By P Gosselin
The Green Tyranny expands as the German government readies to ban oil and gas heat beginning 2024!
Economic “death blow”
Germany’s Minister of Economics, Robert Habeck, Green Party, is reported to be planning a ban of gas and oil heating – as early as 2024, according to the online BILD.
Heat in Germany will soon become a precious luxury, affordable by the rich only. Image generated by AI Dall e 2.
The proposed plan comes just after the EU Parliament voted to ban the registration of new fossil fuel cars beginning 2035.
According to Habeck’s draft legislation, homes and buildings would replace oil and gas heating systems with those operating with renewable energies, such as a heat pump.
The first step in Habeck’s plan is to be implemented as early as 2024. Only heating systems that produce heat from “at least 65 percent renewable energy” are to be installed.
Existing gas and oil heating systems will likely be allowed to continue operation, but only for a limited time.
The Berliner Morgenpost reports: “Green politician also wants to phase out gas and oil heating systems that have already been installed. Specifically, these should only run for a maximum of 30 years – after which time they should finally be phased out.”
For consumers this would mean that only a heat pump or district heating would be options, and so would mean the end of gas and oil heating.
Economic death blow
The latest proposal would mean another huge economic blow for citizens who are already reeling from high inflation, high interest rates and a shrinking economy.
German Bundestag Member Frank Müller-Rosentritt of the FDP Free Democrats tweeted: “Extremely increased interest rates and high construction costs are already causing housing construction to collapse. The death blow is now being dealt by the Green Minister of Economics with his ideas, which completely ignore reality and cause rents to explode.”
Green fairy tale world
Other politicians and interest groups have also come out blazing in criticizing Habeck’s draft radical measures. The association “Haus und Grund” (Home and Property) rejects Habeck’s plans, with association president Kai Warnecke speaking of a “law from the green fairy tale world”.
The greens prefer fairy tales. Empirical reality is not their thing.
So bio-fuel internal combustion engines are OK then.
Wasn’t there a warning about bio-fuels and cancer ?
There are always warnings about cancer. Boring, isn’t it?
California has Prop 65… because everything causes cancer.
What’s especially funny is that the new “cancer preventive” firefighting gear has a prop 65 warning..
Probably best to get a woodstove set up before the ban. Either a purchased stove or a do-it-yourself project. Trees are biofuel and thus “green” , right?
I’d feel sorry for the Germans, but they continue to vote for these green numbskulls. AND, Germans do like to follow edicts from authorities, no matter how ill advised. So I guess they’ll just suffer until enough of them smarten up.
Germans might not have much of a choice when it comes to voting. In Britain, all of the major parties have signed up to the net zero nonsense. I presume that it’s the same in Germany.
“Green Party.” 🙄
Enough said.
Not much better in the US, Bill
Well, the Apparatchiks are way ahead of you. In Norway we are now starting to put in government controlled sensors into the chimneys. All for your safety of course.
https://www.halden.kommune.no/tjenester/miljo-og-teknisk/brann-og-feiing/pipesensor/
Think I would spray those sensors with a transparent sealer.
This CAGW Loonie Greenie nonsense only survives due to subsidies, which leads to corruption. Germany is collectively speeding up when they encounter the sign “dead-end street”, and joins others in this rush to oblivion.
Es tut mir leid, Hans
Hans and his fellow countrymen are in lockstep again. They seem determined to see this one to the bitter end once more. It is fascinating. Very very frightening, but fascinating. I wish I never read those history books.
The greens got enough votes in 2021 to matter even if they are all nutcases..
“As the September 2021 general election approached, the Greens topped both parties in the ruling coalition in opinion polls, but that lead soon eroded, in part because of missteps by Green Party co-leader Annalena Baerbock. Nevertheless, the Greens performed very strongly, capturing 14.8 percent of the vote and 118 seats in the Bundestag. With the two major parties each winning about a quarter of the vote, the third-place Greens were seen as potential kingmakers ahead of postelection coalition talks.”
