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

641–650 of 766 posts

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

#641

Post by im3w1l »

pama wrote: post #603
defrost wrote: post #583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Order of magnitude? Large (not ultra large) oil tankers might carry 200,000 tonnes and consume 25 ton of heavy bunker fuel per day. LNG gas carriers equally have their own stats. This is something you can (or at the very least should be able to) back of envelope estimate ... https://www.planete-energies.com/en/media/article/transporti... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C3%A4rtsil%C3%A4-Sulzer_RTA9... Now you just nee…

Once the pipe is built, the maintenance cost is very low, much lower than maintaining and using a tanker.

When ships were attacked in the red sea they started diverting. When nordstream blew up that was it. Something to take into account, at least.

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

#642

Post by mixmastamyk »

callalex wrote: post #181
Detrytus wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would anyone need a heat pump in California, given the climate there? I can understand north-eastern states, but not this. Is it a case of mindlessly jumping on "progressive" bandwagon? EDIT: I actually spent one winter in San Diego, and apartments there don't even have any heating installed (except occasional fireplace in the living room). I know that more to the north it might get worse, but by how much?

Everything was built in the 40’s-60’s and the average amount of insulation is 0. I live in the mildest part of CA, the San Francisco Bay Area. Today the overnight lows were in the mid 30’s and the high will be about 50. Without heating my indoor temperature would be around 50 which I find unacceptable. I’m not sure what your bogeyman “progressive” bandwagon has to do with not wanting to live in 50° living spaces?

Yup, we have insulation in the walls but it doesn’t matter when the multiple windows per room are paper thin.

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

#643

Post by mixmastamyk »

mperham wrote: post #153
Detrytus wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would anyone need a heat pump in California, given the climate there? I can understand north-eastern states, but not this. Is it a case of mindlessly jumping on "progressive" bandwagon? EDIT: I actually spent one winter in San Diego, and apartments there don't even have any heating installed (except occasional fireplace in the living room). I know that more to the north it might get worse, but by how much?

Because even California dips below 68F and so your house gets cold.

68? Many 40 degree nights in LA this week—enjoyed with paper thin windows.

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

#644

Post by inferiorhuman »

secabeen wrote: post #359
tomschlick wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For context of how crazy that is... here in OH we pay ~$0.12/kwh

Another factor is topography. Ohio is pretty flat and running power lines around it is not that hard. California is big and has lots of rugged terrain. It costs a lot more to bring power to the small town in the California mountains, and those costs have to be paid by the urban and sub-urban customers of our large state-wide utilities.

Keep in mind PG&E rates had to cover billions in stock buybacks, billions in dividends annually, hundreds of millions in fighting municipal power, and billions in profit annually. The terrain isn't the problem, greed is.

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

#645

Post by 10u152 »

Scoundreller wrote: post #483
Spivak wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That isn't the table you actually care about because it doesn't hit the residential customer like that. The nominal $/therm in my area has been stable for the last 10 years which might be artificial but to my bank account it's all the same.

Obviously depends where you are & your use, but most of the gas bills here are everything but the actual gas. Transportation, distribution, storage, taxes, standby charges...

What on earth is a standby charge on gas?

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

#646

Post by AnthonyMouse »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #623
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #547

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is something else. California has wildfires, and climate change has made them worse. Then the people who built their houses in a silly place prone to wildfires watch them burn down. This is becoming a problem as the frequency which with it happens increases, because it can bankrupt fire insurance companies (who then can't pay claims), or make fire insurance there unaffordable and then people don't buy it, their…

I pretty strongly disagree. There is some liability on the state and voters for anti burn policy. However, there is more liability on the PG&E for failure to adequately mitigate risk, and failure to asses and frontload charges for probable payment. If homes are uninsurable, then they shouldn't be. That should only be an issue for an insurer and home owner to work out. If people want to live somewhere uninsurable, or…

> However, there is more liability on the PG&E for failure to adequately mitigate risk, and failure to asses and frontload charges for probable payment.

Mitigating the risk is pointless. Wildfires are a natural occurrence in California. The ignition source is irrelevant. The fire is happening, you can't stop it.

> I fully support them doing whatever makes them happy, as long as they don't expect me to pay for it

But that's exactly what they expect you to do. Their houses are in a tinder box. There is some absurdly high probability that they'll burn. And then they're going to want to play the sympathetic victim who has just lost everything in a fire and go to the government and try to get someone else (i.e. you, via PG&E) to pay for the consequences of their choices.

The traditional way of doing this is to make the insurance pay, but they didn't have insurance because the high risk was known in advance which made the insurance unaffordable. When that's not available, the lawyers have to find someone else to sue, and in this case it's the power company.

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

#647

Post by elihu »

jbarham wrote: post #570
smcleod wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Natural gas won’t stay cheap. It was cheap here in Australia 10 years ago and now it’s so expensive no one can afford to run gas heating and it’s only going up. Now (thankfully) the government has banned the installation of new gas heating and a lot of people are getting rid of gas cooking, hot water heating etc… it’s for the best.

The only reason that natural gas prices in Australia have gone up in the past 10 years is that gas producers in the eastern states were able to start exporting gas as LNG. As of 2023, Australia is the world's second largest LNG exporter (source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1262074/global-lng-expor... ) after the US (take that Russia!) and ahead of Qatar. Great for the gas exporting cartel but not so great for…

What you seem to be saying is that Australians had gas that was artificially cheap because it wasn't being bought and sold at international market rates, and once that started happening and the market was no longer distorted by trade limitations, the fair market price was not longer attractive to Australian customers.

(Personally, I think all countries, to the extent that they can, ought to both reduce domestic fossil fuel use and at the same time impose strict limits on its export. We're all better off if it just stays in the ground.)

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

#648

Post by vgchh »

I live in the New England and last year got a quote for replacing my existing boiler and furnace with two heat pumps. MassSave offers a good rebate program with $10k rebate. The problem is that the installers have bumped up the prices to the point where even after the rebate it would have costed me $35K. With that kind of price, and high electricity rates, I have no hope of saving money compared to my current setup.

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

#649

Post by ChatGTP »

freetime2 wrote: post #412
bamboozled wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I run mine in a similar climate to what you’re describing. Air based, not ground or water. Absolutely zero problems at all. Either I have some magic heat pump or a lot of the horror stories are overblown or based on using out of date technology.

I also suspect that the heat pumps may be undersized relative to the home’s heating needs, particularly in older homes that are not well insulated.

This is a good point, we have good insulation and doubled glazed windows.

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

#650

Post by LUmBULtERA »

oooyay wrote: post #614
newZWhoDis wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$20k for a heat pump is sky high, you better have gotten a 24 SEER2 state of the art fully variable system for that. If they sold you a 14 SEER1 for that then you got absolutely screwed.

It was a 5 channel heat pump with a single condenser. As the other commenter wrote it was mostly wrapped up in labor. For what it's worth, they're 24 SEER Daikin units. It's priced at replacing the AC and heat for an entire house, so compare it to a large AC installation.

That feels like a lot of electricity usage for such high seer, in Oregon. Are you positive that electric backup wasn't being triggered for some reason?
Post reply on HN