In the nordics we love heat-pumps! Something like 70% of houses are heated by heat-pumps, and 90% of apartment buildings are heated by district heating and that is often generated by huge heatpumps.<p>Apparently 95% of new heating installations in Swedish houses are heat-pumps these days: <a href="https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC137131" rel="nofollow">https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC1...</a><p>Heatpumps have been heating nordic homes for decades. Even in the countryside where many houses have small woodland attached, people I know have moved to heatpumps for convenience and because its affordable.<p>PS: shoutout to to the JRC, found their reports when doing a super quick dig for stats. Those reports were super easy to read :D
Interesting that district heating is so popular there.<p>IIRC in the Netherlands people don't like it, because it because it means that there is a single company supplying my heat, with<p><pre><code> * minimum amounts of 'heat' purchased
* no incentives to maintain their infrastructure above the bare minimum
* no competition</code></pre>
As a German, I find the popularity of heat pumps in the nordics especially amusing. In Germany heat pumps were an incredibly political topic and people were pushed by some media outlets to really hate heat pumps. One recurring topic was that heat pumps can‘t work at German temperatures.
Nothing amusing. Germany is not really rich compared to nordics. And now let‘s do so math! Electricity: 0,3€/kWh and gas 0,1€/kWh. I need ~3x more gas to get same temperature in my room. And gas heating costs €10k while heat pump €40k without subsidies and probably raw €15k material cost if I install it by myself. So why should I pay more by €30k to install experimental thing for a decade when my low cost gas heating will last for 3 decades again. The monthly bill is the same.
What is the calculus behind 40k? I just checked some Swedish vendors and here they calculate 12k for hardware and installation of a fairly large heat pump.<p><a href="https://www.polarpumpen.se/kunskapsbanken/varmepump-kunskapsbank/luft-vattenvarmepump-kunskapsbank/valja-luft-vattenvarmepump/rakna-pa-luft-vattenvarmepump/kostnad/" rel="nofollow">https://www.polarpumpen.se/kunskapsbanken/varmepump-kunskaps...</a>
Yeah small air-air pumps - which are the most common for single houses - are easily under 2000EUR including installation; if you keep eyes out for special offers it'd be about 1500EUR in Swedish prices.
State subsidies and insane overregulation. Think about replacing the cabinet for electricity meters (+4000€) for heat pump installation.
I installed mini splits (small heat pumps) in each of our rooms. Everyone gets their own temperature and they were only 800$ a piece. Did installation myself and it was pretty easy. Hardest thing was pulling a vacuum in the lines before releasing the freon (or whatever it's called) but all I did was watch a youtube video. They've been going strong for several years. I looked at the prices and they are still the same.
The problem is the gas (a) emits CO2 and (b) comes from Russia.
40k for heat pumps is wildly overkill here if that’s what you where quoted someone is trying to scam you. More critically, those prices aren’t set in stone over the next 30 years.<p>Home PV for example is way less than 0,3€/kWh and rather dramatically changes these comparisons.
> So why should I pay more by €30k to install experimental thing for a decade when my low cost gas heating will last for 3 decades again.<p>Because:<p>It is not experimental (it is no longer 1992)<p>Your gas comes from Russia, and they hate you - roughly speaking<p>Your prices are miles from reality<p>Face it, fossil fuels are deprecated. Your gas heating will be unusable with no gas to put in it
> Germany is not really rich compared to nordics.<p>(From another post I made in this thread)<p>Looking at IMF 2025 GDP per capita figures (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi</a>... ):<p>Norway: $92k<p>Denmark: $77k<p>Sweden: $62k<p>Germany: $60k<p>UK: $57k<p>Finland: $56k<p>So yeah, Denmark and particularly Norway are a bit richer than the others, but the others are in the same ballpark.
Well Norway (Hydro), Sweden (hydro and nuclear) and Finland (Nuclear Wind Hydro) all have cheap electricity which seems to be the main driver for adoption.
Sweden used to have very cheap electricity. That's why there are so many houses with electric radiators. Far more expensive now.<p>That is why so many houses here now have air-to-air heat pumps. That is by far the cheapest way to improve heating in an old house with only electric radiators and no existing water heat pipes.
Hrm. It might be cheaper than in Germany but its not cheap in Sweden except for the most nordic parts (hydro).<p>South Sweden - i think the prices are more on par with germany.
