Mini splits are very cool in concept, but somewhat problematic in practice. Many are built very substandard, and within a few years getting parts or repairs is often impossible.
Relatedly, we had one of ours break in a thunderstorm in Austin. We had a contract w/ a local place for maintenance and quick repairs. They quoted us 2.5k to fix it, then 4.8k to replace it. We shopped around and had a brand new unit purchased and installed from a different company for 2k flat, 3 days later. I share this often because I am still shocked at how disparate the quotes were, esp. from a "reputable" company we had an existing relationship with, and feel many people are taken advantage of in these situations when all you really need to do is call around. I also suspect as their popularity increases (I assume) the repairs and parts will perhaps become cheaper and more available.
(Our overall experience with them has been very positive).
This has been my experience with nearly every utility-related service I have ever needed - same with people in my social circle . Plumbing, electric, chimney, appliances, etc. all do this. Even with the rise of DIY, the demand for these services are still high. I live in a suburban neighborhood flooded with work vans for electricians and such, so you'd think the high competition would keep prices low. You'd think, but that definitely wasn't the case when I called around for estimates, and they were all booked out days to weeks. Crazy
I think the work is spiky so the quotes are inversely related to how busy the contractor is at that moment (for small shops). Also, there is the supply/demand of the people doing the actual work who are often not employees and may be available or not for that project in that neighborhood.
And then there's the availability of the part/unit which drives price.
There's also a weird consolidation going on in what are traditionally mom-and-pop style "trade" industries. E.g., a significant portion of the individual contractor Co. vans you see driving around could be owned (or at least partially owned) by the same private equity outfit. Thus, prices and supply can be "managed" to the detriment of the consumer. I think it will be a few years or possibly a decade before state/local/federal governments catch on to what is happening here.
I think of them as throwaway. Get a good install, run them until a mechanical part fails, then replace with new.
It’s not how it “should be”, but that’s how the economics have shaken out. Paying a tech windshield time and working time (probably twice) and finding/waiting on the proprietary parts is a losing game. If it works 30 days, it’s probably going to work 8-12 years.
My buddy just installed a dc hybrid system and it’s been pretty much amazing. He’s in a warm climate with lots of sun though, but the idea of plugging panels directly into solar panels on hot days makes so much sense.
Are you in a cold climate? My biggest concern is installing splits in very cold mountain climates (my use case).
Just installed mini-splits this autumn in the Seattle area and am living my first cold days now. What I found out is that insulation is very important. Parts of our house has very poor insulation. Coolth escapes in particularly from the floor. Our house is over a 100 years old with insulation retrofits from the 70s. I have a friend in the same area which has a new house with mini-split and modern insulation and hers works amazingly. We will definitely be working on retrofitting the rest of the house with proper insulation next summer.
Living in a cold mountain climate you probably have a pretty decent insulation.
Insulation is very important! I live near Portland in a fairly new construction and found my attic insulation is the bare minimum, currently planning to blow-in more soon. After running the numbers, between federal credits and heating savings it'll pay for itself within 2-3 years.
Could I ask who you used / what they charged? I got several estimates in 2021 and they were all pretty wildly high despite a very simple requested configuration. I'm curious to know if the market cooled (no pun intended) since then or if prices are just strictly increasing.
Sorry, my partner is a carpenter and did a lot of the work her self. She did get an HVAC expert to help with the installation but the price included some bilateral favors, friend discounts, etc, etc. So not only is the price hard to figure out, it is also not gonna be representative outside of our situation.
FWIW, Mini splits are very DIY'able. I was surprised to learn they don't cost much more than an air conditioner. In 2021, I bought and installed a 12k BTU for around $850. HVAC companies seem to charge an arm and a leg - my neighbor put a 2-head unit and I think they paid around 6k.
What brand did you install? MrCool diy seemed the easiest to DIY but my 2 zone install came to about 6k. Surprised to hear a condenser and air handler together could be $850.
Pioneer. I just installed a 2 head and it was about $2000 in total. They come pre-charged but require more work. You have to cut/flare the lineset and vacuum the lines.
The thing I don't like about MrCool is that you can't cut the lineset and have to coil the extra which is a bit janky. Also they have a considerable markup over other DIY.
I did research the DIY kits, though my biggest worry is that down the line I won't be able to find companies willing to touch it if it needs servicing.
Properly installed, there's not much to service. Watch a few Youtube videos on what goes wrong with heat pumps, and you'll learn that proper site prep is critical. ie the units must be level so the bearings won't wear prematurely.
Was the insulation being important realization related to the mini split install? Curious why that would be more noticeable with mini splits vs other forms of heat.
Capacity. Heat pumps are typically lower capacity (in BTU/hr delivered) than a fuel burning appliance and that capacity drops with very cold outside temps.
Sounds likely, however this is also my first winter—and my first cold sprout—with them, as such I’m learning which temperature to set it at etc. With our gas stove we usually set it higher on cold days, I guess with heat pumps we need to do that even more so.
Inverter drive heat pumps do well in a continuous and lower output situation, so the conventional wisdom (from gas fueled appliances, often with only 1 or 2 stage burners) to do a nighttime setback for economy is less useful economically. Set back for nighttime comfort if you want/must, but not (much) for economy.
This doesn't explain how they work though? I've found the following simplified model of how heat pumps work useful, and why they have > 100% efficiencies (Typically 300% - 400% or more compared to burning/ resistance heating which can only reach 100% efficiency).
Heat always flows from a high temperature to a low temperature. However, we want heat to go the opposite way (i.e. from the cold outside to our warm houses). There's a technique to do this. We use a gas (the refrigerant) to transfer heat.
We first expand the gas (which cools it) until it cools below the cold outside. We then bring it near the cold outside where it now starts absorbing heat until it matches the cold outside temperature. We then move the gas and compress it until it's temperature matches/exceeds our desired warm inside temperature. Then, we bring it to the warm indoors where heat will now flow out of it.
During the entire cycle, the gas is inside a closed loop. It exchanges heat through radiators. The compression & expansion cycles uses energy (technically they can be offset against each other a bit) which is added to the gas (conservation of energy) raising its temperature.
Thus by supplying a little electricity, we're able to move heat from the cold outdoors to the warm indoors. The high efficiencies are because for using X units of energy, we're able to heat the house by X+Y units where Y is the heat transferred from the outside. Typically Y >> X.
By that measure of energy, burning oil or gas also has >>100% efficiency, as you only need energy to get it out of the ground, transport, and to light it. The energy stored in the oil is analogous to the "outside heat" for heat pumps.
That's the thing though: the energy is stored in natural gas or oil but I still need to extract it. I can't heat my room by pumping it full of natural gas or filling it with oil.
To raise the temperature of my 300 square feet room by one degree I need the same amount of energy, no matter the source. But the ways of delivering that energy aren't the same.
If I have a simple gas burner, I need to know how much gas do I have to burn to heat my room. It will keep me warm, but it's not a good idea. Burning gas with a flame makes other gases that I don't want inside. I need to vent them, but I will lose some heat through that.
I can also get a gas furnace that condenses those byproduct gasses in a second heat exchanger for extra efficiency. Maybe seal it up better too. It needs a little electric power for ignition, so I need to take that into account. But overall, it would be more efficient. I would need less gas to heat my room.
Even though I'm using gas in both examples, the efficiency is different. It depends on how I convert that gas into heat.
I can also burn that gas in a generator to produce electric power. Then I can use that electric power for a resistive heater. Not a great idea, but it's an option.
I don't have to burn the gas myself. I can delegate generating power to a gas-fired power plant and buy power from them. And I can use a heat pump instead of a resistive heater. My heat pump will use less power than a resistive heater, so that's good, I suppose.
The question remains: how much gas do I (or a power plant) have to burn to heat my room. The answer depends on what do I use the gas for and how. That's the efficiency.
The measure really is how many joules of energy is required to heat something a certain amount of joules.
By burning oil or converting electricity to heat, 1 joule of stored chemical or electrical energy converted to heat energy will raise the heat of that something by a maximum of 1 joule. A maximum of 100% efficiency.
By using 1 joule of energy to compress cold gas into warm gas, we can raise the heat of that something by 3-4 joules. Moving heat energy around is more efficient that generating heat energy. Commercially available technology 300%-400% efficient.
> The energy stored in the oil is analogous to the "outside heat" for heat pumps.
This isn't correct. Here's a thought experiment to clarify:
If we burn X MJ of oil, we transfer X MJ of energy as heat to our house.
Otoh, if we set up a generator (say 40% efficient) which produces electricity from oil and dumps waste heat into our house, and use that to power a 300% efficient heat pump, we get 0.6X (generator waste heat) + 1.2X (300% * 0.4X) = 1.8X MJ of heat using the same X MJ of oil.
Thus,we get an additional 0.8X MJ of heat (80% extra heating) from the same X MJ of oil just by using a heat pump (& generator) compared to burning it. I.e we're using the energy stored inside the oil more efficiently.
It's able to do this via a temp change as part of the compression cycle. When gas expands it's container gets cold. These systems can move heat from outdoors to inside in cooler weather. Your Air Conditioner doesn't make cold, it moves your heat outside. So being able to move or collect heat is how efficiencies over '100%' can happen, it isn't free just more efficient than space heaters.
The big cost is the upfront cost of insulation and removal the existing heating systems.
Speaking about the UK (article is mostly about he US which will have their own problems), we have very poor quality housing stock with effectively zero insulation. You hold your hand to the exterior walls of your typical 2-3 bedroom terrace house (the most common type of home in the UK) in the winter and its just ice cold. For these homes the exterior wall are just solid brick and plaster with no air gaps. Many homes still don't have double glazing and their windows bleed even more heat. These homes go cold quickly when you turn off a gas boiler, and a heat pump just cannot keep up with the heat loss.
