2 ms·

The first link doesn't say anything about co2 at all. It talks about some inefficiencies. This doesn't mean its a bad choice and there are not many alternatives

The first link doesn't say anything about co2 at all. It talks about some inefficiencies. This doesn't mean its a bad choice and there are not many alternatives anyway. Not everyone wants an infrared based heating system or a air basesd (which would also work with a heat pump, air to air). The second link is an interview were there is already a counter video. Rieck does not verify all sources and interviews a broad spectrum of people. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZS9HzuQck8&ab_channel=Prof.Dr.ChristianRieck https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZS9HzuQck8&ab_channel=Prof.... Also, just food for thought: If one unit of gas has one 1kWh energy, a heat pump can make 3-4kWh out of it (You are following right?). And panic decisions: ITs very critical that you can consume energy and not just oil or gas because in 5-15 years, the co2 tax for gas and oil will be higher and you will still only be able to consume those. The bad decision is to do nothing or to renew your oil/gas burner. The good decision is heat pumps, infrared whatever you like and doesn't consume oil/gas or can be easily switched. Btw. investing now in germany in PV and a heat pump (for owners of houses) is with a high chance the longterm cheaper solution overall.

dralley 3y ago
>Also, just food for thought: If one unit of gas has one 1kWh energy, a heat pump can make 3-4kWh out of it (You are following right?). The decision is a little more complicated than that. If your electricity comes from natural gas, then you have to account for inefficiency in production of electricity and losses during transmission. On the other hand, furnaces are not 100% efficient either, the cheap ones are 80% and the 95% efficient ones are more expensive, which narrows the gap. Modern heat pumps can easily maintain a high enough COP to match or beat a furnace, and if you live in an area that needs both heat and A/C at different parts of the year, a more efficient unit benefits you year-round as opposed to spending more on a furnace. And if your electricity isn't coming from fossil fuels... then it's a moot point to begin with. You can't run a furnace on wind.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
starbugs 3y ago
> Also, just food for thought: If one unit of gas has one 1kWh energy, a heat pump can make 3-4kWh out of it (You are following right?). Not really following. I think that's a central point of the discussion. Is that COP realistic? Even after re-watching the follow-up videos on that, I tend to say no. If we assume an energy mix of 30/70 wind/conventional during winter and conventional means lignite, hard coal, nat. gas. Taking the numbers from Quaschning (https://www.volker-quaschning.de/datserv/CO2-spez/index_e.php https://www.volker-quaschning.de/datserv/CO2-spez/index_e.ph...) let's say we have CO2 (equivalent) emissions of 700g/kWh for electricity generation on average (where nat. gas mean is 436g) incl. the upstream chain. 700x0.7 = 490g/kWh (wind subtracted). Now that has to compete against 200g/kWh for nat. gas burned in the furnace, disregarding any losses in both cases. 490/200 = 2.45 which would be the COP needed to break even. And that is without production and installation emissions with regard to the whole heat pump system, including a potentially common replacement of radiators/floor heating, installing a flow heater for hot water and so on. Also disregarding that the flow heater will have a COP of 1. Please correct me if there's an error in my calculation. It's just a back of the envelope thing and won't be accurate, but hopefully good enough to illustrate my point a bit. > the co2 tax for gas and oil will be higher and you will still only be able to consume those. As discussed in the reaction videos, I think it's not a fair point to compare the current costs to hypothetical future costs. Especially not if the german official sources state that the gas price will not substantially rise until 2035. But that's a point of discussion that's based on so many ifs that it's not really one I'd like to have at this point. We are basically at a point in this country where the government has to revert its policy on Diesel tax increases on the farmers. It's unclear to me if tax increases on nat. gas will be accepted by the population.
- Ynottingten 3y ago
  [dead]

dralley 3y ago

>Also, just food for thought: If one unit of gas has one 1kWh energy, a heat pump can make 3-4kWh out of it (You are following right?). The decision is a little more complicated than that. If your electricity comes from natural gas, then you have to account for inefficiency in production of electricity and losses during transmission. On the other hand, furnaces are not 100% efficient either, the cheap ones are 80% and the 95% efficient ones are more expensive, which narrows the gap. Modern heat pumps can easily maintain a high enough COP to match or beat a furnace, and if you live in an area that needs both heat and A/C at different parts of the year, a more efficient unit benefits you year-round as opposed to spending more on a furnace. And if your electricity isn't coming from fossil fuels... then it's a moot point to begin with. You can't run a furnace on wind.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

starbugs 3y ago

> Also, just food for thought: If one unit of gas has one 1kWh energy, a heat pump can make 3-4kWh out of it (You are following right?). Not really following. I think that's a central point of the discussion. Is that COP realistic? Even after re-watching the follow-up videos on that, I tend to say no. If we assume an energy mix of 30/70 wind/conventional during winter and conventional means lignite, hard coal, nat. gas. Taking the numbers from Quaschning (https://www.volker-quaschning.de/datserv/CO2-spez/index_e.php https://www.volker-quaschning.de/datserv/CO2-spez/index_e.ph...) let's say we have CO2 (equivalent) emissions of 700g/kWh for electricity generation on average (where nat. gas mean is 436g) incl. the upstream chain. 700x0.7 = 490g/kWh (wind subtracted). Now that has to compete against 200g/kWh for nat. gas burned in the furnace, disregarding any losses in both cases. 490/200 = 2.45 which would be the COP needed to break even. And that is without production and installation emissions with regard to the whole heat pump system, including a potentially common replacement of radiators/floor heating, installing a flow heater for hot water and so on. Also disregarding that the flow heater will have a COP of 1. Please correct me if there's an error in my calculation. It's just a back of the envelope thing and won't be accurate, but hopefully good enough to illustrate my point a bit. > the co2 tax for gas and oil will be higher and you will still only be able to consume those. As discussed in the reaction videos, I think it's not a fair point to compare the current costs to hypothetical future costs. Especially not if the german official sources state that the gas price will not substantially rise until 2035. But that's a point of discussion that's based on so many ifs that it's not really one I'd like to have at this point. We are basically at a point in this country where the government has to revert its policy on Diesel tax increases on the farmers. It's unclear to me if tax increases on nat. gas will be accepted by the population.

Ynottingten 3y ago
[dead]