> Something like 70% of houses are heated by heat-pumps<p>To me, living in US Northeast, this is astounding. I've read heat pumps lose efficacy below 25F. My family would never forgive me if I made our house cold. But then I see 70% of the Nordics's house are "warm enough", or dealing colder than room temperature houses.<p>I've asked half-dozen contractors and HVAC people in my area, and none of them have recommended a heat pump. But, I'm just as suspicious of their motives as I am of the science and environmental populizers on YouTube.
Don’t let the 15 degree+ differences in latitudes fool you, a lot of the Nordic population lives near the sea, so low altitude and plenty of sea current temperature moderation.<p>January temps in Oslo aren’t much different than Boston. Absolute record low temps are similar too.<p>Coldest temp ever in Oslo is -30C in the 1800s.<p>Coldest in Boston was -28C in 1934.<p>Still doesn’t explain the poor adoption in USA but helps explain why they still work so far up north. The nordics can be relatively balmy to Wisconsin or upstate New York.
A lot of the Nordic heat pumps are ground source, that is to say you drill a hole a couple of hundred feet down into the bedrock where it's always a bit above freezing and you circulate your heat exchange fluid down there and back up again. Air-source heat pumps are mostly a thing in the southern parts where the climate is relatively mild.
You never go below 1 in efficiency. Worst case the water is heated directly with electricity.
From the PDF at your link:<p>"Heat pumps are more efficient than gas boilers and become competitive when the electricity price is lower than around three times the gas or oil price"<p>Sweden seems to have quite high domestic gas rates (highest in EU I think?), around £0.18/kWh, with electricity at £0.23/kWh so I can definitely understand the adoption of heat pumps with gas being so high.<p>In the UK we have lower heat pump adoption, which could largely be explained by gas being ~£0.06/kWh (and electricity is ~£0.27/kWh). There is also the barrier that many houses are draughty and would require significant expensive upgrades
Heating with gas is absolutely not a thing in Sweden, I don't think even a single percentage point of homes use that. Firewood is way more common (it's relatively commonplace in the countryside still). Gas is used for stoves in some older buildings in a few specific cities but is almost extinct in that application too. Heating with gas hasn't really been a thing historically either - at first it was mostly wood, then coal and wood, and then district heating and fuel oil completely took over from the 1950's. For a while in the 1970's resistive electric heaters were popular because electricity was cheap with the then-new nuclear plants, while the oil crisis made oil expensive. That didn't last very long.
Electricity prices are certainly a factor, and retro-fitting can be very expensive to nigh on impossible.<p>The real scandal in the UK is how the updates to building regulations to bring in higher energy efficiency have been delayed and delayed - presumably due to lobbying by UK house-builders.<p>Given the big push to build large numbers of new houses it seems madness not to have the higher standards in place.
This is exactly the thing. In UK electricity price is set by the cost of generating it from natural gas. After losses, etc, you get about 1/3 of power in electricity compared to heat in the gas. And the heat pump has an efficiency factor of about 3. So you get back to unity.<p>While electricity is priced off gas, current heat pumps do not have a strong economic case.
Sign of a rich and very developed country.<p>A lot of buildings in Austrian cities are still heated by burning oil or wood and the whole city smells like a bonfire.<p>Probably gonna have my lifespan shortened by at least a decade from all that fossil fuel pollution, but at least we banned that dirty nuclear from killing us.
Yes heat pumps are expensive and you need different radiators and more insulation than with traditional gas central heating. That's why it's an issue in Holland too. Not many people have the investment for all that. It's mainly worth it when you have solar panels but that requires another big investment.<p>I'm lucky to live in Spain where it's not that cold so I just have one little plug in radiator I use a few months a year lol.
> more insulation<p>Nothing to do with a heat source.
Ditto UK.<p>Gas is relatively cheap, and a replacement boiler is £1,500 to £3,000 and will last ~10 years and there'll be no doubt about whether it can sufficiently heat the home or produce enough hot water etc .<p>Lucky you living in Spain though lol
I was recently in a situation where I had to replace my oil-fired heating system’s oil tank (it wasn’t double skinned and no longer safe).<p>It was £2500 to replace the oil tank, or I could opt for £2250 to install a heat pump with the government grant. This included all plumbing, electrical work, installation, and 6 new radiators all over my house.<p>Honestly to me it seemed like a no-brainer. It’s a tad more expensive to run, but it works really quite well and is a lot less invasive than a big smelly tank of kerosene. I gained another 90cm of width in my garden, it’s actually quieter than the oil boiler, and it doesn’t stink in the summer- win win.
