Welcome! Here are the website rules, as well as some tips for using this forum.
Need to contact us? Visit https://heatinghelp.com/contact-us/.
Click here to Find a Contractor in your area.

Brookline MA, No oil or Natural gas For New Construction

13

Comments

  • Jamie Hall
    Jamie Hall Member Posts: 23,170
    I wish I could believe that "in no jurisdiction (that I know of) is anyone suggesting that buildings have to move off their current heating (and cooling) fuel sources:". Unfortunately, a number of currently prominent politicians in the United States have, in fact, said that they will, usually with a 20 to 30 year time frame quoted. Frankly, I don't believe them any more than I believe the above quote -- but clearly there is some thought in that direction. Sometimes the policy suggested is to do the moving off by force sometimes -- more subtly -- the policy is to simply price the current sources out of reach for all but the very wealthy.

    I have been talking about this problem for 40 years, ever since I wrote the models which predicted all too clearly the impact of global temperature rise on continental glaciation. It would have been nice to have been proven wrong, but that didn't happen.

    What is more tragic is that, put simply,, the technology is available -- right now -- to move all energy uses in First World and some "developing" countries (notably China and India) to zero carbon (not net zero, just plain zero), with the exception of heavy transport and air, in 20 years -- two decades. Heavy transportation would take another decade or so. Air travel might be reducible to net zero in that time frame, but the technology really isn't there yet. Would it be free? No. But it needn't be that much more -- if any more -- than some of the more rainbow coloured proposals.

    Will the technology be used? I doubt it very much. And that is the real tragedy for mankind.
    Br. Jamie, osb
    Building superintendent/caretaker, 7200 sq. ft. historic house museum with dependencies in New England
  • Icarus
    Icarus Member Posts: 143
    As a very learned friend of my, one who is deeply involved in energy issues and who has worked for major universities and think tanks, as well as for organizations like Tesla etc, once said; “there is no shortage of energy, what is lacking is the will to change, and to some extent to ability to cost effectively store energy. In simple fact, there is so much potential wind, solar and developed hydro to power the world man times over. We just need to stop burning ****! I’m fairly confident the Stone Age didn’t end because they ran our of stone! Even the coal age is not ending because we have run out of coal. At present course and speed, wind and solar are on a net/net path to grid price parity with Nat. Gas.”

    Is moving off fossil fuels an essential element in curbing emission and fighting climate change? Of course. Is there “real” political will to do so? Of course not!

    People rail all the time about the “cost” of change, not understanding the net savings in both the macro as well as the micro economy. I myself just invested in roof top solar for my house. Even though my exposure is less than ideal, the cost has come down by over 1/2 in the last 3 years, now making it pay off (irrespective of tax credits!) of 12 years. This in a location that has some of the cheapest electric rates in the US. (PacNW ~~$.09 kwh)

    My son in Maine just did it, with a 6 year pay off, simply because the current utility rate is ~$.15kwh. The hang up for many, (and I do understand it) is the up front cost. To use the boot analogy. The poor man has a choice, to buy $50 boots. He can’t afford the $75 boots. The $50 ones last 6 months, so he has to buy two pairs a year, net annual cost $100. The “rich” man, can afford to buy the $75 boots that last 2 years, net annual cost $38.

    Tax credits are all well and good and serve as a (somewhat) reasonable way to fund energy efficiencies. But consider that a huge percentage of working people don’t earn enough to take ANY advantage of a tax credit for up grades. It would be a simple solution for a political society that really cares about this issue, to simply change the funding. Bond the cost, give low or no interest loans to people to upgrade, the principle protected by the bond, the interest being cheaper than market bank loan to the individuals, and the net cost to the bonding agency (be it local/city/county/state/or feds) would likely be cheaper than the current tax credit model that only benefits the “rich”. I can hear the howls from the folks who might tend to think that “working people are lazy, and are just looking for a hand out. Well...how is that any different than the guy who earns 6 figures but who can reduce his taxes by a similar amount to do the same thing? Not only that, but tax credits can be bought and sold on the arbitrage market, completely altering the intent, so that the truly rich can get a benefit that they really don’t need.

    If we are going to solve the issue, we need to be creative, and as I have said for a generation (yes...I’m old!) conservation and efficiency is not expensive, lack there of is...and it will bankrupt us one way or another.

    Icarus
    Larry WeingartenSTEVEusaPA
  • Jamie Hall
    Jamie Hall Member Posts: 23,170
    Read what I said. The technology is available to go to zero worldwide in 20 years. That technology has been available for 80 years now, steadily improving. It does not involve sunbeams or moonshine or wind on the prairies. It is not politically correct. Nor is it expensive -- any more than solar on every rooftop (which won't work) or wind on every ocean (which won't work either). It does not involve life style changes, nor hair shirts.

