5 ms·

> 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 tha

> 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.
mcv 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. (I think it was compared to an infrared heating system with solar installed.) Is solar + infrared the most common form of heating in Germany apart from heat pumps? Otherwise it's a dishonest conclusion to say heat pumps can lead to higher CO2 emissions. It's possible that another system is even better. Anything driven entirely by solar probably has no operational emissions. But what if the heatpump is also driven by solar? The honest way to compare is to compare these various alternatives to the most common form of heating, which is probably still gas.
Ajedi32 3y ago
This is a thing I've been wondering about for a while now. Energy and labor are the biggest factors that drive supply chain costs in just about every industry. The more you spend on something, the more energy and labor likely went into creating it. Energy production obviously emits carbon. Some methods more than others, but with how immensely complex the supply chains are for most products (a global market with materials and parts and labor sourced from thousands of places all over the globe) I suspect it usually just averages out for the most part. Similarly, labor is done by people, and people all have their own carbon footprint. Again, some more than others, but with a global supply chain it sort of averages out. So if you're spending significantly more money overall on something in order to reduce your own carbon emissions, there's a pretty reasonable chance (barring any detailed analysis to prove otherwise) that the cascading effects of that spending are actually resulting in more carbon emissions in total than if you'd simply gone with the cheaper solution. Obviously this can't be universally true. It's a bit of a hand wavy argument, and the reductio ad absurdum conclusion would be that reducing global carbon emissions is impossible (which obviously isn't true). But I still think its something worth considering before making individual purchasing decisions based on perceived "greenness" to the demerit of price. (I'll also note that if hypothetically a carbon tax or carbon credits were instituted globally then this price-based way of estimating carbon emissions would suddenly become not just a rough approximation, but a highly accurate measurement.)
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > So if you're spending significantly more money overall on something in order to reduce your own carbon emissions, there's a pretty reasonable chance (barring any detailed analysis to prove otherwise) that the cascading effects of that spending are actually resulting in more carbon emissions in total than if you'd simply gone with the cheaper solution. Or you reduce your carbon and increase costs massively, but another country doesn't, and your industry dies while theirs flourishes.
- tonyedgecombe 3y ago
  In other words money is a reasonable approximation for energy and hence carbon emissions, at least at an individual level.

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.

mcv 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. (I think it was compared to an infrared heating system with solar installed.) Is solar + infrared the most common form of heating in Germany apart from heat pumps? Otherwise it's a dishonest conclusion to say heat pumps can lead to higher CO2 emissions. It's possible that another system is even better. Anything driven entirely by solar probably has no operational emissions. But what if the heatpump is also driven by solar? The honest way to compare is to compare these various alternatives to the most common form of heating, which is probably still gas.

Ajedi32 3y ago

This is a thing I've been wondering about for a while now. Energy and labor are the biggest factors that drive supply chain costs in just about every industry. The more you spend on something, the more energy and labor likely went into creating it. Energy production obviously emits carbon. Some methods more than others, but with how immensely complex the supply chains are for most products (a global market with materials and parts and labor sourced from thousands of places all over the globe) I suspect it usually just averages out for the most part. Similarly, labor is done by people, and people all have their own carbon footprint. Again, some more than others, but with a global supply chain it sort of averages out. So if you're spending significantly more money overall on something in order to reduce your own carbon emissions, there's a pretty reasonable chance (barring any detailed analysis to prove otherwise) that the cascading effects of that spending are actually resulting in more carbon emissions in total than if you'd simply gone with the cheaper solution. Obviously this can't be universally true. It's a bit of a hand wavy argument, and the reductio ad absurdum conclusion would be that reducing global carbon emissions is impossible (which obviously isn't true). But I still think its something worth considering before making individual purchasing decisions based on perceived "greenness" to the demerit of price. (I'll also note that if hypothetically a carbon tax or carbon credits were instituted globally then this price-based way of estimating carbon emissions would suddenly become not just a rough approximation, but a highly accurate measurement.)

robertlagrant 3y ago
> So if you're spending significantly more money overall on something in order to reduce your own carbon emissions, there's a pretty reasonable chance (barring any detailed analysis to prove otherwise) that the cascading effects of that spending are actually resulting in more carbon emissions in total than if you'd simply gone with the cheaper solution. Or you reduce your carbon and increase costs massively, but another country doesn't, and your industry dies while theirs flourishes.
tonyedgecombe 3y ago
In other words money is a reasonable approximation for energy and hence carbon emissions, at least at an individual level.