If you're wondering why NYC wants to get a heat pump for every apartment, consider this.

ChrisJ

The Steam Whisperer said:

ChrisJ said:

Jells said:

ChrisJ said:

If increasing efficiency is what's allowing so much new construction I'm a bit baffled why 200a service is normal for residential and even double that for Mcmansions.

100a isn't considered enough anymore and forget 60a.

We're having a bit of a brownout today at 95 degrees, I was reading 103V at the main panel of my 6 unit building that was causing cheap LED bulbs to go faint. For chuckles I used the clamp on to read the draw of five 1BRs and my own 1200 ft apt with just my wife and I, no central AC, all gas ranges. Total of 37A of 110, no one has 220 service. One of the units still has a single 20A riser! I think LED lighting and efficient new window units has made a lot of difference.

I've never heard of 110A and 220A service?  I've heard of 60,100,125,200 etc.


So, you have a 6 unit building with no air conditioning, and one of the units only has 20A and the entire place, 6 families is only using 37A.   And it's 95 degrees there?

My single family house easily draws 37A continuous in the summer.  Fire up a microwave oven, toaster, dishwasher etc and you'll see 60A though it's not continuous.

I think that is 110V and 220v service. A continuous draw of 37 amps @ 120 V, not taking into account power factors, etc, would mean you are using at least 3200 KWH a month and then adding in toaster, microwaves, etc. Those added loads don't amount to much usually since they are usually only a few minutes at a time. I.E.....typical microwave only uses about 1.2kwh per hour of use( again leaving out power factors, etc.)

I believe that efficiency upgrades (LED lighting, more efficient refrigerators, computers, etc) is greatly reducing baseload in the past 10 to 15 years, but the peaks are still present due to small appliances and the fact that much of the newer central cooling equipment is less efficient at peak load than the older equipment ( most new equipment you can easily find the SEER rating, but the EER ( which is a much better indicator of peak load efficiency) is nearly impossible to find).

In my case, it was 37A @ 240V.
That's both legs. It's not continuous, but long enough that it matters. I believe we're using around 72kwh per day in the summer. With central air, pool pump, dehumidifier, lights, tv's etc.


More efficient refrigerators haven't been happening from what I've seen. They're better than they were 30 years ago but not by much. If you actually want an efficient refrigerator you need thick insulation and manual defrost. A chest design is also a benefit but a pain in the butt.

But none of that really matters when you're throwing them out every 5-10 years anyway.

jumper

I think utilities let us have bigger services because they figure that few of us will use all that power simultaneously. Fifty years ago when services were WAY smaller utility would rent fixed energy cost DHW tanks that switched on during low demand. And that was when we still had industries running 24/7 providing baseload. When our current governments legislate all electric I suspect that it is a matter of the blind leading the blind. Laymen don't seem to understand that electricity is like everything else in the way that when you do not have enough you do not have enough.

ChrisJ

jumper said:

I think utilities let us have bigger services because they figure that few of us will use all that power simultaneously. Fifty years ago when services were WAY smaller utility would rent fixed energy cost DHW tanks that switched on during low demand. And that was when we still had industries running 24/7 providing baseload. When our current governments legislate all electric I suspect that it is a matter of the blind leading the blind. Laymen don't seem to understand that electricity is like everything else in the way that when you do not have enough you do not have enough.

Aren't power plants and transmission systems all privately owned?

Jells

The Steam Whisperer said:

I think that is 110V and 220v service. A continuous draw of 37 amps @ 120 V, not taking into account power factors, etc, would mean you are using at least 3200 KWH a month and then adding in toaster, microwaves, etc. Those added loads don't amount to much usually since they are usually only a few minutes at a time. I.E.....typical microwave only uses about 1.2kwh per hour of use( again leaving out power factors, etc.)

I believe that efficiency upgrades (LED lighting, more efficient refrigerators, computers, etc) is greatly reducing baseload in the past 10 to 15 years, but the peaks are still present due to small appliances and the fact that much of the newer central cooling equipment is less efficient at peak load than the older equipment ( most new equipment you can easily find the SEER rating, but the EER ( which is a much better indicator of peak load efficiency) is nearly impossible to find).

Just so. Interesting you mention computers. I've been building very low draw fanless PCs for our desktop and HTPC use. It dramatically cuts the power from the old box PC with its big PSU & multiple fans running continuously. As long as you're not a gamer it's fine.

