ᐅ CO2 Footprint of Gas Heating vs. Heat Pumps in New Construction
Created on: 17 Nov 2024 16:30
K
Konsument4
Recently, there was a discussion among acquaintances about the idea of installing a gas heating system in a new single-family house in 2025 (according to my source/Statista, about 10% still did this in 2023). I researched this topic somewhat (including with the help of ChatGPT, o1-preview) and came across results that seem somewhat out of step with the current general attitude.
- In a 300 sqm (3,230 sq ft) KfW-55 house (minimum standard for 2024, energy efficiency class A with 40 kWh/m2/year), the additional CO2 emissions from a gas heating system compared to a heat pump amount to about 1.6 tons of CO2 per year. (Calculation: Gas: 300 m2 × 40 kWh/m2/year = 12,000 kWh/year; 12,000 kWh × 0.202 kg CO2/kWh = 2,424 kg CO2/year; Heat pump - annual performance factor 4.5, German electricity mix 300 g CO2/kWh: 12,000 kWh ÷ 4.5 = 3,429 kWh/year; 3,429 kWh × 0.3 kg CO2/kWh = 1,028.7 kg CO2/year => 2,424 kg CO2/year − 1,028.7 kg CO2/year = 1,395.3 kg CO2/year)
- Compensating 1.6 tons of CO2 costs about 40 euros on atmosfair. Two tons cost 50 euros.
- In 2024, a heat pump costs roughly 35,000 euros, while a gas heating system costs around 15,000 euros. (There is no direct subsidy for heat pumps in new builds.)
That means, if I compensate the additional CO2 emissions from a gas heating system over 20 years, it costs me about 800 euros. If I pay 1,000 euros, I have still done something positive for the environment overall. On the other hand, there is an upfront cost difference of about 20,000 euros for the heat pump. Spending 20,000 euros for an outcome I can achieve with 1,000 euros seems disproportionate to me.
Currently, the price per ton of CO2 is about 30 euros; even if this price rises to 400 euros by 2045 (allegedly a worst-case scenario), I would still come out cheaper with gas (1.6 tons × 400 euros/ton = 640 euros per year in 2045, and likely significantly less before that).
Of course, my calculation is based on various average values, but unless I am seriously wrong in at least one area, the result seems quite clear: If I install a gas heating system in a new single-family home and at least compensate for the CO2 emissions, it appears I come out cheaper and could still do something good for the environment with the savings.
Am I missing something? What else should be considered? Does the calculation contain a major incorrect assumption or wrong average value?
PS: I have seen the thread about gas heating systems 23/24, but in my opinion, the topic of the CO2 footprint was not discussed there, and towards the end, the thread went off-topic anyway.
- In a 300 sqm (3,230 sq ft) KfW-55 house (minimum standard for 2024, energy efficiency class A with 40 kWh/m2/year), the additional CO2 emissions from a gas heating system compared to a heat pump amount to about 1.6 tons of CO2 per year. (Calculation: Gas: 300 m2 × 40 kWh/m2/year = 12,000 kWh/year; 12,000 kWh × 0.202 kg CO2/kWh = 2,424 kg CO2/year; Heat pump - annual performance factor 4.5, German electricity mix 300 g CO2/kWh: 12,000 kWh ÷ 4.5 = 3,429 kWh/year; 3,429 kWh × 0.3 kg CO2/kWh = 1,028.7 kg CO2/year => 2,424 kg CO2/year − 1,028.7 kg CO2/year = 1,395.3 kg CO2/year)
- Compensating 1.6 tons of CO2 costs about 40 euros on atmosfair. Two tons cost 50 euros.
- In 2024, a heat pump costs roughly 35,000 euros, while a gas heating system costs around 15,000 euros. (There is no direct subsidy for heat pumps in new builds.)
That means, if I compensate the additional CO2 emissions from a gas heating system over 20 years, it costs me about 800 euros. If I pay 1,000 euros, I have still done something positive for the environment overall. On the other hand, there is an upfront cost difference of about 20,000 euros for the heat pump. Spending 20,000 euros for an outcome I can achieve with 1,000 euros seems disproportionate to me.
