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

721–730 of 766 posts

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

#721

Post by gnicholas »

hedora wrote: post #676
gnicholas wrote: post #610

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain how the income-based fee results in lower savings? It is a fixed fee that applies whether or not you have solar. To be clear, I think the income-based fee is a bad idea, but I just don't think it changes the calculus on installing solar. I have also had conversations about this specific question with a friend who has a PhD in urban planning, lives in CA, and is in the process of installing solar panel…

Income based pricing encourages people to go off grid. The upfront cost of doing that with a propane generator is about a half that of a battery + solar system (it's about a third if you go with battery + solar + generator, which is more comparable to a grid connection). However, the maintenance and fuel costs of the generator mean that the solar will be much cheaper (and quieter!) to operate. If the income based pri…

Interesting, are you aware of anyone going off-grid for this reason? Where I live (Menlo), I don't think anyone would have a propane tank installed because of the size and unsightliness. The sound would also be annoying to them (and their neighbors, given how small the plots are). People generally build to the very edge of their property to maximize resale value, and this would take up a decent chunk of space. Maybe out in Woodside people would do this, since it's a bit more rural. Still, I've not heard of anyone saying the new income-based fees (which I disagree with, as noted above) are too high, and I'm going to install a propane tank and genearator. As you point out, this would go against the environmental rationale, which most folks with solar probably care a lot about. It's an interesting thought experiment though!

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

#722

Post by yterdy »

lazide wrote: post #426
yterdy wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reminds me of the hissy fit plumbers made over no-flush urinals.

Turns out they were right about that one though.

I've never hard that they were. Only that they had the lobbying muscle to mostly get their way.

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

#723

Post by paranoidrobot »

Tiktaalik wrote: post #714
jbarham wrote: post #590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> will do nothing for emissions > How can that be? Because a reduction of domestic gas usage will just be diverted to less efficient LNG exports. Given that by far the largest source of Victoria's electricity generation capacity is from dirty brown coal [1] if anything banning domestic gas usage might even make emissions worse since it will force people to use only electricity for cooking and heating. > Direct consu…

Seems like the main issue here is Victoria burning coal and they should stop doing that.

That's already the plan, though it would help push things if the government stopped subsidising the industry.

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

#724

Post by lazide »

yterdy wrote: post #722
lazide wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Turns out they were right about that one though.

I've never hard that they were. Only that they had the lobbying muscle to mostly get their way.

They have nearly impossible to solve maintenance issues unless you use special chemicals and maintenance procedures, and unless you wash/flush them (and the surroundings) regularly the urine smell is hard to deal with.

Since most maintenance staff don’t do the special procedures properly (and barely manage to deal with normal toilets properly!) they were a big headache. [https://www.waterless.com/blog/the-pros-and-cons-of-selectin...].

Everywhere I know of that was using them eventually got rid of them because they weren’t worth it for the small water savings they actually got.

Especially since water usage was never anything but a hot button PR topic - there are probably only a handful of places humans habitate that the difference is actually non-negligible when you factor in showers, landscaping, etc.

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

#725

Post by iraqmtpizza »

hedora wrote: post #675
iraqmtpizza wrote: post #596

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would like to see HN recommend looking at historical averages before buying an EV.

People have; it's a obvious win. There are sites that do this for your zip code correctly, but an efficient EV gets 4 miles / kWH. An efficient hybrid gets under 60 MPG. California's insanely high electricity rates are about $0.15 / kWh, so the energy costs $0.0375 per mile. Gas has hovered around $4 / gallon or higher for a long time, giving a fuel cost of $0.0666 per mile. Big energy guzzling EVs get about 2 miles…

I'm talking about purchase price, range, reliability, maintenance, total cost of ownership.

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

#726

Post by rapjr9 »

Retric wrote: post #634
rapjr9 wrote: post #624

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These units use electric resistance heating, they do not heat using heat pumps. Mini splits require some gas handling equipment like a pressure gauge that most people will not have. I'm talking about something plug-n-play that anyone can install easily without hiring a contractor. There were a few actual heat pump window units in the past but they are no longer sold and they never made many of them to start with (or…

Well that’s deceptive. Here’s one that lists 8000 BTU and caps at 1.2 kW so that’s a heat pump. The stated COP of 3.0 at 47° isn’t great, but it’s fine for a backup heat source. https://www.geappliances.com/appliance/GE-J-Series-Window-Bu...

