I remember I was short the stock via puts quite a bit and they kept saying crypto was 5% of the business which I knew was a lie. It turned out great for me. Fast forward to 2022, you see how much of the GPU “shortage” was due to crypto mining especially in Russia (there are enough anecdotes of people in Siberia heating their kitchens with GPUs).
But with bitcoin mining your heat pays for itself, while if you use a heat pump you have to buy power to run the heat pump. So while heat pumps are more energy effient, bitcoin miners are far more economically efficient.
This is only true if the value of the Bitcoin you mine is higher than the difference in cost between buying and operating a heat pump and buying and operating a mining rig.
I don't agree with a lot of things in CAPEX vs OPEX, but this is one that is clearly right:
Having equipment sitting around unused is way more expensive than most people care to think about.
A heating coil might not be terribly valuable in July, but come November it will have roughly the same value it had the previous February. Bitcoin mining hardware that's switched off for five months is losing value at an alarming rate, and very quickly won't be a net reduction in costs.
Very quickly a heat pump becomes cheaper to operate, and cheaper to purchase. And if you amortize the cost over the life expectancy, that threshold is very, very low. People who have recent memory of living paycheck to paycheck are constantly screwed by the latter, and that Venn diagram overlaps heavily with several other circles that make crypto super attractive to some people and super ridiculous to others.
I went down this avenue of compute as radiator long ago, and I could never get the math to work, unless I moved somewhere that was cold most of the year, and that sure as fuck is not going to happen.
In a very brief nutshell, the ways in which buying a little hardware or a tool to save thousands of hours of frustrating development work is not a slam dunk because of colors of money.
In either case, you still have to compare against using the fossil fuels to heat your house instead of turning them to electricity first, to heat your house via the heat pump or the resistive heater
In that case you would still have an absorption refrigerator that "cools" the outside and dumps to the inside as an alternative. They are usually either gas-fired or running off of district heating (well, 50-120C seems usual).
2/3rds of that cost is labor. 3 ton multi-zone heatpump kit is $2500-3500, another $250-500 for an electrician to pull #6s and a ground to a 60A disconnect outside and sealtite whip into the heatpump, and 60-80 hrs at $125/hr to install the heat pump and air handlers, including all the exterior wall penetrations and sealing, running glycol lines, installing thermostats, wiring air handlers, etc.
Yeah single room. There's dual room splits that run a bigger compressor with two heads too. They are usually way cheaper than bigger units even when you account how much juice they eat up but you should do your own math because it depends on the house and the setup.
Also if you want to control every single room including bathrooms and walk in closets it gets tricky.
I'd assume that they were going to use carbon-generating fuel, and that someone somewhere would already run a mining rig. IE: It's murky.
If they were going to heat using an electric space heater, it's a wash.
If they were going to heat using natural gas, but the electricity comes from nuclear, it's lower carbon.
If they were going to heat using natural gas, and the emissions are higher. BUT, if they were going to run the mining rig anyway, and they've merely turned off the gas heat, the emissions are overall lower.
Heat pumps work by moving heat, they usually move more heat than input energy.
Basically, a refrigerator is a heat pump. The input energy runs the heat pump, which it uses to move heat out of the refrigerator. Typically, for every watt of electricity, more than a watt of electricity is moved out of the refrigerator.
They work by compressing gasses into fluids, and then letting the fluid expand back into a gas. Basically, when a fluid evaporates, it absorbs heat as potential energy. The energy can be harvested by compressing the gas at a high enough pressure that it condenses into a fluid. Do this in a loop, and you can move heat.
Or an example that might be more readily acceptable, being something that a person without any domain knowledge could simply test* to prove it to themselves:
Suppose you built a shed around the outdoor unit of a central air conditioning system and let it come up to max ambient temperature. Then right next to it you built a shed with a resistive heater which consumes the exact same wattage as the air conditioner. The first shed will be much warmer because you're not creating heat so much as you're moving heat. If you increase the resistive heater's wattage by about 2.5x then the sheds will be about the same temperature.
