Forced Electrification

CBRob

My little mountain town is taking comments on the push to ban nat gas hookups in all new construction and extensive remodels. @Zman has already dealt with this in his county I think we hired a consultant from frisco, deeper green.

Ive done some calculations, as of now resistant electric is 3x the carbon footprint of nat gas. The town is banking on tri-state electric meeting its goal of taking carbon emissions down 80% from 2005 levels. Currently we are 1.5 lbs of carbon per KW, down from 1.8 lbs in 2005. They are committed to getting down to .37 lbs by 2030.

We are a pretty cold climate, average annual temp of about 34f with many winter nights below -20.
They cite a couple commercial projects that have ground source or heat source heat pumps being used.

My rough calculation puts the nat gas equivalent of 1KW at 100% efficiency (3412 BTU) at about .4 lbs CO2

They add in the leakage rate of about 4% for methane and its green house properties.

My question, do I have a valid argument for Nat gas being more greenhouse friendly than electric heat?

I think at current emissions for our electric grid which is still 55% coal, gas is cleaner than even a ground source heat pump.

If tri-state electric meets its goals will these heat pump options be more greenhouse friendly?

We already have a carbon tax for any outdoor heating bigger than a hot tub, a 1000sf snow melt driveway gets tagged with a 29,000.00 tax.

Zman, did you have any luck in Summit County?
Have heat pumps improved much since the EPA report you posted a link to a couple years ago?

Jamie Hall

At the present time, with present day electrical sources, yes, you do. The assumption underlying these various pushes is that the electricity will be generated entirely by zero carbon sources -- wind, solar, and nuclear. The problem, of course, is that it isn't yet, and won't be for quite some time. Good luck.

You'll notice I didn't put hydro in there. If you live in the southwest, perhaps you can figure out why...

JakeCK

I'd make the argument to drop the requirement for extensive remodels. I'm sorry but an old house will never be new.

That said a new house should be built that the argument about which heat source to use and which emits more CO2 is moot... 

hot_rod

It's a complicated, knee jerk related topic. It look like NJ and probably others will rethink the 100% electrification idea. Could be some info to share with your local decision makers.

Interesting tidbit on the ICC change of methodology.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/blocking-gas-bans-red-states-094508919.html?fr=yhssrp_catchall

Solid_Fuel_Man

Ultimately price should dictate the decisions of fuel type to be used. 

When electricity is cheap and plentiful, while meeting the precieved notions that it is clean (which it could be, but is no at this time) then people will use it for heating. Some type of heat pump uses the least Kwh for the most heat output. But those still have limitations too. So diversification is still needed. That usually looks like resistance electric as a backup. Which puts the most strain on the grid when it is the coldest, when everyone else is in the same boat. So the grid, and generation needs to be able to handle that. Just like gas lines need to be sized for that. 

Electricity is generally not used for heating due to purely economic reasons, currently it is often the most expensive option. 

Jamie Hall

I second @Solid_Fuel_Man 's comments, but I'll add a bit. Short memories. Way back in the late '60s -- even earlier -- electric heat (at that time, all resistance) was the coming thing. A surprising number of houses and apartments were being built in New England which were all electric -- and it was based on cheap electricity. That cheap electricity was coming from... new nuclear power plants. There were quite a number of them in use, and more being built, and they weren't expensive to build and very cheap to operate.

Then along came single focus groups who were terrified of nuclear power and armed with lots of money and lots of lawyers and astoundingly ill-informed but very convincing spokespersons.

Construction costs increased a little. However, it took years of fighting against well bank-rolled opposition to even get a permit, never mind a place to build, and that was the end of that.

hot_rod

Jamie Hall said:

I second @Solid_Fuel_Man 's comments, but I'll add a bit. Short memories. Way back in the late '60s -- even earlier -- electric heat (at that time, all resistance) was the coming thing. A surprising number of houses and apartments were being built in New England which were all electric -- and it was based on cheap electricity. That cheap electricity was coming from... new nuclear power plants. There were quite a number of them in use, and more being built, and they weren't expensive to build and very cheap to operate.

