Outside the Loop is a revival of a newsletter originally devoted to

ground source heat pumps This version is expanded to the larger HVAC
industry to provide alternative perspectives to traditional HVAC
publications. The editor is author of two widely sold ASHRAE
publications, HVAC Simplified (2006) and Geothermal Heating and
Cooling (2014). He has presented over 160 seminars to 5000 attendees.
Steve Kavanaugh, Ph.D., Fellow ASHRAE and Fellow ASME
Previous issues available at www.geokiss.com.
E-mail geokisseis@gmail.com to be on the distribution list.
An Alternative Publication for Skeptics of Conventional HVAC & GSHP Wisdom – Volume 9, Number 3 – Summer 2022

Decarbonization, Cold Climates, Air Heat Pumps, and the For Propane Furnace
Electric Grid: What Are They Thinking? Propane req’d = 36,000 Btu/h ÷ (21,670 Btu/lb × 95% × 90%)
Using Heat Pumps to Decarbonize: Most Do, Some Don’t…...…1 = 1.94 lb (0.46 gal)
High HSPF Heat Pumps Don’t Always Have High COP < 17°F.….2 Propane: C3H8 + O2  CO2 + H2O
Compressor Life at 7200 rpm with a Compression Ratio of 9?…2 C3H8 5O2 3CO2 4H2O
Computing Heat Pump Demand and Capacity When It’s Cold...3 3×12+1×8 + 5×2×16  3×12+3×2×16 + 4×(1×2+16)
GSHP Ratings Also Need Correcting to Field Conditions.……...…3 44 + 160  132 + 72
204  204
Electrical Generation Carbon Dioxide Emissions by State….….…4
CO2 to C3H8 Mass Ratio = 132 ÷ 44 = 3.0 lb CO2/lb C3H8
Using Heat Pumps to Decarbonize: Most Do, Some Don’t
CO2 from propane:
Ones That Do: Consider the CO2 production in New York of CO2 Rate = 1.94 lb C3H8/hr × 3.0 lb CO2/lb C3H8
36,000 Btu/h heat pumps with COPs of 2.5 and 4.5 and a 36,000 = 5.82 lb/hr
Btu/h, 95% efficient hydrocarbon (HC) natural gas furnace with CO2 from fan power:
a 500-watt indoor fan and a 100-watt combustion air fan. CO2 Rate = 1.58 lb/kWh × (0.5 + 0.1) kW = 0.95 lb/hr
Assume degradation factors (HEPr) due to typical maintenance Total CO2 Rate (Propane Furnace) = 5.82 + 0.95 = 6.77 lb/hr
practices are 80% for heat pumps and 90% for furnaces.
Thus, propane and natural gas furnaces can generate less
Ones That Don’t: Repeat for a HC propane furnace in IN. CO2 than an air source heat pump in areas with a high CO2
Heat Pump Demands: generation rate per kWh. Federal subsidies for heat pumps
AHP(kW) = 36,000 Btu/h ÷ 2.5 × 3412 Btu/kWh = 4.22 kW will be ineffective in curbing carbon where utilities rely
GHP(kW) = 36,000 Btu/h ÷ 4.5 × 3412 Btu/kWh = 2.34 kW heavily on fossil fuel generation and for heat pumps with
large auxiliary heating units. Guidelines for lb. of CO2/kWh
New York 2020 Electrical Generation CO2 Rate = 0.46 lb/kWh and net COP should be developed to qualify for subsidies.
CO2 Rate (AHP) = 0.46 lb/kWh × 4.22 kW/80% = 2.43 lb/hr
CO2 Rate (GHP) = 0.46 lb/kWh × 2.34 kW/80% = 1.35 lb/hr
Natural gas furnace: (assume 100% Methane CH4)
Methane req’d = 36,000 Btu/h ÷ (23,900 Btu/lb × 95% × 90%)
= 1.76 lb CH4/hr (39.8 cu/ft)
Recall from combustion chemistry:
CH4 + O2  CO2 + H2O
Balance Equation
CH4 + 2O2  CO2 + 2H2O
Balance via Molecular Weight
CH4 2O2 CO2 2H2O
12+1×4 + 2×2×16  12+2×16 + 2×(1×2+16)
16 + 64  44 + 36
80  80
CO2 to CH4 Mass Ratio = 44 ÷ 16 = 2.75 lb CO2/lb CH4
CO2 from methane:
CO2 Rate = 1.76 lb CH4/hr × 2.75 lb CO2/lb CH4
= 4.84 lb/hr
CO2 from fan power:
CO2 Rate = 0.46 lb/kWh × (0.5 + 0.1) kW = 0.28 lb/hr

Total CO2 Rate (Nat. Gas Furnace) = 4.84 + 0.28 = 5.12 lb/hr

Repeat analysis for Indiana where:

Indiana 2020 Electrical Generation CO2 Rate = 1.58 lb/kWh

CO2 Rate (AHP) = 1.58 lb/kWh × 4.22 kW/80% = 8.33 lb/hr Program not yet available on www.geokiss.com website.
