4 ms·

Essays like this filled with AI-generated spew are really irritating. I hope these figures aren't hallucinations, but it jives with my own experience: Ductless

Essays like this filled with AI-generated spew are really irritating. I hope these figures aren't hallucinations, but it jives with my own experience: Ductless systems averaged around $29,000, but quotes ranged from under $20,000 to over $40,000. Ducted systems averaged $38,000, with bids spanning from under $25,000 to over $50,000—an astonishing 100% difference from low to high for both systems. This is a non-starter for tens of millions of households. Not just the range, but the low end of the range, which approaches the cost of a new car. Lots of people will look at this, and say, "No thanks, I can get 2 or 3 window-mounted ACs at Walmart for a fraction of the price." Four years ago when we got a heat pump/mini split the cost was at the low end of the range, but sweetened with a state loan program with 0% interest for the life of the loan. No brainer. I doubt those incentives exist in the current rate environment.

johnea 1y ago
I just paid about $12K to install mini-split heat pumps on a main house and ADU. Two separate systems. That's about 1/2 of the "minimum" cited above, and it's for 2 buildings. This is so similar to the EV panic. I'm not sure if the article is LLM slop, I only scanned it. But I agree with the main point that it's not the tech holding this back, it's the US population. I also bought a 2 year old used Nissan Leaf (w/ 15K miles) for $15K. I charge it at home. Neither of these purchases broke the bank. And both of them will pay for themselves over a few years. Maybe American's should learn to multiply. Then the cost of something over time will make it's adoption a clear winner. The resistance to electrification is one of the US's biggest self inflicted wounds (after actual gunshot wounds of course).
- theultdev 1y ago
  > And both of them will pay for themselves over a few years how much did you save on your bills a month?
  - johnea 1y ago
    With the car, my back of the napkin calculation, says it will pay for itself in about 5 years. At ~10K miles/year, and San Diego gas prices of ~$5/gal.. It's hard to judge with the mini-split, since the house didn't have A/C at all before, and the ADU is new, so there is no history to compare. In the next few years though, I intend to install solar and batteries. This takes a little longer to pay off, but it's getting shorter all the time. Utilitys, especially SDG&E here in San Diego, have been raising rates at ~12%/year for quite a while. I hope to be totally energy self sufficient in another 1-3 years (including operating the car). I would expect this prospect to be very appealing to conservative rural residents, and yet for some reason there is a huge support for continuing to be dependent on oil companies.
    - theultdev 1y ago
      I see. For others with existing systems, you'd have to save $333/mo to break even over 3 years assuming a $12k install. My combined gas and electric bills don't even reach $200/mo during peak months. I'd expect that is why most people don't switch. New installs, sure I think it makes sense.
      - johnea 1y ago
        In the long run, it all pays for itself. Every homeowner should pursue it. The sooner the better. Especially once complete independence from an electric utility is achieved. I totally agree with you that the time to install this stuff is at time of construction. Unfortunately real estate developers don't really care about how much it costs to _operate_ a building, they only care about building it as cheaply as possible, and selling for as high a price as possible. The cost to increase insulation, add solar and batteries, all electric appliances, would all pay for itself over a decade or so. Most homes in the US are occupied for many decades (not all by the same owner) so the savings are substantial over the lifetime of the building. Of course, the consumer's savings are the electric utilities losses, and we know who has the pull in policy creation...
        theultdev 1y ago
        You'd at best break even over the decade, that's not really a sound financial strategy. And many of these things, like heat pumps last twice that at best, so you have to account for depreciation. It's more economically sound to invest the money or pay off your auto loan / credit card bills. It makes no sense to switch when you have a working system, only to replace a failing one or during construction. See my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44425004 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44425004 for a breakdown of one scenario. Again, I do think this tech is great, but I see no upside in switching when you have a working system.
ssuds 1y ago
I'm not sure if Joseph used AI in his writing process, but I was one of the folks he interviewed for this piece and I helped proofread it (along with others). So I'd just like to chime in and say that he did put a bunch of effort into writing it, researching it, and fact checking; it's not just AI slop.
jpd25 1y ago
Original author here. Those figures are from a local study done last year by the Laminar Collective (linked to in the piece). They do not account for state or federal rebates/incentives. They're included to demonstrate the wide range of installation costs, which can feel arbitrary to a homeowner and undermine their confidence, thus making it less likely that they will choose to install a heat pump. Comparing the cost of a heat pump to window AC units is missing the point since, as you're well aware, a heat pump provides both cooling and heating. A homeowner who is considering a heat pump is almost certainly replacing a gas furnace and/or a central AC system. When you factor in the cost of replacing two systems with one, plus higher effiency gains/lower operating costs, and money back on rebates, heat pumps can be cost competitive. Massachusetts (where this study was done) is still offering generous incentives as well as 0% financing through the Mass Save program.

