New York City's electricfication program for Heat

ChicagoCooperator

I'm going to throw out a bunch of random thoughts on this thread and see what sticks:

1. It would have been interesting had subway systems (not just NYC) kept their own power plants and used them for district heating (using the waste heat).
2. I understand that a lot of large NYC complexes have co-generation in some form - when there were blackouts they had heat, power, ac, etc (I think Co-Op City is an example and there are some in Queens and Manhattan- you guys there probably know better than I).
3. ConEd had an "all electric tenement" program of renovations in the 60's - I've seen plans for the units. They were bragging about the thermopane windows, etc.
4. IIRC Berkeley CA actually banned all gas in new construction including cooking.
5. Some interesting tidbits from Sweden, which has very high penetration of district heating (even newly built ranch houses get connected in suburban areas). A lot of the heating plants are co-generation that also provide electricity, often burning trash, which has to be imported because Swedes are so diligent about recycling. They have really been extending the networks since the 90's - single family houses before then (at least in urban areas) used oil for central heating, or electric panel radiators or even wood. New houses are extremely efficient and can get most of their heat from appliances, body heat, solar (non-solar houses, btw) and use an exhaust air heat exchanger to provide the remainder - often hydronic these days or else they tie into the district heating system. There was even district heating provided in the Stockholm suburb of Farsta (late 50's/early 60's subway suburb) with waste heat from a small experimental atomic reactor.

Jamie Hall

All good points, @ChicagoCooperator . There is a lot that could be done where the population and building density is high enough, and where the stock of older buildings either lends itself well to upgrading -- or tear down and rebuild.

District heating and cooling as a co-gen (like the Ravenswood plant I mentioned earlier) is very promising, for instance -- assuming it remains possible to use high energy density fuel or becomes possible to use nuclear, neither of which is assured.

The problems really show up in more rural areas, and it is a little discouraging to realise how little attention is applied to them (though not surprising).

ethicalpaul

Do they want attention in the rural areas? Not from what I've seen. They don't want anyone telling them they can't burn their garbage in the backyard.

Jamie Hall

ethicalpaul said:

Do they want attention in the rural areas? Not from what I've seen. They don't want anyone telling them they can't burn their garbage in the backyard.

No, in general, they don't. However, if the folks in the cities and suburbs and their politicians decide that a state-wide mandate is just the thing, they can't avoid it, can they? It would be helpful if they could have some input, but... good luck with that.

jumper

Another aspect of electrifying is metering. In buildings without individual meters there'll be waste there too. Thermostat up; windows open.

JUGHNE

I am pretty rural and although we do not burn garbage in our village, we could if the incinerator has approved lid/screen.
We do not because of curtesy and peer pressure from the neighbors.
35 years ago most people had a "burn barrel" which ended up smoldering all day long...think wet pampers.
We finally contracted with a garbage/waste company and most people were happy to just send things away.
Since then we have our own village owned service.
The compactor truck will pick up then haul 30 miles to a tipping station. We pay by weight for this service.
The tipping station then reloads and hauls about 140 miles to a proper landfill.
We have a recycling center to reduce the curb side pick up weight. We have a bale compactor and sell cardboard, paper, milk jug plastics, and steel cans.
They also accept glass and pay less to have someone come and get it than we would pay the tipping station for the added weight.
The recycling building was built with a state grant.
The recycling effort is all voluntary and seems to work out.
I don't think many people are aware of the cost savings of keeping things out of the landfill stream.
But they just do it because of the touchy feely greenness of it all.

We end up with two compactor waste trucks and one more full time village employee.

If you are re-shingling your roof, the second compactor truck can be parked at your house for that refuse to be loaded. The roofers can run the compactor as needed. The truck is weighted in and out and you pay for the tipping fee. This saves time as handling the old roofing material is done only once.

Jamie Hall

Sounds very much like the way we operate around here, @JUGHNE . Folks have a choice of having a pickup service or taking their own stuff to the recycling center, and it's surprising how many people do that. Our recycling center is very fair -- and cheap (there is a fee, but reasonable). Best part of it is that it runs a second hand goods flea market -- and it's amazing what you can pick up there, pennies on the dollar.

