Here is what's going to replace boilers in NYC Housing

DanHolohan

Bob, I think it's best to the politics out of this. It usually sends the conversation spinning in a direction that's not helpful. Thanks, and Merry Christmas!

Jamie Hall

SuperTech said:

pecmsg said:

And they just shut down the Indian Point Plant! Where are they building the new one?

They already built it. It's on Route 22 in the Dover/Wassaic area of Dutchess county.

eh?

JUGHNE

Can you post pictures.....? ground to sky

Ironman

DanHolohan said:

Bob, I think it's best to the politics out of this. It usually sends the conversation spinning in a direction that's not helpful. Thanks, and Merry Christmas!

I’m sorry Dan. It wasn’t my intention to bring any particular political view into the discussion, but instead to remind that politicians of any persuasion put their own interests first.

Merry Christmas to you sir. You are greatly appreciated.

DanHolohan

Thanks, Bob. I appreciate you.

SlamDunk

It won't be "just solar". But enough solar can offset the need for gas powered generators. It has a ROI and then it is just upkeep costs.

It would also be hydrogen. The Hindenberg gave hydrogen a bad rap. But look at cutting edge companies like Enaptor. Small startup company but with a big future whose technology can power cars and electrify office buildings. A hydrogen powered generator in every house?

Then, next to Tesla bateries is upstart Nano Diamond Batteries. Who, if successful, will reduce our reliance on oil and dovetail nicely with solar and hydrgen power.

Nuclear is starting to look obsolete.

While people are harumphing the impracticalities of current options, there are cutting edge technologies being borne now that will end all discussions of combustion analysis.

We can't forget the number one reason for these technologies- to remove the stranglehold oil producing countries have over the West and develope stability and "Peace on Earth". These are the sugar plums dancing in my head.

Merry Christmas!

Hot_water_fan

Steamhead said:

Given the transmission-line losses, that's going to result in a net emissions increase.

@Steamhead I think that’s easily disproven if you do the math. With a 50% efficient combined cycle, a heat pump barely has to exceed a COP of 2 to be cleaner, which is easily exceeded. That’s only if the grid is 100% natural gas, which it isn’t. Heat pumps easily reduce emissions with the current grid we have and will continue to reduce them as it cleans up. 

https://blog.se.com/energy-management-energy-efficiency/2013/03/25/how-big-are-power-line-losses/

15% line losses aren’t enough to change the math. 

Gas: 1MMBtu in, .85MMBtu out. 

Electric: 1MMBtu gas in, .5MMBtu becomes electricity, .425MMBtu makes to the heat pump, 1.275MMBtu out with COP of 3. 

50% more heat using the same gas. 

Robert O'Brien

Hot_water_fan said:

Steamhead said:

Hot_water_fan said:

Given the transmission-line losses, that's going to result in a net emissions increase.

@Steamhead I think that’s easily disproven if you do the math. With a 50% efficient combined cycle, a heat pump barely has to exceed a COP of 2 to be cleaner, which is easily exceeded. That’s only if the grid is 100% natural gas, which it isn’t. Heat pumps easily reduce emissions with the current grid we have and will continue to reduce them as it cleans up. 

https://blog.se.com/energy-management-energy-efficiency/2013/03/25/how-big-are-power-line-losses/

15% line losses aren’t enough to change the math. 

Gas: 1MMBtu in, .85MMBtu out. 

Electric: 1MMBtu gas in, .5MMBtu becomes electricity, .425MMBtu makes to the heat pump, 1.275MMBtu out with COP of 3. 

50% more heat using the same gas. 

"New York City has the largest population of any city in the US, with more than 8.3 million people living there. Despite having a forward-thinking and environmentally conscious populace, NYC is still largely powered by harmful fossil fuels.

The city’s energy mix is made up of fossil fuels and non-renewable sources: 44% of power plants are powered by natural gas, 1% by coal, and 31% by nuclear energy. The state has four nuclear power plants, but one of the largest, Indian Point, which supplied 13% of the electricity used in the state in 2019, shut down one of its two reactors in 2020 and is due to close the other in 2021.

Renewable energy options in New York are growing. The EIA states that over 20% of the electricity produced comes from hydroelectric plants, with the rest being made up almost entirely by renewables such as wind and solar."

So 25% renewable and shrinking? Indian Point can't be replaced by windmills or solar panels

Steamhead

Hot_water_fan said:

Steamhead said:

Hot_water_fan said:

Given the transmission-line losses, that's going to result in a net emissions increase.

