this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2025
502 points (96.5% liked)

Science Memes

17894 readers
2348 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Heat pumps cap out at about ~~250%~~ 400% efficiency, so you'd still be spending more to run them than to burn natural gas at that ratio.

[–] spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Heat pumps easily exceed 2.5 COP. More like 4 in the UK climate. And gas isn't 100% efficient either. But yeah it's a wash or can be more expensive to heat with heat pumps where electricity is really expensive. It helps if we all conveniently ignore externalities like pollution and carbon too.

[–] kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Thanks for the correction, edited. How is gas not 100% efficient, though?

But yeah, heat pumps are definitely more environmentally friendly (unless you're habitually letting the refrigerant out, o guess). The real argument is whether the extra energy is worth it for protein folding (I'd say generally no, but if you don't have a heat pump, might as well).

[–] moosetwin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Burning any fuel isn't 100% efficient, I went out and found a website talking about it that might help

further reading