SOURCE OF QUOTE:
Green Party of Germany | Policies, Platform, Leader, & Election Performance | Britannica
The Germans deserve everything coming to them if they are stupid enough to vote for the Greens.
The Greens. There’s something not quite right about them.
look no further than the farce that unfolded at a council meeting last night in Newham, east London.
Newham’s Green Party leader, Danny Keeling, stormed out of the meeting in a huff. He was supposed to be leading the opposition to the local Labour council’s budget, but his mind was apparently distracted by far more serious matters: two Labour councillors repeatedly referred to him using ‘he / him’ pronouns, and he identifies as a ‘they / them’.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/02/28/the-misgendered-councillor-a-very-modern-farce/
How about “it”?
That seems like a viable strategy for eliminating a nuisance.
Well, 85% of votes DIDN’T go to the Green Nazis.
See my comment above about the problem with “parliamentary” systems giving a disproportionate amount of power to fringe groups that get less than 15% of the votes…
I seem to recall a disaster inflicted on the world when a party in Germany only got 33% of the vote back in the 1930’s.
This is why “parliamentary” systems don’t work, because a fringe party getting less than 15% of the vote ends up in a “power” position.
Only up to a point. But that can still be hugely damaging. Ed Davey (UK Lib Dem) is proud to have made fracking in the UK impossible as part of the Conservative coalition of David Cameron.
It was more like a Liberal coalition.
Is that “liberal” instead of [Classical] “Liberal”?
When I first read this article at No Trricks Zone yesterday I thought the German green party was a 5% of the vote fringe party of leftist lunatics.
This morning I did some research and found they almost reached 15% of the national vote in 2021.
I’d like to think they are below 10%during the current German energy crisis.
I just found out the German greens did well in a recent city of Berlin election, getting 18.4% of the vote in that city — tied for second place. That is way too high during an energy crisis they encouraged.
Conservatives ‘win’ Berlin — but may not get to govern (euobserver.com)
At least Berlin re-ran their election once voting problems were discovered unlike some states.
ANY vote for “green” loons is too many, but there’s a certain amount of deluded out there who vote for them.
Kind of reminds me of another old George Carlin classic…
“What do you think about the ‘dope’ problem?”
“Well, I think that we have too many dopes.”
We don’t have a ‘parliamentary’ system in the US, but are still being victimized by the climate agenda (and many other agendas) of the progressive left, because, let’s face it, too many people vote solely on the basis of their ‘feelings’. The only bulwark against the progressives we have is that the Constitution allows the people of the states to live independently of those in other states and to push back against the Federal government. As a result. most, if not all, of the progressive agenda, e.g., net zero, Medicare for all, basic income guarantees, ESG, etc.,has to be implemented on an “all-in” basis at the Federal level to prevent the progressive states from immediately collapsing when their citizens flee. The tension is growing.
Yes, many vote on what the pols, NGOs and MSM tell them their feelings should be. Many others continue to votes for the “free stuff”.
One hopes that a change will come, but I fear that it will have to get to the pitchforks and torches level first.
There are disputes as to actually said this or if anyone even said it at all. (Ben Franklin is one to which something similar has been attributed.) But the idea holds true.
““A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising them the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over a loss of fiscal responsibility, always followed by a dictatorship. The average of the world’s great civilizations before they decline has been 200 years. These nations have progressed in this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependency; from dependency back again to bondage.”
After 20+ years creating Climate Jugend and Green Shirts this is only logical. Fanatics until the end. Where did we see that before?
I fear that this nonsense will continue until countries hit rock bottom when the lights go out. And I don’t think that’s going to be pretty. But when so many people are irrationally scared of an apparition (manmade global warming) I fear the worst. After everything we experienced with our terrible and completely unnecessary COVID interventions is it reasonable to think that saner heads will prevail when it comes to CO2?
“I fear that this nonsense will continue until countries hit rock bottom when the lights go out.”
I think you are correct. I think that’s what we need to see in order for our leaders, who are not as far down that destructive road, to see that they are going in the wrong direction trying to kill the use of coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear energy.
