AIR SOURCE HEAT PUMPS DO NOT ECONOMICALLY DISPLACE FOSSIL FUEL BTUs IN COLD CLIMATES

AIR SOURCE HEAT PUMPS DO NOT ECONOMICALLY DISPLACE FOSSIL FUEL BTUs IN COLD CLIMATES

As a result of a few years of complaints by various HP users, mainly about energy cost savings being much less than stated on the RE websites of Efficiency Vermont, GMP, VPIRG, etc., VT-DPS was ordered by the Vermont Legislature to hire a consultant to perform a survey.

CADMUS gathered the operating data of 77 HPs at 65 sites, to determine annual energy cost savings of the heat pumps.

- The annual testing/cleaning costs were about $200/y/HP; any spare parts and installation labor are ignored

- The annual amortizing costs were $455.68; turnkey cost of a single head HP, $4500 at 6%/y for 15 years

- On average, Vermont HPs provided 27.6% of the annual space heat, and traditional fuels provided 72.4%.

The small percentage of displaced fossil Btus indicates HPs would not be effective CO2 reducers in the cold climate of Vermont, if used in average VT houses.

Figure 14 of below URL would have shown increasing electricity consumption by HPs, with decreasing outdoor temperatures

However, figure 14 actually shows decreasing consumption by HPs at 28F and below, because fewer and fewer Owners were using their HPs, as temperatures decreased below 28F.

Figure 14 shows, Owners started to turn off their HPs at about 28F to 30F, because their past experience showed significant increases in electricity bills, if they ran their HPs low temperatures

The inescapable rule of physics is, the lower the outdoor temperature, the lower the efficiency of the HP.

A house requires the most heat, Btu/h, at, say 0F, whereas HPs would be least efficient

This would almost be like electric resistance heating, which would be great for GMPs profits, but disastrous for Owner’s financial well-being.

- At those low temperatures, the hourly cost of HPs exceeds the hourly cost of a traditional heating system.

1) Outdoor unit (compressor, outdoor fan, controls) + indoor air handling unit (fan and supplemental electric heater, if used), to provide space heat, 1880 kWh;

3) Defrost mode, 129 kWh, or 100 x 129/2085 = 6.2%. Defrost starts at about 37F and ends at about 10F.

On average, these houses were highly unsuitable for HPs, and the owners were losing money.

NOTE: Coefficient of Performance, COP = heat delivered to house/electrical energy to HP

- Space heat to all sites was 65 x 92 million Btu/site = 5,980 million Btu from all fuels. See page 22 of CADMUS report

- Heat from HPs was 77 x 21.4 million Btu/HP = 1,648 million Btu. See page 21 of CADMUS report

- Traditional systems provided 5980 – 1648 = 4,332 million Btu, or 4332/5980 = 72.4% of the total space heat.

This proves HPs, in average VT houses, are an expensive, non-solution regarding: 1) reducing CO2, 2) fighting climate change, and 3) saving the world.

Such "non-solutions" are the inevitable result of self-serving, subsidy-seeking, RE businesses working together with career RE bureaucrats, behind closed doors

The energy cost savings were an average of about $200/HP per year, instead of the $1,200/y to $1,800/y bandied about by RE folks and Efficiency Vermont, GMP, VPIRG, VT-DPS, VEIC, etc.

HEAT PUMPS ARE MONEY LOSERS IN MY VERMONT HOUSE, AS THEY ARE IN ALMOST ALL NEW ENGLAND HOUSES

I installed three heat pumps by Mitsubishi, rated 24,000 Btu/h at 47F, Model MXZ-2C24NAHZ2, each with 2 heads, each with remote control; 2 in the living room, 1 in the kitchen, and 1 in each of 3 bedrooms.

The HPs have DC variable-speed, motor-driven compressors and fans, which improves the efficiency of low-temperature operation.

The HPs are used for heating and cooling my 35-y-old, 3,600 sq ft, well-sealed/well-insulated house.

The basement, 1,200 sq ft, has a near-steady temperature throughout the year, because it has 2” of blueboard, R-10, on the outside of the concrete foundation and under the basement slab, which has saved me many thousands of space heating dollars over the 35 years.

I do not operate my HPs below 10F to 15F (depending on sun and wind conditions), because all HPs would become increasingly less efficient with decreasing outdoor temperatures.