* Don't actually do this and expect the system to survive.
I understand this, but the argument I was responding to was "you're already going to use the electricity, you might as well make profit", but actually you could use less energy so it's not a given that all this electricity was going to be used. It is instead a choice between profit and carbon emissions.
Why would we assume they are (I'm not sure that the "someone somewhere" part of that is material either) going to use a mining rig already to assess the merits of mining rigs for heating? That's tautological.
For a guy in Siberia various climate models show that the global warming will improve life. Winters will be much milder, agriculture will be less risky.
My understanding is that this isn't true, because Siberia's muskeg soil isn't very suitable for growing things, whether frozen or not. (Same with northern Canada. Muskeg and mosquitos are why northern Ontario has never been settled.)
My point is that when we as outsiders look at this practice and evaluate its merits, we should care about the carbon emissions even if the people there don’t.
> If you live in Siberia you presumably want the planet to warm up more. ;)
No you don't, when permafrost melts it causes ground to move. It is really bad for everything build on or in it. Something like houses sinking and falling apart. In some cases it cause big holes in the ground and they got even bigger over time.
Because permafrost melting is the only negative consequences of climate change. There are no forest fires, no problems with insect due to milder winters, etc.
For bitcoin mining to pay for itself, you need to leave it running to the max 24/7. Each miner is a noisy ~3000w machine. So that's a 3000w heater. You would normally turn down the heater during the day, but if you turn off your miner during the day, you won't break even.
Apparently you haven’t heard of immersion cooling. It’s essentially silent, and many people are using DIY setups to augment a heat pump or hot water heater.
Commercial solutions have been in development for a few years. Here’s one example:
https://www.wisemining.io/
Edit: after re-reading your comment I realize you also aren’t aware that miners can be throttled. Powering it down is not the only alternative to consuming 3kW.
I couldn't actually find anything about this in a search, but I think the point is that they're already using the GPUs for something else, and heating their kitchen with the excess heat just makes sense at that point.
The only thing I did find was that apparently Russians are taking the components from kitchen appliances to use for other things, which seems entirely unrelated.
This isn't really a "practical use for blockchain tech". Rather it's just a positive way to use the side-effect that blockchain tech requires computing components that generate a lot of heat.
Ultimately the heat output has nothing to do with how the tech is used (like bitcoin). If Bitcoin (or other cryptocurrencies) stopped holding value people wouldn't heat their homes like this because it would cost more than traditional heating methods (as someone pointed out above about heat pumps.)
Until 100% of our electricity is provided by renewables or nuclear, resistive heating is just turning converting fossil fuels into heat, which we convert into electricity, which we convert back into heat. It would be more efficient to just burn the fossil fuels on site.
>> more efficient to just burn the fossil fuels on site.
You forget exactly how efficient a coal-fired powerplant actually is. Love or hate them, they have 100+ years of technological innovation to squeeze every watt out of coal. Your fireplace at home is not nearly as efficient. So an electric heater powered by the grid is almost certainly more efficient than burning your own coal at home in an inefficient stove.
A good oil-burning heater has over 90% efficiency. Even no so good and cheap one can get over 70%. The best industrial electricity-generating plants that runs on oil has efficiency bellow 60%.
Does that oil-burning heater need oxygen? If it does then it needs ventilation, air movement in/out of the house, pushing that 90% efficiency number way down.
Efficiency wise, the comparison between a heat pump and a furnace depends on the outside temperature. Heat pumps lose their efficiency for high ∆T, so for winter in a Russia, a furnace is likely the better option
90% is overtall efficiency including losses due to ventilation. Such system with its heat exchangers is not cheap, but long term it pays off compared with less advanced heater.
that assumes the use/utility of the computation is 0. We can all debate if that's true or not about cryptomining.
One day we may heat our homes with distributed computing like BOINC.
