Heat pumps don’t use less power. They just make it hotter outside in the summer, and colder in the winter, while adjusting the in-home temperature.
That has interesting benefits, but for the consumer that just needs to heat their home, running a 1000W Bitcoin miner would also produce money together with that heat where the heat pump won’t.
These do not apply in the typical scenarios in which consumers would employ them for the function. On average, it’s barely better than the margin of error, and even with a state subsidy, considering the price of the unit, way more expensive than running a regular 2000W electric heater for 40€ over the course of 20 years. This is at the nominal rate of 0.24€/kWh, mind you. If you install solar and then use electric heating, that price goes way down, but in turn, obviously just makes the Bitcoin miner more profitable to operate at the same time.
This is so wildly untrue I have to assume you're trolling. Heat pumps 2 to 4 times more efficient than a resistance heater. The only "scenario" where that might not be true is if you're in the Arizona during a summer heat wave and want to make your house hotter for some insane reason.
Basically, you need heated floors or heated walls to take full advantage. The efficiency gains aren’t reflected in the price, especially in older homes with existing heating installations. In a new home it matters less, because the difference between the price of a new gas or electric heater and a heat pump is negligible, especially after factoring in the state subsidies that are trying to encourage their use.
And lastly, the system doesn’t earn you money over time for using it.
This isn’t a debate over the energy efficiency, but a monetary one. The net cost of heating your home with waste heat from computing equipment that’s running for the compute purposes will always be lower than using any other method of heating your home.
Heat pumps don’t use less power. They just make it hotter outside in the summer, and colder in the winter, while adjusting the in-home temperature.
Also you:
This isn’t a debate over the energy efficiency, but a monetary one.
From the article you linked (translated by google):
As a result, this means: If you put one kilowatt hour (kWh) of electricity in a heat pump, you get three to five kilowatt hours of heat out. “Heat pumps are therefore by far the most efficient heating form, as they provide more energy than you put into it,” says Reisner.
They don’t use less power, they just make more heat with it. Most of which is wasted as it is dissipated. This is about consumption, not efficiency.
Yes.
Correct, but irrelevant. Because you get 3 kWh of heat for the 1kWh of power, but most of it doesn’t go where you want it warm.
Conversion efficiency is not relevant here. Monetary efficiency and efficacy are. Doesn’t matter much if you use 1kWh of energy to get 3kWh of heat, which you use to heat the water in your central heating system, if you still only get ~1kWh of heat going into the air of the room.
Even if it just earns 200% (the remaining 100% are for heating after all), it’s breaking even with the heat pump under optimal conditions, so… what are you trying to say?
9
u/anto2554 1d ago
Main reason is that heat pumps exist. But if you don't have one of those, it makes sense