CO2 Rate (GHP) = 1.58 lb/kWh × 2.34 kW/80% = 4.62 lb/hr E-mail geokisseis@gmail.com for a copy.
High HSPF Heat Pumps Don’t Always Have High COP < 17°F
Advertisers promote high efficiency equipment using elevated
Heating Seasonal Performance Factors (HSPFs) and Seasonal
Energy Efficiency Ratios (SEERs). Consumers, regulators, and
grid de-carbonizers assume that these units will also have much
higher COPs and EERs at extreme temperatures and conditions
as depicted in Figure 1. This is not usually the case and in some
instances the opposite is true (OTL Vol.5, No.3, p.1). Loopholes
and mild rating conditions (lowest rating temperature is 17°F)
combine with controls to optimize performance at balmy
temperatures rather than at extreme conditions. For example,
• The HSPF rating results from an energy calculation based
on an assumed building load which sets the design heat loss
at twice the output of the heat pump at 47°F. Controls can
reduce variable-speed and multi-capacity unit output when
rated at this temperature. Thus, the loss is lower than the loss
used to rate constant speed units. (See OTL Vol.5, No.3, p.2)
• SEER is obtained using a similar calculation for cooling in
which 66% of the outdoor temperatures used in the rating
are actually colder than the indoor temperature (80°F). See
OTL Vol.5, No.3, p.1.
• The SEER/HSPF calculation procedure assumes occupants
set the indoor temperature higher in heating than in cooling
(negative dead-band). If this scenario is used in a real
building, the heat pump would cycle between heating and
cooling and never shut down. See OTL Vol.8, No.2, pp.3-4.
Low temperature performance improvements will be much less
than seasonal performance improvements (especially COP).
Failure to recognize this will likely result in larger than expected
loads on the electrical grid. Extrapolation of performance below
17°F to much lower temperatures can involve smoke and mirrors
(ramping up air flow, failure to include defrost and tempering
heat power, etc.). There is some indication that an optional 5°F
test condition may be available in the 2023 AHRI standard. Even
at this lower temperature, assumptions to obtain rating values are
made that are not equivalent to field conditions (See Figure 1).
Extensive field measurements of actual ASHP (and
GSHP) installations should be made before establishing
decarbonization policies and recommendations.
Compressor Life at 7200 rpm and a Compression Ratio of 9?
A novel scroll compressor has been developed for use with air
source heat pumps that is advertised to have 80% of full load
capacity with -13°F outside air. This technology has raised
expectations for a smooth transition to a decarbonized grid. If it
seems too good to be true, it may not be what it seems. A closer
look is certainly prudent which would include the COP at -13°F.
Figure 2 details the compressor circuit used to generate a higher
temperature/pressure “lift” compared to standard refrigeration
circuits. A portion of the liquid leaving the condenser is by-
passed to an expansion valve, circuited to a heat exchanger and
reinjected into the compressor. This is essentially two-stage
compression with a single compressor, which proportionally
increases power input. Output is enhanced by operating at up to
7200 rpm, twice the speed of standard compressors.
Both compressor speed and compression ratio are twice
those of conventional heat pump compressors and the
impact upon service life is unknown but likely significant.
In addition to the solenoid valve, second expansion valve, and
heat exchanger the compressor typically includes an oil pump
that are unnecessary on constant speed compressors. Additional
tubing must also be routed internally to inject the vapor in an
intermediate location within the scroll.
Sizing the refrigerant lines for systems served by variable-speed
and multi-capacity compressors presents a “Goldilocks”
complication. If refrigerant line diameters are too small
excessive losses will occur and reduce efficiency. If they are too
large, refrigerant flow velocities will be too low to carry oil back
to the compressor. This process is straight forward for constant
flow systems. Line sizing tables and software for various
refrigerants are available (ASHRAE Refrigeration Handbook).
Line sizing for variable flow rates involves a trade-off. At low
flow rate, diameters must be smaller to return compressor oil.