Consider the house that marginally has electrical resistive wall heaters (Like the bay area) and an excess of spare computers sitting around (also like the bay area) ... It's marginally better for the house nerd to leave their PCs on using BOINC than run the wall heater.
If by mining, you mean cryptocurrency creation, the utility is effectively 0. You can achieve the same utility if a cryptocurrency simply credited all new coins to my wallet. If by mining, you mean validating transactions, then that's something you have to do all year round, even if it's warm. That makes about as much sense as asking VISA to send me a rack that does computations for them only when my home is under 20 C.
Burning fossil fuels on-site means transporting fossil fuels to people's houses. Natural gas has a GWP which is 21 times that of CO2, and residential natural gas distribution systems are responsible for massive emissions just due to the leaks.
Unless you assume CCS for the fossil plant, which is not a setup that would work well for a typical residential forced-induction gas-fired central hot water heater (combined with passive radiators in rooms or underfloor heating).
The Mitsubishi Mr Slim heat pumps that we install are able to warm your home in temperatures as low as -15°C and -25°C
When temperatures drop below zero degrees, ice will build up on the outdoor unit of
any heat pump. How the heat pump reacts to this determines how effective it will be in
providing heat to your home. To remove the ice build-up the heat pump will need to go
into Defrost Mode. During this time the heat pump will not be delivering heat into your home. HyperCore’s Defrost Logic has been fine-tuned to extend the period in-between defrost periods and optimise its heating performance.
Mitsubishi Electric offers heat pump systems with Hyper-Heating INVERTER® (H2i®) technology which can provide up to 100 percent of heating capacity at 5° F and continue operation down to -13° F even wiThe Mitsubishi Mr Slim heat pumps that we install are able to warm your home in temperatures as low as -15°C and -25°C thout auxiliary heat.
You can still use a heat pump that takes the heat from the exhaust air to warm the fresh air. That way you can get the same amount of heat as if you were using three+ times as many graphics cards.
I usually use GPUs for heating during winter as the power has to be used anyway, so why not get ethereum for it.
> You can still use a heat pump that takes the heat from the exhaust air to warm the fresh air.
I don't think you understand how heat pumps work. Heat pumps have significantly greater than 100% "efficiency". They don't turn electricity into heat. They use electricity to move preexisting heat, and it turns out that's far more efficient in terms of Joules of heat delivered to your home per Joule of energy spent. In fact, for any given Joule of energy spent, you can generally move two to three Joules from outside your home to inside of your home.
If the source of heat you're pumping is coming from resistive heating you're using electricity for, you're only getting 1 Joule of heat for every Joule of electricity. Adding heat pumps to this system doesn't help you.
> I usually use GPUs for heating during winter as the power has to be used anyway, so why not get ethereum for it.
Because owning and operating a heat pump is almost certainly cheaper than the costs of owning and operating a mining rig, even offset by the value of the cryptocurrency you generate. You'd almost certainly be better off by heating your home with a heat pump and using the energy savings to buy that same cryptocurrency.
The exceptions to this are if you are in a location where energy is extremely cheap, or perhaps if you generate more than your household usage of electricity (including resistive heating) through solar or wind but aren't able to sell that electricity back to the grid.
I know very well how heat pumps work, and I find it ironic that you assumes others don't know because you don't understand it or haven't heard of it.
A heat pump doesn't have to take heat from the outside. By using heat from the extracted air, you can use whatever you want to generate heat inside and get multiple times the effective heating as it's reused. Use wood, electrical floor heating or GPUs. It doesn't matter. The energy from the extracted air is transferred to the fresh supply air. The exhaust air will be freezing.
Also, electricity has been expensive the last two years, but mining has still been profitable, considering I already have some GPUs in my workstation and home server.
You don't earn money by using a heat pump, you do(or at least did) by mining. By mining and using a heat pump on that energy I increase the usage of that energy. Win win win.