The HP operating cost per hour would become greater than of my efficient propane furnace. See table 3

Vermont forcing, with subsidies and/or GWSA mandates, the build-outs of expensive RE electricity systems, such as wind, solar, batteries, etc., would be counter-productive, because it would:

- HP electricity consumption was from my electric bills, and an HP system electric meter.

- Vermont electricity prices, including taxes, fees and surcharges, are assumed at 20 c/kWh.

- My HPs provide space heat to 2,300 sq ft, about the same area as an average Vermont house

- Two small propane heaters (electricity not required) provide space heat to my 1,300 sq ft basement

- I operate my HPs at temperatures of 10 to 15F and greater (depending on wind and sun conditions)

- I operate my traditional propane system at temperatures of 10f to 15F and less

Before HPs: I used 100 gal for domestic hot water + 250 gal for 2 stoves in basement + 850 gal for Viessmann furnace, for a total propane of 1,200 gal/y

After HPs: I used 100 gal for DHW + 250 gal for 2 stoves in basement + 550 gal for Viessmann furnace + 2,489 kWh of electricity.

My propane cost reduction for space heating was 850 - 550 = 300 gallon/y, at a cost of $2.339/gal (buyers plan) = $702/y

My displaced fossil Btus was 100 x (1 - 550/850) = 35%, which is better than the Vermont average of 27.6%

My energy cost savings due to the HPs were 702 - 498 = $204/y, on an investment of $24,000!!

Amortizing the 24000 – 2400 = $21,600 turnkey capital cost at 6%/y for 15 years costs about $2,187/y.

This is in addition to the amortizing of my existing propane system. I am losing money.

There likely would be annual cleaning of HPs at $200/HP, and parts and labor, as the years go by.

This is in addition to the annual service calls and parts for my existing propane system. I am losing more money.

Site Energy Basis: RE folks claim there would be a major energy reduction, due to using HPs. They compare the thermal Btus of 300 gallon of propane x 84,250 Btu/gal = 25,275,000 Btu vs the electrical Btus of 2,489 kWh of electricity x 3,412 Btu/kWh = 8,492,469 Btu. However, that comparison would equate thermal Btus with electrical Btus, which all ethical engineers know is an absolute no-no.

A-to-Z Energy Basis: A proper comparison would be thermal Btus of propane vs thermal Btus fed to power plants, i.e., 25,275,000 Btu vs 23,312,490 Btu, i.e., a minor energy reduction. See table 1A

BTW, almost all RE folks who claim a major energy reduction from HPs, do not know how to compose this table, and yet they mandate others what to do to save the world from Climate Change.

My CO2 emissions for space heating, before HPs, were 850 gal/y x 12.7 lb CO2/gal, from combustion = 4.897 Mt/y

1) Market based, based on commercial contracts, aka power purchase agreements, PPAs

2) Location based, based on fuels combusted by power plants connected to the NE grid

Per state mandates, utilities have PPAs with Owners of low-CO2 power sources, such as wind, solar, nuclear, hydro, and biomass, in-state and out-of-state.

Utilities crow about being “low-CO2”, or “zero-CO2” by signing PPA papers, i.e., without spending a dime.

Energy Action Network, a pro-RE-umbrella organization, uses 33.9 g CO2/kWh (calculated by VT-DPS), based on utilities having PPAs with low-CO2 power sources.

CO2 reduction is 4.897 - 3.253 = 1.644 Mt/y, based on the 2018 VT-DPS “paper-based” value of 33.9 g CO2/kWh

Utilities physically draw almost all of their electricity supply from the high-voltage grid

If utilities did not have PPAs, and would draw electricity from the high-voltage grid, they would be stealing.

ISO-NE administers a settlement system, to ensure utilities pay owners per PPA contract.

Electricity travels as electric-magnetic waves, at near the speed of light, i.e., from northern Maine to southern Florida, about 1,800 miles in 0.01 second.

There is no physical basis for lay RE folks to talk about there being a “VT CO2” or a “NH CO2”, etc.

