States, including CA and NY, sign heat pump memorandum(theverge.com)
theverge.com
States, including CA and NY, sign heat pump memorandum
https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/7/24063751/heat-pump-mou-nine-states-california-new-york
125 comments
Agreed. I live in the CA, and am a homeowner. I love the efficiency of heat pumps. I have a high personal incentive to install cool efficient tech. I have the 20k lying around to install a heat pump (or 5-7k for a mini split). Yet I will never install a heat pump, because PG&E is running a racket on electricity prices. In fact, I’m considering instead installing a new wood stove / masonry heater.
CA needs to get its incentives aligned to meet any of these goals. You want people to electrify? Just make it cheaper to run in the long term, and everybody will just do it by default.
CA needs to get its incentives aligned to meet any of these goals. You want people to electrify? Just make it cheaper to run in the long term, and everybody will just do it by default.
On top of this, the CPUC lowered incentives for solar last year:
https://calmatters.org/environment/2023/11/california-solar-...
https://calmatters.org/environment/2023/11/california-solar-...
California CPUC is out of control.
They wanted the state to impose a tax on people using solar panels.
https://krcrtv.com/news/chico-residents-on-possible-solar-pa...
They wanted the state to impose a tax on people using solar panels.
https://krcrtv.com/news/chico-residents-on-possible-solar-pa...
Solar net metering is a weird subsidy. The solar panel owners are not paid for the full value of the electricity they provide. The utility is not paid for the full value of the electricity distribution they provide (you can pull 240V x 200A on demand).
Net metering can only form a small part of the retail market before the fixed costs of distribution get concentrated on remaining customers in a death spiral. A population that is generally less able to take advantage of tax credits (because their tax liability is not high enough), and has less access to capital in the form of homeownership or financing for the solar system.
This is analogous to the "problem" of fuel efficient car owners paying less fuel tax. Some states have added higher registration fees on hybrids and EVs to offset the "lost" revenue. Another similar situation is water utilities that encouraged efficiency through higher rates. Customers saved water and then the utility had to increase per unit rates to maintain enough baseline revenue to cover fixed expenses of maintaining the distribution network to every home.
Net metering can only form a small part of the retail market before the fixed costs of distribution get concentrated on remaining customers in a death spiral. A population that is generally less able to take advantage of tax credits (because their tax liability is not high enough), and has less access to capital in the form of homeownership or financing for the solar system.
This is analogous to the "problem" of fuel efficient car owners paying less fuel tax. Some states have added higher registration fees on hybrids and EVs to offset the "lost" revenue. Another similar situation is water utilities that encouraged efficiency through higher rates. Customers saved water and then the utility had to increase per unit rates to maintain enough baseline revenue to cover fixed expenses of maintaining the distribution network to every home.
I don't think that is correct. With net metering residential solar owners are overpaid for the value of their power. More than commercial solar plants selling at the same time.
Homeowners may get paid less than their panels cost, but rooftop solar is tremendously expensive and there is no way that it would recoup the cost at actual market prices
Homeowners may get paid less than their panels cost, but rooftop solar is tremendously expensive and there is no way that it would recoup the cost at actual market prices
It's somewhere in-between: residential solar, when feeding back into the grid, is only using a small fraction of the transmission compared to a commercial solar plant (in terms of length of wiring and number of transformers used to transmit a given amount of power). In fact, it will generally be (unless in a neighbourhood where nearly every house has solar installed) reducing the overall load on the grid. So it's not reasonable to expect that the value of that electricity is the same as that of the same amount coming from a large utility, but it's still probably not worth retail prices, either (though maybe it is, in certain circumstances. In cases with a very overloaded grid it may conceivably be worth more!)
the grid is a fixed cost, which is needed unless we are willing go without power every night and winter. Once it is in place, it costs the same if it is sitting idle or being used.
There are absolutely no savings from an unreliable local power source.
There are absolutely no savings from an unreliable local power source.
California was paying rooftop solar owners far too much. Poor people who couldn’t afford solar were subsidizing the grid for solar owners.
Yes, this is what the CPUC said but was a ridiculous argument in favor of raising profits moreso than helping lower income people.
The climate should take precendence over everything else. Incentives for rooftop solar should increase, incentives to help lower income people should increase, electricity record profits should not be a thing.
This is entirely due to regulatory capture, not some "good will towards poor people" that the electricity industry is pushing.
The climate should take precendence over everything else. Incentives for rooftop solar should increase, incentives to help lower income people should increase, electricity record profits should not be a thing.
This is entirely due to regulatory capture, not some "good will towards poor people" that the electricity industry is pushing.
> The climate should take precendence over everything else.
That's an argument for moving from rooftop solar subsidies into storage subsidies, because its already at the point where renewable output sometimes exceeds 100% of demand. (And the strong solar mandates will contnue to add supply without subsidy, especially—and this adds to the pile of reasons that this needs to happen—if housing construction stops being held back by zoning constraints.)
That's an argument for moving from rooftop solar subsidies into storage subsidies, because its already at the point where renewable output sometimes exceeds 100% of demand. (And the strong solar mandates will contnue to add supply without subsidy, especially—and this adds to the pile of reasons that this needs to happen—if housing construction stops being held back by zoning constraints.)
Net metering actually increases both costs and profits.
Power companies have a fixed margin of 10% and a captive market.
If power costs them $1, they make $0.1. If power costs them $5, they make $0.50.
Rooftop solar costs 10X what commercial solar does. Every kw of rooftop power they buy means 10kw of commercial solar isnt built.
Power companies have a fixed margin of 10% and a captive market.
If power costs them $1, they make $0.1. If power costs them $5, they make $0.50.
Rooftop solar costs 10X what commercial solar does. Every kw of rooftop power they buy means 10kw of commercial solar isnt built.
It doesnt make any sense to force utilities to pay retail prices for electricity when wholesale prices are 10x lower. There are much more efficient ways to encourage renewables.
> electricity record profits should not be a thing
Unless the electricity consumption is falling faster than inflation, I'd expect the regulated-profit electric utility to be having record profits essentially all the time.
Unless the electricity consumption is falling faster than inflation, I'd expect the regulated-profit electric utility to be having record profits essentially all the time.
I guess they fixed the glitch by moving to income based utility bills
Which is simply a hidden tax hike, and a wild market distortion.
which is basically incetivizing even more electricity usage by subsidizing large electricity users and punishing electricity savers.
there's nothing more evil than forcing people to pay flat rate for services (electricity) that we should all be cutting back on, not using even more.
there's nothing more evil than forcing people to pay flat rate for services (electricity) that we should all be cutting back on, not using even more.