JUGHNE

Here every household within the village limits pay $18.80 per month. A very large container is furnished.....tough to fill every week. A central dumpster is available for excess.
This is a mandatory fee to be paid.

kenjohnson

I will remind all that I am not a trade professional, just a mid-50s engineering-educated person who has learned a lot from this site and doesn't consider myself better than the knowledgeable tradespeople who post on this site or better than people with less education than myself. The knowledge and help gleaned from this site has enabled me to design and install a perfectly functional radiant heating system in a home I hope to move into in the next few months.

The original thread started as a conversation about electric systems replacing steam systems for heat. I can only imagine a world in 20 or 30 years where the number of knowledgeable steam heating experts is a lot fewer than today, and perhaps at that time getting a steam system repaired or tuned correctly might be as difficult as getting a carburetor rebuilt today.

I have a few replies that I hope will just spark more honest conversation and not lead to any angry rants.

The Steam Whisperer said:

Yeah, electric cars. Let's replace one 30% efficient power source ( IC engines) with another 30% efficient power source ( electricity), instead of moving to a 50% efficient power source ( diesel engines) or maybe even better diesel/electric like the railroads started using 60 years ago.

I'd say this pessimistically underestimates today's electric generation efficiencies and optimistically overestimates most diesel engine efficiencies. A thermal coal electric plant built 40 years ago is in the low 30s for efficiency, but natural gas (overall) is 44% and newer CCHP plants are higher (if you can make use of the waste heat). See https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_01.html and https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_02.html. You have to convert input BTUs to kWh using 3414 BTUs/kWH. My wife's 2015 Golf TDI was pretty thrifty on diesel, but not 50% efficient or she would have been getting more like 75 mpg instead of 50 mpg. I'd guess her real-world efficiency in a small diesel engine was 30% or so, still better than a gas engine. Perhaps big trucks or ship diesels get 50% efficiency. An electric motor in a vehicle is about 95% efficient, so there are real gains to be had in efficiencies as the power sources move towards more efficient and/or more distributed (e.g., solar PV) electric sources.

ratio said:

All my electric-car-driving buddies get mad at me when I call their car a coal burner...

More than likely that's because it's not a coal burner. Last year (2019) coal was the source for only 23% of the electricity produced in the US, and the rate has been falling for years (from a peak of around 50% 20 or so years ago). This year, it will be about 20%. In Central NY, 85% of our electricity comes from renewables (hydropower or wind) or nuclear when it is not coming from my solar panels. The trend of falling coal consumption is true in every US state. See this interactive graphic https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/10/28/climate/how-electricity-generation-changed-in-your-state-election.html

The Steam Whisperer said:

U. S. Citizens are addicted to energy use, even when it a detriment to thier own financial and ultimately physical health, due to cultural myths and sales tactics that support completely nonsensical energy usage

US total electricity use has essentially flat-lined since 2007 (3764 million kWh) through 2019 (3811 million kWh) despite continuous economic growth (i.e., GDP $ per kWh improved). See https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/topic/5?agg=0,1&geo=g&endsec=vg&linechart=ELEC.SALES.US-ALL.A~ELEC.SALES.US-RES.A~ELEC.SALES.US-COM.A~ELEC.SALES.US-IND.A&columnchart=ELEC.SALES.US-ALL.A~ELEC.SALES.US-RES.A~ELEC.SALES.US-COM.A~ELEC.SALES.US-IND.A&map=ELEC.SALES.US-ALL.A&freq=A&start=2001&end=2019&ctype=linechart&ltype=pin&rtype=s&pin=&rse=0&maptype=0

Jamie Hall said:

What is needed -- and is entirely feasible in regards to energy usage -- is a thoroughly reasoned and engineered approach which accomplishes the desired (and highly desirable) end of reducing a whole variety of environmental and health problems without penalising anyone more than the absolute minimum required.

What annoys me is that it can be done, without hair shirts and fines, without making life more miserable for the people who depend on modern transportation or live in dense cities or rural areas, without condemning huge swathes of the world's population to a permanent low standard of living. Without great chest thumpings and virtue signalling by a remarkably entitled but relatively small group...