This results in greater friction loss and increased demand at high
flow. A compromise is to periodically operate the compressor at
high speed to return oil thus adding one more complication.
A primary advantage of variable-speed and multi-capacity
equipment is the enhancement of rated efficiency and integration
into energy models to enhance code compliance. Insufficient
field data is available to verify energy savings and life cycle cost
given the likely shorter equipment life of complex systems.
Page 2
Computing Heat Pump Demand and Capacity When It’s Cold
In the rush to limit fossil fuels for heating in colder climates, the
documented, but apparently not well known, limitations of heat
pumps should not be ignored. Their impact on the electrical grid
can be estimated using manufactures’ laboratory data that is best
adjusted using field test data. Air heat pumps are rated for
heating capacity (HC) and coefficient of performance (COP) at
17°F and optionally at 5°F beginning in 2023. In addition to
correcting (extrapolating) to a few degrees lower, ratings should
be corrected for differences in air flow, fan power, defrost (unit
runs in cooling to melt ice/snow on outdoor coils), tempering
heat (to offset unit running in cooling mode), indoor temperature,
and added auxiliary heat. Figure 3 demonstrates a program to
correct air-based equipment for both cooling and heating. The
program corrects for the above-mentioned conditions but also
permits use of degradation coefficients based on field tests (using
NCI test results noted in the red outlined text boxes of the figure).
The figure uses the outdoor design temperatures of Albany, NY
for a home with a 30,000 Btu/h cooling requirement (at 89.1°F)
and a heat loss of 36,000 Btu/h (at -0.7°F). A nominal 3-ton heat
pump with an EER of 13 (at 95°F) and a COP of 2.8 (at 17°F) is
selected. The unit provides a corrected total cooling (TC) of
32,100 Btu/h and an EER of 11.4 at 75°F indoor temperature.
At 17°F the unit has a heating capacity (HC) of 21,600 Btu/h and
a COP of 2.8. After corrections are made the HC is 14,600 Btu/h,
the COP is 1.83, and the demand is 2.33 kW. An additional 6.3
kW auxiliary power is required to meet the 36,000 Btu/h heating
requirement. The net COP is 1.22 and total demand is 8.63 kW
assuming the heat pump operates at manufacturers published
specifications. If the NCI degradation values of 93% for newly
serviced units and the value of 70% for prior-to-service units are
applied, the results are COP = 1.22, demand = 8.77 kW and COP
= 1.20, demand = 9.23 kW respectively.
GSHP Ratings Also Need Correcting to Field Conditions
GSHPs also need to be corrected primarily to include the impact
of auxiliary heat. The ground temperature in the Albany area is
45°F to 50°F which potentially provides good full-load COPs
and minimal auxiliary heat (unless the ground loop size is
compromised). Heating capacity declines with lower entering
liquid temperature (ELT). GSHPs with short loops require more
auxiliary heat. Ignore the part-load ratings (they’re malarky) and
focus on the full-load rated performance at 32°F and 50°F ELT.
It would be best practice to design the loop temperature closer to
40°F than 32°F. Avoid the higher cost of variable-speed and
multi-capacity units and apply the savings to a longer ground
loop. A well designed, insulated, and constructed building with
a nice vertical ground loop may not need any auxiliary heat.