In addition large numbers of households in the UK have migrated to "combiboilers" heating systems that dispensed with hot water tanks for on demand hot water from their gas boiler. In the process many of these properties have converted the space previously designated for hot water storage to loft extensions or other home upgrades. UK homes are pretty small, and going to a heat pump system means going back to hot water storage, which most UK homes have no space for without costly changes to the home layout/structure potentially including sacrificing parts of precious loft conversions.
Frankly we might be better off just knocking down and rebuilding some of our housing stock at higher densities such is the cost of retrofitting and our housing shortages, but there is no political appetite in the UK for any radical solutions like that.
Beautiful houses with period features, in a great location. Big, traditional sash windows that let in loads of light. An L-shaped layout giving lots of natural light in all rooms. High ceilings. Market price about £2 million https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/139018139#/?channel=R... (admittedly being in London pushes prices up a lot - but the point is, these are desirable properties)
The walls are all solid brick, no cavity and no insulation. The L shaped layout means a lot of external wall area, and the big windows don't help either. High ceilings make it even harder to heat. Many of these properties are prone to damp problems if they don't get enough fresh air circulating. You can't add external insulation without covering up the period features. Obviously you can insulate the loft and install double glazing - most of them will already have done so.
It turns out nobody wants a £2000/year heating bill - but also, nobody wants to knock down and rebuild a £2M house over a £2000/year heating bill.
Exactly, that housing is super desirable by UK standards - probably amoung the most desirable housing in the UK. Pretty much all of those houses will have loft conversions (you can see the loft windows in the roof) made possible in part by removing their hot water tanks.
The reality is that it is actually a bit shit. and would cost tens of thousands to retrofit. The compromises that the owners would have to make in terms of either apperance or internal area make heat pumps very unattractive.
When you're sitting on a property valued at a couple millions, I would have thought investing tens of thousands in it would be fair game. Not pleasant, but acceptable...
Well one thing is there is often a pretty big disconnect between the asset prices of these homes and the incomes of the current owners (these houses have exploded in value over the past 40 years), but setting that aside because you are basically right at least in terms of potential equity:
The main issue is to add insultation you either do exterior insulation which covers up all of the period features that make the property valuable in the first place (and could lead to complaints from neighbours) and for many terrace houses the space between the front of property and the public street is 0, or you give up interior floor space which even at this price point is actually pretty small already. Both lower the value of the home which for most British people is the primary and often only investment (UK financialisation of housing).
The thing is, heat pumps aren't a particularly good deal right now.
Heat pumps generally have less heat output than a gas boiler, so it won't make your house any warmer.
Even taking government subsidies into account, the installation costs are several times higher than a gas boiler, both for the unit and often requiring new radiators and suchlike.
And typical energy prices in the UK might be 6.5p/kWh for gas, 26.0p/kWh for electricity - so even if your heat pump achieves a 3.0 CoP your running costs are still higher. In the UK, the months when you'll want the most heating are the months when domestic solar output will be at its lowest. To make savings you've got to switch to a plan where electricity costs change several times a day, such as https://octopus.energy/smart/cosy-octopus/ and not run your heating between 16:00 - 19:00. This makes a well-insulated home even more important.
And you might think you're going to save money by not paying the gas supply 'standing charge' - but gas suppliers can charge whatever they like to remove your meter. If they say it's £1500 to remove your gas meter and save you 30p/day - you're probably not going to be saving 30p/day
So it's less a case of "investing" in the house, and more a case of "investing" in good karma by helping the environment.
How much heat do you need? We've renovated a row house in the Netherlands - very similar climate - with solid foam insulation and triple glazing. Haven't gotten to installing a heating system yet. Even in the current cold period it's perfectly fine indoors with a cheap hoodie on. If I didn't know it would make the place unsaleable, I'd be tempted to move forward without any room heating system at all, only a small on-demand water heater.
Nice. Who's your supplier and what do you have to do to get those rates? The 6.5p/kWh for gas, 26.0p/kWh for electricity figures are from my Ovo bill for this month.
> The walls are all solid brick, no cavity and no insulation.
How do you know that? Perhaps just from "Victorian", but I think it would help if estate agents were required to list some basic facts about the house — the year it was built, the basic materials for the walls and roof, the type of heating installed.
He knows that in the same way that all British people know that - we have lived in or know people that have lived in houses that look exactly like that house. The amount of uniformity to British housing stock can be surprising as much as their general shoddiness. Try playing UK geoguesser - every UK residential street looks the same.
There are actually very few enforced rules about house listings. The market is pretty unregulated. However that house has an epc of C which would suggest its not insulated beyond maybe roof insulation or else isn't well insulated. To get a B or above you need to have a reasonable amount of insulation that you mostly only see in new build properties.
Glad you asked! For a start, as you say, it's Victorian.
For further confirmation, zoom in on the buildings with exposed red bricks and you'll see they're in a Flemish bond pattern, which only appears on solid walls. It's not new enough to have a fake Flemish bond pattern for decorative purposes.
You can also see at roof level, the party wall extends above the slates. Where it's unpainted, it's visibly two bricks thick.
If you can get into the house, you can usually tell from how thick the walls are. On houses with cavity walls, sometimes you can remove the skirting board going through an external door and look into the cavity.
You can also check externally for weep holes, the telltale signs of cavity insulation having been installed, and whether there's a damp proof course.
If you have friends in the area, they'll probably be able to tell you. If you get a survey done (which might be reasonable on a house of this age) they'll probably also be able to tell you. Often the homeowner will know too.
If you get cavity wall insulation installed, they'll drill a hole in the wall to check the cavity with a borescope and take a photo. It's a condition for getting the government grant that they confirm you don't already have cavity wall insulation.
> I think it would help if estate agents were required to list some basic facts about the house — the year it was built, the basic materials for the walls and roof, the type of heating installed.
If you check the 'energy performance certificate' (EPC) it should tell you about the insulation and heating. Of course, the qualifications to do EPCs are minimal so they don't really tell you any more than you can figure out from a house viewing. And estate agents often don't deign to produce the EPC until the house is already sold.
The EPC has the overview I was expecting. I had expected this to be linked from the estate agent's site, and didn't realise there was a place to search for them. (I no longer live in Britain.)
Two small things there - not trying to take away from your main point.
(1) This is what Americans would call a "row house", and IIRC in the UK is called "terraced housing", which has the huge benefits for all but the ends of the rows that your side walls (the longest walls of the house) are insulated by ... your neighbor's house. So, although the architectural features you mention are indeed drawbacks, their impact is significantly reduced by being in a row of connected houses. It's the single-family/full-detached houses that suffer from these problems more fully.
For this specific case it's a bit less clear because the house has been extended significantly and so the ground floor floor plan is no longer L-shaped, but if you check the floor plan for the first floor (UK terminology) you can see that the rear-facing square-shaped bedroom has a window facing into the garden, making the overall floor plan an L. The shared walls with the neighbours match up about with the second floor floor plan's extreme left and right edges.
The original design on these Victorian terraces is typically an L shape, where the upright of the L had the kitchen in it, and the base of the L is the main block of the house. This allows the room at the back of the main block to have a window facing back into the garden for light. Many have subsequently been extended for extra space and to add bathrooms, which were not originally present. Partially or completely filling in the corner of the L is popular.
The L comes at the back of the property -- most visible on the first floor of the floor plan linked. Someone's roofed over the side passage on the ground floor to make a bigger kitchen and knocked the two main rooms together to make a larger living room.
That design of terrace is exceptionally common in the UK, where each pair of houses is mirrored, with a kitchen out the back and a side passage letting light into the middle room on each level.
In Poland, some of the houses where historical exterior by law needs to be preserved are insulated from the inside. Of course this eats into the square footage of the building.
I run a building with 5 apartments with central water based wood fire heating, ie a furnace and radiators in various rooms. It's brick construction with no insulation. It's absolutely stupidly constructed.
The central heating is still there and used sometimes, but I installed mini-split reverse cycle air conditioners in each apartment and they work great, you just have to size them (power wise) correctly. They were 550-700 euros each installed. It's much much cheaper to pay for electricity than the equivalent amount of wood, even after the cost of the units. There are various additional benefits like being able to use the aircons when it's briefly cold, or you just want to warm up the space a bit. You also get cooling for no additional charge of course.
Mini split systems are not always the best solution, but they are another useful option to be weighed against larger central heat pump systems. All depends on the situation, but heat pumps are the present and future, nothing else makes sense.
> Frankly we might be better off just knocking down and rebuilding some of our housing stock at higher densities such is the cost of retrofitting and our housing shortages, but there is no political appetite in the UK for any radical solutions like that
Indeed. However a first step would be to put in decent building regs so that sub par new houses aren't being built! Still waiting for the new regs that were originally started in the planning back in 2006 or so.
The fact that new builds are still installing gas boilers and without ventilation systems in 2024 is insanity. A family member just bought a brand new flat that has a gas boiler in it with zero space for a hot water tank and no ventilation. A brand new flat that will need retrofitting within the next 10 years.
I cannot find the source atm, but I recall that the government advice to builders is against installing ventilation systems to discourage retrofitting them in future for air conidtioning, which is makes it even harder to retrofit for heat pumps.
Their thinking is basically if we have mass aircon then our residential energy consumption will skyrocket. New purpose built offices and retail pretty much always have aircon though because they have obvious productivity benefits.
However they also don't encourage passive cooling or low cost active solutions either such have making sure building have pass throughs for airflow, shading of windows, or fan systems. Government seems to be forgetting that current projections have us with Madrid style weather in the next 30 years and we will all be waving our fists.
Yeah, the gov is doing its best to discourage aircon. For example the subsidy on heat pumps can only be claimed if the heat pump can't act as aircon, which is just the problem the US has but in reverse.
Seeing how expensive and drawn-out it seems to be just to get through the permitting process for new construction where I live, I would not favor increased regulation as a first step, but I suppose it would depend on how much of a burden the current standards are in any given area. Some places go as far as to regulate duration of shadows cast upon opposing sidewalks, and some others only seem to see development where sidewalks aren't required, so it seems like various countrys' systems suck all around. Sub-par houses now were not necessarily sub-par houses when they were built, and I'm sure they performed a hell of a lot better than had they not been at all.