@Steamhead I think that’s easily disproven if you do the math. With a 50% efficient combined cycle, a heat pump barely has to exceed a COP of 2 to be cleaner, which is easily exceeded. That’s only if the grid is 100% natural gas, which it isn’t. Heat pumps easily reduce emissions with the current grid we have and will continue to reduce them as it cleans up. 

https://blog.se.com/energy-management-energy-efficiency/2013/03/25/how-big-are-power-line-losses/

15% line losses aren’t enough to change the math. 

Gas: 1MMBtu in, .85MMBtu out. 

Electric: 1MMBtu gas in, .5MMBtu becomes electricity, .425MMBtu makes to the heat pump, 1.275MMBtu out with COP of 3. 

50% more heat using the same gas. 

You missed the other part:

"This must not be mixed up with the efficiency of power plants like nuclear, coal-fired or natural gas turbine. These technologies are based on a thermodynamic cycle, which efficiency is in the order of 35%."

A 35% efficient power station and 15% line losses up against an 80% boiler? Even with a heat pump COP of 2, the boiler is more efficient.

Hot_water_fan

@Steamhead we’re comparing new heat pumps vs new gas plants, as switching would require new plants.  New gas plants are 50+% efficient, which is included in the calculation. 

Even with 35%, 

35% x 85% x 3 COP = 89%. This path is easily better than a boiler. I think COP of 3 is pretty low for the size of heat pumps we’re talking about here anyway, but I don’t know the exactly specs that they’re going with. 

Obviously, the grid isn’t 100% gas, so the benefits are higher than this simple calculation shows. 

The Steam Whisperer

The previous discussion of the report prepared for the NYCA covered much of this territory. The problem of the inefficiency of the electrical grid was completely ignored in the report. The City Planning professors at IIT in Chicago in cooperation with the electrical engineering department put the overall efficiency of the grid ( including generation losses) at around 33% about 40 years ago. While there have probably been some improvements, the current efficiency is probably at best around 38%. In Chicago, I would imagine that any gains due to technology have been erased by the system degrading extensively. The cost per kw /hr has remained around 10 cents for the past 40 years, so no money has been spent on maintaining the system, so Chicago has gone from one of the most reliable grids in the country to one of the least reliable.
Assuming that the grid is about 33% efficient and natural gas is used for generating electricity or for firing boilers, then a heat pump with a COP of 3 would be around the break even point. Obviously steam system losses to the outdoors need to be accounted for, but with the heat pumps you will also need to take into account reduced efficiencies due to coils fouling etc.

With the steam plant you have the potential of also generating electricity, so the efficiency of that source should greatly exceed heat pumps.

If the buildings are in such poor condition, it would seem to me that you could reduce pollution and energy costs dramatically simply repairing existing systems ( windows, weatherstripping, repairing ventilation dampers, etc) and maybe improving insulation with retrofits. At $3000.00 per room for just the PTAC unit, then the added costs of a modified window unit and then labor, I bet a whole lot more gains can be had for a fraction of the cost.
This just seems to be another repeat of the LEED building fiasco, where well constructed conventional buildings outperform buildings with all the high tech.

My approach has always been to use sound design and practice first, then add tech. I've used this very methodology for my church's building, and we've cut energy usage by more than half and still can cut it another 20% or more with projects that have a simple payback of 5 years or less. All of these gains have been using simple conventional methodologies. This has been accomplished with the same occupancy patterns, with exception of heating another 4,000 sq ft at full temperature throughout the winter which had previously been kept at setback during weekdays.

If they are really looking at going green in NYC, I suspect the biggest gains can be had in detached single family housing and in transit. The per square foot heat losses of newer well insulated detached homes are only slightly better than those of typical 1920's brick construction multi-family buildings in Chicago.

EBEBRATT-Ed

@Ironman

It's our own fault. We could force term limits on them and then things could change they would then stand up and take notice. They are supposed to be working for us but will that ever happen?

@DanHolohan

Yes I saw theat article in the the NY Post this am. 3 building with bad issues.

Jamie Hall

Nuclear is starting to look obsolete, @SlamDunk ? I think the Chinese would beg to differ, with their new design high efficiency plants. And so, since this country seems to think it's obsolete, we'll be freezing in the dark while they -- as I say -- eat our lunch. Ask the Germans how ditching nuclear for solar and wind is working out...

JDHW

Seems to me that the whole world is trying to make things greener but without any real understanding of physics.

