Comments
Prototype_es t1_iv8zool wrote
Especially since furnaces and heat pumps utilize the same ductwork and the coil is installed with the furnace
bdevel t1_ivan6h7 wrote
It's cheaper to install a heat pump and operate a heat pump. The installation of a furnace plus A/C is twice the work. A friend bought a new DR Horton house which only had a gas furnace. They spent $8,000 to add AC. They keep the thermostat at 68 degrees and still pay $300 for gas in the winter. So stupid to use install a furnace which you'll have to rip out later.
burneracct664453 t1_ivb15ww wrote
Eliminating gas infrastructure also can save builders money, I don't know the exact costs, but I know it isn't cheap. Gas utilities are shit scared about this, so they may have dropped prices for new hookups/developments.
Also, everyone pays meter fees for gas meters, I think I pay around $110/year just for the privilege of having a gas meter, further longtime savings for home buyers with all-electric homes.
Rocketgirl8097 t1_ivdcbt7 wrote
My son had gas heat when he lived in Spokane. It really wasn't cheaper and was just another bill to keep track of.
merc08 t1_ivu84cb wrote
> further longtime savings for home buyers with all-electric homes.
Which is a hilarious way to shoot yourself in the foot. Our gas stove and fireplaces still worked during the multiday power outage last week.
[deleted] t1_iv7s8c7 wrote
[removed]
kabukistar t1_iv8iwnc wrote
Relevant technology connections video
The long and short of it is that they are just better than standard heating. You can get more than 100W of heat per 100W of electricity.
[deleted] t1_ivbaxju wrote
[deleted]
kabukistar t1_ivbf71o wrote
I'd suggest watching the video.
They don't break the laws of physics. They work by moving heat from one location to another (when it's cold, from outside your house to in your house). To create 100W of new heat, you need 100W of electricity, but to move 100W of heat, you need less than 100W of electricity.
[deleted] t1_ivbihkh wrote
[deleted]
the_other_b t1_iv8foht wrote
neat, getting a quote for one at the end of the month. question for folks with one, are you running one with a backup furnace? our furnace is like 30 years old, so ideally we'll just be 100% heat pump.
halfnelson t1_iv8k4i4 wrote
Congrats! 100% heat pump is the way to go! Modern ones don’t need supplemental gas heat, they’re rated and effective to very low temps. Also, ac in the summer is pretty sweet!
the_other_b t1_iv8lbcr wrote
thank you so much! im very excited! we just bought the house and the furnace vent runs vertically through our closet, and is so inefficient if we vented out the side of the house we'd get CO2 buildups lol.. the heat pump just solves so many of our problems (and will feel so blessed to have AC next summer)
momopeach7 t1_iv9fbhr wrote
Could you use them to cool the house during hotter months then along with warming during cooler ones?
Dr_Adequate t1_iva8yu6 wrote
Yes. Heat pumps are bidirectional. They work as AC in warmer months.
Prototype_es t1_iv8zfbm wrote
Home inspector here that also has a heat pump. You should consider some form of supplemental heat in the home, worst case scenario it rarely gets used. However it has to be pretty cold for a heat pump to get ineffective. Think under 20 degrees for an extended period of time. Theyre massively more efficient than an electric furnace or cadet heaters however and youre going to save quite a bit on energy bills comparatively. If you already have a furnace in the home that functions, you dont need to get rid of it, the HVAC tech will set up the thermostat to have the furnace only kick on if the heat pump cant keep up. If youre concerned about the environmental implications, electric furnaces exist as well but theyre very expensive to run as a daily unit and youre much better off using your heat pump day to day
bdevel t1_ivam6lt wrote
Modern heat pumps work to -30F degrees. They are plenty efficient at +20F. Especially in Washington, it's very unlikely you'll need supplemental heat.
the_other_b t1_iv9gw6k wrote
got it, we have a pellet fireplace as well of the furnace ever turns out to be a problem.. just wasn't sure if that fallback functionality required a newer furnace.