    The technology is called evil. But no technology is evil, in and of itself. Only what Man does with it can be called evil, or good. If the politicians and drumbeaters would realise this, perhaps we would get somewhere. We have the opportunity for great good and benefit for Man. They are rejecting it.

    So be it.
    Br. Jamie, osb
    Building superintendent/caretaker, 7200 sq. ft. historic house museum with dependencies in New England
    ttekushan_3
  • Icarus
    Icarus Member Posts: 143
    Please elucidate on what technology you are referring to...

    Icarus
    Solid_Fuel_Man
  • Solid_Fuel_Man
    Solid_Fuel_Man Member Posts: 2,646
    Sounds like Nuke to me.
    Serving Northern Maine HVAC & Controls. I burn wood, it smells good!
  • Jamie Hall
    Jamie Hall Member Posts: 23,170
    Nuclear power. The US Navy has been using if for about 65 years with no instances of failure or accident (these are not small systems: the USS Gerald R. Ford could power all of the Puget Sound region in Washington with power left over). There has been one serious incident for civilian power reactors in the US (Three Mile Island) and one accident in Russia (Chernobyl), both of which were operator error and the latter of which involved a hopelessly obsolete reactor. The Fukushima accident was basically engineering error, politically forced: the reactors should never have been sited where they were in the first place, and there wasn't adequate protection against flooding.

    I would add, before someone else does, that the Three Mile Island incident and the Chernobyl accident, together with the difficulties the Russian Navy has had with reactors, coupled with the experience of the US Navy, illustrate the absolute necessity of proper engineering and the employment of competent operators. But that is true of many technologies.

    The biggest problem is, of course, management of spent fuel, which is largely a political problem; again, technology exists (Zeolite sequestration) which renders the stuff into a useful, if hard to handle, power source (the shielding requirements are substantial) which will not migrate over geologic time (a million years or so); the problem of where to store it (e.g. Yucca Mountain) is entirely political, not technological.

    There is a minor detail in that a previous political administration sold control of most of the US supply of Uranium to a Russian firm; that probably could be overcome even if it was, shall we say, unwise.

    I might also add that most of the apparent expense of nuclear power lies in the extremely long, litigious process of approval in the first place; the Chinese, for example, who are building reactors right along, don't seem to have an expense problem, nor doe the Navy (the cost of a carrier or submarine is not related to the power plant particularly).

    Br. Jamie, osb
    Building superintendent/caretaker, 7200 sq. ft. historic house museum with dependencies in New England
    ttekushan_3
  • gfrbrookline
    gfrbrookline Member Posts: 753
    The Navy has been using it to power the fleet for almost 70 years now. It also seems to work well in Western Europe.

    The key is to maintain the plants, not just squeeze out profit. The problems we have had in civilian applications have been largely man made. Perhaps the plants should be placed under the control of the Navy instead or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
    ttekushan_3
  • Solid_Fuel_Man
    Solid_Fuel_Man Member Posts: 2,646
    And as @Jamie Hall said, woefully outdated technology which has taken 40 years to be approved.

    With the cost of electrons (generation) currently (pun intended) nuclear power makes good sense. I believe it much better to make electricity then to "have a reactor in the basement". Also a good distance away from urban areas. HVDC has come a long way for economical long distance transmission of power.

    Economy of scale works well with nuclear.
    Serving Northern Maine HVAC & Controls. I burn wood, it smells good!
  • Steamhead
    Steamhead Member Posts: 16,796
    edited December 2019

    .......There has been one serious incident for civilian power reactors in the US (Three Mile Island) .........

    We have to include the Fermi fast-breeder reactor near-meltdown here (see the book "We Almost Lost Detroit")- that was also a "civilian power reactor" even though it never made much power. This was the result of a lot of different errors.

    That book, and "The Warning" which was written about Three Mile Island, are both fascinating reading. They just tell the story without judging, and include enough technical information to be interesting to us.
    All Steamed Up, Inc.
    Towson, MD, USA
    Steam, Vapor & Hot-Water Heating Specialists
    Oil & Gas Burner Service
    Consulting
  • Intplm.
    Intplm. Member Posts: 1,883
    Nothing wrong with a comprehensive fossil fuel energy plan that is well thought out and has a time frame brought forth in phases of say ten, to fifty years. I haven't heard that happening in this country. Only in European countries so far.

    I wonder if dear old brookline realty agents will have to disclose this to new potential home buyers.
    Hmmm. "No thanks Brookline. Let's look elsewhere."
  • Jamie Hall
    Jamie Hall Member Posts: 23,170
    If one includes the Fermi incident,, then one really also ought to include the deliberate mishandling of the prototype liquid sodium reactor at Arco, Utah (the Navy wanted to find out what could happen if... and the results were rather spectacular).

