Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5244 readers

643 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

silence7@slrpnk.net

226

A call to replace air conditioners with heat pumps in California (www.canarymedia.com)

submitted 5 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net

36 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] 0110010001100010@lemmy.world 35 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Every heat pump is an air conditioner, not every air conditioner is a heat pump. They require a reversing valve to function both ways.

The furnace doesn't need to change. I have a nat gas furnace with an electric heat pump. You can also do electric heat pump with an electric air handler. There are plenty of combos.

That said, every year I run the numbers and despite my heat pump being ~300% efficient my 95% efficient nat gas furnace is still cheaper to operate (based on the cost of each energy source). I'd LOVE to go solar and operate as close to 100% electric as possible but with my old growth trees and shitty house orientation I wouldn't even break-even in the lifetime of the panels. :(

[–] set_secret@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Just curious, so numbers are the deciding factor for heating, not environmental impact? For example if your were wealthy would you choose lowest impact option, or would numbers still dictate your choice?

[–] qupada@kbin.social 5 points 5 months ago

It is a good question.

Where I live, electricity costs around $0.28/kWh, but generation is typically >85% renewable (predominantly hydroelectric).

My heat pump (4.7 COP when heating) would cost $0.06 to run for every 1kWh of heat it produces, with only 0.03kWh of that electricity coming from fossil fuel sources.

Gas - which I don't have at my house - would have pricing in the neighbourhood of $0.15/kWh. Even at 95% efficiency getting 1kWh of heat from gas would cost $0.16, using 1.05kWh of gas.

35x the fossil fuel usage and 2.5x the price, for the same quantity of heat. Some luck of living in a moderate climate where an air-source heat pump almost never loses efficiency, to be fair.

[–] 0110010001100010@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Just curious, so numbers are the deciding factor for heating, not environmental impact?

This is correct. And given the way the grids interconnect it would be hard if not impossible for me to be able to quantify environmental impact. I would assume even though there is still a lot of coal generation in-use it would still be more environmentally friendly for me to run the heat pump but I just don't know.

For example if your were wealthy would you choose lowest impact option, or would numbers still dictate your choice?

If money was no object I would absolutely choose the lowest impact option. I would even do a solar install even though it would likely end up being a net-loss for my specific case.

[–] set_secret@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

Thanks for your honest answer.

I think many people believe gas is at least preferable to coal environmentally wise, but turns out in quite a few instances it's worse. (fossil fuel companies did a good job marketing gas as cleaner for a long time)

https://theclimatecenter.org/energy-efficiency/study-shows-natural-gas-fracking-more-harmful-than-coal/