Wednesday, May 30, 2007


A question for the internets:

Anyone have any sense at all of the comparative ecological / economical impact of a heat pump (electrical) vs. furnace heat (natural gas)?

No, of course it doesn't have anything to do with the fatal flaw in our HVAC on what is thus far the hottest day of the year here. Nothing at all.


Anonymous said...

The heat pump is less expensive, since it depends partially upon environment "energy" (the temperature gradient between the space to be conditioned and a space below ground level). It's not very responsive and is really only an assist for an electrical heating/cooling system.

Natural gas heat burns cleanly but of course consumes fossil fuel. Of the two, the cost of a gas system is less than that of a comparable electrical system.

Oh, your site's tag line? Assuming that purpose of art is to teach is a very Brechtian assumption that is not necessarily true.

The purpose of art is to take complex concepts and bring them directly to the perceptual level, so as to be perceived directly by the viewer. This has the effect of making complex matters simple to perceive and comprehend--teaching?

undine said...

Heat pumps are a good option if you live in a place with a moderate climate, but if you live someplace cold (Minnesota, North Dakota, upstate NY, Maine), it'll be less efficient and more expensive in the long run, or so I hear.

Musey_Me said...

We live in a moderate climate and have 2 heat pumps and I have been thrilled with the low cost of running them (which means they can't be using that much electricity/gas.)

Professor Zero said...

When I investigated this, in the near tropics, it seemed that energy costs for heat pumps would be much higher.
Word on the street was that they were marketed as more efficient, but were not. This fits with Undine's comment on climate extremes.