What is the real story around heat pumps?

[JohanH]

Combined heat and power is feasible, if the government keeps their dirty hands away from our individual freedom, and allows us to connect to the gas grid.
...
So I'm going to be very clear about this: You have no right whatsoever to tell me, or anyone else, what I can or cannot have for my standard of living.

I'm flabbergasted that some on this forum can't understand that they are a part of the society like everybody else. As long as we are talking about Europe and democratic societies. The government, that's we, ourselves, whether we want it or not. With such a large population on earth, everyone should understand that they also must be a part of the society, if they want the have the freedoms that the society allows them (but perhaps they could move into an unpopulated area to get total "freedom"). The freedoms are not absolute rights, they are an agreement between us as individuals and the society as a whole. The limits to these freedoms have changed as long as societies have existed and evolved. It's understandable that not everyone want to adapt or change by the changing rules. But as engineers, I would expect some ability to change and adjust circumstances and not just blame the government for everything (it's the same as blaming yourself in the big picture). Why not be creative instead of raging over small things that nobody will care about after a few years? Of course, sometimes changes in society indeed benefits especially a larger population and smaller parts have less benefits, possibly even suffer over some injustice. But I would like to believe that especially people on this forum are creative individuals that are able to adapt, even be the front-runners for changing technology.

[zilp]

It's nonsense because China, Russia and the USA are never going to adopt net zero.

Why not?

I'm not going to discuss net zero, propaganda and taxes. They're political and will just result in pages of arguing, with neither of us agreeing. I just don't support it. You clearly do. We'll just have to disagree and leave it at that.

That is simply a lie. You did discuss just that, as I quoted above. You just don't want to defend your position when challenged. If you didn't want to discuss it, you wouldn't have mentioned it in the first place.

All I say is, I will choose the most economical heating solution for me.

That is not all you said. "China, Russia and the USA are never going to adopt net zero" is not a different way of saying "I will choose the most economical heating solution for me". And you know that it isn't.

Just look at the value of gold over the last 100 years. There are peaks and troughs but there's a clear upward trend. Yes I might lose some money, so I certainly wouldn't put all of my money into gold.

Yeah, but that upward trend still is caused by what I explained above. But if you know not to put all your money into it, that's probably the most important thing.

On the other hand, I know if I replaced my gas boiler with an electric heat pump, it will lose money, so it would be a dumb investment for me. I'm not going to buy a system which will cost a lot of money and cost more to run. It would be like me trying to persuade you into investing in a new paper magazine publication. It will lose money.

It's just that you don't actually know that. Whether replacing a gas boiler with an electric heat pump now is a net profitable decision depends heavily on the development of energy supply costs and the purchase price and installation costs of heat pumps over the lifetime of that (hypothetical) heat pump. And as you don't know any of these to a particularly high degree of certainty, you also can't necessarily know whether installing a heat pump now would lose you money.

One thing that is pretty likely, though, for a variety of reasons, is that the price differential between gas and electricity will shrink, and possibly even invert, which at the very least means that betting on gas is not a particularly safe bet.

How did you get to that number?

Given:

The gas engine has an efficiency of 30%

The heat pump system a COP of 300%, i.e. for every 100W of mechanical power from the engine, I get 300W of heat.

Calculate the total COP of the heat pump, driven from the gas engine:

100W of power goes in:

The engine is 30% efficient, thus produces:
30W power to the shaft, which is delivered to the heat pump, which generates three times as much heat 30W*3 = 90W
70W of heat, which isn't wasted but goes into my home.

Total heat to my home 90 + 70 = 160W, hence a total COP of 160%

... which assumes that the exhaust will be at outdoor temperature (i.e., your heating water return is below outdoor temperature?) and at the same absolute humidity as outdoor air (which indeed would be likely with outdoor-temperature exhaust ... but not so much in reality)!?

Also, I don't know all that much about the power regulation of combustion engines, but I think that they at the very least have a relatively narrow band of rotational speed where they reach maximum efficiency, and I suspect that exhaust temperature is part of that equation and thus can not be varied continuously to match the water heat exchanger without sacrificing mechanical efficiency!?

Which is to say: It seems highly optimistic to me to assume that you could capture 100% of the waste heat for heating purposes.

