Looking forward to the “reeeeee” from folks who will somehow equate this to think that the gubment is coming for their precious water heater
this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2023
191 points (99.0% liked)
politics
18894 readers
3530 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
So I can't stand it when people do the "reeeee" thing either, but this one kind of bugs me.
$11.4 billion in savings per year for 332 million people averages to $34 per year.
Here is a typical electric water heater. Cost: $439. Here is one with a heat pump installed as described in the article. Cost: $1,909 - a difference in price of $1,470.
At $34 per year, this water heater would have to last 43 years before any cost savings from the efficiency gains would be realized. I don't know if you know much about water heaters, but this won't happen by a long shot.
Gas units fare similarly, with typical units verses high efficiency units' price differential.
It's hard to be a homeowner these days. This will make it harder. I can accept it in the name of efficiency gains and saving the planet and all that, but the whole "this will save consumers money," bit is pure gaslighting. It's not true. This will cost consumers quite a lot of money.
The two models you linked have an estimated annual energy cost of $489 and $119. That's roughly $40 a month vs $10. This would mean you'd come out ahead in total cost over the lifetime of the unit -- parts + install + bills -- at 4 years and 2 months.
Obviously every situation is different, but calculating at an aggregate level and using that math to dismiss the idea wholesale is disingenuous at best.
You're probably right about it not saving enough money, but the math you did above assumes one water heater per person.
The median household in the US is about 2.5 people. So $34 per year per person becomes $85 per household. Reducing the time to break even to 17.3 years.
Still longer than that water heater is likely to last, but not quite as bad.
True, that actually makes me feel slightly better. But nothing's going to make me feel better when I go to buy a new water heater and it costs three times as much as the last one did.
Claiming there's savings just isn't true in reality. If they came out and said it's to help reduce energy consumption to save the planet I'd be all in, and I'm still in for this, but it just makes it hard to fully support with the gaslighting as you aptly put.
Part of the problem is that most people who would need convincing of this will immediately turn away as soon as they hear "save energy" or "save the planet" as they see these efforts as nuicanses and a vie for control. The second you frame it as "what's in it for you," they immediately start to listen. Look at what happened with solar panels once they crossed the magic threshold of affordability and actually functioned as a cost saving method. A third of the houses in my neighborhood have them installed now. The only reason I don't is because I'm currently paycheck to paycheck, and my local power company is also doing a killer job of sourcing solar and other renewables.
It would be nice if they occasionally spent time making and enforcing stuff like this for the 7 or 10 corporations that cause most of the climate change problem. Asking all the citizens to spend and extra $1000 when they replace their water heater is just limate change theater.
I think you maybe responded to the wrong person or didn't respond to the OP. My post was about how to convince people to buy in, whereas yours seems to be focused on the big businesses and how they're not being held to the same standard. Though, the overlap here is basically what I originally said: frame it as cost-savings for the businesses or something else in it for them and they'll start doing it with or without regulation.
It's important to note that the cost to make and the price to sell are too different things. I'm sure it costs more to make, but features like that are used to upsell. When they become a requirement, suddenly they can't be used to upsell and so the price comes down. It happened with backup cameras in cars. For a few years, it was a major upsell for a car to come with a backup camera. If you wanted a backup camera you had to buy the premium trim for thousands more. Then it became a requirement and it could nolonger be treated as a premium.
I do like how the article goes out of its way to mention that Joe Biden is a Democrat and Donald Trump is a Republican, just in case we didn't know.
Anyhow, it does specifically mention reverse cycle electric water heaters, which I clicked on this imagining were the only path forward if anyone wishes to increase the efficiency of an electric storage tank water heater. Existing electric storage water heaters are actually already remarkably close to being perfectly efficient, since very nearly all of the energy consumed goes into raising the temperature of the water and provided you don't let the thing sit idle for days on end, that heat energy stays in there pretty damn well, also. Even a bog standard electric water heater with resistive heating elements has around 90% energy efficiency.
Then I remember how many people in the US have natural gas powered water heaters, because they're "cheaper," which are at best something like 60% energy efficient.
Because "efficiency" here ill defined, 100% is not the most efficient a heater can be. Heat pumps move more heat than is needed to power them, are much more efficient than electric heaters, and have "efficiencies" well over 100%. Good ones have 400% "efficiency", in that 1 J consumed will put that 1 J into the the substance and move another 3 J from the environment (thus cooling the environment) into the substance.
If you use a heat pump water heater, it will help cool your house. In areas that cool in the summer, it's essentially free hot water. In the winter overall energy consumption to offset the cooling breaks even compared to an electric water heater.
