“People should stop eating meat” prompts you to say “Ugh, I guess?” I am actually heartened by the fact that the general public has made the connection in their minds between animal agriculture and climate change. I can’t fathom why you would be so dismissive of this. Animal agriculture is responsible for between 10 and 20 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. For comparison, transportation accounts for almost 30% of greenhouse gas emissions. If you convinced all Americans to eat significantly less meat, that would have more of an impact on climate change than if you convinced all Americans to stop traveling by commercial airliner.
It’s like there’s a light switch that anyone can throw at any time that stops about 15% of GHG generation and he says, “ugh.”
This comment moves him from the person most likely interested in climate change to person who is an electrification cheer leader.
There is every reason to think electrification is not a good approach. But does he talk about alternative sources? I wish the answer was just, “no.” Instead, they’re actively dismissed and derided.
I agree and I think Dave is just channeling the average American response. Maybe he should do a pod on this "solution". As mentioned in this episode, many people crave actions that they can take personally to make a difference.
I'm not sure of David's reason for this, but I know why I get really frustrated with "People should stop eating meat" crowd. It's a nuance topic and the only solution that is ever put forward is to stop eating meat. Politically you need to be a tad bit more creative.
As a big fan of Rewiring America and a card-carrying member of the Church of Electrification as well haha, this was such a great conversation! Annoying your family members is the best, I even got my dad to switch to a heat pump and induction stove. Annoy your families for the planet! With everyone feeling election dread right now, great reminder that WE control 42% of emissions decisions.
I'm thinking that the assumption made by RMI may not apply in Washington State. I've gotten the impression from Clark PUD that HPWH installations are common, but mainly in new construction. Therefore, it seems we have a trained workforce, and supply chain.
That said, we probably need a navigator program to help owners of existing inefficient appliances to find the incentives for efficient devices.
A post-election comment: I would love to hear a conversation about how we can learn what projects are slated for our states so we can rally efforts to preserve them.
Kudos to Rewiring America for their call to action on building and vehicle electrification! We agree with Ari that this work can only move as fast as the speed of trust at the community level. That’s why the Clean Energy Communities Fund is focused on investing in the capacity of communities across the country to educate, engage and inspire local residents to take action. Join us! cecfund.org
Here in British Columbia, Canada, we have a couple very clunky "concierge" type organizations trying to help with the energy efficiency process. I suspect that clunky slow roll-outs might be a feature rather than a bug as we educate public, get supply chains worked out, get local tradespeople trained up etc. Connecting to a reliable contractor is indeed a problem, partly because government programs are hands-off on this, and partly because we have a shortage of trained tradespeople. And then there is the problem of prices getting padded when they know there is a $5K subsidy. Lastly, regarding grid stability question: Fortunately, we are not a third world country, so that's not yet a problem although our hydro power is going down with increasing droughts. However, Fortis BC, our natural gas provider, likes to prey on this fear and is providing rebates for---get this--natural gas-powered heat pumps. What I am more worried about is about 20 years down the road when oil and gas has invested their pocket change in electricity generation and decides to crank up prices just for fun, once we've all electrified. Sounds paranoid, right?
I wish everyone the best on this quest to efficiently electrify fossil heating. Seems like a very slow start in most places. Heavy lift, made heavier by the usual suspects and some unexpected suspects. Habitat is a great org. Hopefully they can focus on getting "Heat Pumps for Humanity" installed at a bit lower prices than we are seeing now out here.
I chuckled a bit when I listened to the discussion about how Saul put way more detail into the DOE Sankey diagram back in the day. I had just been reading a very recent RMI post on USA HP sales which was based on the vary vague limited same old HVAC industry stats which have been around for a while. Just national totals for "heat pumps." No categorization for true cold climate variable inverter vs. std. inverter or multi-stage vs. bang-bang, mini or multi splits or fan coils, or hybrid-heat, retrofit or upgrade vs. new construction. So, that seems like a task that someone in some think tank or agency should be able to accomplish. Please! I can get better info from random countries in Europe.