I don't know what the actual cost of a gas powered heat pump is. Yes it would be more expensive, but typically the cost of the heat pump itself is only a small proportion of the total system. At least with a gas powered system, I know it would pay for itself, unlike an electric one. If I've changed my heating to be heat pump compatible and the market changes, I can always move to electric in the future.

Uh ... I mean, I am sorry, but ... that doesn't make a whole lot of sense!?

If you work from the assumption that the majority of the costs of switching to a heat pump are independent from the energy source used by the heat pump, then that implies that switching to a gas-driven heat pump would require the same investment as switching to an electrically driven heat pump. And probably at least a bit more, as you seem to agree. Which also presumably is considerably more than staying with your current system/replacing it with a new gas boiler (as otherwise an electric heat pump would be close to cost parity, based on operating costs alone)? And that difference is supposed to be paid for by a reduction in gas consumption of only 38% even based on your own highly optimistic efficiency calculation?!

I mean, I am not saying that it couldn't end up cheaper overall, but I think you are overstating the certainty a lot when you say that you know that it would pay for itself, given the uncertainty of energy supply costs, and the relatively small efficiency gain of a (small) gas-driven heat pump vs. just burning the gas for heat.

[tszaboo]

Combined heat and power is feasible, if the government keeps their dirty hands away from our individual freedom, and allows us to connect to the gas grid.
...
So I'm going to be very clear about this: You have no right whatsoever to tell me, or anyone else, what I can or cannot have for my standard of living.

I'm flabbergasted that some on this forum can't understand that they are a part of the society like everybody else. As long as we are talking about Europe and democratic societies. The government, that's we, ourselves, whether we want it or not. With such a large population on earth, everyone should understand that they also must be a part of the society, if they want the have the freedoms that the society allows them (but perhaps they could move into an unpopulated area to get total "freedom"). The freedoms are not absolute rights, they are an agreement between us as individuals and the society as a whole. The limits to these freedoms have changed as long as societies have existed and evolved. It's understandable that not everyone want to adapt or change by the changing rules. But as engineers, I would expect some ability to change and adjust circumstances and not just blame the government for everything (it's the same as blaming yourself in the big picture). Why not be creative instead of raging over small things that nobody will care about after a few years? Of course, sometimes changes in society indeed benefits especially a larger population and smaller parts have less benefits, possibly even suffer over some injustice. But I would like to believe that especially people on this forum are creative individuals that are able to adapt, even be the front-runners for changing technology.

People care, when they have to declare personal bankruptcy if the boiler in their home stops working. They will first go to the insurance company, that will not cover the installation of a heatpump, because why would they. The government will set up a lousy way to finance it that will not cover anything of the cost.
You know what happened here after they made these policies? There was an election, and the far right Gert Wilders won.

Wilders's main election message was one of anti-immigration, but he has also had a strong anti-climate action rhetoric, saying he does not want to waste billions on "pointless climate hobbies."

That's what happens. When you make clearly stupid policies that are expensive and don't have support, people fight back, and then you are in a worse shape than making good policies. There are two ways to fight climate change. The wrong way: tax fossil fuels ban cars and force people to do things, leftist policies. Or you can make the alternative cheaper.
Cheap renewable energy, and then people switch to that, and they'll be happy with it, and tell everyone how much money they save. Instead we push the leftist policies to the point that people just have enough and decide to do nothing or pollute even more out of spite.

[zilp]

Combined heat and power is feasible, if the government keeps their dirty hands away from our individual freedom, and allows us to connect to the gas grid.

Do you support my campaign for the government keeping its dirty hands away from my individual freedom to put cyanide into your food?

If not, why not?

So yes, maybe it's possible to resolve these with solar or nuclear or burning peat underground or whatever. I have zero control over that. Solar is great, because it's free as in beers. Any time I need to import energy is just more leverage on my life that I want as much reduced as possible. All the other solutions are just asking for more taxes, fees utility bills. It leads to energy poverty.

You do realize that this is so vague that noone has any idea what point you are trying to make, right?

We want to resolve this global warming situation without causing yet more damage to the standards of living.

Which doesn't answer the question as to whether that is possible.

It is an obvious truth that we don't want to reduce standard of living for aynone just for the sake of it.