ISO-NE, the NE grid operator, calculated that value at 317 g CO2/kWh, at wall outlet, for 2018

CO2 reduction is 4.897 - 3.937 = 0.939 Mt/y, based on the 2018 “real world” value of 317 g CO2/kWh, as calculated by ISO-NE

Cost of CO2 Reduction is ($2059/y, amortizing - $204/y, energy cost savings + $200/y, service, parts, labor) / (0.939 Mt/y, CO2 reduction) = $2,188/Mt, which is outrageously expensive.

EAN claims 90,000 HPs, by 2025, would reduce 0.37 million metric ton of CO2, in 2025, or 0.37 million/90,000 = 4.111 Mt/y.

EAN achieves such a high value, because EAN assumes 100% displacement of fuel (gas, propane, fuel oil), which is completely unrealistic, because the actual fuel displacement in Vermont houses with HPs was only 27.6%, based on a VT-DPS-sponsored survey of HPs in Vermont, and 35% in my well-insulated/well-sealed VT house, as above stated.

The EAN 100% claim would be true, only for highly sealed and highly insulated houses, which represent about 2% of all Vermont houses.

In addition, the average Vermont house would need 2 to 3 HPs, with 4 to 6 heads, at a turnkey cost of at least $20,000, to achieve 100% displacement. See URL

Heavily subsidized businesses selling/installing/servicing HPs, etc., will be collecting hundreds of $millions each year over the decades, while already-struggling, over-regulated, over-taxed Vermonters will be further screwed out of a decent standard of living.

HP boosters Sens. Bray, McDonald, etc., know about those dreadful HP results in Vermont, and yet they continue shilling for HPs.

All these expensive Vermont GWSA efforts will be having ZERO IMPACT ON GLOBAL WARMING.

Vermont needs an enforced building code for all new and deeply retrofitted buildings. The code would include R-40 walls, R-60 roofs, R-20 basements, R-10 doors, R-7 triple-pane windows, air-to-air heat recovery systems, highly sealed and highly insulated, and arranged for high levels of passive solar.

With ground source HPs, they would yield a much better CO2 reduction than is possible with air source HPs.

To achieve significant reductions of annual energy use by buildings for heating, cooling and electricity, you have to:

1) First build buildings, or deeply retrofit buildings, according to the above proposed building code; “weatherizing” is just a band-aid

2) Then you install ground source HPs, to economically displace 100% of fossil fuels.

Ground source HPs are efficient on a year-round basis, even when it is minus 30F outside.

My brother, living about one hour north of Oslo, Norway, has ground source HPs in his house.

Their electric grid has a very low CO2/kWh, because of nuclear, hydro and wind (mostly Denmark)

Vermont Governor Scott talking about “leaning towards approval of a modified CHS” is unwise.

HPS ARE MONEY LOSERS IN MY VERMONT HOUSE, AS THEY ARE IN ALMOST ALL NEW ENGLAND HOUSES

By the way, all of this, including rolling blackouts at ZUB-ZERO temperatures, and a lack of gas and oil for space heating, applies to New England, if:

1) New York State keeps obstructing new gas pipelines from Pennsylvania to New England; THIS SHOULD BE LEGALLY FORBIDDEN AS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL INTERFERENCE OF INTER-STATE COMMERCE, and

2) The New England oil, gas and coal storage capacities near power plants are not increased by at least 100% to ensure RELIABLE ELECTRICAL SERVICE IN WINTER, WHICH WOULD BE ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT, IF UNCERTAIN, MOTHER-NATURE, WEATHER-DEPENDENT WIND AND SOLAR WERE FURTHER EXPANDED, AS THE US AIMS TO BLINDLY COPY THAT DISASTROUS EUROPEAN SCENARIO

ISO-NE REPORT OF 2021 ECONOMIC STUDY: FUTURE GRID RELIABILITY STUDY PHASE 1

https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2022/07/2021_economi...

DEEP DIVE SUMMARY OF THE ISO-NE REPORT

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/new-england-future-grid-study-iso/...

LIFE WITHOUT OIL

Life without oil means many products that are made with oil, such as the hundreds listed below, would need to be provided by wind and solar and hydro.

Folks, including Biden's attendants, wanting to get rid of fossil fuels, such as crude oil, better start doing some rethinking.

The above also applies to natural gas, which is much preferred by many industries

If you do not have abundant low-cost energy, you cannot have modern industrial economies.

