Nine states are teaming up to accelerate adoption of this climate-friendly device.
Death is coming for the old-school gas furnace—and its killer is the humble heat pump. They’re already outselling gas furnaces in the US, and now a coalition of states has signed an agreement to supercharge the gas-to-electric transition by making it as cheap and easy as possible for their residents to switch.
Nine states have signed a memorandum of understanding that says that heat pumps should make up at least 65 percent of residential heating, air conditioning, and water-heating shipments by 2030. (“Shipments” here means systems manufactured, a proxy for how many are actually sold.) By 2040, these states—California, Colorado, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, and Rhode Island—are aiming for 90 percent of those shipments to be heat pumps.
“It’s a really strong signal from states that they’re committed to accelerating this transition to zero-emissions residential buildings,” says Emily Levin, senior policy adviser at the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM), an association of air-quality agencies that facilitated the agreement. The states will collaborate, for instance, in pursuing federal funding, developing standards for the rollout of heat pumps, and laying out an overarching plan “with priority actions to support widespread electrification of residential buildings.”
We got a new heat pump installed in our 1920s house in Minnesota a couple years ago. It works its ass off all year, and only needs help from the boiler in the deepest depths of winter, which it probably wouldn’t if the house were better insulated. It’s always cheaper for us than gas, and it feels great to have our climate control 80-90% decarbonized.
Yeah cold climates are the place where heat pumps will always struggle the most. I’m also from MN and have been eyeing this as an option once my 30yo furnace finally gives in.
These modern ones work so well even in adverse conditions that they’re gaining traction in MN with HVAC companies, which is very good to see.
What? There are tens of thousands of new alpine chalets that have a heat pump as their only source of heating and hot water
They’ll only struggle if you insulated your house with half a dozen feathers
We’re kinda saying the same thing. New heat pumps are improving on a problem that’s been around for decades.
Most cold-climate heat pumps can run at total capacity until the outdoor temperature gets to about 5 F or below. It will still heat your home at those lower temperatures, but not necessarily keep it as warm as you may typically like. That’s where backup heat sources come in.
I’m in Jackson, Wyoming. We replaced the gas furnace with a Mitsubishi Hyper heat. The only time we need secondary heating is when the temperature goes below -20°f.
the only ‘problem’ is you have to keep the bone burner or some alternate source of heat (or power) for when the electricity goes out. which it does, occasionally, in the winter.
Isn’t that a problem with most forms of heat? Propane forced air furnace isn’t doing shit without electricity. Multizone boiler isn’t doing shit without power (I may be half wrong here). Outdoor wood burner isn’t doing shit without power. Your left with a wood/coal stove/fireplace, or wall propane burners scattered around. Wood furnace in the basement can get you by. But without electricity most forms of heat are screwed anyways aren’t they?
Mostly yes, but also a little bit of no. Most gas furnaces could be powered by a battery backup or even the cheapest of gas generators since the blower motors only use 120v at 400w. You’d need a massive battery or generator to use a heat pump.
But as my neighborhood doesn’t have gas, I don’t really have that choice
I’m not aware of anything that’s made to be used as a heat source that doesn’t need electricity to work properly. Gas furnaces have fans that circulate the air. Gas boilers have pumps that circulate the water. Even most fireplaces I’ve seen have a fan system for circulating air (and those that don’t are obviously just for ambiance and not meant to heat the room they’re in, much less the house). All require electricity.
Wood stoves often just have radiators or fans powered by heat differentials.
They’re more of a solution for small cabins than mcmansions, though
radiant heat. like masonry heaters.
the only ‘problem’ is you have to keep the bone burner or some alternate source of heat (or power) for when the electricity goes out.
If your electricity goes out, how are you moving that heat around the house?
when i was a kid we had a boiler and radiators. worked with no power.
later in a different house, we had fireplaces that could also keep that house warm enough (we never ‘froze’, and neither did pipes) without its fans going.
both were in rural areas where outages were much more common than the small town i’m in currently.
Thermoelectric fans! You can plop one on a stove and the heat directly generates electricity to turn the blades, pushing the air around.
Electric stove is typing…
I’ve got a pellet stove that can run for many hours off of a small portable battery backup.
Heat pump would be preferable, though.
We want to install one this year in our MN 1920s house. Our mini splits A/C died last year. So we need both an A/C and cheaper heat will be nice. Did you like who you used?