The proposal is to set the fixed portion of the bill to vary with income. The usage portion is still billed per kWh.
PG&E is charging you to pay for wildfire lawsuits and to bury power lines so that people can keep building cities in forests.
They are also regulated to have a 10% profit margin, so that only way to increase revenue is to drive up costs year after year.
Which leads to opening up a whole nother can of worms regarding forest mismanagement and lack of controlled burns.
The state should pay for that out of general taxes rather that shifting the economic incentives of power use
IMO the state should have forced PG&E into liquidation, bought all the assets, and converted the whole mess to a public utility. It would surely take some time to learn how to operate PG&E’s disaster of a system, but it’s not as though PG&E can competently operate its own system right now.
I hated this idea at the time, but have come around to it. Im fairly libertarian, but understand that competition is difficult for the power distribution network.
As much as I think the state is inefficient, a cost plus regulated monopoly is even worse. Municipal power companies in CA run $0.10-0.20 per kwh, while PG&E is $0.40-0.50 cents, and going up.
As much as I think the state is inefficient, a cost plus regulated monopoly is even worse. Municipal power companies in CA run $0.10-0.20 per kwh, while PG&E is $0.40-0.50 cents, and going up.
It would be amusing to require PG&E to match the average rates of the municipal utilities plus 10%. And then liquidate them when their stock goes to zero as a result :)
How is a mini-split $5-7K in the US? A 6kW Mitsubishi Electric mini-split is $1800 (US$1200) here in Australia and you’ll pay another $650 (US$420) to get it installed… My 5 kW air to water heat pump was about $6K (US$4K) before a $900 (US$600) rebate but they are less common here so I think still cost a bit more than in Europe or the UK.
Yeah so basically the guideline here is 25 btus per sqft, which is 270 btus per m2, house is 110ish m2, so it’s roughly 30k btus. So then get a 30k btu condenser, about $3400, plus three 12k air handlers ($600 each or so), plus labor and the rest of the random parts. Could be overkill, I’m just following guidelines for the estimate.
How do you get it installed for $420? You can barely get an HVAC technician to come and say hi for $420 in California.
You don't. At least not for an install these days. Their data point must have been from a few years earlier.
My experience having installed one a couple of months ago is that the installer charged around 1.5k AUD just for the installation(by my calculation using retail prices) for a back to back "simple" install for the same brand and size mentioned. This is in Melbourne, Australia.
I did get multiple quotes that were the same and this was before peak summer season. The ones that were lower were either not licensed or wanted to do it for cash - meaning they wouldn't declare and pay taxes on it so the customer gets it for cheaper. It also means they won't give you an invoice and good luck claiming damages without evidence.
They blame the high cost of living but knowing some insiders, the margins are huge.
My experience having installed one a couple of months ago is that the installer charged around 1.5k AUD just for the installation(by my calculation using retail prices) for a back to back "simple" install for the same brand and size mentioned. This is in Melbourne, Australia.
I did get multiple quotes that were the same and this was before peak summer season. The ones that were lower were either not licensed or wanted to do it for cash - meaning they wouldn't declare and pay taxes on it so the customer gets it for cheaper. It also means they won't give you an invoice and good luck claiming damages without evidence.
They blame the high cost of living but knowing some insiders, the margins are huge.
It's a pretty big market here I guess - this is for a simple installation, of course, with the mini split on a wall back to back with the external wall, running the piping down and hooking up and gassing. But that's about the standard price everyone was charging for that when I put my last one in two years ago. If you were putting in a ducted system obviously it would cost more.
Charged around 1.5k AUD for a recent back to back install in Melbourne. Tradies have bumped up their rates by quite a high margin citing cost of living and with it their profit margins.
HVAC companies bid as if they're entitled to $4K of labor/profit for a half-day of on-site work. It's maddening.
Would you say HVAC companies are more or less "entitled" to that labor/profit, compared to, say, a company that prints business cards for those kinds of small businesses?
Any business is entitled to the profit they’re able to compete for and satisfy their customers, HVAC, lending, printing, whatever, even selling pictures of your butthole on the internet.
When regulation serves to limit via licensing and multi-year apprenticeships is where you get into market distortions that sometimes serve consumers and sometimes harm them. This happens to some degree in licensed trades (price out a drywall crew, painting or carpet [not licensed or at least licensed without apprenticeship in most places] vs a plumber, electrician, or HVAC).
When regulation serves to limit via licensing and multi-year apprenticeships is where you get into market distortions that sometimes serve consumers and sometimes harm them. This happens to some degree in licensed trades (price out a drywall crew, painting or carpet [not licensed or at least licensed without apprenticeship in most places] vs a plumber, electrician, or HVAC).
Im frustrated with HVAC and solar too, but I suppose that as long as nobody else wants to do the work, they are indeed correct.
Second biggest issue with California is the contractors licensing system ended up creating a system of guilds.
First biggest is high rents drives up the cost of labor.
First biggest is high rents drives up the cost of labor.
>First biggest is high rents drives up the cost of labor.
Tell me about it. I just got quoted 80k to landscape my residential backyard.
For 1 year of my take home salary.. I'll do it myself.
Tell me about it. I just got quoted 80k to landscape my residential backyard.
For 1 year of my take home salary.. I'll do it myself.
Yeah 40k of that 80k goes to the workers landlords.
Indeed. Not helping are all the "get a heat pump installed and receive a $6K rebate"s (which drive up the bid price by around $5K-$6K).
Yep, same story with solar rebates, most of it goes to the installer.
Home construction work is really interesting, because the transaction costs are so high around locating and comparing the service providers.
It is easy to say there isnt enough competition, but im not sure that is actually true. I think more likely is that most consumers dont collect 10+ quotes and compare, so the price signal is weak.
Home construction work is really interesting, because the transaction costs are so high around locating and comparing the service providers.
It is easy to say there isnt enough competition, but im not sure that is actually true. I think more likely is that most consumers dont collect 10+ quotes and compare, so the price signal is weak.
Part of the problem is that buying refrigerant requires a certification/license.
Also in Seattle, only an HVAC company can pull a permit for refrigeration, even though plenty of heat pumps/mini splits are pre-charged and you'll never need to touch refrigerant.
Also in Seattle, only an HVAC company can pull a permit for refrigeration, even though plenty of heat pumps/mini splits are pre-charged and you'll never need to touch refrigerant.
The EPA 608 universal takes about 90-120 minutes online and is free at SkillCat (no affiliation, but I tossed them $50 as a thanks). The 609 (for autos) takes way less time but costs $25 online.