Then along came single focus groups who were terrified of nuclear power and armed with lots of money and lots of lawyers and astoundingly ill-informed but very convincing spokespersons.

Construction costs increased a little. However, it took years of fighting against well bank-rolled opposition to even get a permit, never mind a place to build, and that was the end of that.

Cheap to operate a nuke plant? What about the ongoing cost of the waste water and rods disposal? Taxpayers are still on the hook for that, even it were were not get power from nuclear plant. I suppose a lot like the solar PV argument, taxpayers paying for rebate and costs that are of no benefit to them?

It is also the economics of building and running new nuclear plants, cost over runs and lack of a skilled workforce to even properly build them. Power companies understand the obstacles, apart from public perception which seems to be warming towards new nuclear plants.

And of course the sticky topic of US plants buying the enriched uranium from Russia at a lower cost than it can be produced here. I suspect that option is currently in jeopardy and may be for a long time. So where does the fuel come from? The rush is on to get the closed enrichment sites back online in the US. Then of course the issue of mining the uranium, much of it on Native land here in Utah.

Meanwhile in MA.

https://www.sentinelandenterprise.com/2022/04/09/explainer-what-to-do-with-closed-nuke-plants-wastewater/

Jamie Hall

Cheaper to operate? Yes. As for the fuel from Russia, well yes. Considering that under a previous administration we sold most of our Uranium to Russia, we are going to have to buy it back. @Steamhead says it better than I do on that one. Nuclear waste is only a problem if you are terrified of it and stop thinking. The Finns just opened their first secure storage facility, and all is going well. It wasn't even particularly expensive -- but they didn't have to fight the lawyers for 20 years to get there, either.

Unfortunately, for better or worse, the entire issue of where power is to come from and how has become extremely political and remarkably irrational. Engineering analysis and review is simply not being done, either in terms of short term or long or very long term work, and what work is being done -- there is some -- is drowned out by the bull horns of whatever the current political enthusiasm is.

So be it.

ChrisJ

How many different threads can we have on the same topic?

I.E. going all electric, cost of operating Nuke plants etc.

I'm getting horrible deja vu on here lately.

hot_rod

Jamie Hall said:

Cheaper to operate? Yes. As for the fuel from Russia, well yes. Considering that under a previous administration we sold most of our Uranium to Russia, we are going to have to buy it back. @Steamhead says it better than I do on that one. Nuclear waste is only a problem if you are terrified of it and stop thinking. The Finns just opened their first secure storage facility, and all is going well. It wasn't even particularly expensive -- but they didn't have to fight the lawyers for 20 years to get there, either.

Unfortunately, for better or worse, the entire issue of where power is to come from and how has become extremely political and remarkably irrational. Engineering analysis and review is simply not being done, either in terms of short term or long or very long term work, and what work is being done -- there is some -- is drowned out by the bull horns of whatever the current political enthusiasm is.

So be it.

So an evaporation pond on the property you live is on the table?

Engineers knew 50 years ago that there would be a sunset date on these plants. Plant owners and operators told us those shutdown/ disposal costs are included in the Kwh cost to the consumer. Two plants under construction in the US are years behind schedule and billions over budget?
Now what?
Rumor has it many of the lawmakers are owned and operated by oil and energy $$. I suppose as soon as there is something in it for them, the laws will change.

Nuclear waste is a problem, period. Whether you are concerned or not, it is out there leaking into your planet into your oysters

Or is it the quieter bullhorn of common $$sense behind the reluctant to embrace nukes?

hot_rod

ChrisJ said:

How many different threads can we have on the same topic?

I.E. going all electric, cost of operating Nuke plants etc.

I'm getting horrible deja vu on here lately.

An easy fix, don't click

Jamie Hall

@hot_rod , I respect you very much. I will not attempt to change your mind.

hot_rod

Jamie Hall said:

@hot_rod , I respect you very much. I will not attempt to change your mind.

And I appreciate that we can disagree, and often agree on "hot" topics. I suspect we have more in common than not
We need more open dialog between all of us.

Us against them, always, isn't going to bode well for this country.

