return to table of content

Nine US states are teaming up to accelerate the adoption of heat pumps

mdasen
281 replies
22h39m

One of the big problems with heat pumps in New England is that our electricity costs 1.7x the US average (https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.ph...).

If you're in the South, a heat pump makes perfect sense. You're going to want AC anyway and it'll be way more efficient and save a ton of money when you want heat. In most of the country, even if it gets cold your electricity prices are still a ton cheaper. Iowa/Kansas/Missouri/Nebraska get cold, but their electric rates are less than half ours.

Heat pumps do work into freezing New England temperatures, but they're a bit less efficient as it gets to zero fahrenheit. That wouldn't matter if our electric rates were more reasonable, but at our high rates a heat pump would probably cost me an additional $50/mo in the winter (compared to natural gas). That isn't so bad and our electric rates might come down as offshore wind actually starts happening. Plus it might actually be cheaper than gas given that mini-splits would mean I could choose which rooms I want to heat rather than heating the whole place as a single zone. Plus there's the option to get solar power to drive down prices.

But I think the biggest issue in New England (and California) will probably be the high cost of electricity. In most of the country, heat pumps are a huge no-brainer.

bagels
178 replies
22h12m

Right, the heat pump will reduce energy use to maybe 1/3 of a gas furnace, but natural gas is something like 6x cheaper for the same amount of energy, so it is an expensive folly.

If California is serious about this, they need to reign in the utilities to reduce prices and or stop the attacks on solar installation.

smcleod
44 replies
19h50m

Natural gas won’t stay cheap. It was cheap here in Australia 10 years ago and now it’s so expensive no one can afford to run gas heating and it’s only going up. Now (thankfully) the government has banned the installation of new gas heating and a lot of people are getting rid of gas cooking, hot water heating etc… it’s for the best.

jbarham
17 replies
14h25m

The only reason that natural gas prices in Australia have gone up in the past 10 years is that gas producers in the eastern states were able to start exporting gas as LNG.

As of 2023, Australia is the world's second largest LNG exporter (source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1262074/global-lng-expor...) after the US (take that Russia!) and ahead of Qatar. Great for the gas exporting cartel but not so great for ordinary Australians in eastern states who now pay the same for gas as people in Tokyo. (And Aussies wonder why manufacturers keep leaving...)

Banning domestic gas usage for new homes (which the fools running Victoria, the state I live in, have done) will do nothing for emissions but will mean that the gas cartel can make even more money exporting LNG to Asia. Bravo!

The exception is Western Australia which is also a massive LNG exporter but has stricter domestic reservation requirements than the eastern states.

All of the above has been extensively documented at https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/ (source: https://www.google.com.au/search?q=site%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Fwww....).

paranoidrobot
12 replies
14h4m

will do nothing for emissions

How can that be?

Direct consumption emissions are eliminated.

Those with solar (a growing percentage) reduce their indirect emissions from grid non-renewable generators.

And there is a growing percentage of green generation on the grid.

jbarham
11 replies
13h46m

> will do nothing for emissions > How can that be?

Because a reduction of domestic gas usage will just be diverted to less efficient LNG exports.

Given that by far the largest source of Victoria's electricity generation capacity is from dirty brown coal [1] if anything banning domestic gas usage might even make emissions worse since it will force people to use only electricity for cooking and heating.

Direct consumption emissions are eliminated.

Ah, so burning Aussie natural gas in Asia (after it's been liquified and then turned back into gas) is somehow better for the environment than just burning it in Australia?

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Victoria#Electricity...

idiotsecant
5 replies
12h25m

Is the correct strategy to wait to regulate gas usage until every country on earth does the same? That doesn't seem like a winning strategy. Someone always has to be last.

tsimionescu
1 replies
8h31m

If you want to help the environment, you regulate both gas usage and exports. The goal is to keep gas in the ground, where it belongs, not to move it to other countries.

hardolaf
0 replies
4h54m

Except gas exports are largely being used to retire brown coal burning which is even worse for the environment than LNG. This isn't an all-or-nothing deal even with exports. The richer countries should take on the costs of better efficiency first and we can trickle those technologies down to other nations as they become cheaper than LNG and coal.

looofooo0
1 replies
11h54m

It is stupid, with less Gas available on the LNG Market other LNG Producers will increase production or they will use other Energy sources such as coal.

paranoidrobot
0 replies
10h27m

It's banning the installation of NEW LNG appliances in homes in Victoria.

It doesn't impact commercial use of LNG, or the extraction or export of LNG.

ffgjgf1
0 replies
1h45m

Banning domestic gas usage while a significant proportion of you electricity supply is produced by burning coal seems beyond absurd..

rmm
0 replies
12h59m

This. Have friends in this industry.

The biggest pushers of no domestic gas are the producers and finance guys. They make a lot more money on exports.

paranoidrobot
0 replies
10h16m

The chart you link to shows that Brown Coal, as both a total, and as an overall percentage of the grid, is decreasing, with renewables increasing.

Indeed, if you look at the three Brown Coal generators in Victoria[1], Yallorn is due to shut down in 2028 taking ~30% (1480MW) of that away, followed by Loy Yang A in 2035 which will take another ~40% (2200MW) of that capacity.

So, banning new LNG appliances now, and starting that migration will have a net positive impact.

This is true even if the LNG continues to be burned overseas if it's replacing coal fired generation capacity.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_coal-fired_power_stati...

kalleboo
0 replies
11h49m

Ah, so burning Aussie natural gas in Asia is somehow better for the environment than just burning it in Australia?

If it displaces burning coal in Asia, maybe it is? https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/14670874

cinntaile
0 replies
8h21m

In the last 3 years coal went from 65% to 58%, expect this trend to continue and even accelerate. See the link below. https://www.energy.vic.gov.au/renewable-energy/victorian-ren...

AnarchismIsCool
0 replies
9h51m

It costs money to transport LNG abroad. Ships, terminal infrastructure maintenance, people, it's all overhead. Ultimately if people stop using natural gas domestically there will be a reduction in production because that overhead eats into the profits of the producers.

elihu
2 replies
6h51m

What you seem to be saying is that Australians had gas that was artificially cheap because it wasn't being bought and sold at international market rates, and once that started happening and the market was no longer distorted by trade limitations, the fair market price was not longer attractive to Australian customers.

(Personally, I think all countries, to the extent that they can, ought to both reduce domestic fossil fuel use and at the same time impose strict limits on its export. We're all better off if it just stays in the ground.)

leg100
1 replies
2h25m

It wasn't "artifically" cheap nor was the market "distorted". It was merely the physical reality prior to the innovation of LNG.

It would only be fair to say it was artifically cheap, say, if the Australian government was imposing tariffs or subsidising production. I don't think it was doing that, and as it was, the producers were sufficiently incentivised by the market to produce and sell gas domestically.

Tinyyy
0 replies
1h52m

There was an inefficient allocation of resources that was disrupted by technology.

jillesvangurp
0 replies
5h0m

Interesting. Of course transporting gas across the Australian continent and selling it cheaply is a lot less lucrative than selling it abroad in lng form. So, I can see why they would focus on exports rather than a relatively small domestic market that is on the other side of the continent.

Anyway, Australia has no excuse for not using solar energy. Which is exactly what they are doing over there despite conservative governments trying to slow that down for the last decade or so. I doesn't need to depend on fossil fuels.

Aloha
11 replies
17h55m

It was cheap 10 years ago because the global price of gas was cheap, its not now.

thoughtstheseus
10 replies
15h41m

No such thing as a global gas price. Natural gas pricing is regional as it cannot be easily transported.

sundaeofshock
8 replies
15h6m

US exported 6.9 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in 2022.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/natural-gas/imports-and-...

nroets
5 replies
14h10m

The article says nothing about the cost of shipping gas across the globe. It only says 44% of exports are by pipeline.

If shipping makes it an order of magnitude more expensive, then there is no global price.

defrost
3 replies
14h1m

Order of magnitude?

Large (not ultra large) oil tankers might carry 200,000 tonnes and consume 25 ton of heavy bunker fuel per day.

LNG gas carriers equally have their own stats.

This is something you can (or at the very least should be able to) back of envelope estimate ...

https://www.planete-energies.com/en/media/article/transporti...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C3%A4rtsil%C3%A4-Sulzer_RTA9...

Now you just need mean trip times, profit margin, etc. and you're away.

Order of magnitude addition to costs, though, sounds a little extreme.

pama
2 replies
12h58m

Once the pipe is built, the maintenance cost is very low, much lower than maintaining and using a tanker.

im3w1l
1 replies
8h2m

When ships were attacked in the red sea they started diverting. When nordstream blew up that was it. Something to take into account, at least.

ffgjgf1
0 replies
1h41m

When nordstream blew up that was it.

True but it was turned off some time before that happened

sundaeofshock
0 replies
11h56m

“Europe remained the main destination for U.S. LNG exports in December, with 5.43 MT, or just over 61%. In November, 68% of U.S. LNG exports were to Europe, LSEG data showed.”

Of course there is a global market for all fossil fuels.

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-was-top-lng-expor....

Retric
1 replies
14h38m

Yea at rather insane prices due to the Ukraine war.

In 2022 the US imported 3 trillion CF, exported 6.9 trillion cubic feet, and extracted 43.8 trillion CF.

By comparison in 2015 we only exported 1.8 trillion CF.

beeboobaa
0 replies
14h22m

Also known as "the price" for anyone who doesn't sit on massive gas deposits

Aloha
0 replies
15h31m

Australia exports 41% of its gas.

maxglute
9 replies
19h43m

I remember a recent investor report posted on HN about declining health of permian basin, and the economics of extraction will increasingly not make sense in 10 years. Seems like no brainer if shale and by connection LNG is on way out. Might also explain Biden stalling LNG expansions especially with NATO on the hook, maybe it's cynical electioneering to his base, but maybe the future of cheap US LNG is not bright vs renewables.

jhallenworld
6 replies
19h9m

The fossil fuel capitalists are so very unhappy about this ban, they are still going on about it in the financial news. I have to say, I love it. Low natural gas prices directly benefit me, and isn't it our gas?

The price has certainly come down (look at henry hub chart..), but also winter has not been too cold..

They should ban oil exports next.. (for "national security")

Actually export tariffs would be better than outright bans.

dripton
4 replies
16h39m

Export tariffs are actually unconstitutional in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Import-Export_Clause

jhallenworld
1 replies
16h27m

Interesting.. the same section banned any limitation on the importation of slaves... at least that clause had a sunset date. Both clauses were basically: "don't touch our cash cow".

engineer_22
0 replies
16h13m

The price of consensus

erikpt-work
1 replies
15h59m

Looking at that clause, it appears that it's only unconstitutional if the individual states do it. Doesn't say anything about the federal government or Congress. Or am I reading it wrong?

dripton
0 replies
15h12m

There are two clauses that ban export tariffs. One applies to states, the other to the Feds.

engineer_22
0 replies
16h13m

Very warm winter. People in my (usually Frosty) neighborhood are marvelling. It's remarkably warm this year.

engineer_22
1 replies
16h14m

Vaclav Smil's books about energy give some extra context. I have read his Power Density book (eye opening comparison of solar, wind, nuclear, fossil).

IIRC Gas extraction has an extremely high EROI (30x) initially, making it a highly productive extractive resource. But each gas well has a productive lifespan of approx 7 years requiring constant activity to sustain development.

surfaceofthesun
0 replies
11h7m

Huge fan of Valclav Smil’s work. Note that the significant amount of water required to frack those wells is in the order of 1 million galls or more. Both sides of that is impacting the Edwards Aquifer[1]. Wastewater from wells is finally being treated, but it doesn’t seem to be a widespread practice, yet. It’s also possible that production declines after each subsequent refracking process.

—- 1 - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_Aquifer

letitbeirie
2 replies
12h55m

Depends where you are.

In the US natural gas is a byproduct of shale oil extraction and we have a limited capacity to move or export it so it's almost priced as a waste product.

It's unlikely that electricity will be any cheaper than gas soon either, since that's where 40% (and growing, as our coal and nuclear fleet are retired) of our electricity comes from.

xbmcuser
0 replies
3h45m

Today solar electricity is already cheaper than natural gas and by 2030-31 solar and wind electricity cost will be 1/4 to 1/8 of today's prices looking at the avg 10% cost decline we are seeing. The advantage of natural gas being cheaper than solar was 4-5 years ago now it's no longer the case. Natural gas advantage now is of having being able to produce electricity when needed but as battery storage prices drop it will also be priced out from that market in many places with solar and wind availablity.

pfdietz
0 replies
4h24m

Most US natural gas production is from "dry" wells without petroleum production.

rmm
0 replies
13h5m

It will stay cheap in most of Australia and United States. Rest of world (europe) though….

gnicholas
40 replies
21h50m

stop the attacks on solar installation

I've not heard of any attacks, just reductions in subsidies (tax credits, net metering). Can you share what you're referring to?

what_ever
10 replies
21h33m

Is net metering a subsidy?

wongarsu
7 replies
21h3m

If few people use net metering it's kind of fair. Your solar installation generates electricity, any excess gets delivered to your neighbors. The electricity is providing the infrastructure for that without making any money on that specific transaction (it gets deducted from your meter and added to your neighbors' meter), but that's easy enough to account for in base fees.

The issues start if too many people do net metering. Imagine everyone has a solar roof and reaches net-zero electricity. You can still maintain the infrastructure with base fees, but the electricity company still has to run power plants in the morning and evening when demand outstrips solar supply, and for baseload in the night. And during the day there's now an oversupply of electricity that they somehow have to sell.

In commercial electricity generation many countries have a kind of spot market for electricity, where prices are determined by demand (down to the minute) and available supply. Prices can go close to zero if lots of solar and wind capacity is available, or far above the price charged to consumer for capacity to cover the evening peak. If we changed consumer prices to more accurately reflected this "true" market price (plus markup for the grid operator), with prices changing by the minute, net metering would be pretty fair. But so far there's little desire to dump all that complexity on regular consumers.

secabeen
5 replies
20h12m

You can still maintain the infrastructure with base fees

In theory yes, but the grid has not used properly scoped base fees to pay for infrastructure. Delivery costs of power are more than half the total cost; to get to a base+generation model, you'd probably see monthly connection fees for Electricity in the $100+ range for many Americans.

jrockway
4 replies
19h46m

I don't think there's any obligation for people's financial trickery to be sustainable. Like, a new power pole costs (say) $1000 regardless of how many watts are going through the wires attached to it. Someone has to pay the person that cut down the tree and hauled it to its final location money. That they loan you money on the infrastructure and you repay through using electricity isn't the actual cost model, it's just a pricing model people are OK with. When it stops working, the model will have to change.

I always laughed about the pricing structure of the business ISP that I worked at. We charged $1000 to install your service, then $1000 per month (without a contract). This was a financial game; we would lose money if you cancelled after your first month. I always thought the pricing should be $15,000 to install, and then $5 per month. That's closer to what the actual costs are. But instead of you going to the bank to get a loan to pay the $15,000, we hid that for you. It made more people sign up, and we had a better source of funding than bank loans. But, at the end of the day, we would have been out of business if a bunch of people signed up and didn't pay. If that happened, I imagine the pricing would have changed to reflect actual costs.

AnthonyMouse
2 replies
18h28m

Like, a new power pole costs (say) $1000 regardless of how many watts are going through the wires attached to it. Someone has to pay the person that cut down the tree and hauled it to its final location money.

That pole is carrying the power for, say, 100 people.

Half of them use a below-average amount of electricity. If you stick them with a $100/month fixed fee, they don't need a large solar/battery system to get off the grid entirely, so you've made that economical and that's what they do.

Now you have the same number of poles and half as many customers, so the fixed fee rises to $200/month, and more customers do the same thing. This is not going to a great place.

Meanwhile there is a rural road somewhere that only has two things on it. One is a large commercial operation and the other is somebody's house. Putting up poles along that road is going to cost $100,000, but the commercial operation is content to pay the entire amount because their alternative is buying land somewhere that it costs significantly more than $100,000 more. The house on the same road is not content to pay half of that and will just use their $50,000 to install a solar/battery system and have quite a bit left over, even though a model where they only pay for usage would get them to sign up, and the power company is installing the poles either way.

The problem we're looking at is that if you charge a fixed fee for a grid connection, low users opt out of the grid, and then the fixed fee goes up and creates a new set of low users. But if you charge for distribution per kWh, everybody installs local solar generation because it's cheaper than any generation method that has a significant distribution fee as part of the cost per kWh, which in turn raises the distribution component of the price per kWh even more. Under the first option, a large proportion of rural and suburban customers aren't going to want a grid connection at all. Under the second option, they'll take the grid connection but then only use it if local generation isn't available (i.e. it's cloudy) and the grid price per kWh at those times will be quite high. But that's plausibly the better of the two alternatives, because a grid connection with a high price per kWh will generally be better than losing power at those times, or having enough local storage/generation to prevent that from ever happening even in rare circumstances.

A third option is to charge everyone the fixed fee for the power grid and force them to take a grid connection even if that isn't economical, but that's even worse. You've essentially created a head tax with no way to avoid it even if you can't afford it, because you can't cancel your service and you can't pay less by reducing consumption.

bagels
1 replies
18h2m

There's a pole in my backyard. It generously connects 8 houses. There is another pole a few hundred feet down the road, also connecting 8 houses.

AnthonyMouse
0 replies
17h46m

There is also a pole closer to the substation which is carrying the power for 5000 people.

Meanwhile if four of the eight people near your house decide to disconnect from the grid because the fixed fee is too high, you still have to cover the cost of that pole with half as many people, some of whom might then decide that the higher fixed fee is too much and disconnect too, etc.

gnicholas
0 replies
19h17m

Comcast quoted rates in this range for installations in areas near Palo Alto. IIRC my friend was quoted $20k for the installation. She might have gone for it if they'd charged $5/mo after that, but of course Comcast wouldn't be so kind. Last I heard, she was still on AT&T copper. Hopefully Starlink will be able to help people like this, who are just outside the reach of existing wired internet.

Jochim
0 replies
20h41m

Prices can go close to zero if lots of solar and wind capacity is available

Negative prices aren't uncommon during quiet periods in the summer.

sokoloff
1 replies
21h7m

Absolutely.

If a customer is permitted to buy as much electricity as they want at a fixed price while also being able to sell as much as they can at a different time at a fixed price, it seems like there's an obvious subsidy happening anytime they sell electricity at other than when the wholesale price is the highest or buy other than when the wholesale price is lowest. (In areas with an excess of solar generation capacity, these distortions become quite large.)

(I'm still all for these subsidies on the balance of factors; we just shouldn't pretend that they're not subsidies.)

PaulDavisThe1st
0 replies
18h56m

But until the relevant grid is saturated with solar generation, surely the surplus just needs to be moved around.

And if the grid itself is saturated, that means it isn't big enough.

SECProto
7 replies
21h27m

All electricity generation throughout the US is subsidized in various ways already - eg low interest loans for new generation capacity, programs for low income earners, not (or not effectively) charging for carbon and methane emissions, low fuel taxes on sources used for electricity generation. The "subsidies" you list help make a desirable energy source compete on a more level playing field - matching benefits that competing energy sources already receive.

gnicholas
6 replies
21h18m

My understanding is that when utilities buy energy from solar farms, they do so based on the demand and available supply, meaning that solar farms get paid more or less depending on these factors. But with net metering for residential solar installations, utilities are buying independent of supply/demand, which gives the residents a subsidy even vis-a-vis other solar producers.

I understand that all kinds of energy production methods are subsidized, but if net metering lets residential solar owners get paid more for the energy they produce than solar farms would be paid, I don't see how that's anything but a subsidy.

SECProto
4 replies
21h2m

There are all kinds of complications - commercial solar isn't dispatchable so it does tend to get lower rates than most other sources. In my jurisdiction residential (net metering) customers are only allowed to install a certain numbers of panels - corresponding with household energy consumption and assumed production levels (i.e. your monthly bill will never be negative - at lowest you'll be paying distribution charges and 0 for consumption). With low levels of residential solar installation, locally installed panels can help balance the grid as it is consumed on distribution lines and doesnt need transmission lines (conversely, high levels can unbalance the grid).

if net metering lets residential solar owners get paid more for the energy they produce than solar farms would be paid, I don't see how that's anything but a subsidy.

Paying them nothing would be even more unfair (and that's the only option available where I am at least - net metering or no household generation)

gnicholas
3 replies
20h56m

Paying them nothing would be even more unfair (and that's the only option available where I am at least - net metering or no household generation)

I wasn't suggesting this. The phased rollback of net metering in California (the state mentioned in my original parent comment as "attacking" solar installation) means that solar owners will still get paid, just not as much as before. I'm sorry that you live somewhere that this middle option isn't available — the two extremes are indeed less fair!

beembeem
1 replies
20h23m

The "phased rollback of net metering" is a bit more extreme than you suggest. Have you heard of income-based billing? [1]

[1] https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/local/working-for-you/sdge...

gnicholas
0 replies
20h13m

I have heard of income-based billing, but that will apply regardless of whether you own solar panels. Also, some legislators are trying to repeal it before it goes into effect. [1-2]

1: https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-progressive-california-epipha...

2: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39320388#39320860

SECProto
0 replies
19h40m

phased rollback of net metering in California

Thank you for this clarification - I thought the discussion about changes to net metering was general, not California specific. Reading [1] about the changes to net metering in California, it seems reasonable, especially as it has high solar penetration. Hopefully it will (like many things) lead the way so that load shifting becomes simpler/more economical throughout North America.

[1] https://cleantechnica.com/2023/08/18/decoding-the-changes-to...

Retric
0 replies
20h56m

Most US solar farms have a power purchase agreement that’s independent of real time market prices. Solar farms agree because being paid 2c/kWh or whatever for the first X years guarantees they can repay all loans. Utilities agree because it’s guaranteed to save them money.

Those power purchase agreements then makes it really easy to get loans.

bagels
6 replies
20h25m

California specific: income based minimum pricing, and 'wholesale' pricing for power sent to the grid.

gnicholas
5 replies
20h15m

Income-based base billing is indeed terrible, but it is not an attack on solar. You'd pay it whether you have panels or not. Also, legislators have apparently come to their senses and are looking to repeal it. [1-2] As for the pricing for power sent to the grid, I did mention the changes to net metering, which offer grandfathering for existing installations.

1: https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-progressive-california-epipha...

2: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39320388#39320860

bagels
4 replies
18h4m

The high fixed monthly cost regardless of utilization means that compared to previous, my total costs for solar go up, even if my total costs for PGE supplied power don't. That will cause many fewer people to switch to solar or solar + battery.

gnicholas
3 replies
17h47m

It doesn't change the calculus for switching. It's the same fixed cost either way. The price is simply going up for customers who are not poor. I don't see how this makes someone more or less likely to switch to solar, since the dollar amount they can save stays the same.

An analogy: your kid's preschool has an option where you can volunteer once a month and save $50/month. One day, they announce that they are going to institute a new fee that ranges from $10-100, depending on your income.

How does that new fee cause fewer people to decide to volunteer?

bagels
2 replies
16h51m

Previously: Spend $60k to save $200/month Now: Spend $60k to save $100/month

Break even would then be much further in to the future.

Solar is a large capital expenditure, and this change reduces the return on that investment.

gnicholas
1 replies
12h33m

Can you explain how the income-based fee results in lower savings? It is a fixed fee that applies whether or not you have solar.

To be clear, I think the income-based fee is a bad idea, but I just don't think it changes the calculus on installing solar. I have also had conversations about this specific question with a friend who has a PhD in urban planning, lives in CA, and is in the process of installing solar panels. It's possible she's wrong, but everything she says lines up with what I have read.

It sounds like you're referring to the net metering changes, which are separate from the income-based fee. That does change the calculus, obviously (which is why they grandfathered existing installs for 20 years).

hedora
0 replies
3h6m

Income based pricing encourages people to go off grid.

The upfront cost of doing that with a propane generator is about a half that of a battery + solar system (it's about a third if you go with battery + solar + generator, which is more comparable to a grid connection).

However, the maintenance and fuel costs of the generator mean that the solar will be much cheaper (and quieter!) to operate.

If the income based pricing is $100 / month, and the net energy / base connection cost is $0 / month (assuming an exactly sized solar system), then it'll take about 200 months for the generator to pay itself off. That's 16 years, which is a bit longer than the system will last, though replacing a generator costs about half what I've assumed above.

So, there's a pretty low upper limit to the amount they can screw with these fees before it's economically (though not necessarily environmentally) rational thing for individuals to just cut the cord and let the power grid death spiral.

brlewis
4 replies
19h48m
gnicholas
3 replies
19h35m

OP was complaining about CA, and this appears to be an proposed law in AZ. It could affect CA utility prices because it relates to export, but it's not up to CA to decide what laws are passed in another state, governing the usage of land in that state.

inferiorhuman
2 replies
13h50m

In California the switch to NEM 3.0 more or less means that folks with solar will get socked with high monthly fees and much lower export rates (roughly wholesale instead of retail). NEM 3.0 came into effect in April of last year.

gnicholas
1 replies
12h37m

folks with solar will get socked

That's not quite right. Existing installs are grandfathered for 20 years, right? [1]

1: https://www.ecowatch.com/solar/net-metering/net-metering-3-0

inferiorhuman
0 replies
9h2m

Right but we're talking the effect on new installs (and upgrades beyond a certain amount, and eventual maintenance on older NEM 1.0 and 2.0 installs). With NEM 1 exports were paid out at retail rates and there were no interconnect fees. With NEM 3 exports are paid at roughly wholesale rates with a $145 monthly interconnect fee. NEM 3 is absolutely an attack on solar installs.

TheOsiris
4 replies
21h37m

isn't that an attack? removing/reducing subsidies removes incentives for people to install more solar

janpieterz
1 replies
21h34m

Depends how you see it. If you assume a neutral state of no incentives, adding benefits to stimulate growth and later removing this benefits once growth is achieved can be seen as "attacking this positive state" or simply "bringing back to neutral".

I moved to SoCal recently and didn't realize things like net metering even existed, so when people started to rant about these new measures I was very surprised to learn about them, and especially about people presuming these things to be "normal".

gnicholas
0 replies
21h16m

when people started to rant about these new measures I was very surprised to learn about them, and especially about people presuming these things to be "normal".