But stating that doesn't do anything to determine whether it is actually possible within the constraints of physics and human mental capacity to resolve global warming without reducing the standards of living of anyone, let alone how to go about it, right?

I'm done with this part of the discussion. I have the right for this declared by the UN article 25.
"Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family"

Notice how it says "everyone"? Notice how it doesn't say "tszaboo has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, but fuck everyone else"? Also notice how it doesn't say anything about "a house"?

It's actually pretty wild what you apparently think this means. That you even think that this is in any way relevant to your circumstances at all. That you have so little historical and global political awareness that you don't understand that this is about addressing governments leaving people freezing to death in the streets instead of providing them with a little heated room that allows them to survive and to not experience existentially threatening any physically torturing circumstances. That you seriously seem to think that this could possibly mean that the government of your country would be expected to ensure that you are personally provided with 5 GJ of heat per year at discount prices because you have decided that that size of a home is what you need is just completely insane.

I'm sick and tired of people flying in private jets to meeting in Davos, trying to tell us that we have to lower our standards of living, and convincing millions of useful idiots of this. You should stop being a useful idiot.

Now, what relevance do the private jets or the place that these people are meeting have as to the correctness of what they are saying?!

Like, if you don't like these people flying in private jets to meet in Davos, ok, fine, I don't like that either. But how does that get us any closer to figuring out whether lowering our standard of living is required or not? Would these same people staying at home and saying the same thing change your mind? And if so ... how does that make any sense?!

How about you address the arguments people are making (of which those meeting at Davos really are a tiny minority and generally the least qualified anyway, so why are you concentrating on them?!) as to what (un)viable approaches to solving climate change are and why?

There are ways we can resolve global warming without "depopulation" or "great reset".

Well ... OK?! I mean, I don't even think that any significant number of people suggest that that wouldn't be the case, so ... what is your point?!

So I'm going to be very clear about this: You have no right whatsoever to tell me, or anyone else, what I can or cannot have for my standard of living.

Well, I am sorry, but that is just obvious bullshit, and I can't believe you actually seriously mean this?!

I mean, unless you just mean that noone should have the authority to just arbitrarily force you to reduce your standard of living just because they said so, in which case, OK, I agree, but at the same time, exactly noone is suggesting anything of the sort, so, again, what is your point? Just stating the obvious?

I am getting the impression, though, that what you are actually advocating for is that other people should be forced to bear the damages that are caused by your behaviour, because you aren't willing to pay the full costs of your standard of living. And that obviously isn't a reasonable demand.

Now, if your argument is that you think that some number of people is already in a position where they have other people, including you, bear the costs of their own standard of living, like, maybe, (some of) the people at Davos, or that some such people are trying to get you to decrease your standard of living in order to allow them to maintain their own standard of living: May I suggest that you have a very close look at who would actually benefit from the policies that you are promoting?

Because, to put it very diplomatically: Those organizations that have historically put a lot of effort into lobbying and propaganda for fossil fuels do not exactly have a great track record when it comes to benefiting the general public. Which doesn't mean that there aren't people who have benefited greatly. Some of those you even would have a reasonable chance of meeting at Davos.

In particular, these propaganda campaigns tend to abuse the lacking understanding of economic mechanisms in the general public, instead appealing to commonly believed myths (or simplifications, if you want to be charitable) in order to make people support policies against their own self-interest. And some of that I feel can be seen in how you argued in this thread so far--and in particular in how you haven't engaged at all with my explanations as to why I think your suggestions as to how climate change could be addressed more easily and/or more cheaply don't really work out economically. My impression so far from the discussion with you is that you are primarily repeating talking points that you have heard somewhere that seemed convincing to you, as, when challenged, you just switch to a different argument, or you lash out with insults, rather than explaining your position to counter what I am saying. That certainly doesn't match what I would expect from someone who actually has a reasonably deep understanding of a topic.

[zilp]

That's what happens. When you make clearly stupid policies that are expensive and don't have support, people fight back, and then you are in a worse shape than making good policies. There are two ways to fight climate change. The wrong way: tax fossil fuels ban cars and force people to do things, leftist policies. Or you can make the alternative cheaper.
Cheap renewable energy, and then people switch to that, and they'll be happy with it, and tell everyone how much money they save. Instead we push the leftist policies to the point that people just have enough and decide to do nothing or pollute even more out of spite.