That unit has been discontinued, GE doesn't sell it direct and where it shows up on a few other sites it's listed as "discontinued" or "not available":

https://www.ajmadison.com/cgi-bin/ajmadison/AJHS08ASC.html

https://slymanbros.com/air-conditioners/air-conditioner-appl...

This is unfortunately common, I've been looking for small window heat pumps (that don't require a special power connection) for a few years now. Actual heat pump units have been discontinued and currently available ones turn out to actually be resistive heaters. You can tell by looking at the current draw spec for heating mode.

This one may actually be a heat pump but according to a review it won't work below 41F and hose connected units are known to be very inefficient:

https://www.amazon.com/MAP14HS1TBL-Inverter-Portable-Conditi...

It seems a few manufacturers tried selling some small window heat pump units years ago, but nobody bought them because they cost more than an air conditioner (they charged twice as much) so they discontinued them. Perhaps poor marketing on the manufacturers part, but it means that now there are none on the market when people might actually buy them to offset climate change.

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

#728

Post by rapjr9 »

Retric wrote: post #634
rapjr9 wrote: post #624

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These units use electric resistance heating, they do not heat using heat pumps. Mini splits require some gas handling equipment like a pressure gauge that most people will not have. I'm talking about something plug-n-play that anyone can install easily without hiring a contractor. There were a few actual heat pump window units in the past but they are no longer sold and they never made many of them to start with (or…

Well that’s deceptive. Here’s one that lists 8000 BTU and caps at 1.2 kW so that’s a heat pump. The stated COP of 3.0 at 47° isn’t great, but it’s fine for a backup heat source. https://www.geappliances.com/appliance/GE-J-Series-Window-Bu...

Friend of mine found another one:

https://www.acwholesalers.com/Amana-AH093G35AX/p100206.html?...

Expensive, but it does seem to be a true heat pump. Looked at several stores that sell it and they usually have just one in stock. Requires 240V wiring so it's not just plug-n-play. Almost no reviews but the few that exist are positive. Adoption would be easier for those who want to offset some of their fossil fuel use if it was 120V, but it's encouraging that one even exists.

I wonder if it will use the heat pump at lower temperatures. Found this document:

https://www.acwholesalers.com/manuals/56299c6db1bcec798cff6d...

which says the AH models (the ones that use the heat pump for heating) also include a resistive heater, probably for when the temperature goes below what the heat pump can handle. They provide cooling specs per temperature range, but not heating specs per temperature range. So I suspect the heat pump cuts out at 41F like similar models. If it was a modern heat pump they wouldn't need to include the resistive heater.

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

#729

Post by caminante »

Tinyyy wrote: post #698
leg100 wrote: post #689

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wasn't "artifically" cheap nor was the market "distorted". It was merely the physical reality prior to the innovation of LNG. It would only be fair to say it was artifically cheap, say, if the Australian government was imposing tariffs or subsidising production. I don't think it was doing that, and as it was, the producers were sufficiently incentivised by the market to produce and sell gas domestically.

There was an inefficient allocation of resources that was disrupted by technology.

How was it "inefficient"?

A tech shock doesn't mean the old status quo was inefficient.

E.g., conventional mail wasn't inefficient prior to email

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

#730

Post by huytersd »

crazygringo wrote: post #443
gertlex wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One anecdote I've seen is that the right way to run them is to maintain a near-steady-state temperature in the house, including overnight. I'm not sure if that's maybe a bit extreme and just how they suggest use to non-savvy home-owners, but it makes sense... They're not going to blast out heat to raise the house temperature 10 degrees in an hour in the morning. Spreading heat-increase over several hours is more feas…

You don't need to run it overnight. But I do set a timer for mine to turn back on an hour before I get up. Because exactly -- it's not blasting hot air, it's merely circulating warm air. An hour beforehand works fine for mine though.

Do you’ll not run your heat at night when it’s the coldest?
Post reply on HN