I think at first people were (reasonably) scared that net metering might go away with no grandfathering for existing installations. People had a reasonable reliance interest in maintaining at least some of their existing benefits for the payoff period of their panels.

Once it was clear that existing installations would be grandfathered, I didn't hear much ranting anymore — just people who were bummed that a subsidy was going away (or people rushing to get in under the wire).

opo
0 replies
12h30m

The problem with rooftop solar is that it is very, very, expensive compared to utility grade solar:

…Rooftop solar photovoltaic installations on residential buildings and nuclear power have the highest unsubsidized levelized costs of energy generation in the United States. If not for federal and state subsidies, rooftop solar PV would come with a price tag between 117 and 282 U.S. dollars per megawatt hour.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/493797/estimated-leveliz...

If we want to subsidize a renewable energy source, why should we subsidize rooftop solar when we could subsidize utility grade solar or wind? Money is fungible and not unlimited - a dollar that goes to subsidize residential rooftop solar is a dollar that would go much, much further if it was used to subsidize utility grade solar or wind.

Rooftop solar subsidies are also unusual in that much of the subsidy is often paid by less well-off households to subsidize their wealthier neighbors - sort of a reverse Robinhood scheme.

gnicholas
0 replies
21h34m

I don't generally view the removal of subsidies as being "attacks". I view that as the end of the free money.

WarOnPrivacy
1 replies
20h40m

> stop the attacks on solar installation

I've not heard of any attacks, just reductions in subsidies. Can you share what you're referring to?

I do appreciate a softball.

https://duckduckgo.com/?va=c&t=he&q=political+attacks+on+sol...

gnicholas
0 replies
20h24m

I guess you didn't actually click through to the links; they refer to windmills, solar panel pricing issues in SE Asia, and various other topics (I'm sure some links involve the CA govt attacking solar, but the first several didn't). Maybe next time you can post a couple links that you've actually read, instead of just giving the impression that there are scads of attacks at your fingertips?

vondur
0 replies
18h54m

Basically, to get subsidies, you need to install a battery storage system with a solar installation. This can be quite a bit more expensive than the solar alone. (worth it if possible, adds a backup in case of a power outage too)

KptMarchewa
0 replies
21h30m

Removing those subsidies while keeping fossil fuel ones is kind of attack.

Retric
19 replies
20h19m

In the continental US you get ~2x the heat from burning natural gas in a combined cycle turbine to run a heat pump than you would from using a high efficiency gas furnace.

The market price of electricity vs gas varies quite a bit through time and various distortions of the market. Currently gas is cheap, but you want to compare historical averages when buying something that lasts 15+ years not simply look at current rates.

Aloha
14 replies
20h0m

I don't think your math adds up.

Combined cycle is like at most 70% efficient, subtract 10% of distribution, you end up with 60%.

At 50f my 5T heat pump takes 6.6 kWh to generate 50,000 BTU.

6 kWh of energy takes 71cf of gas to make - accounting for transmission and generation losses.

71cf of gas will make 71,000 BTU of heat, assuming an 80% efficiency furnace, that comes out to 56,000 BTU usable.

Yes a heat pump will vastly outperform resistive strip heat - but not even an 80% gas furnace.

Retric
6 replies
19h20m

Replace your heat pump? People installing new heat pumps are going to see much higher efficiency.

50,000 BTU = 5.27528 * 10 ^ 7 J = 14.6 kWh / 6.6 kWh = COP of 2.2 at 50f which is absolutely terrible. Modern heat pumps should have a COP around 4 at those temperatures and 3 near freezing.

Also, “Subtracting 10%” would mean your grid losses are 17%. “annual electricity transmission and distribution (T&D) losses averaged about 5% of the electricity transmitted and distributed in the United States in 2018 through 2022.” So, (70% * (1 - 5%)) = 66.5%, but resistive losses are reduced in the cold. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=105&t=3

4 * 0.665 = 2.66x though obviously what matters here is the annual average COP. (3 * 0.665) = 1.995 aka 2.

Aloha
3 replies
19h8m

Its brand new!

Also, should have been 60,000 BTU - its a 15 SEER unit.

ghop02
0 replies
18h28m

15 SEER relates to cooling efficiency, what is its HSPF rating?

coryrc
0 replies
14h6m

15 SEER is garbage American manufacturers dump on people. Asian manufacturers are making 25-35 SEER systems.

Retric
0 replies
18h39m

2.7 COP is a a noticeable improvement but still terrible at those temperatures. Are you sure it’s 6.6 kW?

PS: 2.7 COP * 0.665 = 180% efficiency which still crushes the 80% heat pump in your example but these numbers should be much higher.

naijaboiler
1 replies
3h1m

So I have to spend 10k on a new heater every 10 years just to keep up

Retric
0 replies
54m

I was assuming something was broken or had made a very poor choice of device. He clarified he was reading the wrong column, so it’s not quite as bad.

The technology isn’t advancing fast enough to make upgrading every 10 years necessary. You could buy units in 2000 with a significantly higher COP than he was implying.

aero_code
3 replies
19h5m

I don't think the numbers are accurate in the quantity of gas. Since kWh and BTU are both units of energy, finding the cf of gas is unnecessary (assuming the efficiency numbers are correct).

1 kWh = 3.6 megajoules and 1 BTU = 1055 joules

The 6.6 kWh of the heat pump is 23.76 MJ which is 22,521 BTU of energy. Assuming that the power plant and distribution are 60%, it would take 37,535 BTU of gas to produce (22,521/60%).

Instead, using that 37,535 BTU of gas in an 80% efficient furnace would only produce 30,028 BTU of heat, which is worse than the 50,000 BTU from the heat pump.

I'm pretty sure even a poor heat pump will be more efficient than heating directly with gas. (Of course, they have drawbacks, like they can leak their refrigerant that causes more of a greenhouse effect than CO2.)

Aloha
1 replies
17h58m

You kinda do need to figure that out - EIA says that it takes 7.42cf of gas to make 1kWh of energy.

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=667&t=8

I dont know where EIA gets those numbers, but that was the basis of my calculation. Maybe I shouldn't have multiplied that by the efficiency of the plant, but rather just taken of distribution losses.

Retric
0 replies
16h37m

They are averaging the efficiency from the current fleet of gas turbines after subtracting the useful heat output and coming up with 44.4%.

However, it’s a misleading number in multiple ways because the fleet is made up of a mix of low and high efficiency turbines. Grid operators use a mix of turbine types as a cost optimization, a far cheaper and far less efficient turbine that’s only used 1% of the time it worth it. The average number of kWh per cf of gas is therefore heavily in favor of high efficiency turbines.

Reason077
0 replies
15h44m

"(Of course, they have drawbacks, like they can leak their refrigerant that causes more of a greenhouse effect than CO2.)"

My heat pump contains 2.1 kg of R32 refrigerant. R32 has a GWP of 675, so that 2.1 kg is the equivalent of 1417 kgs of CO2. (older refrigerants were much worse!)

Heat pumps should never leak their refrigerant during their lifetime, and installers will remove and recycle the refrigerant when servicing or decommissioning systems. But of course, accidents happen, so let's pessimistically assume that 50% of systems installed will eventually leak. In the real world it's hopefully far less than that, but that would mean on average 708 kg CO2e in refrigerant is emitted per system over its lifetime.

On the other hand, heating a typical US home with natural gas emits 2900 kgs of CO2 per year.

I think it's safe to say that the climate impact of refrigerant leaks in modern heat pump systems is minuscule compared to that of the CO2 emitted from natural gas heating.

stephen_g
1 replies
19h33m

What kind of system do you have that is only giving you (if I’ve converted the those very confusing units correctly) a COP of 2.2 at 10° C? That’s really very poor… There are air-to-water units that can achieve COP > 4 at 0° C, and even a good air-to-air should still be over COP 3… I’d expect to see a COP like that at -15° C or below on a modern unit…

Aloha
0 replies
19h7m

Should have been 60,000 BTU, I read the wrong column

contravariant
0 replies
15h56m

Dear god how do you keep sane with those kinds of units? You're making it so confusing you fail to realise some of your numbers don't quite line up

In sane units:

- 2 m^3 of gas generates 6.6 kWh of electricity

- which generates 14.7 kWh of heat (at some temperature differential).

- The same 2 m^3 of gas generates 20.8 kWh of heat

- of which about 16.4 kWh is usable assuming some losses.

Of course your implied electricity generation is only around 31% efficient, so I'm not sure what that 60% you mention in the beginning is about. The COP you're using is around 2.2, which together with a 60% efficiency for generating electricity would be greater than 1, outstripping anything that's physically possible to achieve with a furnace.

iraqmtpizza
2 replies
13h13m

I would like to see HN recommend looking at historical averages before buying an EV.

hedora
1 replies
3h13m

People have; it's a obvious win. There are sites that do this for your zip code correctly, but an efficient EV gets 4 miles / kWH. An efficient hybrid gets under 60 MPG.

California's insanely high electricity rates are about $0.15 / kWh, so the energy costs $0.0375 per mile.

Gas has hovered around $4 / gallon or higher for a long time, giving a fuel cost of $0.0666 per mile.

Big energy guzzling EVs get about 2 miles / kWh, for $0.075 per mile, and gas guzzlers easily get below 15 MPG, or $0.26 per mile.

You'd have to go back to the days of $1 / gallon gas (mid 1990's?) and ignore inflation / lower electricity costs back then to conclude large ICE cars have competitive fuel costs. You'd "only" need to go back to $2 gas for the energy efficient hybrids to be competitive.

mercutio2
0 replies
2h18m

You must have looked at an old chart for California retail electricity rates.

They’re more like $.30/kWh.

Wholesale rates are .02-.04/kWh, but in a nutshell, retail ratepayers are paying for all the record wildfire lawsuit costs.

bagels
0 replies
18h13m

Sorry, I was comparing my existing gas furnace vs replacing my furnace with a heat pump.

exe34
15 replies
21h53m

Is there a reason heat pumps use electricity? I would have thought the same approach would work with gas - you only need to burn a fraction of the gas to drive the "fridge" backwards?

david422
7 replies
21h36m

I think you are back to where you started. If it was cheaper to use gas to run a heat pump then everybody would just run generators in their houses off of gas instead of using electrical lines.

bluGill
3 replies
21h24m

That has been proposed. Well the proposal was to run a small engine powering a generator, then you cool the engine to heat the house, while the electric is sold (or otherwise powers the house). However modern gas furnaces are > 90% efficient and it is hard to get an engine that efficient for heat (remember the engine will be running indoors so it needs to not fill the house with noise of CO). I think no matter how you look at it, you can't make this system more efficient than just using the furnace to generate heat without the engine.

jefftk
1 replies
21h4m

> I think no matter how you look at it, you can't make this system more efficient than just using the furnace to generate heat without the engine.

I don't think that's right: look at micro-CHP (Combined Heat and Power) systems: they run an engine to generate electricity, and then capture the heat for heating. I don't think you can get them for residential in the US though.

jhallenworld
0 replies
19h35m

Honda sold one for the US, but it didn't catch on or something:

Well I found this, they used the heat for hot water:

https://global.honda/en/newsroom/news/2012/p120925eng.html

naijaboiler
0 replies
2h52m

Instead it everyone rubbing their own little power plant. Economies of scale suggests that’s it probably cheaper to centralize that electricity generation in a highly efficient large plant, which brings us back to exactly what we have been found got that 100 years

jefftk
2 replies
21h5m

In MA this actually does work at first glance: a 23% efficient Generac 7171 is rated for 9kW at full output on natural gas, and uses 127 ft3/hr (1.37 therms). This is $0.30/kWh at $2/therm, compared to the $0.323/kWh I pay the power company. If you were doing this for real you'd put in the work to find something more efficient than this unit, which would then be enough to make up for the cost of the generator and the maintenance.

Except it's not legal to do this, and even if it were there'd be a lot of hassle.

thsksbd
1 replies
19h2m

Why isn't it legal? Is that an MA thing?

If you plumb the radiator to your home you get >100% efficiency

jefftk
0 replies
17h42m

I had found some things saying you were limited in how many hours per year you could run standby generators outside of emergencies [1] but possibly this only applies to larger systems? [2]

[1] https://www.ehs.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/emergency_ge...

[2] https://www.mass.gov/doc/310-cmr-700-air-pollution-control-r...

colechristensen
3 replies
21h49m

You seem to be missing something fundamental here, I’m not sure what it is. How do you think heat pumps work?

theteapot
0 replies
21h38m

Combined Heat and Power (CHP) is big in Europe.

exe34
0 replies
21h28m

What I had in mind was that heating and cooling using an air-conditioner, a fridge or a "heat pump" is fundamentally the same thing, and electricity is just one way of driving it. Ultimately you have a gas that you compress to release heat (outside for AC, inside for heat pump), which then expands (inside for A/C, outside for a heat pump). The compressor can run off a pedal bike for all it cares.

Arrath
0 replies
21h46m

OP has a point, fundamentally you could drive the heat pump by a little gas turbine, or bridge the gap with a gas powered generator.

dahinds
2 replies
21h33m

Gas fired heat pumps do exist, they're called absorption heat pumps.

https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/absorption-heat-pumps

bombcar
1 replies
20h40m

This is how you can have propane powered refrigerators.

c_o_n_v_e_x
0 replies
16h52m

Some fridges use the propane itself as a refrigerant, they do not burn the propane. R-290 is the refrigerant designation for propane.

mullingitover
10 replies
22h4m

Southern Cali resident here: I got a mini split system installed a couple years back, and last year's eye-popping surprise gas bill inspired me to start running it backward for heat instead of using the furnace.

Pricewise, it's actually a wash. My electric bill went up by about $100 a month, whereas during the winter my gas bill was running about $100 a month to run the furnace (aside from that one random $600 bill one month last year that inspired this change). I've been using the mini split all winter and it's been great.

thelastgallon
6 replies
20h8m

Its a wash when gas prices are at historical lows: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/rngwhhdm.htm

Spivak
4 replies
19h46m

That isn't the table you actually care about because it doesn't hit the residential customer like that. The nominal $/therm in my area has been stable for the last 10 years which might be artificial but to my bank account it's all the same.

Scoundreller
2 replies
17h48m

Obviously depends where you are & your use, but most of the gas bills here are everything but the actual gas. Transportation, distribution, storage, taxes, standby charges...

10u152
1 replies
7h32m

What on earth is a standby charge on gas?

sokoloff
0 replies
5h24m

The monthly meter rental/connection fee/whatever your local utility calls it. Mine calls it "customer charge".

inferiorhuman
0 replies
13h54m

Natural gas prices have not remained stable in California.

https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2023-01-06/get-ready-...

raegis
0 replies
19h8m

I'm in southern California as well, and my gas bill in dollars per therm are not at historic lows. However, price per therm did not double this winter like it did last winter...so far.

CaliforniaKarl
2 replies
20h49m

Thank you for posting that. Although the cost of electricity is important, when deciding on using a heat pump for heat, the big question is the cost of electricity for heating, relative to the cost of the fuel you are already using (natural gas, propane, oil, etc.).

It's definitely annoying to calculate! Since a heat pump's efficiency can vary with the outside temperature, it takes a bit of work to estimate your potential added electricity cost.

lazide
1 replies
19h27m

Also cost of capital for installing the heat pump, if a new installation.

mullingitover
0 replies
19h19m

To me the heat was a freebie. I installed it for the AC, wasn't expecting to use it for heat at all.

gregwebs
10 replies
21h37m

There are second order effects from natural gas use in an actual furnace that aren't taken into account in price of energy comparisons. A furnace has to either

1) exhaust out air initially drawn from the house which must be replaced by cold outdoor air coming into the house (this requires more heating of the house) 2) take in fresh cold air for combustion and exhaust that (which requires extra energy to heat up the cold air)

bluGill
7 replies
21h30m

All modern furnaces I've seen take #2 - use air from outside. Despite that they can get to 99% efficient. It doesn't take much energy to heat up that cold air.

giobox
4 replies
21h22m

My experience in the US at least is that its not uncommon for the furnace air intake to draw air from inside the house (my last two homes in PNW as one example).

zbrozek
0 replies
20h58m

California resident here. Both of my last two places with gas furnaces combust unconditioned air.

bombcar
0 replies
20h40m

You could get high efficiency with a furnace that uses inside air, but they’re basically no longer installed.

20 years ago quite common.

bluGill
0 replies
20h48m

That used to be very common in the US, and there are a lot of old systems still working. However every new furnace I've seen is installed to use outside air. Using outside air needs $100 more in parts and labor and it prevents air balance issues in modern well sealed houses.

CaliforniaKarl
0 replies
20h52m

The furnace my parents (who live in Ohio) installed 10+ years ago uses outside air for combustion, not conditioned inside air. As it's older, it's not got a 99 AFUE, but it's high (I think in the low 90s).

gregwebs
0 replies
9h11m

How could it not take much energy to heat up cold air? That plus blowing air is the entirety of what goes on in a forced air ventilation system.

The efficiency rating of a gas furnace assumes the incoming air temperature is close to the desired temperature of the house- that's why it is negligible in the artificial efficiency ratings. If the incoming air is below freezing the efficiency must be different. I wish I could find a study that properly quantified this.

Tarball10
0 replies
18h28m

The cheap homebuilders around here (midwest) are still putting standard 80% efficiency gas furnaces which draw interior air in brand new homes.

thsksbd
0 replies
19h17m

But that's negligible. I'd calculate it, but i have 102 fever

bagels
0 replies
18h11m

That is a good point. City permits required us to add vents to our furnace enclosure, which would draw combustion air from the conditioned space, even though it was previously drawing from the attic. I just blocked the vents.

nonethewiser
9 replies
18h12m

If California is serious about this, they need to reign in the utilities to reduce prices and or stop the attacks on solar installation.

Why do you think electricity prices are high?

nsfmc
3 replies
17h41m

i'm not sure if you're serious, but the california public utilities commision's public advocates office (what a mouthful) describes california's rates as generally higher than most of the nation[0], with southern california's rates being highest (with both increasing).

you can see, for instance san diego's rates [1] which are $0.38/kWh in the winter and $0.48/kWh in the summer. for context, this means if i pay 11 dollars in electricity generation (because i'm part of a municipal electric generation coop), i'm still paying $36 for distribution/transmission/etc, which is $47 for 106kWh used or ~$.44/kWh which is roughly what electrify america charges ($.48/kWh) when i go to 'fill up my car.' as far as i can tell from talking to people, this is is more than most people anywhere in the country (including hawaii) pay for their electricity.

[0]: https://www.publicadvocates.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cal-advocate... [1]: https://www.sdge.com/sites/default/files/regulatory/1-1-24%2...

fragmede
2 replies
17h36m

fwiw, San Francisco is at $0.51/kWh for peak usage.

nsfmc
1 replies
17h31m

oooooph

inferiorhuman
0 replies
13h31m

It's a bit more nuanced than that (and PG&E deliberately makes their bills difficult to read). In Oakland for the baseline tier on the time of use plan:

Peak is $0.51536 (delivery) - $0.10556 (baseline credit) + $0.16225 (generation via East Bay Community Energy / Ava) or just over of $0.57 per kWh.

Off-peak is $0.48701 - $0.10556 - $0.13772 or just shy of $0.52/kWh.

Add that baseline credit back in for when you reach tier 2 (currently 12.9 kWh/day for my apartment which factors in winter usage and electric heat). I have about 3.5 kW of baseboard heaters (and use 2.75 kW at most). Whatever the duty cycle is to keep the apartment at 60°F 24x7 is well more than 12.9 kWh so obviously I don't do that anymore. Rates are set to go up again in March or April.

Gas is $2.43888/therm with tier 2 kicking in at 6.72 therms/month and minimum charge of $0.13151/day.

bagels
3 replies
18h7m

A combination of: mismanagement and corruption. To pay for all the people that PGE murdered with their negligence?

Why do you think electricity prices are high?

Why should the rates be 4x the rest of the country?

nxm
2 replies
17h54m

Because of regulations and higher costs (labor)

xp84
0 replies
2h48m

I’m curious if there’s a big regional difference in cost of the pretty skilled labor involved in power generation and delivery.

bagels
0 replies
17h39m

Which regulations? Is there much difference in labor cost and regulations between Sacramento, Santa Clara and the areas that PGE covers?

inferiorhuman
0 replies
13h41m

  Why do you think electricity prices are high?
Because PG&E:

* spent billions over the past few decades on stock buybacks

* spent billions on fines and restitution for malfeasance like falsifying call-before-you-dig records

* spends tens of millions annually on stock dividends (down from billions annually pre-bankruptcy)

* used their safety budget to pay executive bonuses

* stacked the CPUC in their favor

* rakes in billions in profit (roughly $1/share EPS) annually

colechristensen
5 replies
21h51m

Utilities cost excesses in California are largely PG&E paying for its liability for causing wildfires in places where people probably shouldn’t live anyway.

For example Silicon Valley Power which serves Santa Clara (or something like that) has rates that are literally half as much as PG&E.

In Minnesota I’m paying for Xcel Energy’s mistakes in Texas.

s1artibartfast
3 replies
19h10m

People should be able to live wherever they want. That doesn't imply others should have to subsidize them doing so. It is really quite simple.

If someone remote wants power, they should secure power and pay for it at a market clearing rate, given the cost and risk to deliver it.

AnthonyMouse
2 replies
15h47m

This is something else.

California has wildfires, and climate change has made them worse. Then the people who built their houses in a silly place prone to wildfires watch them burn down. This is becoming a problem as the frequency which with it happens increases, because it can bankrupt fire insurance companies (who then can't pay claims), or make fire insurance there unaffordable and then people don't buy it, their house burns down, and you have angry constituents.

The political solution to this is to put the liability on the power company whenever possible, even though it isn't really their fault. The fire is caused by dry conditions and that wood is going up the first time there is any kind of flame anywhere near it. If it wasn't PG&E it would have been a lightning strike or something else. Having the fires less often can actually make them worse.

But the power company is a deep pocket, so if there is any way to pin the fire on them, that's what everybody wants to do, so that the uninsured people in the fire zone can collect from someone and the currently insured people who are still there don't become unable to afford fire insurance.

Then the power company raises rates on everybody in their service area, including people who don't live in high fire risk areas, because the government has them acting as the fire insurance company, but now you can't cancel your "fire insurance" without turning off your electricity and it also has to be paid by people who didn't build their house in a silly place.

s1artibartfast
1 replies
11h6m

I pretty strongly disagree.

There is some liability on the state and voters for anti burn policy. However, there is more liability on the PG&E for failure to adequately mitigate risk, and failure to asses and frontload charges for probable payment.

If homes are uninsurable, then they shouldn't be. That should only be an issue for an insurer and home owner to work out.

If people want to live somewhere uninsurable, or with more expensive power, I have no issue whatsoever, and won't call them silly. That is their perogitive and values. I view it the same way as if someone wants to base jump, or eat a $500 steak. I fully support them doing whatever makes them happy, as long as they don't expect me to pay for it

AnthonyMouse
0 replies
7h28m

However, there is more liability on the PG&E for failure to adequately mitigate risk, and failure to asses and frontload charges for probable payment.

Mitigating the risk is pointless. Wildfires are a natural occurrence in California. The ignition source is irrelevant. The fire is happening, you can't stop it.

I fully support them doing whatever makes them happy, as long as they don't expect me to pay for it

But that's exactly what they expect you to do. Their houses are in a tinder box. There is some absurdly high probability that they'll burn. And then they're going to want to play the sympathetic victim who has just lost everything in a fire and go to the government and try to get someone else (i.e. you, via PG&E) to pay for the consequences of their choices.

The traditional way of doing this is to make the insurance pay, but they didn't have insurance because the high risk was known in advance which made the insurance unaffordable. When that's not available, the lawyers have to find someone else to sue, and in this case it's the power company.

kccqzy
0 replies
18h17m

It's not just about causing wildfires in places where people shouldn't live, but causing wildfires in places that no people actually live, but these places happen to be between other places where people live.

Areading314
5 replies
19h27m

Solar isn't a useful source of energy for heating in California, since the demand is almost entirely during winter mornings/evenings where the sun is down.

bbarn
1 replies
19h23m

Solar with Battery storage is a very useful source for heating energy, even in the coldest climates in CA. Even in the mountains where it drops below freezing at night, most places it's still sunny a lot more than the US average during the day. Most Battery setups I know of target a 4 day stretch of cloud cover for storage capacity, so it is certainly an option.

Where I live at 7000 feet, we have so much sunshine, even in winter, solar is a very viable option. Legislation removing people's ability to recoup the costs is the only reason it's not in every house in the city. The only option left is a much more costly battery setup.

PaulDavisThe1st
0 replies
19h5m

Where I live, at 6200 feet, we have oodles of sunshine. Even so, the air-source heat pumps in my old adobe use 3x more than we generate (which in turn is 3x more than we need during the summer). No (sane, residential) battery system can handle this.

Which mostly goes to show the value and necessity for serious insulation and air-sealing, which this house does not have. Nevertheless, the point about batteries remains.

boringg
0 replies
16h39m

Solar takes demand out of the entire pie. So less natural gas needed during peak hours. Also move some of that excess in to energy storage and you can cover during that time in the morning.

adgjlsfhk1
0 replies
18h45m

California (and everywhere else) could make solar a lot more useful by making electricity cheaper from 10am to 3pm. If heat pumps and electric water heaters were set up to run more when the sun is out, it would noticeably decrease the evening spike in electricity demand.

KennyBlanken
0 replies
14h18m

Nonsense. You can put excess energy into large electric hot water heater tanks and use it later.

It requires a minimal amount of "smarts" and is all standard plumbing.

valenterry
2 replies
14h46m

Modern great heatpumps, installed correctly, are rather between 5 and 7 in terms of COP. Also, even the best gas heating systems only achieve 90% efficiency. In other words, it either be very very very cold in your area, or you have to screw up the installation before gas has lower running(!) costs.

Besides that, a gas power plant easily achieves 33% of efficiency for generating electricity from gas, rather 50% for the new ones. In other words, if the price for electricity is more than 3 times as high as gas, there is a high chance that it's due to tax, regulations, etc. Though, the price for maintaining a stronger power grid comes on top.

naijaboiler
1 replies
3h5m

I dunno. My mom’s heating bills in Indiana using heat pumps with auxiliary electric heaters was >$700 month at electricity costing 11c/kwh. I live in Massachusetts where my electricity cost 33c/kwh. So if I used my mom’s heater to heat a house of similar size, my heating bill will be $2k/month. My heating gas bill is under 120/month.