    Not saying that reactors -- particularly older designs ( @Solid_Fuel_Man 's comments on 40 year old design are very relevant -- if it takes 20 years just to get approval for a site, what do you expect?) -- don't need careful, up to date design, nor very dedicated operators. They do. But... so do airplanes.

    But that isn't the point. Like ay other technology, used properly they do work and are beneficial (just ask France, as someone pointed out). I think there s a place for a wide range of technologies to benefit us all, one way or another -- but to eliminate one of them, and one of the most powerful, out of hand is just wrong.

    By the way, I left agriculture out of my initial comment -- like heavy transport, it would take longer to get to zero carbon.
    Br. Jamie, osb
    Building superintendent/caretaker, 7200 sq. ft. historic house museum with dependencies in New England
    Intplm.Solid_Fuel_Man
  • Icarus
    Icarus Member Posts: 143
    A couple of problems 1 of which is a a deal breaker for me re: nukes. The first is that Nuke plants are incredibly expensive to build. As I noted earlier, wind and solar are nearly comparable on a per mwh cost, solar often cheaper. The current cost of Nukes is ~$96 MSW, while solar varies from $64-130. This is not factoring in decommissioning costs, which of course is nearly incalculable given the long half life of nuk waste.

    That brings in the deal breaker for me, the safety, long term, of the waste. Until we come up with a way to make nuke waste safe I can’t get behind a scheme of “safe” storage...that is simply an oxymoron. The idea that we could keep nuke waste safe for thousands if not tens of thousands of year is crazy. Who is convinced that some latter day Osama, coming across an long abandoned nuke storage facility wouldn’t use it for evil? Human history tells me that “long term” is a generation or two, not thousands of years. Heck, even the Former USSR couldn’t keep it nuke arsenal “safe” for a generation.

    Finally, the cost of accident...see also TMI, Chernobyl, Fukushima etc . Could those issues be “solved” technically? Perhaps. With that solution include t human factor? Most likely, ergo the issue.

    So no, my bet is no PV Solar, and wind, with a huge emphasis going forward in storage. Between battery technology (see also plug in cars impact plus and minus on the grid) pumped hydro, which has a round trip efficiency better than most battery chemistries and if done properly wouldn’t have to effect fish and water supply’s in a negative way. (See also deep mine shaft leading to large head=high power turbines, lots of built in storage capacity, using the same water over and over again) to thermal phase change storage mediums...all leading to being able to use solar and PV 24/7/365. As my learned friend so well states...”there aint no shortage of clean energy, only the shortage of (currrently) storage capacity.“

    Take a small fraction of the cost of new nuke power and invest in good storage solutions, and the problems BEGIN to solve themselves.

    Icarus

  • Jamie Hall
    Jamie Hall Member Posts: 23,170
    I have covered your objections in previous comments, @Icarus

    On storage, a good friend of mine -- a leading Swedish geophysicist -- was denied tenure at a leading US research university precisely because he refused to retract the series of research papers in which he had demonstrated safe long term stabilization (which happened to be irreversible) of nuclear waste. The objections did not come from the quality of his work or from the scientific establishment they were entirely political and forced on the University in question. They used almost exactly your comments.

    The cost issue, as I noted above, is driven almost entirely by the legal quagmire in which a civilian nuclear plant is mired. As I said, Chinese -- and naval -- reactors are at least an order of magnitude cheaper (and much more advanced) than civilian US ones. Wonder why?

    Mind you, I have no great objection to political fiats; I live in a republic, and have great respect for the will of the people. That said, I have major objections to people defending political judgements and actions on the basis or "scientific" or technological comments which are either incorrect or ill-informed. If one doesn't like nuclear power because they are afraid of it, or it doesn't fits their karma, or whatever, I'm fine with that.
    Br. Jamie, osb
    Building superintendent/caretaker, 7200 sq. ft. historic house museum with dependencies in New England
    Solid_Fuel_Man
  • Icarus
    Icarus Member Posts: 143

    “On storage, a good friend of mine -- a leading Swedish geophysicist -- was denied tenure at a leading US research university precisely because he refused to retract the series of research papers in which he had demonstrated safe long term stabilization (which happened to be irreversible) of nuclear waste. The objections did not come from the quality of his work or from the scientific establishment they were entirely political and forced on the University in question. They used almost exactly your comments”

    Jamie, I don’t argue Munich of anything you are saying. I understand that a large portion of the Nuke cost is regulatory/legal quagmire, and to some extent, it needs to be. (the degree to which we can argue).