I completely agree with Jamie Hall. It can be done. There is no one good solution for everyone and for all regions. It would be great if all parties (from liberal elites to rural conservatives and everybody in between) could come up with ideas that work for everyone instead of just hearing the worst of what the other side says. I am hopeful - Iowa and other midwestern states get an insane amount of electricity from wind power nowadays - and coal usage has dropped there considerably. Clearly, there are some things that everyone can agree on.

SlamDunk said:

I believe it would make very good environmental sense to legislate all electric homes/ buildings, but it wouldn't make great economic sense. Whole populations would would have to find new work.

Yes, this is the brutality of modern capitalism. Nobody seems to care about this except when it is their own line of work at stake. But the notion that the fossil fuel industry is responsible for 75% of our economy - this is patently not true. Even the American Petroleum Institute only claims 8% (since this is about 1/10th the earlier claim, I'll leave it at that - it could be even less).

Jamie Hall said:

Let us consider just one generating plant in one city: Big Allis (the Ravenswood Generating Station). Big Allis turns out 2,850 megawatts of power, about a fifth of New York's current power requirements. A brief stint with paper and pencil shows that to produce the equivalent power from solar photovoltaics would take about 40 square miles of land completely covered with panels. To produce all of New York's current electric power would take 200 square miles. More or less.

I don't think anyone is practically proposing solar PV as the solution for the majority of NY City's electricity needs. The many GW of offshore wind developments being planned for coastal NY state would greatly exceed the output of the Ravenswood plant and spin more reliably (with less downtime) than onshore wind plants. Given also that 80% of NY City's electricity generation must come from within the city, there will still be a need for conventional generation plants in this location. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't plan for other renewable generation as well.

The Steam Whisperer

Ken.... I appreciate the input, but the efficiency of electricity is not just the efficiency of the generation plant but the efficiency from the generating heat source to what comes out of the socket. You also need to add tranformer/transmission losses ( from 5 to 15% depending on the data source) and the energy it takes to maintain the grid (and this can be significant) as another loss. If you add these into the mix, I bet you'll end up with around a 30% efficiency number. This also supports your further comment about improving efficiencies by moving the sources closer to the end uses... transmission and transformer losses can be reduced.
In the New York City Housing Authority report, the efficiency of the generating stations and grid are either ignored or assumed to be 100%. This appears to be how they come to make the statement that heat pumps are about 3 times more efficient than condensing hot water systems and 6 times more efficient thansteam systems. They also assume there is no electrical generation going on as part of the steam production process, which for those in New York City can speak to.
For the efficiency of diesels, I may have misspoke in that I was referring to turbo diesels. I was also looking at real life fuel mileage comparisons and overall system efficiences. Your VW reference is a good case in point... the gas version of the vehicle can get mid 30's mileage, while the diesel version can get 50 to mid 50's. My company runs standard full size chevy vans, the diesel versions can get as high as 33 mpg on the highway, 30 mpg is easy to get, while the gas versions get about 15 highway. City mileage is a little closer, the gas gets about 12 -13 mpg and the diesel about 20 to 21mpg. Diesel maintenance is slightly higher, ( a loss in efficiency) but engine life is usually much longer ( a gain in efficiency). In real life use, diesel use about 40% less fuel in part due to the improved efficiency, but also due to the much better match between end use ( the need for torque) and the power source ( high torque low rpm engines). This also is the same bump in performance that electric motor driven cars get.... max torque at minimum rpms.
It is good to hear that electric use has finally flat lined in the US since 2007 ( the more "progressive" California electricity use I believe flatlined since the 1970,s however) , but when you take into account that we have had huge reduction in energy use due to the disappearance of most of our manufacturing base ( since th 1970s) , this would imply that personal energy use has increased greatly to balance the losses of manufacturing. However, historically, we, as a country, are massive energy users and would have to greatly dial back our consumption to bring it in line with other developed countries. From data I've sourced our energy use per capita is roughly double of the UK, France, and Germany, for example. Massive use of gasoline powered automobiles( instead of lower usage of more efficient diesel autos), high heating and cooling load per square foot large suburban single family detached housing sprawl with inefficient heating and cooling systems (compared to mulitfamily housing with lower heating and cooling loads per square foot, higher people density, and more efficient systems), and widespread use of inefficient lighting in the US......tungsten, flouresecent, High pressure sodium, metal halide, etc. (versus LED overseas) are all drivers of enormous energy consumption in the US when compared to other countries.
My professors at IIT used to say that doubling the cost of gasoline would have a huge impact in addressing a whole host of problems the US has. The results would be a huge drop in gasoline auto miles driven and a boost in more efficient auto sales ( greatly reduced energy use and pollution output), inefficient suburban housing would be greatly curtailed ( reduced energy use and reduced pollution output), lower taxes (because of the reduction in need to build more roads constantly), the potential wiping out of malls and Walmarts and the return to more efficient and community supporting local business, and I am sure many others.