Jamie Hall

And it's those peak loads one needs to be a bit wary of. Three phase motors don't show that much difference between starting and running loads -- but single phase motors (which most of these things are) can, depending on what they are starting and how they are built, can have one and a half to as much as three times the running full load draw when they are starting. Also to make life more interesting, heating equipment (ovens and the like) draw considerably more power when started with cold elements -- but that tends to be a very short term peak (like, seconds).

This is why one will see at least some motor driven equipment requiring a much larger circuit breaker and, therefore, associated wiring than one would expect from the power rating of the equipment. Alternatively, one sometimes sees special motor starters which basically reduce the voltage when the equipment is starting, but those only work well on equipment which is really pretty much unloaded until the motor comes up to speed (centrifugal pumps and fans come to mind).

hot_rod

delcrossv said:

The Steam Whisperer said:

delcrossv said:

@The Steam Whisperer I like the idea! Small molten salt reactors, single fuel loading- replace the whole "can" every 50 years. District steam, power and probably could do district chilled water using absorption chillers.

LOL. wooden gas lines in Old Town wouldn't surprise me. Goes along with the live gas sconces I've found there.

Back to the question of completely decommisioning a nuclear plant. Do the numbers include the cost of making all the former fuel safe again...not just burying it and expecting that it won't be disturbed for a couple thousand years or more?

"Disposal" of spent fuel is, by law, the sole purview of the Federal Government. So no, it's not included in Trust costs (although the utilities DO pay the feds for disposal as part of their operating license). Problem is , the Feds have been sitting on their hands for 50 years and "repurposing" those payments into the General Fund. Sound familiar?

The way to make spent fuel "safe" is to burn it in fast reactors, not burying it. IMO burial of spent LWR fuel is like filling your gas tank, driving around the block and then putting the gas back into the tank at the gas station- and paying for the privilege.

Burying transuranics is pure politically driven idiocy.

Aren't some of these "temporary" nuclear waste storage on their second or third rebuild? An engineer friend in NY was in the business of updating those submerged tube vaults and making the enclosures bomb proof.
This was back when they worried about those sites being attacked by a terrorist in a VW bus full of dynamite. A very expensive upgrade as the tubes had to be removed and re-cased in stainless tubes, lead wall rebuilt with a mass of concrete around the entire vault.
To the best of my knowledge taxpayer dollars are carved out every year to mitigate these facilities. The DOE and Power magazine show the projects that have been funded every year and the dollars involved.

Jamie Hall

Finland has recently opened and started using their new "hot" nuclear waste permanent repository -- they do recognise, before some shrieks, that "permanent" is a relative term (they estimate a secure life of about 10,000 years). Shame we can't do the same...

Fast breeders are, as someone said, an excellent way to get more of the energy out of spent nuclear fuel. The US has experimented with it, and the French have done well with it. The main reason, as I understand it, that there isn't much enthusiasm for it is that the same reactors can be easily repurposed to produce weapons grade fissile material pretty much at a moment's notice. This tends to worry some folks -- with some reason. Nuclear reactors are fine; nuclear weapons maybe not so much.

The Steam Whisperer

ChrisJ said:

The Steam Whisperer said:

ChrisJ said:

Jells said:

ChrisJ said:

If increasing efficiency is what's allowing so much new construction I'm a bit baffled why 200a service is normal for residential and even double that for Mcmansions.

100a isn't considered enough anymore and forget 60a.

We're having a bit of a brownout today at 95 degrees, I was reading 103V at the main panel of my 6 unit building that was causing cheap LED bulbs to go faint. For chuckles I used the clamp on to read the draw of five 1BRs and my own 1200 ft apt with just my wife and I, no central AC, all gas ranges. Total of 37A of 110, no one has 220 service. One of the units still has a single 20A riser! I think LED lighting and efficient new window units has made a lot of difference.

I've never heard of 110A and 220A service?  I've heard of 60,100,125,200 etc.


So, you have a 6 unit building with no air conditioning, and one of the units only has 20A and the entire place, 6 families is only using 37A.   And it's 95 degrees there?

My single family house easily draws 37A continuous in the summer.  Fire up a microwave oven, toaster, dishwasher etc and you'll see 60A though it's not continuous.

I think that is 110V and 220v service. A continuous draw of 37 amps @ 120 V, not taking into account power factors, etc, would mean you are using at least 3200 KWH a month and then adding in toaster, microwaves, etc. Those added loads don't amount to much usually since they are usually only a few minutes at a time. I.E.....typical microwave only uses about 1.2kwh per hour of use( again leaving out power factors, etc.)

