Public funding for fossil fuel industry breaks another Liberal climate promise, advocates say (www.cbc.ca)

submitted 3 days ago by Sunshine@piefed.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca

7 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] excursion22@piefed.ca 1 points 3 days ago

Heat pumps aren't a very effective solution. Depending on generation source, the electricity a heat pump uses to heat could be dirtier than the fuel that would otherwise be burned.

A better solution is to first reduce demand. For existing buildings, start with improving airtightness and reducing summer solar gain (add shading), then insulate where practical (following good building science), and only after that, modify mechanical systems to suit the new, reduced demand. New buildings take the same approach.

[-] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Not gonna argue with insulation and demand decrease first but heat pumps are multiple times more efficient than using the electricity for heat or the fuel that creates the electricity, regardless of how the electricity is geberated. That's because they don't convert the input energy into heat. They use the input energy to move heat from the outside to the inside or from the inside to the outside (when cooling). These days 2x to 5x heat than input energy is common.

Quick primer on heat pump operation.

[-] excursion22@piefed.ca 2 points 2 days ago

I'm well aware of how heat pumps work. What I meant by that was that some electrical grids, like Saskatchewan, for example, have a high GHG intensity. So, despite a heat pump's high efficiency, it can still result in higher overall GHG emissions than if the same amount of heat were delivered by burning natural gas in a condensing furnace.

Now Saskatchewan has been making good progress on cleaning up their grid, so it might not quite be the case now, but energy and GHG modelling I did a couple years ago showed just the case above.