Ari hit the nail on the head- a trusted HVAC contractor or electrician is an essential part of the solution, especially when equipment has failed. I would encourage ReWiring America (and I am a big fan!) to send money to contractors directly as incentives. Try filling out a rebate form by yourself without one! Building up software apps and its own bureaucracy is not the way to go - please get cash to people doing the actual work - the contractors who have to sand behind this work. Incentivize them to take on apprentices. It’s really hard for a small outfit to train new team members, take on the extra burden of apprenticeship. I am not a contractor but have been very active in my community spreading the word about IRA benefits to homeowners but even I have been unable to get family members to budge.
re financing: I got a bid on a solar install for $20k and referred a friend who placed an identical bid with this national installer – he was quoted $30. Why? Because they assumed he wanted it 'financed' and their contracted loan company demanded 34% of the total. Thirtyfuckingfour percent. Industry is trying to screw people AND the government by taking the IRA etc subsidies right back out into private undeserving coffers. In prior centuries people were put to death for usury, and most countries today have laws – in the US, not so much.
Yea yea, buyer beware and all but really?! 34% for an investment that pays for itself in under a decade?
Meanwhile, same picture when developing countries try to invest in Renewables: credit is more expensive than for coal/gas plants, thank you, World Bank...
From various statistics sources, looks like about 66% of households are single family homes & about 14% have heat pumps; some 60% of homeowners have incomes allowing them to afford heat pumps, although the maze of variables of unit costs, installation costs and subsidies is tough to navigate, making it hard to project adoption. Grist reports (2024) that "Rewiring America ... ran the numbers and found that it would cost $1.2 trillion to put a heat pump in every single-family home — 70 million of them, at $17,000 apiece." Once installed, they save energy but still use (mostly) grid electricity.
"A typical heat pump in a home uses about 5,475 kWh per year." And a medium size 3000 watt HP costs $72/ month in electricity to run. I'm surprised the interview did not touch on such facts, but focused on generalizations about HP relative advantages and IRA subsidies. Also, the carbon footprint of making & deploying HPs (important!) does not come up.
Of greater concern to me, however, is the omission of gauging HPs in terms of actual contribution to total energy & emissions reductions, since that is the ball we must keep our eye on. We know that the power sector accounts for ~20% of total energy and that ~65% of that electricity generation is from coal & gas. From this discussion I have no idea what role HPs have in the overall scheme of electrification and its role in reducing total energy use, but get the sense that it is very small. The bigger picture context is not examined here, including the reality that tech solutions like HPs, EVs, wind & solar are dwarfed by increasing FF use & increasing CO2e emissions. In this context, how important are HPs?
In the USA overall, heating buildings (no process heat) by onsite fuel combustion (not inc. any already electric heat) accounts for about 10% of GHGe, maybe a bit more if one is pessimistic about associated fugitive methane. It's obviously a higher fraction for homes and communities located where it's actually cold, like where I live.
The GHGe from generation associated with running a HP depends on the location and time of day, and is getting cleaner all the time. My recent calcs for a house in CO showed an 70ish% reduction for HP heat against onsite gas heat over the next 20 years. So from 700 therms/yr at 15ish lbs CO2e/therm, that's currently 10,000 lbs/yr decreased to 3000 lbs/yr.
Say the metal boxes of HP/AC indoor/outdoor units weigh 400 lbs total, and the replaced furnace or furnace/AC weighed half of that and went to scrap, at 5lbs CO2e/lb for partially-recycled metal, those embodied GHGs are 2000 lbs one time, vs the 7000 lbs/yr savings. Losing the refrigerant charge can be a worse penalty (2000-10000 lbs GHGe), but some of that is already happening if a HP replaces an existing AC unit And of course the rest of the world is moving on to HPs with refrigerants with essentially zero GWP.
Folks aren't going to stop heating their homes to save the planet. Since fossil fuel CO2e is emitted at billions of combustion point sources, reducing the total requires converting each seemingly insignificant point. Clearly some may be truly insignificant, but not home heating. The sum is not insignificant.