APPENDIX 1

These articles contain significant information regarding wind, solar and grid-scale battery systems

GRID-SCALE BATTERY SYSTEMS IN NEW ENGLAND TO COUNTERACT SHORTFALL OF ONE-DAY WIND/SOLAR LULL

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/grid-scale-battery-sys...

COLD WEATHER OPERATION IN NEW ENGLAND DECEMBER 24, 2017 TO JANUARY 8, 2018

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cold-weather-operation...

ANALYSIS OF WIND AND SOLAR ENERGY LULLS AND ENERGY STORAGE IN GERMANY

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-and-solar-energy-...

IRELAND FUEL AND CO2 REDUCTIONS DUE TO WIND ENERGY LESS THAN CLAIMED

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fuel-and-co2-reduction...

BATTERY SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS, OPERATING COSTS, ENERGY LOSSES, AND AGING

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital...

HIGH COSTS OF WIND, SOLAR, AND BATTERY SYSTEMS IN US NORTHEAST

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-costs-of-wind-sol...

APPENDIX 2

These articles explain a lot about the world-wide “Climate Crisis” scam, based on highly compromised surface station measurements, which typically read HIGH.

Climate scientists SUBJECTIVELY adjust the readings for use in their SUBJECTIVE computerized-temperature-calculation programs, which are used in the reports of IPCC, etc., for scare-mongering purposes.

New Surface Stations Report Released – It’s ‘worse than we thought’

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/new-surface-stations-r...

Weather- Just how does it happen?

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/weather-just-how-does-...

A summary of the results of three “Physics of the Earth’s Atmosphere” papers, which were submitted for peer review at the Open Peer Review Journal.

https://globalwarmingsolved.com/2013/11/19/summary-the-physics-of-t...

APPENDIX 3

Satellites and balloons measure temperatures of the Troposphere, which starts at ground level, and has an average height of 59,000 ft at the tropics, 56,000 ft at the middle latitudes, and 20,000 ft at the poles. Above those levels starts the Stratosphere.

Balloons directly measure temperatures. Satellites measure radiation, from which temperatures are calculated.

Both consistently measure much lower temperatures than the average of 102 computer-generated graphs.

See Appendix 2 and 3

The data in the below images is for a 43-y period.

There is global warming, but it is not anywhere near as much as scare-mongers are claiming.

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/grid-scale-battery-sys...

1) Objective satellite and balloon temperatures increased from 0.00 to 0.5 C, or, or 0.116 C/decade

2) Subjective computer-generated temperatures increased from 0.00 to 1.20 C; or 0.28 C/decade, about 2.7 TIMES AS FAST

The temperature data by satellites and balloons are more accurate than land-based measurements.

See Appendix 2 and URL

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset

Satellite measurements are made many times during every day and systematically cover almost the entire world; +/- 85-degree latitude.

The satellite data is vastly more complete, and accurate than would be gathered by ground stations. (See Appendix 2)

Balloon measurements, made on a sampling basis, are vastly less complete than satellite measurements, but they serve as a useful crosscheck on the satellite measurements.

NOTE: Behind the 102 computer graphs are hundreds of organizations that likely receive a significant part of their revenues from governments and subsidy-receiving wind, solar, battery, etc., businesses.

The livelihood and career prospects of the people creating these graphs is more secure, if they aim high, rather than low.

https://www.scienceunderattack.com/blog/2021/2/22/latest-computer-c...

A more detailed view of satellite temperatures.

APPENDIX 4

Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) and also a member of the CO2 Coalition. Sheahen and the Coalition are collaborating on a brief.

SEPP’s October 8 newsletter contains a summary of a major 2021 paper by Happer and co-author William van Wijngaarden that completely undermines the fake “science” the IPCC and EPA used to support the case of climate alarm.

Sheahen specifically discusses the efforts of Professors William van Wijngaarden and William Happer in their pioneering work in calculating the real-world Global Warming Potentials (GWPs) of the five most common Green-House Gases (GHGs).

Sheahan explains why the approach used by IPCC is faulty, but nonetheless used by its followers, such as the US National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and the EPA.

These faulty methods lead to great exaggeration of the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide, methane, and other minor greenhouse gases. . . .

Sheahan shows the stunning agreement between the calculations of van Wijngaarden and Happer (W & H) with satellite measurements (and balloon measurements) of outgoing infrared radiation emitted by the earth to space . . .