A building’s heat loss (the rate of energy needing to be re-added to maintain thermal equilibrium) increases with decreasing outside temperatures and decreases with better insulation.
A heat pump’s max output in heating mode decreases when the outside temperatures are low enough (whereas a gas boiler has a roughly constant max output and it’s quite inexpensive to size a wall-hung combi for 150K BTU/hr [44 kW] if needed).
Buildings that are fine on the coldest design day with a gas boiler may need more output than a heat pump can provide on that day.
Adding insulation can reduce this gap, which is why you’ll often find a heat pump project needs insulation, while a boiler replacement like-for-like would merely benefit from additional insulation.
Yes, gas has been so cheap, until recently, that nobody has invested into insulation, and our housing stock is so poor quality and small in average size that insulation has lots of detractions in terms of property appearance and internal area.
The UK government back in 2010 actually had major plans for nation wide insulation, but famously the prime minster at the time, David Cameron, ordered the cutting of "the green crap" (widely reported to be his words) to help resolve some short term political problems with the budget in the early 2010s.
Heat pumps have a solid max heat output that cannot scale as easily as gas heating. So without insulation they can quickly hit a limit. The upper limit for gas system is limited by how much gas can flow through a pipe, which is a huge amount of energy. The upper limit for a heat pump aystem is set by the compressor capacity, which is in turn set by the electrical circuit, and relative temperatures.
The piece you're missing, beyond just "gas is cheap", is that increasing the heating capacity of a heat pump costs lots of money when installing it, whereas increasing the capacity of a gas boiler isn't much more expensive during installation, but costs loads more when running it.
So technically it would be possible to install a heat pump with the same capacity as the existing gas boiler, but it would costs a ton more and it would all be upfront.
Another detail I think others might have missed, heat pumps need to defrost sometimes, during which time you effectively can't provide heat. In other words, you need to trust the house to be a good enough thermal battery so that you aren't having to continually heat it
The bulk of the cost in the UK seems to be the actual unit. I don't understand why, other than boiler manufacturers trying to maintain the status quo (oversized boilers that can be badly installed by one of the many gas-safe "engineers" already out there).
The split of cavity to solid walls is pretty even in the UK. There are gov grants available for insulation, both for walls and loft. It is true that many houses have moved to a combi-boiler and lost their hot water cylinder but cylinders are smaller than they used to be and personally I would guess the number of converted lofts in these cases is relatively small.
> You hold your hand to the exterior walls of your typical 2-3 bedroom terrace house (the most common type of home in the UK) in the winter and its just ice cold.
The opposite is now becoming more true: with heat waves that seem to occur more often, you want to keep the heat out and the cold in in the summer.
Thankfully insulation tends to work both ways, it keeps warmth in and out.
One of my neighbours redid all the insulation of their house and lowered the high point of the south-facing living room by 10-15C (and made the house much easier to heat in the winter, they can now get by on just the fireplace).
An other good option if you have the space (and money), especially with a south-facing living room, is to add a "sacrificial" sunroom (/ enclosed patio): at the cost of a bit of light, you get extra living space in spring and autumn, and the sunroom will insulate the living room in winter and summer (for the latter especially if it has an opaque roof e.g. tiling).
Yep, now our wall act as raidators in the summers - our homes do not cool down during heat waves because they are radaiting heat collected during the day.
Heating has strong 'follow the crowd' effects: the cost of different options are heavily influenced by what's already commonly used in the local area, because the supply chain will be optimised, and local workers will be most familiar with what's most popular. Bucking the trend in any way sets you up for higher hardware costs and much higher installations and maintenance costs, even if in a different country the same option would be the most economical. (I have experienced the same pain, in a country where most heating is plumbing and radiator based, having a house set up for central air heating and wanting a replacement for the central unit, it was almost the same cost to replace that central unit as it was to rip out the whole thing and replace it with radiators, which is ridiculous on the face of it but a consequence of the supply of parts and labor for each option).
It warms the whole house via floor heating (IIUC it's hot water circulating) and also ventilates almost all rooms (but that seems to be only for keeping the air in the house clean - it "pulls" instead of blowing warm air or something like that).
It cost me a total of 130,000SEK, which is 12,0000 USD (as I write this). Approx. half for the unit and half for installation costs. I don't have the geothermal option where I live because it's a water reserve, but that would be much more expensive, I expect at least twice as much.
I didn't buy a cheap unit, there was a cheaper model that they offered for a total cost of 80,000 SEK... but still, where could've I gotten this for 20,000 SEK :D
I am thinking of the more basic air/air units rather than this air/water.
One well placed air/air can reduce the need for direct electricity heating a lot, even though some might be needed to assist in a bedroom or so.
My parents installed a air/air unit in the middle of the house (180kvm) for $2.5k this summer and it keeps the whole house heated except one bedroom that needs some assistance from a radiator.
That's about the same size as my house... I also have a air-to-air heater but don't even use it because the central heating is more than enough. But interesting to know it could actually manage almost the whole house if I need it!
I have an earlier version of this and they're great, although they use the heater more than the heat pump in winter so bills are cheaper but not miraculously so. The newer versions like your have a bigger compressor, which I think gives them a substantial improvement.
The main problem I've found is now that it's getting old and having problems there's nobody in my area that knows how to maintain them, they only install and then suggest buying a new one when the old one needs new parts, which is frustrating and in line with most white goods these days. So advice for the future is that forums like byggahus.se are good for advice on trouble shooting & parts replacements once it gets old enough to have problems.
I had a Nibe 640P before this. It had broken down almost every year for some 5 years before it finally gave up this year: it started leaking, several parts were not working anymore according to the technician and according to him, they couldn't even buy anymore some of the parts (the machine was only about 15 years old!)... so I didn't have a choice but to replace it... the previous times I fixed it cost me between 4K and 10K SEK (change of some electrical component or sensor that broke, replacement of the actual ventilator a couple of times)... If I could keep fixing it reliably I probably would... but these days, after 15 years every technology changed so much that what you've got becomes a museum piece that can't be fixed. Same thing happened at almost the same time to my alarm system :( Sektor Alarm didn't even offer to fix it up... it was using 2G which apparently is slowly dying in Sweden. At least they got me a very good discount and I spent "only" about 5k SEK to get a very modern alarm system with cameras, vibration sensor, mobile app and bells and whistles :). But again, I'd rather just keep what was working if I could as to me it feels like a huge waste to throw away so many electronic components which are mostly working just fine... however, you just can't do it anymore.
Yep, 15 years was what I was told was the life expectancy of the system and nobody is interested in making them last longer. I try to fix things but as you say, finding spare parts is really difficult.
When I bought the house, it already had floor heating across the entire plan... but from what I see, it's not that hard to DIY if you're so inclined. Specially with floors like are typical in Sweden, it's like laminated flat boards that are easy to replace: https://www.bauhaus.se/hpl-laminatgolv-berryalloc-ek-vitolja...
It looks pretty good too... you need to do some cutouts for the warming pipes underneath, there's lots of Youtube videos showing how :D
But luckily, my floor heating apparently is still in very good condition so it will be a while before I have to replace that.
The floor heating itself isn't that expensive, the problem is you need to redo you floor, which sometimes means destroying it and doing a new install. We wanted a new floor anyway so not a problem, but if you have something expensive it will add up.
If your Samsung heat pump costs 1-2k you can expect the same product from a German company to cost 7-15k for no appreciable difference. Why buy the German product then? Because the builders who install it will get a cut of course. They don't need your business and will simply refuse the job if you don't buy the most expensive materials. You can add to that cost all the subsidies of the German government, which, as everyone knows, simply increase prices when there is a supply shortage. But these subsidies are tied to other requirements to make your house more energy efficient, like installing a solar power system with batteries (30k€ easily).
Heat pumps are a gimmick for rich people that already have well insulated modern homes. For everyone else it is vastly more expensive than gas or oil and in addition, we have to pay taxes for all the subsidies going to those rich people.
I got “away” paying almost exactly €10k for fancier ground-source setup using a 6kW Thermia (i.e. Swedish) heat pump (itself about €6k.) IIRC there were definitely cheaper geothermal options back when I was investigating, but I got sold on the ecology aspects of that particular solution as well.
I can make some comparisons between the two too – ground-source maintains great COP even if its -20°C or less outside (as it was a couple days ago.) The incoming carrier liquid remains comfortably around 5°C, no matter the season. This also enables passive floor-based cooling. With an air-source heat-pump one would need some sort of a reversible cycle setup, I suspect, or perhaps a separate AC, which would likely bring the total cost of an air-source implementation up a little bit further.
It is also no-louder than your modern fridge. My neighbours’ air-source heat pumps’ exterior units were going at it so hard one could have been excused if they mistook there was a busy airport within an earshot. On the other hand if there's already an airport, what does it change if there’re N planes or N+1 planes in it :)
I did not say otherwise :) My point is that with a ground-source the cooling can be “passive” – you don’t actually need to turn on anything but a circulation pump or two once in a while.
The downside of course is that its not going to make your already +40°C room into a flu-inducing +18°C one. Its more of a tool to offset a 2°C, maybe 4°C in extreme cases indoor temperature rise. Which is likely more than plenty for many airtight & insulated houses.
And indeed, managing humidity is hard. If this sounds at all interesting to the reader, definitely research whether this is applicable in your situation/area at all.
Good question. Seems unlikely that the prices are correct. If it is then someone has a huge incentive to import from other places. The most popular air-air heat pump in Norway with a SCOP above 5 is less than 2500 USD including installation and tax.
But, it's also a fact that the US is far behind when it comes to heat pumps and energy efficient homes. The general knowledge in the US about heat pumps is terrible.