I understand a bulk of that cost comes from the aux resistive electric heater. But for really cold places, that’s needed when the heat pump can’t keep up or you need to rapidly warm the house.

As is, we are still quite far from heat pumps being cost efficient as gas for places that get really cold

valenterry
0 replies
1h12m

I don't think so.

Check those measures for some example heatpump: https://www.eurovent-certification.com/en/catalog/program/ce...

They are not from the manufacturer but from an independent service that is used by various states that are members of the eu.

As you can see, at -7 degrees celsius, the COP is still almost 4. So even at that temperature, this heatpump is still about twice as afficient as burning gas directly.

Of course, it depends on the correct installation. It's easier to screw up the installation of a heat pump than a gas heating system. But it doesn't invalidate the theoretical bounds.

michaelt
1 replies
17h35m

> stop the attacks on solar installation

I don't know if the experience of a Brit with a roof covered in solar panels applies in California, but: during months when you want to run the heat pump, your solar won't be producing shit.

scruple
0 replies
17h15m

In Orange county, CA, we generated 16.6kWh today, on a 5.6kWh system, and it's been partially sunny with some sporadic rain storms.

GenerWork
1 replies
21h44m

If California is serious about this, they need to reign in the utilities

Why would they reign in one of the best ways to ensure that Calpers remains solvent?

bagels
0 replies
18h9m

How are they related? Investments in PGE, which has had poor returns?

tootie
0 replies
16h32m

6x cheaper

It will have a lower price but not a lower cost. At this point we can't wait for price efficiency we have to pay whatever dollar amount to avoid the catastrophic human costs of burning fossil fuels.

newZWhoDis
0 replies
20h12m

The point you’re missing is electricity should never be expensive, if it is then you’re doing something very stupid.

jabart
0 replies
4h1m

Natural gas may be cheap but the cost of the meter and other admin fees cost about as much as the gas.

TheSoftwareGuy
0 replies
20h50m

Or, they could increase the price of natural gas (perhaps using a tax)

Schnitz
0 replies
12h54m

Natural gas prices have gone through the roof in CA, people with old gas furnaces are the hardest hit in winter. We saved quite a bit when we upgraded to a heat pump.

lex-lightning
21 replies
22h23m

Alright, maybe I’m out of touch, but I don’t think electricity is expensive in California.

Even during 115 degree heatwaves in a 70-year-old, 3-bedroom, single-family home. Most I paid was $100 in a month with 2 people with gaming computers working from home.

Not everyone has that kind of money, but my point is that most people have cell service and other services which add up to more than electricity costs.

That’s fine, I make no judgement of what people spend. I’m just setting a comparison. For how much value electricity provides us and how much we use it, I wouldn’t call it expensive, even in California.

YMMV by city, but it wasn’t an issue in Sacramento. The real monster is climate change, and so here we have a chicken-and-egg problem combined with wealth disparity.

I think we need comprehensive social program packages to address this.

bagels
10 replies
22h10m

How? It's $0.52/kwh here, and before that rate increase, we were paying (edit) $278/mo in the summer for similar (70 year old 3 bedroom house), and slightly lower temepratures.

tomschlick
5 replies
21h33m

For context of how crazy that is... here in OH we pay ~$0.12/kwh

secabeen
3 replies
20h9m

Another factor is topography. Ohio is pretty flat and running power lines around it is not that hard. California is big and has lots of rugged terrain. It costs a lot more to bring power to the small town in the California mountains, and those costs have to be paid by the urban and sub-urban customers of our large state-wide utilities.

tomschlick
0 replies
2h3m

I used to live in PA and have several family members on both sides there. No matter the topography the rates are still around that.

lazide
0 replies
19h15m

In reality - PG&E has been soaking the ratepayer for decades while doing terrible maintenance - and now gets to soak the ratepayer again while fixing all the terrible issues they themselves created in the least efficient method possible.

It’s truly amazing to behold.

inferiorhuman
0 replies
7h48m

Keep in mind PG&E rates had to cover billions in stock buybacks, billions in dividends annually, hundreds of millions in fighting municipal power, and billions in profit annually. The terrain isn't the problem, greed is.

naijaboiler
0 replies
2h31m

My mom in Indiana pays $0.11/kwh.

I pay $0.35/kwh here outside of Boston. The electricity generation part of my bill alone $0.19/kwh dwarfs her entire bill

lex-lightning
3 replies
21h47m

Time-of-day program with SMUD. Ran the AC as cool as it could go before peak, turned it off during peak. At move-in we dumped multiple feet of insulation (more than code requires) into the place. At worst it got to 80 degrees.

Might have been a bit over $100, but I’m just as flabbergasted at your $278.

what_ever
1 replies
21h27m

I think you are out of touch. You need to compare the PGE rates with SMUD to get the picture.

https://www.smud.org/en/Rate-Information/Residential-rates

https://www.pge.com/assets/pge/docs/account/rate-plans/resid... (PDF File)

PGE's off-peak rates are 3x SMUD's off-peak rates. PGE's peak rates are 1.5x to almost 2x of SMUD's peak rates.

lex-lightning
0 replies
16h37m

There’s no need to be disrespectful. Just as I need to understand that you have a different rate than I did, vice versa.

You’re missing the actual point of my original post

lex-lightning
0 replies
21h29m

Lol. Dogpile away. Imma count my money I saved and sit here in my early retirement.

nkingsy
1 replies
21h42m

Let’s say 30 kWh per day is the norm to run ac in the summer.

Assuming $.40 per kWh, which is lower than my PGE rate, that’s $360 per month just to run the ac.

Not sure what kind of setup you have. $100 is my bill if I’m not home in the winter and leave everything off.

lex-lightning
0 replies
21h33m

I’m picking up a sentiment from the downvotes so let me defend: I’m not lying lol.

SMUD time of day. Ran the AC super cold during the night (so it would run the entire off-peak period). Ran it somewhat cool during mid-peak. Didn’t use it at all during peak.

Other appliances I only ran at night.

Installed lots of insulation at move-in.

Like I said in OP, Sacramento. YMMV.

But in any case I’d argue $360 is still not expensive per se given the value you’re getting. How many square feet were you cooling? What else was operating?

It’s just about perspective. I was responding to the claim that electricity is expensive.

gnicholas
1 replies
21h49m

When I looked into this, I learned that we pay 2x what neighboring states pay.

floxy
0 replies
21h28m

Looks like California has the 3rd highest rate after Hawaii and Rhode Island:

https://www.chooseenergy.com/electricity-rates-by-state/

GoatOfAplomb
1 replies
22h4m

With the latest PG&E rate hike, my off-peak rate is 33c/kwh and the highest peak rate in 66c. I think the national average is 19c? That seems like a pretty drastic difference to me.

mcbishop
0 replies
21h51m

The cost relative to other places is a different consideration than the value per dollar relative to our other expenses. OP is speaking to the latter.

losvedir
0 replies
21h36m

FYI, a monthly bill is essentially useless information. How big is your house? What are you using it for? How efficient is your fridge? Your A/C? How much is the fixed cost part of the bill? Etc.

I'm assuming, since you mention Sacramento and peak hours, these[0] are your rates? Next time, share those so folks in other places can compare. That page has these:

Summer:

* Off-peak: $0.1425 kWh

* Mid-peak: $0.1967 kWh

* Peak: $0.3462 kWh

Non-Summer

* Off-peak: $0.1151 kWh

* Peak: $0.1590 kWh

That's pretty high, but I think middling to low for California. For comparison, in my town outside Chicago, we have a year-round all-day rate of $0.12 kWh.

[0] https://www.smud.org/en/Rate-Information/Residential-rates

acchow
0 replies
22h2m

Can you share your rate during that period? Makes for a simpler comparison

TheOsiris
0 replies
21h32m

yeah, there's absolutely no "maybe" about it, you are definitely out of touch :). I don't know in what way exactly, but something is off. What is your per kwh rate exactly? You might be getting some kind of subsidies that you are not aware of, perhaps? I used to live in a 1200 sqft house in LA without any AC or anything consuming too much electricity, and 10 years ago before all the rate hikes I was still paying more than $100/month in west LA.

BobaFloutist
0 replies
20h2m

That's because you're on SMUD, not PG&E, so you're not getting charged to cover the maintenance and liabilities of above-ground high-voltage power lines going into a forest on a mountain in the middle of nowhere.

oooyay
12 replies
21h44m

Yeah, I made this mistake this year. I pumped $20k into a heat pump system, coming from what used to be Natural Gas. I wasn't given any kind of relief because I live in Oregon where most relief is income based. Then at the beginning of the year PGE announced a 20% rate hike. My house is covered in trees, so solar isn't really an option. I really regretted my decision once I got a $300-$400 bill for heating three months in a row. In the summer I now have AC where I didn't at all before, but it hardly makes up for the cost of a heat pump during winter. I probably won't be doing any of these kinds programs again.

newZWhoDis
7 replies
20h3m

$20k for a heat pump is sky high, you better have gotten a 24 SEER2 state of the art fully variable system for that.

If they sold you a 14 SEER1 for that then you got absolutely screwed.

interroboink
4 replies
19h21m

Perhaps you know already, but a lot of the price is often the installation labor, not the device itself.

Just as a data point, $20K is right in the ballpark for estimates you'll get for professional installation of a modern ≈3-ton forced-air 17SEER heatpump + air handler in the Seattle area.

kccqzy
2 replies
18h14m

Even in the expensive Bay Area, I got a quote of only $10k to install a heat pump. It was basically the same price to install a new gas furnace + AC for summer.

interroboink
1 replies
17h47m

But what kind? For instance, a mini-split in an apartment is quite different from the 3-ton forced-air system I described.

People use the term "heat pump" to sometimes describe quite different things, so it's hard to know what's apples-to-apples.

kccqzy
0 replies
14h48m

It's a forced-air system sized for a moderately insulated 1300 sqft home. Don't know how many tons or the SEER rating.

oooyay
0 replies
11h57m

You hit the nail on the head, but mine is a 5 channel Daikin heat pump. I got a bit of a deal because I paid in cash.

oooyay
1 replies
12h9m

It was a 5 channel heat pump with a single condenser. As the other commenter wrote it was mostly wrapped up in labor. For what it's worth, they're 24 SEER Daikin units. It's priced at replacing the AC and heat for an entire house, so compare it to a large AC installation.

LUmBULtERA
0 replies
6h44m

That feels like a lot of electricity usage for such high seer, in Oregon. Are you positive that electric backup wasn't being triggered for some reason?

jdeibele
2 replies
21h2m

I'm moving from Portland to McMinnville in a couple of months. Price of kwh goes from $.1945/kwh to about $.0720. I've noticed that McMinnville Water & Light doesn't help pay for EV connections, etc. compared to Portland General Electric but at almost 1/3rd the cost, they probably don't need to.

MW&L is community-owned, PGE is traded on the NYSE. They both buy a ton of hydro from the Bonneville Power Administration.

https://findenergy.com/providers/mcminnville-water-and-light... gives an average. Actual per kwh rate is cheaper but there's a $16.10 customer charge to have an account. https://www.mc-power.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/pdf/ra...

https://portlandgeneral.com/about/info/pricing-plans

softbuilder
0 replies
19h24m

IIRC there's also a legacy superfund cleanup charge that PGE customers have the privilege of paying.

oooyay
0 replies
11h59m

Yeah, this is the move, imo. I think once my mortgage goes positive I'm going to look at where to go next. This is not worth it.

sgustard
0 replies
17h44m

For those installation comparing costs, the subreddit has a Heat Pump Quote Comparison Survey:

https://www.reddit.com/r/heatpumps/comments/raocha/heat_pump...

bruce511
9 replies
22h30m

I'm not in NE, so forgive me if this is obvious, but high electricity prices might make solar attractive to you. (Unrelated to the heat-pump question.)

I'm in a similar high-priced environment, but we get a fair amount of sun. I'm getting around a 16% return on capital based on electricity usage reduction.

david422
6 replies
21h34m

I use solar, but using heat pumps and an electric car uses maybe 3x more electricity than my roof can produce.

newZWhoDis
5 replies
20h5m

Higher efficiency panels + vertical panels would help. Most houses have decent south-facing walls.

Ground mount is also an option in many places.

PaulDavisThe1st
2 replies
19h3m

6.7kW ground mount here in NM, still can't heat my home in winter in this climate (would need 21kW with my Mitsubishi hyper-heat units). We have relatively OK passive solar contributions too.

newZWhoDis
1 replies
12h43m

6.7kw is tiny. The smallest install I’ve personally seen is 15kw.

PaulDavisThe1st
0 replies
23m

Pretty standard size for New Mexico. I have numerous neighbors with 6-12kW systems.

k12sosse
0 replies
19h39m

Live underground and convert your whole yard to arrays of panels!

cde-v
0 replies
18h58m

20kW ground mount array in NH produces twice as much as we need for our 4 heat pumps heating 3000 sqft. Went into the last two winters expecting to deplete our summer credits with the power company but we have only used about 1/6th of it.

Definitely doable.

jauntywundrkind
0 replies
21h50m

New England just doesn't have a lot of light. The time to return on investment is commendurately longer. And in the winter it's much worse.

NREL has solar availability maps. Alas the scale sucks; there's great monthly average views, but all done with the same yearly average scale, so during the summer everything is the same full-red potential (>5.75 kWh/m^2/d) and during the winter everything is (mostly) the same low potential (<4kWh/m^2/d). Still, one can kind of read some pattern from fall/spring & see how a lot of NE looks a lot like, say, Seattle (<<4 average). https://www.nrel.gov/gis/solar-resource-maps.html

colechristensen
0 replies
21h46m

Solar is so cheap it usually still makes sense financially even in areas without a lot of sun, but less so.

Lots of cold places in northern latitudes have short winter days that are overcast more often than not yielding only a little solar energy for a big chunk of the year.

theteapot
8 replies
21h34m

Heat pumps do work into freezing New England temperatures, but they're a bit less efficient as it gets to zero fahrenheit.

What's the temperature in the ground? Did you look at a ground source heat pump (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_source_heat_pump)

smeej
3 replies
17h26m

There's a reason NH is called "The Granite State."

Planning to put things underground in at least that part of New England is not likely to go very well. It can be done (plenty of places have septic tanks, for example), but it's not easy.

lsllc
2 replies
16h32m

Unless you live in one of the few big cities in NH, you'll likely already have an Artesian (drilled) well. Swap out the pump for a variable speed pump and you should be good to go for a GSHP -- a much better option for NH vs an Air Source Heat Pump. Otherwise, it'll cost $15-20K for a well to be drilled. You get about 1-ton of heating/cooling per 100' of drilled well.

Animats
1 replies
10h34m

"Artesian" does not mean "drilled". It means the well emits water without pumping. You have to be downhill from the watershed for that to work.

lsllc
0 replies
1h46m

You are correct! Around here (NH) the artesian nomenclature usually means drilled vs a dug well (i.e. a covered, but relatively shallow pit that fills up with ground water). The drilled wells are usually around 300+ ft deep and have a submersible pump near the bottom that is used to fill the pressure tank.

bluGill
2 replies
21h32m

I have - the cost of installing such a system makes it questionable if it will ever be worth it. I've seen a few places that have it and they work great year round and are cheap to operate. However the payoff from the install if 50+ years despite the cheap costs. Everyone hopes the install lasts that long, but a lot can go wrong in 50 years. (the equipment probably won't last 50 years, but that will be cheap enough to replaces, it is the pipes in the ground that better last 50 years)

htek
1 replies
21h15m

A large chunk of cost is drilling the holes for the loop. New, compact drilling rigs that use 10' drill sections are a good deal cheaper to run labor-wise and require less space to maneuver. Costs will come down as more companies switch to these rigs.

martythemaniak
0 replies
19h44m

What are some examples of these new drilling rigs?

aurizon
0 replies
21h12m

The big cost for ground source HP, is the large area you have to dig with 4 foot deep trenches. I have seen one where the installer digs 2 trenches about 16 feet apart and 30 feet long down to 6 feet. They then use a soil drill to make about 50-60 holes between the trenches and insert 17 foot plastic pipes(1 inch diameter) They then connect the pipes on each side to a common pipe(3"), all well sealed ABS pipes below the frost line. This allow for a large volume of coupled and warm(55 degrees) that the heat pump extracts/deposits heat as needed for heating/cooling the home. This drilling is a lot cheaper than a dozen or more 3 foot trenchs for the water loops.

gmerc
7 replies
14h45m

Essentially: We will only accept climate change action if it’s not degrading our standard of living which is predicated on consuming unsustainably.

The end.

horns4lyfe
2 replies
14h39m

Well good luck trying to get people to lower their standard of living in pursuit of an abstract solution to a problem that can only be represented with predictive modeling.

gmerc
1 replies
8h39m

Nah, failure to act on climate change will also reduce their standard of living unless they are rich enough to buy their way to a bunker in NZ.

sokoloff
0 replies
5h15m

That's a large part of the issue: it probably won't. It will reduce the standard of living of future generations, but for people in the prime earning and consuming phase of their life (say 40-65 years old), climate change isn't going to have anywhere near as detectable, let alone large, effect on their life as spending $20K on heat pumps, giving up a car and taking more public transit, taking fewer tropical vacations, or even setting the heating thermostat to 69°F rather than 71°F.

bongodongobob
1 replies
14h2m

Yeah, people should freeze or die of heat stroke.

Tell me more about your frictionless spherical world.

malfist
0 replies
4h16m

Maybe I missed the point, but I don't see anything in GPs post that indicates they want people to freeze or die of heat stroke. Or suggest anything that would lead to folks freezing or dying from heat stroke.

gmerc
0 replies
8h41m

I like how this comment spawned anger from both extremes.

Arn_Thor
0 replies
12h9m

You're barking up the wrong tree. (i) systemic change on a global scale is needed, individual actions don't "matter". (ii) corporations and governments are the only entities large enough to make changes. Governments need to force companies and incentivize individuals to make better choices, and help those that would be financially disadvantaged by those choices. (iii) paradoxically, while individual actions don't "matter", they add up of course. Both in energy usuage, and in voting. The latter is more important if we want governments to force and incentivize companies and individuals to make positive changes. So giving the environmental cause a bad name by yelling at individuals for making sensible financial choices is going to cost the green cause voters, which we sorely need.

Stop it.

xutopia
5 replies
21h12m

I'm in Canada and we have heat pumps with secondary heat sources for when it gets really cold. Mine is with gas.

fnbr
2 replies
20h17m

Yup, me too. And with my Nest thermostat, I can manually configure the crossover point. I did so at the economic balance point (where the heat pump is cheaper than my gas furnace).

Scoundreller
1 replies
17h17m

Is there any capability in having a "smart" economic balance point? IE: Accounts for time of day/market pricing of kwh? I guess there needs to be occasional reprogramming of gas prices?

fnbr
0 replies
3h17m

No, unfortunately. But my gas/electricity is fixed price, so it doesn’t matter. I’m sure this will be coming as heat pumps get more common. It’s a pretty easy calculation to do.

jefftk
1 replies
21h10m

These sorts of programs generally require you to disable your existing heating system, and don't allow you to run it only in warmer weather.

Ex, Massachusetts: https://www.masssave.com/-/media/Files/PDFs/Save/Residential...

sokoloff
0 replies
21h1m

Note that's for the whole home $10K rebate only. For the per-ton rebate, you can leave the existing fossil fueled appliance installed and connected. (It's also new for 2024; the 2023 rules allowed you to leave the appliance in to be used for supplemental heat during extreme cold or during an equipment outage. https://www.masssave.com/-/media/Files/PDFs/Save/Residential... )

jhallenworld
5 replies
17h34m

It's a big problem for electric cars too... Here are the current prices per kwh for me in MA:

Electricity = $.26 / kwh

Propane (LPG) = .134 / kwh

Heating oil = .095 / kwh

Gasoline = .091 / kwh

Natural Gas = .082 / kwh

Reason077
4 replies
17h27m

You still need to account for efficiency of the various fuels when working out which one is cheapest.

An electric vehicle is on the order of 5X more efficient than a gasoline vehicle per kWh (that is, an EV that will go 5 km on 1 kWh of electricity would be lucky to get 1 km per kWh if it were running on gasoline).

So in this case, it's still cheaper to operate an EV than a gasoline vehicle in MA, even if electricity costs more per kWh.

jhallenworld
2 replies
17h9m

It's more like 2.5 to 3x for good ICE cars (they are around 30% efficient- I think it's been going up over the years, in the past I assumed 15%):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency#:~:text=in%2....

But anyway, the big issue is for electric cars fast chargers, more like $.48 / kwh..

For carbon emissions, the WTW (Well to wheel) efficiency is more important- they are about the same unfortunately (we need more solar):

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020SJRUE..24..669A/abstra....

Reason077
1 replies
16h16m

The fleet average real-world fuel efficiency for light petrol vehicles in my country, based on government data, is 9.2 litres/100km. (I'm guessing it's significantly worse than this in the USA where the average vehicle is larger and there is less focus on fuel efficiency)

At 8.9 kWh per litre, that means gasoline takes 81.88 kWh to get you 100 km. A typical EV, on the other hand, will use about 18 kWh to go 100 km (at 5.5 km per kWh). That makes the EV around 4.5 times more efficient.

As for carbon emissions, burning 1 litre of gasoline creates 2.3kg of CO2. At 9.2 litres per 100 km, that works out around 210g per km.

Grid carbon intensity varies greatly by country and region. In France at only 42g/kWh, an EV's energy would emit less than 10g per km, even after accounting for grid and charging inefficiencies! But even in coal-dependent Germany at 354g CO2/kWh (2023), an EV would be well under 100g per km, still better than an average petrol car.

(Also, remember that auto industry emissions/efficiency numbers are based on testing protocols which produce far lower figures than the real world. And do not account for upstream emissions in the fossil fuel supply chain - there is an awful lot of upstream carbon emitted to produce 1 litre of gasoline!)

skywal_l
0 replies
8h23m

I agree we should look at the whole picture but that would mean to look at how much CO2 is rejected to produce an EV compare to a Petrol car and how much to recycle it.

naijaboiler
0 replies
2h36m

Enough of this theory. I live in Boston area. I have rented an EV and a gas vehicle and covered the same distance. The EV cos more to cover the same distance. Like 2x more. And that’s before the inconvenience of hunting for places to recharge and the time wasted at charging stations, and range anxiety.

Maybe the math is different for those who can charge at home. I’m tired of people waving abstract thermodynamics math at me when talking about real life economics I faced

taude
3 replies
19h41m

Also, doesn't states like MA import a not-insignificant amount of natural gas from elsewhere to convert to electricity? Would like to hear about what's more efficient: direct natural gas heating vs natural gas -> electricity -> heat pump...

twoodfin
2 replies
19h32m

Yes, and for nominally climate-driven reasons MA has constrained the construction of pipelines and other facilities that would allow the cheaper delivery of natural gas for cheaper electricity… thus discouraging consumers like me from moving to electrical utilities that would net reduce emissions.

Scoundreller
0 replies
15h45m

And you have Maine getting in the way of hydroelectricity from Quebec making its way over:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/hydro-quebec-1.68167...

https://www.hydroquebec.com/projects/appalaches-maine-interc...

MajimasEyepatch
0 replies
18h24m

It's probably more accurate to say the concerns are about the environment rather than climate per se. There's more to protecting than the environment than limiting carbon emissions. (I'm not saying they're right to make that tradeoff in this particular case.)

lsllc
3 replies
16h27m

The big issue in New England is that heat pumps (ASHP or GSHP) are only really possible for new builds. Most existing homes will likely be forced hot water and there isn't any heat pump out there that will produce water hot enough (e.g. 185F), so your only option is to retrofit ducting (or go mini-split but then you need one in every room).

Even homes with ducted AC, it's likely they are sized for cooling only, not heat (not enough CFMs).

kenmacd
1 replies
2h58m

here isn't any heat pump out there that will produce water hot enough (e.g. 185F)

For 185:

https://www.arcticheatpumps.com/high-temperature-heat-pump.h...

Or much more common, if you can deal with 176F, the SANCO2 ones will generate that down to -20F.

The hydronic temperatures you're talking about are only required if you have to stick with the existing radiators. They make radiators with little fans that work at lower temperatures, or larger panel radiators. There's lots of options for lower temperature forced hot water.

lsllc
0 replies
1h49m

That's interesting, I hadn't yet seen any heat pumps capable of producing water that hot.

As far as replacing baseboard goes, if you're going to go to that expense, then probably it's just best to switch to forced air since you also get AC.

But you'd be looking at probably close to $40K to entirely replace a forced hot water system with a heat pump and forced air (and/or replacing baseboards) as well as a DHW system of some sort -- so quite cost prohibitive.

evandev
0 replies
14h46m

While I agree that a heat pump can't work with hot water baseboard, there is an alternative.

The alternative is removing the baseboard and with a calculated heat load, replacing with panel radiators which run with much lower temperatures. The retrofit wouldn't be too difficult (compared to ducting) as it would involve running 1/2 inch PEX to each room.

bilsbie
3 replies
17h36m

If heat pumps get inefficient at low temps could we not program them to run full blast during the warmest parts of the day and preheat the home. Thus needing to run less at night.

smeej
0 replies
17h32m

Maybe, but unless your house is very well insulated, this would probably require making the home so warm as to be very uncomfortable.

I live in New England in a small house (<700 sqft), and it easily drops 5 degrees an hour when it's 65 inside and 15 outside.

evandev
0 replies
14h53m

With an air to water heat pump, you typically add a buffer tank that among other things helps keep preheated water warm. It is basically a hot water tank so doesn't last through the night

However for other hydronic applications such as solar water heaters there is typically a thermal storage tank which can help store heat like a battery.

