ᐅ Air-to-Water Heat Pump: Current Consumption and Data

Bookstar schrieb:

Energy mix – a known term? Relying entirely on electricity won’t work. People still buy new cars powered by gasoline and diesel.

Of course, everything can run on electricity. But nobody claims this has to happen overnight. We are talking about nationwide infrastructure, which doesn’t appear from one day to the next. Transitions must be managed.
However, it’s important to start somewhere to initiate this change over decades!
It’s like the criticism that electric cars are useless because the charging infrastructure is missing. Was there a network of gas stations when the first vehicles hit the roads? No, it grew over time. Sometimes there are too many cars, sometimes too many gas stations, and so on; in the long run, the system balances out. We need to endure the transitional phases.

Who says gas, petrol, and diesel can’t be centrally burned to generate electricity? That’s why we still need pipelines and gas turbine power plants (which, by the way, can be converted to biogas or hydrogen). That’s called transitional technology.
A gasoline engine wastes about 70% of the fuel energy as heat. That’s incredibly inefficient. Use electricity to power electric cars instead. It’s not the final solution desired, but it’s legitimate and practical as a transition.

Even Greta endorses nuclear power, because without energy security, no transformation will be accepted. That’s completely correct. It’s a bitter pill, but better than burning coal.
Extremists demanding “shut everything down immediately, replace everything, throw it all away” are unrealistic and disconnected from reality, but that doesn’t invalidate the underlying concern.

Bookstar schrieb:

But a gas heating system combined with photovoltaic panels and solar collectors is certainly far from climate-hostile.

Photovoltaics have nothing to do directly with gas heating initially.
Solar thermal collectors, at least, are tough on wallets, as they rarely pay off financially.
And of course, a heat pump uses less energy and causes less climate impact than burning gas, as the numbers mentioned here already show.

Bookstar schrieb:

Running a heat pump but flying overseas twice a year is hypocritical climate policy.

That is mostly whataboutism, as it’s called nowadays.
One thing has nothing to do with the other, and just because one is problematic doesn’t mean the other has to be bad or remain bad.

Undoubtedly, there are many aspects and areas to improve (and that must be done).
What matters is to start.
Maybe not with banning straws, dear EU, as that is just greenwashing.

I’m also tired of all the complaining about our industries that were important for decades.
People cling to past successes, even though any semi-developed country today can build cars, burn coal, or produce chemicals. There’s no exclusivity in that anymore.
Climate change is a growth market. Instead of inspecting panel gaps on cars, we should invest there. Then we will have the knowledge and technology to sell worldwide.
We have practically already lost in the growth market of digitalization.
That is where German strengths lie and should be used, not in ordinary products that are already 80% made in Asia and at best assembled here.

Bookstar schrieb:

Where do we start, where do we stop?

We start everywhere and stop when we’re done or dead.

Tolentino schrieb:

One kWh of electricity still caused over 460 g CO2/kWh in 2018 (source: UBA) (gas 202g/kWh). This will surely decrease as renewable electricity production increases and coal decreases, but we will still need fast-start gas power plants to stabilize the grid through 2038, and coal won’t be fully phased out until then. So the CO2 share in the electricity mix will not drop to zero in the next 20 (or even 50) years.

As you said yourself, you can interpret any data as you like.
Using an old electricity mix and the worst heat pump is one possible tactic.
But that is quite far from reality.

Tolentino schrieb:

Considering that poorly adjusted heat pumps tend to break down more often on average...

I see.

Tolentino schrieb:

I don’t know how the ban will be implemented in Austria, but if, for example, all gas heating systems had to be replaced at once, that could actually worsen the environmental balance compared to letting gas heaters reach their normal service life.

I don’t know about the ban in Austria either, and frankly it’s not relevant.
Take a look at how oil heating was phased out in Germany (or recently old stoves/fireplaces): it’s not that long ago.
There are initially bans for new buildings, then transition periods and hardship regulations. And at the latest, when the owner changes or the house is sold, the replacement obligation becomes effective. Then it’s done.
It also needs to be socially acceptable. That’s why you have to start easing the brakes early enough so there is an end in sight. The paths are still long.

Bookstar schrieb:

Well summarized. Anyone who wants to heat economically now uses a gas boiler and upgrades in 20 years. I have a heat pump, though, because I don’t have a gas connection.

I was also relieved of the decision. When comparing systems, I probably would have gone for gas because of the investment. Budgets for building are limited.

Today I think differently. CO2 pricing has begun, and even the CDU path is already mapped out. It will accelerate, but even if it stayed as it is now, 3-7 cents per liter fuel will be added every year. Gas prices for homes will increase 15-20% annually. Meanwhile, there is pressure to regulate electricity prices.

But I believe if I search through your posts long enough, I will find the typical blanket criticisms of photovoltaics and electric cars.
Now you’re driving an electric car yourself and enjoying it, and photovoltaic systems are planned.
Never say never ;-)

I did not intend to praise gas or demonize heat pumps. I just wanted to say that a heat pump is not automatically, by default, more environmentally friendly.

nordanney schrieb:

Actually, every heating installer does that.

No, unfortunately not. The heating specialist initially commissioned by my general contractor canceled the collaboration on my project after I asked if he would work according to a plan from my MEP engineer. He wanted to proceed strictly by the book and the relevant standards with at least a 10cm (4 inches) installation clearance and refused to install anything less.