Jamie Hall

Just as sort of an aside here -- this is an excellent and fascinating discussion! -- one of the minor details regarding offshore wind generation is... maintenance. Most folks have an image of the ocean which revolves around azure seas and gentle swells, sunshine and peaceful breezes. The winter North Atlantic isn't quite that way. Just like a boiler on land, things are most likely to go sour at oh dark hundred on a winter morning, with 40 mph winds and breaking seas running 20 to 30 feet. Or more. I've sailed under those conditions, and I'd no more consider approaching a more or less fixed structure in open water then than ... I don't know what. Not that it can't be done -- lifeboat crews do some pretty amazing stuff, at great risk to life, but... uh, no. And landing a repair crew in those conditions by helicopter would be just insane. Something breaks under those conditions, it's going to stay broke until spring!

JUGHNE

As a country we have been labeled the energy hog per capita.

Not taken into consideration is the production of food stuffs, particularly grains, for the most part, we always have excess to export.

Then the military, cursed by those who take them for granted,
and greatly apricated by those in need.

These remarks are not meant to start a debate, rather just stating facts.

Robert O'Brien

Just got my bill today. 23.2 cents/kwh on Long Island

The Steam Whisperer

I just looked up the energy consumption of the US military and farming. US military 1% and farming 2% of total US consumption.

JUGHNE

So we do a lot for the 3% spent.
(Considering electric distribution is 10-15% line loss).
Any info on where the other slices of the pie go?

kenjohnson

The Steam Whisperer said:

Ken.... I appreciate the input, but the efficiency of electricity is not just the efficiency of the generation plant but the efficiency from the generating heat source to what comes out of the socket. You also need to add tranformer/transmission losses ( from 5 to 15% depending on the data source) and the energy it takes to maintain the grid (and this can be significant) as another loss. If you add these into the mix, I bet you'll end up with around a 30% efficiency number. This also supports your further comment about improving efficiencies by moving the sources closer to the end uses... transmission and transformer losses can be reduced.

EIA indicates 5% T&D losses, and I've read 7% from other sources. I've never seen anything as high as 15%. You can reference state by state date through this link https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=105&t=3

Regardless, I agree with your premise that overall efficiency is slightly reduced by the T&D losses, but a 5% loss on a 44% efficient generator is not 39% efficiency, if would be 0.95*.44 or about 42% efficiency. It's not enough to change the basic assumption that new gas generation, transmission and distribution is much higher than overall 30% or so efficient.

The Steam Whisperer said:

the efficiency of diesels, I may have misspoke in that I was referring to turbo diesels. I was also looking at real life fuel mileage comparisons and overall system efficiences. Your VW reference is a good case in point... the gas version of the vehicle can get mid 30's mileage, while the diesel version can get 50 to mid 50's.

My wife's gas Golf gets 44 mpg when driven comparable to how her TDI got 55 mpg. So that is a 20% improvement for diesel on a per gallon basis. But diesel has 140,000 BTUs/gallon while gasoline has 120,000 BTUs/gallon, so on a per BTU basis, the diesel is really not all that much more efficient (0.393 miles/kBTU vs. 0.367 miles/kBTU) - only 7% more efficient on a per BTU (and per dollar) basis, something I always tried to help my wife understand but all she cared about was MPG.