    I have no doubt that Nuke waste can be put in “long term stabilized” storage technically. The fact however, is the human element. Unless said waste can be made “safe” in it’s own right in a matter of a short time ( a human generation or two) than the flaw in the logic is that we have missed the human element, particularly the nefarious portion there of.

    To argue that the Chinese and military versions are cheaper may well be tru, but it misses the same essential point. The other conversation that we are not having is the decommissioning costs of any given energy technology. ( and life cycle costs). PV solar has a fairly high upfront life cost, and a fairly low recycling/disposal cost (and recapturing rare earths are in the works for recycling). PV production, made with PV (or concentrated solar) makes the life cycle cost of PV much smaller.

    The first in cost of Nuke (regardless of regulator costs) is still huge, even on a per watt basis. The carbon intensity of making concrete is huge, never to be recycled in a meaningful way for but one example. The operating life cost is admittedly small, but the decommissioning cost is once again huge>.

    The long and short of it is...we don’t actually need the nuke capacity to solve the CO2 emissions, we need to first be more efficient in the way we use energy, more efficient in the way we generate and transport energy, and we need to place greater emphasis on renewables ( and storage ) that have demonstrate their viability even in today’s environment. Add it the storage and they become even more viable.

    Like I said, we probably agree on the gist of the issue, and our goals are probably compatible . We simply disagree on whether her not nukes ought to be part of the equation.

    With kindest regards,

    Icarus

  • Jamie Hall
    Jamie Hall Member Posts: 23,170
    "Unless said waste can be made “safe” in it’s own right in a matter of a short time ( a human generation or two) " -- the process (not patented or otherwise protected) takes on the order of an hour to run with a two day cool down following. It's fully scaleable. Shielding is required; it does not reduce the radioactivity. It does yield a completely (geologic time scale) stable mineral, which would require considerable effort to "undo".

    I quite totally agree on the nefarious inclinations of human nature; that's why my Swedish friend chose the subsequent career path he took, and why I have chosen my, very similar path, after retirement.

    Br. Jamie, osb
    Br. Jamie, osb
    Building superintendent/caretaker, 7200 sq. ft. historic house museum with dependencies in New England
  • Icarus
    Icarus Member Posts: 143

    Mind you, I have no great objection to political fiats; I live in a republic, and have great respect for the will of the people. That said, I have major objections to people defending political judgements and actions on the basis or "scientific" or technological comments which are either incorrect or ill-informed. If one doesn't like nuclear power because they are afraid of it, or it doesn't fits their karma, or whatever, I'm fine with that”

    This of course is a two way street. It is not that I am “afraid of nuclear power” because I am ill informed. I am afraid of it (if that is the proper word) because it hasn’t been adequately demonstrated to me that the waste issue is safe in todays environment (political and other wise)

    I concede(d) that the production technology can be made properly safe.

    Using “scientific” or “technological” comments do indeed work in both directions. When I point out that stats that Nuke grid MWH cost is nearly compatible with wind and PV, leave it to someone to quickly point out that in the range I used (~$96 mwh for nuke/$64-130 for solar) that $130 is clearly higher ergo my argument is “wrong”. Fact is, it is not wrong, AND PV continues to fall while I don’t thing the same can be said for Nukes.

    I’m sure you are aware of the wind situation in Texas. Right now there is so much wind (not counting any undeveloped potential) at certain times, particularly at night, where the producer has to PAY to “sell” it’s power to the grid. This is an embarrassment of riches and proves the point that we have plenty of energy, we simply have a storage issue.

    Once again, not to beat that dead horse, it would seem that PV solar and wind are pretty mature technology, with a virtually unlimited capacity to generate grid power in a disaggregated way. We need to spend our R&D $$$ coming up with better/cheaper/more environmentally friendly storage. As I side note, I just read about a beta project to turn excess wind into hydrogen for fuel, AND combine it with CO2 out of the atmosphere to make “carbon neutral” transport fuel.

    Icarus
  • gfrbrookline
    gfrbrookline Member Posts: 753
    @Icarus I like the idea of solar but given the cloud cover we have in New England most of the winter not sure it is viable to sustain the demand during the heating season. Energy would likely have to be brought in from other parts of the country which adds to the already high cost of electricity in the Boston area.
  • Jamie Hall
    Jamie Hall Member Posts: 23,170

    @Icarus I like the idea of solar but given the cloud cover we have in New England most of the winter not sure it is viable to sustain the demand during the heating season. Energy would likely have to be brought in from other parts of the country which adds to the already high cost of electricity in the Boston area.

