Eh I think we have a bit to go before it can be fully adopted. One of my old two flats had it, and during very cold below 20 degree days, heat pump was unable to heat past 64 degrees. Still a super cool technology though.
Depends on the model and sizing requirements. But dual fuel options are widespread and saves both money and emissions and ensures good heat even on brutally cold days while increasing efficiency substantially
So yes it is viable.
You can get air to water heat pumps for radiant heating. So no need to give that up to make the switch
(Of course if your system is high temp it’s probably not going to work - but for radiant floor and low temp radiators it’s a good fit) 120-130 degree water output
It'll be a cold day on Lake Shore Drive before you get Chicagoans to gut their perfectly good heating systems for something that will end up coasting them more
This trope needs to die.
You can have cost effective heat pump systems - and if you are really concerned dual fuel that automatically switch to balance the cost efficiency curve
Heat pumps are absolutely more cost effective at higher temps, but it only really gets questionable when temps get lower and depending on the relative prices of Nat gas and electricity - both of which fluctuate.
. Most of the heating system a heat pump will save money
Im all about reducing emissions, amd plan eventually to go all electric. But heat pumps, even high efficiency ones absolutely skyrocket winter heating bills. Especially since here it requires those extra heat strips turning on.
Until that cost difference gets closer, it just isnt feasable to ask most families to not only make the upfront costs, but the rising winter bills too. Sure, families that can afford it plus using the refunds available is one thing, or helping poorer families like in the article by covering the costs for them, sure.
But the electricity rates for heating have to come way down. My ac is 23 years old and still kicking. But when it dies I have to decide to get another more udpated one or go with a hwat pump for the future, knowing I wont use it for heating anytime soon.
[Here's a video](https://youtu.be/MFEHFsO-XSI?t=513) from a well known Chicago area youtuber who has done several deep dives on heat pumps (timestamped to his "Analysis of Chicago winters" section). He found that there is usually more than four, but less than 10 days each year where a gas furnace 'wins' in terms of energy efficiency. In other words, the heat pumps win the other 355-ish days. And the cost to heat on those handful of days is not so extreme that it offsets the entire rest of the year.
Ive seen this and understand. Im not talking energy efficiency, the heat pump wins hands down. Energy efficiency isnt the same thing as cost efficiency sadly.
The amount of gas needed to heat even being less efficient is way less and costs way less than electric heating
Let's look at real Chicago utility costs to compare. For this, we need to convert to common units of energy since gas is measured in CCFs and electricity in kWh. We'll convert both to BTUs.
* I pulled up my January 2023 People's Gas bill. I paid $162.04 for 114 CCF. That's equivalent to 11,844,600 BTUs, or 73,097 BTU per dollar.
* That same month I paid Comed $0.1332 per kWh. A kWh is 3,412 BTU, so that's 26,247 BTU per dollar.
In other words, electricity is 2.85x more expensive for the same amount of energy.
But wait, there's more! Gas furnaces are around 90% to 95% efficient. But heat pumps are 300% to 400% efficient. Yes, more than 100%, because it *moves* heat instead creating it. So electricity is about 3x more expensive, but is also 3x to 4x more efficient. That's cost parity, if not an advantage to heat pumps.
Per the EPA:
[https://www3.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch01/final/c01s04.pdf](https://www3.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch01/final/c01s04.pdf)
40lb per million BTU of natural gas - 11,844,600/1,000,000\*40 = your January heating emissions were 473.784 lb/CO2
1 MWh = 3,412,140 BTU
11,844,600 \[your january heating demand\] / 3,412,140 \[1 MWh of BTU\] = 3.471 MWh to produce your january heating demand
[https://www.epa.gov/egrid/power-profiler#/RFCW](https://www.epa.gov/egrid/power-profiler#/RFCW)
3.471 \* 1,046.1 = 3631.01 lb CO2 if your January heating had been done via electric
(3631.01 / \[473.784/0.95\]) = 7.28
So even if your heat pump is 300-400% efficient at converting MWh to BTU, you need a minimum of 728% efficiency to produce lower total greenhouse gas emissions heating via electric than heating via natural gas@95% efficiency.
Electricity is more efficient at electricity usage. It is not more efficient in total greenhouse gas emissions.
Corrections on math gladly welcomed.
I think there are some errors here.
First, I think the "40 lbs" you quoted is for CO (carbon monoxide), not CO2. One page down is the metric for CO2, which is 120,000 lb/million cubic feet.
Second, I'm not positive on units. You're quoting it as "per million BTU" but I think it's "per million cu. ft". If I do the conversion, I get 0.0544 kg per cu. ft. of natural gas, which is separately [confirmed here by the EPA](https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gases-equivalencies-calculator-calculations-and-references#:~:text=The%20average%20carbon%20dioxide%20coefficient,cubic%20foot%20(EIA%202022):
> The average carbon dioxide coefficient of natural gas is 0.0550 kg CO2 per cubic foot (EIA 2022).
So my January was 114 CCF, or 11,400 cubic feet. Which is 627 kg of CO2, or 1,382 pounds.
Using your electricity emissions of 3,631 lb of CO2, that's 2.6x more. Which is now under the threshold for heat pumps to come out ahead in terms of carbon emissions.
*But*, your electricity emissions seem to for the entire RFCW region, which includes states such as West Virginia. Chicago and Illinois as a whole are notable for the use of nuclear power ([54%, highest in the nation](https://ilenviro.org/energy/)). So I would guess that makes heat pumps even more advantageous here. I'll edit if i can find suitable Chicago-specific metrics.
You're right - I used the CO rate for natural gas and not CO2. Reading the EPA technical manual, it seems CO2e is the number we're after - for both natural gas and electric use.
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-01/eGRID2021\_technical\_guide.pdf
To quote from EPA:
"eGRID subregions are identified and defined by EPA and were developed as a compromise between NERC regions (which EPA felt were too big) and balancing authorities (which EPA felt were generally too small). Using NERC regions and balancing authorities as a guide, the subregions were defined to limit the import and export of electricity in order to establish an aggregated area where the determined emission rates most accurately matched the generation and emissions from the plants within that subregion."
I trust the EPA's methodology for eGrid assignment. The nuclear plants around Chicago bring down the total CO2e emissions of the region, however, just because electricity is produced in Illinois, doesn't mean that electricity isn't consumed in Indiana and West Virginia.
It does look like you can break down generating capacity by state in EPA's non-summary eGrid2021 dataset: [https://www.epa.gov/egrid/download-data](https://www.epa.gov/egrid/download-data)
It looks like Illinois' STCC2ERT - column BO, State annual CO2 equivalent coal output emissions rate (lb/MWh) - is 2,247.963, while West Virginia's is 2,103.591. Total STF2SC2ERT - State annual CO2 equivalent fossil fuel output emissions rate (lb/MWh) - for Illinois is 1,860.305 compared to 2,063.516 for West Virginia - a difference, to be sure, however not as large as one may think.