Figure 3. Air-to-Air Heat Pump (and Cooling Only Unit) Correction Program
Heating Mode Input Cells Output Cells Cooling Mode
AHRI Ratings at 17°F OAT Heating ratings at 17°F are corrected for Ratings at 95°F OAT & 80/67°F RAT
HeatCap17 21.6 kBtu/h outdoor & indoor air temperature, air flow CoolCap95 34.9 kBtu/h
COPHeat17 2.80 W/W rate (AF), external static pressure (ESP), air SenCap95 27.6 kBtu/h
RatedAFh 1,200 cfm filter pressure drop, and defrost effects. EERCool95 13.0 kBtu/W-h
AuxHeat 6.3 kW Read Me Cooling ratings at 95°F are corrected for RatedAFc 1,200 cfm
Design Room Conditions outdoor temperture, indoor dry & wet bulb Read Me Design Rooms Conditions
ActIATh 70 °F Read Me temperatures , air flow and filter PD. SHFcf ActIDBTc 75 °F
ActAFh 1,100 cfm 0.834 ActIWBTc 63 °F
Design Outdoor Air Temperature Filter Losses and Fan Efficiency 1.06 ActAFc 1,200 cfm
ActOATh -0.7 °F ESP 0.4 in. w.g. Read Me Design Outdoor Air Temperature
Heating Mode Correction Factors DPFilter 0.3 in. w.g. Read Me ActOATc 89.1 °F
Capacity FanEff 30% Read Me Cooling Mode Correction Factors
CfHCIAT 1.000 UnCorHC Line Length Correction Factors Capacity
CfHCAF 0.990 14.3 LineLgth 50 ft Read Me CfTCWBT 0.943
Power CFLL 1.02 CfTCOAT 1.020
CfCOPIAT 1.000 CfTCAF 1.000
CfCOPAF 1.020 The National Comfort Institute (NCI)
Fan Heat conducted field tests on 819 cooling Power
CfFanH 0.22 kW units and found the average output CfKWWBT 0.996
Output (not including Aux. Heat) was 70% of specified performance. CfKWOAT 0.973
HeatCap 14.6 kBtu/h After service on 462 of these units CfKWAF 1.000
COPnoFan 2.03 W/W average performance improved to 93% Fan Heat
PowerHPh 2.33 kW CfFanC 0.22 kW
of specified. An option is available to
COPHeat 1.83 W/W Output at Actual OAT & IAT
HC and COP Change vs. HC & COP@17°F
enter a degradation value below. CoolCap 32.1 kBtu/h
Capacity -32.5% SenCap 26.0 kBtu/h
Degrade 100.0% SHR 0.81
COP -34.5% kWnoFan 2.6 kW
Including Electric Auxilary Heater Heat-DG HtPow-DG Cool-DG ClgPow-DG EERnoFan 12.3 Btu/W∙h
TotalHeat 36.1 kBtu/h 36.1 8.63 32.1 2.82 PowerHPc 2.82 kW
PowerNet 8.63 kW kBtu/h kW kBtu/h kW EERCool 11.4 Btu/W∙h
COPNet 1.22 W/W TC and EER Change vs Rated
Capacity -8.1%
EER -12.6%
This program corrects for outside air temperature, indoor return air temperatures, air flow rate, air filter loss above the 0.08 in. w.g. rated
value, external static pressure (ESP) above the 0.1 to 0.2 in. w.g. rated values, indoor fan wire-to -air efficiency, split system line set loss for
lengths greater than 25 ft. and heating mode defrost reverse cycle (but not tempering heat) penalties between -5°F and 37°F. Currently, the
only certified published rating points are heating capacity (HC) and COP at 17°F OAT and 47°F OAT and total cooling capacity (TC) and EER at 95°F
OAT. All other reported rating values are seasonal and intertwined with gross building load assumptions and idealized outdoor air
temperatures. SEER and HSPF can not be corrected to actual performance at other conditions. This program is limited to high speed/full
capacity performance of variable-speed and mult-capacity units since certified part load data are unavailable.
Page 3
 Electrical Generation Carbon Dioxide Emissions by State
2020 Electrical Generation Carbon Dioxide Emission 2013 Electrical Generation Carbon Dioxide Emission
Region & State CO2 (1000 Metric Tons) 1000 MWh Generated kg CO2/MWh lb CO2/kWh CO2 (1000 Metric Tons) 1000 MWh Generated kg CO2/MWh lb CO2/kWh
New England 25,060 96,809 259 0.57 33,437 115,436 290 0.64
Connecticut 10,186 41,191 247 0.54 8,726 35,611 245 0.54
Maine 1,824 10,002 182 0.40 3,675 14,030 262 0.58
Massachusetts 7,958 18,214 437 0.96 14,735 32,885 448 0.99
New Hampshire 1,728 16,351 106 0.23 3,447 19,779 174 0.38
Rhode Island 3,357 8,895 377 0.83 2,838 6,247 454 1.00
Vermont 8 2,156 4 0.01 15 6,885 2 0.00