Yes, it's just a lot of money for a lot of people.<p>Norway is really a different kind of rich compared to the rest of europe, they have tons of oil rights all over the world (and as such they still contribute a lot to global warming even though they have a lot of money for 'green' tech at home).<p>PS yeah Spain is good for heating but not for AC though (which I don't have, sadly). But I do enjoy life here a lot more even though I would make much more money in Holland.
A boiler should actually be lasting more like 20 years. I recently replaced my 20 year old one purely because if anything went wrong, it’d become an expensive/long job to fix as parts were hard to find, otherwise it was still running perfectly at its manufacture specified efficiency. Running them for 20 years isn’t uncommon.<p>I had a quote for a heat pump - £20k, plus the cost to replace 13 radiators, plus cost to replace pipework to support heat pump rads.<p>Pretty sure the government ‘incentive’ was £3k at the time. Doesn’t come remotely close!
I managed £15k minus £7k of Scottish government incentives, and I managed to avoid replacing all my radiators by .. getting a "hybrid" system which also includes a boiler for HW :/<p>Far from ideal solution, but it is mostly green, somewhat offset by the solar panels, and actually more comfortable than the old system because of the more even heating. Set to 20C and forget about it for the season. I'm hoping that it will last until the actual gas phaseout when a solution compatible with 8mm piping will exist.<p>This is why they need to be mandated on new houses, because it's so much better than trying to retrofit it.
Was your old boiler a non-combi?<p>Modern condensing combis I think are designed to be more complex and not last as long. I'm not sure all the complexity and fancy modulation etc is really worth it myself. I'd rather have a boiler that lasts 20 years and that any half-competent gas engineer can fix with a spanner and some spare parts.<p>£20k, jesus!
Whatever about a combi, you probably don't want a non-condensing boiler these days, not with gas the price that it is.
Condensing boilers became mandatory in UK just over 20 years ago
UK houses are really interesting.. Single-glass windows, poor insulation etc. And plumbing on the OUTSIDE(!) :)<p>Are the boilers typically connected to water-radiators?.. I assume so based on the word "boiler".<p>There are heatpumps that are used to heat water so it would be a slot in replacement..
Not many people left with single glazing unless they've been trapped by historic building rules. "Outdoor plumbing" is not a thing.<p>The pump is a drop in replacement <i>unless</i> you have 8mm "microbore" piping, at which point the lower temperature times restricted flow rate becomes a problem in terms of getting enough heat through.
My parents' house in Bath is not "trapped by historic building rules" but there is no way in hell they are ever going to replace 3-4 stories of single pane glass double hungs ...<p>and that house still has the sewage stacks on the outside of the house, as do almost all homes in Bath and environs.
Not sure about the UK. I've seen a lot of outdoor plumbing in Ireland. I lived in a place that had that. They were literally running on the outside. Our maintenance guy said they did that to make maintenance easier, but it also makes wear & tear a lot easier obiously (not to mention frost). And chipboard floors that would crack with heavy furniture. It was terrible quality. These houses were built in the mid 80s.<p>And a dirty tank of water in the attic to act as a "in-house water tower" because only one tap may be connected directly to the mains. Really archaic.
By 'outdoor plumbing' they probably mean pipes running up the outside of buildings (not, like, outhouses). This is somewhat common for waste pipes.
Brit here. Your first pragraph describes older housing stock, not anything built in decades. Not that the quality of our quality of our stock couldn't be improved, or that our (very real) energy standards for new builds couldn't be stricter, but things aren't quite as grim everywhere as the picture you paint.
I’ve lived in the UK for 35 years and lived in various properties built in every decade from 70s-10s. Some much older and less loved ones did have single pane windows but have never seen plumbing on the outside. Maybe on much older houses? Certainly not on anything remotely new. A lot of new builds here have solar, heat pumps and insulation has been excellent for at least 20 years.
