[authorityofnil]

>Except it is still direct electrical heating which is atrociously inefficient.

Electric heating converts practically all energy into heat, making it ~100% efficient. You can make statements about cost-effectiveness compared to burning things, but not all houses can.

CHP configurations are more common in colder climates with district heating, so their "waste" heat during generation often isn't wasted at all.

[yxhuvud]

> Electric heating converts practically all energy into heat

No, not even close. There are huge losses in electricity production and transmission.

[authorityofnil]

Which is why I covered them in my comment about CHP, which recoups a large portion of those "losses". Either way other power sources also require logistic challenges and/or big equipment installs to use, so it isn't exactly 1:1 comparison.

[new_realist]

But a heat pump is more than 100% efficient.

[authorityofnil]

I feel this is a bit disingenuous, because using the same logic burning wood is thousands of % effective, or even ∞% if the system only uses convection, making heat pumps seem like a poor choice even when they're perfectly valid.

[vmladenov]

Until the temperature drops below 4 C

[yxhuvud]

Which is why you bore a hole deep enough that it isn't a problem.