Sheahan claims, because of the exceptionally good agreement between observational data and the calculations of W & H, we can conclude the W&H model has been validated.

The W&H model embodies the scientific method.

In that case, it is reasonable to use it to study other hypothetical cases.

It is not possible to do so with IPCC models, which have never achieved agreement with observations. . .

See Appendix 3

The gist of the H&W work is the greenhouse effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is almost entirely saturated, such that any additional CO2 can have almost no additional warming effect.

Here is a chart prepared by Sheahan to illustrate the H&W results.

As atmospheric CO2 increases, say from 380 to 420 ppm, it has less warming effect.

The most warming effect occurs at very low levels of CO2, say 20 to 60 ppm.

APPENDIX 5

A timely and important new paper has just been uploaded to the CO2 Coalition website on nitrogen.

The first half of the paper on the greenhouse warming effect of N2O is quite technical

It is summarized in the first link.

Link to the full paper is at the bottom. Please distribute widely.

Authors: Will Happer, C. A. de Lange, William Wijngaarden and J.D. Ferguson

Nitrous Oxide and Climate – Why restricting N2O emissions is unnece...

Nitrous oxide (N₂0) has now joined carbon dioxide (CO₂) and methane (CH₄) in the pantheon of “human-generated demon” gases.
GW scare-mongers view increasing concentrations of these molecules are leading to unusual and unprecedented GW, which will lead to catastrophic consequences for both our ecosystems and humanity.

Countries around the world are in the process of greatly reducing, or eliminating, the use of nitrogen fertilizers, based on heretofore poorly understood properties of nitrous oxide.

Reductions of N₂O emissions of 40 to 45 percent are being proposed in Canada , and by up to 50 percent in the Netherlands .

Sri Lanka’s complete ban on fertilizer in 2021 led to the total collapse of their primarily agricultural economy.

The CO2 Coalition has published this paper, which evaluates the GW effect of the N20 and its role in the nitrogen cycle.

Policymakers can now proceed to make informed decisions about the costs and benefits of mandated N20 reductions of this beneficial molecule.

This new paper joins previous CO2 Coalition reports on other greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide and methane.

Key takeaways from the paper:

At current rates, a doubling of N₂O would occur in more than 400 years.
Atmospheric warming by N₂O is estimated to be 0.064 C per century.
Increasing crop production requires continued application of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer to feed a growing population.

Download the entire PDF Nitrous Oxide

It is dangerous to be correct in matters, where established men are wrong, by Voltaire

Comment by Willem Post on January 11, 2023 at 11:54am: Art Bridges

MY OWN EXPERIENCE

I have three HPs ($24,000 – $2,400 subsidy from GMP) in my well-insulated/sealed house.
I displace only 35% of my propane Btus, based on MEASURED consumption data during 3 years.

I do not use my HPs below 15F, because they are less efficient PER HOUR than my efficient propane furnace.

I save about $200/y in energy costs, but if I amortize the cost of the HPs over 15 years, I lose about $2,000/y

Comment by Willem Post on May 25, 2022 at 1:57pm

It is well-known, tele-marketers purchase lists of names of people who buy certain goods, such as certain types of clothes, and sell the lists to other companies who sell similar clothes, who then send THEIR catalogs to YOUR house.

It is well-known, law-enforcement and intelligence agencies geo-track record mobile phone conversations and mobile phone movements, to nab criminals and terrorists.

There are companies that collect geo-tracking data and sell the data.

Telemarketers, or anybody, can purchase the data of each person's mobile phone.

The data provides detailed information regarding where YOUR phone, or tens of thousands of phones, travelled over a chosen period of time, and how long the phones stayed at each location.

A video was prepared, with input from a private geo-tracking company, which used the geo-tracking data of at least 2,000 MULES, in five swing states, during the 2020 Election

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/05/bombshell-video-shows-woma...

People, called MULES, were used to pick up PREPARED ballots at ballot preparation centers, run by “non-profits”, financed by folks such as Zuckerberg of Facebook and Soros, of Hungary, and deliver the ballots (mostly late at night) to various DROP BOXES, around the clock, as recorded on videos.