I believe that efficiency upgrades (LED lighting, more efficient refrigerators, computers, etc) is greatly reducing baseload in the past 10 to 15 years, but the peaks are still present due to small appliances and the fact that much of the newer central cooling equipment is less efficient at peak load than the older equipment ( most new equipment you can easily find the SEER rating, but the EER ( which is a much better indicator of peak load efficiency) is nearly impossible to find).

In my case, it was 37A @ 240V.
That's both legs. It's not continuous, but long enough that it matters. I believe we're using around 72kwh per day in the summer. With central air, pool pump, dehumidifier, lights, tv's etc.


More efficient refrigerators haven't been happening from what I've seen. They're better than they were 30 years ago but not by much. If you actually want an efficient refrigerator you need thick insulation and manual defrost. A chest design is also a benefit but a pain in the butt.

But none of that really matters when you're throwing them out every 5-10 years anyway.

Wow, that's a lot of power! We used 17.5 KWH per day this past month and that was with running A/C continuously through a lot of really hot weather ( upper 90's and high humidity), keeping the whole house around 73 to 74F, with low humidity. We no longer need to run a dehumidfier, as the A/C drys out the basement pretty well and the new sump pump pulls out water much more efficiently. We're a 1903 1,600 sq ft 1 story with full basement and brick veneer exterior with very little shade anymore.

The rest of the year we use about 10 kwh per day for just the 4 of us.

ChrisJ

The Steam Whisperer said:

ChrisJ said:

The Steam Whisperer said:

ChrisJ said:

Jells said:

ChrisJ said:

If increasing efficiency is what's allowing so much new construction I'm a bit baffled why 200a service is normal for residential and even double that for Mcmansions.

100a isn't considered enough anymore and forget 60a.

We're having a bit of a brownout today at 95 degrees, I was reading 103V at the main panel of my 6 unit building that was causing cheap LED bulbs to go faint. For chuckles I used the clamp on to read the draw of five 1BRs and my own 1200 ft apt with just my wife and I, no central AC, all gas ranges. Total of 37A of 110, no one has 220 service. One of the units still has a single 20A riser! I think LED lighting and efficient new window units has made a lot of difference.

I've never heard of 110A and 220A service?  I've heard of 60,100,125,200 etc.


So, you have a 6 unit building with no air conditioning, and one of the units only has 20A and the entire place, 6 families is only using 37A.   And it's 95 degrees there?

My single family house easily draws 37A continuous in the summer.  Fire up a microwave oven, toaster, dishwasher etc and you'll see 60A though it's not continuous.

I think that is 110V and 220v service. A continuous draw of 37 amps @ 120 V, not taking into account power factors, etc, would mean you are using at least 3200 KWH a month and then adding in toaster, microwaves, etc. Those added loads don't amount to much usually since they are usually only a few minutes at a time. I.E.....typical microwave only uses about 1.2kwh per hour of use( again leaving out power factors, etc.)

I believe that efficiency upgrades (LED lighting, more efficient refrigerators, computers, etc) is greatly reducing baseload in the past 10 to 15 years, but the peaks are still present due to small appliances and the fact that much of the newer central cooling equipment is less efficient at peak load than the older equipment ( most new equipment you can easily find the SEER rating, but the EER ( which is a much better indicator of peak load efficiency) is nearly impossible to find).

In my case, it was 37A @ 240V.
That's both legs. It's not continuous, but long enough that it matters. I believe we're using around 72kwh per day in the summer. With central air, pool pump, dehumidifier, lights, tv's etc.


More efficient refrigerators haven't been happening from what I've seen. They're better than they were 30 years ago but not by much. If you actually want an efficient refrigerator you need thick insulation and manual defrost. A chest design is also a benefit but a pain in the butt.

But none of that really matters when you're throwing them out every 5-10 years anyway.

Wow, that's a lot of power! We used 17.5 KWH per day this past month and that was with running A/C continuously through a lot of really hot weather ( upper 90's and high humidity), keeping the whole house around 73 to 74F, with low humidity. We no longer need to run a dehumidfier, as the A/C drys out the basement pretty well and the new sump pump pulls out water much more efficiently. We're a 1903 1,600 sq ft 1 story with full basement and brick veneer exterior with very little shade anymore.

The rest of the year we use about 10 kwh per day for just the 4 of us.

What size AC?
We're 98F today with a dew point of 72F.

I'm using a 16 SEER 3 ton system that's been running balls out.

The Steam Whisperer

1 ton 10.8 EER window unit. We have extremely good circulation due to the design of the house so all the rooms are about the same temp when we are cooling. I suspect that your unit is probably only about 12 EER and you use about 4000 btu/hr of cooling just to cool the ductwork fan. So I imagine we are probably at similiar efficiency when running all out.