1) if you are going after the COPs that people are latching onto then there is an assumption that the radiating devices will be operating at a much lower temperature than present heating systems. That is ok in a new-build where you can arrange for lots of insulation and use the floor as a heating surface. How do you retro-fit existing buildings? Simple enough to just make all the radiators 6-8 times bigger, might need bigger pipes/pumps for this! Domestic harmony may be challenging :-)

2) So everyone is on board with (1) and we are now pulling 2/3 of the heat for buildings from surrounding air or the ground. For ASPs what will that do to the ambient air temperature in a big, dense city? For GSPs in a city the ground will end up with permafrost. COPS fall and degree days increase because there is a bigger temp difference.

3) The maths seem to go gas power station converts 40% or gas energy to electricity take 5% off for transmission losses then multiply by COP of 3 and you are good to go. What about capturing the 60% lost energy from the gas and using that for heating. It is called district heating and it works in some parts of the world.

I really don't know what the medium term answer is but suspect that a really big re-think and massive investment will be needed. Present actions around the world are a knee-jerk reaction that will squander money and not solve the problem.

Now for the politics - I don't think that the way democracies are setup have the right goals and planning horizons to solve these big problems.

Have a good Xmas everyone. I am now switching to mince pies and wine :-)

Jamie Hall

After a bit of thought. I have a challenge for anyone truly interested in all alternate/no nuke power.

It's simple, though it may take some interesting switchgear (but switch gear which is quite obtainable), and it is this:

Convert all your energy use to renewable. You may remain connected to the grid, but only if your switchgear is arranged so that the instantaneous draw from the grid is no greater than the proportion of renewable power on the grid at that moment, and the rest at that moment is from your own renewable -- solar, wind, hydro if you have it on site (i.e., if you are drawing let's say 1 kilowatt, and the grid is 20% renewable, your on-site is providing 800 watts and you're drawing 200 watts from the grid). (actually, for switchgear considerations, I'll be generous and spare the sparkys running the grid -- you can do the sum over let's say 10 minute blocks -- so it would be, in this instance, 2 minutes connected to the grid, 8 minutes connected to your on-site)

Note that this instantaneous load, not averaged over some convenient interval.

And I do mean ALL your energy use. Lighting, cooking, heating, your truck, your significant other's car, whatever. ALL of it. No fair cheating -- your LP grill is out. So is Uber, unless they drive a Tesla. If a delivery van turns up from Amazon, figure the amount of non-renewable it's using and replace it as soon as possible (same day, certainly). Also no fair saying someone else somewhere else is compensating for you.

I'll also be generous and say you don't have to account for the rest of your carbon footprint, unless you undertake personal travel. Then you do.

And don't tell me it will be done next year, or five years down the road. Have it in operation by September.

I am very much out of patience with people -- or governments on any level -- making grand plans with 40 years horizons, or calling for technology which doesn't exist on a large scale, or pushing their consumption off on some convenient desert or wilderness area.

Hot_water_fan

3) The maths seem to go gas power station converts 40% or gas energy to electricity take 5% off for transmission losses then multiply by COP of 3 and you are good to go. What about capturing the 60% lost energy from the gas and using that for heating. It is called district heating and it works in some parts of the world.

We should do both combined heat and power district heating and heat pumps. It’s not a binary. Easily the most efficient option. 

Enjoy the wine!! 

The Steam Whisperer

Agreed, this does not have to be a binary question. At the root of the attempt to reduce emissions is that we are now producing more emissions than the environment can recycle. The key point is lost that the planet can sustain a certain amount of emissions levels and the recycle can be in balance.
WE DON'T NEED ZERO EMISSIONS TO MEET THIS GOAL! WE JUST NEED TO GET DOWN TO THE BALANCE POINT.

For existing buildings we can reduce the energy needed ( no matter what the source) by envelope repairs/ upgrades, equipment/system repairs/upgrades (ie. fix the leaking exhaust system shutters, LED bulbs), and use of passive solar techniques. This will likely get us a long way ( at least in the U. S.), where most of our buildings/systems are in very poor condition. I have seen that most of this stuff is not expensive like so many seem to say, but these upgrades generally are very cost effective in the near term (upgrading to LED lighting for most businesses is probably a 2 year payback, but is rarely implemented by businesses).
Once our structures are more efficient, then the cost of converting to different heat sources will be much less costly, because loads will be much lower.
In addition, just providing for 60% of heat loads with zero emission equipment will provide for 90% of the savings in emissions. Fossil fuel systems can provide the last 10%.