    This is one of the key points -- if not the key point -- which is often missed, perhaps by all of us who genuinely care: no one technology is going to be best -- or even feasible -- everywhere. Wind in the Dakotas? Sure. Sun and wind in Texas, and California? Just find a good way to store it. Sun or wind in New York and New England? Um... perhaps not. Sun in the winter in the UK or Scandinavia? Complete non-starter, though North Sea wind is helpful. And so on and on and on. Pick the best technology from the whole range. Nothing should be overlooked or shunted aside.
    Br. Jamie, osb
    Building superintendent/caretaker, 7200 sq. ft. historic house museum with dependencies in New England
  • Icarus
    Icarus Member Posts: 143
    edited December 2019
    ^Not that you asked...but for Boston MA an average 5 KW PV installation will yield ~6400kwh/yr. ~4-500 kWh per month in Dec, Jan, Feb.

    https://pvwatts.nrel.gov/pvwatts.php

    Now no one is arguing that simple solar is the panacea that will solve all the woes we have but...introducing any and all solar to the grid reduces the need to produce from other sources. And in wind (which for instance in Maine is abundant in the winter, and is tied to the regional NE grid btw) and renewables take up some slack, reducing the need for fuel fired generators, and to some extent seasonal need of Quebec Hydro.

    Energy is already brought in to the region adding to the cost, so to suggest that adding solar would INCREASE the amount brought in is fallacious.

    An interesting side note about winter solar production. Contrary to popular (ill informed?) perception, all things being equal, solar panel production goes up as the temperature goes down and vise versa. Winter harvests of course are smaller due to the shorter days and localized weather, but colder temps off set some of that loss, plus there is the potential for increase harvest simply because of reflection off of snow on the ground.

    I have 20 years worth of documentation on my own off grid PV system, in Northern Canada, as well as some history in both Maine and the notoriously cloudy Pacific N.W. In the winter, at -20 with clear sky’s my production is nearly twice what it is in summer (not total, but at peak hours.)

    Also it is a misconception that solar production drops to nothing in cloudy weather. Just looking at my grid tie stat now, real time, I see production of ~1/3 of name plate rating, with a fairly think overcast ~2kw production from 6.2 kw PV. On the best summer day, I will see ~80% or 4.9 kw.

    Icarus

    PS at the current meter rate in MA of ~$.15 kwh, the above mentioned 6400 kwh is worth ~$960 per year.

    5 KW installed PV at the national average (can’t speak to Boston in particular) of $2/watt would be ~$10,000, take off next years 26% federal tax credit and that drops the install cost to ~$7,400 a pay off rate of ~7.7 years, not factoring in any inflation. A fairly good investment in my world, considering the hardware costs have a life cycle of at least 10-15 years for the electronics (inverters/optimizers etc) and the PV should last AT LEAST 25 years. I am currently using some 30 year old obsolete panels on a small off grid installation and they are producing nearly 100% or STC rating still.
  • Icarus
    Icarus Member Posts: 143

    “I quite totally agree on the nefarious inclinations of human nature; that's why my Swedish friend chose the subsequent career path he took, and why I have chosen my, very similar path, after retirement.”

    And there, is the inherent fatal flaw in any (current) nuke storage scheme. Coming from an obviously learned person....

    With kindest regards.

    Icarus
  • Sal Santamaura
    Sal Santamaura Member Posts: 529
    Lots of discussion in this thread about lack of grid capacity in southern New England. May I point out that a number of projects intended to transmit hydro-generated MW from Quebec have been proposed. One, through New Hampshire, which would have provided no benefit to New Hampshire, was defeated when its proposers refused to underground the line. Another is currently being attempted in Maine. It too is seeing resistance (sorry for the pun) as a result of refusal to underground.

    It seems to me that those who desire more electrical capacity in pursuit of carbon emission reduction ought be willing to pay the higher price of avoiding more landscape-desecrating towers. Whether those costs should be borne by southern New England electricity ratepayers, taxpayers, or some combination is a matter worthy of debate. What isn't is that those of you with children will leave them a cost in reduced health/livability if climate change doesn't get addressed.
    Intplm.Brewbeer
  • Icarus
    Icarus Member Posts: 143
    ^couldn’t agree more. As a part time resident of Maine I know this issue well!
    Icarus
    Sal Santamaura
  • Icarus
    Icarus Member Posts: 143

    @Icarus I like the idea of solar but given the cloud cover we have in New England most of the winter not sure it is viable to sustain the demand during the heating season. Energy would likely have to be brought in from other parts of the country which adds to the already high cost of electricity in the Boston area.