Splenda t1_ivar9vh wrote
That depends entirely on where you live and which heat pump you choose. The latest high-HSPF models rarely resort to backup even in USDA zone 4. Still, I think we'll see many owners of existing homes there replacing older central AC units with heat pumps while keeping gas for security, much as many Canadians do. This will change over time as cold weather heat pumps keep improving.
aseaflight t1_iv8ox6c wrote
When remodeling we ripped our furnace out entirely. Just have a ductless mini split now.
The space savings was great for us too. We were.able to reconfigure and get a whole new little office room.
ChemistDude t1_iv8p3ux wrote
Ours has emergency radiant heat available, but I’ve only ever had it come on a handful of times. It’s a pretty efficient way of heating.
BarnabyWoods OP t1_iv8vnvh wrote
We have no backup furnace for ours, but we do have a propane fireplace that we sometimes use to take the chill off quickly.
Haz_de_nar t1_iv8p7yr wrote
decadently worth checking into based on where you are but they for sure have heat pumps that you dont need a backup. Inverter heat pumps would be the way to go.
zeroappeal t1_iv8p5h5 wrote
Ours was at least that old and we had to get a new one. The old one wasn't compatible. 100% worth it.
Skeetronic t1_iv95jbh wrote
Heat pump 100%.
thedeepdark t1_ivalgqa wrote
I have heat pump with no furnace and it’s been fine! It doesn’t get toasty warm but you won’t be cold (have had it for about 4 years) I did end up converting an old fireplace to a gas insert for those days when I just want to super warm and cozy. I’m in the Seattle area.
NumerousAbility2332 t1_iv6snx8 wrote
I'm all for radiant floor heat and heat-pumps in new homes, and I own an electric car. But JFC. we'll never get over our addiction to bonneville dam will we. salmon always come last. how about we focus on building industrial scale solar in eastern WA first before pointless mandates. next it will be "no more cooking with gas". the way they'll accomplish that is through the home insurance industry. and then once every single thing is electric, and they can control your home over the internet, the "limits" will start. "no keeping your house over 68 degrees in the winter".
"there's only so much clean energy to go around ya know". okay, fine. BUILD some. I see a lot of mandates and virtue signalling about sustainable energy, but strangely not a lot of of actual building of sustainable energy generation. "But we have bonneville!" Yes, and we also used to have a columbia basin ecosystem capable of feeding millions of people with salmon runs.
"take down dams!"....."oh wait no, don't take down dams we need them!"
shaggy908 t1_iv79843 wrote
I thought we were talking about heat pumps.
darlantan t1_iv8aea0 wrote
> how about we focus on building industrial scale solar in eastern WA first before pointless mandates
Heat pumps are so absurdly efficient that this is still a step in the right direction. A good heat pump install can move 3-4x the heat per watt that a resistance-based heater will make, and there are parts of WA where the climate is damn near ideal for them.
We can do two things at once, and since this is a mandate that doesn't actually require that the state do much, it makes perfect fucking sense to do it while prioritizing other initiatives as well.
Byeuji t1_iv7pe0h wrote
Chasing growing electric demands and reducing reliance on fossil fuel in the consumer sector can be solved separately and simultaneously.
Just because this will put more demand on the electrical grid doesn't mean that energy can't come from sources other than the dam (including fossil fuels).
This move just centralizes the energy production to the electric grid, so that any source of energy can power it, rather than only fossil fuels.
They will use natural gas to power these homes too, but it'll be more efficient and safer than transporting gas to the last mile and burning it on site. And when the grid has other energy sources ready to handle the demand, the fossil fuel sources can be retired.
Rocketgirl8097 t1_iv7agsz wrote
Find a replacement for dams...
Rich-Juice2517 t1_iv7e011 wrote
There was going to be nuclear but they killed the satsop plant by Elma
[deleted] t1_iv7fcjs wrote
wasn't that killed by the investors for the simple reason of "it isn't going to be profitable enough"?