ChrisJ

hot_rod said:

ChrisJ said:

How many different threads can we have on the same topic?

I.E. going all electric, cost of operating Nuke plants etc.

I'm getting horrible deja vu on here lately.

An easy fix, don't click

Come on @hot_rod you know that's not how it works.
You see something you don't want to click on, you can't resist.

Solid_Fuel_Man

Here in New England the "All Electric" home thing really took off in the 70s. Many small homes built in that time period with 200A services with 6-10 2 pole 20A breakers for electric baseboard. In the 80s there was a lot of electric radiant ceilings here as well, some still in operation. 

I saw this in an old building I was working on a few years ago. I think Ronald Reagan was one actor endorsement back then. 

CBRob

The argument against nat gas locally is the methane leakage.
Gas company rep says it is 4%

Electric backers say much much higher, but no number.

Anyone seen studies on the leak rate? 

I think being a cold climate community ads another angle, 
Its more than just cooktops and water heaters, its a large draw for heating buildings.

REG says that factoring in the leaked methane 1.5 lbs of carbon dioxide per kWh is less greenhouse equivalent than a condensing boiler. 

ChrisJ

Wouldn't it be cheaper to invest in fixing the gas leaks than replacing the entire electrical grid?

I'm betting the electric company will say no and the gas company (assuming they're different) will say yes.

CBRob

I think the argument is mostly about leaking in the home and the amount that escapes unburned pre ignition.

Avoiding short cycling should remedy the pre ignition losses to some degree.

Tighten loose fittings for the in home leaks. 

ChrisJ

CBRob said:

I think the argument is mostly about leaking in the home and the amount that escapes unburned pre ignition.

Avoiding short cycling should remedy the pre ignition losses to some degree.

Tighten loose fittings for the in home leaks. 

I think leaks in a home should be fixed regardless of whether they're gas, water or electric.
I guess electrical leaks tend to fix themselves one way or another........generally in a scary way.

Larry Weingarten

Hi, From what I've seen, the decarbonization community is using 4% leakage rate as the average, saying it is up around 9% in some places. This leakage is all before the meter. It suggests many years of deferred maintenance by the utilities.

Yours, Larry

ChrisJ

Larry Weingarten said:

Hi, From what I've seen, the decarbonization community is using 4% leakage rate as the average, saying it is up around 9% in some places. This leakage is all before the meter. It suggests many years of deferred maintenance by the utilities.

Yours, Larry

It's before the users meter, but certainly after A meter somewhere.

Jamie Hall

There is a good deal of leakage, particularly in the collection systems. No question at all. And up until recently it has been astonishingly hard to find, though easy enough to remedy when you find it. You have literally thousands of miles of pipe out across range land to patrol. However, recently remote sensing instruments have been developed, both for satellite use to find general problem areas (you should see the leakage rates in Russia) and for use on drones or aircraft or helicopters which can pinpoint leaks literally within feet -- at which point they can be repaired.

It's worth noting, amongst the bad things being said about Big Oil, that they are every bit as interested (in this country -- not Russia; they don't care} about finding the leaks as the most rabid activist is. You can't make much revenue off a leak...

JUGHNE

Our NG distribution system was condemned by us as the Village Board in about 1990.

(It was built new in the late 60's, coated steel pipe with cathodic protection....no problems since. )

Once that action happens then the only discussion is the purchase price.

Offers....counter offers etc.

Of course it went to court.

The NG company stated that losing our town of maybe 250 meters would be a great financial loss to their bottom line.

Our attorney questioned the NG CO rep as to what the metering accuracy was at the well head for delivery to the pipe line.
What ever it was, that small % was based on the total flow, was more than our town's consumption.

So our consumption was much less than metering losses.

So the claim of financial loss was a pretty weak point for them to make as they were still going to have us as a wholesale customer.

This was the former Kansas-Nebraska gas company covering at least those 2 states.

IIRC, we may have been the only small town that successfully purchased their NG distribution system as the Company was more prepared for the court battle.

Also, I believe we had the $100,000 or so in the bank from income of the electrical system with about the same number of meters.