    This is one of the key points -- if not the key point -- which is often missed, perhaps by all of us who genuinely care: no one technology is going to be best -- or even feasible -- everywhere. Wind in the Dakotas? Sure. Sun and wind in Texas, and California? Just find a good way to store it. Sun or wind in New York and New England? Um... perhaps not. Sun in the winter in the UK or Scandinavia? Complete non-starter, though North Sea wind is helpful. And so on and on and on. Pick the best technology from the whole range. Nothing should be overlooked or shunted aside.

    Actually, as the wind technology evolves, efficiencies have gone up dramatically, as costs have come down. Northern NE and far upstate NY is a treasure trove of potential wind generation sites. Perhaps the biggest hang up is NIMBYism, people, especially people who have never spent time within site of a wind farm “don’t want to spoil the “pristine” view”. To wit I say, what will climate change or coal fired generation do to your “pristine” view.

    This is closely followed by the ignoramous statements about wind, that are simply not born out in fact. (Like wind turbines causing cancer), closely followed by the straw man that wind turbines kill birds. Yes, wind turbines do kill birds, but technology has evolved such that the slower turning, larger diameter turbines have a much lower bird mortality than farms of old, like Altemount Pass. Yes wind turbines kill birds, but the number is dwarfed (by a whole bunch of orders of magnitudes) that are killed by domestic Cats! I don’t hear a lot of brew ha ha about euthanizing cats to save birds. Also, large (especially lighted) glass walled building are huge bird killers, especially on migratory paths.


    ”Wind turbines kill between 214,000 and 368,000 birds annually — a small fraction compared with the estimated 6.8 million fatalities from collisions with cell and radio towers and the 1.4 billion to 3.7 billion deaths from cats, according to the peer-reviewed study by two federal scientists and the environmental consulting firm West Inc.”

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/09/15/wind-turbines-kill-fewer-birds-than-cell-towers-cats/15683843/

    I don’t hear a lot of people willing to throw away their cell phones! (Not to mention the number of birds that are killed or are at risk due to climate change, emissions from coal plants (or nat gas fired plants/fuel/crude oil spills etc). Context matters folks!

    The bottom line, if we are to actually make progress on reducing carbon (in spite of those who don’t think we need (or can afford to) we will need to embrace all of the above renewable technology, and indeed it will be much cheaper to pay for that embrace now than a generation on if indeed it will be possible.

    Icarus
  • Jamie Hall
    Jamie Hall Member Posts: 23,170
    I should know better at my age than to get into these debates. Perhaps one can see why my geophysicist friend took Holy Orders, and I have become an Oblate of Saint Benedict -- to be in the world, but not of it. Peace to you all...

    Br. Jamie, osb
    Br. Jamie, osb
    Building superintendent/caretaker, 7200 sq. ft. historic house museum with dependencies in New England
  • Icarus
    Icarus Member Posts: 143
    Jamie,

    While I empathize with not wanting to “get into these debates” a lively debate exercised with civility is an option not only impart opinion and knowledge, but also to learn something new. Those amongst us who know it all are doomed, and those who fail to listen to reasoned debate (especially that which is counter to our individual world view) are doomed to remain ignorant.

    I run from a “glass half full guy” to a “glass half empty guy” depending on my mood, and subject.

    Peace be with you too brother....

    Regardless of what we believe, tis the season of love and respect across beliefs.

    Icarus
    Larry Weingarten
  • Jamie Hall
    Jamie Hall Member Posts: 23,170
    Br. Jamie, osb
    Building superintendent/caretaker, 7200 sq. ft. historic house museum with dependencies in New England
  • Icarus
    Icarus Member Posts: 143
    Sorry, but if you know anything about Doug Ford, you would be leery of anything he touches.
  • jumper
    jumper Member Posts: 2,230
    Somebody should do some arithmetic. How much electricity to replace all combustion? How long will uranium and thorium last if atomic energy replaces all fossil fuel? Will mankind eventually need to import energy from space? Will we need to spend energy to cool Earth?

    Alternatively we can regress back to stone age?
  • Larry Weingarten
    Larry Weingarten Member Posts: 3,273
    Hello @jumper, I'd suggest that alternatively we can look seriously at efficiency. It remains largely an untapped resource. o:)

    Yours, Larry
  • Brewbeer
    Brewbeer Member Posts: 616
    edited December 2019


    How much new construction is in Brookline anyway?

    This.
    Brookline the closest town to Boston, and is completely built out. If there is new construction going on, it's on a lot that had a house that had to be removed, and the project price tag is north of $1M.
    This is a symbolic gesture by every measure.
    Hydronics inspired homeowner with self-designed high efficiency low temperature baseboard system and professionally installed mod-con boiler with indirect DHW. My system design thread: http://forum.heatinghelp.com/discussion/154385
    System Photo: https://us.v-cdn.net/5021738/uploads/FileUpload/79/451e1f19a1e5b345e0951fbe1ff6ca.jpg
    Intplm.
  • Icarus
    Icarus Member Posts: 143

    Hello @jumper, I'd suggest that alternatively we can look seriously at efficiency. It remains largely an untapped resource. o:)

    Yours, Larry

    The energy you safe is your cheapest energy “production” dollar.