Thanks for taking my concerns seriously and supporting better understanding with specifics. I am not an engineer and am happy to accept your numbers for HP advantages over direct combustion once installed, but for me the question remains of whether and how much HP and other tech solutions reduce, or can be projected to reduce, total FF emissions into the future, given that the trend is clearly for FFs to continue to dominate in the overall picture of society's energy use. In this context I remain skeptical of the importance of HPs in home heating/cooling, available to a relatively small part of the affluent world. For those who can afford an HP upgrade there will be an energy saving in those homes. At the same time, the FF economy is ever expanding and the consequent destruction of Nature and Earth systems continues.
I hear you, but first, the "heating/cooling ... small part of the affluent world" has an outsize use of energy, so having those folks convert to clean energy is essential. I can't address every incremental/marginal increase or decrease in energy/emissions used in every sector of the developing world. FF use projections differ a lot and these may actually peak pretty soon. Annoying that China is pissing lots of folks off with some militarism, and causing them to avoid buying its cheap efficiently-produced renewable power and EV products. Subsidized yeah, but not much more that a lot of FF production. Lots of annoying shit today for sure.
I am looking at data for British Columbia building emissions. This effort is in data collection phase prior to instituting emission reduction bylaws. In this report they estimate emissions reductions of 58% by installation of heat pumps, and a further 37% emissions reduction by adding a heat pump water heater. I'm sure these sorts of data are becoming widely available everywhere. They further note that heatpumps add cooling capabilities, which is becoming a life-saving issue in many communities, as heatwaves become more intense, frequent and longer.
I couldn't find the data you are looking at but assume it refers to HPs in single homes? Emissions reductions of (58+37) 95% is impressive, but to pin down the value in climate reality terms I would still need answers to the same questions I ask about wind, solar, EVs, hydrogen, etc: What share of the BC & Canadian power can HPs be expected to provide and how many units would it take to meet that target? At a given cost (?), what % of homeowners are likely to adopt HP, and therefore have what collective emissions reductions in the power sector and in reducing total energy use? What is the carbon footprint of producing the projected number of units required for (X) impact on total energy use & emissions reduction? What is the useful life before replacement?
This the bigger context by which to judge the impact/value of these tech solutions. EVs, for example are exalted because individually they don't use FFs once in operation. But they (& their batteries) are entirely made with FF energy, are extremely expensive to repair, are affordable for relatively few, have a small market share, are charged mostly with coal/gas generated grid supply, and have no chance of replacing a significant part of the 1.6 billion global fleet of passenger cars & trucks.
The results are for multi-family homes, and are mentioned in a side-bar under "Reducing Multi-family GHGs". To pin down a value in climate reality terms, we are talking about a 95% emissions reduction in the sector that is responsible for roughly a third of our emissions. Without doing a bunch of math, I think that's significant. I question your assumption that grid emissions are going up. I think they are going down except in more backward jurisdictions. Concerns about footprint of production and lifetime of equipment are equally valid for gas-powered equipment as electric. If you google "EV myths", I think you will find many articles addressing your apparent concerns about EV's. These will include, for example, the fact that EV's run cleaner than gas vehicles even when charged with electricity coming from coal or gas. Since China is rapidly deploying renewables, the carbon intensity of battery manufacture is likely going down. In addition, battery recycling looks like it will become a reality, which should reduce emissions further.
It's not only power sector emissions to be concerned with, though I have not found evidence they are declining as the need for more electricity is met largely with more coal & gas generation. Beyond the ~20% of final energy the power sector provides (of which wind & solar account for about 16%), ~80% of energy for all purposes is generated by burning FFs. Total emissions continue to rise with increasing FF use. This is fact, not an assumption. Short term gains in efficiency from the example of volume production of batteries and recycling parts of them, only serve to support greater energy use. Efficiencies lead directly to more tech production and more energy use, not reductions, as per the Jevons Paradox where "..technological improvements that increase resource efficiency can actually lead to increased consumption of that resource." And do lead there. Cheaper EVs & batteries means more EVs & batteries are produced in the upward spiral of growth & consumption. There is a limit to growth and we have, at our peril, no plan or desire to limit growth.
