Perhaps instead of practical I should have said economical. You were the one who started comparing the overall energy efficiency of the E-Cat to heat pumps anyone could buy today. As the E-Cat is targeted to the residential market, it should only be compared to residential market heat pumps.
If you look at what's actually available on the market, for example, http://www.lennox.com/products/heat-pumps/ you see the best HSPF rating is 9.5. This is a measure of the average efficiency over a heating season. An HSPF of 9.5 means if the heat pump produces 100,000,000 BTUs of heat, it will consume 10,500 kWh of electricity. 100,000,000 BTUs is equal to 28,500 kWh. Consuming 10,500 kWh while producing 28,500 kWh gives a COP of 2.7. Keep in mind, this is for the best, most efficient, most expensive heat pump available from this company for the residential market. For a heat pump at the minimum HSPF rating of 7.7 that can be sold, which is closer to what constitutes the majority of the market, the COP is 2.2. Gee, that's about half of 4.5. Sure, geothermal systems can achieve higher COPs in limited circumstances, but have you ever looked at the prices. Compared to a possibly theoretical E-Cat at $1,000 which heats water to over 80 deg. C, you're more likely to spend $40,000 for something that can't produce heat over 50 deg. C. The output of the heat pump will not be hot enough for radiators or hot water coils in an air handler, or to heat domestic hot water. A better argument against the E-Cat as an efficient produces of heat for the home would be to compare it to natural gas. Our standard electric rate is $.13 per kWh. We get natural gas at $.84 per therm (100,000 BTU). A therm is equivalent to 29.3 kWh, so a kWh of heat from natural gas costs $.029 (4.5 times better than electricity), while a kWh of heat from an E-Cat at a COP of 6 would cost $.022, which is just barely better. No ones going to be ripping out a functioning boiler and replacing it with a couple E-Cats if they can do simple math. In our case, the only way the E-Cat would make sense economically would be to switch to time of day electric rates, at $.05 off peak and $.25 on peak, and use the E-Cat to produce heat during off peak hours at an effective cost of $.008 per kWh, and use gas for heat during on peak hours. On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 2:50 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: > I am not sure what your observations are Not Me. Do you know of a heat > pump that has a COP of 4.5/2 when having a source of input at 30 C while > putting out heat at 120 C? According to wikipedia I calculate > COP(heating)=T(hot)/(T(hot)-T(cool))=4.4 as the Carnot limit. This is > using their equation just ahead of the table of various > performances. Wikipedia discusses an example of a geothermal application > using buried coils where the source is at 10 C in the UK for a home system > that usually displays a COP of 4 to 5. Please review that article and let > me know if you still think the COP would be 4.5/2 under those standard > home conditions. > > Not Me, your assumption of 50% efficiency for the heat pump relative to > Carnot appears low. How did you acquire your estimate? The article in > Wikipedia discusses the fact that current heat pumps are in the range you > suggest but that future developments will improve them significantly as the > cost of input energy rises. They imply that the best designs will approach > the Carnot limit. Maybe we need to understand why the present devices are > so poorly performing before we assume that the best we can achieve is 50% > efficiency. > > I am hoping for inputs from experts in the chemical industry that use > equipment which transfers excess heat from exhaust processes to areas that > need preheating. It should be common practice to save expensive heating > costs by using waste heat in this manner. Perhaps petroleum engineers are > aware of high temperature heat pump systems and it would be enlightening > for them to bring these into the discussion. I am very curious about the > active fluids and systems required. > > Would it be possible for us to limit this discussion to high temperature > heat pumps and not refer to LENR devices? Perhaps the name should be > modified to pertain more to the subject at hand? > > Dave > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Not Me <energya...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Sat, Mar 24, 2012 11:15 am > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Thane Heins continues with his bold claims > > I'd like more information on this alleged heat pump which could heat water > to 90 deg. C with a COP 6 in conditions that exist in a usual residential > setting, such as an ambient air temperature of 10 deg. C. > > The Carnot limit in these conditions is 4.5. Any practical heat pump in > these conditions will have a COP of no more than half that. > > To heat water to 90 deg. C with a COP of 6 requires a cool sink that is no > less than 60 deg. C. >