I’ve bought refrigerants online several times over the years without showing any license (even though I hold an EPA 608 and 609). It’s legal to buy for resale, which is probably how suppliers get around checking.
I’ve bought refrigerants online several times over the years without showing any license (even though I hold an EPA 608 and 609). It’s legal to buy for resale, which is probably how suppliers get around checking.
>Just make it cheaper to run in the long term, and everybody will just do it by default
That's how you get exorbitant taxes on the alternatives
That's how you get exorbitant taxes on the alternatives
I agree with you that the electricity market in CA (and a lot of other places) is broken and should be fixed.
But we also need to stop waiting for intractable economic problems to be solved to address climate change. In the long run, the economic and human cost of not addressing this will far outstrip short-term costs.
But we also need to stop waiting for intractable economic problems to be solved to address climate change. In the long run, the economic and human cost of not addressing this will far outstrip short-term costs.
Yeah, in a parallel comment I noted that in most of the country an 80% gas furnace is cheaper to operate.
Even when you include the cost of carbon emissions in that fossil gas being burned?
The subsidies on the gas drilling, production, purification, transport, and infrastructure should also be accounted for.
How do you calculate policies specifically for gas?
There are tax advantages allocated to fossil fuel exploration, but not specifically for gas - and mostly just exploration.
There are tax advantages allocated to fossil fuel exploration, but not specifically for gas - and mostly just exploration.
Right now 50% of the power I can buy at any given time is generated by burning natural gas - this is true in 80% of the country.
So it doesn't really matter - it might if we build some nuclear or whatever, but right now, it doesn't.
So it doesn't really matter - it might if we build some nuclear or whatever, but right now, it doesn't.
Right, you're not paying the true cost of that energy [1] [2]. I'm saying, what happens when you have to. That changes market signals, perhaps drastically, assuming the per ton cost of CO2 emitted (which is optimistically ~$50/ton but likely closer to $200/ton, assuming the only two ways to handle emitted carbon are to either not emit it or direct air capture and sequester underground ie Climeworks and company).
When consumers must pay for the externalities of their fossil fuel consumption, it's no longer economically competitive. If you can't pass carbon taxes, have to outlaw new gas service like many jurisdictions are attempting to do. High level, looking at the cost of natural gas alone is insufficient for these discussions; you have to look at the entire supply chain and externalities to arrive at a true "apples to apples" comparison.
(matters now, but won't as the blended cost of renewables and storage [firm generation] declines below the floor fossil gas needs to sell at to keep the infra running, and that infra already leaks like a sieve [3])
[1] https://energypost.eu/new-u-s-study-damage-per-ton-of-co2-co...
[2] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05224-9
[3] https://www.edf.org/climate/methanemaps
When consumers must pay for the externalities of their fossil fuel consumption, it's no longer economically competitive. If you can't pass carbon taxes, have to outlaw new gas service like many jurisdictions are attempting to do. High level, looking at the cost of natural gas alone is insufficient for these discussions; you have to look at the entire supply chain and externalities to arrive at a true "apples to apples" comparison.
(matters now, but won't as the blended cost of renewables and storage [firm generation] declines below the floor fossil gas needs to sell at to keep the infra running, and that infra already leaks like a sieve [3])
[1] https://energypost.eu/new-u-s-study-damage-per-ton-of-co2-co...
[2] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05224-9
[3] https://www.edf.org/climate/methanemaps
Even if you price CO2 emissions in, both electricity and natgas rise - because of how much electricity is generated by gas - and how inefficient thermal generation is.
1 metric ton of carbon is about 19 Mcf of gas burned.
19 Mcf of gas contains about 1.65MW of electric power (assuming combined efficiency of generation and transmission of 30% - if you can provide a framework for better electricity efficiency I'm open to it).
It'd add about $121 to the price per MW or 35 cents per 10,000 BTU
It'd add about $10 to the price per Mcf of gas or about 10 cents per 10,000 BTU
Assuming that 50% of your power has a carbon surcharge on it, we can halve those numbers - 17.5 cents per 10,000 BTU.
So once I plug those into my HP Calculator - that raises assumed electricity prices to 90 cents per 10,000 BTU and gas prices to 24 cents per 10,000 BTU.
The heat pump still ends up being more expensive over the entire operating range - note that HP efficiency goes down with temperature.
So at 40f it costs 35 cents on my 5T HP to generate 10,000 BTU of heat, at 10f 65 cents per 10,000 BTU of heat. Gas however is steady at 29 cents per 10,000 BTU of heat - no matter the operating temp.
1 metric ton of carbon is about 19 Mcf of gas burned.
19 Mcf of gas contains about 1.65MW of electric power (assuming combined efficiency of generation and transmission of 30% - if you can provide a framework for better electricity efficiency I'm open to it).
It'd add about $121 to the price per MW or 35 cents per 10,000 BTU
It'd add about $10 to the price per Mcf of gas or about 10 cents per 10,000 BTU
Assuming that 50% of your power has a carbon surcharge on it, we can halve those numbers - 17.5 cents per 10,000 BTU.
So once I plug those into my HP Calculator - that raises assumed electricity prices to 90 cents per 10,000 BTU and gas prices to 24 cents per 10,000 BTU.
The heat pump still ends up being more expensive over the entire operating range - note that HP efficiency goes down with temperature.
So at 40f it costs 35 cents on my 5T HP to generate 10,000 BTU of heat, at 10f 65 cents per 10,000 BTU of heat. Gas however is steady at 29 cents per 10,000 BTU of heat - no matter the operating temp.
Thank you.
The "but fossil fuel externalities!" crew can't seem to comprehend just how efficient, cheap and abundant fossil fuels are, and that we can't simply shut them off or double their price tomorrow without massive economic consequences.
The "but fossil fuel externalities!" crew can't seem to comprehend just how efficient, cheap and abundant fossil fuels are, and that we can't simply shut them off or double their price tomorrow without massive economic consequences.
Bear in mind, I'm pro alternative energy, I'm a major advocate for nuclear - because once all of fossil fuels externalities are priced in - its very attractive pricing wise.
But fossil fuels are not going anywhere, and no one (but me) seems to have any great appetite for nuclear construction.
But fossil fuels are not going anywhere, and no one (but me) seems to have any great appetite for nuclear construction.
In a sensible world, i.e. not California IOU-land, you are of course correct.
In California, for IOU customers, electric rates are pushing $600/MWh. You can figure out how exactly you want to apply the emission factors:
https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gases-equivalencies-ca...