Did you notice how you just skipped the important part of your argument?

You just say "Or you can make the alternative cheaper."

Well. Can you?

How?

And how isn't that dishonest irrelevant nonsense if you have no idea how?

So far, you might as well be saying "Or you can just make CO2 not act as a greenhouse gas". Unless you can support the claim that that is actually possible in the necessary time frame, your statement is equivalent to saying "if we didn't have the problem, we wouldn't have the problem". Yeah, duh? It's just that, in actual fact, we do have the problem, and mere hypotheticals about how we wouldn't have a problem if we didn't have a problem won't do anything to solve the problem that we do in fact have.

If you do know of a way to get sufficient cheap renewable energy (and available at the times that it is required, as you correctly noted before in this discussion) to make it an obvious immediate economical win for everyone to switch to CO2 free heating, then please tell us what that way is. But only if you are willing to seriously address the arguments as to why your suggested approach might not actually be as cheap as you think it is. Because we have heard more than enough people who are utterly convinced that their free energy machines work, but who only are that convinced because they never engaged with the explanations as to why they don't actually work. And that sort of argument doesn't get any better if it is based on confusion about economics instead of confusion about physics.

[Siwastaja]

Defrost circuitry can be very stupid.

"Circuitry" might be a wrong choice of words in 2000's because it's software on a microcontroller. Circuitry is almost always pretty much the same, outdoor air temperature sensor + evaporator coil pipe temperature sensor.

There are three classes of defrost logic:
(1) Very stupid, which works
(2) More sophisticated, which still hopefully works
(3) Those that fail more often than once in a blue moon

The simple and reliable baseline is just following the temperature difference between outdoor air and evaporator coil pipe. Once the evaporator is blocked by ice, it gets internally colder and colder, which triggers defrosting, which runs until evaporator coil temperature exceeds some high threshold (e.g. +40degC or something) - after the ice has melted, evaporator temperature rises quickly.

Stuff like minimum and maximum time between defrosts is usually added. It doesn't need to be rocket science, and while fancier solutions could provide small COP advantages by defrosting just at the right time, the risk of doing it way too often or way too rarely increases with complexity.

[tom66]

Don't actually expect to "win" any debate on this forum regarding climate change or renewable energy.  Goalposts shift, data is ignored, ears are plugged, bullshit is spread.  We are heading for climate catastrophe because most humans are fundamentally selfish and cannot conceive of problems outside their immediate interests.  Or because that people can't comprehend existential threats.  Whatever it is, it's not good. 

[nctnico]

Don't actually expect to "win" any debate on this forum regarding climate change or renewable energy.  Goalposts shift, data is ignored, ears are plugged, bullshit is spread.  We are heading for climate catastrophe because most humans are fundamentally selfish and cannot conceive of problems outside their immediate interests.  Or because that people can't comprehend existential threats.  Whatever it is, it's not good.

Well, you have to define those 'existential' threats. IMHO the threats are way overblown as the earth and humanity have seen far worse events (like massive vulcanic eruptions, meteorites and ice ages). With today's level of technology there is a lot more the human race can do to remedy effects than ever before. I've been around long enough to notice the climate is changing myself (while carefully keeping in mind that memories typically compress the time frame). I've also been around long enough to know humanity can put serious and effective measures into place to remedy and reverse damage done to the environment. IOW: don't worry too much, it will be OK.

[Siwastaja]

Goalposts shift, data is ignored, ears are plugged, bullshit is spread.  We are heading for climate catastrophe because most humans are fundamentally selfish and cannot conceive of problems outside their immediate interests.  Or because that people can't comprehend existential threats.  Whatever it is, it's not good.

In the end, UK remains one of the few outliers where natural gas is 1/4th of the price of electricity. But most of the Earth's population uses heatpumps just fine, because they are hugely popular in most of Asia. Only in the UK, and to some extent, US, heatpumps are conspiracies and scams and whatever. 95% of the planet has no problem with them at all.

In this discussion again heatpumps are being compared with PV. I have to again note that both are fundamentally similar, they suck freely occurring energy delivered to us by the big lightbulb called the Sun. The exact pattern is slightly different, and because heatpumps do something PV does not, namely harvest solar energy stored within the planet, and I mean not only stored overnight, but also in annual timescale, it is highly valuable, and the value compared to using e.g. li-ion batteries to do the same time-shifting is many orders of magnitude better. The limitation of course then is that the output comes in form of heat, so it can't do everything, but it totally can replace low-temperature heat that would be produced in some other way.