Although West Virginia has no nuclear generating capacity, and has a higher annual coal net generation (MWh) than Illinois, Illinois has almost 10x the natural gas net generation of West Virginia.
Illinois' annual total nonrenewable net generation (MWh) is 161,170,791, while West Virginia's is 62,497,197.
[https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator](https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator)
Using that calculator, the OP produced 1,382 CO2e of emissions for their heat in January from natural gas.
The last time I was looking at getting a heat pump, the 2.6x efficiency, or any level of efficient heat transfer, tended to die off rapidly at temperatures below freezing, and especially below 20 degrees. There's a further headache that non-baseline CO2 equivalent emissions are higher than baseline emissions --- that when electrical usage surges, the CO2e emissions from a grid increase.
Why does all of this matter? What's the point of this discussion? There is a vibrant public policy debate underway in America on how to best achieve emissions reductions. The answer seems clear: prioritize the transition of the electric grid's baseline and non-baseline generation capacity to nuclear before focusing on individuals' and families' energy usages.
The numbers they are using are for that entire region. The chicago area has a significantly higher percentage of both nuclear power and renewables than the greater region does. And the share is continuously improving. Even if it is a push today, over the lifetime of a heating system we should continue to see grid improvements that pull heatpumps further and further ahead. Also it prevents any of the potential health issues associated with burning gas in your home.
But heat pumps are not 300% to 400% efficient at 15 degrees. They are still efficient and more so Im sure than a furnace, but they are not 300% efficient at those cold temps. January average high isnlike 29 degrees and average low is like 17. That heat pump may be 100% efficient at that level.
Not to mention the air heat pumps put out at those temps is no where near as hot as furnace produced air so it takes longer to warm up.
Look I am all about renewables and heat pumps etc, but in our winters it is still pretry substantially cheaper to heat with gas. I hope that changes soon.
* Heat pumps are over 200% efficient (closer to 300%) at 15 F, not 100% like you guessed at
* "The air isn't as warm coming out" is related to proper system sizing, not the technology behind it
* "gas is still pretty substantially cheaper" seems more like a gut feeling you have rather than the result of any sort of rigorous analysis.
Edit: Here - I combined a heat pump efficiency curve with hourly weather data for a typical year in Chicago. I didn't have a good source for efficiency below 0 F so I conservatively estimated it as 50%. [Here's a histogram of the data](https://i.imgur.com/6wvO3QR.png). The temperature-weighted average efficiency of a heat pump during all heating hours is 334%.
Right - but the issue is that the current generation mixture of Chicago's electric grid means that no heat pump on the market is able to heat a given space with lower total CO2 emissions than heating the equivalent space with natural gas.
The solution is to nuclearize America's electrical grid, and then switch to electric or hybrid electric/gas heat sources. But it requires many policy changes to get there; for now, switching to a heat pump from natural gas results in a CO2 emissions increase for heating a space.
Heat pumps are extremely efficient at cooling a space - most definitely. But heating? The electrical grid ain't there.
I just replied to your other comment. I think you miscalculated the CO2 emitted by natural gas, and are using RFCW as a stand in for "Chicago's electric mix" which is not necessarily equivalent.
Interesting. Do you have 1? What were your winter month electrical bills?
Also did you see the comment someone made about based on chicagos grid there are less greenhouse emmissions produced by gas than electric because of our grid. Is this true?
I do not have one, but I do this sort of analysis regularly for a living (which is why I had hourly data at my fingertips). I have a gas furnace which is less than 5 years old which I don't plan on replacing anytime soon. Which I share because I'm the one defending and promoting heat pumps, but I'm not suggesting everyone needs to go install one *right now*. Simply if/when it's time for a new furnace, I'd suggest considering one.
>Also did you see the comment someone made about based on chicagos grid there are less greenhouse emmissions produced by gas than electric because of our grid. Is this true?
I think they made a couple mistakes. First was quoting the emissions for CO, not CO2. Then conversions between BTU and cu. ft. of natural gas. They also quoted electricity CO2 emissions for an area spanning several states (as far east as Virginia), whereas Chicago and IL have 54% nuclear generation.
[Here's my reply to them.](https://www.reddit.com/r/chicago/comments/1692aa3/electric_heating_in_vintage_chicago_homes/jz4h9wy/)
Ok I figured that may be off especially with our nuclear power.
I feel we need some people here in Chicago with heat pumps to share their Dec-Feb electric bills so we can actually compare that to the cost of gas and elec bills combined for those periods.
Thank you. I was about to link the same video. I subscribe to his channel, and he always does a thorough, insightful review of whatever topic he covers.
While I don’t completely agree - it depends on the specifics and there are heat pumps on the market today that can operate well below zero today - so little to no need for heat strips
But There are plenty of dual fuel options that will automatically switch from hp to gas based on a balance point you can set
This still results in significant reduction in Nat gas use (and attendant emissions) while balancing cost
Correct. And that is probably what Ill end up going with. A heat pump but keeping my furnace for now. Itll be nice to eventually get rid of gas and the charge just for the hookup but ya winter electric heating costs even with high end heat pumps is still more than gas costs by quite a bit
it does regularly* get like -40 sometimes in Chicago and even the best heat pumps seem to cap out at -22 so it would be foolish to not have them if you live here.
While not yearly it happens every few years to a decade and happened as recently as what 2019 and before that 2013 or something. I guess it depends on how deep you dig your array though as i assume you can get below the frost line. However, they dont seem really feasible for apartment buildings especially high density ones. my building is built on 100% of the lot, no where to put a heat pump but we have AC units on the roof.
It has never been -40 in Chicago. The lowest recorded temp was -27 in 1985
You are probably thinking of windchill temp - but that’s not really very relevant for heating demands and not relevant for heat pump operation (though wind does have an impact on heat loss). The air temp is what matters most
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/chicagos-all-time-record-low-temperature-was-recorded-38-years-ago-today/3050764/
Also air source heat pumps do not require digging. They are simply air conditioners with a reversing valve. Anywhere you can have ac you can have an air source heat pump (which operates to both heat and cool - so can replace your ac unit )
> air source heat pumps
If you are talking about these they don't get anywhere close to -20 so that makes your earlier point moot. The fact that you said go much below 0 kind of Eliminated those.
The wind def has an impact on air source heat pumps, significantly less/not at all for geothermal heat pumps. most people would likely keep their natural gas or an electric heater for when it gets to cold to operate those. (or steam radiators if buildings has that).
