No. A specific tech should not be mandated. But, strongly incentivizing moving away from gas furnaces is a good idea.
The problem with mandating a specific technology is in the near future there may be something better, then the corporations that got fat over having their tech blessed spend their money to keep the law from changing.
I don’t think there’s anything that we’re on the cusp of discovering that would meaningfully change how humans heat their homes.
Also, for homes that have AC, mandating that the AC be a heat pump is logical. They’re cheap now, and the difference is a reversing valve and some logic. I can’t think of a good reason not to, in climates where heat is even occasionally needed - perhaps with exception of geothermal availability.
I use an evaporative cooler, works well with the dry climate and it is simple enough that I can do any repairs myself (no electronics, just a pump and a fan and switches for them), and is very energy efficient. I've also read about digging pipes that go deep underground to circulate air for cooling. I'd think about getting a heat pump but my main concern is maintenance, have heard from people whose heat pumps broke down and they had some trouble getting them fixed. It's not totally unambiguous that it is the best choice in all circumstances.
I generally agree but in this case you can't really beat a heat pump in the near future, except with a better heat pump. The cats spending money to keep things from changing are the gas lobby.
If we keep installing gas we'll be stuck maintaining two expensive energy distribution infrastructures forever when one (gas) is much less useful and flexible compared to electricity
There was technically no ban on incandescent lightbulbs. Instead, the law set efficiency requirements, which were beyond what incandescents could meet.
I'm sure we could write something like that for HVAC systems.
I don’t know prices in Colorado but in New England where I am, heat pumps are cheaper to run than propane, heating oil, or of course resistive heat. If similar, then just not allowing new gas connections should work great.
The problem here is that gas is the cheapest heat source, and of course conversion costs are high, but we don’t have much new construction
I can tell you for sure that in my uninsulated 1920s wind tunnel my heat pumps (mini splits) are cheaper than oil in the depths of winter to the tune of around $300 a month.
Installation cost me $0. Actually, that's not true. I had to run to Harbor Freight to get a bigger hole saw. Installation ran me like $40 for the hole saw kit.
7 Comments
DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 154d
No. A specific tech should not be mandated. But, strongly incentivizing moving away from gas furnaces is a good idea.
The problem with mandating a specific technology is in the near future there may be something better, then the corporations that got fat over having their tech blessed spend their money to keep the law from changing.
CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de · 4 pts · 154d
I don’t think there’s anything that we’re on the cusp of discovering that would meaningfully change how humans heat their homes.
Also, for homes that have AC, mandating that the AC be a heat pump is logical. They’re cheap now, and the difference is a reversing valve and some logic. I can’t think of a good reason not to, in climates where heat is even occasionally needed - perhaps with exception of geothermal availability.
chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 153d
I use an evaporative cooler, works well with the dry climate and it is simple enough that I can do any repairs myself (no electronics, just a pump and a fan and switches for them), and is very energy efficient. I've also read about digging pipes that go deep underground to circulate air for cooling. I'd think about getting a heat pump but my main concern is maintenance, have heard from people whose heat pumps broke down and they had some trouble getting them fixed. It's not totally unambiguous that it is the best choice in all circumstances.
Jazsta@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 153d
I generally agree but in this case you can't really beat a heat pump in the near future, except with a better heat pump. The cats spending money to keep things from changing are the gas lobby.
If we keep installing gas we'll be stuck maintaining two expensive energy distribution infrastructures forever when one (gas) is much less useful and flexible compared to electricity
Nollij@sopuli.xyz · 2 pts · 153d
There was technically no ban on incandescent lightbulbs. Instead, the law set efficiency requirements, which were beyond what incandescents could meet.
I'm sure we could write something like that for HVAC systems.
AA5B@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 154d
I don’t know prices in Colorado but in New England where I am, heat pumps are cheaper to run than propane, heating oil, or of course resistive heat. If similar, then just not allowing new gas connections should work great.
The problem here is that gas is the cheapest heat source, and of course conversion costs are high, but we don’t have much new construction
dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 154d
I can tell you for sure that in my uninsulated 1920s wind tunnel my heat pumps (mini splits) are cheaper than oil in the depths of winter to the tune of around $300 a month.
Installation cost me $0. Actually, that's not true. I had to run to Harbor Freight to get a bigger hole saw. Installation ran me like $40 for the hole saw kit.