[coppice]

In the end, UK remains one of the few outliers where natural gas is 1/4th of the price of electricity. But most of the Earth's population uses heatpumps just fine, because they are hugely popular in most of Asia.

So, where in Asia are heat pumps popular for heating? There are many millions cooling homes in hot climates, but very few of those are reverse cycle and can heat a home.

[Siwastaja]

There are many millions cooling homes in hot climates, but very few of those are reverse cycle and can heat a home.

You would be wrong here. While there still are very cheap cooling only window units, and of course the warmest climates mostly do with only cooling, the hugely popular split type air conditioner was originally invented in 1980's to be a heating (and cooling) device, and this type is literally everywhere (except UK) since late 1990's.

Even in relatively warm climates you need heating during winter months, and quite obviously decent COP can be easily had when "winter" means +5degC not -10 or -30. Such split type air conditioner offers both heating and cooling, both being something people need. It's an optimization to the old days of burning something for heating and using window type cool-only air conditioner during summer. Rest of the world took this step a decade or two ago. Africa included.

[nctnico]

In the end, UK remains one of the few outliers where natural gas is 1/4th of the price of electricity. But most of the Earth's population uses heatpumps just fine, because they are hugely popular in most of Asia.

So, where in Asia are heat pumps popular for heating? There are many millions cooling homes in hot climates, but very few of those are reverse cycle and can heat a home.

I have a feeling people will want to have heating in the parts of Asia close to the north pole:


My previous and current split AC systems can both heat and cool. I got them for cooling as heating makes no financial sense but the heating option is standard on all units they sell here. And even then, I'd favour underfloor heating over an air-to-air unit.

[pcprogrammer]

In the end, UK remains one of the few outliers where natural gas is 1/4th of the price of electricity. But most of the Earth's population uses heatpumps just fine, because they are hugely popular in most of Asia.

So, where in Asia are heat pumps popular for heating? There are many millions cooling homes in hot climates, but very few of those are reverse cycle and can heat a home.

Did you not see the news lately, -52 in China couple of day's ago.

Maybe a heat pump won't help much with these low temperatures, but as nctnico showed, Asia has some very cold parts.

[Someone]

In the end, UK remains one of the few outliers where natural gas is 1/4th of the price of electricity. But most of the Earth's population uses heatpumps just fine, because they are hugely popular in most of Asia.

So, where in Asia are heat pumps popular for heating? There are many millions cooling homes in hot climates, but very few of those are reverse cycle and can heat a home.

Japan and China. I'll assume also Korea but would need some other verification of that.

[tom66]

A regular-old gas boiler will struggle with -52C.  For one, the condensate pipe will freeze up quickly, and will require frequent defrosting, but also I doubt the output power of most normal systems could keep up with such extreme weather.

In those cases, wrap up warm and use local heating in addition to any central heating. 

[pcprogrammer]

Don't actually expect to "win" any debate on this forum regarding climate change or renewable energy.  Goalposts shift, data is ignored, ears are plugged, bullshit is spread.  We are heading for climate catastrophe because most humans are fundamentally selfish and cannot conceive of problems outside their immediate interests.  Or because that people can't comprehend existential threats.  Whatever it is, it's not good.

Well, you have to define those 'existential' threats. IMHO the threats are way overblown as the earth and humanity have seen far worse events (like massive vulcanic eruptions, meteorites and ice ages). With today's level of technology there is a lot more the human race can do to remedy effects than ever before. I've been around long enough to notice the climate is changing myself (while carefully keeping in mind that memories typically compress the time frame). I've also been around long enough to know humanity can put serious and effective measures into place to remedy and reverse damage done to the environment. IOW: don't worry too much, it will be OK.

Don't be to sure about that.

You forgot to mention war as an event that hurts humanity way worse then some of those natural events, and a couple of days ago the news was a bit grim on future expectations. With a big bunch of narcissists controlling the world it might not be so far of. Europe needs to invest in the military apparatus, and count less on America to save our buts. It might be a political scheme to stimulate growth of the defense system and arms economy, but statements were made that we should allow pension funds to invest in weapons industry again.