ChrisJ

The Steam Whisperer said:

1 ton 10.8 EER window unit. We have extremely good circulation due to the design of the house so all the rooms are about the same temp when we are cooling. I suspect that your unit is probably only about 12 EER and you use about 4000 btu/hr of cooling just to cool the ductwork fan. So I imagine we are probably at similiar efficiency when running all out.

I have R8 insulation and sealed all ductwork using RTV on the inside and a thick rubbery tape on the outside. All joints are sealed and probably even water tight.

The blower uses an ECM motor.

When I switched from 2 tons of window units to the 3 ton central air our bill actually dropped even though more of the house is cool. Then we added the pool..................

The window units were older though and I think mostly 9 EER and they were installed in windows so there was leakage there etc. I also don't know if they actually ran their rated EER because I modified them all to drain the condensate.

hot_rod

Jamie Hall said:

Finland has recently opened and started using their new "hot" nuclear waste permanent repository -- they do recognise, before some shrieks, that "permanent" is a relative term (they estimate a secure life of about 10,000 years). Shame we can't do the same...

Fast breeders are, as someone said, an excellent way to get more of the energy out of spent nuclear fuel. The US has experimented with it, and the French have done well with it. The main reason, as I understand it, that there isn't much enthusiasm for it is that the same reactors can be easily repurposed to produce weapons grade fissile material pretty much at a moment's notice. This tends to worry some folks -- with some reason. Nuclear reactors are fine; nuclear weapons maybe not so much.

Yes the Finns seem to be on to something with that technology and new plant.
This is an interesting read on the technologies being implemented to decommission the sites around the country. There seems to be a plan to get more and better consumer awareness to the technology also.

https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDOEOEM/bulletins/3265543

Greybeard

Since this thread has diverted from heating to cooling, I though I might add cooking to the mix. There have been recent press reports of public housing tenants in Brooklyn not having cooking gas for upwards of a year. Repairs to gas lines necessitated by tropical storm Sandy [recall that it was not a hurricane when it hit NYC] haven't gone well. So when they wire every apartment for heat pumps, they may as well add induction ranges. They are supposed to be safe and efficient, and don't leak methane as do ordinary stoves. More work for electricians, but not for plumbers and steam fitters. Note that there is a master meter for each building or complex, and the electric rates are much lower than individual customers pay.

ChrisJ

Greybeard said:

Since this thread has diverted from heating to cooling, I though I might add cooking to the mix. There have been recent press reports of public housing tenants in Brooklyn not having cooking gas for upwards of a year. Repairs to gas lines necessitated by tropical storm Sandy [recall that it was not a hurricane when it hit NYC] haven't gone well. So when they wire every apartment for heat pumps, they may as well add induction ranges. They are supposed to be safe and efficient, and don't leak methane as do ordinary stoves. More work for electricians, but not for plumbers and steam fitters. Note that there is a master meter for each building or complex, and the electric rates are much lower than individual customers pay.

I wouldn't expect "normal stoves" to leak gas.
That sounds like a broke stove.

SlamDunk

The city of NY is a huge customer for ConEd. Of course they get lower rates.

Dave Carpentier

Greybeard said:

... they may as well add induction ranges.

Afaik, induction ovens aren't a thing and I guess a combi microwave/element oven would cause many fires before people learned to use the right containers.
But yes, induction cooktops are fantastic. Easily the fastest and most efficient cooking method.
You do need ferrous cookware and be able to absorb the initial sticker shock though.
( we got ours for 75% off when the local Sears went belly up)

The Steam Whisperer

The big questions I have about converting from gas to electric stoves are:

What percentage of our Gas Usage is for cooking? 2.8%

Could the money spent on the conversion be used much more productively and with far greater benefits elsewhere?
Looking online supposedly Induction stoves range from $1000.00 to $2500.00 and then you need to add the cost of electrical upgrades. I could easily see that if they spent that money on things like building insulation upgrades and other basics, they would see a much greater reduction in energy usage and emissions than by replacing stoves.

Once again, where is the fiscal and environmental responsibility in these kind of decisions?

New York is targeting the wrong areas to reduce emissions. Large multi-unit buildings are inherently more efficient than single family detached homes. The target needs to be on the real energy hogs in the built environment in the U.S......single family detached homes. This is where huge reductions can typically be achieved just using conventional technologies that are very cost effective and allow the greatest gains for the smallest money spent.