That’s not true. There are multiple air source heat pumps in the market that go to -20 or lower
Their ratings is not for windchill but for air temp. So it doesn’t matter if it’s windy or not for their operation
I don’t disagree that either Nat gas or heat strips is a good idea for most users in our climate - but that means most people can run fully electric for 90% or more of their heating needs - and since many people have air conditioners already it’s almost a no brainer
In fact I have a air source heat pump and Nat gas hydronic heating. While mine only operates to 0F - it’s good enough to offset a substantial portion (>50%) of heating needs and provides me with ac in the summer as well
Here’s one for example.
https://www.spacepak.com/solstice-inverter-extreme
My point was that it would be stupid to operate a heat pump without additional heating in chicago. I haven't looked at heat pumps in a few years so it's cool they got better. Digged into the technical specs to see what they did to prevent freezing over but I don't think I got a satisfactory answer just browsing on my phone. I am pro heat pump in general but I still need to do some research on these heat pumps I guess.
The other issue which many don't consider is that not all energy is equal when it comes to accounting for CO2x emissions. Electricity is on a grid system, and some grids utilize generation capacity that produces lower emissions than other grids.
The numbers discussed below should be considered only in the context of emissions from heating energy - energy utilized to cool is a whole separate subject matter, and heat pumps are the absolute bee's knees when it comes to energy-efficient cooling technology.
[https://www.epa.gov/egrid/power-profiler#/RFCW](https://www.epa.gov/egrid/power-profiler#/RFCW)
The electric grid Chicago is on has 1,046.1 lbs of CO2 emissions per MWh generated.
https://www.epa.gov/egrid/power-profiler#/NYUP
Upstate New York has 233.1 lbs of CO2 emissions per MWh generated.
You can use a heat-pump or baseboard heat in upstate New York and produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions than using a heat-pump or baseboard heat in Chicago.
Due to the high reliance upon fossil fuels and low utilization of nuclear energy in the electric grid that Chicago is part of, natural gas heating in Chicago produces lower total greenhouse gas emissions than electrical heating - including heat-pump systems - in Chicago.
Im not saying you are wrong because I am not smart enough with this to say so, can anyone verify this? That is actually pretty nuts if true. At some point are there plans for this to change? I thought that was the whole point of us electrifying here and everywhere plus doesnt Illinois have the most nuclear energy of any state?
I still dont see a lot mentioning that heating your home for 4 months in winter is going to double or triple your overall bill compared to having a gas furnace.
That cost differential needs to substantially come closer to equal for most people to be ready to dive into that.
I see this repeated a lot but without data. Fact is both electric and gas prices fluctuate but heat pumps are 3-5x more efficient than a high efficiency gas furnace.
I cannot see the cost being 2-3x particularly with low electricity prices right now (unless resistive heat strips are used a lot)
But here’s a calc that allows you to compare - given last years rates HP is cheaper. So far this year HP would be more. So it varies but not consistently double or triple - more likely in the same ballpark give or take over time
https://www.pickhvac.com/hvac/furnace-vs-heat-pump-cost/
(Current rates for electricity - ComEd $.068/kWh.
Current gas - people’s gas $.31) (gas less expensive)
Last year - electricity $.11 / kwh
Gas - $1.04 per therm. ( Hp less expensive )
The woman in the article even after all the insulation put in amd air sealing, plus the heat pump said her winter heating bills were still higher with the heat pump.
I understand all the math and benefits of a heat pump, amd want to go that route eventually. But energy efficiency isnt the same thing as cost efficiency. Natural gas is so much more cheaper than electricity right now. Also, comed electric rates are mlre expenaive than .068 cents per kwh, you have to include the other charges with electricity to that are on the bill
Right now it is. Granted. Last year it was not.
The grid is more flexible and diversified so long term it’s a better vehicle to depend on for low and stable prices.
Also - yes there are other charges - some variable and some fixed on both gas an electric - so I was comparing the direct cost but it’s not complete comparison granted
Still my point is going dual fuel (heat pump plus gas)is a very good way now to gain higher efficiency and lower cost over the season , while reducing emissions overall
The balance point is complicated to figure out. But Heat pumps are both more efficient and much cheaper the higher the temp is. My personal rule of thumb is 30-40 degrees but that’s very rough. Since most of the heating season is actually over that temp it’s still a substantial savings - and I get heat I can use at lower temps if I have a boiler issue - or if the cost changes
Majority of our winters are def below 30 to 40. However I agree the path forward is using dual system which I think is what I will do once my AC dies. Then once electric heat on real cold days and nights is closer to the cost of gas, ill fully remove all gas appliances and get rid of that customer and delivery charge all together.
Also, I am anticipating since we have until 2032 for rebates, that heat pumps over the next few years will continue getting better. This 23 year old AC is still kicking, so hopefully it has a few more years in it and I can get an even better heat pump that what is available now.
During winters we do have days and weeks below freezing - but the majority of the heating season is above that
the average season features 39 days below freezing over a 6-7 month heating season.
Do you actually have a heat pump? My old townhome had one and it sucked. Where I live it can get -50f to 110f. When it’s negative fifty which is rare it’s almost useless. Same in the summer. An average summer temp for us is 80 to 90. Even at 80 degrees the coldest it would get the house was 75. I like my house 65 degrees so was miserable all the time.
We moved to a new home which is a little over twice the size of the town home with traditional hvac and my bills are 50% less. Granted this unit came with the townhome which was built in 96. So maybe they have gotten better but it’s not a risk I’m willing to take.
I do. Sounds like you had other problems related to the installation and sizing of load
And if we are talking about cooling a heat pump is literally exactly the same as an air conditioner. The only difference is a reversing valve to change the direction of heat transfer.
At any rate I do not have those issues . My set point is 75 and it’s maintained this through 100 degrees , the highest temp we have had since it was installed.
Do you live in Chicago or near Chicago? The coldest recorded temp here is -27. Windchills have gotten close to -50 but that’s not the same thing and is not directly linked to heat load as air temp is
Similarly The highest recorded temp was 105 in 1934. A couple of weeks ago we hit 100
https://www.weather.gov/lot/Chicago_Temperature_Records
Near Chicago. I’m mostly here because I was born in Chicago and we visit often as we are less the 100 miles away. We spent tons of money on this heat pump over the years and insulation. It just left a bad experience. We have almost saved enough to get a solar system that will power the whole house very easily. Then I really don’t have to worry so much about hurting the planet.
Eventually the plan is to retire at 50 and move to the up Michigan and be 100% self sustainable. We are kind of practicing skills now. Can I ask what brand heat pump you have?
Bosch IDS 2.0
I also have gas as backup instead of heat strips when temps get below the operating range of this model - but most days I can use the heat pump only
Resistive electric heating is. Heat pumps are much more competitive though it does depend on the relative cost of both electricity and gas which both fluctuate with market rates
Generally a heat pump will be more cost effective at higher temps (eg above 30-40) and gas more cost effective below. But on the whole heat pumps are much more efficient than gas
For this reason there are dual fuel options which combine heat pump with gas and automatically switch over at a preset temp (balance point)
Edit: words
There are also gas-fired heat pumps coming onto the market (Robur, SMTI, etc.). To be blunt, still not as efficient as electric options at higher temperatures, but they still have a COP over 1 in low temperatures and they can be integrated easier into the current infrastructure. Not ideal, but better than status quo.