Yeah, we got a Daikin setup installed by MSP, who work in the Twin Cities metro.
I’ve seen them before. I am still looking at companies.
We love our heat pump!
We did a DIY install a few years ago. Cost about $4500 in total for a Bosch 18k BTU unit and everything needed to install it.
We got $900 back from the state (WA USA) and $2000 back from the feds. That brought our total out of pocket down to $1600.
We had electric resistive heat and no AC previously. Our heating bill went down by $50/month in the winter. It added maybe $10/month in the summer for air conditioning.
For our area, with mild winters and low electricity costs, it’s fucking amazing.
It added maybe $10/month in the summer for air conditioning.
I live in Alabama, and I found that amusing
How handy would you say you are? I’m wondering if I could manage to install one. Our heater is very old and hanging on by a thread.
Mini-splits aren’t terribly difficult if you’re handy. Most challenging parts are cutting through your walls and the charged lines (many models come pre-charged but are usually the lower quality models… the good ones are harder to find as a consumer and need to be charged by someone with the right tools).
I’m planning to install mini-splits in my house as soon as I can afford it.
came here to find the Technology Connections comment. was disappointed
So link it. I’d be interested in his take.
The Technology Connections Heat Pump Playlist
[An Invidious link]
Almost 2 hours of heat pump nerdery! 😁
It’s really great and a fun watch, like all his videos.
Alec is an intergalactic treasure
If they really want me to install a heat pump, please go knock some heads at PG&E. 30 cents per KWh makes it really hard.
It kinda shocks me that the supposed wealthiest country has so many people who don’t have this super common technology. Basically everyone I know has had a heat pump where I live for the past 2 decades.
As a Canadian who just got a heat pump, it’s because natural gas is so cheap here in North America.
My system has an auxiliary natural gas backup. Even though my heat pump works down to below -20°C, it’s set up to switch over to natural gas at around -6.7°C (stupid fahrenheit setting) because even at COP of ~2.0, 98% efficient natural gas is way, way cheaper.
As a Canadian, I’ve never seen anything but baseboard heaters. Which province are you in?
Ontario, but I also had cheap natural gas in Manitoba. Obviously you need access to it and only half the provinces are connected.
Given this chart, I’m assuming you live in New Brunswick, Newfoundland, or Quebec?
Montreal! I’d be fascinated to see what the comparison in price for your heat pump/gas combo is vs my parents’ heat pump/baseboard heater combo.
Heat pump/baseboard combo? Is that like Mitch Hedberg’s humidifier/dehumidifier experiment?
I think you may have misunderstood. Heat pumps and baseboard resistive heaters compliment each other, they don’t work against each other.
You’re right, I did misunderstand. Aren’t baseboard heaters inefficient?
We do have them. We call them “window units”
Those little things can’t compare to a proper heat pump, surely.
It sure would be nice if I could have gotten tax benefits… They had this BS where you had to get it done by a contractor, and you had to use their heatpump that shit would have been $9000 to get $700 back, and 19%. I had it installed for $2300 total.
The heat pump is the cheap part. You have to reengineer your hvac. It’s fucking expensive.
There are a lot of variables, but often this isn’t the case… If you have a traditional gas furnace stack and ac unit it’s often a drop in replacement for the AC. The ducting and air handler can be reused (especially if you’re in a cold climate, the furnace can be utilized when the temp drops below the optimal operating temperature for the heat pump)
For some homes it really is an affordable option.
I mean the quotes we got were all in excess of a hundred thousand and the standard hvac is much, much less.
Like I said, there are a lot of variables.
I think these will make sense eventually but if most of my electricity in winter comes from gas anyway, is changing where the gas is burned really better?
Yes, on two points. 1) heat pumps are more than 100% efficient in most conditions. Because they are moving heat, rather than generating it, they can add more heat energy to your home than they actually consume. 2) mix of sources. As you said, even if most of your electricity comes from gas plants, that means some can or does come from renewable sources or nuclear. This makes it much easier to transition to even more renewables, since the consumer side doesn’t need to change anything as gas plants are phased out. It’s future planning with immediate benefits from point 1.
Point 1 can be a bit complex, since in extreme conditions air source heat pumps may rely on resistive heating which is only 100% efficient. Alternatives like ground source HPs don’t have that problem, but they are suited to fewer areas.