So what do you suggest to reduce emissions from transport and heat and whatever?
I think you make one mistake in all of this, assuming that all increases in electricity use are met by ramping up today's fossil fuel fraction. The current marginal emissions, extended forever. Yes, we gotta get off our butts and keep accelerating "clean" generation, whether renewable & storage or geo or nukes.
There are lots of net emissions studies which account for the materials in EVs, PVs etc. All reasonable ones show decreases in combined emissions, getting better with time. All show other materials are needed, and yeah those have impacts but not as bad as the alternative of increasing combustion and emissions.
The Jevons paradox is partly true, but in a very minor way. Usually the takeback of energy from more efficient use is a 10% penalty or so, not anywhere near 100%. In any case, the affluent drivers you consider are already spending two hours per day in their cars; lower "fuel" $/mile or less emissions guilt isn't going to make them want to spend three or four hours per day there.
I don't have a better suggestion for reducing emissions from transport & home heating/cooling. What i believe however is that the promise of electrifying everything is gargantuanly false, and that compensatory tech like HPs and EVs are & will be a minor blip in the overall energy future. And seriously damaging to Nature. No one could be more unhappy about this than me..I was an alternative energy advocate for decades, but if we don't face the facts of our deep dependance on FFs we will continue to seek refuge in false, partial solutions. There is no substitute for reducing total global emissions and there is no tech that reduces total emissions. None. Total emissions – not local emissions in any particular sector or place. Yes, the evidence for failure to meet the challenge is strong ,to say the least, but that's where we are. Said my piece.
all you need is a 110 or 220 outlet and connect the cable that came with the car into the outlet. Why spend $ needlessly on a boxy charging station connection. Don't need this middle man.
Opinions expressed in this message are my own and do not represent the opinions or policies of Elysian Energy or any of its other employees, directors, officers, shareholders, or affiliates.
1. CFM per ton for a heat pump is 350-400. It’s 180 for a high efficiency gas furnace, 120-160 for older models. It’s ductwork, not equipment, that limits electrification practically.
2. Saving money by electrifying only works with the right ratio of natural gas to electricity prices. That ratio isn’t where in needs to be for electrification to have financial benefits in the northeast, California, or the upper Midwest. It’s generally close to 4:1 in the NE, which means heat pumps don’t save money relative to natural gas.
3. Providing the IRA savings calculator was great, I used it to explain the HEAR rebates in Rhode Island. Only problem was, RI used the money for other things! Other states have as well. Very frustrating situation if you want the math to work for homeowners.
Good point on #1. I'll admit I haven't looked at large sample of homes, but my experience with a few homes in Colorado is that older furnaces and ductwork are oversized by a factor of two or more if a home has had thorough weatherization done so the ductwork may be right-sized at the lower HP delivery temps . Also, while a lot of forced air systems in the NE and here are sized for the furnace, a bit further south where they usually have central AC, which may have led to higher airflow capacities in the original ductwork.
But yeah, while folks get whipped up by "inflation," most of the USA has incredibly cheap fossil gas for heating.
I came across one interesting twist on your sizing issue. Maybe it was in the UK. The "energy audit" and sizing calcs for replacing a boiler with an AWHP need to account for lower HW supply temps from the latter and reduced capacity at the terminals. Someone was using some advanced detailed survey and sizing software to calculate the heating loads in each zone compared to the radiator/baseboard capacity, and tried to determine exactly where those should be replaced with larger ones, or maybe the big window in that one zone should be replaced w/better, etc.
“People should stop eating meat” prompts you to say “Ugh, I guess?” I am actually heartened by the fact that the general public has made the connection in their minds between animal agriculture and climate change. I can’t fathom why you would be so dismissive of this. Animal agriculture is responsible for between 10 and 20 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. For comparison, transportation accounts for almost 30% of greenhouse gas emissions. If you convinced all Americans to eat significantly less meat, that would have more of an impact on climate change than if you convinced all Americans to stop traveling by commercial airliner.