Rich-Juice2517 t1_iv7fpm5 wrote
Basically. Only the second one was turned on. Now it's an overstock call center and business park. You can do photoshoots there though
Edit yeah. 1983 it was drowning in debt and it was too expensive to tear it down
Lost_Conversation546 t1_iv7qq19 wrote
The company couldn’t afford to finish them, they were never functional. The cooling towers are the only finished part, they never finished construction on the actual power plant.
Rich-Juice2517 t1_iv7qu8u wrote
Ah i had read wnp-2 was functional
Lost_Conversation546 t1_iv99btx wrote
I grew up in grays harbor, my grandpa actually was a laborer on one of them before they stopped construction in the early 80s. I don’t think you can walk into the cooling towers anymore I think they put a fence up, but I loved doing that as a kid.
RainCityRogue t1_iv86y2k wrote
There are plans for a nuclear plant to come online at Hanford in the next decadd
Rich-Juice2517 t1_iv88iil wrote
Ooooh that'll be exciting and a boom for Elma
burneracct664453 t1_ivb2tei wrote
It was the result of one of the largest bond defaults in history, and we are all as ratepayers still servicing that debt. A boondoggle of epic proportions and basically a theft from all of us in the region-
https://www.historylink.org/File/5482
We have better ways to generate power than massive nuc projects, renewables are far cheaper and the storage issue can be solved on the same scale without the waste.
Rich-Juice2517 t1_ivb5doa wrote
I did not know that
SnarkLobster t1_iv8crso wrote
The sun.
Simius t1_iv8ctur wrote
“If we do one reasonable thing it will lead to mass control by government”
Chill the fuck out
Googunk t1_ivat6kk wrote
I have never before seen someone politically opposed to the invention of electricity.
Generalbuttnaked69 t1_iv7zcxe wrote
You have any idea how many people the Colombia Basin Project feeds?
doncastiglionejr t1_iv8hbif wrote
You know they can control your gas from the internet right ? All these years they have been installing new meters and street pumps..what do you think that does? So that point isn't necessarily correct
[deleted] t1_iv7zuqb wrote
[removed]
bdevel t1_ivantt7 wrote
Even cooking with gas is outdated. Modern induction cooktops heat much faster, are responsive to temp changes. They only heat the pot instead of the air around it. Gas can light cooking oil so it is a fire hazard. Also, burning gas in your house releases toxic emissions. You wouldn't run your car in your house.
[deleted] t1_ivaob2n wrote
[removed]
TrixnTim t1_ivyjyx8 wrote
>and we also used to have a columbia basin ecosystem capable of feeding millions of people with salmon runs.
Have you seen this? It was on PBS last week. Gutwrenching.
shenbapiroswap t1_iv8rxlv wrote
Our ten year old heat pump is quiet and warms all 1500 square feet with just one wall unit and costs under $100/month even in the coldest of months. Why would you even bother with a furnace anymore?
jthanson t1_iv8qz2f wrote
We had a split heat pump system installed in our lodge hall in Buckley in 2019. It works very well and both heats and cools the building. The one bad thing about it is that we basically have to leave it in heat mode from November through June because it doesn't heat the building up quickly. For a space that's only used four or five times a month that may not be as efficient as the old gas furnace. However, we're not using any gas now which is good. All our heating and hot water is electric which works out well for us.
burneracct664453 t1_ivazmli wrote
Controls may help if someone can remember to throttle the heat remotely via a smartstat or somesuch, but you are totally right, heat pumps just don't have the capacity of a traditional gas furnace unless grossly oversized. Backup electric resistance heat can help boost temps quickly if the controls are set that way, but you wind up spending a lot of extra juice since they are about 1/3 as efficient.
Leaving spaces warmer can help keep structures dry in our soggy winter months, but there is an energy debit. Early on and adaptive recovery features in a lot of thermostats can let the space ramp up to temperature over many hours ahead of a scheduled setpoint change for spaces that are not used often without using backup heat.