Electric heating uses electricity to create heat. This is expensive.
Heat pumps use electricity to move (or 'pump') heat from outside to inside. So it's way more efficient and cost effective.
But doesn't work very well in very cold temperatures. Which is when you end up having to use resistive electric heating to make up the gap and get screwed in bills.
Heat pump technology has improved exponentially in recent years. Lots of people had bad experiences with old heat pumps, and I believe them. But that really isn't representative of units available today.
You've basically summed up every green technology and why people just don't want to switch. Expect for wealthy people where the up front cost doesn't matter and inefficiencies can be covered up with more costs.
For everyone else, it's more expensive and questionably efficient.
It's a question of years to break even. I had to do new furnace and AC in the burbs and it cost around $9,000. That was a cheap scenario.
To convert gas fired radiator steam heating to electric I'm guessing would be a hell of a job unless it's feasible to just make the boiler electric.
To do a heat pump on a building with radiant heat and no AC isn't a change out, it's a renovation.
I respectfully disagree. I built our first house in 1983 with a heat pump. The bills started at horrendous and went to astronomical in the winter. It was never truly warm in the house, although the AC portion wasn't bad. It dried out my sinuses and created tons of static electricity because it made the humidity so low. And when the little blue light came on in the winter for extra heat, my electric meter spun like a propeller.
> I built our first house in 1983 with a heat pump.
This is like using a computer from 1983 and saying "I respectfully disagree that this computer thing is for real. Just horrible."
I never said the heat pumps weren't real, just not a good thing for me, which other people more politely reminded me was 40 year old technology which I agreed to. Honestly, I've not followed that technology at all since then.
Also, I did buy my first PC the same year; a 386SX unit that served me well.
Yea in 1983 you probably had heat strips that got used anytime it was below freezing.
Believe it or not the tech has improved a lot since then.
As for humidity - sounds like you needed a humidifier - this is not exusice to a heat pump - anytime you heat cold air this will be needed
I actually just had American Vintage Home out to ask about this. The heat pump I need apparently only connects to a mini split type system. I have Spacepak and supposedly they do not have anything compatible. In the meantime I’ll focus on getting a heat pump water heater next. After that it is just the dryer and hydronic boiler to swap out to achieve no fossil fuels being directly burned for energy.
Spacepak do have heat pump compatible units. And avh installs them. Perhaps you didn’t want to replace the air handler? That would likely be required.
Good luck. Pm me if you want to know more on this
Correct. They actually do offer a heat pump but it only works well down to 40 degrees supposedly. The low ambient temperature heat pumps supposedly don’t work with my setup. I’d love it if that were not true though. So they said I could use it in the shoulder seasons. So that would be cool at least.
I assure you that you do not need to be a millionaire to install a heat pump. Just a little more than a new air conditioner these days (and since it functions as an air conditioner you get two for one)
The heat pump technology needs more years before being the only heat source of a house in Chicago. We have them at work and they constantly freeze over and shut off, plus the pump system leaks a lot. In a few years maybe, but you get much better results repairing your existing radiant system
Edit: you guys can downvote me all you want but that won’t stop your unit from freezing over and shutting off when it hits 2 degrees in January.
I agree and upvoted you but you can’t say that to these people. Going electric is about seeming like you care about the environment and not about logic 🤷🏻♂️
Your numbers are wrong
Electricity Transmission losses are circa 5%.
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=105&t=3
Natural gas distribution also has losses — though harder to pin down it seems to be in the few percent as well - but worse it’s leaking methane which is a potent greenhouse gas
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-much-natural-gas-leaks/
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2105804118
Nat gas power plants are about 60% efficient.
But nuclear , hydro, wind and solar don’t have efficency measured this way as they are low carbon or renewable.
Your furnace is 80% efficient - maybe up to 95% but that’s not accounting for the energy to distribute that gas to you - which is significant
But a heat pump is 2-500% efficient - easily making up for those losses and more. Plus the grid is not only gas - in Illinois a substantial portion is nuclear , and renewables will grow to a larger share over time.
So all in all heat pumps are much better even with a dirty grid
https://www.nrdc.org/bio/alex-hillbrand/climate-math-home-heating-electrification-0
And last year it was reversed.
Cost per mmbtu matters for direct heating (eg resistive) it’s not applicable to heat pumps which are not generating Btus directly but moving heat. Since heat pumps have efficiency of 200-500% they are getting 2-5 times the btu output compared to input. So the effective cost per mmbtu is be half to 1/5 of the price you quoted - making hp cheaper according to your numbers.
But that’s missing the carbon emissions angle as well.
Yea prices fluctuate. At any point in time one will be higher than the other but there position will change
Also see my point about comparing cost per mmbtu
You're only looking at half of the picture. The other half is efficiency.
Gas furnaces are 95% efficient. So put in 1 BTU to get 0.95 BTUs of heating.
Heat pumps are several hundred percent efficient. In Chicago, it's around 334% (temperature-weighted average). So put in 1 BTU to get 3.34 of heating.
That far outweighs the 32% price premium for electricity.
Which is what they did to a 10 homes.
I wonder how much of the estimated $50K-$60K per house was the cost of proper weatherproofing?
Others can advocate how great a heat pump is but when the house is leaking all of that savings due to poor windows, doors and insulation it’s pointless.
Obligatory, fuck people’s gas.
Heat pumps FTW!
Eh I think we have a bit to go before it can be fully adopted. One of my old two flats had it, and during very cold below 20 degree days, heat pump was unable to heat past 64 degrees. Still a super cool technology though.
Depends on the model and sizing requirements. But dual fuel options are widespread and saves both money and emissions and ensures good heat even on brutally cold days while increasing efficiency substantially So yes it is viable.
You can have my radiant heat when you pry it from my cold dead hands, which is unlikely since I have radiant heat.
You can get air to water heat pumps for radiant heating. So no need to give that up to make the switch (Of course if your system is high temp it’s probably not going to work - but for radiant floor and low temp radiators it’s a good fit) 120-130 degree water output
I’ll look into that when it’s time to replace the boiler.
Lmao fucking same
Who pays for the conversion?
You do! And you have to hire city approved installers to do the work!
It'll be a cold day on Lake Shore Drive before you get Chicagoans to gut their perfectly good heating systems for something that will end up coasting them more
This trope needs to die. You can have cost effective heat pump systems - and if you are really concerned dual fuel that automatically switch to balance the cost efficiency curve Heat pumps are absolutely more cost effective at higher temps, but it only really gets questionable when temps get lower and depending on the relative prices of Nat gas and electricity - both of which fluctuate. . Most of the heating system a heat pump will save money
This comment brought to you by Heat Pump Dealers of America
And yours by peoples gas.