Thanks. My climate is relatively mild so I don’t think resistance heating will be necessary. Extreme lows could get to the low 20’s but only for brief periods, so I think heat pumps should still work in such conditions?
Our heat pump didn’t really kick in the resistive auxiliary heat until temps were well below 0°F, but humidity also plays into that. It wasn’t ever running the resistive heat exclusively.
If sized correctly, heat pumps also don’t really like setbacks in the winter. Just set the thermostat to whatever and leave it – don’t have it cool down at night and warm back up in the morning.
I like to be warm at night anyway so I don’t have a problem with that.
An additional argument I’ve heard is that economies of scale come into play with power generation. The argument is mainly used around electric vs gas cars when electricity is generated from fossil fuels, but apparently larger plants are generally more efficient at generating energy. This may not hold up when heat is the desired form of energy compared to a gas car where it’s a waste product.
Yeah heat is different because converting fossil fuels to motion is inherently inefficient, but converting them to heat is very efficient. But others correctly pointed out that heat pumps are actually more than 100% efficient because they move heat around rather than making it directly.
Gas boilers can by 95% efficient turning gas directly into heat energy.
Electricity generation is about 55% efficient at turning gas into electric energy.
So in a situation where you get 2 times or more heat out per kW you put in then you’re lowering your carbon footprint even when electricity is created using gas.
2 to 4 times is not too difficult so
There’s also the pretty big issue that the more methane is transported, the more leaks we have. As methane is 40× more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas every property we take off the gas network is a step towards reducing the need for that infrastructure.
Personally I can’t fit an air source heat pump in my flat. It would be incredibly noisy and would probably require radiators to be refitted and taken up more space.
When my gas boiler goes I’ll look at the cost of the standing price of a gas connection, annual servicing, and kW cost of gas. Then look at what a standard electric boiler costs.
It won’t have the 2 to 4 times saving on kW cost a heat pump would have but it probably will come out similarly on cost. It will have a lower install cost. And it will reduce methane emissions.
If we haven’t moved far enough to renewable energy by then my carbon footprint might actually go up. But the methane reduction will more than make up for that.
I looked into it very seriously, but where I am we regularly get to -40 and are often -20 or lower. All’s good up to about that point, but you’ll need a gas furnace to assist much past -20. In which case, you are into it for a gas bill anyway of which 2/3 is deliver costs, so you might as well just use a furnace.
And before anyone comes apart on me, I ran off a spreadsheet using very pessimistic gas prices, all the green grants I could come up with and probably overly optimistic heat pump efficiencies at cold weather, and I couldn’t make the whole system come in at a price that broke even in less than 20 years. At which point you’d be starting all over again.
So if you’re in most of Canada outside of the Lower Mainland and the Niagra Peninsula, and probably a good chunk of the US, no.
Are we talking Celsius or Fahrenheit? -20 F is pretty cold. I think the vast majority of people in North America never experience weather like that. For most areas, occasional supplemental heating by traditional electric heating should be sufficient and avoid the gas hookup issue. It’s not very efficient but only needing it a few times per winter that should be acceptable.
Celsius
It’s not about being efficient. If it were just that, no problem, a few nights of expensive heat isn’t going to change the equation much over a year. It’s a matter of not freezing because there’s no way it can keep up whether inefficient or not.
So if you’re going to be spending 5k on a furnace anyway, and have to keep a gas bill active, it’s just not going to save enough money to pay the heatpump back, especially since you’re buying a particularly expensive model in order to have one that works at middle cold temperatures.
I think a powerful enough heater of any kind should keep your warm—so economics is the main question. Perhaps an electric heater that powerful would be too expensive or use too much power.
But regardless, it sounds like you live in an exceptionally cold climate so you may have challenges that the rest of us don’t. I haven’t really heard heat pumps recommended for arctic climates, mainly for temperate ones. My climate is borderline subtropical so I think it will be economical for me.
What happens if you run the heat pump compressor from a gas motor on site, instead of on electricity from a coal powered remote server? That lets you capture what would otherwise be wasted heat, right? That seems best unless your electricity is from renewables.
do the math before you get one. In my area it’ll double or triple my electric bill due to the extremely high price of electricity. I would need to add a lot of insulation to my home to make it worth it. Also, installing solar would be a wiser first step. Of course, even then, with the installation costs, it will take 20-30 years to really see a savings.
