Alt text:

Guys with hair like this have a 300% chance of explaining why heat pumps are the superior mode of household heating to your girl:

Below are six heavily cropped pictures of Alec Watson’s hairline (the host of Technology Connections channel on Youtube).

  • EndOfLine@lemm.eeEnglish
    421·
    7 months ago

    Hey ladies. How you doin’?

    Did you know that heat pumps are often considered a superior method for household heating for several reasons:

    1. Energy Efficiency: Heat pumps are highly efficient compared to traditional heating systems like furnaces and boilers. They transfer heat rather than generate it, using electricity to move heat from the outside to the inside (even in cold climates).

    2. Dual Functionality: Heat pumps can provide both heating and cooling. This versatility means you only need one system for year-round climate control, rather than separate systems for heating and cooling.

    3. Lower Operating Costs: Although the upfront cost of a heat pump can be higher than some other heating systems, the energy savings over time often result in lower overall operating costs.

    4. Environmentally Friendly: Heat pumps produce fewer emissions compared to systems that burn fossil fuels for heating. As the electricity grid becomes greener, the environmental benefits of heat pumps increase even further.

    5. Safety: Heat pumps do not use combustion to generate heat, which means there is no risk of carbon monoxide leaks or other combustion-related dangers.

    6. Long Lifespan: Heat pumps generally have a long lifespan and require minimal maintenance compared to other heating systems, making them a cost-effective choice over time.

    7. Quiet Operation: Heat pumps tend to operate more quietly than traditional HVAC systems, making them a more pleasant option for household heating.

    8. Consistency: Heat pumps can provide consistent and even heating throughout the home, improving comfort and potentially reducing hot and cold spots.

    Overall, heat pumps offer an energy-efficient, versatile, and environmentally friendly way to heat and cool your home.

    If you’d like to further explore the benefits of heat pumps over the current, conventional, home environmental control option, I have one installed at my place that I would love to show you.

    What do you say? Wanna come over to my place and check out my heat pump?

    • ThrowawayPermanente
      27·
      7 months ago

      This is literally true and it’s fucking crazy. Wait until people find out it works for both heating and cooling.

      • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
        9·
        7 months ago

        Ikr? Like my grandmother’s gas bill was $120 last month with it being turned down pretty low nothing else gas in the house.

        My house is all electric and my electric bill was $112 for the month.

      • Naz
        5·
        7 months ago

        Air conditioning is freaking magic

    • chuckleslord@lemmy.world
      515·
      7 months ago

      I hate that this became a part of the marketing. It’s not more than 100% efficient. It’s more than 100% efficient if you compare how much energy the pump uses to heat a room (electric energy) to how much energy it takes to heat that room (heat energy). But those aren’t the terms that we use to determine efficiency. Efficiency is determined by how much energy it takes to perform the task using the same method we’re currently using in some “perfect” system (no energy loss due to friction, heat transfer, etc) and dividing that by how much energy we actually used.

      A heat pump isn’t heating the air, so it’s unfair to determine efficiency by how much energy it takes to heat the air. It’s moving heat energy from a low energy area (outside) to a higher energy area (inside) and that heat energy, plus some waste heat from running the compressor, is what’s actually heating the room. But that isn’t more than 100% efficient. In fact, heat pumps have grown in efficiency significantly over the last few decades because they haven’t reached 100% efficiency.

      It is accurate to say that any heat pump is going to be more energy efficient than any other type of furnace, but that’s because they’re doing different things. Just like an LED is going to be more efficient than any other lighting in terms of energy use. Again, different things. Though the heat pump and LED are pretty similar in what they’re doing.

      • azertyfun
        20·
        7 months ago

        You’re choosing to interpret “300 % efficient” under the very narrow definition used in thermodynamics.

        Then you acknowledge that it is “more energy efficient” than a (almost) 100 % (thermodynamically) efficient furnace, completely contradicting yourself. Pick a lane and take a breath, outside of academic contexts people will “misuse” technical terms (such as equating COP to efficiency) and it does not matter one bit because it is very clear contextually what they mean.

        • chuckleslord@lemmy.world
          72·
          7 months ago

          I mean, isn’t the colloquial use of efficiency mean “the best you can do”? I openly admit, I’m splitting hairs over a technical term being misused and that shit usually doesn’t matter in the world. But in this case, isn’t it also incorrect from the most common understanding of the term?

          And I obviously disagree with the statement that it’s very clear contextually what they mean. Every time I hear it said it makes my brain break as to how that’s even possible. It’s cause it’s not possible, it’s relating two terms that aren’t related to get an impossible answer.

          That being said, I’m autistic so I might be making a mountain out of a molehill. In fact, I’m certain of it. So, it’s completely cool that you disagree, it just irks me.

      • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
        11·
        7 months ago

        It’s 300% efficient in terms of if you could convert electricity at 100 percent efficiency to create heat, you can m9ve it from outside by using like 1/3 the amount.

        So yeah, really the definition holds up well.

      • Majoof@aussie.zone
        11·
        7 months ago

        I have a room that I want to add 1000w per hour of heat energy to

        I have the options of:

        • burning 1050W of gas per hour
        • running a 1000W theoretically lossless electric resistive heater per hour
        • running a 600W heat pump per hour

        Sure, the gas is combusting, the resistive is radiating, and the pump is moving the heat, but functionally they’re all trying to add that 1000W to the room continually for an hour. One of them is doing it a whole lot more efficiently.

      • Socsa
        5·
        7 months ago

        This is nonsense. When we say the COP is greater than 1.0 that is rigorously definined in terms of energy inputs.

  • DumbAceDragonEnglish
    27·
    7 months ago

    I love how I knew who this is without even reading the caption

    • DrM@feddit.de
      7·
      7 months ago

      I switched to powder thanks to Alec and I don’t regret it. Works great!