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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