It’s not necessary to reduce CO2. The folly of doing so will become evident in the future. Let’s hope it doesn’t take too much pain to make our leaders change course.
The real danger to Freedom will come from those countries that don’t believe in individual Freedoms and haven’t bought into the “Climate Change” is an existential threat nonsense. They are building more coal power plants.
The UN is doing nothing but enabling them.
IMO, the dangers to freedom are already very real in the countries with self-proclaimed beliefs in individual freedoms. However, intentionally or not, I am afraid you are confusing “Freedom” with USA’s undisputed domination as the only global superpower.
Chinese do not need any UN help to build coal power plants.
They just do what makes sense, and they should be commended for this rational behavior.
I’m referring to the roots of the ideals the USA was founded upon.
“… that to secure these Rights …” etc.
Superpower status or not, that ideal has been eroded.
China doesn’t need the UN to build coal plants but the UN is doing it’s best to hinder the rest of the world from doing so.
“I fear that this Nut Zero will continue until countries hit rock bottom when the lights go out.”
I wish I could be more optimistic, but I know how to think like a leftist (an oxymoron?) and they will not give up any leftist idea easily.
They follow George Carlin’s Rules to Live By #10:
(10) “Never give up on an idea simply because it is bad and does not work. Cling to it even when it is hopeless. Anyone can cut and run, but it takes a very special person to stay with something that is stupid and harmful.”
A few more Rules are here — George Carlin circa 1994 was hilarious:
Honest Climate Science and Energy: Some of George Carlin’s Rules to Live By
We recently suffered through a 35-hour ice storm related blackout here in SE Michigan, actually caused by climate change. We used to get a lot of snow in the winter. Now we are warmer and get a lot more rain. Sometimes it freezes on the tree branches and electric wires, and the wires go down. A transformer blew up behind our home last week. I thought a bomb exploded in our back yard. The wife almost had a heart attack. Electricity becomes a lot more important when you lose it and your home goes down to 55 degrees F. inside,
Every electric utility will be reaching their individual Flounder Limit when they have a higher percentage unreliables than they can manage. They will soon have a strong electricity demand hour with unusually bad weather conditions for solar and wind (cloudy and low winds) … that can’t be backed up by natural gas spinning reserve. And then they will be begging for customers to use less electricity, and eventually will flounder with a real blackout.
I believe many electric utilities will have to reach their Flounder Limits before there are enough blackouts to stop the Nut Zero project. Leftists ruin everything they touch, so they should not be allowed to touch electric grids … but they are doing just that.
Like the Star Trek Borg, leftists pressure each other to agree that Nut Zero is needed and feasible. The leftist grid engineers get bullied into silence, even though they know the truth: You can’t have a reliable electric grid with unreliable weather dependent sources of power. The grid will eventually become unmanageable.
Matching demand with supply minute by minute will become impossible with the 99% reliability expected (99% of days have 24 hoors of electricity). We are already at 98.6% reliability in the US, and in a declining trend. The blind hope that grid interconnectors will save the day can work for a few states, for a while, but cannot work for all 5o states in the long run.
Nut Zero is living a lie, like most leftist pipedreams.
Every electric utility will be reaching their individual Flounder Limit when they have a higher percentage unreliables than they can manage.
Duke hit that in NC not too long ago, at least temporarily.
Post says:”We recently suffered through a 35-hour ice storm related blackout here in SE Michigan, actually caused by climate change.“
There is no way you can attribute a weather event to climate change. Now you sound like the very howlers you write about.
Give me a break.
Living in the same home since 1987, it is easy to observe the local climate change. We get a lot less snow in the winters, and a lot more freezing rain. That happens because our winters are not as cold as they used to be.
Freezing rain in winters was a rare event until the past few winters. The warmer winters, with less snow and more freezing rain, are a local climate change that mirrors the Northern Hemisphere climate change since 1975.
\
I’m not complaining:
I love the warmer winters.