Keep in mind a few things. One is some heat pumps are now operating down around -22*F. Second is geothermal is a water to water heat pump that isn't affected as much by the limitations of air temperature (but has other limitations). Third is radiant heat flooring with tubes in concrete acts as a thermal storage tank. Finally heat pumps for heating work best at low temperature hydronic water and can also be used for other applications such as DHW (domestic hot water) which needs to be at slightly higher temperatures than a buffer tank has.

delfinom
0 replies
16h8m

Pretty much the majority of north east homes are not that well insulated. Then you get to bigger buildings where by health and building code you must always have a certain % of fresh air intake otherwise you'll end up choking on your own carbon dioxide lol.

thelastgallon
2 replies
20h11m

If electricity is costly, it makes sense to put solar panels. Consolidate all energy (transportation - EV, HVAC - electric, induction stove, heat pump water heater), put solar panels, and wipe off all energy bills. Every household can save $400 - $800 on utility bills.

lotsoweiners
1 replies
20h4m

I’m not in New England but I’m imagining that the cold winters there are accompanied but plenty of cloudy skies as well. In that case solar might not be a great option.

PaulDavisThe1st
0 replies
18h51m

There's an opposite of that too: solar-powered A/C in the south in summer time: lots of heat, lots of humidity ... and lots of clouds.

deepsun
1 replies
19h32m

Why wouldn't heat pump work on gas?

It's already done -- RV fridges work on propane directly, without converting it to electricity. A fridge is a heat pump.

RandallBrown
0 replies
19h27m

Apparently they do, but they're not common for houses yet.

https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/absorption-heat-pumps

beerandt
1 replies
17h43m

We tried one in the south and it was a pretty horrible experience, because of our high humidity in the cold.

The outside unit constantly froze up, which even ideally requires a defrost cycle (wasting energy pumping heat back outside), or worse, uses heating element outside just to make operable.

While those cycles run, heat couldn't. Except that even emergency heat (heating element inside) would disable the outside defrost, supposedly to meet EPA set energy budget, not technology limits.

That's not the kind of BS you want to put up with on frozen nights, whether from a technology or policy standpoint.

newZWhoDis
0 replies
12h46m

You likely had an old, low SEER heat pump. The fact that it had emergency heat at all says so.

1minusp
1 replies
21h3m

Large drilling costs from where I am in the south due to ground being mostly (lime?)stone: makes it cost-infeasbile. Other areas might have it easier though.

PaulDavisThe1st
0 replies
18h52m

It can vary over the micro-scale. Where I live in NM, we could go down very deep and never hit rock, because we're sitting on the soft sandy soil(ish) alluvial deposits at the bottom of large (20 mile diameter) basin. But neighbors who live less than 1 mile away are sitting on metamorphic rock just inches below the surface.

rr808
0 replies
3h48m

less efficient as it gets to zero fahrenheit

Here in NJ there aren't any days like that any more. Its like heat pumps wouldn't be great in the old days but in today's new climate they're great.

lr4444lr
0 replies
18h6m

Thing is, HVAC people rob you blind when you need emergency repairs to gas or oil furnaces in the middle of the season. If you have a heat pump as a backup, that can tide you over until you can get off season repair pricing again. That's well worth it to me, even at the higher electricity rates.

jefftk
0 replies
21h11m

That's right. In MA I'm paying a marginal $0.316/kWh for electric and $1.999/therm for natural gas, heating a two-family 10-person building. Switching to a heat pump would be an additional $1k/y in heating costs, and that's ignoring the cost of the system (which is substantial even after the $20k MA subsidy this article discusses).

More: https://www.jefftk.com/p/running-the-numbers-on-a-heat-pump

inferiorhuman
0 replies
13h55m

  But I think the biggest issue in New England (and California) will probably
  be the high cost of electricity. In most of the country, heat pumps are a
  huge no-brainer.
PG&E charges about $2.44/therm (100,000 BTU) here. So yea that's well cheaper than electricity – I think it works out to about half to a third the cost of resistive electric heat. So (for now) a heat pump that's about twice as efficient as a gas furnace would work out to about the same cost. Unless you do something like a mini split where you're heating a smaller area.

The big thing to keep in mind is that California natural gas prices spiked for a bit last year. All of a sudden gas heat was very, very expensive.

ijhuygft776
0 replies
16h39m

The heat pump that I had also had an heating element.. so it could possibly automatically switch from one method of heating to the other....

coryrc
0 replies
14h13m

Warning: two- and three-head units are 30% less efficient than single-head units, and units with more than three heads are 50% as efficient (based on real-life measurements, in MN IIRC). So at least pick one single-head hyper-efficient unit, like a Gree Sapphire, to heat the largest and most-used room. If you don't mind the extra condensers, one outdoor unit per head is the best

bitbckt
0 replies
19h14m

I didn’t pay anywhere near that price per kWh here in Maine. It was $0.16 in November 2023, and is $0.10 as of January 1.

[ETA] I just did the math to include delivery as well as generation cost if that’s what the table is meant to reflect, and I’m still below $0.20/kWh in November. Shrug. I was paying nearly $0.50 in California before moving here…

readingnews
101 replies
23h15m

I just replaced a furnace... everyone I called for a quote would not touch a heat pump with a 20foot pole, or they wanted prices that were 2X what a separate furnace and AC would cost to install. It was very strange. This is the second home where I had this experience.. basically, they really did not want to install it. I ended up going with gas as no local person would install/warranty a heat pump, or, it was priced so high it was a non-starter (e.g. a gas furnace is $4k, the AC is $4k, making it $8k, _but_ if you want a heat pump, well, that is going to be $15,999.85.)

This was recently, btw, as in last month. I am still kind of shaking my head.

huytersd
26 replies
23h12m

If you’re somewhat rural the contractors just don’t have the experience to do it so they try to quote you out of the decision. I had to shop around until I found a contractor that had done this before and I was able to get a whole home heat pump for about the same price as a regular furnace/AC system (because of the rebates).

TheBlight
21 replies
23h10m

How well do they function? Do they provide nice consistent heat? How's the noise? Sorry to clog up HN with a random request of a product quality review but I'm in the market right now to replace my furnace as well. Thanks.

demondemidi
18 replies
23h6m

Heat pumps need to come with an electric heater because pumps stop working below 30 deg F.

Fuut
11 replies
22h35m

This is just not true at all.

Why do you even respond if you don't know enough about heat pumps?

demondemidi
9 replies
20h38m

Oh, sorry, I guess I was brainwashed by the "anti heat pump mafia". I had this conversation with three HVAC installers but according to this thread any HVAC installer that speaks ill of heatpumps is old and stupid. Recently, I stayed at an AirBNB recently that had a heatpump and the temps dropped during the deep freeze and it was running 100% of the time and failing. The AirBNB owner said it was brand new and I would be responsible for excessive electricity use. They didn't charge me. Based on this, I am sooo glad I replaced my dead furnace with gas three years ago and steered clear of heat pumps.

But do go on about how I don't know enough.

antisthenes
6 replies
19h50m

I mean, instead of an argument you responded with some kind of rant about your Airbnb experience.

So his point still stands.

demondemidi
5 replies
18h51m

The reply made no point, so what exactly stands? Reply just said I don't know what I'm talking about, so I explained where my knowledge came from, which is more than the reply did. And somehow that's a better "point"? kids these days.

Fuut
4 replies
10h0m

You clearly communicate wrong information and the answer to this is that you had some Airbnb experience and talked to three people.

That's basically explaining that you did zero basic research.

And I'm not a kid fyi.

Learn to Google and learn to do research

demondemidi
3 replies
2h23m

This whole thread is people who don’t own a house or heat pump screaming they are right and people who do own a house just shrugging because they’ve experienced reality.

Fuut
2 replies
1h30m

Are you assuming always that much?

My whole new housing estate have heat pumps.

And I told you before already about Finland. And if you don't know what Finland is: it's a cold country in Europe.

demondemidi
1 replies
35m

When you grow up and need to drop $20k of your hard-earned cash on a new HVAC, it'll be funny to see if you decide to take a chance when people you know that have heat pumps are bitching about them not working, or if you decide you want to be warm and not deal with the hassle.

Fuut
0 replies
5m

I'm 36.

Let's just stop 'discussing'.

And no I haven't criticized you for your decision.

It's about your lack of research and knowledge and ignorance

lkbm
0 replies
20h2m

Old heat pumps didn't do well in old temperatures. In the 80s and 90s, a heat pump couldn't handle freezing temps.

Modern heat pumps do fine well below 0 degrees Celsius. Here's one that's great to -15 C and okay down to -25 C[0]. If you search cold-climate heat pumps, you'll find plenty of information about how modern heat pumps are fine in most the temperatures you'll find in most of the US (including up north).

(I have heard that a lot of them are still only available in Europe, but you can definitely find some in the US.)

[0] https://carbonswitch.com/best-cold-climate-heat-pump/

Fuut
0 replies
19h5m

You clearly don't know if this is your only source.

"Below 0° Fahrenheit, heat pumps can still heat your home with more than twice the efficiency of gas heating or standard electric heating (such as electric furnaces and baseboard heaters). They’ve been tested and approved as far north as the Arctic Circle, and are popular options in very cold countries like Finland and Norway."

Finland has over 60% heat pumps.

And heat pumps, just to be clear, work by generating a temp difference. The main problem is the efficiency and that drops also because there is a heating cycle needed for the air intake.

How many models did you actually research yourself?

bluGill
0 replies
21h14m

It is practically true. Sure my heat pump can make heat below 28F - but it was sized for cool my house in summer and so it cannot make enough heat anymore and so I need the backup heat.

SOLAR_FIELDS
2 replies
23h1m

Ground source heat pumps are available that go down significantly lower than 30F. They are more expensive. Though running the electric wires is also very expensive due to their inefficiency. Typical heat pumps are often better suited for warmer climates because of this

It also appears that the tech for the more typical air source heat pumps has improved significantly in recent years which makes it more viable for colder climates

virtue3
1 replies
22h52m

I believe they run a heat conductive fluid through heat exchange coils in the ground. This allows you to pump heat into the ground during winter and extract said heat (not sure how accurate this is) during the winter.

BobaFloutist
0 replies
19h54m

You're not storing the heat that's underground, it's just that the ground is a huge thing with massive heat storage capacity that doesn't notice weather as much as above ground does.

If above ground ranges from 0-100 degrees F, underground likely ranges from like 64-68 degrees F, which makes it really energetically "cheap" to get to your preferred temperature range, heating to idk 70 at most and cooling to probably not even 65.

wtallis
0 replies
23h3m

They come with an electric heater, but they don't stop working until far below freezing point. It's normal for a heat pump to still be better than pure resistive electric heating even at 10°F.

huytersd
0 replies
22h16m

Not true, mine goes down to 23F with negligible decrease in efficiency and still functions after that, but with reduced efficiency.

headsupernova
0 replies
23h1m

This isn't true, the latest models work at temps far below that. There are still thresholds where you'd want another source, but they're very functional even in the upper Midwest.

gertlex
1 replies
22h51m

One anecdote I've seen is that the right way to run them is to maintain a near-steady-state temperature in the house, including overnight. I'm not sure if that's maybe a bit extreme and just how they suggest use to non-savvy home-owners, but it makes sense... They're not going to blast out heat to raise the house temperature 10 degrees in an hour in the morning. Spreading heat-increase over several hours is more feasible. Good insulation presumably helps a bunch, too.

For a similar reason, heat pump water heaters tend to have a larger storage tank, as they take longer to heat the water and you want more of a usage buffer.

crazygringo
0 replies
18h57m

You don't need to run it overnight. But I do set a timer for mine to turn back on an hour before I get up. Because exactly -- it's not blasting hot air, it's merely circulating warm air. An hour beforehand works fine for mine though.

readingnews
0 replies
22h8m

I thought of that, I am not rural (town is about 300,000 people)... Perhaps that is rural in some areas I guess.

The HVAC contractors here are pretty small, maybe they do not want to take the risk.

As someone else said, if I had more time, I would have purchased a few DIY split systems... I might do that for AC only, as I did not replace the AC at that time.

bonton89
0 replies
23h4m

A guy at work doesn't have a heatpump, just some really high efficiency oil boiler. He lives in a rural area and basically had to become an expert on maintaining and repairing it himself because no one seems to know how to service the thing.

My father had similar issues with his new boiler although in his case after constant failed repair attempts his local place finally hired some guy who knew what he was doing.

There's also rebates on heatpumps around here but local forums seem to suggest that the installers are super backed up and quote "go away" prices. You can't get the rebate unless you go with a state approved installer, so even if you can install it yourself you're out of luck. Seems like they've just raised their prices to compensate for the rebate since they already had to much work.

bluedino
0 replies
22h57m

If you’re somewhat rural the contractors just don’t have the experience to do it so they try to quote you out of the decision.

Or they're so busy they can pick and choose their jobs. I had a quote to replace a 12 foot section of pipe come in at $700, not even two hours worth of work.

TuringNYC
0 replies
23h5m

> I had to shop around until I found a contractor that had done this before and I was able to get a whole home heat pump for about the same price as a regular furnace/AC system (because of the rebates).

Not sure the trouble is over. You are only good until you need servicing, and then you need to shop around again. Servicing is even worse, because it is an acute problem and you are under so much time pressure to solve the issue.

Sometimes even the company that sold the unit does not honor their warranty. They shut down. They re-incorporate under a new company, etc.

jazzyjackson
20 replies
23h10m

wait I didn't know I could replace my AC with a heat pump, can I replace my noisy AF condenser that's always grinding and hissing or do heat pumps make the same noises

wtallis
12 replies
23h5m

AC is just a heat pump that doesn't give you the option of running it backwards. There can be good and bad implementations of either.

czbond
11 replies
22h53m

New to heat pumps. Can I replace sub-components of an existing AC system with a heat pump for benefits of both?

widdakay
2 replies
22h45m

I'm surprised this isn't more common. The only difference between a heat pump and standard air conditioner is a reversing valve. These are usually $50-$100, and just require one more wire to the thermostat. In colder weather, defrost and fancier controllers are needed, but for mild climates the reversing valve is really all that is needed.

rainbowzootsuit
0 replies
18h46m

Off the shelf heat pumps will have a defrost control board too, but you make a solid point.

The hard part is that you have to recover the refrigerant and refill, which takes HVAC/R equipment and and EPA certification to do legally.

cogman10
0 replies
22h35m

You are dealing with different pressures on the refrigerant lines, but honestly that shouldn't really matter all that much. You also need a bit of logic for if the condenser starts freezing over to temporarily reverse the flow (and turn off the home fan) to defrost.

But otherwise, yeah, almost identical and a little crazy they'd cost much more over a typical install.

briffle
2 replies
22h45m

I'd be very interested as well. My gas furnace is only a few years old, but my AC system is probably 10 years old. If I could replace just that with a heat pump, and leave my gas furnace in place as a backup, that would be ideal.

turtlebits
0 replies
22h29m

You can install non ducted mini splits, which is what I did.

I left my oil furnace intact and added 4 high wall units (each bedroom and living room) with 2 outdoor condenser/compressors.

I still use my oil furnace when it gets below 40.

nixgeek
0 replies
22h41m

You can do that. It’s very common in New England to go this way because the heat pumps generally only work down to -15F and then you need to switch to furnace for heat.

sumtechguy
0 replies
22h18m

Things like the ducts plug right in.

Other things like the blower and condenser may need to be swapped out. It also depends on how old your system is. The controller will probably most certainly need to be swapped out. Do the normal thing with contractors like that. Call 3 different dudes have them come out and give you an estimate. Tell them you want quotes for partial swap out, full swap out, and 3 different price points. Within a couple of weeks you will have most of the knowledge you need if you want to do it.

My parents when they switched out they replaced both the indoor unit and outdoor too because they were 30+ years old at that point.

Now you probably have NG? If so you can also leave that fairly in place as is. I did that with my prev house. Then have the heat pump for when it is warm outside. Then switch over to NG when it gets to a particular temp. I set it to switch over at about 30F. I could have gone as low as 15 with that unit. It worked decently for most of the time. Where I live it maybe gets in the 20s for about a week a year at most. So the heat pump worked decently.

One thing though I would say is if you have a older home especially 1990 or older start with the insulation. It is wildly cheaper to get and gets you part of the way there. Many power companies even run deals where they will help you buy it.

sokoloff
0 replies
22h34m

Not really. You replace your existing AC with a split heat pump. It's not a mix-and-match situation, but the heat pump will both heat and cool and, if you already have existing ductwork that's correctly sized, you should be fine to just drop in a heat pump. (In an extreme heating dominated climate, you could have ducts that are too small for a heat pump, but adequately sized for AC and a furnace. That's pretty uncommon though.)

jvanderbot
0 replies
22h46m

You have just constructed a heat pump.

Heat pumps have the benefits of both.

esaym
0 replies
21h46m

A "heatpump" is an AC with a reversing valve. Yes you can just get a reversing valve and have some hack cut and solder it in for you. I'd assume any normal contractor would charge $1000+ for that job though. It would take multiple hours for a tech when instead he could make multiple house calls in that same time (and possible making more money doing house calls). So that is why you won't find someone to do it. It make no sense. Right now on ebay you can get a "Goodman 4 Ton 14 SEER Heat Pump" for $1800 delivered to your doorstep.

Oh and I guess another thing a heatpump has that an AC doesn't is a defrost controller board. You'd need one of those too.

ajross
0 replies
22h43m

In theory but not practice. No one makes that kind of conversion kit, and there are enough "minor" differences (e.g. heat pumps need a defrost mechanism where AC's are presumed to operate with hot ambient air) to make it impractical.

lolinder
3 replies
23h7m

A heat pump is just an air conditioner that can be run in reverse. Replacing your air conditioner might help if it makes the noise because it's old and broken, but if you just really dislike the sound of an air conditioner it probably won't help much.

ericd
1 replies
23h0m

The variable speed inverter ones tend to be much quieter than the old single-stage ones that most people have, fwiw.

lolinder
0 replies
22h57m

Ah, right! I actually have a variable stage regular AC unit, so that's not a benefit unique to heat pumps, that's something you can get by replacing your AC unit in general.

modeless
0 replies
23h4m

Maybe one of the new variable speed ones would help?

twiceaday
0 replies
23h3m

No, it's actually worse. The heat pump will make that same compressor noise when cooling in the summer AND heating in the winter.

jlawrence6809
0 replies
23h6m

A heat pump is just an AC that can move heat in either direction so you should be able to.

SOLAR_FIELDS
0 replies
23h6m

A heat pump is the same technology as what your condenser is doing, just in reverse. So you could otherwise just think of an air conditioner as one half of the heat pump in this case. So no

IndrekR
11 replies
22h30m

That sounds like a fantastic opportunity for a fresh company to take over the market. Heat as a service.

It costs about 2kUSD to get air to air exchange heatpump installed here (minisplit, includes the cost of the pump, EU). Takes approx 3 hours.

turtlebits
10 replies
22h9m

Yes, HVAC contractors in the US massively overcharge.

I saved ~ 10k doing the install myself. The equipment is inexpensive, labor can be upwards of 2x equipment cost.

aqfamnzc
5 replies
21h48m

Do you feel like the number of invisible footguns was manageable? That's always my concern with diy trades stuff, the things that seem fine at install but come back to bite you 6mo later.

mauvehaus
2 replies
21h29m

In general with contractors, you aren't paying for them to do the simple stuff right. You're paying them to get the one or two weird bits of the job done quickly and efficiently because they've seen something like it before and have the tools and parts on their truck.

bluGill
0 replies
21h19m

That is why I didn't try to DIY. Sure I'm confident I could get it installed. However I'm sure that I would discover after the old furnace was tore out that I'm missing some part/tool and so off to the store - what would take a pro a single day would take me 3 weekends at best: time that I don't have HVAC.

aqfamnzc
0 replies
21h13m

That's what I was asking about. How likely I am to succeed at a DIY job seems to depend on the number of the "weird bits" as you describe them.

turtlebits
0 replies
18h55m

No invisible footguns, just a bit of anxiety releasing refrigerant and hoping my lineset connections don't leak. Theres only a preset amount of refrigerant, it dissipates into the air and theres no easy way to refill it.

That said, some will inevitably leak out (ie. while disconnecting manifold gauge set) but no big deal. I've done four installs and nothing catastrophic.

exhilaration
0 replies
21h39m

There's a bunch of DIY heat pump install videos on YouTube, I watched this one recently: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79C2StyNlBg Honestly it convinced me that it's beyond my skillset.

mauvehaus
3 replies
21h32m

I looked into doing my own heat pump install. At least here in Vermont, you can't buy one without a refrigeration license[0] because of the ozone depletion issues with refrigerants. You also have to buy one from an in-state supply house to qualify for some of the incentives. Not all supply houses will sell to muggles.

My experience was that it was simpler and quicker to pay someone despite having basically the simplest possible installation: inside and outside units on opposite sides of the same exterior wall. The guy was great, and recommended a unit with an easily removable blower wheel for the dusty wood shop application[1]. I wouldn't have gotten there on my own, for sure. And he made sure that it qualified for the incentives. The list is long, and the models that are actually in production/available change pretty regularly.

Technically, it can be a pretty simple job. Practically, local regulations and circumstances might sway things towards hiring it out.

I say all this as someone who is a fairly competent shade-tree mechanic. I've done an engine swap and replaced a couple of clutches (transmission seal failure and previous owner's poor work; I know how to drive stick)

[0] I'm playing fast and loose with the exact words; it's been a few months since I looked into it.

[1] Cooper-Hunter, which is a Midea brand

turtlebits
2 replies
19h1m

Buy one that has precharged refrigerant in the condenser. New units use R410a which does not deplete ozone. You'll also never need to handle refrigerant, only open a valve which release it into the copper lineset.

You can buy a Mr Cool unit, you won't need to cut/flare/vacuum the lineset, just connect. I don't personally don't use them as their units generally cost a bit more, (30$ ~ 50%) and you're stuck with whatever lineset lengths they offer. However it's a great starter install and work just fine.

Cooper-Hunter units come precharged, so fairly easy to DIY.

mauvehaus
1 replies
18h42m

I was looking at Mitsubishi units, which I believe also come pre-charged. I don't know if it's a local law or if the supplier just didn't want to deal with someone not in the trade.

tguvot
0 replies
53m

costco/home depot sells mr.cool and they are quick and easy to install

epistasis
6 replies
23h9m

Your experience is extremely common. Residential HVAC contractors tend to be extremely conservative, and don't adopt new technologies quickly, or even attempt to understand them. I had some flexibility in time in replacing my 50 year old gas furnace, so I was able to call about 8 contractors before I finally found one who was comfortable with the tech and wanted to do it.

ajross
4 replies
22h46m

Yeah, it's not an innovative sector, though a lot of the blame belongs with the hardware manufacturers and not the installers. FWIW, the quotes I got for installation weren't that awful. But getting it hooked up to the Nest thermostat turned out to be a 2-day process and require a subcontractor to show up.

sokoloff
1 replies
22h36m

I've installed two Nest thermostats and there's industry standardized color-coding and functionality and Nest conforms to that. (I don't doubt that you had that problem, but I think that speaks more to the incompetence of the original installer than to the complexity of installing a thermostat with a screen.)

ajross
0 replies
22h32m

I think it was more that the heat pump itself really wanted to be integrated with the Carrier Official Thermostat (which I think might have been an ecobee but can't remember), and the documentation on how to run it in legacy/standard/on-off mode was missing or confusing.

CharlieDigital
1 replies
22h24m

Probably a bit more nuanced than that.

A lot of the installers run small businesses. If one of these units goes wrong or if they do the install wrong because it's new to them, then that's lost time and lost revenue rectifying it.

conductr
0 replies
15h7m

This is it. They price installs at generally a single day for complete system swap for install time assuming ducts are reused and never want even spend the travel time coming back on another day in my area. If they do, it’s eroding the profit they expected on your job. They usually have special crews that only do installs and also generally like to keep to a small list of manufacturers so they can keep as quick and efficient as possible. New and unfamiliar tech throws a wrench in that.

alistairSH
0 replies
18h56m

But heat pumps aren’t new. And aren’t much more complicated to install than a stand-alone AC. And certainly less complicated and less labor (overall) than than AC+furnace.

UncleOxidant
6 replies
22h33m

Had exactly the same experience recently. It seems like there are plenty of good mini-split heatpump systems that will work down to 0F (or even lower) without any kind of backup heat source. But if you're replacing a forced air furnace that feeds an existing ducts the only options are heatpumps that need to have backup heat under 30F. So essentially you're buying 2 furnaces in one which increases the cost. I'm in the PNW where it rarely goes below 10F so the minisplit systems would work fine without backup.

sgerenser
2 replies
20h7m

There's plenty of central split heat pumps that can function just fine below 30F. Look for ones marked "hyper heat" or advertised for use in cold climates. As long as the heatpump can handle down to 0F or so, then your backup heat only really needs to be an electric resistance heat strip (inefficient, but very cheap) since it would be used so infrequently.

OTOH, if you're replacing a gas furnace and already have A/C, then installing a new gas furnace + heat pump shouldn't cost much more than a new gas furnace + new A/C.

slavik81
0 replies
2h26m

Imagine the electrical demand on the grid during a cold snap if everyone switched to heat pumps with resistive heating as a backup. At the time of largest demand, the largest electrical appliance in each home would be reduced to a fraction of its normal efficiency. And all the homes in the region would be experiencing that same thing at the same time.

Electric resistive heating is not a suitable backup. If adopted at scale, it would tend to amplify demand spikes when the grid is at its most vulnerable.

UncleOxidant
0 replies
17h36m

There's plenty of central split heat pumps that can function just fine below 30F.

They likely exist, but none of my local residential HVAC companies carried them.

rainbowzootsuit
0 replies
18h50m

A "multi position air handler" which match the aspect ratios of traditional air handler furnaces are available from the major manufacturers like Daikin or Mitsubishi.

They will pair to low ambient temperature capable condensers.

Daikin FXTQ series models

Mitsubishi SVZ series models

If you are searching.

I don't think having backup heat is a terrible idea, but it could be any fuel source. The fan should still function with minimal power to circulate air as long as there's some heat to move around.

lsllc
0 replies
16h24m

The ideal design (IMHO) for a cold-climate (such as New England) is forced air ducting with a heat pump (better GSHP than ASHP if possible) with a 2-zone high efficiency natural gas boiler for domestic hot water and AUX heat.

