this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2024
321 points (99.1% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5244 readers
330 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The article doesn't go into it, but a key advantage they have is that heat pumps move heat, rather then trying to generate it. So they can move a lot more heat into your house than would be generated by running the electricity they use through a resistor. This makes them effectively more than 100% efficient (the exact amount depends on temperature) as compared with burning a fuel or resistive heat.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

I've done energy models for houses here in Saskatchewan (~560 tCO2e/GWh) and at the moment, they are not cleaner than heating with natural gas, which is the typical primary heat source. Obviously, it would depend on grid carbon intensity, so there is a level of grid 'cleanness' where heat pumps would become cleaner, but that tipping point depends on a number of factors.

You could do a rough estimation with the seasonal heating efficiency of a heat pump based on the heating-degree-days of your location versus a certain efficiency of natural gas furnace. Burning natural gas is about 0.18 kgCO2e/kWh. So, if you have a heat pump that's 200% seasonally efficient, you'd need the grid carbon intensity to be about 0.38 kgCO2e/kWh (380 tCO2e/GWh) to be equivalent to a 95% efficient natural gas furnace.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

The 200% seasonal efficiency is a bit off, Nordic models, measured with the "colder" European climate zone, get 300%+ and have guaranteed output at -25C / -13F. Example model from Mitsubishi:

It's worse than 5.5x or 4.3x in warmer areas but the right model air source heat pumps work fine down to pretty damned cold. Norway and Sweden have a ton of them as they spend a ton of energy on heating and this saves homeowners a ton of money every year.

Best models optimized for average climate now reach 5.5x or better in the green, moderate zone, SCOP of 4.3 is actually pretty terrible but this one is built to be ice proof.

Example latest bestest heat pump with 6+ seasonal COP:

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Nice. Saskatchewan is very cold though (about 6000 heating deg days at 18C where I am and can regularly go under -30C in winter), so 200% would be pretty reasonable for a typical heat pump. As a comparison, Tromsø, in very north Norway is 5600 heating deg days.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

As a warm blooded, middle east dwelling humanoid, WTF is '6000 heating deg days'?

I have concluded that the 6000 is not days in a year or degrees of temperature.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

To determine heating degree days for your area, you set a baseline temperature (18C is kind of standard in Canada) take the average temperature on each day, and sum the difference between that and the baseline temperature for every day of the year (zero if temp is above baseline). So if the average temp one day was -10C, it would be a 28 heating degree day.

It allows approximation of building heating demand. Some standards (Passive House) use heating degree hours for finer detail, which makes sense because there can be fairly significant day/night temperature swings.

Here's a site where you can calculate what your location is. And here's what Wikipedia says.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago
[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Notable, but outside of very cold climates (which I think I feel safe describing Saskatchewan as being), heat pumps are a LOT more than 200% efficient. In mild climate, they can be 2-4X that.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Definitely, that's why I say the seasonal heating efficiency is based on heating-degree-days of the location. I'm not sure they'd get to 2-4x 200% efficient, though. 350% might be more reasonable.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It gets hard to say because COP varies with climate. But even in SEER ratings, 17-20 are pretty much the norm for modern systems and I have seen as high as 23. That translates to a 4-4.5 COP in an average climate.

But those COPs get higher the more mild your climate -- I am somewhere with quite mild winter where we only get a hard freeze once or maybe twice a year, and generally winter low temps are in the 40-50F range.

I believe the theoretical max efficiency for a heat pump is something like 8.8 COP. In a mild climate like mine, where most of the time if your heat is running it's to heat to ~70ish from an ~50ish outdoor temp, you're should be getting a lot closer to 7 than you are to 2.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

I'm pleasantly surprised. Right, sometimes I forget that most people don't live in a deep freeze like Saskatchewan.