SlamDunk

We always had traditional electric ranges and my wife frequently over boiled pots and sat tupperware too close to an eye or forgot it was hot and melt it. One time, she was boiling eggs, realized she had a doctors appointment and ran out, leaving the eggs boiling. When she returned, smoke detectors were alarming, the house stunk, there were eggs on the ceiling. It was a concern for me.

We were having our kitchen updated and needed a new stove. The sales woman asked if we we have ever seen an induction stove top. We have not. She placed a tenn dollar bill on an eye, then place a pot of water over it and turned it on. First, the water boiled immediately. Second, after a few minutes, she turned it off. The ten spot was just warm. Then she explained that water boiling over will turn off the eye, as would, a rise in temperature if the pot went dry. We were looking to spend $600. This thing cost $2800. You better believe I came up with the money for this baby! And bonus, Because the eyes never get very hot, nothing cooks onto the eyes. Easy clean up.

The Steam Whisperer

I am not saying induction ranges are a bad idea, I am just saying there are far greater savings in energy usage and emissions to be achieved by spending those resources some where else.

If you take that $2800.00 plus probably another $700.00 for a new heavy duty circuit to be installed, and spend that $3500.00 insulating and air sealing an attic in a single family home, you'll see about a 37% reduction in heating energy usage according to studies done here in Chicago. And you can add cooling energy savings if A/C is in use. Which makes more sense... a 2.8% savings or a 37% savings.

SlamDunk

NYC is doing what it can with what it got- lots of public housing buildings that are as wide as they are tall. No single family detached homes.

20,000,000 people in 306 sq mi create a lot of pollution. They gotta start somewhere and whatever they do, if successful, will have significant impact.

The Steam Whisperer

I believe there are loads of single family detached housing on Long Island, Queens, the Bronx, Harlem (probably less so) and other areas. Those New Yorkers among us can speak to that. I know Chicago is loaded with single family detached housing on shotgun lots (only 20 to 25 feet wide) and eclipsed New York City in population around 1900...so there should be some comparison for older structures. Heating needs in older, large buildings tend to approach that of some of the most efficient detached housing being built today... below 20 btu/sqft at 0F outdoor. With thermal upgrades to these large buildings and getting existing systems working properly, hitting 40% reductions in emissions should be easily attainable for far less cost and the buildings would be ready for much less costly new Heating/ Cooling systems than they are now. Spending less for each ton of reduced pollution means a whole lot more improvement could be made a lot faster.

Jells

The Steam Whisperer said:

New York is targeting the wrong areas to reduce emissions. Large multi-unit buildings are inherently more efficient than single family detached homes. The target needs to be on the real energy hogs in the built environment in the U.S......single family detached homes. This is where huge reductions can typically be achieved just using conventional technologies that are very cost effective and allow the greatest gains for the smallest money spent.

Ughh, If I had to single out the one worst government policy we have it would currently be single family zoning, and even low density zoning. It's the #1 cause of the housing shortage plaguing the areas where people want to be. Even in my very dense city the default zoning of 2 family 3 floor on a 25x100 lot limits development to 2 huge very expensive, and typically unattached homes instead of the prewar model of up to 6 floors and 12 units on that lot. Plus, density makes mass transit that much more desirable and efficient.

I raised my kids in a 1200 ft apartment and they lived! I don't know what people do in their 5000 ft McMansions.

EBEBRATT-Ed

@Jamie Hall

I agree that NYC is in for a big hit to run all those heat pumps. Plus, the cost to upgrade the electrical service to the apartments

My cousin (sadly no longer with us) worked for Stone & Webster when they did Northfield. I did some work inside the mountain myself a few years back replacing some air conditioners. Quite an interesting place

My understanding of Northfield is they pump water up to the storage lake during the night when power is
cheaper and then let it run downhill during the day to generate. oversimplified I know

The Steam Whisperer

Jells said:

The Steam Whisperer said:

New York is targeting the wrong areas to reduce emissions. Large multi-unit buildings are inherently more efficient than single family detached homes. The target needs to be on the real energy hogs in the built environment in the U.S......single family detached homes. This is where huge reductions can typically be achieved just using conventional technologies that are very cost effective and allow the greatest gains for the smallest money spent.

Ughh, If I had to single out the one worst government policy we have it would currently be single family zoning, and even low density zoning. It's the #1 cause of the housing shortage plaguing the areas where people want to be. Even in my very dense city the default zoning of 2 family 3 floor on a 25x100 lot limits development to 2 huge very expensive, and typically unattached homes instead of the prewar model of up to 6 floors and 12 units on that lot. Plus, density makes mass transit that much more desirable and efficient.