It’s like there’s a light switch that anyone can throw at any time that stops about 15% of GHG generation and he says, “ugh.”
This comment moves him from the person most likely interested in climate change to person who is an electrification cheer leader.
There is every reason to think electrification is not a good approach. But does he talk about alternative sources? I wish the answer was just, “no.” Instead, they’re actively dismissed and derided.
I agree and I think Dave is just channeling the average American response. Maybe he should do a pod on this "solution". As mentioned in this episode, many people crave actions that they can take personally to make a difference.
I'm not sure of David's reason for this, but I know why I get really frustrated with "People should stop eating meat" crowd. It's a nuance topic and the only solution that is ever put forward is to stop eating meat. Politically you need to be a tad bit more creative.
As a big fan of Rewiring America and a card-carrying member of the Church of Electrification as well haha, this was such a great conversation! Annoying your family members is the best, I even got my dad to switch to a heat pump and induction stove. Annoy your families for the planet! With everyone feeling election dread right now, great reminder that WE control 42% of emissions decisions.
Think we're just starting down this pathway in the 🇬🇧. Can you come and talk to our government give them a headstart👍
I might want to apply for citizenship in about a week! 😄
Ditto here in Canada. Very clunky process.
Hi David,
I'm thinking that the assumption made by RMI may not apply in Washington State. I've gotten the impression from Clark PUD that HPWH installations are common, but mainly in new construction. Therefore, it seems we have a trained workforce, and supply chain.
That said, we probably need a navigator program to help owners of existing inefficient appliances to find the incentives for efficient devices.
A post-election comment: I would love to hear a conversation about how we can learn what projects are slated for our states so we can rally efforts to preserve them.
Kudos to Rewiring America for their call to action on building and vehicle electrification! We agree with Ari that this work can only move as fast as the speed of trust at the community level. That’s why the Clean Energy Communities Fund is focused on investing in the capacity of communities across the country to educate, engage and inspire local residents to take action. Join us! cecfund.org
Here in British Columbia, Canada, we have a couple very clunky "concierge" type organizations trying to help with the energy efficiency process. I suspect that clunky slow roll-outs might be a feature rather than a bug as we educate public, get supply chains worked out, get local tradespeople trained up etc. Connecting to a reliable contractor is indeed a problem, partly because government programs are hands-off on this, and partly because we have a shortage of trained tradespeople. And then there is the problem of prices getting padded when they know there is a $5K subsidy. Lastly, regarding grid stability question: Fortunately, we are not a third world country, so that's not yet a problem although our hydro power is going down with increasing droughts. However, Fortis BC, our natural gas provider, likes to prey on this fear and is providing rebates for---get this--natural gas-powered heat pumps. What I am more worried about is about 20 years down the road when oil and gas has invested their pocket change in electricity generation and decides to crank up prices just for fun, once we've all electrified. Sounds paranoid, right?
Also:when does the EV-as-battery become a reality? We’ve been talking about it for years.
I wish everyone the best on this quest to efficiently electrify fossil heating. Seems like a very slow start in most places. Heavy lift, made heavier by the usual suspects and some unexpected suspects. Habitat is a great org. Hopefully they can focus on getting "Heat Pumps for Humanity" installed at a bit lower prices than we are seeing now out here.
I chuckled a bit when I listened to the discussion about how Saul put way more detail into the DOE Sankey diagram back in the day. I had just been reading a very recent RMI post on USA HP sales which was based on the vary vague limited same old HVAC industry stats which have been around for a while. Just national totals for "heat pumps." No categorization for true cold climate variable inverter vs. std. inverter or multi-stage vs. bang-bang, mini or multi splits or fan coils, or hybrid-heat, retrofit or upgrade vs. new construction. So, that seems like a task that someone in some think tank or agency should be able to accomplish. Please! I can get better info from random countries in Europe.