But you will have a hard time making the math come out in favor of electricity. Unless you have a really nice heat pump, your electricity is 100% carbon-free, and you rule out gas-fired heat pumps [0] or cogen [1], you’re probably better off burning natural gas and using the money you save to offset your carbon usage in some more effective manner than throwing it at your local utility so they can burn it.
Fundamentally, carbon pricing can work when CO2 emissions are expensive and the clean alternatives are reasonably priced. California has a major problem with the latter requirement.
[0] They exist but seem very rare.
[1] Reputable companies make these, but the devices are large and are not friendly for residential installations.
In California, for IOU customers, electric rates are pushing $600/MWh. You can figure out how exactly you want to apply the emission factors:
https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gases-equivalencies-ca...
But you will have a hard time making the math come out in favor of electricity. Unless you have a really nice heat pump, your electricity is 100% carbon-free, and you rule out gas-fired heat pumps [0] or cogen [1], you’re probably better off burning natural gas and using the money you save to offset your carbon usage in some more effective manner than throwing it at your local utility so they can burn it.
Fundamentally, carbon pricing can work when CO2 emissions are expensive and the clean alternatives are reasonably priced. California has a major problem with the latter requirement.
[0] They exist but seem very rare.
[1] Reputable companies make these, but the devices are large and are not friendly for residential installations.
In a parallel comment I ran the numbers - and you're absolutely correct here.
Heat pumps are much more efficient than furnaces. Even if 100% of the electricity generation was coal you’d use less energy to heat your home with the pump so there’d be less emissions.
That depends on the outside air temp (OAT)*. At OATs below 30°F, the heat pump is capable to heat the home, but the coefficient of performance might be 2.0 or less.
For a fossil fuel plant that might convert fuel to electricity with ~35-40% efficiency, a heat pump with a CoP of 2.0 will be less efficient overall than a 90% gas furnace.
* More precisely, on the spread between the OAT and the indoor temp, but since the latter is basically a fixed figure...
For a fossil fuel plant that might convert fuel to electricity with ~35-40% efficiency, a heat pump with a CoP of 2.0 will be less efficient overall than a 90% gas furnace.
* More precisely, on the spread between the OAT and the indoor temp, but since the latter is basically a fixed figure...
This just isn't accurate - you use less electricity yes, but not less energy.
1 kWh of electricity run thru a resistive heater will generate 3412 BTU
1 Ccf of gas contains the equivalent energy as 29 kWh, but will only generate 8.7 kWh when run thru thermal generation (assuming 40% efficiency and 10% transmission losses).
If you're just trying to make heat, directly burning the gas will consume much less energy - and make fewer emissions - than gas > electricity > heatpump > heat.
1 kWh of electricity run thru a resistive heater will generate 3412 BTU
1 Ccf of gas contains the equivalent energy as 29 kWh, but will only generate 8.7 kWh when run thru thermal generation (assuming 40% efficiency and 10% transmission losses).
If you're just trying to make heat, directly burning the gas will consume much less energy - and make fewer emissions - than gas > electricity > heatpump > heat.
Why are you talking about a resistive heater? Heat pumps dont make heat, they just move it around.
If you're trying to compare the caloric content of two forms of energy, knowing what you can get out of the energy by itself is helpful.
In the end, the HP will be up to 30% more efficient than strip heat (in my case the crossover point is under 10f where strip heat is cheaper to operate).
I built a breakdown chart showing cost per kWh for both heat pump and strip heat, then added gas to it as a comparison.
In the end, the HP will be up to 30% more efficient than strip heat (in my case the crossover point is under 10f where strip heat is cheaper to operate).
I built a breakdown chart showing cost per kWh for both heat pump and strip heat, then added gas to it as a comparison.
>are so out of whack that a heat pump with a COP of 4 is no longer economical compared with a reasonably efficient gas-fired appliance.
Orthogonal, but I point this out all the time re: electric vehicles, when people claim "they are so cheap to operate!".
Do you really think that will continue to be the case when they are 10%, 25%, 50% of the market? The government will squeeze every dollar "saved" out of you. If you're lucky it will be equivalent to what you used to spend on gasoline.
Orthogonal, but I point this out all the time re: electric vehicles, when people claim "they are so cheap to operate!".
Do you really think that will continue to be the case when they are 10%, 25%, 50% of the market? The government will squeeze every dollar "saved" out of you. If you're lucky it will be equivalent to what you used to spend on gasoline.
My dream is that municipal ground source heat pumps become popular. Let the municipal put and maintain wells (the major contributor to adopting ground source heat pumps) along streets and allow homeowners to tie in to the wells. Ground source is much more efficient, requires less space, creates less noise pollution, and is equally decentralized compared to air source.
Digging is fundamentally expensive. This is why above ground power lines are not buried, and fiber optic home broadband is not more common than reusing existing cable TV and phone lines. If utilities are buried from initial construction the cost is reasonable. Dig once. Retrofitting a neighborhood after the fact is too expensive. Geothermal has very long ROI like 50 years so usually only institutional building owners who will be around in 50 years bother to buy it.
Digging is expensive the way it is done today, which is essentially artisanal scale. We get economies of scale at the municipal level. At least 2 neighborhoods in neighboring cities are doing it locally, more as tests but still doing it.
Also, I can get ground source heat pumps installed including vertical wells for about 50k out of pocket, at current energy rates I'd recoup in about 12 years. Not sure where 50 years comes from, unless you are talking about geothermal and not ground source, in which case I have no insights in to as it's not a reasonable option around here.
Also, I can get ground source heat pumps installed including vertical wells for about 50k out of pocket, at current energy rates I'd recoup in about 12 years. Not sure where 50 years comes from, unless you are talking about geothermal and not ground source, in which case I have no insights in to as it's not a reasonable option around here.
Heat Pump + 80% Gas Furnace is the best combination for most of the country.
Both in terms of cost and efficiency. You get all the advantage of heat pump, and the cheaper defrost cycle from gas furnace.
Consider how much of power generation wherever is gas.
If you can get residential power below 10c/kWh then HP always wins in cost, but most of the country has high electricity costs, low gas costs, and the ability to use gas when the grid is stressed.
Both in terms of cost and efficiency. You get all the advantage of heat pump, and the cheaper defrost cycle from gas furnace.
Consider how much of power generation wherever is gas.
If you can get residential power below 10c/kWh then HP always wins in cost, but most of the country has high electricity costs, low gas costs, and the ability to use gas when the grid is stressed.