I raised my kids in a 1200 ft apartment and they lived! I don't know what people do in their 5000 ft McMansions.

Achieving an efficient density is really important. Too dense and costs go up, too spread out and costs go up. I once knew what that density was, but have forgotten.

As it is now, higher density areas are subsidizing the roads and utility infrastructures for the low density suburban areas. Some serious reworking of utility rate structures and taxes need to take place.

hot_rod

EBEBRATT-Ed said:

@Jamie Hall I agree that NYC is in for a big hit to run all those heat pumps. Plus, the cost to upgrade the electrical service to the apartments My cousin (sadly no longer with us) worked for Stone & Webster when they did Northfield. I did some work inside the mountain myself a few years back replacing some air conditioners. Quite an interesting place My understanding of Northfield is they pump water up to the storage lake during the night when power is cheaper and then let it run downhill during the day to generate. oversimplified I know

I got a tour of one of the TVA pumped hydro sites a few years back. I was alone on the tour that day, the guide was a retired engineer that worked on the plant when it was built.

At first glance it seems crazy, but after hearing the engineering and seeing the numbers it works well

Although the days if earthen dam lakes may be in the rear view mirror

Jells

The Steam Whisperer said:

As it is now, higher density areas are subsidizing the roads and utility infrastructures for the low density suburban areas. Some serious reworking of utility rate structures and taxes need to take place.

At the risk of being political, high density areas subsidize low in just about every way. The rural love to rage about welfare queens taking their tax dollars, but in fact the dollars flow from the cities to the rural counties all over the country. Urban areas produce 70% of the national GDP.

The next urban/rural battleground is water. In CA 80% of the water goes to agriculture producing 2% of GDP.

ethicalpaul

> 20,000,000 people in 306 sq mi create a lot of pollution.

Not nearly as much as 20,000,000 in suburbs driving their kids to school and work every day etc in their single family homes. I think you've got things reversed in your thinking there.

Jamie Hall

On urban and suburban areas subsidizing rural roads and utilities and such. Which is political, but here goes anyway.

First, the urbs and slurbs don't subsidize our rural roads. We pay for those ourselves, thank you, with our property taxes, if they are local, or gas taxes and motor vehicle registration fees, if they are State. Also our fire protection and police protection. You may set the standards and the regulations we have to abide by -- there are a lot more of you than us -- but you don't have to pick up the tab. We do.

Second, I suppose you could argue that the urbs and slurbs subsidize our utilities, but it is a weak argument; "pay for what you get" might be a better one. We have a low power grid, miserable cell phone service, unreliable and slow internet and cable, and copper wire telephone from the '30s.

It is quite true that we don't produce as much of the GDP as the urbs and slurbs do. And the argument made that 80% of California water goes to agriculture producing 2% of the GDP is also valid. However -- and I have to say this, and my apologies to those it is going to hurt -- you can't eat without the agriculture. You may have the whizzy programs and designer clothes and fancy cars and stocks and bonds, but if you didn't have that agriculture to feed you you'd be... dead. We may look funny and talk funny. We may have antiquated (by your standards) ideals. We may even be deplorable. But we feed you. We provide your open spaces. We may even be peasants. But as it has always been and will always be, you can't live without us.

EDIT: Permit me to add that I'm not knocking the tradespeople and the factory workers (or even factory managers); the streetsweepers and the maids and the delivery people; the utility workers keeping your lights on and your water running. Even the person pouring your latte. They don't contribute much to the GDP, either -- but they are just as essential. They are much more like us country bumpkins than they are like the beautiful people.

ChrisJ

I don't think anyone answered it before.

Aren't power plants and transmission lines privately owned in the U.S.?

What is the reason these companies will not upgrade if customers are asking for more power consistently? We're not talking about rare peak loads that happen a few times a year we're talking about consistent predictable loads.

SlamDunk

The Steam Whisperer said:

I believe there are loads of single family detached housing on Long Island, Queens, the Bronx, Harlem (probably less so) and other areas. Those New Yorkers among us can speak to that. I know Chicago is loaded with single family detached housing on shotgun lots (only 20 to 25 feet wide) and eclipsed New York City in population around 1900...so there should be some comparison for older structures. Heating needs in older, large buildings tend to approach that of some of the most efficient detached housing being built today... below 20 btu/sqft at 0F outdoor. With thermal upgrades to these large buildings and getting existing systems working properly, hitting 40% reductions in emissions should be easily attainable for far less cost and the buildings would be ready for much less costly new Heating/ Cooling systems than they are now. Spending less for each ton of reduced pollution means a whole lot more improvement could be made a lot faster.