I fear you are wrong. I'm American, and can confirm that heat pumps in the US are still very expensive upfront. There are often grant programs that can offset some of the cost, but for whatever reason they are much more expensive here than Europe.
The main issue seems to be that installation is extremely expensive. Less expensive heat pumps are now available here if you are able to do the installation yourself, but installers will only work with the expensive brands they know. They are usually overbooked, and thus have no incentive to lower their prices.
The question would be what it would take to get competition in the market at the installer level. Any idea how this was accomplished in Norway?
> In Sweden the hardware cost around $1k - $2.5k and installation $500 - $1000. It's not a complicated task.
These numbers must be for an air to air mini-split unit with one air handler with nearby electricity, $500-$1000 is 4-8 hours of labor. That’s not nearly enough for an entire home.
A whole house heat pump with heat exchanger costs substantially more, both in equipment and labor.
In Switzerland I was quoted about 25k for an air-water and about 10k more for geothermal. And I mean with it only the hardware and installation - as the house doesn't need piping or whatever. So for some reason you Nordics are quite privileged, and I wasn't able to find out why.
Depends upon the heating system. A cheap air to air, single unit heat pump does not cost much but if you want anything more then it costs more. A lot of houses with a basic heat pump use it to reduce the amount of other heating used and pump hot air into a single area of the house, with additional electric heaters in other rooms and a water heater for hot water.
However to totally replace your entire heating needs with an all-in-one system is much more complicated than that. The heat pump I have alone in Scandinavia costs roughly $6-10k. That's powering water heating in every room plus hot water in the taps, zero additonal heating of air or water required. It's the size of bulky floor to ceiling fridge and does wonders for my electricity bill!
I was quoted around $80k (in central EU) all in for 50KW heating unit. About a third was drilling of silly number of holes (water-water heat pump). Price didn't include updating radiators / installing underfloor heating in the house itself.
If I replaced wood pellet boiler I use right now with a heat pump I'd break even in about 20 years, which is longer than the expected service life of the pump..
Out of curiosity, why did they think 50kW was a necessary amount of energy to heat? Is the building old and poorly insulated? An A/A+ energy class 150m² home barely needs 1/10th that amount.
If it was indeed a question of insulation or airtightness, then perhaps spending a part of that money for renovations in that area and only then a fraction of the price for a reasonably-sized heating unit might be sensible. You could also do just the renovations and thus reduce your wood pellet usage substantially as well – already a big win for the environment.
Almost 800 m^2, 55cm thick red brick walls with OK, but not great insulation, casement windows.
That aside what I wanted to point out is that because of heat pump pricing they are currently not the best choice, economically speaking. It is 6-10x more expensive upfront and won't break even over it's lifetime.
By comparison solar panels break even is 6-8 years and after that they are expected to last 20 more years bringing you 2-3x installation costs in savings over their lifetime.
It's fun to think about theoretically more efficient methods of heating.
1) Heat pump - you use electricity to move heat from the outside in. It has efficiency over 100%, because you get all of the electricity's energy, plus some of the outside heat.
2) But generating electricity at the power plant uses heat in the first place, and wastes a lot of it. Let's bring the fuel to the house and make a heat-driven heat pump. This way you get 100% of the fuel's heat, plus heat from outside.
3) But this is still wasteful, because fuel burns hotter than the temperature you want in your house. So you could generate some electricity along the way, and use it to power domestic appliances. This way it will do useful work, and then 100% of it will also end up heating the house, because there's nowhere else for the energy to go.
4) And even that is still wasteful. The house is too hot in summer, and during the day, and too cold in winter, and during the night. A large enough heat reservoir, like thick walls, can smooth out this variation and give you average temperature all the time.
5) And believe it or not, even that is still wasteful. The human body produces enough heat to be warm in most temperatures, given good insulation. So we go from needing thick walls to needing thick clothes, which are much cheaper.
6) And even that is still wasteful! Because you don't need thick clothes either. So we arrive at the perfect solution for staying warm: a pill that makes your body heat up without fuss when it's cold, and lose weight along the way. Combine with clothes to taste.
1) heat pumps make much more sense when you don't burn things to power them. Solar PV, wind, hydro etc powering heat pumps mean you turn energy that is not heat into heat
2) there's no physical reason that you can't run a heat pump in reverse to provide cooling when necessary
3) I need to heat my house along with myself! In the UK there has been a "heat the person, not the home" movement in response to high heating gas prices. Result: a plague of damp and mouldy homes
> 1) heat pumps make much more sense when you don't burn things to power them. Solar PV, wind, hydro etc powering heat pumps mean you turn energy that is not heat into heat
A heat pump that is entirely powered by electricity generated from natural gas is most likely still more efficient than burning that gas to directly heat a house. Obviously though, using renewables is better.
A heat pump that is used on the exhaust of a low efficiency furnace might turn it into a high efficiency furnace. This would have other benefits because you would not have to throw away an old furnace for no reason.
ANY inefficient technology could get an efficiency boost just by using a heat pump.
But for this to happen HPs would have to be much much cheaper.
> A heat pump that is used on the exhaust of a low efficiency furnace might turn it into a high efficiency furnace.
Just to make this clear: I was already comparing to a high efficiency furnace. I.e. a standard air-to-water heat pump (relatively common as a heat pump at least here in germany) would be more efficient at heating a house with electricity purely generated from natural gas than a natural gas furnace would be at its theoretical limit of 100%.
> This would have other benefits because you would not have to throw away an old furnace for no reason.
As long as there are no synthetic fuels for those furnaces (that can be made climate neutral) there is a very good reason to get rid of all of them: any burned fossil fuel is too much burned fossil fuel. We need to get down to zero.
> I.e. a standard air-to-water heat pump (relatively common as a heat pump at least here in germany) would be more efficient at heating a house with electricity purely generated from natural gas than a natural gas furnace would be at its theoretical limit of 100%.
It seems to me that scheme from my toplevel comment (point 2) was already more efficient than either of those. Namely, you burn the gas in the home, and use the temperature gradient to also run a heat pump vs the outside.
> Namely, you burn the gas in the home, and use the temperature gradient to also run a heat pump vs the outside.
I am not exactly sure what that would look like, but I'd imagine it would at least be difficult to match the efficiency of a combined cycle power plant to generate electricity at home for the heat pump. Then again, as you say, you would have the "waste" heat locally to harness as well. Although this waste heat in power plants can be used for district heating as well, so it might also be used in that situation.
Anyway, my main point was that the sentence "heat pumps make much more sense when you don't burn things to power them." makes it sound like burning the same thing to heat your house directly was more efficient when in fact it is not, and potentially by a pretty wide margin.
"It is estimated that there are approximately 4000 attendances at accident and emergency departments in England each year for treatment of carbon monoxide poisoning.
There are approximately 440 hospital admissions per year in England due to carbon monoxide poisoning.
Approximately 51% of these admissions are due to accidental exposure, and 40% are due to intentional self-harm (undetermined in the remaining 9%).
In England and Wales, approximately 40 deaths are reported each year due to carbon monoxide poisoning."
Another approach is to heat the interior walls and ceiling instead of heating the air.
Neglecting clothes for a few minutes, your body both radiates heat and absorbs it. When you are in thermal equilibrium you feel warm. If your walls and roof had low grade radiant heaters on them and emitted enough infrared to balance your own outgoing radiation, you’d be warm, even if the air temperature was cold and you had no clothes on.
So if you covered your ceiling with cheap thin iron sheet metal and built small induction coils behind them and heated the ceiling instantly, you could instantly feel warm in a cool room. Exit the room and you turn everything off…letting it lose its tiny amount of heat.
So proper system design could let you have low latency zone heating. Since you usually don’t use all the rooms in your house at the same time, there ought to be more than 50% efficiency in that sort of a system.
2. Our current approach of heating the whole house through forced air is much less satisfying than having a concentrated heat source (like a fireplace) that you can just walk towards and get as much heat as you want out of. Maybe psychological factors might play in…if you “could” be warm with just a little bit of effort maybe you won’t mind being colder than normal. Maybe heat gradients are better for you than uniformly high heat.
I'd prefer floor heating. Your feet will never again feel cold during the colder seasons + warm air travels upwards, thus distributing the heat to the entire room.
The first article I found when searching for “floor heating health” concludes:
> »A warm floor can induce high blood perfusion in the feet and consequently improve an occupant's health by treating many vascular-related disorders.«
The article is from 2008, so there could be newer — or just other — articles out there coming to the opposite conclusion, but it does sound counter-intuitive that it should be bad for the blood flow. I'm willing to change my mind, though.
You can buy infrared heaters that are exacly this. They are easy to install and often look nice, like a picture or mirror. Also they of course heat the furniture and everything, too, so with the low efficiency of electric heating it's not a great option.
Hmm, I'd expect that our bodies mostly exchange heat with their surroundings by conduction, not radiation. So a heater that warms me up by radiation feels a bit suspicious. Are you sure it'll have no negative health effects?
> And even that is still wasteful! Because you don't need thick clothes either. So we arrive at the perfect solution for staying warm: a pill that makes your body heat up without fuss when it's cold, and lose weight along the way
The tech industry once again coming back to amphetamines.
One thing to keep in mind is there are reasons to keep stuff warm, and not just your body. Condensation, etc. is a pain in wet places (Ireland for instance).
Insulation is going to improve efficiency of any system. Generating power at grid scale is usually more efficient than what you can do at home. And you can maybe put your faith that the grid will migrate to renewables in the next few decades while upgrading homes is a lot more labor intensive.
Regarding 6 - this strikes me as not being a million miles off from using radiant heating methods to warm individuals. Would be very unusual to have in a house but you sometimes see them in churches in the UK and Europe where heating the space isn’t feasible.
>So we arrive at the perfect solution for staying warm: a pill that makes your body heat up without fuss when it's cold, and lose weight along the way.
Only part of this your body doesn't automatically do on its own is the "without fuss" bit. And that part can be trained.
