Cooling by a degree takes less energy than heating by a degree (not to mention it's electric). Cooling a house from 35 (outside) to 23 (inside) takes is better for "the environment" than heating one from 11 to 23.
Maintaining a fixed temperature difference across a wall with a fixed thermal conductivity takes the same amount of energy no matter which side of the wall you want to keep the heat.
On the other hand, any inefficiencies in your heat transfer capability, any incoming solar radiation, and any other activity going on inside a space (like lighting, cooking or refrigeration, or just people metabolizing their breakfast) tend to add heat to it.
So maintaining a cooler temperature on the side where you’re trying to do stuff seems likely to be more inefficient than heating it.
Yes with heat pumps you're 100% correct but right now most of the US north does not use heat pumps to heat their house while the vast majority of the south US does use A/C which is way better per degree of temperature change than say heating oil which the vast majority of New England still uses.
jameshart|2 years ago
Maintaining a fixed temperature difference across a wall with a fixed thermal conductivity takes the same amount of energy no matter which side of the wall you want to keep the heat.
On the other hand, any inefficiencies in your heat transfer capability, any incoming solar radiation, and any other activity going on inside a space (like lighting, cooking or refrigeration, or just people metabolizing their breakfast) tend to add heat to it.
So maintaining a cooler temperature on the side where you’re trying to do stuff seems likely to be more inefficient than heating it.
api_or_ipa|2 years ago
I suspect you’re comparing an airconditioner against a resistive heating unit.
flightster|1 year ago