    How long does it take to pay off doubled attic insulation compared to buying oil/nat gas/ electric etc?

    Icarus
  • Sal Santamaura
    Sal Santamaura Member Posts: 529
    edited December 2019
    jumper said:

    ...Will mankind eventually need to import energy from space?...

    Not "eventually." Now. We're already doing that. Nuclear energy. It's called "solar." Wind is solar too. :)

    We just need to do a lot more of it.
    Icarus
  • Jamie Hall
    Jamie Hall Member Posts: 23,170
    edited December 2019
    To go off in a political direction here -- which I don't like to do, but someone did bring up Doug Ford -- many of you are still thinking entirely of First World suburban pleasant climate solutions. Don't. You're outnumbered.

    To put it simply: 1. It is necessary to move mankind -- all of it -- to as near a true zero carbon energy system as possible, and do it quickly
    2. Any solution must take care, equally, of the Cree in Quebec and the East Indian in Delhi or the Bangladeshi in Dhaka and the posh in greater San Francisco or New York, and must provide equal opportunity for all, if not equal outcomes.
    3. Any solution must have minimal impact on the land and the oceans [no hydro, no huge coastal wind farms, no thousand hectare solar arrays on agricultural land -- or wild land, for that matter, etc.]
    4. To do this is technologically feasible on a time line of 20 to 30 years.
    5. the obstacles to doing this are primarily political, and centred in First World countries.

    Now. Go thou and do something about it.
    Br. Jamie, osb
    Building superintendent/caretaker, 7200 sq. ft. historic house museum with dependencies in New England
    Intplm.
  • Sal Santamaura
    Sal Santamaura Member Posts: 529

    ...Any solution must have minimal impact on the land and the oceans [no hydro, no huge coastal wind farms, no thousand hectare solar arrays on agricultural land -- or wild land, for that matter, etc.]...

    I'm about as rabid an environmentalist and lover of wilderness as anyone. See my comment about undergrounding transmission lines above. In the 1970s, I embraced the proposal IEEE documented for a constellation of solar power collection satellites, transmitting to large terrestrial rectenna arrrays.

    Given today's alternative scenario, i.e. destruction of ecosystems/species by unchecked global warming, and considering that nuclear-powered electricity generation -- designed, run and mismanaged by humans -- has a proven track record of creating both short-term and long-term disasters, hydro, huge coastal wind farms and thousand-acre solar arrays on agricultural/wild land seem like very acceptable solutions. Perhaps the least bad ones available. On the other hand, I have no children, so perhaps I should selfishly continue to enjoy the wind turbine-free view at the beach, wild rivers and empty spaces, not worrying about how others' progeny will survive.

    ...To do this is technologically feasible on a time line of 20 to 30 years...

    We've ignored the problem nearly twice as long as that already. Remaining time to act decisively is less than 10 years.

    Perhaps the Greta Thunbergs of the world will be effective. After nearly seven decades of life, my motto is "a pessimist is never disappointed, only pleasantly surprised." It's good to be old and childless.
  • Icarus
    Icarus Member Posts: 143
    Jaime, Once again, we agree in principle (except for the nukes thing). You are however missing a couple of essential elements. First, the environmental/social damage of already built hydro is already a fact, and to suggest “not using it” makes little sense. As for “thousands of hectares” of solar on agricultural land...if you actually do the numbers, there is no need to do such a thing.

    For example, if we were to go 100% solar (and no one is suggesting that solar is the ONLY alternative, ergo that is not a reasonable goal, but non the less, existing roof structure in already built houses gets us to ~50%. Add in commercial roof tops, pole mounts on utility poles and towers that already exist, and guess what? You are there.

    https://offgridworld.com/how-much-land-would-it-take-to-power-the-usa-with-solar-energy/


    Finally, to discount wind is also silly imho. Once again, disaggregated production has little impact on essential issues of off shore or inland wind. I encourage you to visit some of the large wind farms in Eastern Washington, (or Texas or North Dakota for that matter) and then claim that their net impact either on view corridors or the general landscape is negative.

    Clinging to your faith in nukes, you fail to address the essential issue of waste previously discussed, but you also don’t discuss the impact of mine and refining nuclear fuel.

    uranium mining impact on environment

    To put it bluntly...aint nothing free. We have to chose the least worst alternative if we wish to continue with a similar energy global consumption foot print. While it would be nice to consider that we could drop consumption by 1/2, with economies in the developing world growing as they are along with energy use, it isn’t going to happen soon.