I don't have an idealogical horse in this race, but I bought a ~2500sqft home a few years back in an area where summer highs can get to 100f and winter lows can reach -25f. The house only had a 20 year old electric furnace and no AC. Replaced it with a large heat pump system with a new electric furnace for backup heat when it gets super cold. Also included an air filtration system. It was a big cash outlay, but totally worth it as we now have AC in the summer so we can keep windows closed when the smoke is bad, the filtration system works really well for the smoke, and the system almost never needs to use the furnace backup. Speaking with the previous owner, the winter electric bill savings have been around 30%.
I'm surprised it's only 30%. Even a COP of 3, which is pretty modest for a modern heat pump, would be 60% savings (abouts, not sure if my math is right).
People commonly (by default) compare electric bills on $$ rather than on kW*hr, so an increase in rate would reduce the savings-as-compared.
Different baseline electricity use and thermostat preferences could play a significant role as well. (Previous owners may have gone for a lower daytime setting and a deeper setback because of the inefficiency. A new owner with a more efficient system may quite reasonably choose to bias towards greater comfort than the prior owner did.)
Sigh, I need this a few week ago ;)...I just replaced my failed gas fired furnace with a Fujitsu XLTH 3 ton ducted mini split in the Fraser Valley (Mission BC).
I only got 2 quotes (and spoke with a third, but not quoted beyond ballpark). I ended up going with the local installer (which was the lowest, but I also worked with them on the furnace and liked them anyways).
It ended up being 20k CAD installed. If we're approved for all of our rebates (likely) we'll get 11k CAD back for a net of 9k which isn't too bad.
Our unit is supposed to be rated for 110% of heating capacity at -15c. We'll see , it's supposed to drop to -8c or so later this week :) We're looking forward to having cooling this summer (which we've never had)
Now that it's warming back up a bit, here's that update:
It was mostly okay. It kept working even with the -20c windchill and was always putting out heat.
It's kind of subjective but I feel it struggled a bit eg the 'room' temperature shows a degree or two below the set temp. It never felt cold in the house (but a bit cooler?)
The sensor is probably in the control unit which IS in the hallway over the garage (and that side of the house always seems a bit cooler) so take that info with a grain of salt.
What I know is that due to Sunday's wet snowy weather my air-source heat pump became encased in ice on the heat exchange coils. You can't physically remove the ice without risking damage to the delicate fins, so I ran it in cooling mode for a while to warm the outdoor heat exchanger and loosen the ice.
I am a happy air-source heat pump user, especially when coupled with solar panels. However there are other issues people need to take into account, especially if it is difficult to access the device for cleaning or the owner is mobility impaired.
I'm a big fan of heat-pumps, and happily heat a big old farmhouse with a ground source pump through heavy long deep cold winters in scandinavia.
However, at the small cottage I have for the first time just had the external units of two air-source pumps freeze solid due to snow blowing in in the current -16c spell. The defrost ran down inside the casing and formed a big block of ice in the bottom that has now reached up to the fan blades so the pump can't turn at all.
So I'm all out of heat pumps in the cottage just when I most need them :(
This is not enough to make me give up on heat pumps, but it makes me wary to rely solely on them.
Am planning a big new build, and will of course go air source to underfloor heating, but am seriously considering a backup combo wood burner for the panic week that comes each year.
For this cold spell it's a little too late, but the solution for this to add some heat-coil/heat-wire on the bottom of the heat-pump housing that you can activate in those conditions.
The issue is that the defrost mode will defrost all the ice from the fins, but it freezes again before it can all drain through the small drain hole on the bottom of the housing. It's somewhat a known issue with air source heat pumps, sadly. I've not run into this issue myself, but on a Dutch speaking forum (tweakers) there is a long thread about this modification to "survive" the cold spells with this small modification.
You can manually attack the ice with a heating gun or hair dryer to remove it, but that's a faffy.
I think manufacturers should, and probably will, add something like this themselves in the future.
Yes, I've experienced a few poeple drilling the additional drainage holes on the bottom of the outdoor unit, when they experienced similar problems not having a "nordic" unit. With the nordic unit I mean the features mentioned above - heated compressor and the heating condenser vane.
Though, if it's snow blowing directly inside then I think creating some barrier or add additional shielding of the outdoor unit is required,so that you minimize the chance of the snow DDoS-ing the unit (note: check your unit's service manual for the minimum free distances from all sides of the unit, especially the front one that is the most important to be kept enough free space).
When I got an air-water heat pump for my house, the installer also put in a small electric heater that is connected to the same loop going through my radiators. It is a backup in case my heat pump broke and needed to be serviced. I wouldn't rely solely on a heat pump either. The heater takes 3x the amount of energy to produce the same amount of heat as the heat pump, but since I'll almost never use it (didn't need to turn it on yet), that is negligible and the peace of mind knowing the backup is there is well worth it.
Most of the bigger setups I saw here in Sweden has this backup built in, not only as a backup of emergencies but mostly for cold days where the source heat (air, ground) is not enough
(parent poster) the cottage has two air-air pumps, which replaced most of the previous electric radiators. Luckily there were some electric radiators left, so they are now keeping the place just above freezing...
I'm building a new house and I'm based in Poland. I'm going with air heat-pump* + a simplest fireplace as a backup - not connected to central heating, no electronics. On top of that 10-20kW of solar and a place for batteries. I'll install them once they get cheaper. The house is 200m^2, so I'm hoping to pull only 200 kW/month from the grid and generate rest on my own.
Also, I've been wondering how much efficiency would I get if I could put some mirror and direct the light to the unit in the winter. It could help with defrosting as well.
*I was considering horizontal heat pump, but it's not worth it. It affects vegetation and future construction.
Battery won't help you in winter. Just a waste of money ( At least in Baltics). It will help at nights by using electricity you made at day, but is useless in winter. My solar panels at november generated 0.00kW/h, because it was under 40cm of snow. Got some double digits at December... anyways, where it snows, don't count on your panels. Even if it didn't, the energy it produces in the period when the daytime is scarce is minuscule compared to summer. Nov-Feb inclusive (~120 days) gets me about as much as I could get in 5 ideal summer days. Or a third of what I require to cover a single month electricity usage.
Of course it all depends on options government offers and in what place you live - however Poland I suspect also gets snowy. Just sell excess solar electricity and re-buy in winter. Just trying to save you some money on batteries.
... and your heat pump is on the ground, easily accessible.
What if you live on the Xth floor? Your gas burner is small enough to be all inside and easily serviceable when it breaks in the middle of winter (why would it even consider breaking in summer?). Where do you put the much larger heat pump and how do you reach it?
We have an air source heat pump with a gas fired backup ("emergency" heating, it's sometimes called in the US). Don't need to use it often but it's nice to have and only added around 10-15% to the total cost.
Here in the Netherlands there's a huge incentive to move to heatpumps (subsidies and whatnot). I believe most of those (if not all) that are being installed have a defrosting mode which is automatically activated. I have seen mine defrosting in the last few days since it's finally below zero (celsius).
And the only answer is that it completely depends.
We spent €30k renovating our house but that included removing the entire old heating system, installing underfloor heating, extra insulation, ventilation, remove of gas pipes, new electrical switchboard, upgrade to 400V electricity and, well, the heat pump.
Just the device itself (air-water) is probably €6 or €7k excluding a €3.3k subsidy.
Do you have it undercover / out of the elements some how? Mine is under a concrete stair case and I've not had this problem, even when it's down to ~ 8c and very snowy.
How much energy is 'lost' in the expansion valve in a typical heat pump?
Isn't it worth putting a turbine in there to recoup the energy released as a high pressure liquid passes through a small hole?
Even if it's only 10%, that's still 10% of the energy use of your home for a decade - surely that pays for a micro turbine (which need not be particularly complex - the same design used in those $3 light up novelty faucets would probably work.).
I worked for a chair that studied this kind of stuff - your best bet is to figure out how to reduce the temperature lift. Due to the way the Carnot equation works (at least, that's what I _think_ it's called, this is all a while ago), that really get's the heatpump efficiency singing.
reduce the heating temperature by increasing the area you're radiating from - floor heating / ceiling heating is way more efficient than radiators since you can deliver the same amount of heat at much lower temperatures to the space.
Converted my house to heat pump last year and seen a full year of what the cost savings look like. Saving 50% over gas in the winter, saving 30% in the summer over my old AC. I don’t miss the furnace firing up and the noises it would make when it pushed tons of hot air. Getting much more constant temperature instead of being hot sometimes and cold the next.
Negative: Not a fan of the weird noise the unit outside my bedroom window makes at a more consistent rate through the winter and it annoys my neighbor too.
Overall got the home warranty to cover about 10k of the 16k replacement, after learning about going to arbitration here on HN!
Definitely happy with the conversion overall thus far. Jury is still out on long term reliability
Hey, that's fun. That's the first "(2023)" I've seen on HN.
This is a pretty useful guide for me since I've wanted to look into getting a heat pump for my home. But it doesn't get into the first stumbling block that much: _finding_ a contractor! It mentions contractors some, but doesn't talk about those that do heat pumps vs those that don't. Around where I live in Northern Indiana, I haven't really found anyone that's got a ton of experience installing, working with, and (importantly!) repairing, heat pumps.
Also note that one doesn't have to go 'all-in' on heat pumps, and there are dual fuel / hybrid systems available:
> A dual-fuel heat pump works in conjunction with a furnace. During the summer months, the heat pump works like a high-efficiency central air conditioner. In mild spring and fall weather, it provides cost- effective and efficient heat. As the temperatures drop in the winter months, the pump shuts off and lets your furnace take over.
More of a thing when heat pumps were more expensive and/or not as capable as they are now: going down to only 5C or -10C, whereas now units can go down to -25C.
They could also still be useful in places with less reliable power (rural? coasts?), as a heat pump need more electricity, whereas a furnace just needs to power a fan and an ignition system, so a small portable generator can handle the load (or it won't tax your battery system as much).