With forced air -- absolutely. The heat pump provides most of the heat and all the cooling, and you have a high-efficiency gas boiler with 2 zones, one for a DHW storage tank and one as the AUX heat with a hydronic loop in the air handler (as you mentioned) as backup.
You could go with a combo-boiler that does on-demand hot water and a single AUX zone rather than a 2-zone with a storage tank. However on-demand DHW doesn't do well with managing the temperature with pressure changes (someone flushes a toilet or puts the laundry on or both! and you'll get a few moments of either freezing or scalding water as it adjusts). I think it's better to have a superstor type DHW tank. They only lose about 1℉ per hour so with no DHW use, the boiler only needs to run about once a day for a few mins to keep it hot.
You could go with a combo-boiler that does on-demand hot water and a single AUX zone rather than a 2-zone with a storage tank. However on-demand DHW doesn't do well with managing the temperature with pressure changes (someone flushes a toilet or puts the laundry on or both! and you'll get a few moments of either freezing or scalding water as it adjusts). I think it's better to have a superstor type DHW tank. They only lose about 1℉ per hour so with no DHW use, the boiler only needs to run about once a day for a few mins to keep it hot.
I would non-forced air hydronic heat.
But in fairness, I live in DFW - I need air conditioning more than heat most of the time.
But in fairness, I live in DFW - I need air conditioning more than heat most of the time.
For a forced hot water system, with a heat pump you can get maybe 120F water out of it, but the design guidelines for baseboard (and rad[iator]s) typically are based on 185F input water. So for example a if a room has a heat loss of 10K BTU/hr, and your baseboard puts out 600 BTU/hr at 185F, then you need 16'8" of baseboard. If the input water is only 120F, then you might now need ~24' baseboard to get the 10K BTU/hr (or twice as many rads).
Of course this is all dependent on your home's specific heat loss calculation that's based on a ton of variables including location and construction methods, rooms above below, # of windows/doors etc. So in DFW, you won't need as much as in Concord NH. The (winter, 99%ile) ASHREA design temp for Concord NH is about 2F, but for DFW it's 27.5F, so the 10K BTUs for NH might only need to be 6K BTUs for DFW.
So a heat pump based forced hot water system might work well for you in DFW, but not me in NH because I don't have enough wall space for all of the baseboard needed at 120F -- I'd be better off with radiant heat with a heat pump because there you mix the hot water with the return to keep it (the water) no more than 100F or it'll either crack the concrete, or be uncomfortable to walk on. Also up here we typically have multi-story homes and also need basements because the frost line is 4-5' below grade, so radiant slabs are harder to build/install on a "joisted" floor than a slab-on-grade ranch home.
If I was building from scratch (in NH), it'd be a ground source heat pump with forced air system with radiant in the basement slab and a 2-zone high efficiency (propane/oil) boiler (unless Natural Gas, but that's rare in NH) with a super-stor type storage tank and hydronic loop off the boiler as AUX heat. There's a pretty good chance in NH you already have a suitable artesian well for the GSHP (just needs a variable speed pump).
The GSHP systems do have a "de-superheater" that can provide some hot water in the shoulder seasons so the boiler probably is only used in the winter (or if there's excessive DHW use).
Of course this is all dependent on your home's specific heat loss calculation that's based on a ton of variables including location and construction methods, rooms above below, # of windows/doors etc. So in DFW, you won't need as much as in Concord NH. The (winter, 99%ile) ASHREA design temp for Concord NH is about 2F, but for DFW it's 27.5F, so the 10K BTUs for NH might only need to be 6K BTUs for DFW.
So a heat pump based forced hot water system might work well for you in DFW, but not me in NH because I don't have enough wall space for all of the baseboard needed at 120F -- I'd be better off with radiant heat with a heat pump because there you mix the hot water with the return to keep it (the water) no more than 100F or it'll either crack the concrete, or be uncomfortable to walk on. Also up here we typically have multi-story homes and also need basements because the frost line is 4-5' below grade, so radiant slabs are harder to build/install on a "joisted" floor than a slab-on-grade ranch home.
If I was building from scratch (in NH), it'd be a ground source heat pump with forced air system with radiant in the basement slab and a 2-zone high efficiency (propane/oil) boiler (unless Natural Gas, but that's rare in NH) with a super-stor type storage tank and hydronic loop off the boiler as AUX heat. There's a pretty good chance in NH you already have a suitable artesian well for the GSHP (just needs a variable speed pump).
The GSHP systems do have a "de-superheater" that can provide some hot water in the shoulder seasons so the boiler probably is only used in the winter (or if there's excessive DHW use).
I’ve never seen a heat pump with gas-assisted defrost. Have you?
Yes - defrost means turning on Aux heat with the HP in A/C mode.
And can it do that by itself at the correct time?
Yes, in the same way your Electric Furnace is turned on to do defrost with a Heat Pump, it just fires up the furnace for 3-5 min.
My heat pump defrosts itself under its own internal control.
It just switches to cooling mode and activates the AUX heat to dump heat into the outdoor coils for a minute or two and then goes back to heating.
The AUX heat is just a thermostat relay closing, so it can activate an electric-resistive coil (as is typical) or it can turn on the circulator pump for a gas fired boiler for a hydronic loop in the air handler.
The AUX heat is just a thermostat relay closing, so it can activate an electric-resistive coil (as is typical) or it can turn on the circulator pump for a gas fired boiler for a hydronic loop in the air handler.
Not legally binding.
Market adoption is already rising. Seems like a good way for the states to get good PR riding on the back of existing momentum.
Market adoption is already rising. Seems like a good way for the states to get good PR riding on the back of existing momentum.
The problem with heat pumps in the colder states is that they only work with forced air and also don’t produce (enough) domestic hot water.
Particularly in the North east you are going to find steam or forced hot water systems fired by gas or oil (most likely #2 heating oil or possibly kerosene).
In a new build yes. A forced air with (air or ground source) heap pump should be required (although it still doesn’t really solve the DHW issue).
Particularly in the North east you are going to find steam or forced hot water systems fired by gas or oil (most likely #2 heating oil or possibly kerosene).
In a new build yes. A forced air with (air or ground source) heap pump should be required (although it still doesn’t really solve the DHW issue).
I live in the north north east (Canada).
Our house had an oil furnace, we added an air source heat pump. There are periods in the winter where the heat pump can't keep up, but in the months early and late winter it's all we need. The net result is that it has significantly reduced our oil consumption. Add to that fact it's an A/C unit in the summer, and it's wins all the way around.
