Yes, heat pumps slash emissions even if powered by a dirty grid | Installing a heat pump now is better for the climate, even if you run it on U.S. electricity generated mostly by fossil fuels. Here’s why.

5 comments

1. The article doesn’t go into it, but a key advantage they have is that [heat pumps move heat, rather then trying to generate it.](https://www.iea.org/reports/the-future-of-heat-pumps/how-a-heat-pump-works) So they can move a lot more heat into your house than would be generated by running the electricity they use through a resistor. This makes them effectively more than 100% efficient (the exact amount depends on temperature) as compared with burning a fuel or resistive heat.

2. I got one, and it’s awesome.

3. I replaced my furnace with a heat-pump just over a year ago.

   I did the math for my house. I live in Colorado, with electricity emissions slightly higher than the national average (~1lb/kWh in CO vs ~0.83lbs/kWh nationally).

   The heat-pump is roughly break-even from an emissions standpoint and an operating cost standpoint based on the grid today.

   However, my utility is cleaning up pretty fast. We’re expected to be at ~75% renewables by the end of the decade, which is mostly replacing coal plants. While I don’t have enough information to calculate future emissions intensity, I’m guessing my heat-pumps emissions intensity will be roughly half that of my prior furnace.

   I recommend a heat-pump water heater as a place to start if you’re thinking of something similar. It’s a lower capital commitment, it has a higher financial ROI, and it has more immediate emissions savings.

4. We replaced our dual fuel heat pump this summer with all electric. Love it. Our electricity usage is higher, but a) we have solar panels, so I don’t care and b) our propane usage is now just the backup generator and tankless water heater.

5. These are great. We need to remember that while solar/wind/whatever are the end goal, there are a lot of other interim steps like this we can take.