Dual fuel is also useful if electricity is expensive but gas is cheap and if you know what the efficiency curves look like for your appliances. I recently did this calculation and effectively when ever a heat pump would be less than a COP of 4, my gas furnace would likely cost me less money for the same amount of heat output. Our electric rates have effectively doubled in the past 5 years while gas has dropped in price. Obviously this situation is going to be region-specific and gets even more complicated with time-of-use billing. Ideally a smart thermostat would be able to consider all these variables and pick the most cost effective heat source for a dual-fuel setup but I don't think any of them are quite that useful yet.
Several companies are developing thermo acoustic heatpumps that will have some advantages over regular heatpumps. They should produce less noise, don't use greenhouse gasses and work in a wider range of temperatures.
LBNL had a solid state thermoacoustic resonator the size of a coin, which I read about but never saw it in the market. It was supposed to be able to extract heat from anywhere.
I am always amazed at how many people know this stuff deeply, I feel most people actually live in apartments with either central building heating or district heating and never ever need to think about this stuff.
Especially considering buildings have less wall/roof area to lose heat from on a dwelling by dwelling basis, even a small-ish building with gas heating with average insulation would still be much cheaper to heat than a house by square meter.
I know better and I still get taken for a ride. When it's 90F+ outside and the start capacitor fails on my AC compressor, I don't have much room for negotiation.
Given that you know what it is and know which end of a screwdriver to hold, you could reasonably have a start (or combined start/run cap) that matches your unit on hand and DIY replace it before calling anyone.
I had heat pumps added to my home this past summer, primarily to provide air conditioning. This article is a good overview of what I learned in the process. I'll add a few lessons:
- Get a few quotes and iterate on the plan. Save the contractor you'd most prefer to work with for last, because you'll have a much better idea of what you want by then, and your knowledge will save you money.
- There's a fun puzzle to retrofitting older homes (no existing ducts): where you place the lines, where you place the units, and where you place the heads are all variables to play around with. This is part of the reason for getting different quotes. Only the last two contractors I spoke with were able to come up with ways to keep all the external lines on the side of my house and away from the street. Only the very last contractor offered a ducted system for bedrooms, so I have head units downstairs but the upstairs is vented.
- No one will run a real Man J calculation, they all use proxy calculations. This should be fine but you almost certainly want to slightly undersize your system. If your system is always turning on and then turning off (because it is oversized and heating / cooling the room very quickly) you'll end up with humidity and mildew problems, you want it to be running "low and slow" while it's on.
- They work amazing for air conditioning. For heat, your existing boiler + radiators is often nicer and more cozy. It's also often cheaper — heat pumps are electrically efficient, but natural gas costs vary significantly by location and for me (~Philadelphia) heating with my boiler is a lot cheaper than doing it with the heat pumps.
- I live in an older home, so before I installed heat pumps I had to replace my ancient windows for modern ones that didn't constantly leak energy. I'm happy with the results but it adds a lot to the startup cost.
Even Manual J (in my quite limited experience) can give wildly inflated results. For example, if a big window has a tree in front of it or a reasonably reflective or insulating window treatment (and you close it on a hot day!), then your Manual J software may estimate the heat load as if the sun were shining full blast through the glass all the time and give a huge number.
I intentionally had a contractor install a unit that was undersized per Manual J in a room, and, as tested during a nearly-record-breaking heat wave, it kept up without coming close to its limits.
Fortunately, a lot of modern systems have respectable turndown ratios (better than 5:1 is not that hard to find), so as long as you use controls that can operate the system all the way down to minimum power, oversizing is not that bad.
Modern inverter based heat pumps are perfectly fine to oversize. Since you can adjust the speed of the compressor, you just run the compressor slower if you want to 'undersize' it. There's little downside aside from cost to oversizing these days, and in many cases it may be necessary to oversize the cooling side to provide enough heating in the winter.
Presumably not in a highly humid summer environment? Radiant cooling is limited to dew point, so works poorly in humid environments (or requires whole-house dehumidification to lower the dew point).
Not Miami humid for sure. Temperate European environment. Lowest temperature in the water cycle is 18C or 64.4F and max temperature is 30C or 86f. House is passive so insulation is pretty good and there is an active ventilation system.
Panels are pretty big and located in the ceilings and walls so should help aswell.
The labor issue might be due to the seasonality of the business.
(The labor issue: 300,000 HVAC professionals in the USA but just 145,000 companies).
In fact, the business is initiated just two days of the year! The first hot day of summer and the first cold day of winter. When somebody's old system breaks and they find out exactly when they need it most!
So it's always an emergency, and always when it's very unpleasant to work outdoor.
Seems clear why nobody is going into the business. One of those 'dirty jobs'.
Maybe a business model that spread things out? Like, a contract to support heating and cooling year-round, schedules upgrades, does periodic testing to anticipate breakdown.
I imagine now it's more like folks that have snow-plow trucks, promise to plow out your parking lot after each big snow. They work just a couple days a year in Iowa, and have regular jobs the rest of the year. The companies are less than half a dozen trucks typically, with a huge demographic spike at 'one guy, one truck'
In theory burning high grade fuel to produce heat is stupid. CHP (combined heat and power) systems have more than 90% efficiency even with yesterday’s technology because all the inefficiency is used to heat your house.
The temperature of a natural gas flame is 2770C. Using it to heat a house to 30C is ridiculous. Instead you should run a gas turbine off of it to produce electricity. The exhaust should run a steam turbine which makes more electricity. Then a heat pump can capture more energy from the exhaust (and from your bath water etc) to pump more heat into your house. The electricity can be used to charge an electric car or run a gpu inside your house (and produce even more heat).
Heat pumps should be utilitarian and 10x cheaper, and used in multiple places. They should not be something you “invest” in with a 10 year payback time.
A modern natural gas furnace is upwards of 90% efficient. So you’re talking about building all this infrastructure (turbine generator, heat pump, etc) to capture the remaining 10% for electricity? How does that make any economic sense?
Additionally, heat pumps can already be purchased cheaply from the hardware store. These are closed systems with the refrigerant already inside. However, if you want a larger central air system then that costs a lot more because you need to hire licensed HVAC professionals to handle the construction and charging of the refrigerant loop.
90% efficient furnaces are kind of the low end of the spectrum of product on the market now, at least in my area of the USA. My 20 year old furnace is rated 94% efficient. Pretty much every condensing gas furnace now is going to be well over 90% efficient. Even modulating furnaces with 2:1 or better turn-down ratios can maintain over 90% efficiency when running below rated output.
Locally it's not worth DIYing a heat pump install. The tax incentives and rebates easily cover the cost to hire a licensed and insured HVAC company to do the entire install for you, plus then you get to choose from a much wider selection of heat pump models which likely enable buying something better sized for your need and more efficient.
Anyway, is more efficient to use gas for generating energy and using that energy to heat places with heat pumps than burning gas on furnaces. If you can use the residual heat of the energy generation is even better.
Because if you have a natural gas flame in air (lets say 2000C, my previous number was wrong as someone pointed out), then you can do useful work with it.
A carnot heat engine with a hot side of 2000C(Th=2273K) and a cold side of 200C(Tc=473K), has an efficiency of 1-Tc/Th or 79%.
So you can do useful work (hopefully inside the house, where it too will eventually end up as waste heat) AND recover energy from the exhaust gas of the carnot engine--which is 200C!
Imagine burning natural gas in your furnace, vs using your natural gas to run a electricity generator and mining bitcoin with it inside your bedroom. A Bitcoin rig makes a great space heater.
Or you can just burn it at 2000C and convert all that heat into... well, heating. The initial claim was about using 2000C flame for heating as somehow wasteful, which it clear is not.
the carnot limit for 2770°/0° is 1 - 273/3043 = 91%
the carnot limit for 30°/0° is 1 - 273/303 = 9.9%
so if your gas flame is really 2770° (which i doubt, the adiabatic flame temperature for methane in air is only 1963° and actual flames are even colder than that) you're wasting 90% of your exergy by diluting it down to 30°
also tho i do not want to go to your house if you heat it to 30°
You get exactly 100% efficiency (as heating) at any temperature, since anything will be converted to heat anyway. Well, except in real systems you have exhaust temperature for CO2 etc going out of house, the lower the temperature the lower your heat loses. If you add some internal channels to chimney, you can absorb most of the heat back, making exhaust temperature very low therefore have low efficiency loss
incorrect, the carnot cycle is reversible (like everything in physics up to cp reversal, except for entropy increase), so it also has to do with converting mechanical work into heat (differences)
specifically, in this case, if you convert a hypothetical 2770° flame into mechanical work in a hypothetical heat engine capable of withstanding it, you can use that mechanical work to drive a heat pump to pump ten times as much heat into the house to heat it up to 30°. or more, if the temperature outside is higher than 0°
very correct, because we are talking about using high temperature flame as somehow wasteful when used for heating. How does converting heat into mechanical work even enter equation?
Even in this revised scenario it's not clear if you were able to get ahead. Because you are converting heat to mechanical work and back to heat in the heat pump so you are subject to Carnot limit _twice_
yes, but the second time it works backwards: for each joule of mechanical work you put in, you pump 10.1 joules of heat. this is called the 'coefficient of performance' of a heat pump and it is almost always more than 1, even with the losses present in any real system. values of 2 or 3 are typical, though some mass-produced systems reach 6. sometimes this is quoted as an 'efficiency' of 200% or 300% or 600% which is of course impossible, but it's as if you had 200% efficiency. that's why using heat pumps saves energy
Entropy. Delta S = Delta Q / T. An efficient use of energy produces as little entropy as possible. Here the loss is Delta Q / 303 - Delta Q / 3043. T in Kelvin.
For someone who's not in the industry, the Author has done a reasonable job.
I'd add a few things:
- Heat pumps have been around a while. In the southern US, there are lot of older HVAC techs with a negative perception of HPs based on problems with older technology. Older HPs had less of an ambient operating temperature range, in which case the emergency heat would activate, reducing savings.