OK, having said that, the diesel TDI was about the most perfect car for the money I think could be purchased. Nice torque delivery at low RPM, and smooth to higher RPMs, and amazing torque that required zero transmission hunting during normal driving. It really miss that car - the gas TSI version is no match.

The Steam Whisperer said:

but when you take into account that we have had huge reduction in energy use due to the disappearance of most of our manufacturing base ( since th 1970s) , this would imply that personal energy use has increased greatly to balance the losses of manufacturing. However, historically, we, as a country, are massive energy users and would have to greatly dial back our consumption to bring it in line with other developed countries.

My data was just electricity use, not total energy use. I agree that we are a more energy-intensive society than many others, and that some of our energy efficiencies in the last 30 years (or more) have come about because we have exported our energy intensive industries. My point was more about the electricity grid likely having capability to continue to adapt to increased electricity needs as once fossil-based applications convert to electricity (e.g., home heating), especially when we consider that wintertime electric peaks are (at least for now) much less than summer peaks. This isn't to say that some regions of the country might not be able to handle the new demands without significant T&D upgrades.

The Steam Whisperer

Don't forget too, that you also have to discount the efficiency of the electrical grid by the efficiency of the gas grid ( it used to be in the low to mid 80% I believe) and, of course, most of our generation is not new gas plants, so average generation efficiency is lower.

Also, I am not sure how much more efficient diesel production is than gasoline production, but I understand it requires less refining.
I love this Diesel full size van. It gets about the same mileage on the highway as my 98 escort.

jumper

Heat is essential. Black Swan will happen. Prudent building owners have emergency generators with fuel stored on site.

>>•Going back to sixties Ontario Hydro ran out of hydropower so it had to build thermal. Choices were oil,coal and atomic in those days. Hydro chose all three because for something as critical as electricity you avoid putting all eggs in one basket. Now solar requires backup for reliability. How many rainy days can battery handle? Well then maintain a ready to go NG facility? Duplicative expense? Prudent planners require backup for NG because if gas supply is interrupted lights go out. The backup for NG is coal. A power plant can easily store months of coal on site. A nuke can easily maintain years of fuel on site. Therefore atomic power is the first way to go toward eventual electrification. No carbon plus reliability. <<

The Steam Whisperer

Jugne.... Here's a link... the scary one is transportation....
https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/flow/css_2018_energy.pdf

Of course with any data you have to consider the source.

Steamhead

The Steam Whisperer said:

In the New York City Housing Authority report, the efficiency of the generating stations and grid are either ignored or assumed to be 100%. This appears to be how they come to make the statement that heat pumps are about 3 times more efficient than condensing hot water systems and 6 times more efficient thansteam systems. They also assume there is no electrical generation going on as part of the steam production process, which for those in New York City can speak to.

Looks like another example of massaging statistics to support a pre-determined conclusion.

Someone stands to make a lot of money from this sort of electrification push. Wonder who it is?

The Steam Whisperer

I just noticed that the above link shows Electrical grid efficiency at 33%.

Jamie Hall

Bingo, @jumper -- thank you!

Some thoughts on the electrical grid. @kenjohnson said that it was his impression that the electrical grid could handle the additional load from switching to electric heating, since the peak load is in the summer (from AC) and the winter peak wouldn't be higher.

First, I expect that the winter peak -- at least in the more northern parts of the country -- would be a lot higher. Physics has a nasty way of intruding here, and -- no matter what device you use -- it is simply going to take more energy to maintain a structure at, say, 65 when it is -5 outside than it will to maintain it at, say, 75 when it is 95 out. About three and a half times as much. That energy has to come from somewhere. Minor point.

The other minor point, which I keep hammering on, is that while it is possible (but see above) that the major interconnections can handle the proposed increase load, and even possible (though I have my doubts) the local grid in cities and suburbs can, the local grids in more rural areas can't. Consider the local road in my area. It is 5 miles long with 23 houses on it (three of them working farms). Single phase, 23 KV. 8 gauge copper. Now if we are generous, and say that that can handle 20 amperes with an acceptable voltage drop for that distance, that's 460 KW of power, or on the order of 20 KW per house. I am quite familiar with all of the properties (the three farms are fused for 40 KW; the houses for 20), and a reasonable average for the amount of power required for heating in KW, is around 60. There is something wrong with this picture. That line, in fact, would have to be upgraded by a whole megawatt.