For anyone listening, traditional setbacks with conventional systems like electric or gas furnaces don't make sense with heat pumps, they are designed to run for long periods of time when it's cold, and simply don't have the capacity to ramp temps up and down by say, 10°F. Outside my suggestion above, this is a "set and forget" technology.
jthanson t1_ivb0ca8 wrote
We basically keep the lodge hall at 65 F and then turn it up a few hours before meetings and events. Having a heat pump requires thinking differently about heating than having a furnace that can generate heat quickly.
sg3niner t1_iv74eid wrote
Why not also require them to have supplemental solar?
I genuinely don't understand why that isn't a thing.
helldeskmonkey t1_iv76fm4 wrote
Residential solar is much less efficient than using the same money to build out a solar farm somewhere outside the residential area and run lines into it. I’ve heard it’s something like 1/3rd the efficiency.
FeeValuable22 t1_iv79isj wrote
Yes it is, that's why it would be supplemental solar. If we added solar capacity to every home, even though it is less than efficient than a large central collector system, The result would still be a low-cost dramatic reduction in the amount of energy production required.
There is not going to be one solution to getting off of carbon. Nested power generation methodologies will be a significant part of our future.
KevinCarbonara t1_iv7whnc wrote
The efficiency is less important - we already have residential houses. Why not cover them with solar panels?
Don't get me wrong, if they don't generate enough electricity to cover the cost of the panels or something like that, then efficiency is important. But there's no point comparing their efficiency to a solar farm.
If we're honest, all solar is far less efficient here than in most US states.
BarnabyWoods OP t1_iv8fx3m wrote
Yeah, but with utility scale solar the consumer is still buying the power at market rates from the utility. If you own the panels on your roof your utility pays you for the power you feed into the grid. You can come close to zeroing out your electic bill.
BigMoose9000 t1_iv7davx wrote
-
Residential solar is still very expensive, and adding to cost makes the housing crisis worse. Parts of CA require solar and look how that's working out.
-
There's still a shortage of raw materials to make solar panels even at the current demand level, requiring them would create a years-long backlog of building projects that can't be completed because they're waiting for solar panels to be manufactured. Again making the housing crisis even worse.
-
Current solar panels have a useful lifespan of around 20 years, after which they're hazardous waste. We don't have a way to recycle them. Starting to require them today means creating a hazardous waste crisis 20 years from now.
BarnabyWoods OP t1_iv8gur0 wrote
>Current solar panels have a useful lifespan of around 20 years, after which they're hazardous waste.
This is untrue. The SilFab panels (made in Bellingham, by the way) I just put on my roof are guaranteed to maintain 97% of their efficiency for 30 years. They don't become waste after that point, their efficiency just slowly drops off. They'll likely still be pumping out plenty of power for decades longer.
As for your claim that there's a shortage of raw materials, I bought mine 6 months ago, with no delay in promised delivery date. And I don't know what you mean by "look at how that's working out" in California. California's power costs are about triple those of Washington's, so the typical payback period of home solar is only about 6 or 7 years. You'd be stupid not to buy a house with solar in California.
BigMoose9000 t1_iv8jhge wrote
That warranty's worth about the paper it's printed on. If they hold up - great. If they don't - the company goes bankrupt from warranty claims. They win either way.
>I bought mine 6 months ago, with no delay in promised delivery date.
You bought panels that were in stock, great. Most companies stop selling when they don't have in-stock panels because the lead times are too unpredictable to take pre-orders.
>And I don't know what you mean by "look at how that's working out" in California. California's power costs are about triple those of Washington's, so the typical payback period of home solar is only about 6 or 7 years. You'd be stupid not to buy a house with solar in California.
The problem is where it's required. Bill Maher made national news when he made it public he'd been waiting for over 3 years for his solar installation to be approved. If his house had been a new build that required solar to be occupied, it would've been sitting vacant for over 3 years.
BarnabyWoods OP t1_iv8w961 wrote
Whether the manufacturer is still in business or not, the fact is that the panels aren't going to be hazardous waste in 20 years. They're still going to be pumping out power. And I don't know what Bill Maher's problem was, but it only took me a couple of weeks to get the permit for our solar install. Nobody I know who's put up home solar in Washington has any delays from permitting. So you hate solar? Fine, don't buy it, and keep paying your big electric bills. But spare us this Newsmax bullshit.