Solid_Fuel_Man

That is how utilities work. Here in Maine, each town used to have theor own electric utility, some small towns combined. Then the smaller ones sold out the the bigger ones and before we knew the whole county was ow ed by 3 town. There are still two towns woth their own locally owned electric, and the rest has been bought out many times since then. We pay much more than the 2 towns who held out all these years. And their reliability is better....who wholdda though? 

We don't have any gas up here, but the local public utilities all used to we water/sewer&power.  But are just water/sewer now. 

I assume this is similar in most places? We just never had NG as a utility. 

Zman

@Solid_Fuel_Man
My grandfather owned Monson Light and Power. I think it is now Central Maine Power

CBRob

The testing methods with drones, satellite and helicopters are pretty cool.
I think they can isolate ethane, not typically found in nature.

Leaks are bad, for sure 

Way back in the 80s Crested Butte had buried propane lines.

You can guess how that works when it leaks.
1989 we had a leak that seeped into the crawl space of our Bank.

When it opened at 9 am it exploded and leveled the building.

 

jumper

Some places heating fuel costs more than electricity?

Jamie Hall

jumper said:

Some places heating fuel costs more than electricity?

Possibly. In fact, probably -- I would expect some areas in the west, and some areas in Quebec particularly. Bottom line, as always -- use YOUR numbers to do your calculations!

Hot_water_fan

Some places heating fuel costs more than electricity?

Once a place has widespread AC usage, electricity costs can plummet. As the US is plurality gas fired and heat pumps use gas more efficiently than a furnace/boiler, the fuel supply costs favor electricity. Next comes the distribution charges, so as kwh increase those fall. 

Steamhead

Hot_water_fan said:

.............heat pumps use gas more efficiently than a furnace/boiler, the fuel supply costs favor electricity.

Huh? With existing power plant and distribution losses anywhere from 30-50%, depending on who you ask, how can a heat pump use less gas than an 80% boiler?

Hot_water_fan

@Steamhead pretty simple actually - a new combined cycle is ~50% efficient. With a COP of 2+, it easily exceeds a boiler (2+ COP x 50% > 99% boiler). Which is why it’s more cost efficient for gas to go to electricity than on-site heat now, especially as electricity distribution costs are spread out. New combined cycles take market share from old combined cycles, so have higher utilization rates. 

Zman

Steamhead said:

Hot_water_fan said:

.............heat pumps use gas more efficiently than a furnace/boiler, the fuel supply costs favor electricity.

Huh? With existing power plant and distribution losses anywhere from 30-50%, depending on who you ask, how can a heat pump use less gas than an 80% boiler?

I believe the efficiency is in the 30-50% range which would put the losses in the 50-70% range.

JakeCK

From what I've read the overall efficiency of the US grid is about 33%. Of course that varies between locals. A grid mostly powered by coal is much less efficient then NG, which is less then a nuke, hydro or solar. 

In other words it takes a minimum COP of 3 to come out head. 

That said more often then not most houses already have a form of AC, so why not get more bang for your buck... I'd imagine fan coils cooling individual rooms or zones have much less losses compared to duct supplied ac too.

Now if you really want to nit pick it, where did all the energy come from that produced all our coal and gas? 
*Cough, cough* The sun. You could almost argue it is all solar powered, how green of us. Plants the died long ago converted energy from the sun to chemical energy in the form of sugars which were then either buried or eaten and then buried and by heat and pressure converted to hydrocarbon fuels. Over simplification, yes but gets the point across. Every energy conversion has losses, in some cases A LOT of losses. Which is why I'm such an advocate for solar. Keep the carbon in the ground an directly harvest the free energy provided by the fusion reactor in the sky. And unless we're talking nuclear, either fusion or fission, all of our other energy comes from the sun too. Including wind and hydro. 

Just sayin'.

Jamie Hall

Folks, we are throwing around numbers here, most of which are some kind of national average, and putting forward solutions, most of which also are applicable in some kind of average situation. This is the dream of a top-down control scenario, and it is very attractive -- and, for probably 95% or the land area of the United States, also probably not the best solution. For that remaining 5% it's fine. Unfortunately, that remaining 5% contains probably 95% of the population, so they see no problem with their proposals -- and neither do the folks pushing them.