You do relatively commonly see wastewater piping on the outside of a house in the UK, especially older stock (soil stack from the toilet, waste pipe from sink or bath running into it). This is fine in the UK climate where a normally empty pipe doesn't need insulation. I hear that it won't work in places that get extreme low winter temperatures, but the UK doesn't have winters that cold.<p>You don't see them on new builds, I think, probably because the pipe going from inside to outside would reduce insulation effectiveness.
Air-to-Air heat pumps can be quite affordable. Or even cheap if you find no name deals. There is install, but even that is not really that significant. This is at least in Nordics.
> There is install, but even that is not really that significant.<p>The install itself isn't that hard they come pre-charged with refrigerant. I have installed a few of the air-to air myself and had no issues. All you need is a vacuum pump and proper refrigerant manifold or adapters. Vacuum out the lines for at least an hour to draw out all the air and moisture, close valve and let sit for an hour, if the gauge shows no leak, open the heat pump zone valves and you're in business.<p>A friend did it and had all the refrigerant leak out after a year but he realized the flared end that came from factory was malformed so he cut and re-flared the end, vacuumed out the system, left it overnight, saw no leak, and had an AC tech do the charge. Was solid after that. A from zero charge requires some knowledge of the systems capacity and a scale to weigh the charge so he hired someone to do it.
There is now an even easier way than vacuuming. Instead of pulling the unwanted air and moisture from the lines, you can push it out with another gas, which itself can somehow coexist with the refrigerant. I haven't tried it because I already have the pump and gauges, but if I were installing my first mini split, I'd consider it.<p>Example: <a href="https://www.highseer.com/products/pioneer-kwik-e-vac" rel="nofollow">https://www.highseer.com/products/pioneer-kwik-e-vac</a>
It's so ridiculously easy to vacuum and charge a heat pump it's kind of unnecessary.<p>I think I spent $200 in parts on Amazon and have done 4 heat pumps now. It's a vacuum pump, a scale, and a digital manifold/guage. Punch the numbers for subcool/superheat into a calculator and use the temp probes on the lines where they connect to the condenser and you can even skip the scale.
My only caution is this method does not let you check if the lines are leak tight.
Probably not for entire apartment buildings since most of them run on oil or gas burning here. I only saw heat pumps on apartment buildings built after 2020 or the single family homes in the affluent areas.
Longer term this shouldn’t be the case though - a fridge is just a heat pump, and an air-to-air or air-to-water heat pumps aren’t that much more complicated, nor should they be any less reliable.<p>It’s something that will become more of a commodity and eventually won’t be any more sign of wealth than owning a fridge.<p>I mean, we can see it already in air-to-air systems - I’ve had mini-splits supplied and installed here in Australia for something like 20% of the cost I’ve heard quoted for equally sized units in the US, for example - just because basically every electrician has a license to install them here because they are so incredibly common (for cooling even more than heating, but they can basically all so both here). Air-to-water I expect will be the same in cold climates - in 15 years basically any plumber will be able to do it and they’ll be far cheaper than today.
> air-to-water heat pumps<p>these are slightly odd, however: they either need an external air intake set up, or they require that the water (tank/heater) be located in a space that you don't mind being cooled down (often quite significantly) AND that isn't thermally connected to the space you're heating via other means.<p>still great technology, but deployment can be a little more challenging that space heating/cooling.
They are weird in the way that their utility varies.<p>IIRC Dave Jones of EEVBlog fame has shown a air-to-water heat exchanger that he has at his home. It's outside. And the climate in Sydney is generally warm(ish), so it makes perfect sense there.<p>I can also see them being useful in parts of the American South where big garages being common and the weather gets hot: Take some of the heat from the garage and convert it into hot water for showering and cleaning. Win-win.<p>But they're not so hot, per se, in my part of Ohio, where unfinished basements are commonly used as utility spaces.<p>My own basement, for instance: As unfinished basements go, it's pretty good. It's not a bad place to hang out and work on stuff any time of year. But it's a big space, and it's cold down there in the winter because I don't want to pay to warm it up. Despite being cold, that's really the most-suitable place for a conventional water heater for this house -- and it's where the house was designed to have it, too.<p>But if I were to "upgrade" to a heat-exchanger water heater, then as a practical matter I'd be making my already-cold basement even colder.<p>If it ever got cold-enough down there to make supplemental heat desirable (or worse: <i>necessary</i>), then it'd be an absolute loss: Burn energy over here in one place in the basement to try to keep it warm, and use that energy down the way a bit to concentrate into a tank full of hot water, while the basement stays cold.<p>Even if it I had a nice modern mini-split down there to provide that supplemental heat: That would mean having air-to-water heat exchanger that is backed up by an air-to-air heat exchanger that is already at the edge of its efficiency curve because it's cold outside. The combination would be reprehensibly dumb: A complicated Rube Goldberg system that costs more to buy, more to maintain, and more to run than approximately anything else would. (I might even be better off just burning my dollars directly.)<p>(The smarter move for my own home, in Ohio, would probably be a gas-fired tankless water heater, since they leak almost no heat while not being used.)