The drop boxes have video cameras, as required by law, that are far enough away, so no one could make out much details.

Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook, donated about $400 million from his own wealth to finance the installation of drop boxes all over the US, and especially in the swing states.

Click to download the video to watch the details.

The first part of the video are clips from 2020 television news shows, and talking heads. You can skip those and fast forward to watch an explanation by geo-tracking experts regarding how the data was gathered and processed.

Click to Download

2000Mules.mp4

0 bytes

It was found, after a lot of data filtering analysis:

On a typical day, a MULE visits multiple ballot preparation centers to pick up prepared ballots, and delivers them to many drop boxes, in small batches, about 3 to 10 ballots per drop box, to avoid stuffing suspicions. The slots are narrow, so only one ballot can be fed at a time.

Sometimes Mules take a picture of the drop box and/or ballots, to prove the ballots were delivered, and to get paid up to $20/ballot.

The filtering criteria of a MULE “delivery trip” are to:

1) Visit at least 10 drop boxes, as shown on videos.

2) Deposit at least 5 ballots/drop box, as shown on videos.

Many mules often visited 50, 60, 70 drop boxes on a "delivery route"

They were instructed not to deposit more than 10 ballots, to avoid stuffing suspicions.

The data analysts used 4 MILLION minutes of videos at drop boxes, in all US states.

It turns out some drop boxes had no video cameras, or had video cameras, but they were turned off, in violation of the law.

The table shows, in Michigan, a swing state, there were 500 MULES, who each visited an average of 50 drop boxes, and deposited an average of 5 ballots per drop box, as recorded on videos at drop boxes.

All five swing states were credited to Biden, but the drop box totals exceeded Biden’s margin, i.e., all five states should have been credited to Trump, which would have re-elected him.

Remember, there must have been major panic, because, all five states stopped the counting at about 10 pm on Election Night, because Trump was just too far ahead of Biden.

Obviously, the drop box deliveries before the election had not been enough.

ADDITIONAL deliveries, by van during early morning hours, after the election, in Detroit, on video, or double counting, by pre-selected Democrat operatives, in Georgia, on video, was required to get Biden “elected”

	Mules	Drop box	Ballot/drop box	Total
Michigan	500	50	5	125000
Wisconsin	100	28	5	14000
Georgia	250	24	5	30000
Arizona	200	20	5	20000
Philadelphia	1100	50	5	275000
	2150			464000

Elections in Europe

In Germany, 85 million people, and France 75 million people, there are

No drop boxes

No mail-in ballots

No ballot harvesting

No early voting

Every CITIZEN has a personal identity card with a unique number

The cards of non-citizens are identical, but have a different color; THEY DO NO VOTE

A passport, which has the same bio information, can be used instead of an identity card

The passports of non-citizens have a different color

The identity cards and passports are very difficult to forge.

Your address on the card determines your location to vote

There are NO REGISTERED VOTER LISTS

No machines and computers are used, by LAW

All ballots are hand counted

The count takes about 2 to 3 days to complete, as was demonstrated in Franc a few weeks ago.

The above should be the US national standard for all elections, including state and local elections

Comment by Willem Post on May 24, 2022 at 8:03am: Art,

Your heating season hours are much less than total hours in a year, so if 200 heating season hours are between +5 and -20 F, then your Rinnai has to work pretty hard during these hours when heating demand is highest.

I assume your heat pump is turned off at 15 F, because below those temperatures, your heat pump would be inefficient, compared to your Rinnai

I would like to see your calculations that indicate the heat pump pays for itself in three years.

If the turnkey cost was about $4,500, your energy cost savings would have to be $1,500/y, which is not possible, according to the CADMUS survey.

How much did it cost to install the heat pump?

What is the capacity in Btu/h, at 47F?

How much did it cost to install the Rennai unit?

What is the capacity in Btu/h?

How much of your house is heated by the heat pump?

Do you use other propane heaters in addition to the Rinnai unit?

What was propane consumption, gallon, for space heating, before heat pump?

What was propane consumption, gallon, for space heating, after heat pump?

What was electricity consumption increase, due to heat pump?

Comment by Willem Post on May 21, 2022 at 9:28am: Please read

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/05/20/what-is-the-full-cost/

Always remember, the more installed MW of wind, solar and batteries, etc., per household, the higher the household electric rates, as proven by Denmark and Germany, the poster children of energy system insanity.