Currently, the price per ton of CO2 is about 30 euros; even if this price rises to 400 euros by 2045 (allegedly a worst-case scenario), I would still come out cheaper with gas (1.6 tons × 400 euros/ton = 640 euros per year in 2045, and likely significantly less before that).
Of course, my calculation is based on various average values, but unless I am seriously wrong in at least one area, the result seems quite clear: If I install a gas heating system in a new single-family home and at least compensate for the CO2 emissions, it appears I come out cheaper and could still do something good for the environment with the savings.
Am I missing something? What else should be considered? Does the calculation contain a major incorrect assumption or wrong average value?
PS: I have seen the thread about gas heating systems 23/24, but in my opinion, the topic of the CO2 footprint was not discussed there, and towards the end, the thread went off-topic anyway.
N
nordanney17 Nov 2024 19:09Konsument4 schrieb:
other CO2 compensations Apart from reforestation (ideally fast-growing firewood for wood stoves in developing countries...), there aren’t many options left (excluding CO2 storage or similar methods). Unfortunately, these solutions will only have an effect in the coming decades, not immediately. It’s worth thinking about.
Considering how much we already compensate through various certificates (for example, CO2 certificates purchased from Tesla), the world should already be saved. Oh, and those are just certificates for avoiding pollution related to electric cars (which cause a lot of CO2 during production)...
In the end, there is only one sensible option: reducing CO2 emissions. Blowing smoke out of the chimney at all costs (not to mention the high heating bills) and then hoping to save the world through compensation might be a bit naive...
N
nordanney17 Nov 2024 19:15Konsument4 schrieb:
something good for the environment P.S. If you or your acquaintances really want to do something good for the environment, don’t build new—choose a pre-owned property instead. The carbon footprint of a newly built home isn’t very favorable. The construction alone consumes around 50 tons of CO2, which is quite high compared to the total consumption over the entire lifespan of the building.
K
Konsument417 Nov 2024 19:30nordanney schrieb:
P.S. If you or your acquaintances really want to do something good for the environment, don’t build new, but rather take an existing property. The carbon footprint of a new build is not that great. The construction alone consumes around +/- 50 tons of CO2 – compared to the total consumption over the entire lifespan, that’s quite high. I completely agree, although in our discussion it wasn’t the fact that it’s a new build that caused the upset, but rather the possibility of a gas heating system, which I actually didn’t consider such a big issue. That piqued my interest, and based on my calculations above, I’m somewhat surprised that, in my opinion, the gas heating system doesn’t come off that badly. According to some perceptions, it’s pure evil.
New builds are happening anyway, but sure, one could build smaller, etc. — fair enough. By the way, I also hadn’t realized how large the carbon footprint of travel/flights is. Sometimes entire families could heat their homes for two years if one person doesn’t fly overseas.
Konsument4 schrieb:
In my opinion, that doesn’t completely change the calculation in favor of the heat pump.You want to make a smart decision based on calculations and make gas look good, so go ahead.Two more points,
for us, the gas connection in the new build would have cost 13,000 € (approximately $13,000), plus about 20 € (approximately $20) monthly base fee, electricity is always available at the house.
K
Konsument417 Nov 2024 19:47Nida35a schrieb:
You want to make a smart decision based on calculations and are calculating gas costs favorably, so go ahead. Two more points: with us, a gas connection in a new build would have cost €13,000 (about $14,000) and a monthly basic charge of around €20 ($21). Electricity is always available at the house. The calculation above is broken down very clearly – please tell me where it is "calculated favorably," that is the real question.
C
chand198617 Nov 2024 19:57Konsument4 schrieb:
The calculation is clearly broken down above – please tell me where it is "beautified," that is the real question. The "beautification" lies in the fact that cost efficiency does not reflect resource efficiency. If the goal were truly environmental protection, all "compensation" measures would be implemented even if people only installed heat pumps. Instead, it’s just window dressing. Of course, any emission that is unnecessary is still redundant and therefore harmful, even if it is compensated. Because the reference point is never the current state, but what could have been done better instead.
Calculations of economic efficiency and climate impact are not synonymous.
Similar topics