> I know very well how heat pumps work, and I find it ironic that you assumes others don't know because you don't understand it or haven't heard of it.
>
> A heat pump doesn't have to take heat from the outside.
If you're already spending 1J of energy to get 1J of heat, a heat pump is not going to turn that 1J of heat into 2-3J of heat, nor is it going to recover any of the Joules you've spent to generate that heat. So sure, you can use a heat pump to move that heat around a space. But doing so just spends more energy and decreases the overall efficiency of the system.
The principle of a heat pump getting such efficiency numbers is entirely predicated upon the notion that you're able to move that heat from somewhere it already exists "for free" in sufficient bulk.
> You don't earn money by using a heat pump, you do(or at least did) by mining. By mining and using a heat pump on that energy I increase the usage of that energy. Win win win.
You fundamentally misunderstand the economics of this situation. Mining costs money in the form of hardware and electricity. In exchange you can potentially extract some amount of revenue. If your alternative was to use that energy to generate one Joule of heat for every Joule of energy spent, you might as well mine to get a rebate.
But the sum of mining revenue minus mining costs are almost certainly less than the costs of simply operating a heat pump instead. Again, you'd be better off using a heat pump to heat your home and using the money saved on energy to simply buy $CRYPTO at market prices.
As I said, I already have GPUs. If you don't think mining has been profitable for me and others during e.g. the last year then you need a reality check, cause it has been profitable.
> If you're already spending 1J of energy to get 1J of heat, a heat pump is not going to turn that 1J of heat into 2-3J of heat, nor is it going to recover any of the Joules you've spent to generate that heat.
It's not magic, or complicated. The energy spent is used multiple times, as I said. You can save energy using a heat pump both by using it for initial heating, or transferring existing heat that would otherwise be thrown away.
So no, I'm not misunderstanding anything. If you think it's not possible then you too can get this "magic" using e.g. Nibe F750 + SAM40. Check their documentation, it even has charts for everything!
There was a comment on another web site a while back: "The words you're using - it's like you know what a microwave is, but you keep calling it a fridge, and you want that fridge to do an oil change on your cat."
You insist you know about heat pumps, but your comments indicate you don't understand the fundamental principles.
> You can still use a heat pump that takes the heat from the exhaust air to warm the fresh air
Unless I'm misunderstanding part of this proposed setup, I'm pretty sure this doesn't work. The higher efficiency of heat pumps comes from the fact that the outdoors is an effectively infinite (for the purposes of a house) source of temperature differential. You can only move as much heat as exists, so you can't use a heat pump to multiply a finite heat source.
I'm not sure what there is to misunderstand. Heat is taken for the outgoing hot air, and transferred to the fresh air coming in. So instead of hot air going out, the air going out will usually be freezing.
In my experience, people usually try to avoid exchanging air with the outdoors when they're concerned about significantly heating/cooling their homes. If you're exchanging air then a heat pump could super heat/cool the outgoing air, and that's the piece I was missing from your proposal.
A house must exchange air. Better insulated houses are basically air tight, so you must have ventilation to get fresh air.
A pro with that solution is that the extracted air has a high temperature all year, making it more efficient that using a heat pump to extract heat from outside that might be -30 celcius. A downside is that the amount of air is limited, so if you need more heat then you have to supplement it with something else.
You get it, but it seems there are a few others that don't realize that a heat pump can also be used to increase efficiency by reducing the heat lost. While I do get that it's unknown to most people, some people here perfectly illustrates the Dunning-Kruger effect...
That sounds like heat recovery ventilation; while useful, it serves a different purpose than heat pumps (which heats up enclosed spaces without the ventilation). Also HRVs normally work with whatever existing air and don't use extra heated air…
This was the best blog I ever noticed on this topic,an Australian using exhaust air from their miners to pre-heat incoming air to their heat pump. TL;DR - it's worth it.
Russian nuclear is ~17% (compare US at 19%). Overall it is slightly less CO2-intensive than the US, as it uses less coal. They have almost as much hydroelectric power as the entire US renewable sector.