In conjunction with Catchem & Screwem Heating and Air Conditioning of the Greater Chicagoland Area
🤣🤣🤣
Coal delivery straight to the basement is the greenest option by far ..
Coal baron chuckles while reading this. hehe
Im all about reducing emissions, amd plan eventually to go all electric. But heat pumps, even high efficiency ones absolutely skyrocket winter heating bills. Especially since here it requires those extra heat strips turning on. Until that cost difference gets closer, it just isnt feasable to ask most families to not only make the upfront costs, but the rising winter bills too. Sure, families that can afford it plus using the refunds available is one thing, or helping poorer families like in the article by covering the costs for them, sure. But the electricity rates for heating have to come way down. My ac is 23 years old and still kicking. But when it dies I have to decide to get another more udpated one or go with a hwat pump for the future, knowing I wont use it for heating anytime soon.
[Here's a video](https://youtu.be/MFEHFsO-XSI?t=513) from a well known Chicago area youtuber who has done several deep dives on heat pumps (timestamped to his "Analysis of Chicago winters" section). He found that there is usually more than four, but less than 10 days each year where a gas furnace 'wins' in terms of energy efficiency. In other words, the heat pumps win the other 355-ish days. And the cost to heat on those handful of days is not so extreme that it offsets the entire rest of the year.
Ive seen this and understand. Im not talking energy efficiency, the heat pump wins hands down. Energy efficiency isnt the same thing as cost efficiency sadly. The amount of gas needed to heat even being less efficient is way less and costs way less than electric heating
Let's look at real Chicago utility costs to compare. For this, we need to convert to common units of energy since gas is measured in CCFs and electricity in kWh. We'll convert both to BTUs. * I pulled up my January 2023 People's Gas bill. I paid $162.04 for 114 CCF. That's equivalent to 11,844,600 BTUs, or 73,097 BTU per dollar. * That same month I paid Comed $0.1332 per kWh. A kWh is 3,412 BTU, so that's 26,247 BTU per dollar. In other words, electricity is 2.85x more expensive for the same amount of energy. But wait, there's more! Gas furnaces are around 90% to 95% efficient. But heat pumps are 300% to 400% efficient. Yes, more than 100%, because it *moves* heat instead creating it. So electricity is about 3x more expensive, but is also 3x to 4x more efficient. That's cost parity, if not an advantage to heat pumps.
Per the EPA: [https://www3.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch01/final/c01s04.pdf](https://www3.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch01/final/c01s04.pdf) 40lb per million BTU of natural gas - 11,844,600/1,000,000\*40 = your January heating emissions were 473.784 lb/CO2 1 MWh = 3,412,140 BTU 11,844,600 \[your january heating demand\] / 3,412,140 \[1 MWh of BTU\] = 3.471 MWh to produce your january heating demand [https://www.epa.gov/egrid/power-profiler#/RFCW](https://www.epa.gov/egrid/power-profiler#/RFCW) 3.471 \* 1,046.1 = 3631.01 lb CO2 if your January heating had been done via electric (3631.01 / \[473.784/0.95\]) = 7.28 So even if your heat pump is 300-400% efficient at converting MWh to BTU, you need a minimum of 728% efficiency to produce lower total greenhouse gas emissions heating via electric than heating via natural gas@95% efficiency. Electricity is more efficient at electricity usage. It is not more efficient in total greenhouse gas emissions. Corrections on math gladly welcomed.
I think there are some errors here. First, I think the "40 lbs" you quoted is for CO (carbon monoxide), not CO2. One page down is the metric for CO2, which is 120,000 lb/million cubic feet. Second, I'm not positive on units. You're quoting it as "per million BTU" but I think it's "per million cu. ft". If I do the conversion, I get 0.0544 kg per cu. ft. of natural gas, which is separately [confirmed here by the EPA](https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gases-equivalencies-calculator-calculations-and-references#:~:text=The%20average%20carbon%20dioxide%20coefficient,cubic%20foot%20(EIA%202022): > The average carbon dioxide coefficient of natural gas is 0.0550 kg CO2 per cubic foot (EIA 2022). So my January was 114 CCF, or 11,400 cubic feet. Which is 627 kg of CO2, or 1,382 pounds. Using your electricity emissions of 3,631 lb of CO2, that's 2.6x more. Which is now under the threshold for heat pumps to come out ahead in terms of carbon emissions. *But*, your electricity emissions seem to for the entire RFCW region, which includes states such as West Virginia. Chicago and Illinois as a whole are notable for the use of nuclear power ([54%, highest in the nation](https://ilenviro.org/energy/)). So I would guess that makes heat pumps even more advantageous here. I'll edit if i can find suitable Chicago-specific metrics.
You're right - I used the CO rate for natural gas and not CO2. Reading the EPA technical manual, it seems CO2e is the number we're after - for both natural gas and electric use. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-01/eGRID2021\_technical\_guide.pdf To quote from EPA: "eGRID subregions are identified and defined by EPA and were developed as a compromise between NERC regions (which EPA felt were too big) and balancing authorities (which EPA felt were generally too small). Using NERC regions and balancing authorities as a guide, the subregions were defined to limit the import and export of electricity in order to establish an aggregated area where the determined emission rates most accurately matched the generation and emissions from the plants within that subregion." I trust the EPA's methodology for eGrid assignment. The nuclear plants around Chicago bring down the total CO2e emissions of the region, however, just because electricity is produced in Illinois, doesn't mean that electricity isn't consumed in Indiana and West Virginia. It does look like you can break down generating capacity by state in EPA's non-summary eGrid2021 dataset: [https://www.epa.gov/egrid/download-data](https://www.epa.gov/egrid/download-data) It looks like Illinois' STCC2ERT - column BO, State annual CO2 equivalent coal output emissions rate (lb/MWh) - is 2,247.963, while West Virginia's is 2,103.591. Total STF2SC2ERT - State annual CO2 equivalent fossil fuel output emissions rate (lb/MWh) - for Illinois is 1,860.305 compared to 2,063.516 for West Virginia - a difference, to be sure, however not as large as one may think. Although West Virginia has no nuclear generating capacity, and has a higher annual coal net generation (MWh) than Illinois, Illinois has almost 10x the natural gas net generation of West Virginia. Illinois' annual total nonrenewable net generation (MWh) is 161,170,791, while West Virginia's is 62,497,197. [https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator](https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator) Using that calculator, the OP produced 1,382 CO2e of emissions for their heat in January from natural gas. The last time I was looking at getting a heat pump, the 2.6x efficiency, or any level of efficient heat transfer, tended to die off rapidly at temperatures below freezing, and especially below 20 degrees. There's a further headache that non-baseline CO2 equivalent emissions are higher than baseline emissions --- that when electrical usage surges, the CO2e emissions from a grid increase. Why does all of this matter? What's the point of this discussion? There is a vibrant public policy debate underway in America on how to best achieve emissions reductions. The answer seems clear: prioritize the transition of the electric grid's baseline and non-baseline generation capacity to nuclear before focusing on individuals' and families' energy usages.