People always forget the hot water. A GSHP usually has a de-superheater that can provide some heat during the shoulder seasons, but you can't rely on it and need the backup heat (as you do for the AUX heat for both when it's super-cold out and for the defrost cycle).

bluGill
0 replies
21h17m

That is what I got: a heatpump good to about 28F, and natural gas backup. I still save a lot of money over the previous 50 year old propane furnace. However so many variables changed at once I can't say if it was worth it.

tilwidnk
5 replies
21h26m

We've owned three homes, our first one had a heat pump. In Virginia. It generally sucked. It wasn't as good as real A/C in the summer and wasn't as good as gas or electric heat in the winter. I hope to never end up in a place that uses a heat pump.

ikiris
3 replies
20h37m

... what do you think real ac is?

tilwidnk
2 replies
20h25m

https://www.thisoldhouse.com/heating-cooling/reviews/heat-pu...

"Heat pumps use refrigerant to condition the air in your home by adding or removing heat through thermal exchange."

"Air conditioning is a cooling system that circulates cool air into an enclosed space, creating a comfortable atmosphere and improving indoor air quality."

"Air conditioners generally last longer than heat pumps because air conditioners only run when the air needs cooling, while heat pumps operate year-round."

lkbm
0 replies
19h58m

"Heat pumps use refrigerant to condition the air in your home by adding or removing heat through thermal exchange."

This is what air conditioners do, too.

"Air conditioning is a cooling system that circulates cool air into an enclosed space, creating a comfortable atmosphere and improving indoor air quality."

This is what heat pumps do, too.

These are two sentences that describe the same process, just in different words.

The last quote is potentially relevant: a heat pump is an air conditioner that can run in reverse to provide heat in the winter, so you're running it in both situations, and thus for more time.

ikiris
0 replies
18h31m

My guy, a heat pump is effectively an air conditioner with some added reversing valves.

hasbot
0 replies
15h53m

It may have been low on refrigerant. I'm in Virginia now and most of my neighbors have heat pumps including me. Mine is 17 years old and is definitely low on refrigerant so I use the original baseboard heat instead.

ghufran_syed
4 replies
21h1m

I’m in Northern california, I just got a heat pump installed by these guys: https://www.heliosclimate.io/ - a YC company btw, for those who think they just fund consumer apps :)

Overall it was a great experience, there were some minor issues immediately after installation that got dealt with quickly and efficiently. I think the list price was similar to what you were quoted, but in northern california (menlo park, peninsula clean energy) there were around $5000 of grants/tax incentives, and an interest free loan from pce for the rest, over 5 years meaning our monthly repayment should be about equal to the reduction in our gas bill.

We already had solar and batteries, otherwise I would NOT want to put myself at the mercy of PGE and their crazy electricity rates. But as they reduce the payment rates for solar electricity, the heat pump becomes a better deal.

ssuds
2 replies
19h17m

Shreyas here, one of the co-founders of Helios.

So great to have you as a customer! We're stoked we were able to help you ditch natural gas and decrease your carbon footprint.

Menlo park (and much of the peninsula) are such a no brainer for heat pumps. Like you mentioned, ~$5500 in incentives plus interest free financing can net to almost no out-of-pocket costs for most homeowners in San Mateo County. Many contractors aren't as familiar with heat pumps, and their quotes are often so expensive that it doesn't make economic sense to fuel switch. We are focused on offering affordable heat pump installations that have a positive ROI for homeowners.

reducesuffering
1 replies
17h31m

I couldn't find detailed info on what incentives apply to my county, Alameda.

From your site: "In the SF Bay area common incentives are the Federal 25C Tax Credit, Tech Clean CA and Peninsula Clean Energy."

I'm assuming Federal 25C and Tech Clean CA apply but Peninsula does not. But I don't know how much these are without further research. It would be nice if you had a tool on your site to determine my net cost with incentives included.

JeremyPOsborne
0 replies
16h46m

Hey, agree that would be awesome. It's super specific, so probably the easiest way is to request a quote from us, and you'll get a list specific for your address. Go here https://www.heliosclimate.io/get-a-quote

We call a specific incentive API, automatically generate the net cost estimate, and send it to you. No issue for our software, pls add a note that you just want incentive info, and I'll know to remove you from our hounding salespeople (ME )

We're working on our live instant quote tool, but it's not ready yet.

... we love Alameda and have done a few projects there now.

JeremyPOsborne
0 replies
19h22m

Thank you Ghufran! It was great working with you. -- Jeremy from Helios

yterdy
3 replies
22h31m

Reminds me of the hissy fit plumbers made over no-flush urinals.

lazide
2 replies
19h9m

Turns out they were right about that one though.

g8oz
1 replies
14h31m

Are you sure? I still see them around in some local shopping malls.

lazide
0 replies
2h48m

If your criteria as to if something is actually long term useful/the best tradeoff is if you can find it at your local shopping mall, you might want to rethink that a bit.

Dowwie
3 replies
22h47m

where are you located? I was quoted 14k to replace a gas furnace for a single family in NJ

ecshafer
1 replies
22h39m

Unless that's a massive furnace that's robbery. In philly I replaced my furnace for $6k 2 years ago.

Dowwie
0 replies
20h36m

Got two quotes thus far and they're in the same ballpark. I asked for quotes in December 2023, 2 months ago. Bergen County, NJ.

losvedir
0 replies
14h35m

I had our gas furnace replaced this past November, a 100k BTU Rheem one, for $2,200. This was outside Chicago in Northwest Indiana, though, which is a pretty low cost of living area.

I spent some time trying to get a heat pump instead, but no one around here was familiar with them. I worried that if it failed service would be a pain.

pkulak
1 replies
15h40m

Tradesfolk are _so_ political, it boggles my mind. I own a house, and need to get quotes for HVAC and plumbing stuff occasionally, and holy shit, I do not look forward to those conversations. Just nodding my head for 15 minutes while they look over my setup ranting about what they heard on cable TV last week.

I mean, it's good to force me out of my bubble, but maybe not right into the deep end where, and this is from about 8 hours ago, "heat pumps are no good in the Pacific Northwest because they use more electricity than resistive heating". The PNW: a climate renowned for two things: rain and mild temperatures, where heat pumps are no good. All I can do is nod and say "uh huh".

mlrtime
0 replies
1h21m

I have the same thought when someone gives me an opinion on the car I drive or the food I eat and how I'm killing the earth, meanwhile they take 10x the number of flights I do and have no idea how their food gets to them.

Casteil
1 replies
22h3m

Price gouging seems like standard practice for HVAC companies.

I'd like to replace my 25+ yr old system (gas furnace/AC) with a new gas furnace & heat pump so I can have the option of heating with gas or electricity... but when I ran this by an HVAC technician who was here for a service call, I got the same kind of exorbitant figures thrown at me with the heat pump in the equation.

Same technician wanted $750 to replace a control board when my furnace had gone out during a blizzard - I sourced my own & did it myself for <$150.

pkulak
0 replies
15h36m

I got three quotes for a new water heater just this week. One was more than twice the other. I'll see where number three comes in. $1900 for a resistive electric water heater seems steep, but at least there's an argument that it's reasonable. 4 grand is just so out there that I have to believe it was personal somehow.

slicktux
0 replies
13h28m

Any HVAC tech worth their salt should be able to work on a heat pump…

jxramos
0 replies
22h13m

what were the justifications, did you ask out of curiosity for them to share what was driving their decisions?

acchow
0 replies
21h59m

For heat pumps, you actually want to start at the manufacturers. Their website or customer service will help find servicers in your area.

BatFastard
0 replies
13h4m

I had the same experience, twice as much for a heat pump as a traditional gas/electric AC here in Atlanta GA. Got quotes for multiple companies, then on a whim I talked to the guy at Costco who stands by the door on the way out. Turned out you get a ~15% discount for going thru Costco, so I saved the 1500 bucks and got Costco credit! And they used top of the line equipment!

vundercind
45 replies
1d3h

Death is coming for the old-school gas furnace—and its killer is the humble heat pump.

Uh, you still need a furnace (though it could be electric) if you live somewhere that ever really gets cold, right?

[edit] I mean, seeing it presented as a furnace replacement is weird to me. I’ve always seen it sold as an air conditioner replacement that also happens to heat (with weird characteristics that often confuse people—they’ll think their heat is broken, because the air coming out is only kinda warm, not very-warm like furnace heat) when it’s not really cold out.

mikeyouse
20 replies
1d2h

Uh, you still need a furnace (though it could be electric) if you live somewhere that ever really gets cold, right?

For now - and only in part of the country. Most of the newest models can output 100% of their rating down to something like -5ºF -- they're easy enough to oversize as well, so if your 99% heating load is e.g. 48,000BTU, a 60,000BTU heat pump that's only outputting 80% of rated BTUs due to the extreme cold can still cover the full design load.

Here's the spec sheet for the newer Mitsubishi hyper heat models - 87º output at -4ºF and 76% output at -13ºF -- very few places in the states ever get that cold: https://static.appliancesconnection.com/attachments/D5bf5709...

lotsofpulp
9 replies
1d2h

I like the redundancy of natural gas. So far, in less than 40 years, I have been kept warm for multiple days on 3 separate occasions by having access to gas while the electricity did not work. Also, I was able to keep cooking.

One of the states in the article is Oregon too, where I have family that just a few weeks ago lost electricity for 4 days, but were able to use an electric generator to keep the air handler going and gas to heat the the house and cook.

I fear heat pump only heat will fail exactly when I most need it not to.

vundercind
3 replies
1d2h

Yeah if my heat were 100% electric I’d have to install a wood heating-stove to feel like I wasn’t being irresponsible. Or maybe get a couple portable kerosene heaters.

VBprogrammer
2 replies
1d2h

I think a sensible option, if you live in a place where electrical grids goes out for a couple of days fairly routinely, would be a transfer switch and a generator. If sized well enough you could use it to run a resistance heater (the cheap portable type) to keep one or two rooms warm in an extreme scenario.

sudden_dystopia
1 replies
23h19m

Pipes freeze and burst, whole house has to stay warm. It’s not just about comfort or safety.

nsguy
0 replies
22h44m

If you warm up a few rooms to comfortable then it's hard to imagine the rest of the house being at freezing temperature. It's going to be some sort of gradient. But sure, this is a concern/consideration.

dhosek
3 replies
22h34m

My ex-wife had a two-day power outage last month (it was only a few hours at my apartment) during a cold snap. She has gas heat, but the problem is that the heat gets circulated by fans¹ which are powered by—electricity.

She had to get a hotel room for the night because she wasn’t comfortable sleeping with the gas fireplace on.

1. I would guess that thermostats also powered by electricity not working would add to the complication.

lotsofpulp
2 replies
22h25m

Of course, but gas utility supply means a much smaller generator is needed just to operate the fans and thermostat and much less on-hand fuel is needed to operate the generator.

Natural gas is just a very convenient and very dense source of energy when you need it most.

dhosek
1 replies
19h28m

In the entirety of my life, most of which has been in the Chicago area, I have never seen a home with a generator for the fans and thermostat of a home. For that matter, the only home generator I ever saw was one my grandfather bought which he only used once to see if it worked.

zrail
0 replies
15h2m

They're pretty common where I live (SE Michigan) because the electrical grid is quite a bit less reliable than the gas distribution network. To the point where 5-10% of customers in the service area lose power in any given big storm.

We have an (almost[1]) all electric house. A year ago we lost power for six days. Last spring we had a generator installed. Over the summer we lost grid power for five days but the generator worked flawlessly the entire time.

I don't like having gas for a number of reasons and if the grid was more reliable we would never have bothered, but, for us, it's just so much more reliable.

[1]: We have two HVAC systems that service different sides of our duplex-ish house. One side is a ground source heat pump, the other is a 95% efficient gas furnace.

ChatGTP
0 replies
6h41m

It sounds like your house is poorly insulated too ?

vundercind
4 replies
1d2h

I’d say -15°F or lower is something you need to design for at least into the light-blue area on this map:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-tdK_AMaZ9pg/Vb51WrvPDhI/AAAAAAAAD5...

Which is quite a lot of the country.

Light blue is a typical Winter low point in the -10°F to 0°F, which means you will see -15°F or lower often enough to worry about it.

mikeyouse
0 replies
1d2h

Fortunately, they have county-by-county data (and hourly data if you so desire) that spells out the design criteria for heating systems;

https://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/bldrs_lenders_raters/...

Though heat pumps are unique in that they produce less heat as the colder it gets - A few hours of -15º every few years shouldn't be the primary consideration in spec'ing a system that still produces 75% of its heat in that worse case.

I live in that blue area and ran through all of the math and considerations recently - I pulled the hourly temperature data for 6 years. Of the 94,000 data points in that period, a total of 26 hours were below -5º: https://imgur.com/a/P7A3kan

jcranmer
0 replies
23h10m

The dataset is typical winter low for 1984-2014. Earth is warming thanks to climate change, and the lowest lows have notably warmed. See, e.g., https://xkcd.com/1321/. In my 12 winters of living in the light blue zone, I think I've spent like a grand total of 36 hours or so in sub-0°F temperatures, and that was pretty much the one period mentioned in the xkcd comic.

ip26
0 replies
12h14m

You can simply add backup resistive heat to cover the occasional 4AM drop to -15F. It’s more expensive to operate, but as long as this is rare it doesn’t significantly change your bill.

hardcopy
0 replies
1d2h

Meh. I live in Wisconsin. It's fine.

Our modeling finds that even if Focus incentivizes 800,000 heat pumps with electric resistance backup (10 times the number of heat pumps as it did furnaces in the past four years), the state will still be able to meet its electricity demand with currently operating power plants, even on the coldest days. Depending on the efficiency of the heat pump, in-state winter generation capacity would still exceed peak demand by 1,400–4,300 MW on the coldest day.

https://rmi.org/three-questions-wisconsinites-are-asking-abo...

semiquaver
1 replies
1d2h

We have a set of those hyper heat mini splits to supplement a hydronic system which wasn’t expanded to several additions. They’re generally great but during the Midwest’s recent extremely cold snap down to a week or two of negative temperatures they were pretty disappointing and could not keep up. We ended up having to close off a few parts of the house to keep the temperature reasonable in the rest. I think that trusting heat to a heat pump system is not yet feasible in much of the Midwest and northeast.

mikeyouse
0 replies
1d2h

Yeah, we're remodeling right now - our design specs say heat pumps should be able to cover 100% of our load but we also have a few rarely used gas fireplaces and some space heaters in case that doesn't work out. Though like someone else mentioned, the bigger change will be reacting to power outages. A small camping generator can provide enough energy for to keep a gas furnace blower running whereas you need a very large generator to operate the heat pump.

o11c
1 replies
23h9m

Temperature rating is irrelevant if the outdoor unit turns into a solid block of ice before it gets that low.

Oddly enough, it tends to snow when it's cold. Even rain can a problem since the nature of a heap pump means the unit is cooler than the surroundings.

So often for a few nights of the year, the alleged "heat pump" actually just falls back to electric heating.

nsguy
0 replies
22h48m

The outdoor unit goes through heating cycles though to prevent that. I'm in Vancouver, BC, where it doesn't get that cold but my unit had no problem when it was snowing and -15C or so outside. It did have to work pretty hard though. We don't have electrical heating backup for the heat pump but we do have a gas fireplace as backup (so I know the heat coming from the vents is 100% heat pump, not an electric heater in line).

dkasper
0 replies
1d2h

i think this explains the oversizing. 76% seems pretty good, but a lot of places do get to negative temperatures once in a while, maybe once every year or two, and that’s when you really want the heat to work.

spiderice
3 replies
1d3h

Yes. I live in Utah and have a heat pump and gas furnace. I am told the heat pump is really efficient at medium-cold temperatures, but not so much on really cold days.

loeg
2 replies
1d2h

I believe heatpump technology has improved over time. Also, "less efficient but still functional" is an adequate option for really cold days.

Loughla
1 replies
1d2h

Less efficient but still functional means my home was 50 degree inside instead of 67 when it was -1 for two weeks here.

On older homes, with much worse insulation, this would immediately be a problem.

Heat pumps are great, but they absolutely need some kind of emergency heat back up.

loeg
0 replies
1d2h

Less efficient but still functional means my home was 50 degree inside instead of 67 when it was -1 for two weeks here.

No, that's just not functional. "Less efficient" means consuming more joules of electricity but still providing the required function.

Heat pumps are great, but they absolutely need some kind of emergency heat back up.

They include it. You were sold an inadequate pump for your situation.

loeg
3 replies
1d3h

Heatpumps have resistance heating backup for the exceptional periods when it is too cold to make use of the compression system. Most people live somewhere a heatpump would work well.

vundercind
0 replies
1d2h

Oh, I’ve not see that kind, only the sort where the “e heat” feature on the thermostat is tied to a separate furnace.

heironimus
0 replies
1d2h

Problem is, if everyone has resistance backup and it gets really cold, I doubt if the grid could keep up.

giantg2
0 replies
1d2h

This also assumes a resilient grid, which may not be the case for large areas of the rural US.

nitsuaeekcm
2 replies
1d2h

The best mental model for a heat pump is that they can maintain a certain temperature differential, say 80F. If it gets to be 0F outside and you want it to be 70? You don’t need to switch to a fully separate heating system, you just need to warm up either the incoming or outgoing air an additional 10 degrees via a small resistance heater. The super wide range heat pump systems will do that automatically, and the principle really applies to any differential you could want.

VBprogrammer
0 replies
1d2h

The wide range ones are basically two heat pumps back to back using different working fluids. They should only be used in applications where they are really required as there are obviously impacts to the COP.

JadeNB
0 replies
23h31m

The best mental model for a heat pump is that they can maintain a certain temperature differential, say 80F. If it gets to be 0F outside and you want it to be 70? You don’t need to switch to a fully separate heating system, you just need to warm up either the incoming or outgoing air an additional 10 degrees via a small resistance heater.

Are your 70 and 80 switched? What you describe doesn't sound like it needs any addition.

adastra22
1 replies
1d3h

Heat pumps are still more efficient, but you’d need damn good insulation (or a really big heat pump) in super cold weather. Furnaces scale-up pretty well on the other hand.

If your locale gets life threateningly cold though, I’d feel more comfortable with a furnace because of the fewer moving parts. Burn gas, get heat, dead simple.

01HNNWZ0MV43FF
0 replies
1d2h

Funny enough in the short term I've lived in my house, I already had a winter where the furnace quit.

It's a high-efficiency one with a control board (Nobody can convince me FCS isn't Fire Control System) and a separate draft motor.

One of the vacuum sensors went out and the furnace couldn't prove it was safe to run, so it would turn on the draft motor, suspect a clog, and then shut it back off.

An easy fix but not as simple as lighting a Bunsen burner. And I haven't seen the electrical cord for it, I'm not sure how I would hook it to a generator if I lost power. The water heater oddly enough is battery-powered, so I guess I could just fill the tub with hot water.

switchbak
0 replies
17h12m

They make ones that handle the cold quite well, but in my mind dual-fuel is where it's at, especially if you're doing a retrofit. Unfortunately there does seem to be a desire (even with the rebate systems) to kill the old furnaces.

rootbear
0 replies
1d2h

I live in Maryland and the first townhouse I owned, in the late 80s to early 90s, had a heat pump. It included an auxiliary electric heater for days that it got really cold. I don't remember it coming on all that often. (There was a light on the thermostat to indicate when it was on.) My current townhouse has a gas furnace. I plan to move soon into a single level home, more appropriate for an old greybeard, and I'll have to evaluate then if I want to switch to a heat pump, if the house doesn't have one already.

rimunroe
0 replies
1d2h

Note: this is only true for air-source heat pumps. Ground source-heat pumps aren't affected by ambient air temperature, but they're also much more expensive and require suitable ground. Also, I hear air-source heat pumps have made significant advances lately in how well they handle sub -15 °C temperatures.

orwin
0 replies
1d2h

Depends on the heat pump, and the quality of your house. Hopefully houses in northern US states are of better quality than houses in California or West Virginia/South Ohio, so a furnface might not be needed.

Because for the scandinavians reading the thread and with the "It works in my country", US house build quality, in my experience, is even worse than UK houses build quality (and that's a pretty low bar).

loudmax
0 replies
1d2h

What's really cold? There are heat pumps that are advertised as working at -15F. On the days when it gets that cold, your heat pump will need to switch to electric heat. So on those days, your heat pump is no better than an electric furnace. On all other days that the heater is running, the heat pump is a far more efficient option.

kj4ips
0 replies
1d2h

I have a pair of heat pumps in a dual zone setup, each of them has a backup electric furnace as part of its indoor air handler. Newer ones can keep running without that even into quite cold areas.

The thermostat just sees the resistive heaters as another phase, so I have three phases, and if it doesn't see a temp rise within a certain time of calling for phase 1/2, then it goes to phase 3. Mine also has support for an external temperature probe, that can skip 1/2 if it is already too cold.

I also have other ways to make heat if I have a prolonged electrical outage, but outside of maintenance, I've not used that.

epiccoleman
0 replies
1d2h

From my limited experience, I'd say yes - you still need a furnace.

I converted my garage into my office by adding a mini split AC/heat pump. The garage walls, door, and attic are insulated - but it's still a garage, which means that it's not nearly as well insulated as a regular room in a house.

The unit is 18k BTUs, which is quite oversized for the size of the garage. I made this choice because the heat pump BTUs are significantly less than cooling BTUs. This is definitely obvious, experientally - the unit can make my garage uncomfortably cold even in the peak of summer.

But even though this unit is supposedly rated for operation in temps down to about -20F, when winter gets really cold, it struggles to keep the space warm. Once the temps are below about 20F or so, I usually add a space heater to the mix, which, combined with warm clothes, makes working out here at least tolerable.

carapace
0 replies
1d1h

No, you need better insulation.

(And maybe a rocket stove combined with a heat storage hypocaust.)

https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2017/03/heat-storage-hypoc...

bagels
0 replies
16h14m

The capabilities work fine for much of the country that doesn't get exceedingly freezing temperatures. It only gets down to about 26F on the coldest of cold nights here once or twice per year.

Workaccount2
0 replies
1d2h

Cutting edge heat pumps can now work down into the sub zero (F) temperatures. Manufacturers have really been pushing hard on this in recent years. But these units still are more expensive than your run of the mill ones.

01HNNWZ0MV43FF
0 replies
1d2h

Technology Connections seems pretty happy with his. I think he lives in Chicago, admittedly not the coldest place, but it does snow every winter in that region.

He said 2.9 coefficient of efficiency average over a heating season for him - https://youtu.be/7J52mDjZzto?t=1522

nostrademons
45 replies
23h10m

These states really need to get their electric rates down if they want to accelerate adoption of electrification technologies.

We were planning to fully electrify our house + transportation in the next few years. PG&E rate hikes and net metering policies put the damper on that. It's now more expensive to fuel a vehicle with electricity than gas, so I'm charging my PHEV at work and using gas for the rest. We have solar + battery sized for the existing usage of our house (gas heating, cooking, and vehicles), because that's what PG&E would let us interconnect. Upgrading the size to support a heat pump or EV would make us lose NEM2, so we've just chosen to defer those upgrades until NEM3 is rolled back or NEM4 comes out or there's new technology or the Californian government falls.

In a way this is the market doing what it's supposed to. There's a shortage of electricity because of everyone doing electrification upgrades, so the price of electricity rises, which incentivizes people to defer further electrification upgrades until the grid can handle it. But if states actually want adoption, they need to solve the utility bottlenecks and increase generation capacity to support all the new usage.

shadowpho
16 replies
22h57m

It's now more expensive to fuel a vehicle with electricity than gas

How is that possible? Even at 20c/kWh it's still a good 4x cost difference I though

floatrock
5 replies
22h49m

Napkin math:

My crossover EV gets 2.5-3.5 mi/kWh. Call it 3. / $0.2/kWh = 15 mi/$

Avg fuel economy in US ~ 25mpg. At $3.50/gal that's 7 mi/$

So at 20c/kWh, your dollar goes roughly twice as far on electric. California has been seeing brutal rates, though -- 40c/kWh not uncommon.

Californians can play games with Time-of-Use rates (charge at night), get onto EV-specific rates, be on a CCA which tend to not have the try-to-not-burn-down-the-state adjustment fees, get solar +/- NEM2 vs NEM3, etc., so your numbers may vary. And different cars will have different MPG's of course. But all of that is to say, "more expensive to fuel a vehicle with electricity than gas" is not necessarily wrong in California.

burkaman
1 replies
22h42m

Gas in California is $4.50+ at the moment.

zbrozek
0 replies
20h37m

3.78 at Mathilda and Maude in Sunnyvale

aidenn0
1 replies
22h45m

Where in California can you get gas for $3.50/gal?

qmarchi
0 replies
22h4m

Yuba City, CA. According to GasBuddy

ZIP: 95950

https://www.gasbuddy.com/gaspricemap?lat=39.08984244471869&l...

naijaboiler
0 replies
2h15m

A car of similar size to Tesla 3 gets close to 30mpg. At $3/gallon in mass currently, 10mi/$.

My electricity is 0.35/kwh. So that’s also ~10mi/$, except I don’t have the added headache of worrying about range

widdakay
3 replies
22h49m

PGE goes up to 66c/kwh during peak now and in San Diego I think is >70c/kwh. Off peak base is 34c/kwh for PG&E. Gas is $4.5-$5/gal so break even I think ends up being near 50mpg ish for a 300wh/mi EV.

brewdad
2 replies
22h36m

I'm not in CA, so genuinely curious. When you quote 66 cents/kwh is that the marginal rate for an addition kwh or is that averaging in fixed costs? I pay about $20/mo just to have an active service line to my house, even if I were to shut off the breaker and not use any power. But my marginal rate is about 18 cents/kwh.

I would call my rate 18 cents but not sure if we are doing an apples to apples comparison.

svachalek
0 replies
21h42m

Marginal rate. SDGE is insanely expensive.

FullyFunctional
0 replies
20h27m

I find my (NorCal) PG&E bill extremely (and deliberately?) inscrutable, but for the most recent statement, the Off-peak net price was $0.427/kWh and $0.466/kWh on-peak.

gertlex
1 replies
22h44m

20c/kWh? Not in California... Try 35c/50c peak or worse.

Even if you have solar, and got in before NEM3.0, that's still not an incentive to electrify, when you're just selling the non-peak energy to the grid for the increasing rates that PG&E is charging/planning... (if that income-based minimum monthly bill thing happens, this maybe changes a bit)

Not sure about the current gas/electricity per mile costs as I'm still driving a 15 y/o gas car.

gnicholas
0 replies
21h32m

(if that income-based minimum monthly bill thing happens, this maybe changes a bit)

FYI, some legislators (including very left-leaning ones) are moving to repeal this pending change: https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-progressive-california-epipha...

turquoisevar
0 replies
21h6m

Can’t speak for PG&E, but I know from experience that it’s cousin SDG&E (the most expensive in the country I believe) will charge more than 60¢/kWh in the summer during certain times of the day and I’ve even had it be over 80¢ at certain times if memory serves me right.