> I can also see them being useful in parts of the American South where big garages being common and the weather gets hot: Take some of the heat from the garage and convert it into hot water for showering and cleaning. Win-win.<p>Uhhh, better to put the unit inside the home where it provides a bit of a/c. Double win if you cool the compressor with incoming water.<p>Not in the south myself, but with trad water heaters, I find it dumb that I’m heating incoming 5-10C municipal water in summer time when I could have a tempering tank/loop letting the interior air warm it up (and getting a tad of “free” AC) to 20-25C first before paying to apply heat to it. Would improve “capacity” of the heater too.<p>Even in winter time, my home heating is more efficient than most water heaters (even if they’re both gas, water heaters are typically non-condensing, and actively pump out warmed interior air for combustion), so it makes sense all year round.
Sure. It's better to start with an excellent home design that most-effectively uses every iota of modern tech to optimize efficiency. And sure, even more efficiency can be eeked out if one is willing to layer on their own productive infrastructure hacks.<p>But not everybody has those opportunities. Not every home has an existing conditioned space within which to put a water heater. Not every person is equipped (mentally or physically) to engineer and use tempering loops and/or water-cooling compressor motors.<p>As a practical matter: In a warm-climate home that already has a water heater in the garage (which is very common in the American south, from my limited direct observation), replacing a traditional water heater with one that uses a heat pump can make a lot of sense.<p>This replacement is something that any person and a friend with minimal plumbing and electrical experience can accomplish on their own in one afternoon, without incurring the expense and inconvenience of relocating their water heater somewhere else. There will be no drywall dust, and no paint.<p>It's a natural fit.<p>---<p>And don't take any of this the wrong way. You've got some great ideas there.<p>But not all environments are the same. During the warmer months in my own city, I've measured incoming water at 76F/24C -- warmer than the house, and also warmer than the basement where the plumbing lives. A tempering loop may make sense for you in your environment, but it would be the opposite of useful in my environment: "Oh neat! A thing that makes my home harder to cool in the summer!" (Unusual? Perhaps. But it's my reality anyway. I've never run out of hot water in this city during the summer. Not even close. But things do change in the winter -- maybe I'll measure the input temperature again when I get home tonight.)<p>It's fun to think about niche concepts that don't have broad-scale adoption. And sometimes, it makes sense to set forth and make them a reality.<p>But it's always important to remember that there's often very real reasons for them to remain niche concepts that aren't broadly utilized.
<i>>Longer term this shouldn’t be the case though</i><p>Long term I'll be dead anyway. To me the the actions taken in the present is most important that what maybe might happen 30 years from now since that's why everything is fucked in Europe, because everyone coasts on hopium for the long term instead of fixing the present.
> Sign of a rich and very developed country.<p>You need to find another reason. Looking at IMF 2025 GDP per capita figures (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...</a> ):<p>Norway: $92k<p>Denmark: $77k<p>Sweden: $62k<p>Germany: $60k<p>UK: $57k<p>Finland: $56k<p>So yeah, Denmark and particularly Norway are a bit richer than the others, but the others are in the same ballpark.<p>If I had to bring up some particular reason, gas grids are more or less non-existent in the Nordics, and electricity is cheaper than in central Europe or UK.
