Skip Navigation
133 comments
  • The study isn't wrong, but it's also not right, IMO.

    This doesn't seem to mention the cost of the energy, just how "efficient" it is.... which, honestly, "efficient" can imply several things, and they don't seem to clarify what (at least from my first pass of this doc).

    The issue is that even if you're getting 3-4 times as much heating/cooling as you could with something else, per jule of energy potential that is put into the system (in whatever form that is), if your energy cost for that source of power is high, it's going to lose the financial argument every time.

    Sure, a natural gas furnace will consume "more fuel" and produce less effective heat than a heat pump, but if you're paying 10x the cost for electricity, then you're still going to end up spending more per degree of heating than with the cheaper fuel.

    Where I am, electricity is pretty cheap, but natural gas is tremendously cheaper per jule.... so we can actually pay less by using the "inefficient" fuel for our home.

    I don't think the numbers are dramatically different at the end of the day, but this study seems to completely ignore the core issue that most people will be concerned with.... which is: "will this save me money?" Which is arguably the more important metric.

    • honestly, “efficient” can imply several things, and they don’t seem to clarify what (at least from my first pass of this doc).

      How would you like to define it?

      How about this for an analogy - which of these two is more efficient:

      1. Plant some wheat in your back yard, buy fertilised eggs to hatch into chickens, plant tomatoes and basil, plant an olive to grow a tree, and eventually, years down the track, you can make yourself a bowl of pasta.
      2. Notice your next door neighbour already cooked some pasta and made more than they can eat. Ask politely and they'll just give you a serving.

      Obviously - the second option is more efficient, and that's effectively what a heat pump does. They don't heat up your home, they just take a bit of heat from the air outside and move (pump) it into your home. It's far far more efficient than creating new heat from scratch with a gas system.

      Exactly how much more efficient will depend on the outdoor and indoor air temperature, and on the brand/model of heat pump you buy, and other factors (such as the length of the pipe between the outdoor unit and the indoor unit). You really should ask for specific advice on your home - but in general, a heat pump is extremely efficient.

      Where I am, electricity is pretty cheap, but natural gas is tremendously cheaper per jule… so we can actually pay less by using the “inefficient” fuel for our home.

      Have you actually looked into it, or are you just making assumptions?

      I can tell you that my heat pump, in my house (yours will be different), in my climate, adds about $5 per week to my electricity bill. Is your gas bill less than $5 per week?

      Or at least - that's how much it cost before I had solar panels. Now that I have solar... it uses about 20% of the power typically produced by the solar panels on my roof leaving plenty of excess power that we sell to the grid for about the same amount of money as what we spend buying power overnight. Since we installed solar our entire electricity bill is about $0 (and we use power for a bunch of other stuff, including to cook breakfast and dinner when the sun typically isn't shining*). We don't have a large solar system either - in fact, installing solar cost less than installing heat pumps.

      (* our solar system comes with instruments and software to measure our consumption - and I can tell you that heating up a family meal with an electric cooktop uses more electricity than heating an entire house with heat pump... because the cooktop is creating heat, and the heat pump is simply moving heat)

    • What's also interesting is that you have to factor in the costs and CO2 emissions of the fuel source and it's delivery method. A new building code for a county in my area was adopted which requires calculations for energy efficient HVAC systems and also CO2 emissions with those systems. Surprisingly, natural gas has less CO2 emissions associated with it, while electricity is 2.86 times as much. This is because grid electricity is mostly produced by fossil fuels, then needs to be delivered to the site but there are many losses along the way. So even if the all electric equipment is twice as efficient as the equivalent natural gas equipment, it still contributes more CO2 production. This is part of the issue with phasing out natural gas and moving to all electric in its current state. But with that is the push (and requirements) to produce energy on site and shift towards net zero energy for commercial sites, which is definitely better than using grid power from an emissions standpoint.

    • Where I am, electricity is pretty cheap, but natural gas is tremendously cheaper per jule… so we can actually pay less by using the “inefficient” fuel for our home.

      Most of the push towards rapid adoption of heat pumps is happening in Europe, where geopolitical developments (to put it mildly) caused gas prices to spike last winter. The nature of the natural gas logistics means that different continents can have wildly different prices (unlike petroleum, where you can always throw it on a ship and send it from where it's cheap to where it's expensive), so a lot of European countries are seeing these debates play out against the backdrop of their own energy markets. Germany passed a law this year that would phase out new gas furnace installations, so that's why a lot of the debate is happening with a focus on German markets.