Not to mention that the houses would have to be upgraded to 300 amp services, and the three farms to around 600 ampere services.

That line is by no means unique. I don't know the actual number, but I'd venture that there are hundreds of thousands of miles of line in exactly that situation. There are at least hundreds of thousands of houses and farms -- and even towns -- in that situation.

I have yet to see anyone coming up with a solution as to either how this work is going to get done, and certainly no solution as to exactly who is going to pay for it.

But I will say... if the city and suburban dreamers want their veggies and their milk, but don't want the country folk to use diesel, they'd best pull their thumbs out and start figuring.

kenjohnson

The Steam Whisperer said:

I just noticed that the above link shows Electrical grid efficiency at 33%.

Yep - see the note in the EIA report (pasted below, I have bold texted portions for emphasis). That calculation doesn't account for heat by-products (that positively impact efficiency) of gas CHP plants and it makes some assumptions about non-fossil fuel generation that are hard to understand. It is easy to read this as assuming they calculate solar PV as 20% efficient based on typical PV cell conversion efficiency of sunlight to electricity.

Regardless, there are large losses in the generation of electricity, but my earlier points stand - newer natural gas plants are quite a bit more efficient than older (steam generating) coal plants and renewable/distributed generation has benefits from reduced line losses (aside from other benefits). Without picking nits, it was earlier indicated that electricity delivery was 30% efficient, I said higher, and this shows 33% to be the floor overall, but probably modestly higher if they've made odd assumptions about renewables. Marginal natural gas generation added today is likely in the high 30s and low 40s.

"Note 1. Electrical System Energy Losses. Electrical system energy losses are calculated as the difference between total primary consumption by the electric power sector (see Table 2.6) and the total energy content of electricity retail sales (see Tables 7.6 and A6). Most of these losses occur at steam‐electric power plants (conventional and nuclear) in the conversion of heat energy into mechanical energy to turn electric generators. The loss is a thermodynamically necessary feature of the steam‐electric cycle. Part of the energy input‐to‐output losses is a result of imputing fossil energy equivalent inputs for hydroelectric, geothermal, solar thermal, photovoltaic, and wind energy sources. In addition to conversion losses, other losses include power plant use of electricity, transmission and distribution of electricity from power plants to end‐use consumers (also called "line losses"), and unaccounted‐for electricity. Total losses are allocated to the end‐use sectors in proportion to each sector's share of total electricity sales. Overall, about two thirds of total energy input is lost in conversion. Currently, of electricity generated, approximately 5% is lost in plant use and 7% is lost in transmission and distribution.

ChrisJ

@Jamie Hall. 
As far as the grid not being able to handle the new load, wouldn't the grid be upgraded as needed for new additions just as it always has been?

Obviously it couldn't handle it right now just as it couldn't handle the present  load of 2020 50 years ago.  

This argument seems odd to me.  They aren't setup to handle a load they don't have.  Ok. And?

Jamie Hall

Your comment would be reasonable, @ChrisJ , if we were talking about incremental change. From what I read, however, at least some folks want to force this to happen in 10 years or so. So basically they want to redo the entire local grid system, which was built, as you say, over a period of 100 years or so (the line on our road was put in in about 1935, when the highway was realigned and paved) in 10 years. Not going to happen -- and your comment doesn't answer the question about who pays for the upgrades either to the grid -- or to the individual services.

It's going to be an interesting ride, folks.

ChrisJ

Jamie Hall said:

Your comment would be reasonable, @ChrisJ , if we were talking about incremental change. From what I read, however, at least some folks want to force this to happen in 10 years or so. So basically they want to redo the entire local grid system, which was built, as you say, over a period of 100 years or so (the line on our road was put in in about 1935, when the highway was realigned and paved) in 10 years. Not going to happen -- and your comment doesn't answer the question about who pays for the upgrades either to the grid -- or to the individual services. It's going to be an interesting ride, folks.

