4 ms·

Though hath sinned against the 2nd law of thermodynamics! 1,000 gallons of heating oil have ~41 MWh of chemical potential energy (if using the HHV). Those 41 M

Though hath sinned against the 2nd law of thermodynamics! 1,000 gallons of heating oil have ~41 MWh of chemical potential energy (if using the HHV). Those 41 MWh are not directly comparable to 7MWh of electricity. While the units (MWh) are the same, they are measuring two completely different things. They have as much in common as an American dollar and a Jamaican dollar; yes they're both "dollars", but they refer to different things. Repent and sin no more.

ryao 2y ago
Energy usage wise, they are the same. That is why the units match after conversions. In any case, I replaced substantial energy usage from heating oil with less substantial use of electricity. Here is a fun fact. It is more energy efficient to run a heat pump off electricity from a commercial generator burning diesel to heat a home than it is to burn the diesel directly. This includes grid losses. The reason for this is that heat pumps exceed 100% efficiency because the environmental energy moved is free as far as accounting is concerned. In my case, the electricity is produced by burning natural gas rather than diesel. By the way, I realize my numbers are borderline in showing that, but the past year has been colder than years where I burned oil, and it is hard to account for that when looking at numbers as there is no strict control.
- _aavaa_ 2y ago
  They are not the same though. This leads to issues with prominent people, see Vaclav Smil, making the case that it'll be too difficult to transition from fossil fuels because they conflate these two things. Some do it out of ignorance, others know better and do it since it's in their financial interest. As long as we conflate the two, people will more easily be misinformed and think they need to replace their 41 MWh of heating oil with 41 MWh of electricity. But they don't. They need at most 41 MWh of heating. And as you said, your heat pump is probably getting you and average COP of at least 3. Meaning they will need to pay for fewer "MWh" in order to get the same amount of heat to your house. It is more efficient, just as it's more efficient to charge and EV of a grid running on natural gas than it is burning the petrol in an ICE. Both are also far better for pollution.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - ryao 2y ago
    The two are the same as far as my computation of my household’s reduction in energy usage is concerned. That is why I converted to the same units. As for needing 41MWh of heat, that is incorrect as my boiler was only 86% efficient and the one it replaced was even less efficient. It is also incorrect as the efficiency gains had reduced oil usage to 18MWh. Heat wise, I only need around 15MWh per year (although I likely needed more this year since it was particularly cold). I have a suspicion that the ducted method of heat delivery used by my heat pump has more losses than the hot water system previously used to deliver heat. I had been sealing the central AC ducts in the winter to save a few hundred gallons of oil usage. I can no longer do that as heat is delivered via those ducts now.
    - _aavaa_ 2y ago
      I don’t disagree with you about furnace efficiency. But my point still stands: You needed 18MWh of oil or 15MWh of heating. Neither of those numbers are how much electricity you will need to run a heat pump.
      - ryao 2y ago
        Dividing 15kWh by the average COP should determine it, although heat demands change from year to year and temperatures vary, causing not only the amount of heat needed to vary, but the average COP to vary too.
    - 11101010001100 2y ago
      Ask yourself what is the difference between a heat pump and an electric resistance heater?
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 2y ago
schiffern 2y ago
>Though hath sinned against the 2nd law of thermodynamics! >...Repent and sin no more. Sure. What is a specific edit to the post that could have been made to avoid your wrath? What text, exactly, should have been written? Thanks.
- 11101010001100 2y ago
  Ryao is comparing a heat engine to a heat pump. Thermodynamically different objects.
  - ryao 2y ago
    Where did I compare a heat engine to a heat pump? An oil boiler certainly is not a heat engine.

ryao 2y ago

Energy usage wise, they are the same. That is why the units match after conversions. In any case, I replaced substantial energy usage from heating oil with less substantial use of electricity. Here is a fun fact. It is more energy efficient to run a heat pump off electricity from a commercial generator burning diesel to heat a home than it is to burn the diesel directly. This includes grid losses. The reason for this is that heat pumps exceed 100% efficiency because the environmental energy moved is free as far as accounting is concerned. In my case, the electricity is produced by burning natural gas rather than diesel. By the way, I realize my numbers are borderline in showing that, but the past year has been colder than years where I burned oil, and it is hard to account for that when looking at numbers as there is no strict control.

_aavaa_ 2y ago
They are not the same though. This leads to issues with prominent people, see Vaclav Smil, making the case that it'll be too difficult to transition from fossil fuels because they conflate these two things. Some do it out of ignorance, others know better and do it since it's in their financial interest. As long as we conflate the two, people will more easily be misinformed and think they need to replace their 41 MWh of heating oil with 41 MWh of electricity. But they don't. They need at most 41 MWh of heating. And as you said, your heat pump is probably getting you and average COP of at least 3. Meaning they will need to pay for fewer "MWh" in order to get the same amount of heat to your house. It is more efficient, just as it's more efficient to charge and EV of a grid running on natural gas than it is burning the petrol in an ICE. Both are also far better for pollution.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- ryao 2y ago
  The two are the same as far as my computation of my household’s reduction in energy usage is concerned. That is why I converted to the same units. As for needing 41MWh of heat, that is incorrect as my boiler was only 86% efficient and the one it replaced was even less efficient. It is also incorrect as the efficiency gains had reduced oil usage to 18MWh. Heat wise, I only need around 15MWh per year (although I likely needed more this year since it was particularly cold). I have a suspicion that the ducted method of heat delivery used by my heat pump has more losses than the hot water system previously used to deliver heat. I had been sealing the central AC ducts in the winter to save a few hundred gallons of oil usage. I can no longer do that as heat is delivered via those ducts now.
  - _aavaa_ 2y ago
    I don’t disagree with you about furnace efficiency. But my point still stands: You needed 18MWh of oil or 15MWh of heating. Neither of those numbers are how much electricity you will need to run a heat pump.
    - ryao 2y ago
      Dividing 15kWh by the average COP should determine it, although heat demands change from year to year and temperatures vary, causing not only the amount of heat needed to vary, but the average COP to vary too.
  - 11101010001100 2y ago
    Ask yourself what is the difference between a heat pump and an electric resistance heater?
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 2y ago

schiffern 2y ago

>Though hath sinned against the 2nd law of thermodynamics! >...Repent and sin no more. Sure. What is a specific edit to the post that could have been made to avoid your wrath? What text, exactly, should have been written? Thanks.

11101010001100 2y ago
Ryao is comparing a heat engine to a heat pump. Thermodynamically different objects.
- ryao 2y ago
  Where did I compare a heat engine to a heat pump? An oil boiler certainly is not a heat engine.