I can't quite see the emissions case for this technology, at least in the present. If the COP is around 2, the heat pumps should produce about as much CO2 as a gas-fired boiler, assuming that the electricity ultimately comes from burning gas at 40% efficiency. Things will improve as electric power is increasingly provided by renewables. But that's in the future. (Of course, the calculus is very different when the comparison is electric resistance heat.)
Renewables are cheaper on the margin of new capacity, so most new generating capacity will be renewable. (And none will be coal.) But you've still got to install the new capacity and retire the old. We'll be burning coal in existing plants for some time, and gas for somewhat longer. The trends are great, but present capacity is mostly fossil. Which means that present use of electric boilers won't save much CO2. Maybe if the heat pump boilers last 20 years, they will save on lifecycle carbon. But they're not saving much today.
So much of this calculus depends on how you're evaluating -- marginal vs average emissions rate.
Short-term marginal emissions, which looks at what is the marginal generating unit that is going to be turned up in order to supply the electricity for this load, will look good when renewables are on the margin, decent when combined-cycle is on the margin, and bad when coal or peaker natural gas is on the margin. Note that many grids are already curtailing renewables in order to keep their less flexible fossil plants online, so this situation can happy even in relatively dirty grids.
Looking at long-run marginal emissions (such as Cambium), which evaluates the emissions from that load while considering what new generation will be built due to that load, shows that a COP of 2.0 is sufficient to be at lower emissions than natural gas.
Average rates will result in higher emissions in dirty grids, especially if they are annual averages.
Hybrid systems can choose the lowest carbon and cost solution based on grid conditions.
I love these guys. I think. Hopefully the HP boiler is a highlight on the New Belgium tour. I couldn't find any mention of what refrigerants are used, though some other articles mention HFC/HFO. EU high temp HPs seem to be going to hydrocarbon mixtures, but whatever. Nifty thermodynamics.
In Colorado there is an obsession with geothermal generation (of which exactly real zero exists here) to provide drilling jobs and powerplant jobs. But much of the work in both powerplants and gas gathering and distribution is very similar to working with industrial heat pumps. There are compressors and cooling fans all over my county. High pressure piping and valves. Especially if we get into natural refrigerants of CO2, HCs and ammonia; that's very high pressure, flammable, and toxic. The gas biz deals with this daily.
Whether it's assembling or operating, HPs should be the focus of "just transition" for fossil fuel workers.
My understanding of your substack post is that IHPs are not the unique solution but they are a critical part of industrial decarbonization, along with thermal efficiency, de-steaming, electric boilers, chemical storage, and thermal storage. I agree that we are entering a messy middle, but that's a reason to provide support for early adopters that are willing to lead the market. Any one facility will make a decision based on their heat requirements, their emissions goals, their resiliency needs, their available electricity capacity (both in the plant and from the grid), their CapEx budget, and their OpEx budget. It's very likely that they will keep gas-based heat in a hybrid deployment for a few years while technology advances.
The political winds are shifting. You don't have the political and financial capital for expensive experiments.
Most of the new light industry is going to be built in developing countries where capital costs are high to begin with. It's best to focus on time of use tariff reforms in these countries as opposed to industrial heat pump subsidies.
How about hybrid with batteries holding extra electricity, say for arbitrage purposes? That may be in addition to resistive heating for running at 30%.
Do you anticipate heat-pump boilers replacing steam boilers for space heating? For example, our church has a boiler and steam "radiators." It is due for replacement soon, and will likely be replaced by a series of 3 smaller boilers that would provide heating stages. I'm wondering if, say, one of those could be a heat pump rather than gas.
Was coming to say the same thing! My church was built in 1895, and our boiler is nearly 60 years old from a company that went out of business decades ago. Would love to get a drop-in replacement in heat pump form
I can't quite see the emissions case for this technology, at least in the present. If the COP is around 2, the heat pumps should produce about as much CO2 as a gas-fired boiler, assuming that the electricity ultimately comes from burning gas at 40% efficiency. Things will improve as electric power is increasingly provided by renewables. But that's in the future. (Of course, the calculus is very different when the comparison is electric resistance heat.)