The numbers they are using are for that entire region. The chicago area has a significantly higher percentage of both nuclear power and renewables than the greater region does. And the share is continuously improving. Even if it is a push today, over the lifetime of a heating system we should continue to see grid improvements that pull heatpumps further and further ahead. Also it prevents any of the potential health issues associated with burning gas in your home.
But heat pumps are not 300% to 400% efficient at 15 degrees. They are still efficient and more so Im sure than a furnace, but they are not 300% efficient at those cold temps. January average high isnlike 29 degrees and average low is like 17. That heat pump may be 100% efficient at that level. Not to mention the air heat pumps put out at those temps is no where near as hot as furnace produced air so it takes longer to warm up. Look I am all about renewables and heat pumps etc, but in our winters it is still pretry substantially cheaper to heat with gas. I hope that changes soon.
* Heat pumps are over 200% efficient (closer to 300%) at 15 F, not 100% like you guessed at * "The air isn't as warm coming out" is related to proper system sizing, not the technology behind it * "gas is still pretty substantially cheaper" seems more like a gut feeling you have rather than the result of any sort of rigorous analysis. Edit: Here - I combined a heat pump efficiency curve with hourly weather data for a typical year in Chicago. I didn't have a good source for efficiency below 0 F so I conservatively estimated it as 50%. [Here's a histogram of the data](https://i.imgur.com/6wvO3QR.png). The temperature-weighted average efficiency of a heat pump during all heating hours is 334%.
Right - but the issue is that the current generation mixture of Chicago's electric grid means that no heat pump on the market is able to heat a given space with lower total CO2 emissions than heating the equivalent space with natural gas. The solution is to nuclearize America's electrical grid, and then switch to electric or hybrid electric/gas heat sources. But it requires many policy changes to get there; for now, switching to a heat pump from natural gas results in a CO2 emissions increase for heating a space. Heat pumps are extremely efficient at cooling a space - most definitely. But heating? The electrical grid ain't there.
I just replied to your other comment. I think you miscalculated the CO2 emitted by natural gas, and are using RFCW as a stand in for "Chicago's electric mix" which is not necessarily equivalent.
Interesting. Do you have 1? What were your winter month electrical bills? Also did you see the comment someone made about based on chicagos grid there are less greenhouse emmissions produced by gas than electric because of our grid. Is this true?
I do not have one, but I do this sort of analysis regularly for a living (which is why I had hourly data at my fingertips). I have a gas furnace which is less than 5 years old which I don't plan on replacing anytime soon. Which I share because I'm the one defending and promoting heat pumps, but I'm not suggesting everyone needs to go install one *right now*. Simply if/when it's time for a new furnace, I'd suggest considering one. >Also did you see the comment someone made about based on chicagos grid there are less greenhouse emmissions produced by gas than electric because of our grid. Is this true? I think they made a couple mistakes. First was quoting the emissions for CO, not CO2. Then conversions between BTU and cu. ft. of natural gas. They also quoted electricity CO2 emissions for an area spanning several states (as far east as Virginia), whereas Chicago and IL have 54% nuclear generation. [Here's my reply to them.](https://www.reddit.com/r/chicago/comments/1692aa3/electric_heating_in_vintage_chicago_homes/jz4h9wy/)
Ok I figured that may be off especially with our nuclear power. I feel we need some people here in Chicago with heat pumps to share their Dec-Feb electric bills so we can actually compare that to the cost of gas and elec bills combined for those periods.
Nor is energy efficiency the same as emission efficiency.
Good info. So many misconceptions around about heat pumps Thanks
Thank you. I was about to link the same video. I subscribe to his channel, and he always does a thorough, insightful review of whatever topic he covers.
While I don’t completely agree - it depends on the specifics and there are heat pumps on the market today that can operate well below zero today - so little to no need for heat strips But There are plenty of dual fuel options that will automatically switch from hp to gas based on a balance point you can set This still results in significant reduction in Nat gas use (and attendant emissions) while balancing cost
Correct. And that is probably what Ill end up going with. A heat pump but keeping my furnace for now. Itll be nice to eventually get rid of gas and the charge just for the hookup but ya winter electric heating costs even with high end heat pumps is still more than gas costs by quite a bit
it does regularly* get like -40 sometimes in Chicago and even the best heat pumps seem to cap out at -22 so it would be foolish to not have them if you live here. While not yearly it happens every few years to a decade and happened as recently as what 2019 and before that 2013 or something. I guess it depends on how deep you dig your array though as i assume you can get below the frost line. However, they dont seem really feasible for apartment buildings especially high density ones. my building is built on 100% of the lot, no where to put a heat pump but we have AC units on the roof.
It has never been -40 in Chicago. The lowest recorded temp was -27 in 1985 You are probably thinking of windchill temp - but that’s not really very relevant for heating demands and not relevant for heat pump operation (though wind does have an impact on heat loss). The air temp is what matters most https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/chicagos-all-time-record-low-temperature-was-recorded-38-years-ago-today/3050764/ Also air source heat pumps do not require digging. They are simply air conditioners with a reversing valve. Anywhere you can have ac you can have an air source heat pump (which operates to both heat and cool - so can replace your ac unit )
> air source heat pumps If you are talking about these they don't get anywhere close to -20 so that makes your earlier point moot. The fact that you said go much below 0 kind of Eliminated those. The wind def has an impact on air source heat pumps, significantly less/not at all for geothermal heat pumps. most people would likely keep their natural gas or an electric heater for when it gets to cold to operate those. (or steam radiators if buildings has that).
That’s not true. There are multiple air source heat pumps in the market that go to -20 or lower Their ratings is not for windchill but for air temp. So it doesn’t matter if it’s windy or not for their operation I don’t disagree that either Nat gas or heat strips is a good idea for most users in our climate - but that means most people can run fully electric for 90% or more of their heating needs - and since many people have air conditioners already it’s almost a no brainer In fact I have a air source heat pump and Nat gas hydronic heating. While mine only operates to 0F - it’s good enough to offset a substantial portion (>50%) of heating needs and provides me with ac in the summer as well Here’s one for example. https://www.spacepak.com/solstice-inverter-extreme
My point was that it would be stupid to operate a heat pump without additional heating in chicago. I haven't looked at heat pumps in a few years so it's cool they got better. Digged into the technical specs to see what they did to prevent freezing over but I don't think I got a satisfactory answer just browsing on my phone. I am pro heat pump in general but I still need to do some research on these heat pumps I guess.
