Though, the returns are (edit: "not great") if the figures above INCLUDE net metering revenues.
Heatpump = Negative IRR until y8
Solar = Negative IRR until y16
Heatpump + Solar = 0 NPV through y25 | 8% discount rateIt also doesn't include the negative externalities because of tragedy of commons. Sadly, these kind of flawed 'financial' calculations are widespread.
What is inspiring from the OPs comment is that this is doable in harsh Canadian winters with negligible solar and it breaks even. Most of the world is living in significantly more sunshine, so it should work out a lot better financially for >99% of the population.
For externalities or immediate health benefits, heatpumps are pretty defensible. However, solar isn't a saint. Rare earth/mineral mining is hazardous plus only a fraction of solar panels are getting recycled properly.
> this is doable in harsh Canadian winters with negligible solar and it breaks even
It's doable alright. OP got subsidies (See comment re: risk free loan and grants). Talk about externalities, this is definitely wealth transfer.
The wealth transfer you are alluding to, it is from the poor (everyone) to the rich (fossil fuel billionaires), isn't it?
Can you please share your definition of "whataboutism?" And explain how bringing up a single alternative (plus flaw) is addressing the critique and NOT changing the subject?
This is pretty much the same as accusing a colleague of insulting you through PR they asked you to review, because there's an added line that says:
class HOLEInstance ...
- "But wait, it's no such thing; it's a Handle for OLE component instances - it's part of support for COM stuff in those legacy reports..."
- "AHA! See also here, dear readers:"
class HOLEClientSite // TODO: : public HOEComponent?
This is what pointing out "whataboutism" and "dog whistles" is. Artificial, cross-cutting pattern that match easily, but don't correspond to any real phenomena.
Weaponized pareidolia.
Adults don't talk like this. The parent shared they would be far less likely to have moved forward without the subsidies. Now, you implied that someone (me) pointing out a tradeoff of solar subsidies must be non-critical of O&G subsidies, yet you provided no proof that I wasn't ALSO critical of O&G subsidies.
Meanwhile, I would love to learn more about the financials of your non-profit, ChargeFoundation.org that has mailing to a residence in Austin, TX. I'm not seeing any 990s.[0] Can you please post your foundation's financial reports on your site?
[0] https://app.candid.org/profile/15315388/charge-foundation-93...
If you believe the externalities of solar are a problem, what do you propose to do instead? Should we subsidize some other alternative? Redirect resources from oil to nuclear? Other?
You're making different/absolutist arguments. Even the most ardent electrification proponents agree that you can't replace downstream chemicals/materials.
As for subsidies, you're thinking too narrow if you feel it necessary to only spend limited government budget on energy to improve lives.
But, its perfectly okay for govt to spend on fossil fuel subsidies? You draw the line when the subsidies are for solar, heatpumps, etc?
> you're thinking too narrow if you feel it necessary to only spend limited government budget on energy to improve lives.
I also did not use the word “only”. Governments are quite capable of doing more than one thing at once. Should governments not consider spending money on energy to improve lives?
Solar cells are made of silicon, not rare earths.
For solar, you need to mine ONCE for 25 - 50 years. Fossil fuels are burnt every second continuously. Perhaps you can do the math if its not obvious?
If this is happening, then you shouldn't be using that furnace/room!
Something beyond the furnace is not configured right.
The problem is likely "between the keyboard and the chair." ;-)
A modern furnace works via a heat exchanger, where the combustion produced pollutants never mix with the indoor air being pushed through. All pollutants are expelled outside via a property functioning chimney. This is one reason why you should have the furnace (and chimney function) inspected annually. Aging heat exchangers will show hotspots before there is a possibility of air being mixed, giving plenty of time to plan for a replacement. Of course there is a possibility of failure, which is why you should have a carbon monoxide detector.
Further north where I am solar can only ever be a small component of total electricity generation due to the dark snowy cloudy winter months with close to zero solar generation for weeks on end.
A cheaper smaller system right sized for summer consumption with a battery would have my second best option, but for me never showed any potential payback due to the fixed costs of installation and the extra battery costs.
Wholesale electricity costs as much as 267% more than it did five years ago in areas near data centers. That's being passed on to customers: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2025-ai-data-centers-elec...
Most likely most of the increase is just temporary though. Electricity supply will increase to meet the sudden and unpredictable increase in demand.
The push for electrification seems like it relies on us metaphorically drowning in excess cheap electricity and want somewhere for it to go but right now the opposite it happening.
Not really, natural gas has immense exposure to geopolitics and the commodity markets: https://www.iea.org/commentaries/what-drives-natural-gas-pri...
There’s also the argument to be made (this has manifested in other countries) that as gas usage wanes and more homes electrify, nat gas costs will increase as the infrastructure costs are spread among fewer and fewer people
AFAIK, the US has a mid-long outlook of gas oversupply. EU's market is broken and has 3x the price (c.f. Henry Hub v. TTF). I haven't seen any major forecasters predict reaching parity anytime soon. Hence, LNG export projects keep getting (over-)built to chase the arbitrage.
This has kinda wonky incentives though - if your fixed costs for gas are high but your marginal costs remain low and for whatever logistical reasons you can't cut the gas connection entirely, then your motivations are to move as much of your heating load over to gas as possible.
This is the kind of thing where a carbon tax is great for sorting out the pricing to match the externalities.
Heat pump water heaters pull heat from the outside. Usually with a split outdoor unit, just like normal A/C and heat pump systems.
I’ve also seen models where the entire system (integrated storage cylinder for the heated water) is installed outdoors, but those are presumably meant for more mild climates.
In any case, they certainly don’t pull heat from inside the house.
You're right about the 8 year negative IRR for the heatpump, although I'm being very conservative about propane costs, it's likely much shorter. I was pretty conservative about the solar savings too, I generally go for the worst case in these estimates.
Your overall NPV calculation seems a bit off. It's ~21 years to zero NPV at 8% discount rate, spending $80 up front to save $8/year. Factoring in the 10 year interest free government solar loan makes it more like 14 years. My working:
=nper(8%, -8, 80)
20.9
=nper(8%, -8, pv(8%, 10, -4)+40)
14.3
Correct. It's 21y. I missed $500 from a reading error and was assuming $7.5k/y (not $8k/y).
edit: I see your mention of the grant, too. Combined, that's cutting the NPV=0 point in half from 21y to ~12y. Good job.