Ari hit the nail on the head- a trusted HVAC contractor or electrician is an essential part of the solution, especially when equipment has failed. I would encourage ReWiring America (and I am a big fan!) to send money to contractors directly as incentives. Try filling out a rebate form by yourself without one! Building up software apps and its own bureaucracy is not the way to go - please get cash to people doing the actual work - the contractors who have to sand behind this work. Incentivize them to take on apprentices. It’s really hard for a small outfit to train new team members, take on the extra burden of apprenticeship. I am not a contractor but have been very active in my community spreading the word about IRA benefits to homeowners but even I have been unable to get family members to budge.
re financing: I got a bid on a solar install for $20k and referred a friend who placed an identical bid with this national installer – he was quoted $30. Why? Because they assumed he wanted it 'financed' and their contracted loan company demanded 34% of the total. Thirtyfuckingfour percent. Industry is trying to screw people AND the government by taking the IRA etc subsidies right back out into private undeserving coffers. In prior centuries people were put to death for usury, and most countries today have laws – in the US, not so much.
Yea yea, buyer beware and all but really?! 34% for an investment that pays for itself in under a decade?
Meanwhile, same picture when developing countries try to invest in Renewables: credit is more expensive than for coal/gas plants, thank you, World Bank...
From various statistics sources, looks like about 66% of households are single family homes & about 14% have heat pumps; some 60% of homeowners have incomes allowing them to afford heat pumps, although the maze of variables of unit costs, installation costs and subsidies is tough to navigate, making it hard to project adoption. Grist reports (2024) that "Rewiring America ... ran the numbers and found that it would cost $1.2 trillion to put a heat pump in every single-family home — 70 million of them, at $17,000 apiece." Once installed, they save energy but still use (mostly) grid electricity.
"A typical heat pump in a home uses about 5,475 kWh per year." And a medium size 3000 watt HP costs $72/ month in electricity to run. I'm surprised the interview did not touch on such facts, but focused on generalizations about HP relative advantages and IRA subsidies. Also, the carbon footprint of making & deploying HPs (important!) does not come up.
Of greater concern to me, however, is the omission of gauging HPs in terms of actual contribution to total energy & emissions reductions, since that is the ball we must keep our eye on. We know that the power sector accounts for ~20% of total energy and that ~65% of that electricity generation is from coal & gas. From this discussion I have no idea what role HPs have in the overall scheme of electrification and its role in reducing total energy use, but get the sense that it is very small. The bigger picture context is not examined here, including the reality that tech solutions like HPs, EVs, wind & solar are dwarfed by increasing FF use & increasing CO2e emissions. In this context, how important are HPs?
In the USA overall, heating buildings (no process heat) by onsite fuel combustion (not inc. any already electric heat) accounts for about 10% of GHGe, maybe a bit more if one is pessimistic about associated fugitive methane. It's obviously a higher fraction for homes and communities located where it's actually cold, like where I live.
The GHGe from generation associated with running a HP depends on the location and time of day, and is getting cleaner all the time. My recent calcs for a house in CO showed an 70ish% reduction for HP heat against onsite gas heat over the next 20 years. So from 700 therms/yr at 15ish lbs CO2e/therm, that's currently 10,000 lbs/yr decreased to 3000 lbs/yr.
Say the metal boxes of HP/AC indoor/outdoor units weigh 400 lbs total, and the replaced furnace or furnace/AC weighed half of that and went to scrap, at 5lbs CO2e/lb for partially-recycled metal, those embodied GHGs are 2000 lbs one time, vs the 7000 lbs/yr savings. Losing the refrigerant charge can be a worse penalty (2000-10000 lbs GHGe), but some of that is already happening if a HP replaces an existing AC unit And of course the rest of the world is moving on to HPs with refrigerants with essentially zero GWP.
Folks aren't going to stop heating their homes to save the planet. Since fossil fuel CO2e is emitted at billions of combustion point sources, reducing the total requires converting each seemingly insignificant point. Clearly some may be truly insignificant, but not home heating. The sum is not insignificant.
