Comments by "Tony Wilson" (@tonywilson4713) on "The Genius of the World's Most Efficient Heat Pump" video.

ENGINEER HERE You and the rest of the Heat pump brigade NEED to STOP saying things like 300% EFFICIENCY. Every engineer learns that you cannot get above 100% efficiency for any thermodynamic process and it's called the Laws of Thermodynamics. This is why Heat Pumps use COEFFICIANT of PERFORMANCE (CoP) which is NOT the same thing as efficiency its a measure of performance. AND THERE IS A VERY SERIOUS ISSUE HERE with people misusing the word efficiency and confusing the general public. Right now there are all sorts of claims being made by various people over the efficiency of various power generation systems and how we use electricity. How do you think we can explain to the general public the efficiency of a nuclear power station is 36% and that's good or that gas turbines are about 46% and that's good or that combined cycle gas turbines are around 64% and that's good when you are claiming heat pumps are 300% *WHICH IS ADVERTISING JARGON?*. As an engineer I recently WASTED several days recently explaining to a client that ChatGPT was WRONG about an energy issue because ChatGPT can't tell the difference between FACTS and ADVERTISING JARGON. FYI - the issue was over grid stability and that certain dc-ac inverters are labelled as "pure sine wave inverters" and the fact is that NO inverter produces a technically pure clean sine wave output. (Go look at the Wikipedia page for power inverters). Its just ADVERISING JARGON. This particular piece of advertising jargon is about to come slamming into every society that has substantial amounts of renewables feeding into their grids via dc-ac inverters. Its a major issue in Ireland which now has a lot of wind power. The channel Real Engineering did a fantastic video on the subject. I doubt the flywheel solution will work because that fly wheel will still need a power input that wasn't explained. What the Real Engineering video highlights is the substantial difference between energy sources and how they pump energy into the grid. All through the fossil fuel era this was never a problem because all those massive steam turbines with their inertia did the job. Its actually the one thing projects like Hinkley Point C have going for it, but the pro-nuclear lobby are so stupid they don't understand or realise this.
30
@TheGalifrey BULLSHlT Sorry but its a violation of the second law of thermodynamics which basically is "Entropy always increases and therefore 100% thermal efficiency is IMPOSSIBLE in any process." And as for MIT they aren't perfect and can be just as wrong as anyone else. Its advertising jargon NOTHING MORE.
4
@izalman Thanks and its NOT that I think they are bad its the unnecessary advertising hype and it makes the rest of the energy discussion so much harder. How do you discuss nuclear at ~35% or combined cycle gas turbines at ~64% when people are hyping on about heat pumps at 300% or 400% or 800%? And that's before we get to actual discussions of costs and pay-off time and all the other things. What all these other clowns don't get is that people like you and me have been in those meetings where the clowns with economics degrees throw back at us: "What's the business case for that?" or "Who's going to pay for that?" or "What's the benefits of that?" or maybe "I heard that I can get blah blah blah from this technology. So why aren't we doing that?" Even when that technology is utterly irrelevant or its been considered and found unfeasible. We've all been in that and none of us need those discussions to be harder than they already are AND SIMILARLY we don't need any of the public discussions we need to have to be MORE difficult than they already are.
1