johnea 1y ago

I just paid about $12K to install mini-split heat pumps on a main house and ADU. Two separate systems. That's about 1/2 of the "minimum" cited above, and it's for 2 buildings. This is so similar to the EV panic. I'm not sure if the article is LLM slop, I only scanned it. But I agree with the main point that it's not the tech holding this back, it's the US population. I also bought a 2 year old used Nissan Leaf (w/ 15K miles) for $15K. I charge it at home. Neither of these purchases broke the bank. And both of them will pay for themselves over a few years. Maybe American's should learn to multiply. Then the cost of something over time will make it's adoption a clear winner. The resistance to electrification is one of the US's biggest self inflicted wounds (after actual gunshot wounds of course).

theultdev 1y ago
> And both of them will pay for themselves over a few years how much did you save on your bills a month?
- johnea 1y ago
  With the car, my back of the napkin calculation, says it will pay for itself in about 5 years. At ~10K miles/year, and San Diego gas prices of ~$5/gal.. It's hard to judge with the mini-split, since the house didn't have A/C at all before, and the ADU is new, so there is no history to compare. In the next few years though, I intend to install solar and batteries. This takes a little longer to pay off, but it's getting shorter all the time. Utilitys, especially SDG&E here in San Diego, have been raising rates at ~12%/year for quite a while. I hope to be totally energy self sufficient in another 1-3 years (including operating the car). I would expect this prospect to be very appealing to conservative rural residents, and yet for some reason there is a huge support for continuing to be dependent on oil companies.
  - theultdev 1y ago
    I see. For others with existing systems, you'd have to save $333/mo to break even over 3 years assuming a $12k install. My combined gas and electric bills don't even reach $200/mo during peak months. I'd expect that is why most people don't switch. New installs, sure I think it makes sense.
    - johnea 1y ago
      In the long run, it all pays for itself. Every homeowner should pursue it. The sooner the better. Especially once complete independence from an electric utility is achieved. I totally agree with you that the time to install this stuff is at time of construction. Unfortunately real estate developers don't really care about how much it costs to _operate_ a building, they only care about building it as cheaply as possible, and selling for as high a price as possible. The cost to increase insulation, add solar and batteries, all electric appliances, would all pay for itself over a decade or so. Most homes in the US are occupied for many decades (not all by the same owner) so the savings are substantial over the lifetime of the building. Of course, the consumer's savings are the electric utilities losses, and we know who has the pull in policy creation...
      - theultdev 1y ago
        You'd at best break even over the decade, that's not really a sound financial strategy. And many of these things, like heat pumps last twice that at best, so you have to account for depreciation. It's more economically sound to invest the money or pay off your auto loan / credit card bills. It makes no sense to switch when you have a working system, only to replace a failing one or during construction. See my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44425004 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44425004 for a breakdown of one scenario. Again, I do think this tech is great, but I see no upside in switching when you have a working system.

ssuds 1y ago

I'm not sure if Joseph used AI in his writing process, but I was one of the folks he interviewed for this piece and I helped proofread it (along with others). So I'd just like to chime in and say that he did put a bunch of effort into writing it, researching it, and fact checking; it's not just AI slop.

jpd25 1y ago

Original author here. Those figures are from a local study done last year by the Laminar Collective (linked to in the piece). They do not account for state or federal rebates/incentives. They're included to demonstrate the wide range of installation costs, which can feel arbitrary to a homeowner and undermine their confidence, thus making it less likely that they will choose to install a heat pump. Comparing the cost of a heat pump to window AC units is missing the point since, as you're well aware, a heat pump provides both cooling and heating. A homeowner who is considering a heat pump is almost certainly replacing a gas furnace and/or a central AC system. When you factor in the cost of replacing two systems with one, plus higher effiency gains/lower operating costs, and money back on rebates, heat pumps can be cost competitive. Massachusetts (where this study was done) is still offering generous incentives as well as 0% financing through the Mass Save program.