- Re: fragmented markets, different states/cities/towns/municipalities have different rules, processes, procedures, etc.
- Re: the desire for drop-in installations, the construction permitting and inspection process is a big fat roadblock which is linked to the problem above.
They can also be crazy silent, I have one at my place I just installed, it's "air based" it's ridiculously quiet.
Like most machinery, if it's mounted to your wooden or steel framed house, it's going to vibrate the shit out of it most likely. I have mine on a concrete slab.
My neighbour (illegally) put it right next to our house (between the walls of his houses and ours in a very dense area which is a very bad idea) and I basically had to move out for a few month in winter because sleeping was impossible, before I was able to convince him and get it moved (which I basically paid to be able to sleep again)
Yep. It used to be only summer that I would be bombarded by noise from the neighbors HVAC equipment. Now it's all year. Winter is worse because defrosting is very noisy.
I suspect that there is something very wrong, or VERY cheap, with your heat pump. I have never heard a heat pump being VERY loud, and I have listened to a few that were more than a decade or two old.
See my comment below.
The heat pump of my neighbour was perfectly within spec (Fujitsu woha080lfca).
It emitted around 69 dB (measured on our side of the property, also checked by an expert). Allowed (on the border of the property) were 35 dB (rule of thumb: you should not hear it in the surrounding soundscape; note that this is a logarithmic scale so I think it's a factor of 6 or something)
It was especially bad when it had less than 8 degree Celsius because it would defrost every 30 minutes or so.
As I wrote before: location is also an important part: his house is hard walled, ours is a prefab house built out of wood. There are only 4 Meters between our houses, it was approx. 2 meters from our wall blowing in our direction. They only thing they could have made worse is putting it in a corner.
I didn't only hear it, I felt it.
In the end I managed to convince him that I pay an acoustic expert to explain to him that 65 dB is way louder than 35 dB and that putting an acoustic hood around it does not solve the problem (approx -10 db).
Not that I'm aware off. It's hard to judge because I didn't check a lot of times during the night. What I know though, is that the fan was not blowing up, but sideways into our direction.
pretty good post.
The big gap is a section on noise.
Citys like seattle have incredibly tough noise limits at property boundaries for heatpumps. with many high density single family houses close to the property line. it makes it difficult to find a quiet heatpump. (stupidly there are noise limit differences for a heat pump vs an AC unit)
As far as I can tell there are no efficient heatpumps available on the market that can sit legally less than 6 feet from the property line in Seattle and supply a 5 ton system
The more you think about it, the more it makes sense to harness geothermal. A big breakthrough there could benefit our environment more than any other tech, except fusion.
Do you know what current limitations of residential geothermal are? From looking at https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/geothermal-heat-pumps it looks like you'd need quite a bit of space, so basically single family homes with somewhat of a yard.
For bigger setups it would make more sense to capture the heat locally and distribute them to a whole neighborhood given how much deeper it would need to go.
The vertical system looks to be about the size of an average driveway or garage. Done at scale, mainly for new construction, system sizing isn't a problem.
It seems ground-sourced is a much better idea than air-sourced, and it seems to me you could install the ground loop with/under/around the foundations for new builds.
As far as indoor distribution goes, it seems like a low-temperature hydronic system would be most efficient, and most comfortable. Or at least a hydronic (instead of refrigerant) loop to multiple chiller/heater units, which would be easier to install and change.
Typically the installation cost for ground-sourced is a lot higher, especially when it's not a new build. Air-sourced is the same as regular A/C and thus about as cheap to install.
You're right that ground-sourced should have better efficiency and thus running costs, especially in winter.
The gotchas are the energy used to run the circulator for the ground loop, and the fact that over the course of a heating or cooling season the ground temperature lowers or raises, respectively, by enough that the COP isn't even much greater than an air-source system (but this would definitely vary by climate).
Coupled with the much higher installation cost, it's a bit hard to make a system pencil out for a building the size of a single-family house.
I have a gas furnace and a separate AC unit - I wonder can I replace the AC unit with a heat pump and keep the gas furnace? I could keep the existing thermostat and have the heat pump work with a new second thermostat so I can set the heat pump to kick in the heat at a lower temperature than the gas furnace. Maybe turn the gas furnace thermostat down once a month to operate it to prevent problems.
Yes, of course, that's the "dual fuel" setup mentioned in the article. In Europe, it's very common as we mostly use water to distribute heat. Either connect the heat pump and the gas furnace in parallel and run whatever you want depending on circumstances (i.e. normal operation is handled by heat pump, but the heat pump kicks in at low temperatures or high load), or run them in series with an optional bypass (i.e. the heat pump heats the water prior to entering the gas furnace).
I was hoping that the heat pump could just hook into the existing ductwork (replace the AC unit) and use its own separate thermostat. The existing thermostat might try to turn on the non-existent AC just nothing would happen.
> I was hoping that the heat pump could just hook into the existing ductwork (replace the AC unit) and use its own separate thermostat.
The inside unit (furnace, air handler) and outside (AC, HP) unit need to have some level of compatibility. Check the sticker on your furnace to find the model number and see its capabilities.
I had a furnace die and had to replace it last year. The hvac company was really down on heatpumps and said that due to the climate (doesn’t get too cold in the winters gets really hot and muggy in the summers) the heat pump would be less efficient than a traditional furnace and AC.
I like my hvac company so didn’t push too hard but wondered if this was true or just their inexperience.
If it doesn't get very cold in winter that is ideal for a heat pump. Heat pumps lose efficiency as it gets cold, and even the best stop working completely at somewhere around -20. If it might get that cold you need a backup source of heat.
HVAC companies don't like heat pumps because they cost more (mostly for no good reason - but you may need a larger heat pump and air conditioner), don't put out as warm of air as a gas furnace, and are slow to change temperatures (don't not get a setback thermostat with a heat pump!). Customers do not understand them and end up unhappy and complain about them. However if you get one anyway understanding the limits you will save a lot of money.
So far most heat pumps are a step up in price in the US compared to the traditional furnance/Ac setup. If you only needed the furnace replaced it might make sense to only replace that and not spending the extra multiple to replace the entire system.
They don't like heat pumps mainly because their customers "don't feel the heat" from them. The heat comes out at lower than body temperature (85F/30C) so the customers don't feel like they're really working, whereas a gas furnace or electric heater usually heats to 120F/50C. So, customer satisfaction is often lower even though they are saving money and polluting less. But, you know, that 85F is plenty to heat a room to 72F and keep you warm.
I can't imagine that a traditional furnace and AC could be less efficient than a heat pump, unless you almost never turn your heat on—a heat pump is many times more efficient, in terms of energy consumption, than a traditional furnace.
That said, if it's rare to run your heating then a standard AC unit is probably marginally more efficient than a heat pump for just the cooling operation
Bay area resident here that had a heat pump installed last month. The heat pump, air pusher, comm units + labor came out to $23k for the highest 4 ton Trane efficiency unit (no heat strips either). The labor cost probably was 100%+ of the system itself, so I feel the article has a degree of accuracy to it.
I've wondered about these - why don't they do the same split that HVAC pumps use? It seems really bizarre as a design. Components would also mean replacing the tank would be more cost effective and circuit routing would be easier.
A number of newer ones are ventless (although still very much the minority in North America), but only some use an actual heat pump to recycle the heat. IME most of the cheaper ventless dryers just reject the heat (but not the moisture) into the room they're operating in.
This is still a win because it doesn't depressurize the house (any air you vent out of the house is eventually replaced by outside air, sometimes via dirty areas like crawlspaces and attics). But the heat pump ones can run off of a low-power (~1500W) circuit whereas the condensing ones typically need a higher power (~5kW) circuit.
> Heat pumps are unique in that they are a tool for fighting climate change, where we have the technology today.
No. They are not unique at all. We have electric cars, wind turbines, solar panels, hydroelectric, nuclear, recovery of methane from waste, "smart grid" technology and many many other things today. And not just "the technology", in some theoretical sense, we have all of the above actually working now.
There's also things like more efficient light bulbs and electronics that use less power when not in use that are now nearly 100% of the market. You can't buy incandescent light bulbs or TVs that use several watts of power in standby mode any more.
In my opinion they still are pretty unique because their efficiency is higher than 100%. Which was what I thought the sentence would continue with when I started reading it. Cannot be stressed enough. It's like magic :] Sure your LED is more efficient than your incandescent light bulb, but it still produces heat which is not intended nor really wanted. In my book there's no comparing that to a heat pump. That being said, not really a fan of such sentences either.
% electrical efficiency is not a useful measure. What matters is how much do I save (measured in money and/or carbon emissions etc.) compared to taking other measures, such as a more conventional heating solution, better insulation or installing solar panels.
If you measure the efficiency of solar water heating in the same way, it uses no electricity, so it's efficiency is infinite.
Space heating/cooling, along with water heating, are the overwhelming majority of household energy use. In fact, in a heating-dominated climate there isn't much of win from having efficient lights and appliances, because the space-heating system has to make up for the energy not wasted by the lights/appliances.
So it's unusual ("unique" is a high bar) in that it's one of the largest privately-owned energy-consuming devices where existing technology can result in substantial energy savings and emission reductions.
are heat pumps interesting to you folks because you have one or think about getting one or because the technology is in some aspect particularly impressing/counterintuitive/ingenuous? i ask because this topic is popping up regularly and so far i fail to see why.
the technology is in some aspect particularly impressing
Yes, because for every unit of energy you directly put into it (in the form of electricity) it outputs more energy (in the form of heat). Which is unlike any other typical heating system, which usually puts out less or at max the same amount.
Sorry but no. Then it wasn't a perpetuum mobile. There's no way to violate the laws of thermodynamics. Likely the video was not showing everything, and/or giving a false impression/explanation. Typcial example are those toy birds picking water: it looks like a perpetuum mobile, but it in fact uses the energy present in the water. Once the water evaporates all it stops. Adding new water constantly makes it run forever, but that's by the grace of adding energy into the system hence defeating the idea.