Similarly, air source heat pumps are much more efficient than gas or electric furnaces for heating a building. They're comparable to a typical AC unit for cooling, as an AC unit is just a heat pump.
In many regions, ground source heat pumps are even more efficient for both heating and cooling, because the ground temperature is nearly constant and at a convenient temperature, so it serves as a huge source and sink of energy.
I have a hpwh and , when the coils aren’t leaking coolant (repaired twice under warranty) it works well. I keep it in a room that has the washer/dryer, spare fridge, icemaker, and my espresso machine - all devices which would work against my A/C in the summer. It keeps that area nice and cool. In the winter I shut off the hp and run it in resistance mode or it really cools the basement excessively (which I’d also where my home office is).
The only other drawback is that the heat pump is very noisy compared to, say, a refrigerator or a good mini split heat pump - the little fans they use on the exchanger just whine.
Correct. It seems bonkers at first glance that anything could have an efficiency over 100%, but in the case of heat pumps specifically for the use case of heating something (water, your house, etc.) the above is true, and you can achieve over 100% in that context.
One complaint I can predict about heat pump/reverse cycle water heaters is that they are not silent, whereas a resistive element one is. (Gas ones aren't silent either, though, so there's that.)
Inb4 "Biden is taking grandma's water heater"
Here comes the conservative outrage.
“Buuuut muh constitutional right to pay more for hot water”
I mean, this will make them pay more. High efficiency water heaters like this exist and are two to three times as expensive.
For the average household it will take about 20 years before the cost premium to buy one is offset by the savings. Water heaters are only good for 10-15 years. So these rules ensure that you will pay more for hot water over time and will always pay more.
It’s good for the environment but it’s going to hurt the average persons wallet.
I have a gas water heater on demand that is 98% efficient as it works as a furnace, and it has saved me greatly in gas costs. It only costed 200 usd and you set a temperature and it always gives that temperature. It's pretty much instant as my plumbing is all very direct and efficiently laid out (with all wet areas in my house being in a 5 meters radius.
I pay 10 usd natural gas a month on summer (including 5 usd fixed service cost) and about 80 on winter with a gas whole home heater and a mini split (that we have 4 450watt solar panels for so we also don't pay a lot for electricity).
We also cook with gas for three people.
Stuff can be much more efficient than it is without breaking the bank.
I used to spend about 40 usd a month on summer with a water tank heater.
98% is a horribly inefficient water heater. The high efficiency ones with heat pumps can be up to 400% efficient.
Oh yeah it is, but the article also mentions gas heaters.
Even then most americans use tanked ones and those are way more inefficient. Even now most NEW tank water heaters sold in the US are only 60% efficient.
My point is there is improvement to be made without breaking the bank.
The proposal would require the most common-sized electric water heaters to achieve efficiency gains with heat pump technology and gas-fired water heaters to achieve efficiency gains through condensing technology.
These are already available and marketed as high efficiency. Costs are generally double conventional units, though there are a lot of subsidies that eliminate the price premium. The biggest drawback is both types require drainage unlike conventional models. Retrofit installations may be difficult depending on the current setup.
It's also worth noting, heat pump models require a minimum amount of space to draw air from. I have one, and there were pages and pages in the install guide dictating the volume and clearance limitations. This makes them a no-go for say apartments where the water heater and furnace are in a small closet.
EDIT: That's not to say we shouldn't be striving towards this, just have to make sure the full ramifications are understood and accounted for.
They make minisplit hot water heaters, as well as water heaters that sit outside and pipe the water to an inside tank.
It would be nice if our government continued focusing on this type of stuff lol
"Donald Trump, a Republican, complained about efficiency standards for shower heads, saying that they interfered with the rinsing of his hair. His Energy Department eased energy standards on such fixtures. The Biden administration reversed the rule on shower heads in 2021"
He's been bitter ever since he lost Melania to one.
Of course these savings will not be passes down to the consumer.
Would be nice to see efforts to cut down on waste, too. Water, especially hot water, takes a lot of resources to prepare for use.
I give it 5 minutes before conservatives get mad and start trying to convince themselves freezing a good thing cos something something freedom.
or, you know, just force all new construction to have hot water on demand systems and then offer a large tax incentive to upgrade. it worked for the solar industry, no reason it cant work for hot water too. water tanks as hot water heaters is early bronze age tech.
Not great timing with the current state of the electric grid. Water tanks get to act as heat batteries at least. And outside of new construction, lots of homes dont even have an adequate electric service for instant heaters alongside everything else.
hence the "new construction" part.
view more: next ›