The wife shoveled our 100-foot driveway only three times last winter, and only two times so far this winter — unprecedented for here in SE Michigan. I fake a heart attack like old Fred Sanford to avoid shoveling.
I am qualified to observe the local climate change where I have lived for 37 years. And you should be sedated.
We had a blackout here in central Orange County, California, overnight. The only reason I know is I have to reset some digital clocks that don’t have battery backup.
I don’t count any blackout that lasts a minute or two.
About an hour before the blackout ended my next door neighbor started his generator and ran a 100 foot extension cord to our bedroom to power a small electric heater. The wife could not sleep at 55 degrees F. the prior night. By the time we got the bedroom warm, the power lines were repaired.
My sister in law in Mountain Lakes New Jersey had a blackout that lasted two weeks. Every hotel and motel room for many miles was filled up. She nagged her husband to buy a gasoline generator, but because he was a cheapskate he waited and finally bought one a few days before the blackout ended. … They also got visits from huge black bears there — the local police will not go near them. … My relatives moved to a Chicago condo and now have a gasoline generator for sale.
If it only lasts a minute or two, it’s usually the result of some kind of local equipment failure. As soon as the breakers reset, or the damage is routed around, power is restored.
That’s not a black out. Blackouts involve either the entire grid, or at least substantial portions of the grid going down.
I fear that this nonsense will continue until countries hit rock bottom when the lights go out.
That’s what it’s going to take to wake people up. And even then there will be quite a lot who will still find something else to blame.
North Korea
Trump? Bush?
I guess the Germans now have nine months to install a brand new heating system before the ban kicks in. If this actually becomes law of course.
Most probably won’t be able to afford it especially if the time scale is that short because costs will rocket as fast or faster as the demand rises
Carbon dioxide does not affect the weather
OR the climate.
CO2 does affect the climate, except most of Antarctica.
Not much effect over 400ppm, but it is still a greenhouse gas above 400ppm, and more greenhouse gases always impede earth’s ability to cool itself.
Due Diligence:
I advocate for 750ppm to 1500ppm atmospheric CO2 ro accelerate C3 plant growth (85% of plants) which would support more human and animal life on our planet. The warming effect from doubling CO2 should be harmless, at worst — and more likely will be beneficial, just like the 1975 to 2015 warming was:
Mainly at higher colder N.H. latitudes
Mainly warming during the six coldest months of the year
Mainly warming at night (TMIN)
Example: Warmer winter nights in Siberia
You are a CO2 denier and should be sedated. We can never win the battle to refute CAGW by falsely claiming CO2 does nothing.
CO2 does many good things that we should celebrate — greening the planet, accelerating plant growth, and moderating cold climates. What’s not to like about more CO2 in the troposphere?
I am on the warpath this year against Climate Realists who deny AGW, deny the greenhouse effect, deny that CO2 is a climate change variable and claim that only 3% to 5% of atmospheric CO2 came from manmade CO2 emissions, when the correct percentage is about 33%.
This comment is not going to get any upvotes, but it is about time for Climate Realists to get the most basic climate science RIGHT. No one knows exactly how much warming CO2 caused from 1975 to 2015 — that does not mean CO2 did nothing.
Stop the AGW denying.
Stop the CO2 denying.
Grow up.
Richard, where and what is the evidence that CO2 contributes to climate change? Where is the evidence that mankind is responsible for 33% of additional CO2? it is a trace gas, and the historical geologic records Establish that CO2 has been a lot higher when it was a lot colder. It looks to me like you just enjoy being contrary.
The earth’s weather/climate is too chaotic to measure a change of just a few tenths of a degree.
That something is too small to be easily measured is not evidence that it doesn’t exist.
Laboratory tests show that CO2 impedes heat transfer.
Unless you have some evidence that shows that physics changes based on location, then CO2 also impedes heat transfer in the wild.
Mark, my heat transfer book shows a difference between air and CO2 of .094 w/m – C in thermal conductivity. That is a very small difference that we couldn’t feel. Is this what you refer to as impeding heat transfer?