Might be more, but it's still a minority of their grid. Wikipedia has a graph for 2016: 18.1% nuclear, 47.9% natural gas, and 15.7% coal.[0]
"Energy Matters" says that EU energy production was 26% nuclear in 2015, but only 12% for consumption[1], so I'm not sure how to look at that comparison. Either way, that's probably mostly France (~80%[2]). US around 8-9%[1].
TL;DR: Yes, most western countries probably have less nuclear, but it's a low bar.
Cryptocurrency is not even 1% of global energy consumption. The environment is being destroyed by China, western nations, fossil fuels. If anything cryptocurrency is just a very small drop in their bucket.
Monero is almost solely use for crime. Most exchanges won't touch it, and that's a good thing because it would pour fuel on top of the existing cryptocurrency-enabled ransomware trash fires, if it was actually usable.
If we were talking about petty crime, I may agree with you, but cryptocurrencies enable ransomware, which frequently shuts down critical services like hospitals and schools. Ransomware attackers have also leaked personal medical records from hospitals, and student's private records from schools.
Surveillance is an issue, but for the most part, it's not warrantless in our current system. Cryptocurrencies, excluding things like Monero and Zcash actually make it considerably easier to do warrantless surveillance.
If I'm forced to choose between some instances of illegal warrantless surveillance, and the complete inability to trace financial crimes, I'll take the instances of illegal surveillance, with the hope we'll try to fix those issues.
There are those that day global warming is caused by politicians talking crap about global warming.
My theory is global warming is caused by the people that vote for the politicians that talk crap about global warming.
When the war started in neighbouring Ukraine (I live in Romania) the local market started seeing graphics cards again which, previously, had been marked by local official resellers as "not in stock for the near future". This is for business procurement, so not even retail.
Do you think it's more than 5%? Maybe it is, but it seems like every place that offers GPU rental services (Amazon, Vast, etc) they are being used almost exclusively for machine learning applications. The rate they can be rented out is 3-4 times higher than would be profitable for any cryptocurrency mining, which should be a pretty solid indicator of where the demand is actually coming from.
I know I'm in the minority, but my GPUs are used almost exclusively for password cracking. I've got ASICs for the crypto mining.
I worked at a security consulting firm that had an 8 GPU password cracking rig. Teams would be able to send it hashes obtained during assessments/red teams and try to discover passwords.
I was not doing that type of work so I'm not sure what type of software was used but I think it had multiple open source programs available.
Like others said, hashcat. Doing pentest/red team stuff, you quite often stumble across password hashes that can do some pretty cool stuff if you can crack them.
Did you know that if you're on a Windows network, random machines all around you will just try to authenticate to you, and disclose the hash of the user on the system? Plug in on a Ethernet jack in the lobby, or conference room, get onto the wifi, compromise any machine on the network and run responder or inveigh, and you just get dumps of user passwords, and if you can crack any of them, its a pretty quick path up to Domain Admin on the network, which then can dump everyone's hashes.
If and only if you would have used electrical heating anyway, then using a GPU's waste heat for heating your home is one of the best things you can do with it and it's "100% efficient". That is, 100% of all the energy your GPU consumes also ends up as heat in your house and it's thermodynamically equivalent to any other type of resistive electric heater.
Of course, the energy consumed by any even semi-serious mining operation far exceeds a home's heating needs.
However, resistive heating is 3-4 times less efficient then ground/air source heating, so if your actual aim is to heat the house, you can do a lot better[1]. It's just better, if you're generating heat anyway, to also use the waste heat than to dump it outside.
[1] YMMV in permafrost regions, and the hardware is too expensive for many people.
Not necessarily, a FIR heater (which is also resistive) deposits a larger fraction of its input energy in humans than a GPU cooler which heats the air which then indirectly warms the human and also everything else.
They do use little electric heaters some of the time.