Don't assume running from fossil fuels. Renewable energy is already cheaper, and it is required to stop global warming.
Renewables are cheaper on the margin of new capacity, so most new generating capacity will be renewable. (And none will be coal.) But you've still got to install the new capacity and retire the old. We'll be burning coal in existing plants for some time, and gas for somewhat longer. The trends are great, but present capacity is mostly fossil. Which means that present use of electric boilers won't save much CO2. Maybe if the heat pump boilers last 20 years, they will save on lifecycle carbon. But they're not saving much today.
So much of this calculus depends on how you're evaluating -- marginal vs average emissions rate.
Short-term marginal emissions, which looks at what is the marginal generating unit that is going to be turned up in order to supply the electricity for this load, will look good when renewables are on the margin, decent when combined-cycle is on the margin, and bad when coal or peaker natural gas is on the margin. Note that many grids are already curtailing renewables in order to keep their less flexible fossil plants online, so this situation can happy even in relatively dirty grids.
Looking at long-run marginal emissions (such as Cambium), which evaluates the emissions from that load while considering what new generation will be built due to that load, shows that a COP of 2.0 is sufficient to be at lower emissions than natural gas.
Average rates will result in higher emissions in dirty grids, especially if they are annual averages.
Hybrid systems can choose the lowest carbon and cost solution based on grid conditions.
I love these guys. I think. Hopefully the HP boiler is a highlight on the New Belgium tour. I couldn't find any mention of what refrigerants are used, though some other articles mention HFC/HFO. EU high temp HPs seem to be going to hydrocarbon mixtures, but whatever. Nifty thermodynamics.
In Colorado there is an obsession with geothermal generation (of which exactly real zero exists here) to provide drilling jobs and powerplant jobs. But much of the work in both powerplants and gas gathering and distribution is very similar to working with industrial heat pumps. There are compressors and cooling fans all over my county. High pressure piping and valves. Especially if we get into natural refrigerants of CO2, HCs and ammonia; that's very high pressure, flammable, and toxic. The gas biz deals with this daily.
Whether it's assembling or operating, HPs should be the focus of "just transition" for fossil fuel workers.
I don't think industrial heat pump are a good solution. Hybrid electric gas system is a better and more cost effective approach.
https://mdnadimahmed888222.substack.com/p/the-pragmatic-path-to-industrial
My understanding of your substack post is that IHPs are not the unique solution but they are a critical part of industrial decarbonization, along with thermal efficiency, de-steaming, electric boilers, chemical storage, and thermal storage. I agree that we are entering a messy middle, but that's a reason to provide support for early adopters that are willing to lead the market. Any one facility will make a decision based on their heat requirements, their emissions goals, their resiliency needs, their available electricity capacity (both in the plant and from the grid), their CapEx budget, and their OpEx budget. It's very likely that they will keep gas-based heat in a hybrid deployment for a few years while technology advances.
The political winds are shifting. You don't have the political and financial capital for expensive experiments.
Most of the new light industry is going to be built in developing countries where capital costs are high to begin with. It's best to focus on time of use tariff reforms in these countries as opposed to industrial heat pump subsidies.
How about hybrid with batteries holding extra electricity, say for arbitrage purposes? That may be in addition to resistive heating for running at 30%.
Do you anticipate heat-pump boilers replacing steam boilers for space heating? For example, our church has a boiler and steam "radiators." It is due for replacement soon, and will likely be replaced by a series of 3 smaller boilers that would provide heating stages. I'm wondering if, say, one of those could be a heat pump rather than gas.
Was coming to say the same thing! My church was built in 1895, and our boiler is nearly 60 years old from a company that went out of business decades ago. Would love to get a drop-in replacement in heat pump form