To reduce emissions, we have to direct resources to the most inefficient targets. This is not multi-family structures, but single family homes and the typical heavy vehicle use associated with these types of homes. Essentially the main target should be suburban sprawl areas since WWII that exist because of the expansive use of automobiles.

Big buildings do need to get thier houses in order too. I have seen a consistent pattern among large residential condo buildings of 40 years of deferred maintenance and capital investment because everyone is trying to flip there units. Just getting these buildings in good order will bring thier usage per square foot to points much lower than detached homes.

neilc

JUGHNE said:

Can you post pictures.....? ground to sky

I don't laugh much,
you made me laugh,
# out loud,

kevink1955

(1)Totally disregarding the poor condition of the building electrical systems.

(2) Has anyone run this by Con Ed (the city's electrical supplier) They can hardly handle the current load without numerous manhole fires at peak times

(3) How much you want to bet they will install them in Fire Escape Windows

(4) all those Heat Pumps running are going th make for 1 cold courtyard Lol


Merry Christmas to all

neilc

wait, did you all just find the answer to global warming ?
#4 ?

SlamDunk

Jamie Hall said:

Nuclear is starting to look obsolete, @SlamDunk ? I think the Chinese would beg to differ, with their new design high efficiency plants. And so, since this country seems to think it's obsolete, we'll be freezing in the dark while they -- as I say -- eat our lunch. Ask the Germans how ditching nuclear for solar and wind is working out...

Nuclear is obsolete if:
-You cant build a nuke plant. Which we won't.

And, as long as:

-Cyber threats to put us in the dark exist and they do.

Personally, I like nuclear but there is no will power. I could be wrong, but I dont know of any being built here.

Strategically, it is better to decentralize anyway. So , if we could get to scale in some places using solar, wind, battery and hydrogen, why shouldnt we?

My employer does it. Big into net zero buildings. They work and they are comfortable year round. We're building the first net zero pharma warehouse with a subzero , drive in freezer. Solar, geo thermal, batteries. Crazy, but exciting!

Back to the projects in NYC, cleaver brooks make commercial electric boilers already. You can install dozens to a header and still make steam without re-wiring a building beyod the basement. Offset the cost with solar.

kenjohnson

Jamie Hall said:

I calculated the other day just how much in the way of solar panels would be required to power New York City (the five boroughs). Here it is: stick a pin in Central Park and draw an arc 75 miles in radius, centred on the pin. Now cover that entire land area -- all of it -- with tracking solar panels.

Let's check the math. It takes about 5 acres of solar panels to generate 1 MWpeak of solar power. 1 MW panel rating will generate (conservatively) 1000 MWh of electricity in a year. An acre is 43560 square feet. A mile is 5280 feet. A square mile is 640 acres. Therefore, a square mile can generate 640,000 MWh of electricity per year, or (to keep things simple), 1753 MWh/day (on average - more in summer, less in winter).

A 75 mile radius circle is 17,671 square miles. A 75 mile radius circle covered in solar PV panels could generate 30,977,263 MWh per day - let's round that up to 31,000,000 MWh/day.

All of New York State uses 143.2 TWh per year (143,200,000 MWh). On average, that is 392,329 MWh/day. Let's assume that NY City is half that amount (a reasonable assumption). That would mean 196,164 MWh/day. Let's round that up to 200,000 MWh/day. If you covered a 75 mile radius with solar PV panels, it would generate nearly 155x as much electricity as NY City uses in an average day. In fact, a 75 mile radius might power all of the US with solar PV electricity on an average day.

If my math is correct, a radius of only 6 miles would need to be covered in solar PV panels to generate NY City's average electricity needs in a given day.

If you assumed from this report https://www.urbangreencouncil.org/content/projects/new-york-citys-2020-energy-and-water-use-report that complete electrification of NY City would require a tripling of electricity demand, then the necessary land radius is now about 10 miles. Big, but not 75 miles.

