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).
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?
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).
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.You are ill-informed then. Northern Europe was covered in a thick layer of ice 20000 years ago. And even more around 115000 years ago. From the latter period it is very easy to see where the ice ended in the landscape near where I live.
Why are we even bothering to compare whether humans lived 20,000 years ago in an ice age or not? It's irrelevant. Utterly irrelevant. Life expectancy was shorter in those times too, turns out temperate climates are about right for humans. It isn't conducive to survival to be in extreme weather of any kind. But it's not representative of the threat of climate change.
The problem with climate change is not human extinction, no one serious thinks humans will go extinct, it is the severe and irreversible harm it will do to an ecosystem that is currently well balanced, that is currently able to feed approximately 7 billion people adequately (and another ~1 billion inadequately). It is the threat to arable land especially in equatorial areas. It is the flood threat to countries with limited sea defences. It is the extreme temperature and drought threat to most countries 15 degrees either side of the equator.
Upset the delicate balance and trigger these events and you will have war, famine and illness - that is the big danger of climate change - not slightly hotter summers or colder winters.
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).
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.You are ill-informed then. Northern Europe was covered in a thick layer of ice 20000 years ago. And even more around 115000 years ago. From the latter period it is very easy to see where the ice ended in the landscape near where I live.
QuoteWith 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?You are seeing that completely wrong. Consider humanity like a bunch of ants in a nest. Some will die and if living conditions get worse, the ants will move somewhere else.
Translated to your car analogy: cars are continously improved to become safer in the big picture.
Also be aware that nature and the face of the earth change continuously. There is no fixed or final state.
One of the major shortcomings of many environmentalists is that they want to keep things the same. If they could, they would want to make the moon stop circling around the earth so to say.
There is no such thing as a delicate balance.
There is only chaos in the weather system.
You can't even be 100% sure that the temperature change we're seeing is due to human activity.
There are so many factors that you can't even begin to create a suitable model. For starters take the huge amount of energy the sun is supplying to the earth. Even a small fluctuation can have a massive effect and this happens as the sun's energy output isn't constant at all. Data shows that sun has been outputting more energy since 1700. But you can't even start to claim that causes an increase in temperature. It might as well cause a decrease in the long term.
Nowadays the news is way to quick to attribute every bit of rain (or lack thereof) to climate change.
Accurate data goes back only 100 years or so.
Is this what this forum has become? 5% useful posts on actual heatpump data, 95% argument?
Is this what this forum has become? 5% useful posts on actual heatpump data, 95% argument?
Japan and China have vast numbers of heat pumps for cooling but very few are capable of heating.
Is this what this forum has become? 5% useful posts on actual heatpump data, 95% argument?Something about heatpumps brings out the crazies, not just this forum. So the OP asking for honest answers (being overwhelmed by the noise) is fully understandable.
Paving the planet with solar panels or harvesting all the lithium in the world, etc, might only make things worse.
Then again, maybe such low-hanging fruit is not available. I'm not saying never to install battery systems. Just something to think about for priorities.
The whole idea of these systems to pay for themselves is kind of bullshit. Sure it can reduce on your energy bill, but it will still cost money. Depending on the type of system and the cost to install it can take a long time before any savings start to come.
The whole idea of these systems to pay for themselves is kind of bullshit. Sure it can reduce on your energy bill, but it will still cost money. Depending on the type of system and the cost to install it can take a long time before any savings start to come.
Remember that expensive systems such as quoted for you are a kind of specialty of wealthy societies and wealthy households. Energy solutions are being sold exceeding their true value, because there is market for that and people still buy. My air-to-water heat pump installation was less than 4000EUR all parts included, although I did the install work myself but it would have been less than 1000EUR for work if I just paid for hourly rates for electrician and plumber; and the end result is way better than how a typical 15000EUR complete one size fits all solution would have been.
Typical cost for air-to-water retrofit was around 8000-9000 EUR here but nearly doubled to 14-15000 EUR almost overnight after a 4000EUR subsidy come into place. The market does not reflect actual costs, and any subsidies further twist the market. Enough people are willing to pay outrageous prices when they feel good about it.