With all the shifts to right wing politics in European countries it could be an indicator of this. Even last election in the Netherlands showed this shift.

Lets hope you are right and I'm wrong.

On another note, I can remember the times that streets were white and slippery of snow and ice for more than a couple of days in a row, so definitely not denying something in the climate is changing. Caused by industry and burning of fossil fuels, human dreadful interaction with nature or some other natural events, who knows.

[zilp]

Well, you have to define those 'existential' threats. IMHO the threats are way overblown as the earth and humanity have seen far worse events (like massive vulcanic eruptions, meteorites and ice ages).

Don't you think that it is a bit weird to put "the earth" and "humanity" right next to each other here?! I mean, obviously, the earth has seen far worse times, as far as conditions for life are concerned. Like, the surface of the earth was a molten sea of lava at some point, and obivously, the planet as such survived that just fine. But I presume you don't think that that has anything meaningful to say as to whether humans would be able to cope?!

I mean, yeah, I agree, there is absolutely zero risk from climate change to "the earth", as in, the lump of matter that orbits the sun and that we call by that name. All things considered, it will barely be affected. If you go down 10 km from the surface (so not even a percent of its diameter!), there probably would be no way to detect any changes from climate change whatsoever. But the surface could turn back into molten lava, and the same would still apply, so I hope you would agree that that is just completely irrelevant as far as the fate of humanity is concerned?!

Now, as for the claim that humanity has seen far worse events: Would you mind giving an example of a volcanic eruption, a meteorite, and an ice age, respectively, that humanity has experienced and that you think was far worse than climate change will become for humanity if we don't limit the temperature rise as recommended by the concensus of scientists?

To give you a heads up: Modern humans evolved at most 400,000 years ago. The last ice age was ~ 2.4 million years ago. If I were you, I wouldn't waste too much time trying to find an ice age that humanity has experienced.

With today's level of technology there is a lot more the human race can do to remedy effects than ever before. I've been around long enough to notice the climate is changing myself (while carefully keeping in mind that memories typically compress the time frame). I've also been around long enough to know humanity can put serious and effective measures into place to remedy and reverse damage done to the environment. IOW: don't worry too much, it will be OK.

What I am wondering is: How would you recognize ahead of time a case where the technology that the human race has available would actually be insufficient to remedy/reverse the damage?

Are you saying that it is somehow logically impossible for humanity to cause damage to the environment that it can not remedy or reverse? If so, why would that be? And it not, then how did you determine that this instance of damage to the environment is in the category of cases that can be remedied/reversed?

Or are you saying that because we have in the past caused damage to the environment that we were able to remedy, that therefore any damage that we cause to the environment can be remedied?

If so, would you see any flaw with it if someone told you that they had been in various car crashes that they had all survived, and that they concluded that it therefore was impossible for them to die in a car crash?

[coppice]

In the end, UK remains one of the few outliers where natural gas is 1/4th of the price of electricity. But most of the Earth's population uses heatpumps just fine, because they are hugely popular in most of Asia.

So, where in Asia are heat pumps popular for heating? There are many millions cooling homes in hot climates, but very few of those are reverse cycle and can heat a home.

Japan and China. I'll assume also Korea but would need some other verification of that.

Japan and China have vast numbers of heat pumps for cooling but very few are capable of heating. Japan is strange for an affluent country. Few people seem to properly heat their homes by any means at all, apart from Hokkiado, where its seriously cold. I'm not sure about Korea, but I can't remember seeing heat pumps used for heating there.

[coppice]

In the end, UK remains one of the few outliers where natural gas is 1/4th of the price of electricity. But most of the Earth's population uses heatpumps just fine, because they are hugely popular in most of Asia.

So, where in Asia are heat pumps popular for heating? There are many millions cooling homes in hot climates, but very few of those are reverse cycle and can heat a home.

Did you not see the news lately, -52 in China couple of day's ago.

Maybe a heat pump won't help much with these low temperatures, but as nctnico showed, Asia has some very cold parts.

There are many places in Asia where a heat pump for heating homes would be a great idea, but you just don't see them. The last time I was in China heat pumps for heating hot water were the latest trend, but they were sets specifically to heat a cylinder of water, and not to heat a home.

