Cart 0

The fact that it is so hard to learn the actual life cost of heat pumps tells you they are not cost effective

Posted by John Reed on

Liberals are pushing. Its main virtue seems to be that it replaces fossil fuels, at least inside the heat pump. It runs on electricity. It is essentially an air-conditioner that you turn the opposite way in winter. Air-conditioners throw heat outside in summer. Heat pumps also do that then reverse direction and throw heat inside and cool air outside.
I studied a lot of engineering in college. I do not give a rat’s rump about the Marxist climate cult. All I am interested in is whether the life cycle cost of the heat pump is cheaper than the fossil-fuel furnace.
The basic answer is no, but with rebates and liberals driving the cost of electricity up to force you to use a heat pump, it may eventually be the most cost-effective heating method. Fundamentally, it is hard to ascertain true cost-effectiveness because the matter had been taken over by Marxists, like covid. The truth is not wanted. That which obtains and keeps power for the liberals is all that may be reported. 
In a rough sense, I think you can tell from the suppression of the usual calculations of front-end cost and pay back period from annual operation savings for the incremental up-front cost of the heat pump that it is NOT cost-effective. That is the extra amount you have to pay up front will not get paid back in the normal target three to five years. Rather, it will take 20 years or more.
In other words, keep your fossil fuel furnace.

Share this post

← Older Post Newer Post →

  • Plus they dont work when it’s really cold out.

    x on

Leave a comment

Please note, comments must be approved before they are published.