Get an ERV - it will most likely have air filter. Such a life improvement to a point I'm actually waiting for winter now (in summer you have a problem of mosquitoes, house doesn't cool quickly enough by itself and if you close shades for sleeping - you don't get adequate ventilation).
air conditioning is also a heat pump. they cost way less then the air/water heatpumps and are easy and cheap to install. Since two years I heat with air conditioning and its super effective and cheap.<p>edit// Hot water is generated by electric solar panels. 1200w are sufficent to have enough hot water for two persons
Those are some big heatpumps, but in terms of installed capacity at a single location they have yet to beat the Stockholm municipal heating utility's installation at Hammarbyverket, which since its most recent expansion in 2013 has a total of 7 heat pumps capable of extracting up to 225 MW of heat energy from treated sewage. The utility claims it is (still) the world's largest heat pump installation. Notably it actually uses both the hot and the cold side of the heat pumps; the cold side is sent into the district cooling network.
Interesting. In Helsinki the municipal energy company has a plant with 7 heat pumps which is slightly smaller at 160 MW heat and 100 MW of cooling. <a href="https://www.helen.fi/en/news/2023/Waste-heat-plays-a-significant-role-in-a-sustainable-energy-system" rel="nofollow">https://www.helen.fi/en/news/2023/Waste-heat-plays-a-signifi...</a>
><i>energy from treated sewage</i><p>wouldn't untreated sewage, still fermenting, be warmer?
Maybe. I guess it's easier to handle in treated form though. At the point where it gets to the facility it's actually not really sewage anymore, it's just clean water, so after passing the heat pumps it's just released into a nearby lake via a small turbine (both the sewage treatment plant and the heating plant ar located above the water level of the lake).
There is a huge heat pump running in Vienna since 2019:<p><a href="https://www.wienenergie.at/blog/staerkste-grosswaermepumpe-mitteleuropas-pumpt-in-wien-2/" rel="nofollow">https://www.wienenergie.at/blog/staerkste-grosswaermepumpe-m...</a><p>a bigger one is planned:<p><a href="https://www.wienenergie.at/ueber-uns/meilensteine/2022-spatenstich-fur-grosswarmepumpe-bei-klaranlage-in-simmering/" rel="nofollow">https://www.wienenergie.at/ueber-uns/meilensteine/2022-spate...</a>
> heat-pump equipment costs roughly €500,000 per megawatt of installed capacity<p>Interestingly enough the price for these giant heatpumps is pretty much in line with domestic ~10kw units.
A bit OT, but since this article also mentions district heating: Are there any efforts to attach any of the recently built AI data centers (and their power plants) to district heating networks?
I am unsurprised that the big heat pumps are in Germany, because Germany as a country seems to be really into heat. As far as I can see, what is considered normal room temperature is about five degrees higher there than anywhere else.
Dumb question, why is the water in the Rhine warm?
It not warm as in ”warmer than the typical living space”, but it is warmer than zero Kelvin, so heat can be extracted from it.<p>Doing that takes energy, that’s why it is called a heat <i>pump</i>. That moves heat from the water to an already warmer place, against a heat gradient, just as a water pump moves water against a gravity gradient.<p>If the water were warmer than your typical living space, they wouldn’t need a heat pump; a water pump to pump the water closer to where heat is needed would be sufficient.
The river is not warm or warmer than the air. Heat pumps are amazing at extracting thermal energy. I think water is very dense compared to air, thus making the processes more efficient in such a large scale.
The best thing about using watercourses as your heat source for heat-pumps - the water flow naturally takes away your "colder" output and brings you more "warmer".<p>Ground source heat pumps are limited because the ground they have chilled stays stubbornly in the same place, so the only way you can extract more heat from it is to make it even colder, which gets less efficient. Watercourses don;t have that problem.
The opposite effect is also why thermal stations (including but not only nuclear) are usually on the coast or near large rivers: you can dump a lot of water heat into water and have it carried away.<p>Not always good for the local ecosystem without mitigation, but at least one Japanese reactor allowed local colonisation by tropical fish and local legend said the same about Sizewell.<p>Sizewell C claims to plan recover waste heat and use it for carbon capture somehow, about which all I can say is a big old hmmmmm.
> always good for the local ecosystem without mitigation, but at least one Japanese reactor allowed local colonisation by tropical fish and local legend said the same about Sizewell.<p>Not quite the same thing, but there is a tropical greenhouse in the south of France that used to be heated by cooling water from a nearby uranium enrichment facility: <a href="https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_ferme_aux_crocodiles" rel="nofollow">https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_ferme_aux_crocodiles</a> (unfortunately not available in English).