I didn't think that question needed answering.

Isn't the grid privately owned and maintained?  The owner pays just as they always have.

"Who's going to pay for the electric company to upgrade their equipment so they can sell more electric".  Hmmm.

Solid_Fuel_Man

I'd like to see a real study of NYC's district steam efficiency. Same way the electric grid was calculated. 

Total energy in, and how much of that energy actually is used for a useful purpose (heating). 

We need to talk apples to apples here. 

We also need to take into consideration the dumped condensate, average steam system, which is admittedly of higher maintenance than any electric heat system. Electric/hear pump simply doesnt work if something is wrong. Steam will continue to work but at lower operational efficiency. 

I'm not proposing electrification, just let's get real data which is actually comparable. 

Densely populated cities lend themselves to a much lower energy consumption per capita than more rural areas. 

I too live in a very rural area, and there are many things which dont compare to urban energy use. 

Transportation is the real consumer of petroleum, and there is little we can do about that with current technology. Electric vehicles are suited for urban areas. 

I'd love to see a compact (and light) way to store all the waste heat from a vehicle and then use it for heating my home! Cogeneration for cars!

Gsmith

@Chrisj: "Isn't the grid privately owned and maintained? The owner pays just as they always have."

Actually, the users will pay. The grids are all, as far as I know, public utilities, and their investments are guaranteed to be repaid by user rates. So the users (us) have to decide if this "investment" in grid upgrades, renewable generation, etc., is worth the costs we will pay over the lo

Rusty18

Putting some numbers to the challenges of electrification and the ability of the electric grid to handle heating load. Peak summer extreme load forecast in New England is around 27 GW. If you assume this lasts for a 24 hour period (which it does not), that's just over 2.2 million MMBtu of energy. Peak daily winter New England gas demand in recent years is about 4.13 bcf/day, or over 4.2 million MMBtu. So under very conservative assumptions (full day of peak electric demand), to meet winter heating demand the electric grid needs to deliver twice the maximum energy it currently delivers. As pointed out by others it is not just about where this electricity comes from, but if the grid from transmission down to local distribution can handle it. It's pretty much impossible to permit energy infrastructure in NE anymore so upgrades would be a real challenge. And that does not even get into the costs.

In terms of coal burning EVs, where you live makes a huge difference. Electricity will continue to get cleaner, but looking at 2018 data if you live in WY your EV is straight coal: average in state generation was 2,008 lb CO2/MWh. In VT your EV is super clean at 5 lb CO2/MWh (given these numbers to not include imports).

CHP would be great but it's super difficult and expensive to put new systems in existing cities, even though it makes more sense in the long term. Co-gen also has potential outside of district heating. Gas transmission companies are exploring using waste heat from their compressor stations (these things can be over 20 MW) to generate electricity, feeding it into an electrolyzer to make hydrogen, capturing the CO2 from the compressor exhaust and using it to methanize the hydrogen and then inject the syngas back into the pipeline. Sounds crazy, but it could be happening in the next decade.

The Steam Whisperer

The other thing that I bet was left out of the efficiency number of the electrical grid was the efficiencies of the materials inputs...ie the energy needed to extract the base materials, process them, transport them, maintain the grids (ie pipelines) and power for the supporting paper pushers. We also need to add all these energy input for the electrical grid itself....power for the offices for supporting staff, repair crew, etc. These all negatively effect the overall system efficiency. I suspect this is why natural gas is so cost effective...it appears there is much less input needed for extracting and transporting the material than for other sources... and it easily burns efficiently.
I am recalling the numbers from about 30 years ago that we worked with that I believe were developed cooperatively between the City and Regional Planning Dept. and the Engineering Dept. at IIT- Chicago. Most of these pioneers in the field are all dead now. That was back when the only in depth study of overall energy use in the US had been done by Amory Lovins in the early 70's. One of the most interesting conclusions he came to, was that we could roughly cut our energy usage in half by using the appropriate input energy with the appropriate end use. I suspect that the replacement of gas powered vehicles with diesel vehicles might fall into that category. Another was probably the replacement of indirect fired electric resistance heating with direct fired heat sources.