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital...

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-costs-of-wind-sol...

This has been known and written about for about 15 years.

This article introduces a lot of complex concepts that most people would not understand, unless they had engineering degrees and MBAs.

Luckily, figure 2 comes to the rescue

Figure 2 clearly shows, Germany’s ENEGIEWENDE has been a miserable failure, despite 20 years of hype.

It has been extremely costly to German households and the German economy, i.e., the FCOE has been very high.

The authors should have estimated the German FCOE as a methodology example for other countries. It would have greatly improved their article.

A Future with Energy Prices Tied to Gold

Germans, and all of Europe, have been living in la-la-land, due to plentiful, low-cost oil, gas and coal from Russia, at extremely low prices, i.e., the FCOE of ANY ADDITIONAL ENERGIEWENDE is about to significantly increase RIGHT NOW.

The US idea of “Russia must not be allowed to win” is easy to say for the energy-sufficient US

It is total BS for energy/other-resource-starved Europe.

The US can afford to use corrupt, dysfunctional, oligarchic Ukraine, as a proxy to "weaken Russia"

Europe cannot.

Europe will have a much higher FCOE, and will be at a significant competitive disadvantage vs the rest of the world, going forward.

China and India are increasing their consumption of coal, oil and gas, regardless of whatever COP.

Russia is supplying most of those increases.

China is planning to expand BRISC with more members, as a counterweight to the US/EU

Comment by Art Brigades on May 18, 2022 at 9:17am: I love my heat pump because it works great in central Maine. Maybe it's colder in Vermont. Yes, it needs backup from my Rennai (propane) heater on really cold days, but it will pay for itself after three years. Heat pumps don’t perform well at sub zero but when you take all the hours in a year when the temp is +5 degrees down to -20 degrees it is only about 200 hours/year or about 3% of the total hours in a year. So while my heat pump isn't perfect, it's pretty darn good. If Vermont politicians want to consider heat pumps as some perfect/panacea/miracle, they'll eventually learn they were a little bit wrong.

Table 1/Space heat, per CADMUS		Sites	Million Btu/site	Million Btu	%
Heat to sites		65	92.00	5,980		See URL, page 22
		HPs	Million Btu/HP
Heat from HPs	1648/5980	77	21.40	1,648	27.6	See URL, page 21
Heat from traditional	4332/5980			4,332	72.4
.
			Million Btu/site		%
Heat from HPs, on average	1648/65		25.35		27.6
Heat from traditional, on average	92.00 – 25.35		66.65		72.4
Total heat to a site, on average			92.00

Table 1A, Energy Savings
Heat in propane, Btu/y, HHV	25275000
Fuel to power plant, Btu/y		23312490
Fuel to power plant, kWh/y		6833
Conversion efficiency		0.4
Fed to grid, kWh		2733
Transmission loss adjustment, 2.4%		2667
Distribution loss adjustment, 6.7%		2489
Heat in propane, Btu/gal, HHV	84250
Purchased propane, gal/y	300
Purchased electricity, kWh/y		2489
Heat in propane Btu/gal, LHV	84250
Standby, kWh		91
Defrost, kWh		154
To compressor, kWh		2244
COP		2.64
Heat for space heat, kWh		5926
Btu/kWh		3412
Furnace efficiency	0.8
Btu/y for space heat	20220000	20220000

Table 1/CO2 Reduction	With HP	With HP
Fuel displaced 35%	Electricity	Electricity
	Market based	Location based
Electricity CO2, g/kWh	33.9	317
CO2 of 2489 kWh, Mt/y	0.084	0.789
CO2 of 550 gal of propane, Mt/y	3.168	3.168
Total CO2 with HPs, Mt/y	3.253	3.957
CO2 of 850 gal of propane, Mt/y	4.897	4.897
CO2 reduction by my HPs, Mt/y	1.644	0.939
.
Fuel displaced 100%
CO2 reduction by EAN, Mt/y	4.111

AIR SOURCE HEAT PUMPS DO NOT ECONOMICALLY DISPLACE FOSSIL FUEL BTUs IN COLD CLIMATES

You need to be a member of Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine to add comments!

Hannah Pingree on the Maine expedited wind law