It has a decent bunch of thermal mass, so it takes quite a long time for it to reach air temperature during a cold snap or heat wave. This makes it a decent heat source during the winter and cold source during the summer - especially for short-term peaks.<p>You could get an even better result using the earth itself, but that is way harder to scale.
It isn't. It's just warmer than air in winter
> The Mannheim heat pump setup will cost €200m ($2.3m; £176m).<p>Browsing on mobile, I saw no way of contacting them about the mistake.
At that rate the article will be eventually correct, give it few years
Looks like its already been corrected
Heh came here to post the same comment, I was somewhat shocked by the alleged power of the almighty dollar ... but it's just a typo of course. Phew. :)<p>According to Google's built-in exchange rate calculator it should say $235m.
I keep wondering if instead of moving water they could use "solid state" heat pipes instead. Especially for geothermal where you could just drive them into ground, no need to actually drill or circulate water.
> ... modelling suggests the system will affect the average temperature of the river by less than 0.1C.<p>Okay, so that clears up the question I had, then. Not enough to make any appreciable difference.<p>There used to be a coal-fired power station on the east coast of Scotland, a little south of Edinburgh, Cockenzie, where the cooling loops dumped a huge plume of warm water into the sea. It was well-known as a local fishing spot, with surprisingly clean water flow detectable even a mile or so out from shore. That was several degrees warmer and definitely had a (possibly positive) influence on the ecology of the area - there were certainly a lot of interesting things swimming around there.
So $235 million for 162MW, or $2.35B for 1.6GW<p>A 1.6GWe nuclear reactor is around $8B.
These are… completely unrelated ratings?<p>The heat pump generates 162MWt, at the cost of around 50MWe.<p>The nuclear reactor produces 1.6GWe <i>alongside</i> 4.5GWt.<p>Furthermore the listed costs are also unrelated: the 235 millions are for the bare units (and an estimate for something a few years out), while the 8bn are turnkey (of what exactly I’m not sure: the beleaguered Olkiluoto 3 and flamanville 3 cost 11~12bn, while Taishan is estimated at under 8 for two reactors).
1.6GWe gives you 3.2GWt max alongside. In more modern this is even less. Of the 100% energy produced 33-38% will end up in the electric grid.
I'm just comparing the magnitudes here. A nuclear reactor powering dumb cheap resistive heaters is just several times more expensive than the heat pumps.<p>But unlike these heat pumps, the reactor doesn't need electricity.
.. those are somewhat unrelated things, though?
Germany at its best, instead of keeping its 20GW+ nuclear power running and get district heating pipes installed to them, they engineer this solution at x times the cost. In this case a 30km pipe from Philippsburg NPP would have done the trick.
It's the year 2135. Discussions about energy anywhere in Europe begin with the customary lament for Germany's shortsighted decision to cease nuclear energy production sometime in the 20th century. Nobody knows where this tradition originates from but it is rigorously upheld.
Guess who supplies all the nuclear fuel? Russia, and we don't want to buy from them anymore.
The same is true for pretty much all nuclear power plants.
We did buy Uranium from Russia because it was cheap, but they are far from the only suppliers. Half the world can mine uranium: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_reserves" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_r...</a><p>Even Germany had Uranium mines in the Erzgebirge. They just were closed due to environmental concerns and the iron curtain falling, which is also why there are no more "official" reserves. There was no exploration done after 1990, so known exploitable reserves in Germany are low. But that's just because nobody went looking.<p>Uranium isn't rare and it isn't really expensive. We just need so little of it that there are not a lot of running mines.
That is such a bad explanation. One, Russia is not the only supplier, two, Germany still buys fossil fuels from Russia.
No, this is a lie. It is also funny because Germany was so depended on Russian Gas that nuclear fuel even if fully depend on would be laughable.<p>Germany has its own fuel enrichment and production, and it is still running <a href="https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urananreicherungsanlage_Gronau" rel="nofollow">https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urananreicherungsanlage_Gronau</a><p>And no Uranium ore does not stem from Russia, they might still produce some of the UF6, but this can be much more easily shifted because unclear fuel cost are only a small fraction of the total cost!
This problem could have been solved by breeder reactors. Now China is doing it instead of us.