I’ll note that this post is paywalled, but the key facts are outside the paywall.

  • mo_ztt ✅@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    They are – the short answer is that installation is sometimes expensive because sometimes it’s hard to connect it to someplace it can use to exchange the extra heat / cold, but once they’re in, they’re basically guaranteed to be more efficient than whatever else you’re doing, since they have above 100% efficiency.

    As usual, Technology Connections has a great video that goes in depth about it.

    • chuckleslord@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Did you… did you just claim over 100% efficiency? Physics has an issue with this. Also, I have something to tell you, a heat pump is just a reversible Air Conditioner.

      Definitely better than a electric heater or a gas furnace, not some sort of miracle product.

      • poVoq@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yes, they are typically calculated as having above 100% efficiency as they use the energy to move and concentrate heat instead of producing it like other heating systems. I agree that this is technically wrong, but it does make sense when looking at it in the above context of heating systems.

      • mo_ztt ✅@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, over 100% efficiency is exactly what I claimed. In winter, you’ll get more BTUs of heat output from a heat pump than you had put in as BTUs of electricity input – because instead of converting the electricity to heat, it’s using the electricity to pull heat from the outside and put it in your house. Hence, it’s a more energy-efficient way to do things than the laws of physics would allow for a device that directly converted electricity to heat. That’s what it means to be a reversible air conditioner, yes.

        IDK why me saying that is some kind of controversial statement – it’s simply a factual description of the product. There are scenarios and real-world constraints which may mean it’s more or less sensible to install one, but over 100% efficiency is, exactly, the selling point of a heat pump.

      • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, he pumps do move more heat than the electricity that they consume. That’s because they are a heat pump, not an energy conversion system like a motor.

      • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        No it doesn’t - you’re not creating heat, you’re moving it. You can move more heat than the amount of energy you expend moving it. Hence the efficiency above 100%

      • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s a really bad piece of jargon, but is an internally consistent definition. They mean (heat entering building)/(work consumed) > 1

        Which is a way if defining efficiency (energy out / energy in), just a really awful and misleading one.

        In terms of % of carnot efficiency, the best heat pumps are about where stationary heat engines generally are, 40% or so.

        • chuckleslord@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Thank you! It seems to me to be like saying “LEDs are more than 100% efficient because we’re applying the same metric of efficiency that we would for incandescent bulbs”. They’re two different methods of generating heat, why would you use the efficiency rule from one to judge the other?