That should have been .0094 difference between air and CO2.
You have heard of radiation, haven’t you?
If you actually believe that the only difference is in thermal conductivity there is nothing I can do to help you.
Mark, I specifically asked you if this is what you were talking about. If not please say specifically what you are talking about when you say “impedes heat transfer”. I quoted from a heat transfer book you provided nothing even when asked.
The evidence that man is responsible for the increase in CO2 levels n the atmosphere comes from the fossil fuels that are being burnt. We know how much coal/oil/gas has been produced. There could be more, it is highly unlikely to be less, unless fossil fuel companies have been paying taxes on fuels they did not produce. Assuming that all of the fossil fuels that we know about over the last 100 years has been burnt, then enough CO2 has been released to account for 2 to 3 times as much extra CO2 as has been recorded.
If you are going to argue that all of the CO2 released by man was absorbed by sinks, and that therefore only natural CO2 caused the increase, you are welcome to, but if you could kindly point to those sinks that only absorb man caused CO2 and ignore all others, I would appreciate it.
If following the science and the data means one is being contrary, then count me as contrary, and proud of it.
The argument over the effects of a gas the comprises .04 % of the atmosphere is akin to picking the fly shit out of the pepper. Even if man were responsible for 100% of the CO2 in the atmosphere, it doesn’t matter. CO2 has a specific heat of about 0.2-ish, about the same as all the other gasses, water has a specific heat of 1.0, 5 times higher, and there is 100 times as much of it in the atmosphere. So, a gas 500 times less in specific heat than water vapor is something we should ruin our economies and lives about? It is not a magic molecule and wouldn’t be even if it had total reflectivity of long wave IR.
A few grams of cyanide can kill a grown man.
Your belief that because CO2 is only a small fraction of the air, therefore it can’t possibly make a difference is refuted by the science.
Specific heat has absolutely nothing to do with it. It has to do with CO2 ability to absorb IR radiation.
CO2 doesn’t care about IR at the temperature and pressure we live at.
Lab experiments prove CO2 is a greenhouse gas
More greenhouse gases ALWAYS impede Earth’s ability to cool itself
We don’t have to measure exactly how much to know what is happening.
Period.
The Manmade CO2 emissions from 1850 to 2023 were in the +200ppm to +300ppm range (I prefer a large range because this is an estimate)
Actual CO2 went up +140ppm from 1850 (estimated) to 2023 (measured)
That means manmade CO2 emissions accounted for 100% of the +140ppm increase of atmospheric CO2
… and NATURE (oceans, plants, land and volcanoes) were a net CO2 absorber.
If you can’t understand that most basic climate science, then you should be sedated.
The leftists are not wrong about EVERYTHING they say about CO2.
CO2 is a weak harmless greenhouse gas above 400ppm. It is not dangerous in any way and CAGW is a total fantasy. .
We will never refute CAGW by claiming AGW does not exist, or that CO2 does absolutely nothing. Those are statements made by science deniers.
Well, you apparently also enjoy being condescending. It remains a fact that the contribution of CO2 to warming is miniscule by its minimal amounts. Why do you argue that a trace gas with 1/5 the specific heat value of water vapor and 1/100 the amount is even worth considering? Whose side are you on? Or do you just like to argue?
Your insistence on using bad science to support an untenable position invites ridicule.
If you are ignorant enough to believe that specific heat actually matters in this discussion, my only advice to you is to educate yourself.
AGW does exist, probably, but we can’t measure it. Nor can we look at any modern climate and say how it would be different absent the human contribution to AGW. Also, it is likely the vast majority of human alteration of climate is in land use, not from burning things. However, your notion that increasing CO2 levels will increase net heat retention for the planet is not well founded.