Solid fuel man: The report does have a section on the steam system efficiency. There are some things in the number they show that I find highly suspect.

brandonf

ethicalpaul said:

Gas companies put lead in fuel, car companies went along and consumers couldn’t have cared less. Paint companies put it in their paint and kids ate it up— All to the detriment of all of our brains and well-being. 

Once a law got passed it all went away. Easy.

Lead was added for beneficial reasons. 
Lead would cushion the valve seats of the cylinder heads that were not hardened like today's engines. 
And lead in the paint made it more resilient and last longer. 
Obviously mistakes were made in hindsight. 
For what I could tell nobody back in the day thought anything of it. 
I think a lot of our pollution from decades ago is why we have so much cancer prevalent now. 
They say cancer is a 20th century disease.....

Don't mind me.  Have a lot of odd thoughts. 🤣

Jamie Hall

There is no free lunch... to which may I add my own newly coined (I think!) aphorism: it would be nice to make sure that the menu has a variety of choices.

jumper

Regarding district heating efficiency there is more to this issue than fuel cost. Firstly the low pressure turbines –and that is where bulk of energy is– are extra expensive. Secondly the condenser and cooling tower are a large proportion of power plant initial cost and maintenance. So some engineers advocate operating at back pressure and selling medium pressure steam to customers. Next question is whether thermal energy distribution is more economical or reliable than electric.

I can say that sixty years ago industrial facilities preferred steam to electric onsite. I suspect that utilities try to offer low industrial electric rates for base load. Nowadays I see refineries with huge substations as opposed to producing their own like they did decades ago. Perhaps they find that buying electricity is less expensive than operating steam equipment?

My point is that electrification is a technical question too complicated for politicians.

ratio

jumper said:

My point is that electrification is a technical question too complicated for politicians.

Since when has a politician let something as small as that stand in the way of doing what's best for us?

Jamie Hall

or at least doing what he or she thinks is best for him or her...

JUGHNE

Solid Fuel Man.....your on board storage of waste heat in a car was a Mother Earth News article some years ago.
I was a subscriber in the early days, very interesting articles.

This guy had a car or pick up, he had to commute maybe a 100 miles a day. He added a large water tank to the vehicle and used it to cool the engine. When he got home he would connect the tank to his heating system and milk btu's out of the tank for the house. How effective and efficient...don't know.
Probably eventually ruined the engine by running it too cold, there were not always follow ups on some of these ideas. Things were done with possibly some negative consequences.

There are perhaps lighter heat transfer phase change materials that might be feasible.

That magazine had a lot of thinking outside of the box ideas.
Not just a better chicken coop etc.
Still have the first 30-40 issues stored if the mice haven't found them.

Solid_Fuel_Man

@JUGHNE phase change material is, to my knowledge, the most compact heat storage. Water is far cheaper though! The thermostat keeps the engine ar the correct temperature, just as if the radiator was still there out in the frigid cold.

I believe it is sodium acetate that guys were experimenting with on a boiler forum I used to be involved with. 

JUGHNE

Most of the DIY in that magazine were on a shoestring budget.

Sal Santamaura

As follow up after ten months, what additional comments can everyone offer on this segment that aired yesterday concerning an integrated solution being installed in the Netherlands:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/the-challenge-of-retrofitting-millions-of-aging-homes-to-battle-global-warming

Jamie Hall

Nice piece. The type of thinking to which they are referring will work well enough -- given the cautions which they mention, which are mostly getting everyone on the same page and on more or less standard buildings. I'm not overly optimistic myself, however, since a great deal depends on having at least as much carrot (heavy subsidies for private building owners) as stick (or, more accurately perhaps, club -- huge property tax increases because of improvements to the building). One must also remember that this sort of thing is easier in European cities -- for two reasons. First, the populace is much more accustomed to being told what to do and how than folks in the US are, and second at least on the continent that an awful lot of the building stock is recent -- since World War II -- which makes a big difference.

I'm kind of old-fashioned, but referring to the carrot part -- it would be very nice, if the people want this sort of thing to happen (and I won't argue that they should) if those same people and their politicians would be willing to pick up the tab...