Hacker News Reader

Comment by russdill | Hacker News Reader

As long as the heat pump was properly sized for such an uninsulated home it would still heat it more efficiently than a resistive element heater and just as completely. Of course, if saving money is what you want to do, then yes, insulate before throwing dollars at anything else.

View on HN

I'd argue that insulation should be the first thing people consider unless they know their home is already well insulated. It's all very well having energy efficient heating systems but if most of the heat generated leaks straight outside then I'd question whether that's efficient overall. Particularly in smaller dwellings, you can reduce the amount of heating you require each day during winter - often to nil.

In theory I'd agree that you should insulate first. But as others have pointed out, on some older houses, insulation can be difficult to accomplish (especially true in non-wood-framed housing). In such cases it is still a better idea to use LESS energy (because of a COP above 1) to heat that space than it is to use resistive or combustion methods (which have a COP less than 1).

Yes, it's more efficient than resistive electric heating, but in the UK that is typically not the alternative it's being compared to. The usual existing heating system would be a gas-fired central heating boiler, and the cost of gas vs cost of electricity means that gas is still cheaper, I think.

The costs are totally prohibitive, though. We're talking tens of thousands of pounds, whatever direction you decide to take.

You could spend 10s of thousands of pounds in a "properly sized" heat pump system. Or you could spend 10s of thousands of pounds in insulating your home + a more moderate heat pump.

Insulation always pays for itself in the long run, but the period of payoff like peruod of payoff on a mortgage - 10-20 years. We need very generous finance on making home improvements

Reply on news.ycombinator.com