It is true that CO2 absorbs in the IR band, and that increasing the CO2 content of a unit volume of air slightly changes the heat transfer rate for that volume. It is also true that CO2 radiates in that same IR band, so increasing the CO2 content at high altitude will increase the outgoing IR at altitude, This suggests that the heat pump from surface to ToA will move more heat as CO2 increases, causing cooling. We do not know which effect predominates, but since the IR band is saturated at the base of the atmosphere where most incoming radiation is initially converted to heat, it seems likely that the increased IR radiation at altitude will predominate.
Prior climate cycles inform us that the planet has been warmer and colder than now. Also the atmosphere has had more and less CO2 than now. And some of the warmer periods had less CO2, and some of the colder periods had more. There is no clear correlation between climate and CO2 concentration. You’ve been in your home for 37 years, which is just barely enough time to know what your climate looks like. (nominal 30 years of weather observations to determine climate). Get back to us in 23 more years and we can discuss how the second 30 years of observations compare the first.
I’ve lived in my climate region for 60+ years, and the weather has varied, but the general effect is unchanged. Sometimes we’ve had rain, flood, and storm. Sometimes drought and heat. But our long term averages haven’t moved much, despite hysteria from our state office holders. They see a wet rainy season as a Biblical Flood, and two consecutive dry years as a catastrophic drought, but never want to build water catchment and distribution systems to capture the excess and distribute it during the shortages. I have no data on South Michigan temp or precipitation, but your argument from anecdote would be more convincing it you were to back it with the 37 year records of snow, freezing rain, and temperatures.
My area has suffered far more power outages and weather caused incidents (accidents, fires, flooding, road closures, … ) as the years have passed, but it is mostly due to quadrupling (or perhaps quintupling) the population. We’ve put in far more infrastructure, in more and less salubrious locations. Folks build in the flood plain (which had sat empty for hundreds of years) and complain that their roads, homes, and businesses are flooding. Power lines run through forested mountain passes to new vacation properties, get blown down by the usual high winds, and start fires. Roads built across old watercourses get washed out when it rains.
Given we know from various srudies that, if there is a cause and effect in the CO2 vs Average Planetary Temp comparison, it is that CO2 concentrations have lagged Temp by hundreds of years, why should I discount the suggestion that it doesn’t matter where the CO2 comes from, but rather where it goes that counts. (Where it goes now is into the biosphere. If we stop pumping out job lots of sequestered CO2 the concentration will again trend down towards plant starvation levels.)
Nothing you have written contradicts anything Richard has written. He has acknowledged that influence of CO2 on climate is too small to measure.
What he has objected to is the insistence of certain know nothings who demand that everyone accept their belief that CO2 has zero effect. That position is contradicted by all the science, and by allowing such nonsense to permeate these pages, we give aid and comfort to the climate alarmists who like to claim that this site has no science and that we are infested by kooks.
Being on the “warpath” seems to be cultural appropriation you should stop that.
I’m a politically incorrect libertarian, former juvenile delinquent, tell lame jokes, am called a retired lazy bum by the wife, and I would not eat Brussel’s sprouts if I was starving. All the traits I admire in a person.
“Not much effect over 400ppm, but it is still a greenhouse gas above 400ppm, and more greenhouse gases always impede earth’s ability to cool itself.”
This statement would be correct in a perfectly dry atmosphere.
When GHE is already saturated by both existing CO2 and abundant water vapor, adding a little more CO2 does absolutely nothing.
If they mandate only heating systems that have greater than 65% renewable/green energy after 2024, that will rule out any heat pumps in Germany. Their electricity supply is not green enough!! Only 44% (Statista) of German electricity comes from ‘renewable’ sources.
If it’s said it’s “renewable”, it is :||
Print a lot of “renewable” stickers, slap them all over your gas and oil boilers . Job done 🙂
Show me the numbers — source and cost of whatever German’s Minister of Economics believes will replace gas and oil heating. And who will pay for it. And how long Robert Habeck will be in jail when the “plan” fails.
Skin in the game.
They even haven’t enough human ressources to fullfill their wishfull thinking
Yes, who will swap out the old equipment for the new, if there are enough people to build all the new equipment.