I'm not commenting on the expense or practicality of such an endeavor, just the land area required.

clammy

Aside from it being rubbish ,I can t image anyone installing anything in nyc for 3 grand maybe 30 g It seems like some one wrote the article w no experience in the building trades or what would need updating to make it happen total hogwash . It seems if you run numbers enough you can make anything work just don’t include the other expenses ,life span ,cop and maintaince ,After all said and done and the money is gone it will only be the tenants complaining and nycha left to deal w it and the tax payer to pay the bill . On another note will servicing and getting to these units be easier then trying to do trap and or vent replacement in these same apartments , let’s ponder that for a moment ? I m all for a better environment but if history shows that what u have is not repaired or kept in proper running and operating properly , what makes any one thing that this new bunch of garbage will be treated any better and or will have any life span like a nearly bullet proof few moving part steam system I think never .The roi over time is nil in my eyes being these units will be listed as appliances and only be designed for a 10 year working lifespan and a 100 year land fill life span . Let’s not forget the refrigerant side re claiming disposal and Enviromental impact and for only 3000 grand a apartment or is that per room to be heated and cooled that’s amazing and only in nyc oh and maybe Chicago or anyplace where there’s ph available . What a fiasco let the dreamers dream and the carpet baggers bag . peace and good luck clammy firmly planted in reality

SlamDunk

@kenjohnson

You said it "takes five acres to generate 1MW". That is incorrect. My company has a five acre solar field and it generates 4 MW. It could generate 7MW with a few keystrokes but The Power Co. has it limited to 4. It has been making money for a long time. It is a profit center. When it is down, people get excited.

Jamie Hall

Oh dear. Yes, I'm sure that 5 acre field can generate 7 megawatts. In fact, that's just about right for high efficiency solar cells, which I'm sure you have.

Which is wonderful.

I'm also sure it's a profit centre, which my taxes and electric rates are paying for without my permission; you're welcome.

As long as the sun is shining. Since in most of New England, the usable solar fraction is around 12%, your actual useful average output with all the panels working, no snow, etc. is 0.84 megawatts.

SlamDunk

A monk that complains about where his tax money goes! That's funny, but Thanks for your donation! Maybe, just maybe, your great grand kids will be thankful too. That is the second goal for getting off fossils

PhilDavid

Is it not possible to engineer a modulating steam boiler to retrofit a vapor vacuum system? Thus providing better efficiency and utilizing an intact system?
I mean come on... everyone in here knows how fast all of those individual heat pump units will fail and be replaced in short time. And I get it, that's the point. Planned obsolescence equals profit.
But all those electrical and mechanical parts that will end up in land fills plus the refrigerant that will eventually leak out into the atmosphere cannot be the better answer to "going green"
There has to be a more common sense approach

DanHolohan

The people making the decisions have decided that steam heat is inefficient, noisy, unbalanced, unmanageable, and they want it gone. I spoke to several of them, but it was  like trying to explain clouds to fish. 

Jamie Hall

DanHolohan said:

The people making the decisions have decided that steam heat is inefficient, noisy, unbalanced, unmanageable, and they want it gone. I spoke to several of them, but it was  like trying to explain clouds to fish. 

To which I might add in direct answer to the question, yes. In fact, it wouldn't be all that hard. But there is absolutely no way that you are going to convince the politicians and bureaucrats who are running the show to even consider it.

DanHolohan

I tried my best. 

EBEBRATT-Ed

In a couple of years when the heat pumps are trashed and the steam is inoperable and sitting neglected they will decide to do something else

The Steam Whisperer

I find it quite interesting that just about 5 years ago the NYCHA published a plan to start getting the steam systems and boilers back into good working condition... what Happened, Dan H?

DanHolohan

What happened? They changed their minds. They can do that. 

pecmsg

The Steam Whisperer said:

I find it quite interesting that just about 5 years ago the NYCHA published a plan to start getting the steam systems and boilers back into good working condition... what Happened, Dan H?

An Election and new administration!

DanHolohan

Nope, same mayor for the past eight years. A new one takes that job next week.

This really is all about what Jake wrote above. Nobody was closer to it than him. I spent many days prowling those buildings with him. He knew what he was doing, and he cared a lot. Please read what he wrote.

It's easier for those in charge to tear it all out and start again. Do I think they're right? Of course not, but they have made their decision, and they don't want to talk about it anymore.

SlamDunk

That is sad.

Steamhead

DanHolohan said:

It's easier for those in charge to tear it all out and start again. Do I think they're right? Of course not, but they have made their decision, and they don't want to talk about it anymore.

Proving once again that you can't fix stupid!

EBEBRATT-Ed

They may go back to steam someday when this does not work out and there is no other viable alternative

pecmsg

EBEBRATT-Ed said:

They may go back to steam someday when this does not work out and there is no other viable alternative

But who’s going to be around to make it work?

DanHolohan

That’s up to the next generation. I did my best to pass on what I learned from the Dead Men. 

Study. Learn. Teach. 

Continue what I tried to do. 

Thanks.