Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Pink_Slyvie t1_j6sbji7 wrote

Reply to comment by Bird_Brain4101112 in PUC launches investigation into PPL billing issues by SonGoku_USA

If you own, work on getting a heat pump, and I like a wood or pellet stove as a backup for when it gets really, really cold.

Most of us rent through, and our landlords are doing whatever is cheapest for them, which is often the most expensive for us.

10

Bird_Brain4101112 t1_j6sda4s wrote

We own and we have multiple fireplaces which we don’t use since it’s not practical. Our bills were never this high but the last year or two the costs have exploded.

3

Pink_Slyvie t1_j6sdqt0 wrote

Fireplaces, unlike wood stoves, are terribly inefficient. The only reason I recommend them though is for comfort and when the temp gets so cold outside, heat pumps lose the ability to work effectively. Geothermal solves this problem but is still super pricey.

Solar is also a must-have if you can fit it into the budget now as well.

It goes back to my original point though, that's only for those that are privileged enough to own a home. Those of us that aren't are just going to keep falling deeper and deeper into the hole with no way out.

4

erock255555 t1_j6shsz9 wrote

Just about every heat pump made nowadays goes down to -5f pretty efficiently.

5

Pink_Slyvie t1_j6si72p wrote

Yeap! It's amazing, but we are going to see more and more extreme weather events with climate change, so having a backup is a great idea!

Plus, there is just something about having a stove heating the room.

3

Mijbr090490 t1_j6u3s85 wrote

Modern heat pumps can work in below zero temps. Their efficiency doesn't drop below 100% and can reach 300%-400% efficiency. With HEEHRA, qualifying households can get up to 100% of the system paid for. Geothermal is definitely the way to go if you have the cash, but an air source heat pump is the next best thing.

2

Pink_Slyvie t1_j6u4vyv wrote

I'm probably just a bit sentimental about wood. Plus, it's a backup for when power is out.

1

Mijbr090490 t1_j6u6n8k wrote

Wood stoves are definitely nice to have for backup. I think a heat pump with a wood stove for supplemental/backup heat would be perfect. It's just not ideal for everyone. Many people just want to flip a switch. Not to mention the wood itself. Finding and splitting your own wood makes it worth it, but its too physically demanding for many people. With the price of cord wood, it just doesn't seem like it would save you much money over alternatives.

1

Pink_Slyvie t1_j6u6sch wrote

Solar and batteries are also a great solution, but most of this is moot, as most people rent now.

1

drxdrg08 t1_j6yk7ke wrote

> as most people rent now

68% own 32% rent

That's not most.

1

Pink_Slyvie t1_j6ykp8h wrote

Please provide data for PA.

My point still largely stands, those of us who need to cut every cost we can, tend to be renters, and we have no path to home ownership.

1

drxdrg08 t1_j6ykkr6 wrote

> I'm probably just a bit sentimental about wood.

Burning wood is the worst method to heat if you care about global warming.

Wood is literally made from co2 captured out of the atmosphere. You can make things out of it. You can let it rot in the ground. But don't burn it.

1

Pink_Slyvie t1_j6yma2f wrote

Rotting in the ground releases the CO2.

That's what most people don't understand about wood. It's part of the carbon cycle. Unlike fossil fuels, you aren't adding to the carbon cycle.

The big issue with wood is it's not sustainable at scale, sure there is a climate impact, but not at the level of Fossil fuels.

I was reading a study however, saying that, if properly done, a single acre of land could provide enough wood to heat a home indefinitely, I don't recall the details past that though.

2

drxdrg08 t1_j6ytevx wrote

> Rotting in the ground releases the CO2.

Some. And it takes a very long time. All cars will be electric by the time a tree that dies today will be converted back to co2 from rotting. So burning now is a bad idea.

> I was reading a study however, saying that, if properly done, a single acre of land could provide enough wood to heat a home indefinitely, I don't recall the details past that though.

How big is the house, how insulated, what temperature inside, what temperature outside. This is probably a bad idea too since it takes a lot of energy to go from a tree outside to it heating up your house. And that energy has a carbon footprint too. I would not be so fast to say that burning fossil fuels in a very efficient and clean way is worse than burning wood even in theory. In practice virtually nobody wants to do that.

1

Pink_Slyvie t1_j6zdlre wrote

In the end, we need to focus on fully renewable. My only initial point is that wood is a suitable substitute for when Electric is out, or even as an occasional thing for pleasure.

1