end up lower than the electricity cost of an all electric system. This co-generation design is actually pretty common here fuel oil is the main heating fuel, but it should work even better on gas.
• aaron695 3y ago
  [dead]
• jbjbjbjb 3y ago
  A super efficient gas generator could be useful here. Maybe something like a phase change thermal battery to pick up the “waste” heat from the gas to electricity conversion could achieve more efficiency over the standard implementation.
• DraperMD 3y ago
  Dumb and Inefficient.