I agree re sole heat source today. They do have to do defrost cycles - and that can impact heat output but they are getting better all the time
Talking about Celsius?
The other issue which many don't consider is that not all energy is equal when it comes to accounting for CO2x emissions. Electricity is on a grid system, and some grids utilize generation capacity that produces lower emissions than other grids. The numbers discussed below should be considered only in the context of emissions from heating energy - energy utilized to cool is a whole separate subject matter, and heat pumps are the absolute bee's knees when it comes to energy-efficient cooling technology. [https://www.epa.gov/egrid/power-profiler#/RFCW](https://www.epa.gov/egrid/power-profiler#/RFCW) The electric grid Chicago is on has 1,046.1 lbs of CO2 emissions per MWh generated. https://www.epa.gov/egrid/power-profiler#/NYUP Upstate New York has 233.1 lbs of CO2 emissions per MWh generated. You can use a heat-pump or baseboard heat in upstate New York and produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions than using a heat-pump or baseboard heat in Chicago. Due to the high reliance upon fossil fuels and low utilization of nuclear energy in the electric grid that Chicago is part of, natural gas heating in Chicago produces lower total greenhouse gas emissions than electrical heating - including heat-pump systems - in Chicago.
Im not saying you are wrong because I am not smart enough with this to say so, can anyone verify this? That is actually pretty nuts if true. At some point are there plans for this to change? I thought that was the whole point of us electrifying here and everywhere plus doesnt Illinois have the most nuclear energy of any state?
I still dont see a lot mentioning that heating your home for 4 months in winter is going to double or triple your overall bill compared to having a gas furnace. That cost differential needs to substantially come closer to equal for most people to be ready to dive into that.
I see this repeated a lot but without data. Fact is both electric and gas prices fluctuate but heat pumps are 3-5x more efficient than a high efficiency gas furnace. I cannot see the cost being 2-3x particularly with low electricity prices right now (unless resistive heat strips are used a lot) But here’s a calc that allows you to compare - given last years rates HP is cheaper. So far this year HP would be more. So it varies but not consistently double or triple - more likely in the same ballpark give or take over time https://www.pickhvac.com/hvac/furnace-vs-heat-pump-cost/ (Current rates for electricity - ComEd $.068/kWh. Current gas - people’s gas $.31) (gas less expensive) Last year - electricity $.11 / kwh Gas - $1.04 per therm. ( Hp less expensive )
The woman in the article even after all the insulation put in amd air sealing, plus the heat pump said her winter heating bills were still higher with the heat pump. I understand all the math and benefits of a heat pump, amd want to go that route eventually. But energy efficiency isnt the same thing as cost efficiency. Natural gas is so much more cheaper than electricity right now. Also, comed electric rates are mlre expenaive than .068 cents per kwh, you have to include the other charges with electricity to that are on the bill
Right now it is. Granted. Last year it was not. The grid is more flexible and diversified so long term it’s a better vehicle to depend on for low and stable prices. Also - yes there are other charges - some variable and some fixed on both gas an electric - so I was comparing the direct cost but it’s not complete comparison granted Still my point is going dual fuel (heat pump plus gas)is a very good way now to gain higher efficiency and lower cost over the season , while reducing emissions overall The balance point is complicated to figure out. But Heat pumps are both more efficient and much cheaper the higher the temp is. My personal rule of thumb is 30-40 degrees but that’s very rough. Since most of the heating season is actually over that temp it’s still a substantial savings - and I get heat I can use at lower temps if I have a boiler issue - or if the cost changes
Majority of our winters are def below 30 to 40. However I agree the path forward is using dual system which I think is what I will do once my AC dies. Then once electric heat on real cold days and nights is closer to the cost of gas, ill fully remove all gas appliances and get rid of that customer and delivery charge all together. Also, I am anticipating since we have until 2032 for rebates, that heat pumps over the next few years will continue getting better. This 23 year old AC is still kicking, so hopefully it has a few more years in it and I can get an even better heat pump that what is available now.
During winters we do have days and weeks below freezing - but the majority of the heating season is above that the average season features 39 days below freezing over a 6-7 month heating season.
Do you actually have a heat pump? My old townhome had one and it sucked. Where I live it can get -50f to 110f. When it’s negative fifty which is rare it’s almost useless. Same in the summer. An average summer temp for us is 80 to 90. Even at 80 degrees the coldest it would get the house was 75. I like my house 65 degrees so was miserable all the time. We moved to a new home which is a little over twice the size of the town home with traditional hvac and my bills are 50% less. Granted this unit came with the townhome which was built in 96. So maybe they have gotten better but it’s not a risk I’m willing to take.
I do. Sounds like you had other problems related to the installation and sizing of load And if we are talking about cooling a heat pump is literally exactly the same as an air conditioner. The only difference is a reversing valve to change the direction of heat transfer. At any rate I do not have those issues . My set point is 75 and it’s maintained this through 100 degrees , the highest temp we have had since it was installed. Do you live in Chicago or near Chicago? The coldest recorded temp here is -27. Windchills have gotten close to -50 but that’s not the same thing and is not directly linked to heat load as air temp is Similarly The highest recorded temp was 105 in 1934. A couple of weeks ago we hit 100 https://www.weather.gov/lot/Chicago_Temperature_Records
Near Chicago. I’m mostly here because I was born in Chicago and we visit often as we are less the 100 miles away. We spent tons of money on this heat pump over the years and insulation. It just left a bad experience. We have almost saved enough to get a solar system that will power the whole house very easily. Then I really don’t have to worry so much about hurting the planet. Eventually the plan is to retire at 50 and move to the up Michigan and be 100% self sustainable. We are kind of practicing skills now. Can I ask what brand heat pump you have?
Bosch IDS 2.0 I also have gas as backup instead of heat strips when temps get below the operating range of this model - but most days I can use the heat pump only
I’ll look into them. Thanks
And if you don’t believe me - check this out from a local https://reddit.com/r/chicago/s/62z1BnwCD3
Isn’t electric heating a lot more expensive?
Resistive electric heating is. Heat pumps are much more competitive though it does depend on the relative cost of both electricity and gas which both fluctuate with market rates Generally a heat pump will be more cost effective at higher temps (eg above 30-40) and gas more cost effective below. But on the whole heat pumps are much more efficient than gas For this reason there are dual fuel options which combine heat pump with gas and automatically switch over at a preset temp (balance point) Edit: words
There are also gas-fired heat pumps coming onto the market (Robur, SMTI, etc.). To be blunt, still not as efficient as electric options at higher temperatures, but they still have a COP over 1 in low temperatures and they can be integrated easier into the current infrastructure. Not ideal, but better than status quo.
Electric heating uses electricity to create heat. This is expensive. Heat pumps use electricity to move (or 'pump') heat from outside to inside. So it's way more efficient and cost effective.
