You speak theoretically but metropolitan areas in these countries all have those pipes in place and in use for the better part of a century.
Using heat for heating has many redeeming qualities. Heat is high entropy and it is not a good idea to "waste" low entropy energy to create high entropy energy. Many industrial processes run on heat and waste heat is generated everywhere. The systems are also cheap to run once in place.
That's a real issue, but this is for a district heating system which already exists and already faces this issue. And yet the district heating system is presumably practical.
Changing to a different central source of heating (i.e. storage) seems orthogonal.
Larger storage structures are easier to (thermally) insulate. Because geometry.
But going with larger structures probably means aggregation (fewer of them are built, and further apart). Assuming homes to be heated are staying where they are, that requires longer pipes. Which are harder to insulate. Because geometry.
I can't help but wonder how the efficiency compares to generating electricity, running that over wires, and having that run heat pumps.
The conversion to electricity loses energy, but I assume the loss is negligible in transmission, and then modern heat pumps themselves are much more efficient.
And the average high and low in February in 26°F and 14°F according to Google, while modern heat pumps are more energy-efficient than resistive heating above around 0°F. So even around 14–26°F, the coefficient of performance should still be 2–3.
You speak theoretically but metropolitan areas in these countries all have those pipes in place and in use for the better part of a century.
Using heat for heating has many redeeming qualities. Heat is high entropy and it is not a good idea to "waste" low entropy energy to create high entropy energy. Many industrial processes run on heat and waste heat is generated everywhere. The systems are also cheap to run once in place.
That's a real issue, but this is for a district heating system which already exists and already faces this issue. And yet the district heating system is presumably practical.
Changing to a different central source of heating (i.e. storage) seems orthogonal.
Is that a problem? Pipes are not technically complicated. Is there something else I'm missing?
Larger storage structures are easier to (thermally) insulate. Because geometry.
But going with larger structures probably means aggregation (fewer of them are built, and further apart). Assuming homes to be heated are staying where they are, that requires longer pipes. Which are harder to insulate. Because geometry.
Existing district heating systems can be large.
I live in Denmark the powerplant that heats my home is about 30km away. There are old powerplants in between that can be powered in an emergency.
Yes, building district heating systems that large is difficult and expensive, it wasn't built yesterday, more like 50 years of policies.
I can't help but wonder how the efficiency compares to generating electricity, running that over wires, and having that run heat pumps.
The conversion to electricity loses energy, but I assume the loss is negligible in transmission, and then modern heat pumps themselves are much more efficient.
And the average high and low in February in 26°F and 14°F according to Google, while modern heat pumps are more energy-efficient than resistive heating above around 0°F. So even around 14–26°F, the coefficient of performance should still be 2–3.
8 replies →
Pipes are competing with wires, which are much less technically complicated than pipes.