5 ms·

We recently replaced our old leaking big-ass-tank gas hotwater service with a continuous flow gas system. I looked into heat pumps, but cost the of the device

We recently replaced our old leaking big-ass-tank gas hotwater service with a continuous flow gas system. I looked into heat pumps, but cost the of the device + installation + an electrician to run a new line (seemed that would be needed) ... I dont think it was ever going to break even over the rated life span of the system. The cheap ones were still 3 times the price of a gas system, just for the hardware. That and I would have to buy the heatpump from out of town, so getting any warranty/servicing might be more drama. And I really didnt want to listen to a cheap compressor tick-on all the time. Another sad mark in the "wish I didnt have to kill the planet but ..." column. Feels like a rich mans game.

starbugs 3y ago
> Another sad mark in the "wish I didnt have to kill the planet but ..." column. The high cost of the hardware, installation and maintenance suggests that you would rather "kill the planet" with the system installed?
- dkdbejwi383 3y ago
  I'm not sure whether your question is some kind of flippant accusation, but in case you're being genuine: I think the poster you quoted is saying something like: if I could afford to do the right thing for the planet, I would - but I cannot afford to and am forced to do something which I know is detrimental.
  - starbugs 3y ago
    > kind of flippant accusation No. I rather meant to indicate that it might have been a good decision. There are some studies here from Germany that suggest that heat pump systems can lead to higher total CO2 emissions than using alternative systems. (I think it was compared to an infrared heating system with solar installed.) A high price of the hardware itself and the associated costs of installing and maintaining such as system might be a good indicator of why that is (higher complexity). Just because a solution appears "green", it doesn't necessarily have to keep its promises. Especially when people do panic installations as has happened here in Germany, they might get sold on an idea rather than a reality. Hardly a benefit for the planet.
    - dralley 3y ago
      > There are some studies here from Germany that suggest that heat pump systems can lead to higher total CO2 emissions than using alternative systems. Were these studies, or "studies" that were effectively marketing for Russian supplied gas, which until two years ago was a state level foreign policy goal, complete subsidies that advantaged fossil fuel heating and local politicians getting kickbacks from "interested parties" on the side. Similar to the sugar industries and their "studies" about fat.
      - starbugs 3y ago
        > Were these studies, or "studies" that were effectively marketing for Russian supplied gas I guess your next comment will be that the Fraunhofer Institut has been infiltrated by Russians? https://www.ibp.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ibp/ibp-neu/de/dokumente/ibpmitteilungen/501-550/549.pdf https://www.ibp.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ibp/ibp-neu/de/dok... And here's a video with all the information on different studies, universities and companies involved. This is basically a guy helping german real estate companies to survive in the current environment. It's in German. Translate it for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRe_Fu28CQs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRe_Fu28CQs
        pastage 3y ago
        I do not read German, but the literature is from 2008-2016 which does coincide with the peak of natural gas hysteria. Money might seem neutral but a big part of oil money has gone to lobbying, as was recently highlighted by Saudi oil fund leaks. With that said you need to say more, we have been using heat pumps for decades and it is a great thing. The Nordics has cheaper electricity though. My point is it all depends.
        starbugs 3y ago
        > big part of oil money has gone to lobbying That may be true (as it probably is for most big industries), but what does it have to do with what I have been saying? I have been talking about a comparison between two electric systems. The Fraunhofer paper just provides evidence that the COP of air heat pumps is much worse than advertised on average. If you are talking about the parent comment that said that they installed a gas system after looking into the heat pump: even there it is not clear if a heat pump system is better in terms of total emissions. It heavily depends on what kind of home you are equipping, because you also have to account for emissions caused by upgrading and maintaining insulation and other facilities, and for emissions caused by conventional power plants to supply the electricity for the pump (and the flow heater for hot water). The german energy mix, for instance, does still depend heavily on conventional plants in winter, even if the wind is blowing: https://www.smard.de/home/marktdaten?marketDataAttributes=%7B%22resolution%22:%22hour%22,%22from%22:1703804400000,%22to%22:1704754799999,%22moduleIds%22:%5B1004066,1001226,1001225,1004067,1004068,1001228,1001224,1001223,1004069,1004071,1004070,1001227%5D,%22selectedCategory%22:null,%22activeChart%22:true,%22style%22:%22color%22,%22categoriesModuleOrder%22:%7B%7D,%22region%22:%22DE%22%7D https://www.smard.de/home/marktdaten?marketDataAttributes=%7... and during summer your expensive heat pump will just sit idle. > we have been using heat pumps for decades and it is a great thing. Great for your finances, the environment or what exactly? > My point is it all depends. It does. So we better look into the details instead of making decisions based on who has been accused of lobbying most prominently. But most people are not interested in looking into the details. They just want to appear "good" based on what's currently being seen as "good". Marketing departments know that.
Projectiboga 3y ago
Instant on tank-less water heaters are a good step on energy efficiency and emissions reduction. There are a couple of tricks, it is best to be 'pilot-less' and the other is the gas line usually has to be larger, so it isn't always a drop in replacement. This is due to it having to heat the water quickly using a higher amount of gas while running.
- 31carmichael 3y ago
  I have a tankless propane system on a house with 2.5 baths. Works great, but it takes a few seconds for hot water to flow.