Thanks for taking my concerns seriously and supporting better understanding with specifics. I am not an engineer and am happy to accept your numbers for HP advantages over direct combustion once installed, but for me the question remains of whether and how much HP and other tech solutions reduce, or can be projected to reduce, total FF emissions into the future, given that the trend is clearly for FFs to continue to dominate in the overall picture of society's energy use. In this context I remain skeptical of the importance of HPs in home heating/cooling, available to a relatively small part of the affluent world. For those who can afford an HP upgrade there will be an energy saving in those homes. At the same time, the FF economy is ever expanding and the consequent destruction of Nature and Earth systems continues.
I hear you, but first, the "heating/cooling ... small part of the affluent world" has an outsize use of energy, so having those folks convert to clean energy is essential. I can't address every incremental/marginal increase or decrease in energy/emissions used in every sector of the developing world. FF use projections differ a lot and these may actually peak pretty soon. Annoying that China is pissing lots of folks off with some militarism, and causing them to avoid buying its cheap efficiently-produced renewable power and EV products. Subsidized yeah, but not much more that a lot of FF production. Lots of annoying shit today for sure.
https://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1894968/wind-power-majors-shares-plunge-trump-wins-us-presidency
Contrast with
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/oct/31/eu-emissions-fall-by-8-in-steep-reduction-reminiscent-of-covid-shutdown
Note some of the "expansion" of FF economy is just keeping up with depletion.
I am looking at data for British Columbia building emissions. This effort is in data collection phase prior to instituting emission reduction bylaws. In this report they estimate emissions reductions of 58% by installation of heat pumps, and a further 37% emissions reduction by adding a heat pump water heater. I'm sure these sorts of data are becoming widely available everywhere. They further note that heatpumps add cooling capabilities, which is becoming a life-saving issue in many communities, as heatwaves become more intense, frequent and longer.
If I did not already have a heatpump, I would be shopping for one, and my next water heater---just waiting for current one to die---will be a heatpump. https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/daniel.eden/viz/BuildingBenchmarkBCAnnualReport-Year4/Year4Report
I couldn't find the data you are looking at but assume it refers to HPs in single homes? Emissions reductions of (58+37) 95% is impressive, but to pin down the value in climate reality terms I would still need answers to the same questions I ask about wind, solar, EVs, hydrogen, etc: What share of the BC & Canadian power can HPs be expected to provide and how many units would it take to meet that target? At a given cost (?), what % of homeowners are likely to adopt HP, and therefore have what collective emissions reductions in the power sector and in reducing total energy use? What is the carbon footprint of producing the projected number of units required for (X) impact on total energy use & emissions reduction? What is the useful life before replacement?
This the bigger context by which to judge the impact/value of these tech solutions. EVs, for example are exalted because individually they don't use FFs once in operation. But they (& their batteries) are entirely made with FF energy, are extremely expensive to repair, are affordable for relatively few, have a small market share, are charged mostly with coal/gas generated grid supply, and have no chance of replacing a significant part of the 1.6 billion global fleet of passenger cars & trucks.
The results are for multi-family homes, and are mentioned in a side-bar under "Reducing Multi-family GHGs". To pin down a value in climate reality terms, we are talking about a 95% emissions reduction in the sector that is responsible for roughly a third of our emissions. Without doing a bunch of math, I think that's significant. I question your assumption that grid emissions are going up. I think they are going down except in more backward jurisdictions. Concerns about footprint of production and lifetime of equipment are equally valid for gas-powered equipment as electric. If you google "EV myths", I think you will find many articles addressing your apparent concerns about EV's. These will include, for example, the fact that EV's run cleaner than gas vehicles even when charged with electricity coming from coal or gas. Since China is rapidly deploying renewables, the carbon intensity of battery manufacture is likely going down. In addition, battery recycling looks like it will become a reality, which should reduce emissions further.
