Sounds like an interesting project but the headline is misleading; the seawater is used as a dilute source of heat but the power needs to be supplied externally. Heat pumps are a way to increase...
Sounds like an interesting project but the headline is misleading; the seawater is used as a dilute source of heat but the power needs to be supplied externally.
Heat pumps are a way to increase the efficiency of heating but they aren't a power source.
[Helen Oy] will use nuclear and renewable power for the electricity to run the system’s heat pumps; the company is already tapping waste heat from data centers and an ice-skating rink as additional sources of warmth.
[...]
Heat exchangers will remove about 1.5 degrees of heat from the seawater, which will later be returned to the sea via another nine-kilometer tunnel. The energy collected will then be refined via the heat pump process to reach temperatures of 80 to 95C — hot enough to be used by the district heating network, said Tiittanen.
It would be interesting to know how much this increases efficiency compared to resistive heating, which is about 100% efficient.
As someone who has had far too many arguements about this.... A resistive element is 100% efficient at converting electricity to heat. While a heat pump is not 100% efficient in converting...
As someone who has had far too many arguements about this....
A resistive element is 100% efficient at converting electricity to heat.
While a heat pump is not 100% efficient in converting electricity into pumping refridgerant, it is more efficient at heating a space than directly converting electricity (with many caveats).
Here's a great writeup on heat pumps. In short, for heating a space in average temperate climates, the theoretical max efficiency is roughly 8x a resistive heater. However, like all things, theoretical maximums are hindered by the reality of engineering systems. Today's systems top out around 4.5x, and are not likely to ever get more than 6x due to needing to exist in the real world and not just math on a page.
I have a system that roughly does 3.5x. So for $1 of electricity, it heats my space the same amount that a resistive heater would need $3.50 for.
They're a key part of a cleaner future for providing heating needs. It's essentially recycling a bit of waste heat that is otherwise lost to the environment (and thus requires more energy to replace).
At the end of the day, the biggest advantage is being more efficient than burning fuel directly. The amount it's going to cool the ocean is negligible. The thermal mass of the ocean is phenomenal....
At the end of the day, the biggest advantage is being more efficient than burning fuel directly.
The amount it's going to cool the ocean is negligible. The thermal mass of the ocean is phenomenal. Especially since they're using nuclear energy to power it. Hopefully they're capturing the waste heat from that and not just dumping it in a river/lake.
Sounds like an interesting project but the headline is misleading; the seawater is used as a dilute source of heat but the power needs to be supplied externally.
Heat pumps are a way to increase the efficiency of heating but they aren't a power source.
[...]
It would be interesting to know how much this increases efficiency compared to resistive heating, which is about 100% efficient.
As someone who has had far too many arguements about this....
A resistive element is 100% efficient at converting electricity to heat.
While a heat pump is not 100% efficient in converting electricity into pumping refridgerant, it is more efficient at heating a space than directly converting electricity (with many caveats).
Here's a great writeup on heat pumps. In short, for heating a space in average temperate climates, the theoretical max efficiency is roughly 8x a resistive heater. However, like all things, theoretical maximums are hindered by the reality of engineering systems. Today's systems top out around 4.5x, and are not likely to ever get more than 6x due to needing to exist in the real world and not just math on a page.
I have a system that roughly does 3.5x. So for $1 of electricity, it heats my space the same amount that a resistive heater would need $3.50 for.
They're a key part of a cleaner future for providing heating needs. It's essentially recycling a bit of waste heat that is otherwise lost to the environment (and thus requires more energy to replace).
Yep, and I assume that's why they're doing it. But it looks like the few numbers they're sharing are more about environmental impact than efficiency.
At the end of the day, the biggest advantage is being more efficient than burning fuel directly.
The amount it's going to cool the ocean is negligible. The thermal mass of the ocean is phenomenal. Especially since they're using nuclear energy to power it. Hopefully they're capturing the waste heat from that and not just dumping it in a river/lake.