      Whether (or how quickly) a transition to heat pumps pays for itself in euros will depend a lot on what happens in the future to gas and electricity prices.

    • if your energy cost for that source of power is high, it’s going to lose the financial argument every time.

      How high, is the question. How much more is electricity where you live that heat pumps "lose the financial argument every time"? Where I'm from a kWh of electricity is roughly 2.8-3x that of natural gas, so most modern heat pumps will beat that, some by quite a margin.

      If globalpetrolprices.com is to be trusted and Canadian natural gas is 0.063 CAD and electricity is 0.165 CAD you're very much in the same boat with a 2.6 ratio. Most heat pumps should be able to beat a 2.6 SCOP even in Canada.

      So, sure, the study only looks at COPs and not at overall cost, but I think it's not unreasonable to expect home owners to be able to divide electricity price by gas price and compare it to the SCOP of heat pumps on offer.

      • Finally someone taking sense.

        Asking me to compare my own bills between natural gas and heat pump is insanity, I don't have both systems installed just for shits and giggles.... but it doesn't seem to stop people from saying I should do that sort of insane thing to really know.

        That site sure is interesting, I haven't dived into the data enough to know how they got the figures they did, or what it represents... but assuming they're saying that it's saying that $0.63 worth of natural gas gives you the equivalent thermal output of 1kWh of conventional electric heating (more or less)... which I think it kind of does, since, to the best of my knowledge, electric heating systems are among the most efficient at converting 100% of the energy input to heat output (or as close as we can get to that). As we know heat pumps exceed this because they're not generating heat, they're just moving it around.

        Also, a blanket statement like "heat pumps should be able to beat 2.6 SCOP, even in Canada" is problematic, since Canada is huge, and some of that landmass is in the Arctic circle. To be fair, 90% of Canada's population (or something similar to that) is in the southern 10% of the landmass.... still. If we're being detailed, then such blanket statements should be avoided. A good alternative is "for the majority of the population of Canada", which is wholly accurate.

        There's also other inefficiencies that aren't being considered and unless we get really deep with the information, that fact is unlikely to change; however, those inefficiencies may make heat pumps even better on paper....

        There's a lot to say about this incredibly complex topic. And that's not even touching on the nuances of the word "efficiency".... since efficiency relies on specific conditions, and usually is a comparative figure. Eg, the Ford F-350 super duty is an extremely efficient vehicle, when compared to the Ford model T.... many decades of innovation will pretty much guarantee that statement is accurate. But comparing the F-350 to, say, a Toyota Prius on MPG alone, then the F-350 seems like a gas guzzling bohemouth, that's a symbol of gluttony.... Wasting so much more fuel, to travel the same distance. Both saying that the 350 is incredibly efficient and also that it's extremely inefficient, these are both true, depending on context.

        There's too much nuance here that I'm just going to stop talking before I ramble myself into getting cancelled somehow.

    • It also doesn't add up if you're getting twice the heating per joule of input if you can only input a quarter the number of joules as your source is limited.

  • Unfortunately gas costs a lot less for the same amount of energy. So it's only going to save you money if you use simple electric heating.

    For those of us on gas boilers, the prospect of a system paying for itself (maybe) in 50 years time isn't overly enticing.

  • 🤖 I'm a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles: ::: spoiler Click here to see the summary Heat pump uptake is rising in many countries as fossil fuel energy prices have soared following the invasion of Ukraine and as governments seek to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions.

    France, for instance, installs 10 times as many heat pumps as the UK, where many people are unfamiliar with them and doubts about their efficacy have been widely publicised.

    The authors said the findings showed that heat pumps were suitable for almost all homes in Europe, including the UK, and should provide policymakers with the impetus to bring in new measures to roll them out as rapidly as possible.

    Dr Jan Rosenow, the director of European programmes at the Regulatory Assistance Project and co-author of the report, said: “There has been a campaign spreading false information about heat pumps [including casting doubt on whether they work in cold weather].

    The Guardian and the investigative journalism organisation DeSmog recently revealed that lobbyists associated with the gas boiler sector had attempted to delay a key government measure to increase the uptake of heat pumps.

    The UK government is consulting on proposals for incentives to households to take up heat pumps, which at about £7,000 or more can cost two or three times as much up front as gas boilers.


    Saved 57% of original text. :::

133 comments