He also made mistakes in the ventilation planning by locating the exhaust air in the utility room too close to the door, causing airflow issues.

When I looked for a replacement, one heating installer reviewed the documents and also said it was not feasible or would have to be done very differently than he would normally do, so he declined. Another said they would definitely use their own planning, and a third said they would have to see.

In the end, only 3 out of about 12 contacted submitted a quote under these conditions. Excluding those who didn’t respond at all, that’s 3 out of 7. So more than 50% of the heating installers are too proud to accept a third-party plan (yes, I know, not representative).

However, they do not plan themselves but either build "as usual" or have the underfloor heating system planned by the manufacturer (as was the case with me). So, misplaced pride... and significant intellectual laziness.

Regarding the energy balance of gas: currently, the major companies only consider the CO2 emissions from the combustion process. The transportation losses in the large pipelines from Russia are ignored. However, the escaping gas is even more harmful to the climate than the CO2 produced during combustion. If you look for it, you can find calculations that lower the climate impact of gas to the level of coal. My point is that you can manipulate any data to look good or bad; you just have to adjust the calculation parameters accordingly...

guckuck2 schrieb:

Of course everything works on electricity. But no one is saying this has to happen immediately. We are talking about nationwide infrastructure; it’s not something that appears overnight. Transitions need to be managed.

However, it is important to start somewhere to initiate this change over decades!
It’s like the criticism that electric cars are bad because charging infrastructure is lacking. Was there a network of fuel stations when the first cars appeared on the roads? No, that developed over time. Sometimes there are too many cars, sometimes too many stations, and so on — but in the long run, things balance out. We have to endure the transition phases.

Who says gas, petrol (gasoline), and diesel can’t be centrally burned to generate electricity? That’s why pipelines and gas turbine power plants still exist today (which, by the way, can be converted to use biogas or hydrogen). That is what we call transitional technology. A petrol engine wastes about 70% of the fuel's energy as heat. That is incredibly inefficient. Convert it to electricity and power electric vehicles with it. It’s not the final goal, but it’s a legitimate and practical approach for the transition.

Even Greta says nuclear power is good. Without reliable supply security, no transition will be accepted. Completely true. It’s a bitter pill but better than burning coal.
Extremists with slogans like “shut everything down immediately, replace everything, throw everything away” are just unrealistic and detached from reality — but that doesn’t make the underlying concerns untrue.

Photovoltaics have nothing to do with gas heating in the first place.
Solar thermal collectors, at least, are hard on the wallet; they practically never pay off.
And of course, heat pumps consume less climate-damaging energy than burning gas. Those numbers have already been mentioned here.

That is mostly whataboutism, as it’s called today.
One thing has nothing to do with the other, and just because one is bad doesn’t mean the other has to be or remain bad.

Undoubtedly, there are many issues and details that can (and must) be adjusted.
The important thing is to start.
Maybe not with drinking straws, dear EU—that’s just greenwashing.

The whining about our industries that were important for decades annoys me just as much.
People cling to past successes, but today, even moderately developed countries can build cars, burn coal, or produce chemicals. There’s no exclusivity anymore.
Climate change, however, is a growth market. Instead of measuring panel gaps on cars, we should invest there. Then we’ll gain the knowledge and technology to sell worldwide. When it comes to the growth market of digitalization, we’ve practically already lost.
THAT is Germany’s strength to be used, not a run-of-the-mill product that is already 80% made in East Asia and only assembled here at best.

We start everywhere and stop when we’re done or dead.

As you yourself said, you can rationalize anything.
Taking the old electricity mix and the worst heat pump can be a strategy.
But reality is quite far from that.

I know nothing about the ban in Austria either, but that doesn’t matter.
Look at how oil heating was phased out in Germany (or, more recently, old stoves and fireplaces)—this was not long ago.
First there are bans for new buildings, then transition periods and hardship exemptions. And by the time Erna dies and the house changes owner, the replacement obligation is in effect. Then it’s game over.
It should also be socially acceptable. That’s why the brakes have to be applied early enough, so there is an end in sight. The path is still long.

The decision was also taken away from me. In the system comparison, I might have chosen gas due to the investment. Construction budgets are limited.

Today I think differently. CO2 pricing has started, and even the CDU’s path is predetermined. It will be accelerated, but even if it stayed as it is now, every year’s fuel prices will increase by 3–7 cents per liter (around 1 US cent per quart). Gas prices for homes will go up by 15–20% annually. Meanwhile, they aim to control electricity prices.

But I believe if I search long enough in your posts, I will find typical blanket criticisms of photovoltaics and electric cars.
Now you yourself drive an electric car and enjoy it; photovoltaics are being planned.
Never say never ;-)

I am very open to technology and generally against bans like those pushed by the Greens. I also agree that change must happen, not a stop overnight. Germany is not the center of the world.

There is no word that annoys me more than whataboutism. Every 50-year-old housewife argues with this, without knowing its meaning. I nominate it for the un-word of the year!

I was already familiar with what it means. Among other rhetorical techniques, I referred to it as "Schopenhauering." He actually wrote a manuscript about it: Eristic Dialectic (often published today under the title: "The Art of Being Right").
It's worth reading, not necessarily to apply it yourself, but to recognize the tactics used by discussion partners.
Personally, I do not see a discussion as a competition to determine who is right, but as a process of gaining understanding.

To offer an alternative:
You can also be bothered by "whataboutism" if it is regularly (and rightly) pointed out to you...