There are, but NYC doesn't own any of them.

JakeCK

The Steam Whisperer said:

I am not saying induction ranges are a bad idea, I am just saying there are far greater savings in energy usage and emissions to be achieved by spending those resources some where else.

If you take that $2800.00 plus probably another $700.00 for a new heavy duty circuit to be installed, and spend that $3500.00 insulating and air sealing an attic in a single family home, you'll see about a 37% reduction in heating energy usage according to studies done here in Chicago. And you can add cooling energy savings if A/C is in use. Which makes more sense... a 2.8% savings or a 37% savings.

The savings from avoiding a hospital bill from curious little hands is priceless...

Both the Wife and I have been wanting an induction.

ChrisJ

JakeCK said:

The Steam Whisperer said:

I am not saying induction ranges are a bad idea, I am just saying there are far greater savings in energy usage and emissions to be achieved by spending those resources some where else.

If you take that $2800.00 plus probably another $700.00 for a new heavy duty circuit to be installed, and spend that $3500.00 insulating and air sealing an attic in a single family home, you'll see about a 37% reduction in heating energy usage according to studies done here in Chicago. And you can add cooling energy savings if A/C is in use. Which makes more sense... a 2.8% savings or a 37% savings.

The savings from avoiding a hospital bill from curious little hands is priceless...

Both the Wife and I have been wanting an induction.

So you feel pots of boiling water, frying pans and deep frying foods etc on a stove are safe for children to be around as long as the burners are cool?

Jamie Hall

ChrisJ said:

I don't think anyone answered it before.

Aren't power plants and transmission lines privately owned in the U.S.?

What is the reason these companies will not upgrade if customers are asking for more power consistently? We're not talking about rare peak loads that happen a few times a year we're talking about consistent predictable loads.

Yes, they are, @ChrisJ . However, the rates they can charge are strictly controlled by the various States' public utilities commissions (varying names in varying states). While consumers do demand more power, they also demand that their rates be kept low. Unfortunately, that means power company profits are remarkably low -- which in turn means that it is very difficult for them to raise capital and it takes captial, lots of it, to upgrade the existing grid.

You saw the same thing with railroads until they were deregulated (Staggers Rail Act of 1980) -- demand for better service, but demand for lower rates. Result, poor service (if any).

ChrisJ

Jamie Hall said:

ChrisJ said:

I don't think anyone answered it before.

Aren't power plants and transmission lines privately owned in the U.S.?

What is the reason these companies will not upgrade if customers are asking for more power consistently? We're not talking about rare peak loads that happen a few times a year we're talking about consistent predictable loads.

Yes, they are, @ChrisJ . However, the rates they can charge are strictly controlled by the various States' public utilities commissions (varying names in varying states). While consumers do demand more power, they also demand that their rates be kept low. Unfortunately, that means power company profits are remarkably low -- which in turn means that it is very difficult for them to raise capital and it takes captial, lots of it, to upgrade the existing grid.

You saw the same thing with railroads until they were deregulated (Staggers Rail Act of 1980) -- demand for better service, but demand for lower rates. Result, poor service (if any).

I guess those who are pushing for heat pumps and electric cars will also need to push to raise those rates.

SlamDunk

ethicalpaul said:

> 20,000,000 people in 306 sq mi create a lot of pollution.

Not nearly as much as 20,000,000 in suburbs driving their kids to school and work every day etc in their single family homes. I think you've got things reversed in your thinking there.

I don't think I do.

There are 27,000 people per square mile in NYC (many own vehicles) and I am not including people from the 'burbs who commute in by car m-f. NYCHA has, by my google search, over 170,000 apartments. Anything they can do that works from low flow toilets, to led lighting, to replacing gas stove to electric will have an environmental impact. Hopefully, a positive one, which is the goal.

At least in the suburbs, vehicles are newer, less polluting and there is less density per square mile.

You take the gas ovens in each of those 170,000 apartments that are slow to ignite - that is a huge methane leak into the atmosphere. And people think cow farts are a threat?

JUGHNE

ChrisJ, I believe Nebr. is the only state where all power systems are publicly owned.
This is mandated by state law.

We have one Nuke plant and numerous coal (RR from Wyoming) burners, some gas generation and diesel peakers.

We buy some power from outstate, mainly WAPA (hydro) and shop daily for lower prices from any other sources. Some could be private production if low enough in price.

We end up with pretty fair reliability in the rural area considering transmission lines run for several hundred miles.......waiting for lighting strikes.