The whole idea of these systems to pay for themselves is kind of bullshit. Sure it can reduce on your energy bill, but it will still cost money. Depending on the type of system and the cost to install it can take a long time before any savings start to come.
Remember that expensive systems such as quoted for you are a kind of specialty of wealthy societies and wealthy households. Energy solutions are being sold exceeding their true value, because there is market for that and people still buy. My air-to-water heat pump installation was less than 4000EUR all parts included, although I did the install work myself but it would have been less than 1000EUR for work if I just paid for hourly rates for electrician and plumber; and the end result is way better than how a typical 15000EUR complete one size fits all solution would have been.
Typical cost for air-to-water retrofit was around 8000-9000 EUR here but nearly doubled to 14-15000 EUR almost overnight after a 4000EUR subsidy come into place. The market does not reflect actual costs, and any subsidies further twist the market. Enough people are willing to pay outrageous prices when they feel good about it.
In Japan air-to-air heatpump costs something like 500EUR installed so one can easily afford one per each room. They do pay back for themselves, that's literally why they were developed in 1980's in the first place, to save cost of fossil fuels.
It's nonsense because China, Russia and the USA are never going to adopt net zero.
Why not?I'm just 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.
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.
QuoteHow 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.
There is no such thing as a delicate balance.
You are aware that you are in disagreement with about everyone who does research in that area professionally, right?
Is this what this forum has become? 5% useful posts on actual heatpump data, 95% argument?Something about heatpumps brings out the crazies, not just this forum. So the OP asking for honest answers (being overwhelmed by the noise) is fully understandable.
Is this what this forum has become? 5% useful posts on actual heatpump data, 95% argument?Something about heatpumps brings out the crazies, not just this forum. So the OP asking for honest answers (being overwhelmed by the noise) is fully understandable.Because it's political. I'm not going to get into who's right and wrong in this post, just explain why many get emotional about it, briefly outlining both points of view.
Is this what this forum has become? 5% useful posts on actual heatpump data, 95% argument?Something about heatpumps brings out the crazies, not just this forum. So the OP asking for honest answers (being overwhelmed by the noise) is fully understandable.Because it's political. I'm not going to get into who's right and wrong in this post, just explain why many get emotional about it, briefly outlining both points of view.But the only politics seems to be in the supply/price of natural resources. Nothing to do with the heat pump.
All it needs is people plainly stating the reason why they think their position, instead of non specific unarguable generalisations.
Most of this thread is UK people dodging the fact that their energy costs are abnormal, while making all sorts of big claims about the rest of the world. Obnoxious colonialism vibes.
And from my position, I see this thread as a load of Europeans lecturing us Brits telling us what to do.
And from my position, I see this thread as a load of Europeans lecturing us Brits telling us what to do.
I'm just 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.Now it appears you're tying to provoke me, which will not work. I'm more than capable of defending my position.
Indeed I consider it to be fairly obvious.
I just do not want to discuss the matter here any more.
For one it's against the rules of this forum and secondly I know from previous experience it's impossible to discuss such matters in a logical manner with those who resort to accusations of lying.
QuoteIt'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.I have done the calculations, as has someone else here, who is also an advocate of heat pumps.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/what-is-the-real-story-around-heat-pumps/msg5347484/#msg5347484
QuoteOne 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.And guess what. If it becomes economical for me to buy an electric heat pump, then can do it. It's just uneconomical at the moment. I don't see why you appear to be having difficulty understanding that.
Quote... 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.Not highly optimistic, only a little optimistic to assume all of the heat from the engine will heat my home. Perhaps 85%, is a more reasonable figure, similar to a condensing gas boiler. This still a COP of around 150% and is much cheaper to run than electricity of a condensing gas boiler.
To be honest, changing to a heat pump, whether it's powered from electricity, or gas wouldn't be worth it for me at the moment because my energy usage is too low for it to matter. It's really a thought experiment.