Re: xkcd: Neighbor-Source Heat Pump

On Sun, 08 Jun 2025 17:00:49 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:

On Sun, 8 Jun 2025 14:25:47 +0100, Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip-a-bit>

Referring to <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_source_heat_pump>
An "air to air heat pump" provides heating
or cooling.  In Scotland we mostly talk
about home heating, but on a few days in
a year, indoors is too hot.  But I think
the hear pumps we're offered are for heating
only.  But I do share a wall with the
nearest neighbour...

>
Seattle has been pushing heat pumps to replace oil furnaces for at
least one and probably two decades or so. One of the "advantages" they
claim for them is "free air conditioning".
>
This, of course ignores two factors:
>
1. If heat pumps that do not also cool are available and cost less,
the A/C is not "free" but part of the purchase price.

>
Your predicate isn't true, so your conclusion doesn't follow.

So, the Scots referred to above are paying just as much for Heat Pumps
that can't do A/C as they would for Heat Pumps that can?

I thought they were said to be cannier than that.

2. In any case, since heat pumps run on electricity, the A/C is not
"free" at all.

>
However, the compressor required for air conditioning comes with
all heat pump furnaces, so the user doesn't need to purchase a
separate compressor.  That's the 'free' part.

Even in Scotland? Or do they the pay less for the "heat pump furnace"
than those with A/C do? In which case, my predicate /is/ correct, as
the entire package costs less without A/C.

And it /still/ costs electricity to run. It is /not/ free.

and suggests that the push to heat pumps is a bit ... dishonest.

>
Not at all.

They (a City of Seattle office) are outright lying about A/C being
"free", and have been working to revise the Fire Code to render
in-ground tanks illegal (which may not be a bad idea, seeing how many
were installed 70 years ago, as ours was, and so may be getting a bit
old), thus forcing the issue.

I refer you to this informative article:

https://techxplore.com/news/2024-05-barriers-cold-climates-energy-poverty..html

Granted, this is from Southeast Michigan and is comparing costs with
natural gas.

Still, a $15 reduction for an $18,000 heat pump + envelope retrofit
(ie, insulated windows, doors, attics, etc, etc) would pay for itself
in ... 1,200 years. Also note that not doing the retrofit adds 25% to
the annual heating cost. In Southeast Michigan, using natural gas.

I, of course, am not in Southeast Michigan, but in Western Washington.
And my heating cost should be $1,019.93 from last September to the end
of May (depending on how much the Tank Insurance will cost this year).
Not just for the oil, but for the Service Contract (which includes a
free annual checkup -- which takes about an hour, the tech is very
busy, this is not just a simple "look-see") and Tank Insurance. The
cost of oil is only $738.50 of that. Note that the last few winters
have been rather warmer than usual. A cold winter could push the cost
of oil up to $1000 or so. But that is still half of what Southeast
Michigan homeowners pay for gas.

I would very much like to see a comparison of oil vs heat pump for my
area similar to the study cited above.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"