[Someone]

In the end, UK remains one of the few outliers where natural gas is 1/4th of the price of electricity. But most of the Earth's population uses heatpumps just fine, because they are hugely popular in most of Asia.

So, where in Asia are heat pumps popular for heating? There are many millions cooling homes in hot climates, but very few of those are reverse cycle and can heat a home.

Japan and China. I'll assume also Korea but would need some other verification of that.

Japan and China have vast numbers of heat pumps for cooling but very few are capable of heating.

Doesnt match my experience, and sounds like bullshit when cooling only heat pumps are the rarities on the market. Air-air "reverse cycle" split systems are the majority of installs/models/uses as they are cheap and quickly return the investment compared to alternatives.
https://heatpumpingtechnologies.org/market-report-japan/
https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/heat-pumps/heat-pumps-are-already-ubiquitous-in-asia-when-will-the-us-catch-up (who links the original sources)

[coppice]

In the end, UK remains one of the few outliers where natural gas is 1/4th of the price of electricity. But most of the Earth's population uses heatpumps just fine, because they are hugely popular in most of Asia.

So, where in Asia are heat pumps popular for heating? There are many millions cooling homes in hot climates, but very few of those are reverse cycle and can heat a home.

Japan and China. I'll assume also Korea but would need some other verification of that.

Japan and China have vast numbers of heat pumps for cooling but very few are capable of heating.

Doesnt match my experience, and sounds like bullshit when cooling only heat pumps are the rarities on the market. Air-air "reverse cycle" split systems are the majority of installs/models/uses as they are cheap and quickly return the investment compared to alternatives.
https://heatpumpingtechnologies.org/market-report-japan/
https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/heat-pumps/heat-pumps-are-already-ubiquitous-in-asia-when-will-the-us-catch-up (who links the original sources)

If he'd looked a bit closer at all those heat pumps on the shops and apartments in Taipei and Ho Chi Minh he would have found the vast majority are air con only. Cooling only units are produced in massive volumes. Maybe you local suppliers sell mostly reverse cycle units, but many countries are different.

[Someone]

In the end, UK remains one of the few outliers where natural gas is 1/4th of the price of electricity. But most of the Earth's population uses heatpumps just fine, because they are hugely popular in most of Asia.

So, where in Asia are heat pumps popular for heating? There are many millions cooling homes in hot climates, but very few of those are reverse cycle and can heat a home.

Japan and China. I'll assume also Korea but would need some other verification of that.

Japan and China have vast numbers of heat pumps for cooling but very few are capable of heating.

Doesnt match my experience, and sounds like bullshit when cooling only heat pumps are the rarities on the market. Air-air "reverse cycle" split systems are the majority of installs/models/uses as they are cheap and quickly return the investment compared to alternatives.
https://heatpumpingtechnologies.org/market-report-japan/
https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/heat-pumps/heat-pumps-are-already-ubiquitous-in-asia-when-will-the-us-catch-up (who links the original sources)

If he'd looked a bit closer at all those heat pumps on the shops and apartments in Taipei and Ho Chi Minh he would have found the vast majority are air con only. Cooling only units are produced in massive volumes. Maybe you local suppliers sell mostly reverse cycle units, but many countries are different.

Citation required. I provided links and sources, you just talk.

[coppice]

In the end, UK remains one of the few outliers where natural gas is 1/4th of the price of electricity. But most of the Earth's population uses heatpumps just fine, because they are hugely popular in most of Asia.

So, where in Asia are heat pumps popular for heating? There are many millions cooling homes in hot climates, but very few of those are reverse cycle and can heat a home.

Japan and China. I'll assume also Korea but would need some other verification of that.

Japan and China have vast numbers of heat pumps for cooling but very few are capable of heating.

Doesnt match my experience, and sounds like bullshit when cooling only heat pumps are the rarities on the market. Air-air "reverse cycle" split systems are the majority of installs/models/uses as they are cheap and quickly return the investment compared to alternatives.
https://heatpumpingtechnologies.org/market-report-japan/
https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/heat-pumps/heat-pumps-are-already-ubiquitous-in-asia-when-will-the-us-catch-up (who links the original sources)

If he'd looked a bit closer at all those heat pumps on the shops and apartments in Taipei and Ho Chi Minh he would have found the vast majority are air con only. Cooling only units are produced in massive volumes. Maybe you local suppliers sell mostly reverse cycle units, but many countries are different.