Middle Atlantic 113,958 420,680 271 0.60 157,974 427,653 369 0.81
New Jersey 14,902 61,106 244 0.54 15,789 64,751 244 0.54
New York 26,772 129,430 207 0.46 33,456 136,117 246 0.54
Pennsylvania 72,284 230,143 314 0.69 108,729 226,786 479 1.05
NE Central 265,945 552,534 481 1.06 415,107 622,073 667 1.47
Illinois 47,512 173,395 274 0.60 97,812 203,005 482 1.06
Indiana 64,851 90,073 720 1.58 99,951 110,403 905 1.99
Michigan 53,183 106,625 499 1.10 67,193 105,418 637 1.40
Ohio 67,225 120,993 556 1.22 102,466 137,284 746 1.64
Wisconsin 33,174 61,449 540 1.19 47,686 65,963 723 1.59
NW Central 167,298 336,428 497 1.09 241,445 330,302 731 1.61
Iowa 21,135 59,637 354 0.78 39,175 56,671 691 1.52
Kansas 20,346 54,542 373 0.82 33,125 48,473 683 1.50
Minnesota 20,957 56,510 371 0.82 29,255 51,297 570 1.25
Missouri 54,133 72,568 746 1.64 78,344 91,627 855 1.88
Nebraska 20,950 36,849 569 1.25 28,043 37,105 756 1.66
North Dakota 27,415 42,176 650 1.43 30,274 35,022 864 1.90
South Dakota 2,362 14,147 167 0.37 3,228 10,109 319 0.70
South Atlantic 292,443 794,999 368 0.81 378,656 760,976 498 1.09
Delaware 2,667 5,205 512 1.13 4,722 7,761 608 1.34
District of
Columbia 108 201 535 1.18 49 66 740 1.63
Florida 96,717 250,828 386 0.85 108,827 222,399 489 1.08
Georgia 39,865 120,126 332 0.73 56,812 120,954 470 1.03
Maryland 10,219 36,029 284 0.62 18,950 35,851 529 1.16
North Carolina 38,462 124,363 309 0.68 56,940 125,936 452 0.99
South Carolina 23,081 98,529 234 0.52 28,809 95,250 302 0.67
Virginia 31,807 103,056 309 0.68 34,686 76,897 451 0.99
West Virginia 49,518 56,662 874 1.92 68,862 75,863 908 2.00
East South
Central 144,079 348,230 414 0.91 213,041 372,776 571 1.26
Alabama 44,803 137,543 326 0.72 66,986 150,573 445 0.98
Kentucky 49,750 63,540 783 1.72 85,304 89,741 951 2.09
Mississippi 26,744 66,582 402 0.88 22,633 52,810 429 0.94
Tennessee 22,782 80,566 283 0.62 38,118 79,652 479 1.05
West South
Central 296,149 711,228 416 0.92 399,352 669,387 597 1.31
Arkansas 23,469 54,641 430 0.94 37,346 60,322 619 1.36
Louisiana 44,417 100,774 441 0.97 58,274 102,010 571 1.26
Oklahoma 25,817 82,298 314 0.69 46,268 73,674 628 1.38
Texas 202,446 473,515 428 0.94 257,465 433,380 594 1.31
Mountain 173,413 358,058 484 1.07 244,232 376,452 649 1.43
Arizona 35,714 109,305 327 0.72 55,342 113,326 488 1.07
Colorado 29,071 54,115 537 1.18 39,387 52,937 744 1.64
Idaho 2,221 17,686 126 0.28 1,942 15,186 128 0.28
Montana 10,416 23,353 446 0.98 16,951 27,687 612 1.35
Nevada 13,481 40,425 333 0.73 15,690 36,444 431 0.95
New Mexico 18,656 34,076 547 1.20 28,535 35,871 795 1.75
Utah 26,297 37,087 709 1.56 35,699 42,517 840 1.85
Wyoming 37,556 42,011 894 1.97 50,687 52,483 966 2.12
Pacific
Contiguous 64,814 372,814 174 0.38 79,366 374,146 212 0.47
California 43,444 193,075 225 0.50 57,323 200,077 287 0.63
Oregon 9,371 63,625 147 0.32 9,500 59,896 159 0.35
Washington 11,999 116,114 103 0.23 12,543 114,173 110 0.24
Pacific
Noncontiguous 9,877 15,355 643 1.42 11,196 16,764 668 1.47
Alaska 3,459 6,276 551 1.21 3,768 6,497 580 1.28
Hawaii 6,418 9,079 707 1.56 7,428 10,267 723 1.59
U.S. Total 1,553,037 4,007,135 388 0.85 2,173,806 4,065,964 535 1.18
Source: www.eia.gov/electricity/data/emissions/

It should be noted that the significant improvement in CO2 emissions is likely a result of wider use of combined cycle natural gas plants
in addition to more wind and solar generation in some locations. This is likely to improve in 2022 but realize the improvement due to
solar in cold climates areas with shorter winter days will be small. The net improvement in greenhouse gas emission would also be offset
due to higher natural gas (primarily methane) leakage to supply combined cycle plants. These plants have much lower CO2 production
than traditional fossil fuel plants due to much higher efficiency and the low relative carbon content of methane (CH4).
Page 4