Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nine US states are teaming up to accelerate the adoption of heat pumps

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 766 posts

Re: Nine US states are teaming up to accelerate the adoption of heat pumps

#451

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

lotsoweiners wrote: post #366
thelastgallon wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If electricity is costly, it makes sense to put solar panels. Consolidate all energy (transportation - EV, HVAC - electric, induction stove, heat pump water heater), put solar panels, and wipe off all energy bills. Every household can save $400 - $800 on utility bills.

I’m not in New England but I’m imagining that the cold winters there are accompanied but plenty of cloudy skies as well. In that case solar might not be a great option.

There's an opposite of that too: solar-powered A/C in the south in summer time: lots of heat, lots of humidity ... and lots of clouds.

Re: Nine US states are teaming up to accelerate the adoption of heat pumps

#452

Post by demondemidi »

antisthenes wrote: post #385
demondemidi wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, sorry, I guess I was brainwashed by the "anti heat pump mafia". I had this conversation with three HVAC installers but according to this thread any HVAC installer that speaks ill of heatpumps is old and stupid. Recently, I stayed at an AirBNB recently that had a heatpump and the temps dropped during the deep freeze and it was running 100% of the time and failing. The AirBNB owner said it was brand new and I would…

I mean, instead of an argument you responded with some kind of rant about your Airbnb experience. So his point still stands.

The reply made no point, so what exactly stands? Reply just said I don't know what I'm talking about, so I explained where my knowledge came from, which is more than the reply did. And somehow that's a better "point"? kids these days.

Re: Nine US states are teaming up to accelerate the adoption of heat pumps

#453

Post by rainbowzootsuit »

UncleOxidant wrote: post #185
readingnews wrote: post #86

I just replaced a furnace... everyone I called for a quote would not touch a heat pump with a 20foot pole, or they wanted prices that were 2X what a separate furnace and AC would cost to install. It was very strange. This is the second home where I had this experience.. basically, they really did not want to install it. I ended up going with gas as no local person would install/warranty a heat pump, or, it was priced…

Had exactly the same experience recently. It seems like there are plenty of good mini-split heatpump systems that will work down to 0F (or even lower) without any kind of backup heat source. But if you're replacing a forced air furnace that feeds an existing ducts the only options are heatpumps that need to have backup heat under 30F. So essentially you're buying 2 furnaces in one which increases the cost. I'm in the…

A "multi position air handler" which match the aspect ratios of traditional air handler furnaces are available from the major manufacturers like Daikin or Mitsubishi.

They will pair to low ambient temperature capable condensers.

Daikin FXTQ series models

Mitsubishi SVZ series models

If you are searching.

I don't think having backup heat is a terrible idea, but it could be any fuel source. The fan should still function with minimal power to circulate air as long as there's some heat to move around.

Re: Nine US states are teaming up to accelerate the adoption of heat pumps

#454

Post by interroboink »

stephen_g wrote: post #427
antisthenes wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Last winter the compressor circuit board malfunctioned and cost $5k to fix. Ok, so it sounds like you got scammed. HVAC circuit boards cost $100. > Two years ago it was another issue entirely. Which was? > All of our savings have been lost to service calls. I'm not super price sensitive Yeah, obviously, if you're willing to spend $5k on a service call. > If we ever have to replace it, we're going to have to rip ope…

I’m going to second that one, that seems mind-bogglingly expensive. Definitely seems like a major rip-off. I can even buy a whole 14 kW Daikin ducted system for under US$4K here (outdoor unit and one air handler) in my country!

What country, if I may ask?

I recently did some research on ducted Daikin systems in the Seattle area, and estimates were all in the $20K range, for full installation. The equipment itself may be ~$6K or so (not sure exactly), but it's the labor that costs a lot.

Re: Nine US states are teaming up to accelerate the adoption of heat pumps

#455

Post by rainbowzootsuit »

widdakay wrote: post #159
czbond wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

New to heat pumps. Can I replace sub-components of an existing AC system with a heat pump for benefits of both?

I'm surprised this isn't more common. The only difference between a heat pump and standard air conditioner is a reversing valve. These are usually $50-$100, and just require one more wire to the thermostat. In colder weather, defrost and fancier controllers are needed, but for mild climates the reversing valve is really all that is needed.

Off the shelf heat pumps will have a defrost control board too, but you make a solid point.

The hard part is that you have to recover the refrigerant and refill, which takes HVAC/R equipment and and EPA certification to do legally.

Re: Nine US states are teaming up to accelerate the adoption of heat pumps

#456

Post by adgjlsfhk1 »

Areading314 wrote: post #406
bagels wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, the heat pump will reduce energy use to maybe 1/3 of a gas furnace, but natural gas is something like 6x cheaper for the same amount of energy, so it is an expensive folly. If California is serious about this, they need to reign in the utilities to reduce prices and or stop the attacks on solar installation.