Our house had an oil furnace, we added an air source heat pump. There are periods in the winter where the heat pump can't keep up, but in the months early and late winter it's all we need. The net result is that it has significantly reduced our oil consumption. Add to that fact it's an A/C unit in the summer, and it's wins all the way around.
How is the heat delivered? Forced air? If so no problems with heat pumps, the modern air source can produce heat at very low outside temps and a ground source is excellent in very cold climates (if you have artesian well, or ground loop).
The problem is most oil or gas fired heating systems are forced hot water (or steam) so a heat pump isn’t going to help you unless you want a mini-split in every room.
Even if you have ducting for cooling with AC it likely won’t have enough CFMs for heat in the winter unless it was specifically sized that way (but you likely wouldn’t be still using forced hot water or steam in that case).
The problem is most oil or gas fired heating systems are forced hot water (or steam) so a heat pump isn’t going to help you unless you want a mini-split in every room.
Even if you have ducting for cooling with AC it likely won’t have enough CFMs for heat in the winter unless it was specifically sized that way (but you likely wouldn’t be still using forced hot water or steam in that case).
Heat Pumps absolutely blow both Fuel Oil and very nearly Propane out of the water in run cost, even when electricity is high.
At 30f - until you exceed 15-15.5 cents per kWh, heat pump is cheaper to run than median oil price.
At 30f - until you exceed 15-15.5 cents per kWh, heat pump is cheaper to run than median oil price.
Exceed 15 c/kWh? We were past that loooooong ago in California. Here are PG&E's rates for the Bay Area... https://www.pge.com/assets/pge/docs/account/rate-plans/resid...
The cheapest rate is 38c/kWh, the most expensive is 62c/kWh..
The cheapest rate is 38c/kWh, the most expensive is 62c/kWh..
Propane is no better than oil in terms of cost per BTU (except propane boilers are usually slightly more efficient). Natural Gas (from the street) is significantly cheaper than either oil or propane per BTU and particularly if used with a modern condensing boiler.
It’s not that a heat pump isn’t more efficient it’s that if you have forced hot water or steam radiators you are looking at an additional $40K to retrofit forced air ducting to your house. Oh and you still need a solution for domestic hot water, probably you’ll just end up with a resistive heater (or a hybrid/heat pump unit like the Aerotherm but the heat has to come from the room).
It’s not that a heat pump isn’t more efficient it’s that if you have forced hot water or steam radiators you are looking at an additional $40K to retrofit forced air ducting to your house. Oh and you still need a solution for domestic hot water, probably you’ll just end up with a resistive heater (or a hybrid/heat pump unit like the Aerotherm but the heat has to come from the room).
I went off median prices from DOE and found oil to come in at 32 cents per 10,000 BTU's propane at 24 cents per 10,000 BTU.
You can look at the State of New Hampshire’s Dept of Energy comparisons here, updated weekly:
https://www.energy.nh.gov/energy-information/nh-fuel-prices
Actually right now #2 heating oil is now somewhat cheaper per MBTU than propane. Also Natural Gas is slightly cheaper than heat pump per MBTU (YMMV on efficiency!)
I’ve never seen propane cheaper than heating oil here!
EDIT: It’s probably worth pointing out that the North East of the US is the largest heating oil market in the world.
https://www.energy.nh.gov/energy-information/nh-fuel-prices
Actually right now #2 heating oil is now somewhat cheaper per MBTU than propane. Also Natural Gas is slightly cheaper than heat pump per MBTU (YMMV on efficiency!)
I’ve never seen propane cheaper than heating oil here!
EDIT: It’s probably worth pointing out that the North East of the US is the largest heating oil market in the world.
ooh, thats a great source - now that I've updated my calculator, your numbers match mine - I went with local prices for propane and DOE prices for propane.
Forced air only? What about mini splits? Many homeowners convert from steam radiators to mini splits.
I have an electric water heater. It’s hybrid, so I run the heat pump mode in warm/humid weather and regular electric mode the rest if the year.
I have an electric water heater. It’s hybrid, so I run the heat pump mode in warm/humid weather and regular electric mode the rest if the year.
I would not want mini-splits in a house in the north east. it gets cold and you need to heat evenly. Plus you'd need them in every room incl. bathrooms so the pipework would be nuts!
Mini-splits are not uncommon for cooling in the summer, but then again you only need them in the main living areas and bedrooms.
Mini-splits are not uncommon for cooling in the summer, but then again you only need them in the main living areas and bedrooms.
Tons and tons of people have mini splits in the northeast!
You don’t actually need it in every single room. A lot of rooms, you can get away with like radiant floor heating or electric baseboards.
You don’t actually need it in every single room. A lot of rooms, you can get away with like radiant floor heating or electric baseboards.
If you didn't have an actual heat source in your bathroom, it'd almost certainly freeze when it's <20F out. I'd also imagine that most of the mini-splits you see around the Boston area are for cooling and probably aren't designed for heating in the winter (most HVAC companies tend to spec the cheapest of the cheap condensers for the outside unless you are specific about heating). I actually have a Trane/Mitsubishi ductless mini split and it struggles when it's cold out (eg 30's) and will use AUX (resistive) heat (it's in a garage and is for cooling in the summer!).
A baseboard heater or something like a cadet heater are more than enough to keep a bathroom warm
Wait, that style of air-con isn't common in the US?
> Despite the name, heat pumps do not generate heat – they move heat from one place to another.
Literally nothing about "pump" implies it generates heat. That being said...
> In colder climates, an electric heat strip can be added to the indoor fan coil for additional capabilities.
That would just be... electric heating, but with more steps? I mean, at that point you just have a heat pump _and_ electric heating; a hybrid system. It's better, sure, but it's not really just a heat pump anymore.
Literally nothing about "pump" implies it generates heat. That being said...
> In colder climates, an electric heat strip can be added to the indoor fan coil for additional capabilities.
That would just be... electric heating, but with more steps? I mean, at that point you just have a heat pump _and_ electric heating; a hybrid system. It's better, sure, but it's not really just a heat pump anymore.
In those hybrid systems, you only need the electric heating elements when the temperature outside is extremely cold. In the average winter season, my auxiliary heat, the electric furnace, runs less than a dozen times a year. The rest of it is all handled by the heat pump.
> when the temperature outside is extremely cold
Thanks to improving refrigerant technologies, the “extremely cold” threshold is getting lower and lower over time.
Thanks to improving refrigerant technologies, the “extremely cold” threshold is getting lower and lower over time.
> That would just be... electric heating, but with more steps? I mean, at that point you just have a heat pump _and_ electric heating; a hybrid system. It's better, sure, but it's not really just a heat pump anymore.