They’ve recently retired and restructured a bunch of rate plans, but almost all historical and current rates can be found on their website[0]. Somehow they still managed to keep things nice and complex.

Keep in mind that none of these reflect so called CCA pricing, which is another story in of itself. Same for the “baseline allowance” after which rates go up, although they’ve now seemed to have structured is a discount to somewhat simplify rate comparisons.

0: https://www.sdge.com/total-electric-rates

Edit: Got curious so looked at some statistics. Top lists of most expensive electricity rates all mention Alaska and Hawaii, ok fair enough, but even in the contiguous states California isn’t even mentioned somehow.

At the same time there are articles like[1] these[2] that claim SDG&E was the most expensive (at the time).

So I guess what I’m saying is that I’m not sure.

1: https://fox5sandiego.com/news/local-news/fox-5-asks-sdge-why...

2: https://www.cbs8.com/article/money/amped/san-diego-has-the-h...

sokoloff
0 replies
22h17m

At 20c/kWh, that's ~5c/mi. For there to be a 4x cost difference, a gas car getting 30 mpg would have to be paying $6/gal for gas.

In MA, I bought gas yesterday in our ICE car for $3.10/gal. Our electricity is $0.27/kWh. An ICE car getting 31 mpg is $0.10/mi for energy. Our EV getting just under 4mi/kWh is $0.07/mi for energy.

gnicholas
0 replies
21h37m

I have a not-terribly-efficient PHEV (2014 CMAX), and depending on where we are in our tiered monthly usage it may be more expensive to use electricity. We still do, since the cost difference isn't huge and it's nice to ride with less emissions/noise. But it is maddening that PG&E charges so much that this is even possible (in CA, where gasoline prices are also sky-high!).

callalex
0 replies
22h47m

PG&E charges more like $.50 and it will soon be $.60-&.70. The regulator is corrupted and the infrastructure is failing because PG&E spent money that was supposed to be for infrastructure maintenance on share buyback programs. As a result the infrastructure failed and killed a ton of people, so now the utility is in even more debt because of the restitution owed.

burkaman
14 replies
22h50m

It's now more expensive to fuel a vehicle with electricity than gas

This is very hard to believe, what are you paying for electricity? California gas prices are also way above the national average at the moment. Here's a per-state comparison from last year, I'm sure it's a bit out of date but I doubt things have completed flipped in a single year: https://energyinnovation.org/2023/07/27/ev-fill-up-savings/

GloriousKoji
9 replies
22h28m

I live in the Bay Area California and get electricity from PG&E. I use a minimal amount of electricity and I paid 43 cents/kWh last month. Gas from Costco is $4/gal right now. I have a plugin-hybrid which does 4miles/kwh and 45mpg or in terms of money: 9.3miles/$ on electricity and 11.25gas-miles/$ on gasoline.

But maybe you don't actually care about fuel efficiency, then you have an argument that it's cheaper to fuel a Tesla Model 3 instead of a BMW M3.

stephen_g
2 replies
19h19m

That’s astonishingly cheap for petrol, wow. We’re paying at least four times in my country minimum…

kalleboo
0 replies
10h41m

Wow, where is it 4x the price? Even in places like Norway, it's only double https://www.globalpetrolprices.com/gasoline_prices/

TaylorAlexander
0 replies
14h9m

Yes USA loves petroleum, that's for sure.

lelandbatey
2 replies
18h54m

I paid 43 cents/kWh last month

Whoooooa ok that makes more sense why folks are complaining; I paid 13 cents/kWh last month, less than 1/3 of what you're talking about.

Note for others, paying $0.45/kWh is highly unusual for the US as a whole; see the US Gov published stats on average electricity prices by region which puts the average at ~$0.17/kWh: https://www.bls.gov/regions/midwest/data/averageenergyprices...

zbrozek
0 replies
15h58m

Yeah we're getting shafted. Starts at $0.487 and goes up to $0.618 per KWh.

https://www.pge.com/tariffs/assets/pdf/tariffbook/ELEC_SCHED...

naijaboiler
0 replies
2h22m

I’m posting 0.35/kwh in New England

gcheong
1 replies
20h12m

"I paid 43 cents/kWh last month"

I live in the Bay Area as well and I have an EV (2015 Fiat 500e), and am on the PG& Home Charging EV2-A plan. I charge my car between 12am and 3pm and pay $0.28/kwh, 29kwh/100 miles and I should be getting about 12.3miles/$.

Gibbon1
0 replies
19h58m

I think it's always instructive to break out all the costs of owning a car on a per mile basis.

I but about $700/year in gasoline. And pay about $600/year insurance. And drive about 6500 miles a year.

So insurance and gas are both about 10 cents a mile. I think depreciation and maintenance are higher at about 15 cents/mile. So 50 cents a mile. IRS says a business can write off 67 cents a mile.

burkaman
0 replies
22h7m

Thanks that's helpful, and just found an overview of current rates that matches what you're saying: https://www.pge.com/content/dam/pge/docs/account/rate-plans/...

I think it is still true in California that an average EV is cheaper to fuel than an average gas car, but if you have a very efficient hybrid then it's a bit cheaper than a pure EV.

nostrademons
3 replies
21h14m

PG&E is 62 cents/kwh for peak rate above-baseline, I believe 52 cents/kwh for off-peak (which most EV charging would be). Gas prices where I'm at are around $4.20/gal. I ran the numbers for my Mazda CX-90 PHEV SUV, which gets about 1.7 mi/kwh on electric and about 23 mpg gas. It's about 30 cents/mile on electric and about 18 cents/mile on gas.

For this tank only I have been charging at home (and at work, and anywhere I can), because I want to see how much mileage I can get out of a tank with full PHEV driving. In this regard it hasn't disappointed; I'm at 1200 miles and just passed half a tank of gas. But once I have a baseline for how much of my driving can be done on electric, I'll probably switch to just charging at work (where it's free) and using gas for most other driving, because it's so much cheaper.

burkaman
1 replies
20h55m

I see what you're saying, that makes sense for that vehicle. I think pure EVs tend to get about twice as many miles per kWh as your car, so for an average pure EV compared to an average pure ICE I think the EV is still cheaper to fill up, although it is pretty close with these prices.

nostrademons
0 replies
20h45m

It's not really the pure EV vs. hybrid factor, it's the weight. The CX-90 is a really big (5200 lbs) 8-seater. Hence why its gas mileage is only about 23. It's also very heavily terrain & road dependent, eg. for roads with lots of stop signs in the hills, I get 0.6 mi/kwh or 8 mpg, but for flat highway driving it's about 3.0 mi/kwh or 40 mpg.

A typical EV would get more like 4 mi/kwh, but then, the equivalent ICE car would get more like 35 mpg. The delta's a little bit closer because of peculiarities of the CX-90's powertrain, but not a whole lot.

gcheong
0 replies
19h59m

You should look into a PGE EV time of use rate plan if you can charge your car between 12am and 3pm - that should drop your rate for charge down to about 34 cents per kWh (though on my last bill mine was 28 cents per kWh).

https://www.pge.com/en/account/rate-plans/find-your-best-rat...

callalex
4 replies
22h50m

In a way this is the market doing what it's supposed to. There's a shortage of electricity because of everyone doing electrification upgrades, so the price of electricity rises

PG&E electricity rates have absolutely nothing to do with free markets. The only thing setting PG&E rates is corruption and incompetence, but mostly corruption.

nostrademons
3 replies
21h9m

Customer choices in response to electric rates is absolutely free markets, though.

I think that there's a lot wrong with the utility system in California (and the corruption actually incentivizes incompetence - the only way for executives to increase profits, make the stock go up, and get higher bonuses is to increase their costs, so PG&E is very good at inflating costs by doing stuff like burning down cities). But given that PG&E is as incompetent as they are, the logical market response is to make yourself as independent from them as possible.

super_moose1
0 replies
20h4m

Electricity in California is not a free market though.

When I lived in Texas I could choose my electricity provider and see what different rates they charge for electricity to choose a provider.

In California I can choose Edison for my electricity or have no electricity.

risho
0 replies
14h8m

for there to be a market there needs to be competition.

bagels
0 replies
20h19m

They are using their lobbying power to prevent this. They want their cut regardless of service. Income based minimum monthly payment of $92/mo and nem 3 changes.

tomohawk
1 replies
22h51m

Just looking at my street, which is not old infrastructure, they would have to replace all the electric lines, all the transformers, and all the panels in all of the houses if everyone here decided to have EVs. If everyone went to 100% electric heat, it would be even worse.

We have dual fuel heating (heat pump, oil burner). It's prohibitively expensive to run the heat pump below 32F (0C), but the oil works great then, and is way cheaper. Just like the heat pump is cheaper at warmer temps. The heat pump won't work at all at 0F (-18C), so it's a non-starter to only use air based heat pumps for all of our needs. We've tried to get quotes for geothermal, but we'll just have to wait for the next big recession to do that.

As an engineer, I just have to shake my head at the unrealistic timelines being pushed by politicians. All that does is increase cost and drama.

remotefonts
0 replies
22h5m

>As an engineer, I just have to shake my head at the unrealistic timelines being pushed by politicians. All that does is increase cost and drama.

Do you really think that's a coincidence? Not being snarky, just curious.

oramit
1 replies
22h19m

This is one of my big annoyances as well. Whatever happened to the idea of electricity that was too cheap to measure?

selectodude
0 replies
21h57m

We had a collective meltdown at the idea of nuclear power. I'm currently paying 1.7 cents per kWh in Chicago.

nostromo
1 replies
22h52m

These states really need to get their electric rates down if they want to accelerate adoption of electrification technologies.

I wish. Instead they'll just do what they're doing in my home city, Seattle: ban gas furnaces and other forms of heating entirely while raising electric rates even further. The masses will cry that you have to be rich to live here, and they'll respond to that by raising taxes and spending the raised funds on consultants and bureaucrats studying electric utility inequities. I wish I was making this up.

whateveracct
0 replies
22h47m

Come down to Tacoma. I got > $1k in rebates from the gas company replacing my 20yo furnace + water heater with a HE gas furnace and a gas tankless water heater.

Housing prices are up now, but early pandemic it was like just south of $600k for a 3k sqft house built in the late '90s in a nice neighborhood.

qqqwerty
0 replies
22h21m

The PG&E rate increases have a lot more to do with wildfires than it does with supply and demand. Look at SMUD rates, super affordable. I will agree though that it has been super frustrating for these rate increases to be hitting right around when electrification is picking up steam.

With that said, unless you are comparing the most efficient ICE against the least efficient EV's you should still see savings with an EV. If I charged our EV at the peak electricity rate (which I rarely do) it still costs about half as much as a fairly average ICE vehicle on a per mile basis. Compared against some of the most efficient ICE vehicles (hybrids like the Prius) I would still come out ahead, maybe by only 20% though. But again, that is comparing the worst case scenario where I only charge at peak rates. In practice we probably average around half of the peak rate from a mix of at home, at work and around town charging.

I will admit though that it is not a particularly good look for CA regulators to be pushing electrification so hard while also allowing huge rate increases. It ends up looking like a huge handout to the investor owned utilities. And the proposed rate changes that implement an income based fix charge are absolutely idiotic. With batteries coming down in price we could soon see the economics of going off grid become much more attractive, which would further exacerbate the situation (CA IOUs will need battery adopters to stay connected to the grid to help with intermittency)

paulmd
0 replies
22h51m

it isn't just california either, deficient and neglected infrastructure is basically a national-scale problem.

around my area we blew up two substations during a heatwave last summer. we constantly get brownouts at 4-6pm during the post-work peak load such that I'm almost not even comfortable running the freezer/etc anymore (brownouts are really hard on motors). and now you want to push all the gas heating (and this area gets cold!) onto the grid too?

a lot of this is that urban and suburban areas are subsidizing rural and ex-rural areas - more than half of my bill is already capacity-charges and delivery fees and not the actual cost of the electric, and we're still blowing up substations regularly due to strained and overloaded infrastructure. Where is the money going? Mostly to keeping miles and miles of power lines out to the middle of nowhere, I'd think.

That's a problem America is going to face in a lot of "ghost town" scenarios - when "the mine dries up" or "the train doesn't stop here anymore" and a place stops existing, the infrastructure costs to service the 20 people still living there don't. Repaving the roads every couple of years, plowing and salting them during the winter, etc aren't free and the reality is that in some areas there's really almost no economic activity anymore to justify the cost. We just have covenants and mandates that prevent ever undoing it. And that runs up the bills for everyone else.

We have 400k people in this county of 700mi^2, and that's suburban, not-particularly-dense either. Another county we have 40k people in 2700 mi^2. Should everyone in the former have to subsidize the lifestyle of the latter? We are talking about 2 orders of magnitude less density here, while it's not quite 1:1 there's no doubt they are incurring significantly higher infrastructure costs for their lifestyle and we are paying for it.

And since people won't pay for it, what we end up with is everyone's infrastructure falling into neglect, to pay for a handful of rural customers.

herpdyderp
30 replies
1d3h

The states listed are:

  - California
  - Colorado
  - Maine
  - Maryland
  - Massachusetts
  - New Jersey
  - New York
  - Oregon
  - Rhode Island

Detrytus
16 replies
23h0m

Why would anyone need a heat pump in California, given the climate there? I can understand north-eastern states, but not this. Is it a case of mindlessly jumping on "progressive" bandwagon?

EDIT: I actually spent one winter in San Diego, and apartments there don't even have any heating installed (except occasional fireplace in the living room). I know that more to the north it might get worse, but by how much?

BorgHunter
3 replies
22h47m

Heat pumps are much more common in warm areas than cold ones, because the difference between an A/C and a heat pump is really just the ability to reverse the refrigerant flow, and they're very efficient at heating in mildly cold weather. I grew up in Florida, and pretty much every house there had a heat pump even thirty years ago, with electric resistive heating that kicks in when ambient temperatures drop below 40F or so. Where heat pumps don't work so well is when ambient temperatures are very cold, which is why adoption in northern states has been much slower.

EDIT: My grandparents' house had a thermostat that looked like this: https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/uqsAAOSwTVlbyNN9/s-l1200.jpg They would call very cold (for Florida) weather "blue light weather", because the blue "aux heat" light would turn on on their thermostat, indicating that the system had switched from the heat pump to the resistive heat strips.

Detrytus
2 replies
21h36m

My sister just got a heat pump installed in her new house in Poland, where temperatures occasionally drop to 0 Fahrenheit. I wouldn't say they only work in "mildly cold weather" - as per new EU policy heat pumps will be one of the few legal heat sources, even in countries such as Sweden.

bluGill
0 replies
21h7m

I consider a winter where the coldest it gets is 0F a mild winter. The important thing isn't average or normal it is the worst case. I've personally seen -25F here in the last 10 years - it was only one time and lasted about a week, but that means the HVAC system needs to work down to at least -25F just in case.

I don't know what the climate is like in Poland. Maybe 0F is as cold as you ever get and you are okay. Maybe your system will work to -20F even though you haven't tested it. But your might have a system like mine that while it can deliver heat at 0F, it is sized such that below 30F it can't deliver enough heat (I have the backup system for those colder days)

BorgHunter
0 replies
14h4m

Modern heat pumps can work in very cold weather, but they're much less efficient, which is reflected in their COP numbers. In my house in Chicago, we have a hybrid system--the heat pump works down to 20F or so, and we have a natural gas furnace for colder times. Natural gas is very cheap here, so this is the most cost-effective solution at the moment. I'm very eager to electrify and remove my dependence on natural gas, but I think it will be at least a few more years unless there's some breakthrough in cold-weather heat pump efficiency, or an enduring spike in natural gas prices--last time I did the math, the breakeven point for electrification here is around a COP of 4, which no heat pump can do at typical Chicago winter temperatures.

If I were building a brand new house, I probably would do it 100% electric. But most people here already have natural gas furnaces, and when they reach end-of-life they're usually replaced with another natural gas furnace. Hybrid systems like mine are catching on, but it will be a while before 100% electric is commonplace here.

mperham
1 replies
22h47m

Because even California dips below 68F and so your house gets cold.

mixmastamyk
0 replies
7h53m

68? Many 40 degree nights in LA this week—enjoyed with paper thin windows.

callalex
1 replies
22h35m

Everything was built in the 40’s-60’s and the average amount of insulation is 0. I live in the mildest part of CA, the San Francisco Bay Area. Today the overnight lows were in the mid 30’s and the high will be about 50. Without heating my indoor temperature would be around 50 which I find unacceptable.

I’m not sure what your bogeyman “progressive” bandwagon has to do with not wanting to live in 50° living spaces?

mixmastamyk
0 replies
7h55m

Yup, we have insulation in the walls but it doesn’t matter when the multiple windows per room are paper thin.

aidenn0
1 replies
22h42m

I live in one of the mildest parts of California and I still have a gas furnace (no AC though). Heat pump actually makes more sense given that the winters rarely dip below freezing, so heat pumps can work in a fairly high COP range.

naijaboiler
0 replies
2h9m

For mildly cold places, heat pumps at reasonable electric prices is the best choice by far

jtbayly
0 replies
22h53m

You still need heat in California, one way or another, especially further north. What would you suggest as a method of heating in CA?

dhosek
0 replies
22h41m

I used to own a house in Claremont, California (east edge of L.A. County). It had a furnace that I never used until one winter it got super cold (under freezing as I recall) and I discovered that the pilot light for the furnace was broken and had to call out the gas company¹ to fix it and because everyone else was having similar issues it took two days for them to come and fix my furnace. I grew up in Chicago and was never so cold as that.

1. They fixed minor furnace issues like this for free.

crftr
0 replies
22h28m

I live in San Diego and energy prices are relatively expensive. We installed solar two years ago and routinely overproduce 3+ MWh.

Now, with a heat pump, the wife and kids can set the thermostat for their comfort and I am less anxious about the monthly bill. The freedom was worth it, for us.

blackguardx
0 replies
22h46m

Heat pumps make lots of sense in California. It gets hot enough to want air conditioning and still gets cold enough to need heat in much of California. California has many types of climates. Even in the desert areas like near Joshua Tree, you will still need heat in the winter. It snows there.

ajross
0 replies
22h34m

For the same reason people in California install heat and air conditioning? Heat pumps aren't a new product market, they're a more efficient variant of products the market already buys.

acdha
0 replies
22h23m

Ever wonder why it’s called a “heat pump” rather than a heater? It’s because they work in both directions, and that means that you can have the system which keeps you cool in the summer also keep you warm in the winter rather than having a separate system. This is especially nice because if you don’t use a heater much, you don’t know that it’ll work when you need it: where I lived in San Diego, the condo complex had radiant heat in the floor in every unit but once in a decade a cold snap meant people really needed it … and some of my neighbors learned theirs no longer worked.

The efficiency wins from a better quality system are nice, too. I live on the east coast now and went all electric a few years back. Our energy costs in the winter went up modestly - not much because heat pumps are great on all of the not incredibly cold winter days we get in the mid-Atlantic - but the savings in the summer versus the cheap AC the previous owner had purchased were substantial. The savings up front for a less efficient unit get eaten up pretty quickly if you use it regularly.

subsubzero
6 replies
23h19m

Interestingly enough, That list of states besides Colorado and Maine all were the biggest losers of population in 2023, meaning people are leaving these states.

  - California -0.9
  - Maryland -0.5
  - Massachusetts -0.6
  - New Jersey -0.5
  - New York -1.1
  - Oregon -0.1
  - Rhode Island -0.3

nostrademons
1 replies
23h1m

Largely because that's the list of places where housing is super expensive:

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_median_home_price

  #2 California    $554K
  #3 Massachusetts $422K
  #5 Colorado.     $397K
  #6 Oregon        $361K
  #8 New Jersey    $335K
  #9 New York      $322K
  #10 Maryland     $308K
  #13 Rhode Island $300K
  #25 Maine        $242K
And where income is highest:

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_income

  #1  Maryland      $90K
  #2  Massachusetts $89K
  #3  New Jersey    $89K
  #5  California    $85K
  #9  Colorado      $82K
  #14 New York      $74K
  #15 Rhode Island  $74K
  #18 Oregon        $71K
  #32 Maine         $64K
People are moving out because it's desirable to live there and hence there's a lot of competition for housing. If you're not one of the top earners in the state, you can increase your relative standard of living by moving somewhere where it's cheaper.

hexis
0 replies
22h55m

"Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded"

bagels
1 replies
22h6m

What are the units?

mmcwilliams
0 replies
4h5m

It would appear to be percentage of population.

melling
0 replies
23h13m

60 million people live in California and NY.

9 million in NJ

4.2 million in Oregon

7 million in Massachusetts

6 million in Maryland

1 million in Rhode Island

epistasis
0 replies
23h7m

They are also rich states that are pricing out people rather than building housing.

nostrademons
3 replies
23h28m

So the usual blue-state suspects, minus Washington and a bunch of the New England states.

virtue3
1 replies
22h44m

places where heat pumps are not going to work well when it drops to freezing / below freezing.

SV_BubbleTime
0 replies
22h5m

Our Diakin was working at -15F but Po Lil PumpPump was struggling.

I had to have floorboard heat on for that week. So, it does work (not if you buy a cheaper unit not made for your climate) but it works a lot better above freezing.

bluGill
0 replies
21h35m

Several red states (the TVA) have had heat pumps as normal for decades. Now heat pumps work better and so they should extend to the other states.

082349872349872
1 replies
23h25m
jtbayly
0 replies
22h55m

I don't see how the GDP has anything to do with this.

What percent of the population those states make up might be somewhat interesting at least.

But even then, 90% of new installations requires us to know what percent of installations those states make up, and population isn't necessarily (but could be) a good corollary for that.

danans
26 replies
1d2h

A big issue right now is the oversizing of heat pumps by HVAC contractors who are used to sizing gas furnaces using very simple btu/hr/sqft calculations.

A contractor should do some kind of heating need analysis, at the least by studying old utility bills, and ideally by doing a Manual J heat loss calculation for the house. But almost none of them do that.

There are some startups attempting to handle these design steps as a service, but the construction industry is slow to adopt new technology.

jacobolus
18 replies
1d2h

Can you explain why this is a big issue?

moribvndvs
12 replies
1d

I’ve had one for three years. While I generally love it, it cools too fast, which means it sucks at removing humidity, actually increases it a little. The installer over-provisioned.

Tarrosion
7 replies
23h18m

I've heard this before -- that oversized cooling units (whether standalone AC or part of a heat pump) mean muggy interiors in the humid seasons. But...why? I'd think that a fixed amount of air compressed in the compressor means a fixed amount of condensation runoff from the unit, and it wouldn't matter much whether it's a big unit running occasionally or a small unit running frequently. Why is that wrong?

lbotos
2 replies
23h14m

I don't think it's about duty cycle -- it's seriously about speed of temp change and I _think_ dew point.

But yes, I have a heat pump and in NYC Summer I cannot run it on anything but low otherwise it increases the humidity. It took me a few weeks of looking at the temp humidity graphs to understand that point.

BenjiWiebe
1 replies
22h42m

As it was explained to me, it is about duty cycle. The condensation doesn't instantly accumulate enough to make droplets and run all the way down the drain, so if the compressor only runs briefly the condensation is still on the fins and evaporates again. You need to keep the compressor going long enough that you actually have water running down the drain, instead of condensing/evaporating cyclically.

lbotos
0 replies
16h10m

Yes, I believe you are right!

throwup238
0 replies
23h1m

It's not a fixed amount of condensation because the air around the AC only has so much humidity. It quickly condenses just a little bit of water and then shuts off before the humidity in the rest of the house can redistribute to replace the now dry air. By running for longer it allows the water in the rest of the house to actually make it to the compressor.

throw0101c
0 replies
22h38m

It takes time for the humidity to be removed out of the air: a 'particular' cubic foot (metre) of air that passes over the coils can be cooled quite quickly, but won't be dehumidified as quickly.

So when the unit runs it can drop the temperature by the necessary (e.g.) 5F (2C), but it may only drop the humidity by 5%, when it needs to drop by (say) 10%. So a 'too-short' run-time can adequately cool the air, but not necessarily remove moisture.

It's also easier to generate 'excess' humidity by bathing/shower than it is to generate excess heat (cooking could generate both). So the humidity can creep up in value while the temperature stays more steady.

randcraw
0 replies
22h2m

The volume of air that passes through the heat pump must be cooled (or warmed) at the same rate as it is dehumidified, unless humidity control can be done independent of the pump. If you oversize the pump, the house is cooled faster than it is dehumidified, and the air reaches the desired temp before it reaches the desired humidity, and the compressor turns off while the air is still humid.

It's possible to independently add humidity when heating -- using a mist gun -- but not to remove it during cooling. However, if the heat pump has a "dry mode" it can dehumidify without also cooling by switching back and forth between heat and cool mode. If not, to dry the air further, it must cool it further.

danans
0 replies
22h55m

I'd think that a fixed amount of air compressed in the compressor means a fixed amount of condensation runoff from the unit

It's not compressing air (like in a car tire). It's compressing a refrigerant. That refrigerant goes through phase changes (liquid to gas).

One major issue is that for most ACs, the compressor is cycled on and off according to the target temperature (via a thermostat, usually at a single location), not humidity. That means humidity can rise without the AC kicking on to bring it down. Remember in most typical houses, temperature and humidity are not very uniformly distributed.

Furthermore, if the humidity rises high enough before the AC kicks on, and then the AC kicks on at high power, you can get sudden localized cooling and then condensation of humidity to liquid water inside the building, which leads to other problems, especially if it happens behind the walls.

mypalmike
1 replies
23h6m

Would a central dehumidifier help solve that?

danans
0 replies
22h51m

Yes. In some very humid climates like the Southeast US, a central dehumidifier might be necessary (although they are not yet common in those climates). But in northern climates which tend to be drier, a right-sized AC or heat pump is all you need.

