Storage heater alternative.... Infrared vs lpg vs Air source heat pump 12 April 2021 at 9:50AM in LPG, heating oil, solid & other fuels 83 replies 3.2K views

coffeehound

An abstract seen online:

European governments see that heat pumps could reduce carbon emissions in space- and hot-water heating. EU's Renewable Energy Directive designates heat pumps as renewable - eligible for various subsidies - if their carbon footprints are below an implied, average threshold. This threshold omits carbon generated by manufacture and emission of a heat-pump's fluorocarbon refrigerant. It also omits the footprint of the heat pump's hardware. To see if these omissions are significant, this study calculated carbon footprints of representative, residential heat pumps in the UK. Three findings emerged. First, in relation to power generation, which accounts for most of a heat-pump's greenhouse-gas emissions, fluorocarbons add another 20% to the footprint. Second, at UK efficiencies a heat-pump footprint (in kg CO2e emitted per kWh delivered) is comparable or higher than footprints of gaseous fuels used in heating. It is lower than the footprint of heating oil and far lower than the footprints of solid fuels. 

shinytop

coffeehound said:

An abstract seen online:

European governments see that heat pumps could reduce carbon emissions in space- and hot-water heating. EU's Renewable Energy Directive designates heat pumps as renewable - eligible for various subsidies - if their carbon footprints are below an implied, average threshold. This threshold omits carbon generated by manufacture and emission of a heat-pump's fluorocarbon refrigerant. It also omits the footprint of the heat pump's hardware. To see if these omissions are significant, this study calculated carbon footprints of representative, residential heat pumps in the UK. Three findings emerged. First, in relation to power generation, which accounts for most of a heat-pump's greenhouse-gas emissions, fluorocarbons add another 20% to the footprint. Second, at UK efficiencies a heat-pump footprint (in kg CO2e emitted per kWh delivered) is comparable or higher than footprints of gaseous fuels used in heating. It is lower than the footprint of heating oil and far lower than the footprints of solid fuels. 

Do you have a link to the full article?  As far as I can see the article is from 2011.  I'm no expert but haven't refrigerants and ASHPs moved on a bit since then?  

Reed_Richards

shinytop said:

Do you have a link to the full article?  As far as I can see the article is from 2011.  I'm no expert but haven't refrigerants and ASHPs moved on a bit since then?  

Energy Policy

Volume 39, Issue 3, March 2011, Pages 1369-1381

I can only find the abstract which is here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421510008906.  The refrigerant in my 2020 heat pump is supposed to be something new and wonderful

coffeehound

No I don't have the full article.  Given that people are making the change based upon environmental considerations, it would be interesting to know the true carbon footprint, though.  If made in the far east then there is going to be a big CO2 burden to pay back before they can begin to catch up with a Europe-manufactured storage heater (I think Dimplex manufacture in Ireland?).  Bulk carrier shipping is horrendously polluting and anything from China will have been made using coal-fired power. 

shinytop

coffeehound said:

No I don't have the full article.  Given that people are making the change based upon environmental considerations, it would be interesting to know the true carbon footprint, though.  If made in the far east then there is going to be a big CO2 burden to pay back before they can begin to catch up with a Europe-manufactured storage heater (I think Dimplex manufacture in Ireland?).  Bulk carrier shipping is horrendously polluting and anything from China will have been made using coal-fired power. 

It would be interesting but would need to use complete and up to date data.

If you are comparing manufacturing/shipping of storage heaters, a single storage heater weighs 100-150kg (I know, I've just removed eight of them) and I doubt making firebricks is a low-emission activity.  

My ASHP is using less than half the power than my storage heaters did so I'd be very surprised if my carbon footprint has gone up    

matelodave

coffeehound said:

An abstract seen online:

European governments see that heat pumps could reduce carbon emissions in space- and hot-water heating. EU's Renewable Energy Directive designates heat pumps as renewable - eligible for various subsidies - if their carbon footprints are below an implied, average threshold. This threshold omits carbon generated by manufacture and emission of a heat-pump's fluorocarbon refrigerant. It also omits the footprint of the heat pump's hardware. To see if these omissions are significant, this study calculated carbon footprints of representative, residential heat pumps in the UK. Three findings emerged. First, in relation to power generation, which accounts for most of a heat-pump's greenhouse-gas emissions, fluorocarbons add another 20% to the footprint. Second, at UK efficiencies a heat-pump footprint (in kg CO2e emitted per kWh delivered) is comparable or higher than footprints of gaseous fuels used in heating. It is lower than the footprint of heating oil and far lower than the footprints of solid fuels. 

As far as I can tell it's ten years old (and the research for it is probably even older) so although I dont dispute what it says, there have been one or two advances in the intervening period, much as there have been for motor cars and other stuff so I'm not really sure how useful it is to regurgitate stuff that's probably been overtaken by progress and possibly now well out of date.

Just my opinion you understand

coffeehound

matelodave said:

 As far as I can tell it's ten years old (and the research for it is probably even older) so although I dont dispute what it says, there have been one or two advances in the intervening period, much as there have been for motor cars and other stuff so I'm not really sure how useful it is to regurgitate stuff that's probably been overtaken by progress and possibly now well out of date.

Just my opinion you understand

It serves a purpose in that it suggests the line we are being fed by government -- and propped up using public money -- that expensive, complex foreign options are better for the planet than simple technologies and even some fossil fuels, is not clear.  If anyone has anything more up-to-date, it would be interesting reading.

Reed_Richards

This will be the 48th reply to a question to which the OP has never made any further comment.  Why are we bothering?  

matelodave

It's about par for the course - a goodly proportion of people post and then just disappear into the woodwork. and we never know whether they solved their problems of get cheeed off with some of the negativity.

Reed_Richards

Or the answers they got weren't the ones they wanted to hear.  Or they asked around widely and got a "better" response somewhere else.