And there's smaller mining operations, the economies of scale aren't that great, more the difficulty of finding GPUs. You can lend it to neighbors and give them a cut of the proceeds, you could do the whole town. So in fact ordinary mining operations waste the heat, this would not.
I want to answer the other poster who shows up dead: how can you lend a miner? Like lending a little heater. Like lending a cow, one guy needs milk the other wants the meat and hide. So if you already have all the electrical heat you really need for your house but want to mine more, you won't benefit from more heat for your own house. Whereas maybe across the street a neighbor is still using little electrical heaters a lot, doesn't understand crypto very well. So they work something out, the neighbor gets heat, pays the electric bill, and gets a cut of the mining, and the original miner provides the GPU through his contacts and gets a share too. So that way the heat doesn't go to waste, and the miner can scale.
Clarifying for alisonkisk, lend means 20 cards instead of 10 you need for heating, lending the other 10 out to a neighbor for his heating. Economies of scale, for instance by buying more cards at a time at a better unit price.
How can you lend your miner to a neighbor for heat? You all need heat at exactly the same time. Are you going to move the rig to a different home every hour?
Well right, you can't. Very good point. But perhaps you have guests for a month and when they leave they have guests, that means more of the house has to be heated instead of sealed off. I've seen that in huge houses.
I have some doubts that any significant amount of cryptomining is actually done in Siberia. Part of that would include a few questions of the definition of “Siberia”, a deep examination (i. e. a suggestion to google) people’s ideas of the weather condition at that hypothetical place, and maybe a comparison of efficiency of heating a typical rural Russian home with coal vs. burning coal to generate electricity to run GPUs, after transmission over sowjet-era grids.
Considering how cryptocurrencies seem to attract the get-rich-quick crowd, it’s impressive to see the levels of motivated reasoning they are capable of, since neither motivation nor reasoning alone seem to be among their usual strengths.
It's useful for the millions of people who participate every day in the trillion+ dollar cryptocurrency economy, but sure, continue to claim that anything that doesn't directly benefit you personally must be "useless".
Literally hundreds of alternatives to Proof of Work, especially PoW with some enhanced utility (calculating large twin primes, folding proteins, file storage, GIS, etc) have been tested in the real world, but it turns out that a straight up "find the nonce" PoW is the best form of democracy we can build that doesn't require some global registry of every human on earth. Anyone with access to electricity can participate in ensuring the global security of the network, and be fairly compensated for it.
Proof of Stake can work alright in certain market conditions, but those didn't exist on any blockchain until relatively recently. Look at the utter chaos going on with Terra validators. The validating token goes to approximately zero, so bad actors can cheaply buy up the staking asset and hijack validation, further destabilizing the network, allowing the next attackers to buy in even cheaper.
It's a hard problem, and Satoshi's solution is an incredibly elegant one. If you've got a better idea than PoW, then do share. Whoever figures it out stands to make billions of dollars. You should know that it's mostly considered to be a solved problem at this point, and nearly everyone has moved on to other hard problems in the space.
PoW is not useless. Hashcash in its original form is a prime example. It’s good design/engineering that solves a problem.
Blockchains are not useless. Append only, verifiable data structures have countless applications that again, can be used to solve actual problems.
Systems which combine these to create a “trillion+ economy” that’s sole external affect appears to be inducing an obsessive overuse of the word “fiat” while consuming incomprehensible amounts of the worlds resources—not just power, but hardware, and importantly, the focus of many intelligent people—that is a venture of questionable use.
> It's useful for the millions of people who participate every day in the trillion+ dollar cryptocurrency economy, but sure, continue to claim that anything that doesn't directly benefit you personally must be "useless".
The calculation itself, once removed from bitcoin ecosystem, is quite useless.
> Literally hundreds of alternatives to Proof of Work, especially PoW with some enhanced utility (calculating large twin primes, folding proteins, file storage, GIS, etc) have been tested in the real world, but it turns out that a straight up "find the nonce" PoW is the best form of democracy we can build that doesn't require some global registry of every human on earth.