So let's just stop doing that, and consider individual applications and specific situations. If the stock off the shelf solution works -- you have an efficient grid, a medium size house in Happy Valley subdivision, a climate which never goes below say 10 or so, air conditioning ducts... wonderful. If you are ten miles out in the country, no gas, weak grid, no AC, and a climate where -5 is common, maybe a different approach is warranted?

ChrisJ

Jamie Hall said:

Folks, we are throwing around numbers here, most of which are some kind of national average, and putting forward solutions, most of which also are applicable in some kind of average situation. This is the dream of a top-down control scenario, and it is very attractive -- and, for probably 95% or the land area of the United States, also probably not the best solution. For that remaining 5% it's fine. Unfortunately, that remaining 5% contains probably 95% of the population, so they see no problem with their proposals -- and neither do the folks pushing them.

So let's just stop doing that, and consider individual applications and specific situations. If the stock off the shelf solution works -- you have an efficient grid, a medium size house in Happy Valley subdivision, a climate which never goes below say 10 or so, air conditioning ducts... wonderful. If you are ten miles out in the country, no gas, weak grid, no AC, and a climate where -5 is common, maybe a different approach is warranted?

Fact is, none of us really have the information to come up with a solution and even if we did absolutely nothing we say here will have any effect on the problem at hand.

It's not our's to solve. Is it?

Jamie Hall

Not really certainly, @ChrisJ ! The best we can ever do -- in any situation! -- is the best we can, where we are, with what we have, for the situations with which we are faced at the moment. If everyone did that...

JakeCK

In such a harsh climate isn't a tight, very well insulated house the ultimate solution to that -5F? If you have a house that's so well insulated a fart could heat it then it doesn't matter much does it? And that is true no matter what climate you are in. Just have to account for vapor movement. Which is a pita.

And those who are out in the sticks more often then not have lots of open land for those solar panels I talked about. But more importantly, the number of people out in the sticks is nothing compared to the cities. If only the suburbs and cities were tackled and the rural areas ignored and allowed to do what ever they needed, it would solve the problems.

Hot_water_fan

If the stock off the shelf solution works -- you have an efficient grid, a medium size house in Happy Valley subdivision, a climate which never goes below say 10 or so, air conditioning ducts... wonderful. 

We don’t need to overcomplicate things @Jamie Hall - the vast majority of Americans have AC and live places where the design temp is > 10. Sometimes solutions do fit the vast majority! 

ChrisJ

Hot_water_fan said:

If the stock off the shelf solution works -- you have an efficient grid, a medium size house in Happy Valley subdivision, a climate which never goes below say 10 or so, air conditioning ducts... wonderful. 

We don’t need to overcomplicate things @Jamie Hall - the vast majority of Americans have AC and live places where the design temp is > 10. Sometimes solutions do fit the vast majority! 

Do they?

Jamie Hall

JakeCK said:

In such a harsh climate isn't a tight, very well insulated house the ultimate solution to that -5F? If you have a house that's so well insulated a fart could heat it then it doesn't matter much does it? And that is true no matter what climate you are in. Just have to account for vapor movement. Which is a pita.

And those who are out in the sticks more often then not have lots of open land for those solar panels I talked about. But more importantly, the number of people out in the sticks is nothing compared to the cities. If only the suburbs and cities were tackled and the rural areas ignored and allowed to do what ever they needed, it would solve the problems.

Well now. Yes, we do have lots of open land. Some of us farm it to feed the teeming millions. Last I heard, you can't eat a solar panel. Some of us keep it in open space, which makes some of the suburbanites very happy (and raises our property taxes)(as do solar panels).

But you second paragraph shines a spotlight on the basic problem. You say if "the rural areas [were] ignored and allowed to do what ever they needed...". Quite true. We'd be just fine, and so would the city and suburban folks. But when you have Sacramento or Albany or wherever -- or Washington -- handy down diktats, that isn't what happening.

Hot_water_fan

@ChrisJ the EIA says 87% of US homes have AC.