Edit: downvote all you want, it doesn’t change the math. I spent 6 months studying heat pumps for my situation, sorry it doesn’t live up to whatever eco-hype you’re huffing. The real issue is mismanaged utility companies with a legally protected monopoly. All I’m suggesting is you learn about your situation before you jump in blind, but apparently that is too offensive of a suggestion for the Lemmy hive mind. If you’re going to downvote, maybe give a counter argument, I’ll give you a math equation in response.
If you need to add insulation to make switching to a different heat source worth it, then adding that insulation without switching will reduce your current utility bill. It’s not like the insulation (or lack ther of) cares how the heat was generated.
It depends on your climate zone… most people piling on the insulation bandwagon live in really cold climates. In more moderate climates, insulation makes your house is hot in the summer, which means you need to run the air conditioning. I don’t run air conditioning in the summer because our home is naturally cool. There are more summer months that winter months; so there are trade offs and reasons for different construction decisions.
Insulation doesn’t just keep heat in for the winter.
It keeps heat out for the Summer.
A lack of ventilation can cause buildings to overheat but anyone who seals up a building without adding a proper HVAC is a cowboy.
You can add insulation without reducing ventilation. Do it.
I don’t get the “I’d need to add a lot of insulation” bit.
So you’re heating your house just now with gas or something, and you’re basically just pissing it up a wall, and fuck the environment?
Some people don’t think that far ahead. One day their gas bill will be just as bad and they’ll still complain.
Well, when the price of electricity is 3x the price of natural gas, it’s a different story. Also, low insulation in certain climate zones means you don’t actually need air conditioning in the summer time. Really depends on what your local climate is.
Our electricity is also about 3x the price of natural gas, and the math made sense for a heat pump over a gas furnace (Southwestern Ontario, Canada). We do have auxiliary natural gas and that is set to kick in at 20°F, but even then, the manufacturer’s chart says the heat pump’s COP > 2.0 (200% efficiency). If I remember correctly, it’s COP >3.0 by 30°F.
Installing better insulation is always the best first step, better than the climate control solution or solar. That’s why some of those states require insulation improvements before other rebates can be taken. Sometimes they also heavily subsidize the costs of improving the insulation.
Once the structure is properly insulated, then the best option between heat pumps and solar depends on the cost of electricity, as you noted.
A while back I sealed and reinsulated my house and replaced all the duct work. It made a massive difference on my electric bill as my house’s HVAC system is a heat pump. I did all the work myself and got a rebate from the electric company and it ended up costing me about $1000 out of pocket. I did some calculations back then and my payback period was only a couple of years so it has been paying me back for quite a while now. It was one of the best things I have ever done.
We hired a company to do our 2 story home. Half was a previous addition that didn’t need upgrades, but the other half got blown-in. Doors got new seals as well. Cost us less than 800 after the state rebates (which were all handled by the installation company). Also one of the best upgrades we’ve made.
We’re fortunate our utility (Puget Sound Energy) will give us rebates for DIY improvements as well.
We installed a heat pump and got money back from the state and the feds.
It definitely makes sense to evaluate electricity costs. It’s unfortunately expensive to get a heat pump in some places.
Where we live, the Seattle metro area, it was a huge cost savings to get our heat pump.
Crunch the numbers and make sure it makes financial sense.
There might be federal or state programs that can help you with weatherization. I’d check into them because they’ll definitely save you money. Back when I was on oil it saved me about 10% on my heating bills, even in a drafty old farmhouse.
“I don’t want to help at all unless I can see immediate personal financial benefits”
That’s what you sound like
That how life works. You dont know their situation. You dont know if they can afford in increase. Where i live i have heat pumps and it costs me $300 a month to heat a two bedroom apartment. And thats with keeping it at 68f. If the cost of the electricty is outrageous, what are people supposed to do?
deleted by creator
Sorry I thought everybody here understood personal sacrifices will need to be made in order to solve the climate change problem. Apparently not, we just like to blame corporations for selling us the things we demand (like gas heating)
There’s a very distinct difference between a personal sacrifice and literally impossible with their current finances. This is the most ignorant shit I’ve seen on this thread, and there’s been a lot.
He doesn’t give the math of what he’s spending now vs with a heat pump, and he doesn’t say he CAN’T afford it, just that it will take too long for him to see the financial benefits. When others try to ask him about details, he doesn’t respond.