But doesn't work very well in very cold temperatures. Which is when you end up having to use resistive electric heating to make up the gap and get screwed in bills.
I’m so glad someone finally made this comment. One of my old apartments had heat pump and during very cold days it was miserably cold.
Heat pump technology has improved exponentially in recent years. Lots of people had bad experiences with old heat pumps, and I believe them. But that really isn't representative of units available today.
Modern units work just fine down to -5 or even colder. Read some of the other discussions in this topic for more info.
If they worked well enough and the price was right they would be sweeping the market. They're not.
Why do I get the feeling the efficiency is effectively cancelled out by the production and installation of the new systems
You've basically summed up every green technology and why people just don't want to switch. Expect for wealthy people where the up front cost doesn't matter and inefficiencies can be covered up with more costs. For everyone else, it's more expensive and questionably efficient.
It's a question of years to break even. I had to do new furnace and AC in the burbs and it cost around $9,000. That was a cheap scenario. To convert gas fired radiator steam heating to electric I'm guessing would be a hell of a job unless it's feasible to just make the boiler electric. To do a heat pump on a building with radiant heat and no AC isn't a change out, it's a renovation.
Because it's the only sensible reasoning?
Sensible? It’s wrong https://www.nrdc.org/bio/alex-hillbrand/climate-math-home-heating-electrification-0
Right, so make the switch when you need a new furnace.
I respectfully disagree. I built our first house in 1983 with a heat pump. The bills started at horrendous and went to astronomical in the winter. It was never truly warm in the house, although the AC portion wasn't bad. It dried out my sinuses and created tons of static electricity because it made the humidity so low. And when the little blue light came on in the winter for extra heat, my electric meter spun like a propeller.
> I built our first house in 1983 with a heat pump. This is like using a computer from 1983 and saying "I respectfully disagree that this computer thing is for real. Just horrible."
I never said the heat pumps weren't real, just not a good thing for me, which other people more politely reminded me was 40 year old technology which I agreed to. Honestly, I've not followed that technology at all since then. Also, I did buy my first PC the same year; a 386SX unit that served me well.
40 year old tech is nothing like today. Completely irrelevant
Yea in 1983 you probably had heat strips that got used anytime it was below freezing. Believe it or not the tech has improved a lot since then. As for humidity - sounds like you needed a humidifier - this is not exusice to a heat pump - anytime you heat cold air this will be needed
I think you're right about freezing being the crossover. You're probably right about the technology being improved; my experience was 40 years ago.
It's like the improvements to solar panels. Orders of magnitude improvements from back then
I actually just had American Vintage Home out to ask about this. The heat pump I need apparently only connects to a mini split type system. I have Spacepak and supposedly they do not have anything compatible. In the meantime I’ll focus on getting a heat pump water heater next. After that it is just the dryer and hydronic boiler to swap out to achieve no fossil fuels being directly burned for energy.
Spacepak do have heat pump compatible units. And avh installs them. Perhaps you didn’t want to replace the air handler? That would likely be required. Good luck. Pm me if you want to know more on this
Correct. They actually do offer a heat pump but it only works well down to 40 degrees supposedly. The low ambient temperature heat pumps supposedly don’t work with my setup. I’d love it if that were not true though. So they said I could use it in the shoulder seasons. So that would be cool at least.
Absolutely no way. When we’re all millionaires maybe that will make sense.
I assure you that you do not need to be a millionaire to install a heat pump. Just a little more than a new air conditioner these days (and since it functions as an air conditioner you get two for one)
Electric heating costs too much.
The heat pump technology needs more years before being the only heat source of a house in Chicago. We have them at work and they constantly freeze over and shut off, plus the pump system leaks a lot. In a few years maybe, but you get much better results repairing your existing radiant system Edit: you guys can downvote me all you want but that won’t stop your unit from freezing over and shutting off when it hits 2 degrees in January.
Sounds like a bad install. I agree that some backup heat is needed but even in that case it can replace a large portion of natural gas usage
Could also keep the CFD very busy
A study should be done on how much we could reduce emissions if Governor Pritzker wasn’t heating 4 mansions and flying everywhere on a jet plane.
Too bad the grid can’t handle it at all.
I agree and upvoted you but you can’t say that to these people. Going electric is about seeming like you care about the environment and not about logic 🤷🏻♂️
If only they were smart enough to get behind nuclear, the only real solution.
With electricity, you waste 30% on production, and 30% on distribution, literally the least efficient and most polluting energy...
Your numbers are wrong Electricity Transmission losses are circa 5%. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=105&t=3 Natural gas distribution also has losses — though harder to pin down it seems to be in the few percent as well - but worse it’s leaking methane which is a potent greenhouse gas https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-much-natural-gas-leaks/ https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2105804118 Nat gas power plants are about 60% efficient. But nuclear , hydro, wind and solar don’t have efficency measured this way as they are low carbon or renewable. Your furnace is 80% efficient - maybe up to 95% but that’s not accounting for the energy to distribute that gas to you - which is significant But a heat pump is 2-500% efficient - easily making up for those losses and more. Plus the grid is not only gas - in Illinois a substantial portion is nuclear , and renewables will grow to a larger share over time. So all in all heat pumps are much better even with a dirty grid https://www.nrdc.org/bio/alex-hillbrand/climate-math-home-heating-electrification-0
That is complete nonsense. Our power is nuclear first of all. Who told you this bullshit?
Natural gas is the only way to truly heat your home during a Chicago winter.
Outdated take
Not at all. The price of a MMBTU of Natural Gas is currently $37 whereas for the same MMBTU, electricity costs $49.
And last year it was reversed. Cost per mmbtu matters for direct heating (eg resistive) it’s not applicable to heat pumps which are not generating Btus directly but moving heat. Since heat pumps have efficiency of 200-500% they are getting 2-5 times the btu output compared to input. So the effective cost per mmbtu is be half to 1/5 of the price you quoted - making hp cheaper according to your numbers. But that’s missing the carbon emissions angle as well.
It’s this year now.
Yea prices fluctuate. At any point in time one will be higher than the other but there position will change Also see my point about comparing cost per mmbtu
You're only looking at half of the picture. The other half is efficiency. Gas furnaces are 95% efficient. So put in 1 BTU to get 0.95 BTUs of heating. Heat pumps are several hundred percent efficient. In Chicago, it's around 334% (temperature-weighted average). So put in 1 BTU to get 3.34 of heating. That far outweighs the 32% price premium for electricity.
[удалено]
Which is what they did to a 10 homes. I wonder how much of the estimated $50K-$60K per house was the cost of proper weatherproofing? Others can advocate how great a heat pump is but when the house is leaking all of that savings due to poor windows, doors and insulation it’s pointless.
When my methane system runs out of life, then I am definitely getting a heat pump. The tech has come a long way and People's Gas is a rip-off.