Leftists believe that government is magical. All you need to do to make something happen, is to pass a law requiring it.
So they want to use and air conditioners to heat Germany in the winter.
Issues with this are the use of refrigerants that are evil such as propane.
Heat pumps do not work well at temperatures below 4.5 C.
They use a lot of electricity.
Those in charge know this will never work especially in Bavarian winters.
For most of Germany that means little to no heat for 3-4 months.
As I recall the French Revolution was the result of not enough flower to make bread.
Women and mothers in Paris went to Versailles and basically ended the monarchy.
But nothing will go wrong the peasants will just go along and die. Good luck with that.
That will be truly epic when the grid goes down because all of those heat pumps switch to electric resistance heating come the first cold spell. But the sad thing is that somehow, the MSM will find a way to spin it so as to not blame the Nut Zero policies. Someone or something will take the blame, but it will be the wrong thing/persons to blame.
Yes, they’ll blame the engineers for such poor heat-pump designs. And the companies that make them for “gouging”.
In the UK the plan is to install 600,000 heat pumps pa from 2028. The heat pump people say they can train installers in a week – prepare to see lots of botched installations.
When it gets too cold for the heat pump to work, most heat pumps switch over to straight resistance heating. The result was a huge increase in electricity demand.
This is one of the things that caused the blackouts in Texas a few years ago. Planners failed to anticipate how much demand would increase as temperatures increased. Their models still assumed that most people had gas heaters.
Actually they work pretty well down to freezing and a bit below. At those temperatures you have to get used to them kick into defrost mode but that takes less than 5 minutes to complete. The problem with my unit was the defrost board cooked because of summer temperatures of over 110F. Without the defrost cycle, they become useless pretty quick at the lower temperature. In Germany I wouldn’t consider a heat pump without a backup source of heat. It’s just too cold in the peak of winter for a heat pump to handle it.
The only heat pumps that I have heard of that can work anywhere close to freezing, are the dual cycle ones, and they are a lot more expensive.
When I lived in Atlanta, the defrost cycle took more than 5 minutes. You first have to melt the ice, then evaporate the water so that the coils are dry when they resume the heat pump cycle. Down there, even in the winter, the relative humidity was always high, regardless of what the temperature might be. Once you started getting much below 50, it didn’t take long for the outdoor units to become covered in ice.
I have a York about 2007 vintage 4 ton. While we don’t often get snow in Phoenix, it works even with snow on the ground and it’s not dual cycle.
As for defrost, the fan turns off at the start of the cycle and it melts the ice. Most of the water runs into the bottom of the unit where it drains out. The remainder blows out at the end of the defrost cycle when the fan starts up again.
The only flower I am familiar with that you can used to make bread is sunflower. Even there you have to wait until the flower has died and gone to seed. I presume your spell checker tolled you that flower was OK when you were thinking flour. And yes, heat pumps have a limited range of temperatures within they are effective. Gas heat does too, but if the gas is condensing in the pipes, I’m dead already so I won’t care.
Thanks for the correction; I was thinking wheat flour.
No, I did not run a spell checker. I will be more diligent in the future.
It astonishes me that there are countries with even worse leadership than Canada. It truly seems impossible.
Just come on down to California.
Nah, it’s worse in Canada. In California you have the option to just pack up and move to, say, Florida. But we’re stuck in Canada.
Is this like Australia where you have to get permission to leave the country? Or just a bureaucratic issue? We’ve seen lots of Canadians out and proud in the States. Shatner, Steyn. Shania Twain, …
We need permission (aka “visas”, “papers “) to MOVE to the USA. And it isn’t given easily as your govt gives preference to non-English speakers who come over your southern border without paperwork, skills, criminal record checks, money, etc. Weird, really.
You are not stuck, unless you want to play hockey on open ice for 9 mounts a year.
I have seen quite a few Canadians living permanently in California and Florida, but then, the world does not end with USA…
And just like that, Germany died. Bye Germany.
Western civilization, it was nice while it lasted.
Mentally retarded.