CobraPony67 t1_iv82xah wrote
So, for us with existing homes and would like a heat pump for both heating and air conditioning, what is there to help us? These systems can cost over $10k. Not within many a budget.
Haz_de_nar t1_iv8t7bz wrote
There definitely is. In the new inflation reduction bill you can get up to 8k for it.
https://www.rewiringamerica.org/app/ira-calculator
"IRA" meaning inflation reduction act.
Also if you do it with other energy efficiency things you can get a additional 8k with the Whole Home Energy Reduction Rebates. + if you need to upgrade you electrical panel to get the heat pump theres money in there for that too, like 4k!
For sure check it out. I think you have to get it after 2023 to get that benefit.
One last thing, you can get subsidized energy efficiency loans for this kind of work.
theredwoodsaid t1_iv857it wrote
Your local utility may have incentives available. Clark Public Utilities, for example, offers rebates and lower interest loans than what many people might otherwise be able to get.
BarnabyWoods OP t1_iv8aews wrote
Our PUD gave us an $800 credit for retrofitting with heat pumps.
fuzzywuzzy1988 t1_ivbdn51 wrote
There are federal tax incentives as well.
iraxl t1_ivb5qbe wrote
Anyone have experience with replacing gas furnace with ducted heat pump? Any good companies in the Seattle area?
fuzzywuzzy1988 t1_iv6va1r wrote
They not as efficient in lower temperatures: Heat Pump Efficiency
BarnabyWoods OP t1_iv70m8t wrote
Yeah, but they're still more efficient than conventional forced air. The best low-temp heat pumps are 188% efficient at 0 F.
PM_meyourGradyWhite t1_iv74ptt wrote
Efficiency and effectiveness are two different things.
darlantan t1_iv8aop7 wrote
Sure, and that was something that was a sticking point decades ago. Modern heat pumps work fine in conditions commonly found in WA, and that's before even looking at the geothermally sunk ones. It is a complete non-issue for them.
Literally the only downside to a good heat pump install is the up-front cost, and since it's new construction and there are big credits right now anyway, that's a no-brainer.
[deleted] t1_iv8de3g wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_iv791ml wrote
[removed]
halfnelson t1_iv7lcx1 wrote
My heat pump is rated to -15f. It definitely worked a lot harder in the last big storm, but we were comfortable.
juiceboxzero t1_iv7wwdb wrote
Not as efficient...as what? That article doesn't compare to gas heating; only to itself at other temperatures, and to resistive electric (COP = 1).
Ulitmately, for most of Washington, the hours per year where the temperature is low enough for heat pumps to be unacceptably inefficient is quite small, and more than made up for by the rest of the year.
yeah_oui t1_iv7knk9 wrote
The article is based on a study from 2013.
fuzzywuzzy1988 t1_iv7kzq2 wrote
Which link in the article was it?
yeah_oui t1_iv7l3a2 wrote
The article you posted is based on a study from 2013
dontletgo13 t1_iv8em49 wrote
The technology is constantly improving. My company has started installing heat pumps that are effective well below zero.
fuzzywuzzy1988 t1_iv78ys3 wrote
A good article on the topic. Bottom line it looks like YMMV whether it’s a cost savings or not. Temps in the state vary widely so I could see how this will raise costs for many.
Hessper t1_iv8hvm7 wrote
Washington state is known for getting so very cold, this will be a real problem that will make heat pumps not a viable solution.
alleycat699999 t1_iv8apqb wrote
My 4 ton heat pump will heat my house at close to 38° amazing
darlantan t1_iv8bt4e wrote
That's...actually really quite bad. Good ones will handle subzero temps.
alleycat699999 t1_ival68b wrote
Thanks Albert Einstein
Simius t1_iv8d2tv wrote
Your house has too many holes?