Solar isn't a useful source of energy for heating in California, since the demand is almost entirely during winter mornings/evenings where the sun is down.

California (and everywhere else) could make solar a lot more useful by making electricity cheaper from 10am to 3pm. If heat pumps and electric water heaters were set up to run more when the sun is out, it would noticeably decrease the evening spike in electricity demand.

Re: Nine US states are teaming up to accelerate the adoption of heat pumps

#457

Post by mauvehaus »

turtlebits wrote: post #440
mauvehaus wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I looked into doing my own heat pump install. At least here in Vermont, you can't buy one without a refrigeration license[0] because of the ozone depletion issues with refrigerants. You also have to buy one from an in-state supply house to qualify for some of the incentives. Not all supply houses will sell to muggles. My experience was that it was simpler and quicker to pay someone despite having basically the simple…

Buy one that has precharged refrigerant in the condenser. New units use R410a which does not deplete ozone. You'll also never need to handle refrigerant, only open a valve which release it into the copper lineset. You can buy a Mr Cool unit, you won't need to cut/flare/vacuum the lineset, just connect. I don't personally don't use them as their units generally cost a bit more, (30$ ~ 50%) and you're stuck with whatev…

I was looking at Mitsubishi units, which I believe also come pre-charged. I don't know if it's a local law or if the supplier just didn't want to deal with someone not in the trade.

Re: Nine US states are teaming up to accelerate the adoption of heat pumps

#458

Post by vladgur »

jcalvinowens wrote: post #442

I have NEM2 solar, so obviously a heat pump is a big win. But I'm convinced the heat pump I installed a couple years ago would save money even without the solar: I pay $0.30-$0.40/KWh for electricity, and $0.08/KWh for natural gas ($2.35/therm) *. My heat pump has a COP of 3.62 when the outdoor temperature is 47F: it uses 1KWh of electricity to move 3.62KWh of heat into my home. The old gas furnace was 80% efficient…

Is your $0.30-0.40/kwh rate based on your Solar cost?

The non-solar rates[1] in Bay Area right now range starting from $0.42/kwh on tiered plan which you will blow through if you elect heat-pump heating and going all the way to higher than 50 cents per KWh if you are on one of the Time of US plan.

[1]https://www.pge.com/assets/pge/docs/account/rate-plans/resid...

As much as i love the efficiencies offered by heat pumps, unless i splurge $10-$20k on a solar system with a battery backup, heat pumps are too expensive to operate with CA electrical rates.

My gas(which i use for heating) during same period cost $2.54 per therm, although i dont know how to compare it to kwh for heating purposes. Update: I just checked my electrical bill for January.

My total cost for generation and delivery of 478 kwh which is what my household used in 32 days, cost me $209 after fees and taxes which makes my rates around 44 cents per kwh on average.

Re: Nine US states are teaming up to accelerate the adoption of heat pumps

#459

Post by Retric »

Aloha wrote: post #430
Retric wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Replace your heat pump? People installing new heat pumps are going to see much higher efficiency. 50,000 BTU = 5.27528 * 10 ^ 7 J = 14.6 kWh / 6.6 kWh = COP of 2.2 at 50f which is absolutely terrible. Modern heat pumps should have a COP around 4 at those temperatures and 3 near freezing. Also, “Subtracting 10%” would mean your grid losses are 17%. “annual electricity transmission and distribution (T&D) losses average…

Its brand new! Also, should have been 60,000 BTU - its a 15 SEER unit.

2.7 COP is a a noticeable improvement but still terrible at those temperatures. Are you sure it’s 6.6 kW?

PS: 2.7 COP * 0.665 = 180% efficiency which still crushes the 80% heat pump in your example but these numbers should be much higher.

Re: Nine US states are teaming up to accelerate the adoption of heat pumps

#460

Post by stephen_g »

interroboink wrote: post #454
stephen_g wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m going to second that one, that seems mind-bogglingly expensive. Definitely seems like a major rip-off. I can even buy a whole 14 kW Daikin ducted system for under US$4K here (outdoor unit and one air handler) in my country!

What country, if I may ask? I recently did some research on ducted Daikin systems in the Seattle area, and estimates were all in the $20K range, for full installation. The equipment itself may be ~$6K or so (not sure exactly), but it's the labor that costs a lot.

I’m just taking equipment cost here, this is in Australia (Air conditioning is extremely common here, and basically every unit is a reverse cycle heat pump too, so installation also seems very cheap compared to the US).

Just saying if the equipment cost of the whole system is well under $5K, it shouldn’t cost anything like that to replace a circuit board (which as others have said, the part probably costs $100 wholesale to the technician).

Post reply on HN