    With kindest regards, doing something about it...

    Icarus
  • Intplm.
    Intplm. Member Posts: 1,883
    Simply put....We need a twenty to fifty? year plan to set things in motion. The plan needs to be implemented in steps over time.

    Other countries are doing this now. Some started some twenty five years ago.
    We need to do this too. And we haven't yet.
    Why not do it..... Its progress in the right direction.
  • Jamie Hall
    Jamie Hall Member Posts: 23,170
    Intplm. said:

    Simply put....We need a twenty to fifty? year plan to set things in motion. The plan needs to be implemented in steps over time.

    Other countries are doing this now. Some started some twenty five years ago.
    We need to do this too. And we haven't yet.
    Why not do it..... Its progress in the right direction.

    Correct. I'm not saying you have to do it this way, or you can't possibly to it that way. Just kindly put down the bullhorns and stop marching and mugging for the media and DO SOMETHING.
    Br. Jamie, osb
    Building superintendent/caretaker, 7200 sq. ft. historic house museum with dependencies in New England
    Intplm.
  • jumper
    jumper Member Posts: 2,230
    So far nobody here has provided numbers except for net zero. Which I think is fantasy. Unless I slipped some decimals; my calculations are that current fossil fuel consumption equates to trillions of kilowatts. Current world electric capacity is a few billion kilowatts. So replacing current fossil energy requires production and distribution facilities a hundred times what has been built over past hundred years.
  • Intplm.
    Intplm. Member Posts: 1,883

    Intplm. said:

    Simply put....We need a twenty to fifty? year plan to set things in motion. The plan needs to be implemented in steps over time.

    Other countries are doing this now. Some started some twenty five years ago.
    We need to do this too. And we haven't yet.
    Why not do it..... Its progress in the right direction.

    Correct. I'm not saying you have to do it this way, or you can't possibly to it that way. Just kindly put down the bullhorns and stop marching and mugging for the media and DO SOMETHING.
    I agree. Whole heartedly!
  • Icarus
    Icarus Member Posts: 143
    jumper said:

    So far nobody here has provided numbers except for net zero. Which I think is fantasy. Unless I slipped some decimals; my calculations are that current fossil fuel consumption equates to trillions of kilowatts. Current world electric capacity is a few billion kilowatts. So replacing current fossil energy requires production and distribution facilities a hundred times what has been built over past hundred years.

    Or... a robust program to reduce use through efficiency. Clearly, we have see leaps and bounds of efficiencies through out much of the energy use sectors in the last generation (when it has been adopted). As I have said, your cheapest energy dollar is the one spent on conservation.

    Currently the world consumes ~15 TWs of energy per year.
    By most accounts the surface of the earth receives several times more than that each day! Once again, no one is suggesting that we could (or should) harvest ALL of that, but clearly there is no shortage of energy on the globe. What there is a a shortage of is the ability to capture, move and store clean(er) energy. That, folks is the key (along with conservation/population control etc) to securing the planet’s future.

    As Brother Jamie wisely suggests... just do SOMETHING! IN fact we don’t have to wait for the “government to do something”, individual acts (both good and bad!) can and do have an effect.

    Am I under the delusion that the 4 grid tie solar systems I have pushed for and gotten installed this year, along with 4 heat pump conversions from either resistance electric or gas/lp, or the multiple energy audit reports I have written for clients with suggestions for “cost” effective conservation etc going to “save the world”? Of course not. What I do believe to believe, that by leading by example, “converting” people to a different way of thinking, and then having them realize how well it works for them (and the planet) the chances of them telling someone else, telling someone else etc grows exponentially.

    Being a “hard core” solar advocate (ad nausium some would say) I have personally convince at least 30 homeowners over the years to install PV solar. (And no, I don’t get a commission!). Have they in turn pushed it onto other people? I hope (and would think) so.

    Just as a side note. People are lazy, and entropy rules often. We all know that there are some very simple changes we can do that can create significant energy savings, dollar wise and CO2 wise. I have a client, that I am consulting with to do some grid tie solar on a large, scattered facility. (Multiple buildings over fairly wide acreage...a summer camp/environmental education facility.). I looked at their usage, and asked what they had done for energy audit/conservation? I was met with blank stare. I did a quick (at the table)calc, showing that if they simply replaced an estimated 150 watt conventional incandescent bulbs with LEDs the net cost (after utility rebates) would be $75, and the net energy savings in the first year alone would be over $200! The point was, no one had ever even though about looking at the low hanging fruit, even though these are smart folks involved in environmental issues. It just illustrates how far we can go if everyday people get involved.

    Icarus