[deleted] t1_iv86yyh wrote
[removed]
BarnabyWoods OP t1_iv8aaqf wrote
What science are you talking about that's "been ignored"?
cheekabowwow t1_iv70d3r wrote
Step 1, install all the hvac ventilation.
Step 2, complete the permits with no heat pumps.
Step 3, install furnace and AC unit.
What a waste of time.
Klikini t1_iv7a2d9 wrote
Oh noooo, new houses must have efficient heating and air conditioning, the horror!
KevinCarbonara t1_iv7wo2w wrote
Are they actually required to put AC in new houses, or did you make that up?
PendragonDaGreat t1_iv813me wrote
I don't know if it's required but 95%+ of heat pumps that heat also cool. An A/C is a form of heat pump, what we know here as heat pumps are generally reversable so you can use it for heating and cooling.
Klikini t1_iv8oxa2 wrote
Yep, I was talking about the reversible nature of heat pumps. If it's going to keep getting hotter here, should be building new houses with air conditioning.
[deleted] t1_iv90d84 wrote
[removed]
cheekabowwow t1_iv80jm4 wrote
That’s not the way it’ll be. New houses will be built with HVAC ducting and then after the inspection, people will install a furnace. This is so stupid it isn’t funny.
darlantan t1_iv8bc45 wrote
Only if they're completely fucking stupid. Hmm, yes, let's install a furnace and AC for more than it would cost to install a heat pump that can be both. Excellent idea.
[deleted] t1_iv8e0zf wrote
[deleted]
cheekabowwow t1_iv8fudh wrote
You don’t get to make that choice for everyone.
Prototype_es t1_iv90iqp wrote
Its the same thing that happened with oil furnaces here. Are you mad about that too?
Some1-Somewhere t1_iv8a8wl wrote
I would be surprised if it was possible to permit a new house that didn't include a heating system.
[deleted] t1_iv7fo1i wrote
if you want to live in a libertarian paradise you're free to movie to russia
cheekabowwow t1_iv80n2d wrote
I don’t think you understand what Libertarian is.
[deleted] t1_iv81liy wrote
I know EXACTLY what a libertarian is, and the difference between right libertarianism and left libertarianism.
Right Libertarianism is a naive and impossible system that immediately decays into oligarchism. It's also one that naive, childish morons who are extremely impressed by their own delusions of intelligence buy into wholesale.
Stop leaching off the rest of society while deluding yourself into thinking you're some rugged individual, an island unto yourself
cheekabowwow t1_iv86lms wrote
Not going to argue with an 18-day old account.
RainCityRogue t1_iv87aqx wrote
Yeah, it would be embarrassing losing to a newbie. Easier to make an ad hominem attack
[deleted] t1_iv89f56 wrote
haha well played
Simius t1_iv8daeb wrote
Individual freedom at all costs.
Sounds like they are about right.
UncommonSense12345 t1_iv7k8xr wrote
Not sure I would describe Russia as libertarian…. Haven’t seen many libertarians advocating for state controlled/heavily influenced economy and mass invasions of neighboring countries….. a libertarian paradises is at least partially alive in lots of areas of rural USA where people live more in connection with nature and their neighbors. Obviously these people benefit from gov subsidies tho involving healthcare and infrastructure and agriculture but culturally the people do live a libertarian lifestyle (from my own experience).
[deleted] t1_iv7l05p wrote
Any real right libertarian state decays into what Russia is.. essentially instantly. because right-libertarianism is not a workable system. it's as realistic as communism (that is to say: not at all) because they both make the same fundamentally naive assumptions about human nature
cheekabowwow t1_iv80ryo wrote
Yeah, this is a straight up lie.
[deleted] t1_iv81g97 wrote
Nope, you're just naive and full of yourself enough to believe otherwise
Rocketgirl8097 t1_iv7awvx wrote
Fail to see how it adds cost to construction. Its much more costly to retrofit. Plus when the sale price is $400-500k of the new home, whats another $20k for heat pump system. Keep it in perspective. I dont see where its much less to put in gas you still have to install ducting throughout the house.