starbugs 3y ago

> Another sad mark in the "wish I didnt have to kill the planet but ..." column. The high cost of the hardware, installation and maintenance suggests that you would rather "kill the planet" with the system installed?

dkdbejwi383 3y ago
I'm not sure whether your question is some kind of flippant accusation, but in case you're being genuine: I think the poster you quoted is saying something like: if I could afford to do the right thing for the planet, I would - but I cannot afford to and am forced to do something which I know is detrimental.
- starbugs 3y ago
  > kind of flippant accusation No. I rather meant to indicate that it might have been a good decision. There are some studies here from Germany that suggest that heat pump systems can lead to higher total CO2 emissions than using alternative systems. (I think it was compared to an infrared heating system with solar installed.) A high price of the hardware itself and the associated costs of installing and maintaining such as system might be a good indicator of why that is (higher complexity). Just because a solution appears "green", it doesn't necessarily have to keep its promises. Especially when people do panic installations as has happened here in Germany, they might get sold on an idea rather than a reality. Hardly a benefit for the planet.
  - dralley 3y ago
    > There are some studies here from Germany that suggest that heat pump systems can lead to higher total CO2 emissions than using alternative systems. Were these studies, or "studies" that were effectively marketing for Russian supplied gas, which until two years ago was a state level foreign policy goal, complete subsidies that advantaged fossil fuel heating and local politicians getting kickbacks from "interested parties" on the side. Similar to the sugar industries and their "studies" about fat.
    - starbugs 3y ago
      > Were these studies, or "studies" that were effectively marketing for Russian supplied gas I guess your next comment will be that the Fraunhofer Institut has been infiltrated by Russians? https://www.ibp.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ibp/ibp-neu/de/dokumente/ibpmitteilungen/501-550/549.pdf https://www.ibp.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ibp/ibp-neu/de/dok... And here's a video with all the information on different studies, universities and companies involved. This is basically a guy helping german real estate companies to survive in the current environment. It's in German. Translate it for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRe_Fu28CQs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRe_Fu28CQs
      - pastage 3y ago
        I do not read German, but the literature is from 2008-2016 which does coincide with the peak of natural gas hysteria. Money might seem neutral but a big part of oil money has gone to lobbying, as was recently highlighted by Saudi oil fund leaks. With that said you need to say more, we have been using heat pumps for decades and it is a great thing. The Nordics has cheaper electricity though. My point is it all depends.
        starbugs 3y ago
        > big part of oil money has gone to lobbying That may be true (as it probably is for most big industries), but what does it have to do with what I have been saying? I have been talking about a comparison between two electric systems. The Fraunhofer paper just provides evidence that the COP of air heat pumps is much worse than advertised on average. If you are talking about the parent comment that said that they installed a gas system after looking into the heat pump: even there it is not clear if a heat pump system is better in terms of total emissions. It heavily depends on what kind of home you are equipping, because you also have to account for emissions caused by upgrading and maintaining insulation and other facilities, and for emissions caused by conventional power plants to supply the electricity for the pump (and the flow heater for hot water). The german energy mix, for instance, does still depend heavily on conventional plants in winter, even if the wind is blowing: https://www.smard.de/home/marktdaten?marketDataAttributes=%7B%22resolution%22:%22hour%22,%22from%22:1703804400000,%22to%22:1704754799999,%22moduleIds%22:%5B1004066,1001226,1001225,1004067,1004068,1001228,1001224,1001223,1004069,1004071,1004070,1001227%5D,%22selectedCategory%22:null,%22activeChart%22:true,%22style%22:%22color%22,%22categoriesModuleOrder%22:%7B%7D,%22region%22:%22DE%22%7D https://www.smard.de/home/marktdaten?marketDataAttributes=%7... and during summer your expensive heat pump will just sit idle. > we have been using heat pumps for decades and it is a great thing. Great for your finances, the environment or what exactly? > My point is it all depends. It does. So we better look into the details instead of making decisions based on who has been accused of lobbying most prominently. But most people are not interested in looking into the details. They just want to appear "good" based on what's currently being seen as "good". Marketing departments know that.

Projectiboga 3y ago

Instant on tank-less water heaters are a good step on energy efficiency and emissions reduction. There are a couple of tricks, it is best to be 'pilot-less' and the other is the gas line usually has to be larger, so it isn't always a drop in replacement. This is due to it having to heat the water quickly using a higher amount of gas while running.

31carmichael 3y ago
I have a tankless propane system on a house with 2.5 baths. Works great, but it takes a few seconds for hot water to flow.