Air conditioners are already heat-pumps. This change would moreso replace furnaces.
this post was submitted on 28 May 2024
224 points (99.1% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
4664 readers
528 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:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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. :(
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?
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.
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.
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)
They're heat pumps in a technical sense, but coloquial terms, a "heat pump" is a heat pump which can actually heat a space.
The outside is a space too.
It's weird that there are any AC that can't function in heating mode at this point. In Australia at least, you'd be hard pressed to even find one that doesn't support heating.
I, for one, would support a law that requires any new unit over a certain size must be reversible and maybe even a tier where they must have variable speed compressors. But I can already hear the Republicans lying that the feds are coming to steal your window units.
But I can already hear the Republicans lying that the feds are coming to steal your window units.
Of course, even modern window units (and portable AC) support reverse cycle. But conservatives will find a way to complain about it, agreed.
This way it's $5 cheaper! Profit.
Here in Cali there are a ton of homes that have wood burning fireplaces in them so often that’s viewed as the “heater” if need be and the AC is for cooling.
AFAIK most American AC units can be retrofitted to be heat pumps pretty easily. You're just making it flow in reverse, after all.
In automotive at least, it's pretty common to size the evaporator and condenser coils based on their expected operating temperatures and (therefore) pressures. Usually this means condenser is a lot bigger than evaporator.
If you reverse the flow with the right valves and compressor setup, then the heat exchangers will still be sized wrong for efficiency. I suppose you could design a bidirectional system from the start that trades off for middling efficiency in both modes.
I'm not at all convinced that there are a substantial number of such bidirectional-sized residential systems installed in North America. But it's also possible that the residential folks don't care much about HX efficiency.
That makes sense, but also most heat pumps I know of are also AC units - like those mini splits installed in new apartments these days.
Would that not also be a balanced system?
And even if we're talking about lower efficiency it's still more efficient than burning gas in a furnace right?
They mean to say replace heat pumps with reverse cycle heat pumps
<for those who are uninitiated in the black arts of HVAC, "reverse cycle heat pump" is a fancy way to say "air conditioner". The headline makes no sense as written. A "heat pump" is just an air conditioner that you turned around so it cools down the outside and heats up your house.>
The headline absolutely makes sense for the US market. The default terminology in the HVAC industry here is that an air conditioner provides cooling, and a heat pump provides heating and cooling. It's really that simple and correct in this case, as that's the common understanding in the industry.
Obviously other countries, thermodynamics textbooks, and other applications like refrigeration use different terminology. But holy shit it's not that hard and we don't need to get all pedantic using definitions from other industries that don't apply to this narrow topic.
It is exactly that. "Heat pump" is the term used for an air conditioner that can run both ways, it can pump heat from inside out in the summer, and from outside in in the winter. An "Air conditioner" only runs one way.
Essentially an air conditioner that can very efficently both heat and cool rather than just do one
Wait arent air conditioners heat pumps???
Because it costs about $5 more to put in a valve which lets them work both ways, and people don't really know that this is a possibility, so they don't ask for it.
Most modern ones are. But the old models don't have a reverse cycle built into them. Also, for efficient heating in low temperatures you might want a different gas. Maybe not as relevant in California, but normally you wouldn't be able to use your AC as a heat pump in below 0 celcius.
Nah. They are one direction only. The heating part is literally just an electric furnace in an air conditioner. Heat pumps have them too, but they reverse where is the hot side and where the cold side is. An air conditioner is always hot side outside, cool inside.
The article title really confused me, because a heat pump is basically an air conditioner anyway.
homeowners to replace their aging or broken central air conditioners with electric heat pumps. The climate-friendly appliances can both warm and cool buildings by pulling heat from outside to indoors or vice versa.
What are the environmental impacts of manufacturing of replacement heat pump units to replace functioning A/C units vs keeping them?
This is about a regulation for new construction, so it's kind of a moot point.
The key question is going to be whether refrigerant in the old unit is properly disposed of. Likely a net benefit so long as it is.
If the existing A/C don't support heating, then presumably heat pumps are displacing far inferior gas or resistive electric units (or even wood burning heaters). Heat pumps absolutely destroy them in terms of efficiency, and it's hard to believe the embodied emissions plus ongoing emissions would be worse with a heat pump. And just as importantly, the fossil fuel industry needs to be made unprofitable as soon as possible, and anything that gets people off gas is therefore a good thing.
we need to mandate that any AC unit also be a heat pump to sell it here, it's like one valve difference just mandate it 5 years out. also ban gas lines to new buildings
Water heaters can work via the refrigeration cycle as well.
My lemmy client bugged out again and gave me this
Confused the hell out of me and I don't know how to feel about the image
It's a feature.
A thread about heat pumps without Technology Connections? That's not right. https://youtu.be/7J52mDjZzto?si=ZhMTJTltlcOA1_Pa
This is the most confusing headline lmao
Definitely. Bad headlines are unfortunately common