Citation required. I provided links and sources, you just talk.

Try walking around Taipei or Ho Chi Minh, and see for yourself. The reserve cycle heat pumps aren't too hard to spot if you recognise the models. You'll find a few. In our tower in HK I think our flat was the only one with reverse cycle units. Taipei and Ho Chi Minh have a similar climate, and a similar mix of air cons and reverse cycle machines.

Its hard to tell if the two heat pumps on that restaurant are reverse cycle or not. They look like Daikin units. The consumer sized Daikins are easy to tell apart. The reverse cycle ones are much bulkier and styled differently. Those small commercial ones look similar, although the capacity of the reverse cycle models is lower for the same sized unit. Look at the apartment block behind. Aircons on every apartment, and I doubt a single one is reverse cycle.

[Someone]

If he'd looked a bit closer at all those heat pumps on the shops and apartments in Taipei and Ho Chi Minh he would have found the vast majority are air con only. Cooling only units are produced in massive volumes. Maybe you local suppliers sell mostly reverse cycle units, but many countries are different.

Citation required. I provided links and sources, you just talk.

Try walking around Taipei or Ho Chi Minh, and see for yourself. The reserve cycle heat pumps aren't too hard to spot if you recognise the models. You'll find a few. In our tower in HK I think our flat was the only one with reverse cycle units. Taipei and Ho Chi Minh have a similar climate, and a similar mix of air cons and reverse cycle machines.

It's hard to tell if the two heat pumps on that restaurant are reverse cycle or not. They look like Daikin units. The consumer sized Daikins are easy to tell apart. The reverse cycle ones are much bulkier and styled differently. Those small commercial ones look similar, although the capacity of the reverse cycle models is lower for the same sized unit. Look at the apartment block behind. Aircons on every apartment, and I doubt a single one is reverse cycle.

So more talk??
How about a reliable and neutral source:
https://www.iea.org/commentaries/global-heat-pump-sales-continue-double-digit-growth
and to quote:

In Japan and Korea, sales of air-to-air heat pumps were largely stable in 2022 as most units sold were to replace existing installations, which are typically a third less efficient than new models. More than 90% of homes in Japan are already equipped with heat pumps for space heating and cooling.

In Northern China, district heating remains the most common heating solution in cities, but many of these households also have heat pumps installed for space cooling and providing additional heating from time to time. In Southern China, where winters are milder, air-to-air reversible units are a widespread solution for space heating

You're bringing a biased and unsupported position to an easily verifiable argument. Credibility zero.

[nctnico]

Don't actually expect to "win" any debate on this forum regarding climate change or renewable energy.  Goalposts shift, data is ignored, ears are plugged, bullshit is spread.  We are heading for climate catastrophe because most humans are fundamentally selfish and cannot conceive of problems outside their immediate interests.  Or because that people can't comprehend existential threats.  Whatever it is, it's not good.

Well, you have to define those 'existential' threats. IMHO the threats are way overblown as the earth and humanity have seen far worse events (like massive vulcanic eruptions, meteorites and ice ages). With today's level of technology there is a lot more the human race can do to remedy effects than ever before. I've been around long enough to notice the climate is changing myself (while carefully keeping in mind that memories typically compress the time frame). I've also been around long enough to know humanity can put serious and effective measures into place to remedy and reverse damage done to the environment. IOW: don't worry too much, it will be OK.

Don't be to sure about that.

You forgot to mention war as an event that hurts humanity way worse then some of those natural events, and a couple of days ago the news was a bit grim on future expectations. With a big bunch of narcissists controlling the world it might not be so far of. Europe needs to invest in the military apparatus, and count less on America to save our buts. It might be a political scheme to stimulate growth of the defense system and arms economy, but statements were made that we should allow pension funds to invest in weapons industry again.

With all the shifts to right wing politics in European countries it could be an indicator of this. Even last election in the Netherlands showed this shift.

That is a different subject. It is not like the cold-war period or the 1980's in particular where fun times in Europe. We still live and have food on the table. Things need to be shaken up a bit before they get better. Most of the culpritts are rather old and will die (or at least lose power) within a decade or so.