I have a geothermal system (a ground-sourced heat pump) that also has electric resistive heating as a backup. I I've had to use it twice in the ~5 years I've lived in this house. The first time it was something like -15°f outside, so we just figured that was beyond what the system could handle. The second time, a year later, it wasn't quite as cold out and we had someone come look at it who found that it was low on refrigerant. (I've only been here 5 years, but the system was at least 15 years old.)
So, I've been happy it to have it there as a backup. From what I understand, it's also fairly straightforward and inexpensive to add to the system.
I have a geothermal system (a ground-sourced heat pump) that also has electric resistive heating as a backup. I I've had to use it twice in the ~5 years I've lived in this house. The first time it was something like -15°f outside, so we just figured that was beyond what the system could handle. The second time, a year later, it wasn't quite as cold out and we had someone come look at it who found that it was low on refrigerant. (I've only been here 5 years, but the system was at least 15 years old.)
So, I've been happy it to have it there as a backup. From what I understand, it's also fairly straightforward and inexpensive to add to the system.
It's ubiquitous in some regions in the US. I suspect where it's not is both very mild climates where you hardly ever use it, and severe cold where until recently heat pumps were not sufficient. Also probably old buildings.
Heat pumps are nice and efficient, but expensive to build and reliant on grid. Makes you more dependent and at the exact moment things get bad - during a weather emergency. Nobody, especially in NY state, should be without a fuel- burning heater.
> Heat pumps are nice and efficient, but expensive to build and reliant on grid
Expensive but falling as scale increases and government subsidies help drive scale.
Reliant on the grid - natural gas relies on the grid to move the air too. Not sure if this is the case all the time but mine won’t run at all without power, so unless you are referring to wood fired stove, natural gas furnaces are also reliant on the grid from what I can tell.
Expensive but falling as scale increases and government subsidies help drive scale.
Reliant on the grid - natural gas relies on the grid to move the air too. Not sure if this is the case all the time but mine won’t run at all without power, so unless you are referring to wood fired stove, natural gas furnaces are also reliant on the grid from what I can tell.
Inherently more expensive to install due to greater size and complexity.
Gas/oil furnace can be powered by a small generator, solar panels or even a backup battery system, which is not the case for a heat pump. Oil / propane with local power generation can be fully off the grid.
Edit: the lower capital cost means you can also _afford_ a backup power supply.
Gas/oil furnace can be powered by a small generator, solar panels or even a backup battery system, which is not the case for a heat pump. Oil / propane with local power generation can be fully off the grid.
Edit: the lower capital cost means you can also _afford_ a backup power supply.
Heat pumps are hardly much more complicated than plenty of other household appliances, like washing machines, microwaves or fridges (which are heat pumps!). There’s plenty of scope for them to become a lot cheaper than they are today as they are manufactured in larger volumes.
Also, the largest heat pump in my house (I have a 6 kW and a 3 kW split system and a 5 kW air to water) also only uses about as much power as an electric kettle (~2 kW) most of the time here, I’m sure that could be powered off a small generator…
Also, the largest heat pump in my house (I have a 6 kW and a 3 kW split system and a 5 kW air to water) also only uses about as much power as an electric kettle (~2 kW) most of the time here, I’m sure that could be powered off a small generator…
Yea.. mine does. I have water heat during power outages iirc, but no gas furnace heat. I've always assumed it's due to the thermostat though - if i knew how to manually run the furnace i always assumed i could have it start pushing air during a power outage.
My strategy is a deep cycle car battery and harbor freight inverter to run the blower motor. You get a long enough extension cord and you can use your car as an emergency generator.
I have done exactly that - car as generator, during a long power outage in NH.
We had 2 oil furnaces, and ~350 gallons of oil left in the tanks, but no power to run the blower motors to move the air. A Harbor Freight inverter and our Ford Explorer kept things running for 30 hours, until Amazon could deliver me an 8,000 watt portable generator.
The blower motors are pretty power hungry, on the order of about 330 watts, give or take. For a 12V system that is about 30 amps, or about 2 hours of output from a typical deep cycle batter before you risk depleting it to the point of damage. An ~$300 12V Lifepo4 battery might get you 4 hours of runtime, but not much more than that. In most cases, an outage of less than 8 hours won't get things so cold in a decently insulated house that you need to worry about it, and IME, an outage that lasts more than 8 hours has high probability of lasting much much longer.
TL;DR - Your deep cycle battery approach may not prove to actually be worthwhile, consider working out the car-as-generator hookup plan in advance.
The blower motors are pretty power hungry, on the order of about 330 watts, give or take. For a 12V system that is about 30 amps, or about 2 hours of output from a typical deep cycle batter before you risk depleting it to the point of damage. An ~$300 12V Lifepo4 battery might get you 4 hours of runtime, but not much more than that. In most cases, an outage of less than 8 hours won't get things so cold in a decently insulated house that you need to worry about it, and IME, an outage that lasts more than 8 hours has high probability of lasting much much longer.
TL;DR - Your deep cycle battery approach may not prove to actually be worthwhile, consider working out the car-as-generator hookup plan in advance.
> The blower motors are pretty power hungry, on the order of about 330 watts, give or take. For a 12V system that is about 30 amps, or about 2 hours of output from a typical deep cycle batter before you risk depleting it to the point of damage. An ~$300 12V Lifepo4 battery might get you 4 hours of runtime, but not much more than that.
This is 2-4 hours of run time though. My experience is that the blower turns on for a period and then off for a period. It would depend on your heat loss rate which is situation specific, but you can probably get significantly more than this in time coverage with the blower only running periodically.
This is 2-4 hours of run time though. My experience is that the blower turns on for a period and then off for a period. It would depend on your heat loss rate which is situation specific, but you can probably get significantly more than this in time coverage with the blower only running periodically.
I have a 7500W dual-fuel generator but haven't gotten around to installing a transfer switch yet. I have a well pump and a gas boiler that I really miss when the power is out :)
Radiant in-floor heat is pretty efficient (and it's nice not to have an ice-cold floor first thing in the morning), just need power for the circulation pumps and the boiler. My back up heat is a wood-burning stove - and we have lost power for several hours when the temps are -20F or so...
Radiant in-floor heat is pretty efficient (and it's nice not to have an ice-cold floor first thing in the morning), just need power for the circulation pumps and the boiler. My back up heat is a wood-burning stove - and we have lost power for several hours when the temps are -20F or so...
> power for the circulation pumps and the boiler
If the boiler is in the basement would you not be able to treat the circulation tubes as a thermosiphon, with the hot water rising from the boiler, creating pressure to push water through the loop?