HumblyTossed
1 replies
23h5m

Does your thermostat allow you to "over cool" in order to get the humidity down to a comfortable level?

moribvndvs
0 replies
18h24m

Trying to run it longer means it gets downright frigid and wastes electricity. Currently we just run a couple of dehumidifiers. Not ideal, looking into other solutions but it is cheapest and most practical.

zbrozek
2 replies
1d2h

The simplest devices are on or off. If they are grossly oversized they cycle a lot and make homes less comfortable by pushing a huge volume of hot or cold air briefly.

Variable speed compressors are better, but blowers may not also be variable speed. So you'll get better efficiency but may still suffer a feeling of draftiness.

A properly sized variable speed unit will operate within some optimal band of efficiency and constantly output nearly the minimum necessary air volume to achieve the target temperature.

jlawrence6809
1 replies
17h16m

When I was shopping for a mini split recently all the models I could find seemed to be variable speed compressor and blowers, unless I was reading something wrong. So maybe this isn't an issue anymore? I oversized mine but wish I went even bigger after a cold snap we just had in the pnw this last winter.

zbrozek
0 replies
16h4m

Mini splits are better in this regard than traditional ducted installations.

supertrope
0 replies
1d2h

Combustion furnaces deliver very hot air so they can cycle on once in a while and then turn off. Heat pumps deliver warm not hot air so they have to run longer cycles. The slower rise in room temperature can even mean that it makes more sense to set a constant temperature on your thermostat instead of letting the temperature fall when you're away during the day (the conventional logic to save energy).

danans
0 replies
1d2h

Higher up front equipment costs , discomfort, potential humidity issues, higher energy costs, shortened equipment life, increased noise.

Mountain_Skies
2 replies
1d2h

Other than higher cost for the heat pump unit, are there any other issues with having one that's oversized for heating? My understanding is that for cooling, having one that is oversized can be a problem because of humidity issues, which also makes me wonder what can be done if a space has an imbalance between the size needed for cooling versus what it needs for heating.

danans
0 replies
1d2h

Other than higher cost for the heat pump unit, are there any other issues with having one that's oversized for heating?

- Short cycling leading to lower equipment life (also true for gas furnaces, although heat pumps have more moving parts)

- Greater discomfort as the house heats up rapidly then cools down rapidly (especially if it has a leaky building envelope).

- Higher peak electric loads, possibly during hours of high electricity prices, leading to higher electricity costs.

My understanding is that for cooling, having one that is oversized can be a problem because of humidity issues,

Yes, because moisture will build up when it isn't running.

makes me wonder what can be done if a space has an imbalance between the size needed for cooling versus what it needs for heating.

Many heat pumps have different output ratings for heating and cooling modes to deal with this. Often however, this has as much to do with the distribution of the heated/cooled air and placement of supply registers, which is often an afterthought when the system is purposely oversized (which is presumed to make up for lack of air distribution design).

bluGill
0 replies
21h2m

No there is not IF the heat pump is variable speed/flow. Many modern ones are, but most old ones are not, and it is really hard to tell if a new one is. In fact you want one oversized as if it is the correct size for cooling it cannot make enough heat when it is cold (it can make heat, just not enough)

If you get a normal single speed heat pump see the other reply - there are significant downsides.

seltzered_
1 replies
23h14m

A possibly helpful thread related to the heat pump retrofit process and the need to assess context for each home: https://twitter.com/karakara98/status/1598718540365938688

The other thing I've kept thinking about is the replacement interval , material input (compressor, refrigerant, etc.) and ease of maintenance. They generally have a lifetime of 10 years IIRC.

danans
0 replies
21h21m

The other thing I've kept thinking about is the replacement interval , material input (compressor, refrigerant, etc.) and ease of maintenance. They generally have a lifetime of 10 years IIRC.

The compressor and refrigerant should never have to be replaced as a maintenance item. The compressor should be cleaned off occasionally since it's outdoors, especially if you live in an area with high dust/pollen, but that's no different than an AC. The interior air handler maintenance is the same as for any furnace or AC system. The lifetime is also similar to a similarly built AC.

jillesvangurp
0 replies
4h52m

It's a big topic everywhere. A lot of early adopters of heat pumps end up with relatively expensive and inefficient solutions because the people that install them barely know what they are doing. There's a lot of demand for heat pumps so most people doing the installation work are very new to this. The good news is that they are probably learning from their mistakes and gaining a lot of knowledge. The bad news is of course that a lot of people are getting a bit of a bad deal.

Things will improve in a few years but until then you really need to be careful with making sure you get the right stuff installed properly by the right people for the right price.

bagels
0 replies
22h5m

I'd much rather have oversized than undersized and still be sweating inside when it's hot outside.

torpid
18 replies
20h4m

I live in an old furniture factory converted into lofts. LEED certified of course, with mini splits instead of forced air in each unit. This is in the midwest.

For the past 11 years, every season it's failed to maintain minimum temperature of 68 degrees when it hits below 5 degrees outside, or maintain cooling in the summer. Another adjacent building built 2 years after this one with the exact same setup, same story. The complex had resorted to providing residents temporary space heaters up until this year where now they are prohibited by the city from using it to maintain minimum temps thanks to changing the code.

The sheer amount of costs associated they've dumped into the maintenance of this mini split system, along with the electricity costs (electricity is included with rent) is mind boggling and certainly will offset any gains.

jrockway
11 replies
19h52m

Emergency heat was under-installed. In the midwest, you have to have it, and it will suck down a ton of electricity for the handful of days a year you need it. Being entirely reliant on mini-splits without resistive emergency heating is a very strange choice, and it's not what heat pump advocates are recommending.

The idea behind heat pumps is to eliminate the need for the natural gas distribution infrastructure. As the infrastructure ages, more pipes will crack (emitting greenhouse gasses, not to mention blowing up), and the cost will go up. Meanwhile, more renewable electricity is coming online, driving the cost down. (It is a much harder problem to replace every gas furnace in the US versus replacing every power plant in the US. That's why the process is starting early with "hey, maybe you don't want to replace your furnace".)

Right now, it probably doesn't make a lot of sense to have a heat pump for the average midwestern house unless you have a pretty big solar installation. But in the future, the day will come where "we're going to pipe explosive gas into your house" is simply not done anymore. That will come in the form of gas companies not being able to maintain their infrastructure at the prices they charge, declining fossil fuel reserves, international demand to lower emissions, etc. It's not a crisis today, but today is not a bad day to start looking towards the future.

(I'm looking forward to replacing my gas stove with an induction stove. CO2 levels are through the roof whenever I cook to the point I have to open windows. I don't need to be breathing all of that.)

waynesonfire
4 replies
19h37m

it's not what heat pump advocates are recommending.

sure seems like someone is. could it possibly be the heat pump salesmen? the idea behind heat pumps is to sell heat pumps.

In the event you're cold, maybe you should get a furnace too. But that wasn't part of the sales pitch. Regardless, there are now two appliances you have to maintain. Tell me again how much money this saves?

icehawk
2 replies
16h47m

The builder of the apartment complex likely just undersized the unit, they'll do this with the normal kind of heat pumps-- air conditioners-- too, and hope its not so undersized that it becomes an actual problem.

jrockway
1 replies
16h38m

I rented someone's condo circa 2004 that did this with the air conditioning. Hot summer day? Just warm air coming out of the AC. (It was the kind where the cooling is done centrally and you just have an air handler in your unit.)

Now that I think about it, that happened in both apartments I lived in in Chicago. I remember going for a bike ride one summer afternoon with a friend. Got home, AC didn't do anything, so I went to the grocery store and bought a bag of ice, poured it in my bathtub, and rolled around in it until I was numb. I was cold the rest of the day. Very effective but do the math correctly when you install building-wide air conditioning systems.

icehawk
0 replies
16h30m

Yeah, I had a similar issue, and had to solve it by purchasing a portable AC to supplement the main HVAC.

NewJazz
0 replies
19h27m

Tell me again how much money this saves?

Who said that was the goal?

clhodapp
4 replies
19h41m

Aren't space heaters and emergency heat essentially the same thing? It seems strange for the city to ban space heaters when they really ought not to be worse than any other resistive heater

jackson1442
1 replies
19h1m

I imagine the ban on space heaters refers more to their fire risk, since emergency heat would be permanently installed in a location where there’s not any flammable materials but a space heater can be placed right next to any number of flammable things.

torpid
0 replies
13h2m

It's one step better than people turning their stoves on.

And hilariously, if too many people artificially heat their apartments, it actually crashes the system somehow because if too many zones in the mini split have heat, it flips to AC mode.

lazide
0 replies
19h5m

They’re exactly the same efficiency (100% electrical power to heat), with the caveat that space heaters tend to be more of a fire danger as they’re temporarily connected.

Resistive baseboard heating is the permanent option.

jjeaff
0 replies
19h1m

People do dumb things like put a space heater on their bed or under a shelf full of papers. With heat strips, the resistance portion is built in.

torpid
0 replies
12h56m

We have natural gas running into the building but not for the residents. All the first floor commercial tenants, and the hallways have the luxury of forced air. Just the apartment units that are cold.

There's several apartments with broken mini split head units, and last I heard the other adjacent building, they've been working to connect the apartments to the forced air ducts in the hallways they think will take the load off.

Whatarethese
2 replies
19h35m

Sounds like some pretty poor planning. Modern heat pumps including the ones that I'm familiar with work down to around -5F. They aren't very efficient obviously at that low temp but mine also has a resistive backup that fires up if needed.

kccqzy
1 replies
18h9m

OP said "for 11 years" in their post. So I assume they have a unit that's at least 11 years old. Not really comparable with a modern unit.

torpid
0 replies
12h59m

This building opened 11 years ago and I've been a tenant since then. The HVAC is 2013. Each floor has ~20 apartments and each floor connects to a rooftop unit. The hallways are forced air and stay toasty, it's just the apartments that are on mini splits.

worik
1 replies
19h42m

What are "mini splits "?

karaterobot
0 replies
19h8m

A split system has two parts, an indoor air-handling unit (the thing on the wall you point the remote at) and an outdoor compressor, connected to each other with a hose. Mini- because it's small.

icehawk
0 replies
17h1m

I've had the same issue with an apartment complex, the AC it could never properly maintain <80F during a summer day.

The issue was that builders didn't properly size the AC unit for the amount of heat it needed to reject in a 5th floor apartment when it was 100F outside.

or maintain cooling in the summer

Here's the key phrase.

This isn't an issue with a heat pump. They just undersized the unit.

nostromo
16 replies
23h1m

I have mixed feelings about our heat pump system.

Yes, it's efficient. But it breaks about once every other year. Last winter the compressor circuit board malfunctioned and cost $5k to fix. Two years ago it was another issue entirely.

All of our savings have been lost to service calls. I'm not super price sensitive, but it's still a pain when the heat goes out in the middle of winter and all the service techs are booked up.

This is a Daikin system, which I thought was a pretty standard, respected brand. But like a lot of things built today, it just wasn't built to last.

If we ever have to replace it, we're going to have to rip open half of the house to remove the heating lines. It'll be a nightmare.

I had a heat pump water heater at our previous home, and the compressor also broke after a few years. We just operated it as an old-fashioned electric water heater after that because it would cost more to fix than it would to replace. And both sounded like a pain.

cyberax
5 replies
22h54m

If we ever have to replace it, we're going to have to rip open half of the house to remove the heating lines. It'll be a nightmare.

Why? Assuming you have a split unit, the lines are just copper pipes and will work with any other heatpump.

nostromo
4 replies
22h40m

Potentially, yes. But when we asked about this we were told that not all heat pumps and head units are compatible -- so we seem to be locked in based on brand, model, and refrigerant type.

jmtulloss
1 replies
22h25m

FWIW there are different sizes but they are standardized and you can adapt most sizes to each other (although on the compressor side you only would want to size down). If you ever need to replace it you'll need to be careful with the line sizes but you should be able to find a compatible unit to your existing install.

Controllers, otoh, are a different story. You will probably need to replace your head units if you also replace the compressor with a different brand. Same story with being careful about line size.

Refrigerant isn't a big deal as you'll need to flush it and repressurize anyway if you replace these parts.

nostromo
0 replies
22h19m

Thank you. You're more helpful than the last service tech we talked to. :)

peteradio
0 replies
22h27m

I think people may be aware of your price insensitivity.

cyberax
0 replies
21h56m

so we seem to be locked in based on brand, model, and refrigerant type.

Oh, that's totally true for newer models. They no longer use simple dry-contacts interfaces, but instead have complicated digital protocols between head units and the compressor.

So quite likely you'll have to replace them all.

But you won't need to open up the walls and replace the piping.

antisthenes
4 replies
19h38m

Last winter the compressor circuit board malfunctioned and cost $5k to fix.

Ok, so it sounds like you got scammed. HVAC circuit boards cost $100.

Two years ago it was another issue entirely.

Which was?

All of our savings have been lost to service calls. I'm not super price sensitive

Yeah, obviously, if you're willing to spend $5k on a service call.

If we ever have to replace it, we're going to have to rip open half of the house to remove the heating lines.

Heat Pump units can just go in place of a regular AC unit. They can use existing ductwork and coolant lines. Not sure why you ran heating lines everywhere? Do you have a mini-split unit per room or something?

stephen_g
2 replies
19h9m

I’m going to second that one, that seems mind-bogglingly expensive. Definitely seems like a major rip-off. I can even buy a whole 14 kW Daikin ducted system for under US$4K here (outdoor unit and one air handler) in my country!

interroboink
1 replies
18h47m

What country, if I may ask?

I recently did some research on ducted Daikin systems in the Seattle area, and estimates were all in the $20K range, for full installation. The equipment itself may be ~$6K or so (not sure exactly), but it's the labor that costs a lot.

stephen_g
0 replies
18h37m

I’m just taking equipment cost here, this is in Australia (Air conditioning is extremely common here, and basically every unit is a reverse cycle heat pump too, so installation also seems very cheap compared to the US).

Just saying if the equipment cost of the whole system is well under $5K, it shouldn’t cost anything like that to replace a circuit board (which as others have said, the part probably costs $100 wholesale to the technician).

interroboink
0 replies
18h55m

HVAC circuit boards cost $100.

This very much depends on the brand and the board, no?

A quick search for the brand the OP mentioned (Daikin) shows some boards easily in the $1000 range.

Just one example: https://airconditionersrus.com/en/components-parts/2423-daik...

I don't know the details of OP's situation, but I'm not sure what makes you say such things so confidently.

liminalsunset
1 replies
22h55m

I'm wondering if many of the failures in electronically controlled equipment are due to power surges etc. It may be worth having a whole-home (or equipment specific) surge protective device installed, which will protect the power electronics (which have very minimal surge protection built in) from anything else happening on the line (particularly if there are storms where you live often)

stephen_g
0 replies
19h15m

Whole house surge protectors are now mandated in some country’s codes already. It’s a good idea, I’m looking at installing one here myself just because I have some expensive electronics.

teaearlgraycold
0 replies
22h38m

How cold are your winters? My heat pumps are doing fine but it’s NorCal so they never have to work too hard.

nsguy
0 replies
22h59m

I got a TOSOT. So far so good.

ikiris
0 replies
20h34m

Sounds like you got seriously taken advantage of by the contractors you've been using.

chankstein38
11 replies
1d2h

Thank you, that's all I really cared about but I had "read my last free article" so I couldn't even find that out. I'm so tired of the internet.

mrpopo
7 replies
1d2h

I want a "Netflix of information". Let me pay 30€/month for unlimited information access, quality, no clickbait and no ads.

Of course, seeing what happens with Netflix now, I guess it wouldn't last long until things turn back to the old way...

ryandrake
1 replies
1d

I want a "Netflix of information". Let me pay 30€/month for unlimited information access, quality, no clickbait and no ads.

Used to be you simply paid your ISP and -bam- that was it: you had the Netflix of information at your fingertips. Now everyone has their hand out.

lotsofpulp
0 replies
1d

Many people have their hand out, because many people think working for free is not a good deal for them.

jzawodn
1 replies
1d2h

I guess that's sort of the value proposition of Apple News+ if you're in their ecosystem, right?

ashryan
0 replies
1d1h

In general, yes. But it's also the "Netflix of information" in that discovery is difficult, and you're fighting an opaque algorithm working behind the scenes.

I'd love the information subscription but with, say, a NetNewsWire-style interface: reverse chronological feeds and search box.

deeviant
1 replies
1d2h

It's the most obvious thing ever, and it, of course, will never happen.

The new media companies seem completely oblivious to how people consume information. I touch 10+ news sources a day, at a minimum. There is no way in hell I'm going to subscribe to 10+ new services.

lotsofpulp
0 replies
1d1h

I would bet they know how people consume information, they don’t know how to sufficiently capture revenue from it or if copy pasting it on a different website is sufficiently easy.

pocketstar
0 replies
1d2h

inkl has pretty good variety of news sources for a reasonable subscription fee, i subbed for years then started using apple news. Unfortunately i cannot recommend inkl because you have to email support to cancel your subscription, they offer a 50% discount if you try to cancel but that business practice of sign up with one click, email support to cancel i cannot condone.

sev1
0 replies
1d2h
malermeister
0 replies
1d2h

archive.ph will help in cases like that :)

dang
0 replies
23h40m

(We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39315648)

david422
10 replies
1d2h

I recently got heat pumps in the hopes that I could phase out my oil furnace. What I can say so far is:

The temperature is wildly inconsistent. I don't know if this is a software issue, a hardware issue, or just the way heatpumps work. I've had the installer come back and look at it, I've had the heat pump rep come and look at it too. They basically checked everything and tried to convince me this is normal.

With oil, I can set the temperature to, say, 70, and the temperature will stay at 70.

With heatpumps, I can set a temperature and it can vary by ... let's say 8 degrees. That's a lot. I have my bedroom temperature at 66, and the wall thermostat often gets up to 73+. I look at the software and it tells me the room is 68. Is the hardware not reporting the right temp? Does the software just suck? The heatpumps also vary in efficiency, so when it's warm outside it tends to overheat, and when it's cold outside it tends to struggle.

Wondering whether I got lemons or if other people have similar experiences.

theogravity
2 replies
23h34m

I had my heat pump installed in Dec. The contractor really screwed up where they wired the zoning incorrectly - the upper floor thermo controlled the lower damper and vice versa, meaning that the pump would run almost indefinitely because the thermostat would never register the temp of the opposing floor.

It took me a full week to troubleshoot this (what helped was I bought a thermometer and placed it next to the thermostat to verify temperature readings) and when I realized what was happening, the contractor came and re-wired things, and now things work like how it should. The temperature stays consistent for both floors.

So definitely test your dampers.

david422
1 replies
21h27m

the upper floor thermo controlled the lower damper and vice versa

I have 2 floors with multiple units and I was running around with a wall thermometer taking measurements. This was actually my guess as well since the temperatures seemed to align this way. But the installer assured me it was wired correctly .... I might need to find someone else to check things.

theogravity
0 replies
17h49m

My system is a Trane with a 1050xl thermostat and a companion thermostat. If you have one of those (or a related thermostat model), you can get into the service menu by going to "service" and holding down the tech access button for a period of time. There should be a damper check option in the menu which will allow you to trigger specific dampers and there are some other buttons that show you which dampers are hooked to what thermostat.

thehoff
0 replies
1d2h

We got a heat pump put in about a year and a half ago. We kept the oil as backup for the days its too cold (which if I remember right it switches over to oil somewhere around 40 F.

Our situation is the opposite. The house feels more comfortable overall. Its still a little warmer upstairs where the home office and bedrooms are but generally around the house it feels a little more consistent.

You can definitely tell when the oil furnace kicks in as the air is noticably hotter. But when that happens the house gets warmer faster and gets a little too hot before it turns off again. And stays a little too hot for too long.

We went with a midrange system. In hindsight I do kind of wish we went with a different installer who was pushing a more "cadillac" type system where the fan (according to him) would always be (or just about) on but be variable in speed basically keeping the house at the right temp more often and slightly more savings.

rudedogg
0 replies
14h18m

If you have a mini-split, some of the remotes have a "follow me" feature, where it will go off the remote temperature instead of the indoor unit temperature (which is usually much higher since it's mounted close to the ceiling). Not sure if this applies to your situation. I found using the remote/follow me temperature worked better for me, since there are less fluctuations further away from the unit. But, you can't place it too far away or the IR on the remote doesn't work to report back the temp and control the indoor unit. It took some time to figure out, but now we leave it alone for the most part.

oramit
0 replies
1d1h

It sounds like something is wrong with your installation. That behavior certainly isn't normal for heat pumps and I would get a new vendor. I had a heatpump in my Condo and those things were rock solid, from 20 degrees to 110 I never had issues. In my new house we have a gas furnace and are experiencing the same behavior this winter you describe where the programmed temp and the actual temp in the room wildly diverge.

Just this morning I woke up to it feeling chilly. The thermostat said it was 65 and the programmed temp was 68 but it wasn't running. When the furnace runs it works great but something is off with the controller system. I need to call the heating people....

nsguy
0 replies
22h53m

I'll put in another "not normal". I have a heat pump and the temperature stability seems better than the furnace. It takes longer to change but once it gets there it's very stable. With every AC system it can be a challenge to get different regions to be perfect but that shouldn't be worse with an air pump.

gniv
0 replies
22h16m

Did you check the hysteresis value? I've had similar issues with some radiators, and the hysteresis was set to 0 (don't know why it's even allowed), which caused it to run a lot more than normal.

dralley
0 replies
23h8m

That is simply not normal. I have a heat pump downstairs (albeit a fancier Mitsubishi one) and it stays within one degree of the target temperature at all times. It's much more comfortable and stable than it was with the previous gas furnace or the gas furnace we still use for the upstairs, and it handled the temperature dropping into the low teens overnight with no issues.

Siecje
0 replies
23h1m

8 degrees is not normal+/- 1 C is what I experience.

yellow_postit
6 replies
23h6m

moved from oil furnace to heat pump in Seattle (with electric strip backup)

Seems like a perfect fit for our weather patterns but was definitely not the most economical option as it kicked off a domino effect of upgrades I wasn't missing before.

Its no where near as "cozy" as the oil heat was, and the temperature of airing coming from the vents is significantly lower than the oil system. So the domino of upgrades is now looking at insulation, windows, etc. Which likely all needed upgrades in our old home anyway, but it's been a journey.

bullfightonmars
1 replies
22h56m

I did the same this past thing, the best part about it is the reduction in cost for heating from 300+/mo to ~25/mo, The downside is that it was terribly expensive to install, it ran me 40k to install the new heat pump and air handler.

brewdad
0 replies
21h54m

That's why I stuck with a gas furnace and traditional AC when I was looking a few years ago. My heating and cooling costs are only about $800-1000 a year. Spending an extra $8-10k up front in hopes of reducing that figure simply doesn't pencil out. Maybe by the time I'm in the market for a new system it will.

turtlebits
0 replies
22h22m

In Seattle as well. I kept my oil furnace and added mini splits to each room.

What helped the most for my old house was attic insulation. I spent around $700 to buy blown-in packs (and got free machine rental) and got my attic to around R-40. I'm able to set my thermostat 5 degrees higher without any change to my energy bill.

nsguy
0 replies
23h1m

I did the same in Vancouver, BC. We took advantage of incentives to improve our insulation and to make the switch. E.g. we just fixed our crawl space.

The heat pump did struggle a little during the more extreme cold weather we saw a few weeks back (going down to -15C) but we've kept our natural gas fireplace as backup and "assist".

I'm pretty sure it's a little more expensive to run with a heat pump, so you need to be willing to pay more for reducing your carbon footprint. The incentives do help though. Similar to switching to an EV which we also did for similar reasons. I think if you're purely looking at $$$ then it's not necessarily the optimal decision.

ebcase
0 replies
22h51m

I'm going through this process currently (getting estimates from local HVAC contractors, SF Bay Area), and their general guidance so far is to get a Hybrid electric + gas heat pump config.

The electric heat pump alone isn't sufficient compared with gas, and the "add-on" you get to add more heat to the heating output is like a space heater, thus very expensive month to month.

bagels
0 replies
16h11m

How is it not cozy?

rconti
6 replies
1d2h

Bay Area, just beginning a remodel+expansion of our home. We've never had air conditioning, and our gas furnace is well over 20 years old. We'd likely need to upsize the furnace anyway, and for resale reasons if nothing else, adding A/C (and the attendant larger ducts or whatever else) is a no-brainer while we have the house apart.

A heat pump is absolutely a no-brainer in our case. I like being able to get away from natural gas, although I must say, moving all electric means we'll be held hostage more and more to PG&E. (We have solar, but it'll be well below our needs once we had square footage and the heat pump, and don't want to get screwed by NEM 3.0).

zbrozek
4 replies
1d2h

PG&E electric rates are so high that it's operationally more expensive to use a heat pump than a condensing gas system. The heat pump is the better deal practically everywhere else in the contiguous US.

I'm installing a heat pump system in PG&E territory as part of a remodel, but pairing it with a large solar system.

TheBlight
3 replies
23h7m

Aren't PG&E gas rates substantially higher than their electric rates?

zbrozek
0 replies
21h59m

Their price per joule of electricity is higher than per joule of gas by more than the coefficient of performance of a heat pump. You are better off getting thermal energy by burning gas if your energy provider is PG&E.

The story only gets worse once you start carefully accounting for baseline allowances.

samatman
0 replies
22h17m

There are a couple ways to interpret what you're saying: that PG&E charges a higher rate relative to the national average for gas vs. electricity, which is what I think you mean, and that PG&E charges more for a joule of gas than a joule of electricity.

Presuming you meant it the first way, it's still possible that heating with gas is cheaper, since the national average for a joule's worth of natural gas is quite a bit cheaper than the same for electricity.

bagels
0 replies
16h17m

Natural gas is ~$0.08/kwh & electricity $0.52/kwh for me on PGE

ChatGTP
0 replies
6h43m

Honestly, just make sure you’re spending as much money as you can afford in insulation and double or tripled glazed windows. It makes all the different. We used cellulose fiber on our latest renovation , even between the slab in the ground and the floor, it’s wild how warm our place is.

aidenn0
5 replies
22h46m

Anyone know what sort of electrical requirements there are for these? We currently have a gas furnace and gas range. My electrical panel is full (we used up the last of it installing 220V for the clothes dryer), and the furnace is on the opposite side of the house from the electric panel, under a different roofline.