The whole reason why we’re in this mess is the full cost of carbon is not paid by current consumers used to cheap energy. People need to accept that their western standard of living will be reduced to match the correct cost of these comforts without taking a sort of “carbon loan” for the future generations to pay.
It’s a very hard pill to swallow, I understand.
deleted by creator
What a useless “feel good about us doing something” memorandum of understanding. Everyone is already heading this way and will hit the mark with no state assistance at all.
A/C+heatpump systems are already way cheaper to use than gas heaters. Doubly so as more and more people are getting solar. No one but rich people wanting to feel warm air from vents are still installing gas heaters.A family member in rural MA talked to three different HVAC installers about converting from gas to heat pumps. All of them suggested leaving the gas system as backup for the coldest months for financial reasons, despite the MassSave whole house heat pump conversion $10k rebate. So, more legislative pressure would definitely still be a help to counter entrenched fossil fuel preference.
Like you said “keep as a backup”. In areas that get cold, you can’t just use a heat pump. Residential heat pumps are only good to about 20 to 25f. Once it gets colder than that you have to have a gas or an electric backup, and at that stage electric is less efficient than gas. So why install an electric backup system (coils that get hot in your blower unit) when you already have gas in place and set up? Running the electric backup coils like I have set up in my all electric house with heat pump uses a large amount of electricity when I have to use it. I have a heat pump that’s a bit older (2007), so it stops warming closer to 30 degrees.
Large scale commercial units (like 14 ton units, where residential is usually around 3.5 ton) can do more. Even down to around -3 f, but not residential, and where I’m at it sometimes get below those temps as well.
Our heat pump (Mitsubishi H2Hi) did fine regularly in single digits F last winter. I know there’s a limit (for efficiency more than function) but it’s definitely getting lower. We had one day -10F or so and no pipes froze (we were actually out of town which was nerve wracking so I don’t know if the house got colder than the thermostat requested).
We had 3 days of -10 to 0 ish in Colorado over MLK Jr weekend, my H2i kept 68F in the house no problem. It dropped to 67 a few times during defrost cycles, since I have no backup. It works great, im sure your house did just fine unless is severely undersized.
In areas that get cold, you can’t just use a heat pump. Residential heat pumps are only good to about 20 to 25f.
That was true a couple decades ago, but hasn’t really been true in a while.
A combination of inverters, variable speed compressors, vapor injection, and using slightly different refrigerants means there’s a number of cold climate heat pumps on the market that will heat down below -13°F.
Fuck that, I’m already carbon neutral and don’t need a ridiculous electricity bill. I heat my house with wood and pellets.
Heat pumps can be more than 100% energy efficient so you could be net negative to what you are doing now. Also genuinely curious that carbon neutral point. Wouldn’t net carbon output be a bigger issue? Like you could burn half the Amazon rainforest to heat your home and claim you were carbon neutral right? But really, you do you!
Burning wood releases CO2 -> trees use CO2 to grow and make wood -> Burning wood releases CO2 -> trees use CO2 to grow and make wood -> repeat ad-nauseam
Trees do not grow as fast as wood burns. This is a 0 IQ take
I ran some rough numbers on this, please pick apart. It takes 10 acres of hardwood to heat 2k ft^2 sustainably. If all land was divided equally between all living humans there would be about 2 acres per person. Not everyone needs heating, trees do not grow on 100% of the land. Definitely appears to be a privileged point, but there’s some gray area.
As a temporary solution, while waiting for heat pumps to be competitive, and solar taking down huge swaths of trees, it could be rationalized to make sense, especially over oil heating.
In the area I’m located, most electric is generated by LNG at 40% efficiency, the avg daily temperature is 30°F, heat pump performs at ~1.25x. Burning wood at 50% efficiency appears to be more carbon neutral solution, when compared to all other solutions, even if you were to bury the wood taken down. At least temporarily, but when the renewable solutions are in place, it’s a no brainier, heat pumps win.
I don’t fully agree with the original comment, but it’s not a 0IQ thought, it’s best intentions, around an area of gray. There isn’t a right answer, it’s a moving target with a complex calculation and we need people who are trying to do the right thing, even if it’s good intentions gone wrong.
Looking at your post history, I think you’re a troll but it’s too hard to tell these days.
