News

Yeah cold climates are the place where heat pumps will always struggle the most. I'm also from MN and have been eyeing this as an option once my 30yo furnace finally gives in.

These modern ones work so well even in adverse conditions that they're gaining traction in MN with HVAC companies, which is very good to see.

I'm in Jackson, Wyoming. We replaced the gas furnace with a Mitsubishi Hyper heat. The only time we need secondary heating is when the temperature goes below -20°f.

We want to install one this year in our MN 1920s house. Our mini splits A/C died last year. So we need both an A/C and cheaper heat will be nice. Did you like who you used?

It added maybe $10/month in the summer for air conditioning.

I live in Alabama, and I found that amusing

How handy would you say you are? I'm wondering if I could manage to install one. Our heater is very old and hanging on by a thread.

So link it. I'd be interested in his take.

As a Canadian who just got a heat pump, it's because natural gas is so cheap here in North America.

My system has an auxiliary natural gas backup. Even though my heat pump works down to below -20°C, it's set up to switch over to natural gas at around -6.7°C (stupid fahrenheit setting) because even at COP of ~2.0, 98% efficient natural gas is way, way cheaper.

There are a lot of variables, but often this isn't the case... If you have a traditional gas furnace stack and ac unit it's often a drop in replacement for the AC. The ducting and air handler can be reused (especially if you're in a cold climate, the furnace can be utilized when the temp drops below the optimal operating temperature for the heat pump)

For some homes it really is an affordable option.

Yes, on two points. 1) heat pumps are more than 100% efficient in most conditions. Because they are moving heat, rather than generating it, they can add more heat energy to your home than they actually consume. 2) mix of sources. As you said, even if most of your electricity comes from gas plants, that means some can or does come from renewable sources or nuclear. This makes it much easier to transition to even more renewables, since the consumer side doesn't need to change anything as gas plants are phased out. It's future planning with immediate benefits from point 1.

Point 1 can be a bit complex, since in extreme conditions air source heat pumps may rely on resistive heating which is only 100% efficient. Alternatives like ground source HPs don't have that problem, but they are suited to fewer areas.

An additional argument I've heard is that economies of scale come into play with power generation. The argument is mainly used around electric vs gas cars when electricity is generated from fossil fuels, but apparently larger plants are generally more efficient at generating energy. This may not hold up when heat is the desired form of energy compared to a gas car where it's a waste product.

Gas boilers can by 95% efficient turning gas directly into heat energy.

Electricity generation is about 55% efficient at turning gas into electric energy.

So in a situation where you get 2 times or more heat out per kW you put in then you're lowering your carbon footprint even when electricity is created using gas.

2 to 4 times is not too difficult so

There's also the pretty big issue that the more methane is transported, the more leaks we have. As methane is 40× more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas every property we take off the gas network is a step towards reducing the need for that infrastructure.

Personally I can't fit an air source heat pump in my flat. It would be incredibly noisy and would probably require radiators to be refitted and taken up more space.

When my gas boiler goes I'll look at the cost of the standing price of a gas connection, annual servicing, and kW cost of gas. Then look at what a standard electric boiler costs.

It won't have the 2 to 4 times saving on kW cost a heat pump would have but it probably will come out similarly on cost. It will have a lower install cost. And it will reduce methane emissions.

If we haven't moved far enough to renewable energy by then my carbon footprint might actually go up. But the methane reduction will more than make up for that.

If you need to add insulation to make switching to a different heat source worth it, then adding that insulation without switching will reduce your current utility bill. It's not like the insulation (or lack ther of) cares how the heat was generated.

I don't get the "I'd need to add a lot of insulation" bit.

So you're heating your house just now with gas or something, and you're basically just pissing it up a wall, and fuck the environment?

Installing better insulation is always the best first step, better than the climate control solution or solar. That's why some of those states require insulation improvements before other rebates can be taken. Sometimes they also heavily subsidize the costs of improving the insulation.

Once the structure is properly insulated, then the best option between heat pumps and solar depends on the cost of electricity, as you noted.

It definitely makes sense to evaluate electricity costs. It's unfortunately expensive to get a heat pump in some places.

Where we live, the Seattle metro area, it was a huge cost savings to get our heat pump.

Crunch the numbers and make sure it makes financial sense.

There might be federal or state programs that can help you with weatherization. I'd check into them because they'll definitely save you money. Back when I was on oil it saved me about 10% on my heating bills, even in a drafty old farmhouse.