The old system of 3 strikes and you're out is in place for rural distribution.
The breakers reset 2 times and stay open with the third hit.....which could be lighting, line slap or short to ground.

Our rates are thought to be lower than average for the nation.

JakeCK

ChrisJ said:

JakeCK said:

The Steam Whisperer said:

I am not saying induction ranges are a bad idea, I am just saying there are far greater savings in energy usage and emissions to be achieved by spending those resources some where else.

If you take that $2800.00 plus probably another $700.00 for a new heavy duty circuit to be installed, and spend that $3500.00 insulating and air sealing an attic in a single family home, you'll see about a 37% reduction in heating energy usage according to studies done here in Chicago. And you can add cooling energy savings if A/C is in use. Which makes more sense... a 2.8% savings or a 37% savings.

The savings from avoiding a hospital bill from curious little hands is priceless...

Both the Wife and I have been wanting an induction.

So you feel pots of boiling water, frying pans and deep frying foods etc on a stove are safe for children to be around as long as the burners are cool?

No, but the coils themselves and area around them stay cooler which reduces the opportunity for burns especially after you are done cooking and have walked away.

And the idea of keeping a 4-5 year old out of the kitchen is laughable. We have baby gates up still for the 1 year old and my son walks right through them. there is not a single door or lock in this house that he doesn't know how to operate. He even knows how to unlock my truck and start it and I've never taught him. Yet he still has the attention span and thought process of the 4 year old he is. In other words anything that reduces the risk of serious injury is welcome.

Jamie Hall

This is all genuinely fascinating -- if somewhat dismaying. The temptation for all of us -- myself surely included -- is to tend to focus on some particular aspect of the overall problems (or what we think the problems are), and not to consider the entire, very complicated, interactions between various problems -- and specific solutions. Not only are the problems different in different places, the possible solutions from one place may not work well -- or be actually harmful -- in another. There may be economic considerations (those folks in New York's public housing apartments aren't all that wealthy -- an induction stove top is out of the question, for instance)(nor do they own cars) as well as environmental ones -- and the environmental ones may be global in extent, and thus easily ignored or just overlooked.

It's worth trying to consider all the ramifications of a proposed solution to something; it's even important to apply a basic engineering rule: understand the problem before you try to solve it. It's also very hard to do, and we do it with varying degrees of success. But it is worth the try.

ChrisJ

JakeCK said:

ChrisJ said:

JakeCK said:

The Steam Whisperer said:

I am not saying induction ranges are a bad idea, I am just saying there are far greater savings in energy usage and emissions to be achieved by spending those resources some where else.

If you take that $2800.00 plus probably another $700.00 for a new heavy duty circuit to be installed, and spend that $3500.00 insulating and air sealing an attic in a single family home, you'll see about a 37% reduction in heating energy usage according to studies done here in Chicago. And you can add cooling energy savings if A/C is in use. Which makes more sense... a 2.8% savings or a 37% savings.

The savings from avoiding a hospital bill from curious little hands is priceless...

Both the Wife and I have been wanting an induction.

So you feel pots of boiling water, frying pans and deep frying foods etc on a stove are safe for children to be around as long as the burners are cool?

No, but the coils themselves and area around them stay cooler which reduces the opportunity for burns especially after you are done cooking and have walked away.

And the idea of keeping a 4-5 year old out of the kitchen is laughable. We have baby gates up still for the 1 year old and my son walks right through them. there is not a single door or lock in this house that he doesn't know how to operate. He even knows how to unlock my truck and start it and I've never taught him. Yet he still has the attention span and thought process of the 4 year old he is. In other words anything that reduces the risk of serious injury is welcome.

I guess it can be laughable.
Though it's not to me.


@Jamie Hall Congratulations you used the word of the day. Ramifications!

JakeCK

It's laughable because children are individuals with minds of their own. Short of chaining him to his bed he is going to do/go where he wants, the best you can hope is that explaining the dangers or just the threat of repercussions is enough to stop him. The wild card is that they haven't yet developed the executive control of an adult. 100% impulsive. Anyone who has ever worked with children will understand that.

In other words sure I can close the gate, and tell him to stay out of the kitchen. But it is entirely possible he will decide to ignore me or just forget, and come in anyways. Most likely when I'm distracted or away from the stove. Thus the extra $400-500 for an induction over a conventional stove for the additional safety is a pittance in the grand scheme of things.

Shoot, I can't even keep him out of the bathroom when I'm using it. He unlocks the door from the outside and marches right in.