How is "find the nonce" PoW better for democracy than "fold proteins" or "find a chain of primes" PoW? In what way does calculating primes or folding proteins require global registry of every human on earth?
> Anyone with access to electricity can participate in ensuring the global security of the network, and be fairly compensated for it.
What about internet and expensive hardware, don't you need those also? What would you need besides those to do "fold protein" or "find chain of primes" PoW.
See gridcoin, it is a proof of stake currency where you can additionally earn coins via mostly useful scientific computing. It's a neat project, but it gives effective control to the boinc server managers. The users have to sign up to earn that way
my understanding is that gridcoin "rewards" people participating in boinc by incrementing numbers on a blockchain that uses proof of stake. It doesn't use scientific computing, like protein folding, as a proof of work for the chain itself, which is what the parent comment was all about.
I would love to be proven wrong, to see any reference that grc provides algorithmic benefit to boinc, as in "getting rewarded with grc is proof the provided solution for the requested scientific computation is correct", or even a little thing like storing the boinc participation statistics, but those are features of the boinc network independently from grc.
What grc provides to the scientific community is a weird incentive for monkey-brains: monkey brain sees grc number go up, monkey brain releases happy hormones. It is a mirror of the participation statistic on the blockchain, not because that makes sense, but because blockchain. Sure there is some theory that some monkey may give a monkey a banana for making their number go down and its number go up, but that transaction involves no scientific computation and is purely speculative.
> PoW is the best form of democracy we can build that doesn't require some global registry of every human on earth. Anyone with access to electricity can participate in ensuring the global security of the network, and be fairly compensated for it.
This is a complete, steaming, and self-serving pile of bullshit. It isn't at all democratic and you need far more than just "electricity" to participate.
Sure, but what % of heating is just natural gas furnaces?
We should evaluate things against what the actual, real world alternative would be, not just against the best possible world.
(That said, I should acknowledge that a large part of that electricity comes from burning natural gas at an efficiency loss, so resistive heating is still worse than the natural gas furnace.)
Yes, and that's very nice if you have a heat pump. I suspect people with heat pumps use them for heat. It'd be weird if they didn't.
But, to restate my previous comment: if you have a natural gas furnace and a GPU, but no heat pump, and are deciding which to use for heat, it doesn't matter how efficient the heat pump you don't have is.
If you own your own home and have the capital to get a heat pump, great, do it. But a lot of people rent. They can't just swap out their furnace for a heat pump.
Here in the US, I don't think these are in common use. At least, I've never seen one in person. Are they used much wherever you are? They do seem like an interesting idea. Here's a US Dept of Energy page about them: https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/absorption-heat-pumps
I have a geothermal heat pump. I am not in the US (3 phase 400V electricity is common here). I'd suppose nowadays they should be pretty standard. Some heat pumps also work both ways, e.g. they can heat and cool.
As an extra benefit the heat pumps have lower maintenance, risk.
(responding here, but applies to all currently at this level)
Ahh, now I see where there might be confusion. Heat pumps that operate on electricity are increasingly common in the US. Most of them are air-to-air, but some are ground-source. What I'm claiming are rare-to-non-existent are residential heat pumps that operate directly off of natural gas, using an ammonia absorption process, with no electricity involved.
Arguably 'freemint' was saying that it's more efficient to generate electricity centrally using natural gas and then distribute this electricity to power heat pumps than to burn natural gas for heat at each site. Yes, likely. My surprise was that I thought he was claiming that non-electric natural gas powered heat pumps were currently available to residential consumers. I knew this style exists (see the link I gave above) but I've never seen one in operation.
From what i have heard it varies a lot on a state by state basis. I suppressed my urge to look up heat pump statistics because frankly i should work on more important things. Just uhhmmm please don't act like i am supposed to research for you unpaid. I might fall for it and hate myself for it later.