I'm going to at some point get an electrician in to look at things and see what the options are, but my house just isn't wired for it currently.

ajross
1 replies
22h41m

You don't need space in the panel as clearly you already have a circuit breaker for your existing air handler. It will be a bigger line though, my house in Portland got a central heat pump and handler that wants 40A.

aidenn0
0 replies
20h7m

I would not put it past the people who wired this house to have shared circuit for the furnace blower with the bathroom right next to it, but we'll see.

spamizbad
0 replies
22h41m

Assuming your home has 200 amp service you should be fine. Typically if your panel is out of space and more circuits are needed, you'll need a subpanel installed (just a smaller panel that handle some of your circuits). Alternatively an electrician may just recommend you upgrade to a bigger panel. Either way most of your costs are likely going to be on the labor side.

mapmap
0 replies
21h39m

If you have lighting circuits that previously were incandescent but are now all LED, you might be able to combine some of them on a single 15 amp breaker.

bluGill
0 replies
20h55m

If you have AC, this replaces the AC and so uses that breaker. If you don't have AC you need space for a breaker in the panel - but this is easy to get (add a sub panel - $500)

The real question is what kind of service you have. If the power company cannot deliver enough power then you need more power and this will cost you at best $4000 to replace your panel, and could be in the tens of thousands depending on what your power company wants.

jcalvinowens
4 replies
18h58m

I have NEM2 solar, so obviously a heat pump is a big win. But I'm convinced the heat pump I installed a couple years ago would save money even without the solar:

I pay $0.30-$0.40/KWh for electricity, and $0.08/KWh for natural gas ($2.35/therm) *.

My heat pump has a COP of 3.62 when the outdoor temperature is 47F: it uses 1KWh of electricity to move 3.62KWh of heat into my home. The old gas furnace was 80% efficient ("AFUE"): it used 1KWh of gas to dump 0.8KWh of heat into my home.

So, at 47F, as long as the ratio between the cost of electricity and natural gas is less than 4.53x (3.62 / 0.8), the heat pump saves me money. In my case, this means I save money when electricity costs less than $0.37/KWh, which it does almost all the time.

At $0.30/KWh-electricity, I effectively pay $0.083/KWh-heat with the heat pump, a 17% total heating cost savings over the $0.10/KWh-heat the old gas furnace cost.

Heat pumps do become less efficient as it gets colder outside: at an outdoor temperature of 17F, my heat pump COP is only 2.44, which would cost more than my old furnace ($0.123/KWh-heat vs $0.10/KWh-heat).

Extrapolating linearly between the 17F and 47F COPs from the manual (it only gives those two points; this isn't strictly correct, but close enough), the temperature below which my heat pump starts to cost me more money than my old gas furnace is roughly 30F (3.0 COP). In the decade I've lived in the bay area, I've never seen it get that cold, which is why this is such a perfect climate for heat pumps.

* These numbers are from August 2022

vladgur
1 replies
18h42m

Is your $0.30-0.40/kwh rate based on your Solar cost?

The non-solar rates[1] in Bay Area right now range starting from $0.42/kwh on tiered plan which you will blow through if you elect heat-pump heating and going all the way to higher than 50 cents per KWh if you are on one of the Time of US plan.

[1]https://www.pge.com/assets/pge/docs/account/rate-plans/resid...

As much as i love the efficiencies offered by heat pumps, unless i splurge $10-$20k on a solar system with a battery backup, heat pumps are too expensive to operate with CA electrical rates.

My gas(which i use for heating) during same period cost $2.54 per therm, although i dont know how to compare it to kwh for heating purposes. Update: I just checked my electrical bill for January.

My total cost for generation and delivery of 478 kwh which is what my household used in 32 days, cost me $209 after fees and taxes which makes my rates around 44 cents per kwh on average.

jcalvinowens
0 replies
17h46m

Is your $0.30-0.40/kwh rate based on your Solar cost?

It's just out of date from the math I did two years ago, I should have mentioned that.

heat pumps are too expensive to operate with CA electrical rates.

It depends on your furnace. Typically it's going to be 80AFUE. $2.54/therm is $0.087/KWh-gas. If you pay $0.42/KWh-electricty, a heat pump with a COP >= 3.7 saves you money. Heat pumps with COPs above that at bay area temperatures are widely available.

If you have a 96AFUE furnace, the necessary COP is 4.6. That's a lot harder to find: I'm no expert on the heat pump market, but it seems like the standard units are mostly 3.5-4.0. I can find mini splits up to 4.5 (like [1]), but they're more expensive.

[1] https://www.homedepot.com/p/GREE-Sapphire-9000-BTU-0-75-Ton-...

bagels
1 replies
16h22m

Converting from a gas furnace to a heat pump costs tens of thousands of dollars, needs to be factored in as well.

jcalvinowens
0 replies
13h20m

It should absolutely be under $10K, unless you live in a big house or you need other stuff done.

I don't think it would ever make economical sense to replace a working furnace: my pitch assumes the furnace needs to be replaced, and you're deciding whether to install another furnace or a heat pump.

freetime2
4 replies
20h22m

I hear a lot of horror stories on HN every time the subject of heat pumps comes up. Things like high costs, units not defrosting properly in winter, etc. Most of these stories tend to be for central air conditioning units.

I think that mini-splits could be a much better introduction to heat pumps for a lot of folks. They are cheap, easy to install, and the units in my house have been running 12 years as our only source of heating/cooling with zero maintenance. (The manufacturer recommends replacing after 10 years, but they are still working fine). This is in an area where we get a lot of snow in winter, but temps almost never fall below -10c.

And you can keep your existing furnace as a backup or secondary heat source.

bamboozled
2 replies
19h56m

I run mine in a similar climate to what you’re describing. Air based, not ground or water. Absolutely zero problems at all.

Either I have some magic heat pump or a lot of the horror stories are overblown or based on using out of date technology.

freetime2
1 replies
19h22m

I also suspect that the heat pumps may be undersized relative to the home’s heating needs, particularly in older homes that are not well insulated.

ChatGTP
0 replies
6h46m

This is a good point, we have good insulation and doubled glazed windows.

exitzer0
0 replies
20h7m

Mini-splits seem like they are the future for the value conscious and light-weight DIY crowd.

These systems are quite simple in design and implementation while also offering a pretty effective way to control temperature in a zoned way in various parts of the house. They also can be had in 120V sizes making them far easier to accomidate for solar-powered households, etc.

vdaea
3 replies
1d2h

“It’s a really strong signal from states that they’re committed to accelerating this transition to zero-emissions residential buildings,”

Heat pumps are zero-emissions now. Shipping them and replacing your gas furnace also emits no carbon.

firebat45
2 replies
1d2h

Have you ever tried running a gas furnace off of a solar panel?

"Accelerating a transition" != "this has been 100% accomplished"

vdaea
1 replies
1d2h

I skipped the part of the article that says that the heat pumps will always be accompanied by solar panels.

supertrope
0 replies
1d1h

The idea is that electrification enables a future where electricity generation transitions to low emissions. A gas furnace will always burn gas. In Canada electricity is called hydro because it nearly all hydroelectric. So buying an EV zeros out tailpipe emissions and electric generation emissions are also very low.

simonjgreen
3 replies
3h16m

For those complaining of the cost of electricity vs natural gas, consider if the cost matters when you are comparing to burning something you shouldn’t be burning in the first place. It’s a bit like complaining it’s cheaper to steal food from a store instead of pay for it.

And I know electricity production is not renewable everywhere in the world yet, but at least it’s on a path and possible. Burning natural gas doesn’t have that course.

kenmacd
1 replies
2h39m

I know electricity production is not renewable everywhere in the world yet, but at least it’s on a path and possible

And somewhat counter-intuitively, even if you are going to consume that natural gas, it still works out better for the power plant to use it to generate electricity that's used to run a heat pump than to burn it directly for heat.

naijaboiler
0 replies
2h28m

Your response is only true if using electricity to heat is cheaper than using gas to heat. It isn’t for resistive heating. For heat pumps it can, but it has to be high efficiency heat pumps that start efficient even at cold winter temps

turing_complete
0 replies
2h56m

Terrible analogy

seiferteric
3 replies
1d2h

Heat pumps look great and definitely planning on getting one (or many) when my hvac system needs replacing, as well as a heat pump water heater. In NorCal I think they are a no-brainer since it doesn't get that cold to begin with, though I am unsure of what options exist to replace a central AC/furnace system, or if it is better to get several smaller ones throughout your house. Though I have to laugh since it was only a few years ago there were news articles decrying air conditioning as a climate disaster are now claiming heat pumps are a climate savior...

samatman
0 replies
22h0m

It's substantially cheaper in energy to cool buildings in the hot parts of the world than it is to heat buildings in the cool parts of the world. I've seen the sort of articles you're referring to, in the US at least, they're thinly-disguised political screeds based on nothing other than the fact that there are more Republicans in the air-conditioned parts of the country.

masklinn
0 replies
1d2h

Though I have to laugh since it was only a few years ago there were news articles decrying air conditioning as a climate disaster are now claiming heat pumps are a climate savior...

Because they’re completely coherent but for some reason you’re not thinking any further than “they’re essentially the same device”?

Slevin11
0 replies
1d2h

It is technically the correct climate; but unfortunately the incorrect place for them, given the electricity costs and propensity for large power outages during storms (read: times when you actually need heating).

If you are in one of the cities with public utilities where electricity is cheap, then go for it, great choice. But on PG&E, the monetary proposition is awful compared to a gas heater, modern wood stove, or masonry / rocket mass heater.

Given the extreme excess of wood in the region (that otherwise ends up in huge forest fires), it makes a lot of sense to be running an efficient wood stove / masonry / mass heater.

The big loss is of course automation, so it pays to have some automated backup source of heat for when you are out of town, but that could just be whatever heating method you are using already.

If you are already heating using electric baseboards though, yes, definitely move over to a heat pump. It will save you a lot of money. Not as much as natural gas or the others, but savings are savings.

Also, there are plenty of ducted air source heat pumps that work as drop in replacements for gas furnaces. Use one of them if you already have a ducted system that works well and do a heat pump replacement.

rapjr9
3 replies
15h5m

"supercharge the gas-to-electric transition by making it as cheap and easy as possible for their residents to switch."

If you really want to make it super easy to switch, design new heat pumps that people can install themselves without having to pay a contractor to install one. Start with window units that look like air conditioners.

Retric
2 replies
15h3m

Window heat pumps already exist. Ex: https://www.lg.com/us/air-conditioners/lg-lw1216hr-window-ai... or https://www.compactappliance.com/koldfront-12000-btu-heat-co...

Mini splits are also fairly easy to install and don’t take up a window.

rapjr9
1 replies
10h54m

These units use electric resistance heating, they do not heat using heat pumps. Mini splits require some gas handling equipment like a pressure gauge that most people will not have. I'm talking about something plug-n-play that anyone can install easily without hiring a contractor. There were a few actual heat pump window units in the past but they are no longer sold and they never made many of them to start with (or promoted them much). I think window heat pumps should be ubiquitous. Even if they don't heat/cool the entire house/apartment, they would be a very quick way to reduce some significant use of fossil fuels. For any solution that requires a contractor, the contractor will become a bottleneck to deployment and also raise the cost. If you want a quick global warming benefit enlist the millions of ordinary people to make a difference. Don't wait on the utility companies and government.

Retric
0 replies
9h6m

Well that’s deceptive. Here’s one that lists 8000 BTU and caps at 1.2 kW so that’s a heat pump.

The stated COP of 3.0 at 47° isn’t great, but it’s fine for a backup heat source.

https://www.geappliances.com/appliance/GE-J-Series-Window-Bu...

billfor
3 replies
22h11m

Has anyone found a good way to control all the features of a heat pump with home automation? I’ve been lookin at Daikin and Mitsubishi but Daikin no longer has an open api and I don’t see much on Mitubishi. It seems like every heat pump comes with its own proprietary remote, and the thermostats and Wi-Fi modules (if available) don’t integrate well.

thebestmoshe
0 replies
22h1m

I’m in the same boat as you. As far as I can tell the only option is something like Sensibo, which uses IR.

I would love to know if there is a better way to do this.

qmarchi
0 replies
22h7m

I have a suite of LG Minisplits installed in my apartment. While there isn't a distinctly open API, there's an integration that you can add to Home Assistant for access to the platform.

From there, I've got a few automations including:

  - Automatically turning off "conflicting" units (Heat vs Cool)
  - Schedules (set bedroom to cool at night) and "Away" modes
  - Temperature overrides using custom built temperature sensors (BME280 to the rescue)
  - Access and control via voice (via Google Assistants)
Unfortunately, the integration is reliant on the cloud, but you can connect a "traditional" relay based thermostat to them as well (with the loss of variable load control for the outside unit).

lsllc
0 replies
16h19m

I have a Trane/Mitsubishi mini-split for a garage and it works via a Nest thermostat, so that's how I monitor/automate that. Google have APIs for Nest ... YMMV.

ta8645
2 replies
13h52m

Asking this question out of sheer ignorance: Aren't (air-to-air) heat pumps simply bidirectional air-conditioning units? If so, was AC incorrectly maligned for years as being inefficient and expensive?

daleswanson
0 replies
13h7m

Heat pumps are air conditioners that are run in reverse, ie, you are air conditioning the outside. Another way to think of any AC/heat pump/refrigerator is as a heat mover, you can move (or pump) heat from one place to another. So in the summer you move heat from inside to outside, and in the winter you move heat from outside to inside.

ACs/heat pumps are over 100% efficient (in terms of joules of heat energy moved/joules of electrical energy consumed), because they aren't turning electrical energy into heat, but rather using electrical energy to move existing heat.

So, a heat pump should always be more efficient than normal resistive electrical heating, because that is just converting just about 100% of the electrical energy into heat energy. Heat pumps may or may not be cheaper than gas/oil/whatever fossil fuel based heat, depending on fuel and electric prices in your area, and that will likely change over time.

The reason that AC is seen as wasteful/inefficient, I think, is just because historically most places people live, you can get away with just opening windows and being a bit uncomfortable during the warmest parts of the year. The opposite isn't really true, it's not really feasible to live without heat in most places people live. Additionally, heating or cooling in any form is just very energy intensive. So, any "optional" form of that can be seen as a luxury.

To be clear, I'm a big fan of AC, and am not suggesting people should go without it if they need it, just trying to answer the question of why it was seen as inefficient when it is technically very efficient.

acomjean
0 replies
13h49m

Yes. We replaced the central air ac this house came with, with a heat pump, so we get heating and cooling.

My understanding is the tech has gotten better and more efficient.

Running heat or ac off electric can be expensive. But climate control is fairly important.

nelblu
2 replies
19h53m

I have mixed feelings about heat pumps. Where we live winters aren't too harsh - our coldest night would be around -18C and for the most part January/February hovers around -10C at night. Our main heating is oil-based hot water baseboard radiator which I think is THE BEST type of heating solution from comfort standpoint. But few years ago we installed two mini-split heat-pumps which work great and save us a ton of money - BUT they don't heat the house evenly and you must leave all indoor doors open for effective heating. There is an option to convert the main heating to a geothermal heat-pump heating up the water but that is quite an expensive solution right now. For now I am never giving up oil in the foreseeable future.

smcleod
0 replies
19h51m

-18C is very cold!

bouncing
0 replies
19h50m

FWIW you can also get heat pumps that feed into regular central heating. The split units are nice because you can heat different rooms to your liking but if you prefer a central approach, that’s also possible, just like it is with a furnace.

mypgovroom
2 replies
22h19m

Eh I don't hate heat pumps, but they are not the answer

progman32
1 replies
21h46m

Answer to what?

ChatGTP
0 replies
6h26m

Why Jews invaded Russia ?

jwells89
2 replies
22h19m

I have an aging gas furnace that’s about due for replacement and a heat pump may be in the cards.

Something I’ll need to research is how a heat pump would compare to electric heated flooring, though because the way my house’s HVAC system is set up the upper floor is heated before the lower floor, which exacerbates the natural temperature difference that results from heat rising and means the lower floor can be chilly while the upper floor is warm. My AC is fairly new still too which makes me think that installing heated floor in the base floor, letting heat rise to heat the upper floor with the old furnace remaining as a backup might be smarter.

Electricity costs aren’t too bad here ($0.10-$0.14/kWh) so switching from consuming gas to consuming electricity won’t impact bills too much.

sgc
1 replies
22h17m
jwells89
0 replies
22h14m

Had heard of this and it’s cool, but would involve tossing my still-good AC unit which doesn’t feel great unless the installer offers trade-ins or something (which doesn’t seem likely).

Will consider going with a heat pump nonetheless.

bamboozled
2 replies
19h57m

It’s so strange why we’re doing all this now. Why not 20 years ago?

Better late than never but it’s a shame…

kccqzy
1 replies
18h0m

20 years ago the best heat pumps still weren't good enough for cold days.

bamboozled
0 replies
6h25m

Do you really think it took twenty years to bring them up to speed ? Honestly ? I’m mean if the interest and investment were there innovation would’ve happened sooner ?

JustLurking2022
2 replies
20h13m

The only thing stopping me from buying a great pump is how unreliable the power grid is in my area. Lines are above ground, with numerous trees overhanging them so a snow storm is high risk for a power outage at a time I can least afford it, as road conditions may prevent seeking shelter elsewhere. Conversely, with a furnace and a small generator to run the blower, I can keep heat on through a couple days without power.

bagels
1 replies
16h8m

We lose gas heat when the power goes out (frequently) here too because the forced induction fans need electricity to run.

JustLurking2022
0 replies
14h7m

Yes, but it only takes a very small generator to power the fans vs. a huge one to power a heat pump.

scythe
1 replies
1d2h
scythe
0 replies
1d2h

Hijacking my own comment:

I feel like I started talking about heat pumps a long time ago. I'm unable to find evidence for this before 2021. Anyway, it's certainly hit the cultural mainstream really fast over the last couple of years, and the story on the street is... manufacturers are running at capacity, installers have long waiting lists, some people are getting systems installed that aren't right for their space (too big or too small) and regretting it.

It's good that we're doing this, but it feels like a microcosm of our general cultural impatience. There's a limit to how much government subsidies can speed the adoption of a new technology. There are going to be issues with hiring a bunch of technicians to install heat pumps really fast if they suddenly don't have as much work in five years. The Spanish solar-energy debacle of the early 2010s rings in my head.

Maybe instead of setting big, distant, ambitious-sounding targets, we should set shorter, smaller, more gradual targets, and update every couple of years to accelerate in a sustainable way. It's pretty easy to say that the way to decarbonize the economy is "as fast as reasonably possible"; forecasting how fast that will be is hard, unnecessary, and potentially distracting.

pie_flavor
1 replies
4h14m

No. As technologically cool as electrification is, the power occasionally goes out. When that happens, the heat should not. Not everyone has access to a generator, but gas lines don't need that. Same reason we don't electrify toilet flushing despite potential water savings.

saalweachter
0 replies
3h59m

Oil burners and gas furnaces also use electricity, to modulate the fire and circulate the heat. The only thing they don't use electricity for is generating the heat. In a power outage it just sits there, not able to turn on.

kspacewalk2
1 replies
1d2h

The only thing that's holding me back in electrifying more of my life is my jurisdiction's track record in long-term planning for grid and supply capacity. If I switch water heating, home heating and transportation to electricity, and they fuck up again, that'll affect me way more when rates start rising or shortages begin. I'd rather they work out the kinks without me and be a late adopter. For example, I will not be among the first 50% of drivers to switch to fully electric. Being a one-car household I believe we've already done more for the environment than 2 car EV households simply by taking one vehicle off the roads.

01HNNWZ0MV43FF
0 replies
1d2h

Yeah I'm waiting for a carbon tax to pass somewhere. I'm an environmentalist but why spend extra money being good when there are still assholes driving lifted pickups with loud exhausts and widened axles they don't need?

My next car will be a plug-in Prius though. My old boss had one and almost never had to put gas in it. All-electric commute with a range extender / emergency heater

justinzollars
1 replies
14h0m

Wired is owned by Condé Nast. Condé Nast is owned by Advance Publications. Advance Publications, a private, family-held business that owns and invests in a broad range of media, communications, technology, education, and live entertainment companies, including Warner Bros. Discovery, Charter Communications and Reddit.

This is corporate propaganda. Its expensive and won't be adopted. Expensive technology is stupid. People won't adopt it because no one has $100,000 to trench their yard - save a few tech workers in Atherton who wish to virtue signal.

Politicians in these states are virtue signaling.

We need abundant low cost energy. If it has to be carbon free - nuclear is the answer. I personally invest in Uranium because life is a struggle for energy and capital is really a form of stored energy. Nothing is more abundant in potential energy than splitting atoms. Its the answer we will reach.

California is experiencing huge annual increases in energy costs because of virtue signaling. This is more virtue signaling. Yes we can heat our homes with heat pumps. But it will cost 10 times as much money.

creatonez
0 replies
6h3m

Heat pumps represent roughly the same goal as nuclear -- the physics makes it possible for great efficiency gains and just needs engineering & clever management of installation lifecycles to get the cost down.

To be clear, digging up your yard is for highly specialized geothermal heat pump installations. We should be skeptical of these projects because the geologic sites that allow it to be cost effective are quite rare. Normal heat pumps are just an air conditioner with a reverse configuration (not to minimize some of the difficulties of both implementing and then successfully retrofitting this)

GhostVII
1 replies
2h18m

Instead of artificially boosting adoption, why not just price gas and electricity to match the negative externalities, and then people will just naturally choose the most efficient option. If heat pumps are cheaper, people will use them

DeathArrow
0 replies
2h16m

Why fix the price and not let the free market decide?

vgchh
0 replies
6h46m

I live in the New England and last year got a quote for replacing my existing boiler and furnace with two heat pumps. MassSave offers a good rebate program with $10k rebate. The problem is that the installers have bumped up the prices to the point where even after the rebate it would have costed me $35K. With that kind of price, and high electricity rates, I have no hope of saving money compared to my current setup.

ursuscamp
0 replies
20h26m

As always with these things, if they actually increase the value for home-owners, then people will naturally begin to select them on their own over time. However, if they do not increase value, then you will just be hamstringing your state by forcing people to use inferior products.

switch007
0 replies
19h56m

I don’t have a good feeling about retrofitted heat pumps at all. The government is pushing too hard.

In the UK we have poor insulation, noise concerns (dwellings very close together), high electricity rates, periods of sub zero temperatures in winter and from what I can gather a lack of skilled fitters in this space.

All together it doesn’t make a convincing argument

Plus all the comments here about broken systems, high electricity costs, inadequate temperatures etc doesn’t fill me with hope

Yes I’ve heard every rebuttal (“but Nordics”, “your fitter was bad”, “you under specced”, “you over specced” etc)

Building code should have solved insulation issues decades ago. Heat Recovery systems etc instead of relying on drilling holes in to window frames as the primary source of ventilation

stainablesteel
0 replies
20h14m

those states specifically? every time they do something in unison it turns out bad imo

robszumski
0 replies
22h47m

One issue with heat pumps is they are more complex in terms of modes they can be in, especially if you have multiple zones. I was troubleshooting an auxiliary heat issue and had to pull from the Ecobee API just to make sense of what was happening on cold nights across zones.

readthenotes1
0 replies
1d2h

Every state should be doing it it's a part of the inflation reduction act

https://www.rewiringamerica.org/app/ira-calculator

Plus a lot more

readams
0 replies
21h39m

I recently had to replace my air conditioner, and I looked into a heat pump, which in theory should be almost the same thing as an air conditioner, but it was so much more expensive than the AC that it was impossible to justify.

prpl
0 replies
22h51m

Which models are y'all using out there on HN, and for what square footage/location?

I'm in SF and have a gas heater, but a 115 year old house with only 4 vents (none in bedrooms), and it's been cold. I'd like to replace, maybe DIY, but not sure.

photonbeam
0 replies
21h23m

Need to bring down electricity prices for this to be viable in many places

newhotelowner
0 replies
21h46m

We use PTAC at the hotel and we only buy with a heat pump. It reduces electricity bills significantly in winter. It's not a new tech, but it has gotten more efficient over the years.

I am surprised that all these companies are charging arms and legs for heat pump units. PTAC is about $100 extra if you get it with a heat pump.

If you don't have access to natural gas, heat pump water will save you a lot in winter.

jakubsuchy
0 replies
6h8m

I have heat pumps and currently pay 31c a kWh in New York. Starting to regret them. They need to address electricity prices

genmud
0 replies
1d2h

What a clickbaity, poorly written and sensational article.

endisneigh
0 replies
21h14m

I looked into heat pumps in north east - didn’t make any sense financially given cost of installation. break even was 10+ years. With that timeline I might as well wait.

callalex
0 replies
22h9m

Every home in America should have a Heat Recovery Ventilator. They are extremely simple mechanically, yet because of their rarity they are still way to expensive to justify the cost instead of just opening a window. Policy could help a lot here.

beej71
0 replies
1d1h

Our neighbors are getting one (Central Oregon). Install price: $15,000. Or $20k with two additional heads.

I have baseboard heaters, and even I don't know if I could make up that cost before the heat pump needs replacement.

Every year now, though, it seems like we add one to the number of days we need AC, something that was unnecessary when I first moved here, so that would be nice...

avery17
0 replies
1d3h

Tried to get one in NJ and no one wanted to install one. Everyone we got a quote from tried really hard to talk us out of it. We ended up going with gas cause it was cheaper but I'm not happy about it. Gas is just the new oil, once everyone is hooked they'll jack up prices like they did with oil.

art_vandalay
0 replies
16h59m

Why is this here?

ab_goat
0 replies
15h52m

I converted my small (~1400 sqft) MA log cabin house at 1500' elevation to a heat pump as main heat source in 2017. We also added a 8kW PV system at the same time.

It was a great choice, and we've been net negative since installation.

We also get a lot of passive solar via low angle sun through large windows. I think passive solar in winter is a completely under-appreciated benefit. On sunny days in winter we do not need heat for ~10 hours of the day.

We supplement our heat with a wood stove in very cold weather (< 20ºF). It's not necessary, but brings a cozy warmth.

ChrisArchitect
0 replies
1d1h

[dupe] wasting our time OP

Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39288940

Animats
0 replies
10h40m

Are these reversible, as air conditioners? I'd expect so, but the article doesn't say.