It's not only power sector emissions to be concerned with, though I have not found evidence they are declining as the need for more electricity is met largely with more coal & gas generation. Beyond the ~20% of final energy the power sector provides (of which wind & solar account for about 16%), ~80% of energy for all purposes is generated by burning FFs. Total emissions continue to rise with increasing FF use. This is fact, not an assumption. Short term gains in efficiency from the example of volume production of batteries and recycling parts of them, only serve to support greater energy use. Efficiencies lead directly to more tech production and more energy use, not reductions, as per the Jevons Paradox where "..technological improvements that increase resource efficiency can actually lead to increased consumption of that resource." And do lead there. Cheaper EVs & batteries means more EVs & batteries are produced in the upward spiral of growth & consumption. There is a limit to growth and we have, at our peril, no plan or desire to limit growth.
So what do you suggest to reduce emissions from transport and heat and whatever?
I think you make one mistake in all of this, assuming that all increases in electricity use are met by ramping up today's fossil fuel fraction. The current marginal emissions, extended forever. Yes, we gotta get off our butts and keep accelerating "clean" generation, whether renewable & storage or geo or nukes.
There are lots of net emissions studies which account for the materials in EVs, PVs etc. All reasonable ones show decreases in combined emissions, getting better with time. All show other materials are needed, and yeah those have impacts but not as bad as the alternative of increasing combustion and emissions.
The Jevons paradox is partly true, but in a very minor way. Usually the takeback of energy from more efficient use is a 10% penalty or so, not anywhere near 100%. In any case, the affluent drivers you consider are already spending two hours per day in their cars; lower "fuel" $/mile or less emissions guilt isn't going to make them want to spend three or four hours per day there.
I don't have a better suggestion for reducing emissions from transport & home heating/cooling. What i believe however is that the promise of electrifying everything is gargantuanly false, and that compensatory tech like HPs and EVs are & will be a minor blip in the overall energy future. And seriously damaging to Nature. No one could be more unhappy about this than me..I was an alternative energy advocate for decades, but if we don't face the facts of our deep dependance on FFs we will continue to seek refuge in false, partial solutions. There is no substitute for reducing total global emissions and there is no tech that reduces total emissions. None. Total emissions – not local emissions in any particular sector or place. Yes, the evidence for failure to meet the challenge is strong ,to say the least, but that's where we are. Said my piece.
do you really need a charging station...really
all you need is a 110 or 220 outlet and connect the cable that came with the car into the outlet. Why spend $ needlessly on a boxy charging station connection. Don't need this middle man.
Opinions expressed in this message are my own and do not represent the opinions or policies of Elysian Energy or any of its other employees, directors, officers, shareholders, or affiliates.
1. CFM per ton for a heat pump is 350-400. It’s 180 for a high efficiency gas furnace, 120-160 for older models. It’s ductwork, not equipment, that limits electrification practically.
2. Saving money by electrifying only works with the right ratio of natural gas to electricity prices. That ratio isn’t where in needs to be for electrification to have financial benefits in the northeast, California, or the upper Midwest. It’s generally close to 4:1 in the NE, which means heat pumps don’t save money relative to natural gas.
3. Providing the IRA savings calculator was great, I used it to explain the HEAR rebates in Rhode Island. Only problem was, RI used the money for other things! Other states have as well. Very frustrating situation if you want the math to work for homeowners.
Good point on #1. I'll admit I haven't looked at large sample of homes, but my experience with a few homes in Colorado is that older furnaces and ductwork are oversized by a factor of two or more if a home has had thorough weatherization done so the ductwork may be right-sized at the lower HP delivery temps . Also, while a lot of forced air systems in the NE and here are sized for the furnace, a bit further south where they usually have central AC, which may have led to higher airflow capacities in the original ductwork.
But yeah, while folks get whipped up by "inflation," most of the USA has incredibly cheap fossil gas for heating.
I came across one interesting twist on your sizing issue. Maybe it was in the UK. The "energy audit" and sizing calcs for replacing a boiler with an AWHP need to account for lower HW supply temps from the latter and reduced capacity at the terminals. Someone was using some advanced detailed survey and sizing software to calculate the heating loads in each zone compared to the radiator/baseboard capacity, and tried to determine exactly where those should be replaced with larger ones, or maybe the big window in that one zone should be replaced w/better, etc.
Wonderful news to help the consumer actually understand how to tackle this important problem.
Thank you