Rather like electric cars, they're a technology lots of people are thinking about getting for environmental reasons, but also a big fixed investment so people are keen to understand.
Generally a fan of heat pumps but the big issue remains where does the electricity come from to power them. Burning coal or gas to make electricity to power a heat pump isn’t great. Cost wise too I know a bunch of folks that switched from gas to electric heat pumps only to be shocked by their electric bills.
Highly efficient natural gas setups remain much better for many settings.
Given the lifetime of the equipment and the relatively rapid transformation our power grid is undergoing, there are probably few places in the US where a heat pump doesn’t come out significantly on top emissions-wise. With an entirely natural gas grid, you only need a COP of 2 or so to beat the most efficient direct natural gas setups. Ten or fifteen years from now coal generation will probably barely exist in the US and we will have another few hundred GW of wind and solar.
It isn't great, but perhaps surprisingly so using gas to create electricity and the electricity for a heat pump, is still a lot better than using a regular gas boiler. In other words, you'll get more heat out of a m3 of gas when you use it to create electricity and power a heat pump with the generated electricity, generally speaking.
So it is an improvement even if the net is 100% dirty. But it isn't, even in winter we can get a lot of electricity from renewable sources.
I think there are two big issues with heat pumps: they are expensive and require well insulated homes. Both problems can be solved.
Having multiple possible sources for electricity is an advantage for price stability. For example California's gas prices tripled this time last year.
In general I think natural gas prices will continue to go up as people switch to electricity or more efficient gas setups. Less gas usage means additional fees for infrastructure. As prices go up, more people will switch. It's a feedback loop. At some point it won't be worth it to run the infrastructure for natural gas anymore.
Apropos of nothing, I had a not-great experience switching from an oil furnace to heat pump. Maybe somebody else going through research will benefit from my woes. Some day I'll make a blog post for it:
1. Noise levels (inside)
* Fundamentally, a heat pump runs more often than a furnace. So, air is semi-constantly blowing out of your vents, rather than a few bursts throughout the day. Also, the air is tepid, rather than warm. Previously, there was a "yay, the furnace is on" moment of enjoying the warm air. Now, it's more of a "jeez when will this thing shut up again?" throughout the day. It reduces my quality of life.
* One of our vents points at my back where I sit to work. With the furnace, that was enjoyable. With the heat pump, it's a nuisance. I taped over the part that blows on me. Similarly, we have a vent in the bedroom that we mostly keep covered with a pillow these days, due to the noise.
* In documentation, noise is often measured in decibels — indicating max loudness. And by that measurement, the heat pump is no worse than the furnace (maybe even a bit quieter). But the fact that it's on near-continuously at that noise level is what causes my annoyance. So, it's not just loudness, but also how continuous it is.
* We had existing ductwork, so the heat pump's air handler uses that (just like the old furnace). This is a common situation, but what nobody mentioned, across multiple estimators, is that it's likely the old ductwork will be "under-sized" relative to the new system. This means higher static pressure, and importantly, more noise at the output vents. Talking to the technicians, this is a bit of a crapshoot — you might get lucky with noise levels, or might not (like me).
* Loudness will also vary depending on how far from the central unit you are (my house is fairly small), how many vents there are, and various other factors.
* In theory, you can determine if the above will be a problem by doing measurements beforehand. None of the estimators mentioned this; they just want to sell you the system, of course. I didn't realize until too late that you can probably find someone, pay them a few hundred dollars, and get this information upfront. There's a whole science to it, with specialized tools. Look up "Manual J, S, D, T measurements," for a starter.
* However, even if you get that info, it still depends on your sensitivity to these things. For instance, my wife is much less bothered by the noise than I am.
2. Thermostats
We got a fairly modern "communicating" system. This means the outdoor and indoor units talk to each other, allowing better efficiency.
This sounds nice, but what it means is that you will be locked in to your vendor's choice of thermostats, since the communication protocol is proprietary. These are generally more expensive than the alternatives, and you won't have many options — perhaps only one.
If you get a "non-communicating" system, you will be able to try various different thermostats — eg: a simple one from your hardware store, or a Nest one, etc.
3. Other
* The old oil furnace was a simple machine, with a lifetime warranty on the heat exchanger (basically a hunk of cast iron) and can basically last forever with decent maintenance. The new heat pump has a 12 year warranty, and the system might last 25 years with good maintenance. The HVAC estimator seemed proud of this, but to me it doesn't seem like an especially long time.
* If you use old ductwork like mine, it may not be insulated to modern standards. This is both a noise issue and potentially a condensation issue when the AC mode is running.
* It's very difficult to know when the "emergency heat" mode is being used — where resistive electrical strips are used to generate extra heat, if the heat pump isn't producing enough. This mode is much more expensive than the heat pump alone. It boggles my mind that such simple (and useful) information is so hard to obtain.
* If you want to get government subsidies, do your research about what exact make/model is covered by it. Ironically, sometimes the more modern and efficient systems are not subsidized, presumably because there is some lag to update policies.
* Generally, remember that the estimator who might come to your house is a salesman, first and foremost (:
4. Pros
Okay it's not all bad; some positives include:
* AC in the summer. Probably the biggest positive.
* No dependence on oil — both for cost and environmental concerns and risk of tank leakage (ours was aboveground, so less of a worry)
* No carbon monoxide worry, since there's no combustion going on.
But overall, I'm not sure it was worth it for my case.
The case of duct work not being sufficient for a oil/gas -> heat pump conversion is pretty common. A heat pump, especially one of the conventional split types (non-minisplit) generally wants 300-400 CFM of airflow per ton. So, a 3 ton unit is happiest moving around 1200 CFM of air. Lower can cause issues with ice-up in AC mode or high pressure shutdown in heat mode.
There are rules of thumb for duct work that are pretty easy to use to estimate. A 6" round duct, for example, is designed for about 80 CFM (not counting any restrictions on the register/grille.) That 3 ton system is going to need 15 'takeoffs' of 6" duct to handle that air. Adding more duct work can be expensive if the majority of it isn't in unfinished locations like a basement or attic.
Is there a conspiracy? Why everyone is talking about heatpumps these days? Including in the UK.
In Europe air conditioners come with heat-pumping functions since ages ago.. all installed aircons can heat or cool. But I personally found such heating ineffective and lame.
>Why everyone is talking about heatpumps these days?
Because of their efficiency. They are typically 200-400% as efficient as electric resistance heaters, because the energy is used to move the heat from outside.
>I personally found such heating ineffective and lame.
If it's a proper heat pump, the heating won't be ineffective or lame. It should pump out air > 30C, and is sufficient to keep your house at 21C even when outdoor temp is 0C.
but it should be on most of the day, for the air indoors to remain at 21C. Once stopped, the air cools off very quickly, compared to other heating methods. Underfloor heating is a best heating option in my opinion, perhaps mixed with a couple IR panels on the walls. With heatpumps it takes too long for the the warm air to descent and make legs/feet feel comfortable :(
It's just a centuries old technology, Air Conditioning and Refridgerator, used in reverse. It's been in use in other parts of the world since a very long time.
I have no idea why it's only now becoming a "hot" topic in the US. We've been using heat pumps for multiple decades in Europe.
DT article to illustrate, not necessarily to inform. The idea I believe being that heat pumps are part of a supposedly unnecessary and costly push to Net Zero driven by industry and shadowy interest groups but which are just another means of a) enforcing control and b) screwing money out of 'the little guy' and siphoning tax dollars off compliant governments. And thus one is able to wave away an article absolutely bursting with scientific detail and research as 'well, it's all a bit convenient, isn't it?'
Oh wow. I lived in the US for a year, so this doesn't come as a complete surprise. But Heatpumps? I thought everybody loved Aircon, regardless of polical party, or socioeconomical background.
This is just Aircon.
I'll despair with you. Unfortunately, trends that emerge in the US tend to find their way to the rest of the western world too..
Counter point, the war on heat pumps is mostly a British problem. Everytime I have heard it come up its in context of the UK. Don't think the US has anything to do with it.
And we have been using heat pumps for a long time in the US too. It is just that until recently heat pumps were not as efficient at lower temps and you would always have a backup heater source to heat during colder periods of the season.
Now heat pumps are able to reliably and efficiently heat most parts of the US. In combination there is a general push for electrification. We have increasingly cheap renewables, EVs and other interesting tech that in the electric space.
From a grid perspective over the long term it can make sense to electrify everything. You no longer need to maintain two energy types going to a home (thinking of natty or similar), you now only need to maintain an electrical grid.
Well, there is certainly PR and a push for heat pumps .. as a means of addressing climate change. You can even read that in these articles you keep dismissing.
It's a hot topic in the USA now because finally heat pumps are available and the prices are starting to be affordable. Many areas in the USA still heat with oil for single family residential properties. Residential heating oil has been getting much more expensive and lots of the in-house tanks needed for oil heating are at the end of their life. Rather than buy a new oil tank and continue to spend the money buying oil, it can be less expensive to switch to using a heat pump. Removing the oil tanks from your house can also have health benefits.
Many houses in the USA also already have central air conditioning and when replacing your air conditioner system by buying a heat pump is not much extra cost. But now you have the option to use the heat pump to heat your home at least some of the time. For some temperature ranges, depending on your heating fuel and electricity cost, a heat pump is clearly less expensive than using any fuel to produce heat.
The popularity can easily be explained simply by looking at total costs of ownership for residential heating.
I downvoted you because seeing conspiracies in progress is not reasonable. Heat pumps have been popular for a long time. Most of the houses around me have had them for decades.
This is a normal news cycle. A few articles pop up and then all the blogspam sites copy them. It's not a conspiracy, it's lazy publishers who won't do actual journalism combined with confirmation bias on your part.
From the comments and article, heat pumps are not ready for prime time and also still version 1.0. And you know what first time adopters have to go through