If the boiler is in the basement would you not be able to treat the circulation tubes as a thermosiphon, with the hot water rising from the boiler, creating pressure to push water through the loop?
> TL;DR - Your deep cycle battery approach may not prove to actually be worthwhile, consider working out the car-as-generator hookup plan in advance.
Ha yep, learned that the first time and was ready to go with an extension cord the second time I needed this setup. First time, I had a stash of 3 batteries but I didn't realize how much power the blower motor would draw, so I was charging on the car and swapping out batteries as needed. Did that the first day then rigged up cords for day 2. Halfway through day 3 we got power back.
Ha yep, learned that the first time and was ready to go with an extension cord the second time I needed this setup. First time, I had a stash of 3 batteries but I didn't realize how much power the blower motor would draw, so I was charging on the car and swapping out batteries as needed. Did that the first day then rigged up cords for day 2. Halfway through day 3 we got power back.
> natural gas relies on the grid to move the air too
Natural gas heating relies on nothing more than convection to move hot water or (in older setups) steam from the boiler to the radiators. The only part of the setup where electricity is required is for electronic thermostats, and those can have a battery backup.
Natural gas heating relies on nothing more than convection to move hot water or (in older setups) steam from the boiler to the radiators. The only part of the setup where electricity is required is for electronic thermostats, and those can have a battery backup.
Without the grid how does the gas furnace blow the hot air into the house? I'm not aware of any normal gas furnaces that work without power.
My forced air heater was noisy and getting old. I installed a "Direct Vent" heater near the stairs in the basement and it keeps the whole house warm via natural convection. No electricity needed. You get to watch the cheery flame in the window, it is great.
I was worried the bedrooms would get too cold when the doors were closed but it turned out not to be an issue. The bedrooms do get colder but this actually is better for sleeping.
We still have the forced air system as a backup.
https://wildoaktrail.com/collections/martin-heaters
I was worried the bedrooms would get too cold when the doors were closed but it turned out not to be an issue. The bedrooms do get colder but this actually is better for sleeping.
We still have the forced air system as a backup.
https://wildoaktrail.com/collections/martin-heaters
with a very small generator or battery - but you can't run a heat pump on a generator without going with a much bigger one, (and much more expensive one).
My furnace's air handler fan pulls hundreds of watts. That's generator territory. And I'd have to re-wire it somehow to give it a male plug or better yet add a transfer switch.
A gas-fired boiler with radiant heat needs very little power for its fans and pumps.
I wish residential-sized gas-fired cogeneration systems were a thing.
I wish residential-sized gas-fired cogeneration systems were a thing.
> expensive to build
A heat pump is basically just an air conditioner with a handful of extra parts to allow it to work in reverse. In the US they currently are significantly more expensive to install than AC, but I don't think it will stay that way for ever.
I think part of cost issue is that heat pumps tend to put an extreme focus on energy efficiency, leading to higher up-front costs, whereas AC units tend to balance a little more towards lower initial costs.
Any home that has both gas heating and air conditioning could replace the AC with a heat pump and get more efficient heating for most of the time, while still keeping their existing heating for situations that call for it.
I'm hopeful that AC manufacturers start shifting towards bi-directional units for their lower-cost "regular" segments instead of reserving that for only the fancy super-high-efficiency (expensive) units.
A heat pump is basically just an air conditioner with a handful of extra parts to allow it to work in reverse. In the US they currently are significantly more expensive to install than AC, but I don't think it will stay that way for ever.
I think part of cost issue is that heat pumps tend to put an extreme focus on energy efficiency, leading to higher up-front costs, whereas AC units tend to balance a little more towards lower initial costs.
Any home that has both gas heating and air conditioning could replace the AC with a heat pump and get more efficient heating for most of the time, while still keeping their existing heating for situations that call for it.
I'm hopeful that AC manufacturers start shifting towards bi-directional units for their lower-cost "regular" segments instead of reserving that for only the fancy super-high-efficiency (expensive) units.
if the economics and/or contractual arrangement of crucial home equipment benefit a corporate profile, you can bet that some number of people will get those units -- usually people who do not have a choice, or do not understand the whole deal. This kind of degradation of the consumer and their rights is going on at a wide scale.
Another way to say this is "the consumer does not matter at this point" .. meaning that the game plan and expansion of the central corporate (or govt) operation is "more important" than the consumer benefit or choice.
Sadly, more than one thing can be true at once. If dramatic energy savings are "required" due to real structural problems, and also the well-capitalized and aggressive central entity can negotiate and implement the changes.. then it is a collective social situation.. End result - many advantages that small home owners have enjoyed in the USA for so long, are going away in real time right now, on a large scale.
Another way to say this is "the consumer does not matter at this point" .. meaning that the game plan and expansion of the central corporate (or govt) operation is "more important" than the consumer benefit or choice.
Sadly, more than one thing can be true at once. If dramatic energy savings are "required" due to real structural problems, and also the well-capitalized and aggressive central entity can negotiate and implement the changes.. then it is a collective social situation.. End result - many advantages that small home owners have enjoyed in the USA for so long, are going away in real time right now, on a large scale.
Wood stoves pair very well with heat pumps. The fuel won't leak, won't expire, and can be stored away from the dwelling. During extreme cold or loss of electric, one can spend the time tending the fire. And in the shoulder seasons where keeping a fire going would be overkill, the heat pump is most efficient.
My house has a ton of heat sources.
Mini splits for primary heat.
Steam radiators with oil furnace as backup.
A ton of space heaters for backup backup.
Oh, and a wood burning stove in the living room for backup backup backup. If shit really hits the fan, I can crank the wood stove and surviving.
Mini splits for primary heat.
Steam radiators with oil furnace as backup.
A ton of space heaters for backup backup.
Oh, and a wood burning stove in the living room for backup backup backup. If shit really hits the fan, I can crank the wood stove and surviving.
This is pretty smart.
Aren't gas heaters reliant on the gas grid? What if the gas grid goes down?
The gas grid is much less likely to go down than the electric grid - and btw, many run on propane - not natural gas - and that is stored locally (i.e. in a tank at the house) - I use propane gas, stored in my own tank - natural gas is not available anywhere near my area.
Uh or a generator..
The solution isn’t more regulation or incentives, IMO. It’s to fix the utterly broken electricity market.
(This is a great example, BTW, of how public-private partnerships can be dramatically worse than full public control. Palo Alto, Santa Clara, and Los Angeles are doing quite a bit better.)